Effects of Television Commercial Repetition, Receiver Knowledge, and Commercial Length: A
Test of the Two-Factor Model
Author(s): Arno J. Rethans, John L. Swasy, Lawrence J. Marks
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Feb., 1986), pp. 50-61
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151776 .
Accessed: 31/01/2012 23:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marketing Research.
http://www.jstor.org
ARNO J. RETHANS,JOHN L. SWASY, and LAWRENCEJ. MARKS*
Theauthorsreviewthe two-factorelaborationmodelof messagerepetitioneffects
and report a study of the model'sapplicabilityto new productadvertising.The
studyfindingsdo not supportthe hypothesizedinverted-Urelationshipbetweenrepetitionand attitudetowarda novel commercialand product. However,the underlyingprocessesof learning,tediumarousal,and elaborationwere observed.Viewer
knowledgeand commerciallengthdid not moderatethese processes.
Effects
Television
of
Knowledge, and
Receiver
A
I
Test
Commercial
of
the
Two-Factor
Repetition,
Commercial
Model
I
I
Length:
?
The theoretical explanations offered for the observed
repetition effects have been borrowed from the social
psychology literature rather than originating within advertising and marketingcommunication research. In particular, Berlyne's (1970) two-factor theory and the twofactor cognitive response model by Cacioppo and Petty
(1979, 1980) have been thought to hold promise for explaining past empirical results in marketing. Much more
research, however, is warrantedto test the appropriateness and practical utility of these theoretical accounts
(Cacioppo and Petty 1980; Sawyer 1981). Specifically,
additional research is needed to determine whether the
two-factor model and the processes (learning and tedium) presumed to underlie attitude formation are appropriate for describing audiences' response to repeated advertisement exposures. We report a study designed to
test the two-factor model within a new product advertising context. To provide a more thorough test of the
model, the ad-processing-related variables commercial
length and receiver knowledge were incorporatedin the
experimental design.
The effects of repeated exposure to an advertising
message have long been of considerable basic and pragmatic interest to marketers. Early research on the effects
of repetition was motivated by the need to estimate the
parametersof a repetitionfunction to be incorporatedinto
advertising media models (Aaker 1975; Little and Lodish 1969; Ray and Sawyer 1971a, b; Ray, Sawyer, and
Strong 1971). Subsequent research examined the effects
of advertising repetition on more general outcome measures such as attitudes, recall, and behavioral intention
(Ginter 1974; Gorn and Goldberg 1980; Mitchell and Olson 1977; Winter 1973). More recently, research efforts
have shifted toward a consideration of the underlying
processes that create the various observed responses to
an advertising message after multiple exposures. Researchers adopting the latter avenue of inquiry are attempting to show how the effects of repetition might be
explained by message-receiver-generated cognitive responses (Belch 1982; Calder and Sternthal 1980; Sawyer
1981; Wright 1980).
THEORETICALBACKGROUND
In 1968, Zajonc developed the empirical generalization that mere exposure is sufficient to produce increased
positive attitude toward a novel object. This exposure
effect has been replicated under many conditions. Other
studies, however, have found moderation effects (i.e.,
an inverted-U-shaped curve) or novelty effects (i.e., a
decrease in affect with repeated exposure). Several theories-response competition, optimal arousal, and two-
*Arno J. Rethans and John L. Swasy are Assistant Professors of
Marketing, The Pennsylvania State University. Lawrence J. Marks is
Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Southern California.
The authors thank Daniel W. Matthaidess, Coordinator of Communications Research, The Eastman Kodak Company, for providing
the stimulus commercials, Gregory Boiler, Mary Dwonzyck, and Manoj Hastak for their assistance in data collection and analysis, and the
JMR reviewers for their constructive comments. The research was
funded by a research grant to the first two authors from the Center
for Research, The Pennsylvania State University.
50
Journal of Marketing Research
Vol. XXIII (February 1986), 50-61
WITHIN
TWO-FACTOR
THEORY
ADVERTISING
Figure1
TWO-FACTOR
THEORY
OF AFFECT
TOWARDA REPEATED
STIMULUS
Affect
Postive Learing Factor
,
/'^~
Z
z
5
s
$5
"^
Numberof Exposures
Net Effect
\
\^.Negative TediumFactor
factor-have been proposed to explain these effects. Of
these, the two-factor theory seems to have a degree of
face validity and has been considered a potentially
worthwhile approach within more natural communication-processingenvironments(Belch 1982; Sawyer 1981).
The two-factor theory suggests that two opposing factors determine attitude toward a repeatedly viewed stimulus (Figure 1). First, during initial exposures an increasingnet positive affect is observed which is postulated
to be due to (1) a reduction in uncertainty and conflict
toward the initially novel stimulus (Berlyne 1970) or (2)
an increasing opportunity to learn more about the stimulus (Stang 1975). Next, at higher levels of exposure a
negative response begins to dominate which leads to a
decrease in affect toward the stimulus. This negative response is posited to be due to boredom, decreased incremental learning, satiation, reactance, and/or tedium
(Sawyer 1981). The net effect of these two opposing factors is an inverted-U relationship between number of exposures and attitude.
More recently, Cacioppo and Petty (1979, 1980) postulated that the attitudinal effects of message repetition
are mediated by the elaborations (i.e., counter and support arguments) that viewers generate when exposed to
advertisements. Taking a two-factor perspective, Cacioppo and Petty (1980) propose that repeated exposure
through moderate levels of repetition acts primarily to
provide additional opportunity for attending to, thinking
about, and elaboratingupon the message arguments. This
additional processing opportunity enables the message
recipient to realize the message arguments' cogency and
favorable implications which, in turn, enhances persuasion. At high levels of message repetition, however, re-
51
actance and/or tedium begin to dominate processing and
focus recipients' cognitive energies on counterarguing,
thereby decreasing persuasion. In combination, these
opposite processes bring about the inverted-U relationship between repetition and message acceptance.
Advertising research has identified additional variables that may further influence receivers' opportunity
and/or ability to elaborate. In particular, the variables
receiver knowledge and commercial length are seen as
being manageriallyimportantfactors and have been noted
for restrictingor enhancing the extent and nature of cognitive elaboration (Bogart and Lehman 1983; Edell and
Mitchell 1978; Gardner 1983; Olson, Toy, and Dover
1982; Webb 1979; Wells, Leavitt, and McConville 1971;
Wheatley 1968). For example, Edell and Mitchell (1978)
suggest that receivers' elaboration is based in part on
relevant knowledge structures. The specific content of
these structures is presumed to determine the number,
type, and content of cognitive responses to advertisements. Hence, when considering repetition effects, one
might reasonably expect differences in receiver knowledge to affect viewers' rates of learning, tedium arousal,
and attitude formation.
Similarly, message length has been shown to affect
receivers' processing of a persuasive message (Calder,
Insko, and Yandell 1974). In an advertisingcontext Wells,
Leavitt, and McConville (1971) and Wheatley (1968)
found that the longer commercial resulted in different
viewer responses. In the Wells et al. study the longer
commercial, though similar in format and theme to the
shorter version, presented more product usage vignettes
which increased the opportunity for the respondents to
elaborate on the message. The larger number of vignettes was thought to have caused respondents to engage in more counterargumentationwhich led to a more
negative attitudetoward the advertisement.Wheatley also
reported that commercial length affected viewers' attitude toward the ad. Though these studies did not specifically assess the extent and nature of cognitive responding, the results suggest that commercial length may
influence receivers' elaboration and thus possibly moderate repetition effects.
The two elaboration-relatedvariables, receiver knowledge and commercial length, help define a richer framework in which to test the appropriateness of the twofactor theory. In general, one might propose that the curvilinear repetition-attituderelationship is most likely to
be observed when message arguments and product features are illustrated in a larger number of usage settings
(i.e., under conditions of a longer commercial) and when
viewers are highly knowledgeable and capable of faster
initial processing of the information contained in the advertisement. Beyond this general proposition, several
specific and interrelatedresearch issues pertaining to the
appropriatenessof two-factor theory can be identified.
1. The effects of process-relatedvariableson the extentof
learning.
2. Measurementof reactance/tedium.
FEBRUARY
1986
OF MARKETING
JOURNAL
RESEARCH,
52
affect criteriawithinthe ad3. Specificationof appropriate
vertisingcontext.
4. Developmentof an advertising-context-relevant
cognitive responsetypology to describeviewers' elaboration
duringrepeatedexposures.
5. Determinationof the relationshipbetween elaboration
activityand the variousaffect criteria.
Learning
Two-factor theory suggests that repetition of a stimulus provides an opportunity for learning. Indeed, numerous studies have shown that repetition leads to better
recall of message content (Belch 1982; Cacioppo and Petty
1979; Sawyer 1981; Sawyer and Ward 1979). On the
basis of these studies and our preceding discussion of
commercial length and receiver knowledge, we hypothesize that
H1: Familiaritywith andrecallof a novel televisioncommercial will increase as exposure frequency increases,particularlyfor high knowledgeindividuals
exposed to the longer version of the experimental
commercial.
Tedium
The two-factor model further postulates that at higher
levels of repetition, reactance or tedium influences attitude towardthe stimulus negatively. Cacioppo and Petty
(1979) hypothesize that at higher levels of re-exposure,
tedium or reactance motivates a recipient to attack the
now-offensive message and thus results in renewed argumentation and decreasing agreement with the message.
Despite its major role in the explanation of repetition
effects, tedium has not been assessed explicitly in any
of the past empirical studies. Rather, evidence has been
collected and found to be either consistent or inconsistent with the tedium hypothesis. Until the effect of repetition on receiver tedium is assessed directly, one cannot verify the development of tedium in response to
television commercial repetition nor its effect on responses to the commercial.
In their discussion of tedium, researchersseem to have
conceptualized this factor as an increasingly negative
feeling and reaction toward experiencing the stimulus
again. This conceptualization is the basis for the measures of tedium used in our study, and we hypothesize
that
H2: Tediumincreasesas the frequencyof exposureincreases,particularlyfor high knowledgeindividuals
exposedto the longercommercial.
Attitude Criteria
In the early mere-exposure experiments affect toward
the stimulus was the criterion of interest and was operationalized by having subjects guess the goodness/badness of Turkish or Chinese characters (Zajonc 1968).
Similarly, Stang (1975) had subjects rate Turkish words
for pleasantness. In the Cacioppo and Petty series of ex-
periments (1979, 1980), affect was operationalized by
having subjects rate their level of agreement with an advocacy message.
Single measures of this type may not be sufficient to
capture the complexity of consumer response to a television commercial. As a result, the conceptualizationand
operationalizationof appropriateaffect criteria within an
advertising context pose some additional challenges. In
a review of research on advertising's affective qualities,
Silk and Vavra (1974, p. 168) were prompted to note
that the concept of affect had not been defined clearly
in either theoretical or operational terms. Consequently,
we find a variety of affect-related measures in advertising and marketing communication studies including attitude toward the product/brand, attitude toward purchasing and/or using the product, and attitude toward
the company, as well as attitude toward the advertisement. Only recently have researchers attempted to unravel the relationships among these constructs (Mitchell
and Olson 1981; Shimp 1981). What is important for
purposes of the current research is whether or not exposure frequency affects these constructs in the same
manner. To explore this question, we hypothesize that
H3: Withinan advertisingcontextthe favorabilityof severalaffect-relatedmeasures(i.e., attitudetowardthe
commercial,attitudetowardthe product,purchase
intention, and attitude toward the company) increaseswith moderatelevels of exposure,then declines afterhigh levels of exposure,particularlyfor
high knowledge individualsexposed to the longer
versionof the experimentalcommercial.
Cognitive Elaborations and Repetition
The cognitive response version of the two-factor model
suggests that the relationship between repetition and attitudes may be explained by the cognitive responses
message recipients are able and motivated to produce.
Cacioppo and Petty (1979, 1980) introduce the distinction between "content-relevant" and "content-irrelevant" cognitive elaborations to explain the inverted-U
relationship between repetition and attitude. In their experimentselaborationswere designated as content or topic
"relevant"if they had a non-neutral valence with respect
to message's point of view. Through a complex partialing procedureCacioppo and Petty show that content-relevant elaborations were responsible for the attitudinaleffects due to repetition. In the advertising reception
environment, it may be helpful to determine more specifically what constitutes relevant and irrelevant elaborations, that is, a classification of cognitive elaborations
which highlights the specific content of the elaborative
processing. A review of literature(Belch 1982; Lutz and
MacKenzie 1982; Wright 1973) and a perusal of cognitive responses obtained from other commercial testing
suggest the content topics of ad- and product-relatedresponses. To explore the appropriateness of the "topic
relevancy" explanation we hypothesize that
H4: Thefrequencyof positive(negative)"topic-relevant"
WITHINADVERTISING
THEORY
TWO-FACTOR
thoughtswill increase(decrease)with moderatelevels of exposureanddecrease(increase)withhighlevels
of exposure, particularlyfor high knowledge individuals exposed to the longer version of the commercial.
Mediating Role of Cognitive Elaborations
The content-basedcodingschemeallows for the study
of whether excessive exposure generates repetitionrelated elaborationsrather than influencing the more
traditional,valence-based, counterargumentationand
favorable message-related cognitive responses (i.e.,
"relevant"
thoughtsas suggestedby CacioppoandPetty).
As a result, the mediatingrole of repetition-related
responsescan be assessed more precisely.
Thecontent-basedcodingschemealso providesan improvedbasis for addressingthe mediatingeffect of product- andad-relatedelaborationson brandattitude.Product-related elaboration and brand attitude may be
consideredthe advertising
contextequivalentsof the topicrelevantelaborationand attitudedesignationsused by
Cacioppo and Petty. Ad-relatedelaborationsmay be
considered"irrelevant."
The recentworkby Mitchelland
Olson (1981) relates to this issue. They examinedthe
relativecontributionsof attitudetowardthe ad (Aad), attitude towardthe pictureused in the ad (Api), and a
Fishbeincognitive structureindex in predictingattitude
towardthe product(Ao) and attitudetowardbuying the
product(Aact).They observedthatattitudetowardthe ad
made a significantcontributionto the predictionof Ao
andAactbeyondthatprovidedby the cognitivestructure
index. They furtherobservedthat Aadhad its majorinfluenceon Ao andAactbut not on purchaseintent,which
was determinedprimarilyby Aact.These observationsled
themto concludethat productattributebeliefs may not
be the only mediatorsof the variationin brandattitude
producedby advertisements.For purposesof our study,
the MitchellandOlsoneffortsuggeststhatbothproductand ad-relatedelaborationsare "relevant"and mediate
attitudetowardthe new product.Fromthese resultswe
hypothesizethat
elaborationsas well
H5:Indicesof the net product-related
as indices of net ad-relatedand repetition-related
elaborationsare significantpredictorsof receiverattitudetowardthe productand purchaseintention.
In summary,on the basis of a review of the literature
in the areas of social psychology, marketing,and advertising,we advancea series of five hypotheseswhich
in combinationexaminethe appropriateness
of the twofactortheorywithinan advertisingcontext.The firstfour
hypothesesproposethree-wayinteractioneffects due to
repetition,knowledge,andcommerciallength. It should
be notedthatminimumsupportfor the two-factortheory
is to be foundin the presenceof repetitionmaineffects.
The moredemanding,albeitexploratory,tests proposed
involvethe assessmentof two- and three-wayrepetition
interactioneffects. If presentand in meaningfuldirec-
53
tions, these interactionswould demonstratemore thorof the theoryin an advertisoughlythe appropriateness
ing context.
METHOD
Overview
A 2 x 2 x 3 between-subjectsdesign was used with
receiverknowledge(high or low), commercialversion
(30 or 90 seconds), and repetition(one, three, or five
exposures)as the factors. Launchcommercialsfor the
KodakDisc camerawere made availablepriorto their
nationalairingand served as test stimulifor the study.
Afterexposure,measurementswere takenon cognitive
responses,attitudes,and recall.
Procedure
studentswere invitedto participatein
Undergraduate
a study ostensibly designed to investigatemass comandproductusage.Four
munication,sportsprogramming,
hundredand fifty screeningquestionnaireswere administeredto definea subjectpool consistingof subjectswith
two differentlevels of knowledgeaboutand experience
with photographicequipment.Questionsabout camera
equipmentownership and perceived knowledge were
embeddedin the screeningquestionnaireand served as
subjectselectioncriteria.High knowledgesubjectswere
definedas those who ownedandused at leastone 35mm
formatcameraandratedtheirknowledgeaboutcameras
as beingvery high or at an expertlevel. Low knowledge
subjectswere those who had no or only infrequentexperiencewith Instamatictype camerasand who rated
themselvesas not at all knowledgeableabout cameras
(cf. Bettmanand Park 1980). The applicationof these
criteriaresultedin the identificationof 130 eligible participants.
Significant differences between the low and high
knowledgegroupswerefoundin productownershippatterns and the numberof rolls of black and white film
(0.03 vs. 4.35), color prints(2.17 vs. 6.11), and slides
(0.05 vs. 1.42) used in the last six months.The average
dollarinvestmentin photographic
equipmentwas $48 for
the low groupand $395 for the high group. Thus, dramaticdifferencesin experiencewith photographywere
observedbetweenthe high and low knowledgegroups.
Subjectsof the two knowledgeconditionswere assigned randomlyto one of the six experimentaltreatments (two versions of the commercialby three levels
of repetition).Upon arrivalat the researchsettingsmall
groupsof subjectswere read a set of instructionsfrom
a preparedscript which presentedthe study guise and
the requiredtasks. After listening to the instructions,
subjectswereshowna 40-minutetelevisionprogram,"The
Gamesof the XXIst Olympiad,"that includedthe experimentaland other commercialsduring the regular
commercialbreaks.The test commercialswere assigned
to commercialbreaksin such a way that spacedrepetition ratherthansuccessiveor massedrepetitionwas accomplished.
54
Repetitionwas operationalizedat threelevels of commercialexposure(cf. Belch 1982; Cacioppoand Petty
1979, 1980;GornandGoldberg1980). Two groupswere
exposedto one launchcommercialinsertedat the end of
the program.Two additionalgroups viewed three exposuresinsertedat the beginning,middle,andend of the
program.Two other groupsviewed five exposuresinsertedin the naturalcommercialbreaksat aboutequal
intervalsthroughoutthe program.Thus, in each group
the last commercialshown was the stimulusad.
Immediatelyafterthe programsubjectswere askedto
evaluatethe program,completea cognitiveresponsetask,
and respondto dependentmeasuresaboutattitudesand
recall.
Stimulus Ads
To increasethe mundanereality of the experiment,
actualnew productintroductionads were used as stimuli. Subjects were exposed to a never-before-shown,
professionallyproducedtelevision commercialthat introduceda trulynew product.As a resultsubjectswere
providedan opportunityto learn about a new product
and a new commercial,and hence the effects of repetitionon attitudeformationcould be assessed.
Two versionsof the commercialwere used. A 30-second anda 90-secondversionof the commercialfeatured
similaraudiocontentandorganizationbutdifferedin the
numberof usage situationvignettesdesignedto dramatize the many uses and benefits of what Kodaktermed
its new "decision-free"photography.The differencein
length thereforewas due primarilyto the numberof
productusageillustrationshighlightingtheproduct'sdistinctive features. More importantfor purposesof our
study, however, was the fact that the two versions affordeddifferentialopportunityto elaborateon the message.
Variables and Operationalizations
The extent to which the test commercialcreated a
memorableimpressionin relationto the competingcommercialswas assessed. Immediatelyafterthe program,
respondentswere askedto indicatewhich one commercial "stoodout most in your mind."After elicitationof
cognitiveresponses,recall of the advertisementcontent
was measuredby asking subjectsaboutthe sales points
presentedin the ad and identifiedby EastmanKodakas
beingthe communicationobjectivesfor bothversionsof
the commercial.Specifically,subjectswere askedto instatementsweremade
dicatewhichof 12 productattribute
in
the
commercial.
explicitly
Only five of the 12 statementsactuallywere madein the commercial.The numberof correctsalespointsidentifiedwas usedas the aided
recallmeasurefor the study.
To assess tedium, subjectswere asked to rate their
feelingstoward"watchingthe KodakDisc cameracommercialagain"on a series of threesemanticdifferential
scales havingthe same bipolaradjectivesas were used
in the otherattitudemeasures(alpha = 0.97). In addi-
JOURNAL
OF MARKETING
FEBRUARY
1986
RESEARCH,
tion, a measureof the valence of repetition-related
cognitiveresponseswas viewed as a furtherindicantof tedium (Belch 1982).
Attitudestowardthe ad, product,and companywere
operationalizedas the mean on three 7-point semantic
differentialscales (very bad/very good; dislike/like;
negative/positive).Coefficientalpha for each measure
was 0.94 or better.Purchaseintentionfor the new camera was measuredas the mean score of two semantic
differentialscales (disagree/agree;true/false)following
the statement,"I will buy the new KodakDisc camera
withinthe next 12 months"(alpha = 0.91). Also measured on 7-point semanticdifferentialscales was perceivedfamiliarity(i.e., not at all familiar/veryfamiliar)
with the commercialand the cameraitself.
Cognitive Responses and Their Classification
Subjectswere askedto list whateverthoughts,ideas,
or reactionsthey experiencedwhile watchingthe camera
commercial.The set of categoriesused to classify these
favorablethoughts,
responsesincludedcounterarguments,
and neutralthoughts(Cacioppoand Petty 1979, 1980)
as well as the topic categoriesof product-related,adandother.Within
related,repetition-related,
study-related,
eachof the majorcategoriesthe thoughtswere classified
furtheras being positive or negative, supportedor unsupported,or whetherthey constituteda curiositystatement.
A three-judgepanelclassifiedall cognitiveresponses.
Thejudges agreedon 84%of the judgements.The final
determination
for the remaining16%was based on the
modalratingby the threejudges aftera discussionhad
takenplace.
RESULTS
Learning
Subjects'perceivedfamiliaritywith the stimuluscommercialandnew productbothwere affectedby exposure
frequency (F(2,118) = 24.56, p < 0.01; F(2,118) =
4.56, p < 0.05, respectively).Also affectedby repetitionwas recognitionof the messagearguments.The aided
recallof sales pointsmeasureincreasedas levels of repetition increased (M(1) = 2.73, M(3) = 3.19, M(5) =
3.61, F(2,118) = 5.62, p < 0.01). Finally, as exposure
frequencyincreased,the perceiveddistinctivenessof the
test commercialin relationto the surroundingads increased (M(1) = .44, M(3) = .80, M(5) = .86; F(2,118)
= 12.38, p < 0.01). These findingsreplicateprevious
studies'resultsand supportthe hypothesizedrepetition
effecton receiverlearning.However,this effect was not
moderatedby either commercial length or receiver
knowledge.
Tedium
Tediumwas defined as the subject's feeling toward
viewingthe test commercialagain. An analysisof variance reveals that the tedium scores differ significantly
WITHIN
ADVERTISING
THEORY
TWO-FACTOR
55
Table 1
MEANSCORESON ATTITUDE
MEASURES
One exposure
30-second commercial
Attitude toward product
Intentionto purchase
Attitudetowardad
Attitudetowardcompany
Three exposures
Five exposures
Low know
High know
Low know
High know
Low know
High know
5.27a
1.75b
5.05
5.37
5.67
5.69
5.53
1.50
5.00
6.41
2.40
5.07
5.20
1.85
5.60
6.67
2.73
5.18
5.97
2.35
5.57
6.53
5.84
2.23
4.94
5.91
6.30
2.65
5.73
5.83
5.18
3.27
5.30
6.00
5.72
1.73
5.17
5.97
5.10
2.25
5.10
5.80
4.03
6.03
90-second commercial
Attitudetowardproduct
5.48
Intentionto purchase
2.64
Attitudetowardad
5.61
Attitudetowardcompany
5.82
'Attitudescale values: 1-unfavorable,7-favorable.
bPurchase
intentvalues: 1-disagree,7-agree.
across levels of repetition. A repetition main effect
(F(2,118) = 5.21;p < 0.01) is observed, indicating that
subjects in the one-exposure condition had a more positive attitude toward seeing the commercial again than
did subjects in the three- and five-exposure conditions.
The mean attitudinal scores for the three conditions are
2.88, 3.78, and 4.10 respectively (1 = very good and 7
= very bad). The second indicant of tedium, the net valence index of repetition-relatedresponses, also exhibits
a significant main effect due to repetition (F(2,118) =
13.22; p < 0.01). This effect is due to differences in
the numberof negative repetition-relatedresponses which
show a repetition main effect (F(2,118) = 13.17; p <
0.01). The mean number of negative repetition-related
responses increases dramatically from one to three exposures (0.00-0.95) and increases negligibly from the
three to five exposures (0.95 to 0.96). No higher order
interactions with knowledge and commercial length are
significant. Hence, the hypothesized repetition effect on
tedium is supported.
Attitude Criteria
The third hypothesis pertains to the effects of repetition on several measures of attitude and purchase intention.1 The mean scores on these measures categorized
by recipient knowledge and commercial length for the
one-, three-, and five-exposure conditions are reported
in Table 1. Viewers across all conditions expressed a
generally favorable evaluation of the new product and
indicated a low probability of buying the product within
the next 12 months.
As can be observed in Table 2, viewers' attitudes
toward the product, ad, and company and their purchase
'The intercorrelations
among attitudetowardthe product(X,), attitudetowardthe ad (X2),attitudetowardthe company(X3),andpur-
chase intention (X4)are r,2 = 0.49, r,3 = 0.32, r,4 = 0.44, r23= 0.28,
r24 = 0.39, and r34= 0.22.
intention were not affected by repetition or repetitionrelated interactions. These results do not provide evidence to support H3 and the curvilinear relationship between frequency of exposure and relevant attitude criteria for a new product. One possible explanation for the
results is the existence of distinct and different curvilinear relationshipsfor the different treatmentcombinations
which when aggregateddo not produce a curvilinearmain
effect due to repetition. This explanation seems to be supported by an ad length by repetition interaction for purchase intention which approaches significance (F(2,118)
= 2.43; p = 0.09). As shown in Figure 2, the shorter
version of the commercial produced more favorable purchase intentions for both knowledge groups as the frequency of exposure increased. The increased opportunity
to elaborate provided by repetition appears to have enhanced receivers' feelings toward the product. Repeated
exposure to the longer version of the commercial had a
different effect. For both knowledge levels, the 90-second commercial tended to produce more "kinked" profiles reflecting a decrease in purchase intention as exposure frequency increased from three to five exposures.
These trends are interesting and meaningful in terms of
the two-factor perspective. They suggest that increases
in the opportunity to elaborate, up to moderate levels,
may indeed enhance the persuasiveness of television
commercials. At excessive levels of opportunity, however, the persuasiveness of the advertisement declines.
Though the ad length by repetition interaction for purchase intention is interesting and meaningful, similar interaction patterns are not observed for the other attitude
criteriain the study and hence the overall conclusion must
be that H3 is not supported.
Cognitive Elaborations
The cognitive elaboration perspective suggests that
"content-relevant" elaborations show differential patterns across exposure frequencies. Following the conceptualizationof "content-relevant"elaborations used by
JOURNAL
OF MARKETING
FEBRUARY
1986
RESEARCH,
56
Table 2
ANALYSES
OF VARIANCE
FORATTITUDE
MEASURES
Ao
Source
Knowledge(K)
Repetition(R)
Ad length(L)
Kx R
Kx L
Rx L
Kx Rx L
p < 0.05.
PI
F
0.92
0.24
0.48
0.40
0.73
0.69
1.30
SS
1.88
0.99
0.98
1.63
1.49
2.83
5.33
d.f.
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
SS
0.17
5.65
4.29
1.08
3.26
13.51
2.68
CacioppoandPetty(1980), we initiallycategorizedsubjects' elaborationsas either positively valenced, negatively valenced,or neutral.A total of 839 thoughts,or
an averageof 6.45 thoughtsper subject, were categorized.Forty-sevenpercentof these thoughtscarriedpositive valencesand 35%were negative.Analysesof varianceperformedon the frequenciesof positive, negative,
andneutralresponsesshow no main effects due to repetition,knowledgeability,or ad length.The higherorder
interactionsdo not approachsignificancenor do they
suggestmeaningfulpatternsof cell meanssimilarto the
purchaseintentionpatternsdiscussedbefore.
A furtherexaminationof the distributionof elaboration responsesusing the content-basedcoding scheme
providedinsightinto whatconstitutes"topicrelevancy"
in an advertisingcontext. Product-related
responsesaccountfor 40.4% of all elaborationsgenerated,whereas
Ad
F
0.06
1.02
1.54
0.19
1.17
2.43
0.48
SS
0.44
6.35
1.78
0.06
8.38
5.44
1.89
Acompany
F
0.24
1.73
0.97
0.02
4.56a
1.48
0.52
SS
5.55
0.49
1.95
2.54
4.83
0.82
1.37
F
5.17'
0.23
1.82
1.18
4.50a
0.39
0.64
ad-relatedthoughtsconstitute47.3% of all thoughts.Of
the total numberof ad-relatedthoughts,25% are repetition-related.Interestingly,curiosity statements, primarilyaboutthe new product,accountfor 17%of the
total numberof elaborations.These data suggest that
withinan advertisingcontextthe major"topic-relevant"
elaborationsinclude responses related to product, ad,
repetition,and productcuriosity.
To assess how these more specific content elaborations may have been influenced by the experimental
treatments,we performedseveral analysesof variance.
First,an ANOVA on the net valence index for productrelatedelaborations(i.e., the numberof positiveless the
numberof negative product-relatedresponses)did not
exhibitany treatmenteffects. A significantlengthmain
effect was observed,however, for the numberof product-relatedcuriosityresponses(F(1,118) = 4.49, p <
Figure 2
BYFREQUENCY
AND COMMERCIAL
LENGTH
INTENTION
OF EXPOSURE,
PURCHASE
RECEIVER
KNOWLEDGE,
Low Knowledge
C
0
C
High Knowledge
3.5 t
3.5
-
3.0 -
3.0
-
90 seconds
2.5 +
2.5 -
c
0
C
0
2.0
30
90 seconds
2.0130
1.5-
1.5I
I
II
I
3
1
3
II
I
I
I
iI
5
1
3
5
Frequencyof Exposure
Frequency of Exposulre
THEORY
WITHIN
ADVERTISING
TWO-FACTOR
57
0.05). The 30-second version of the commercialproducedmanymorecuriositythoughtsthandid the 90-second version. The 90-second version showed a larger
numberof usage vignettesdramatizingthe uses andbenefits of the new camera. This increased information
transmissionmost likely accounts for the decrease in
curiositystatementsas a largernumberof recipientquestions may have been answered.
Second, the net valence index for ad-relatedreresponses,showed
sponses,exclusiveof repetition-related
a knowledgeby repetitionby length three-wayinteraction (F(2,118) = 3.59; p < 0.05). As can be observed
in Figure3, the ad-relatedresponsesfor the low knowledge subjects became more positive as exposure frequency increased,with the rate of increasegreaterfor
the longer ad version. As the opportunityto elaborate
increased,ad-relatedelaborationappearsto have become more positive. For the high knowledgeviewers,
in contrast,it was the shorterversionof the commercial
which resultedin more positive ad-relatedresponsesas
exposureincreased.The longer version inducedan inverted-Upatternwith the net valencebecomingnegative
for the highest level of exposure.That is, for the high
knowledgegroupunderconditionsof highestelaboration
opportunitythe ad-relatedelaborationbecamenegative.
Thus,the patternof elaborationswithrespectto the commercialis meaningfulandconsistentwith the two-factor
perspective.
MediatingRole of Elaborations
To explorethe potentialmediatingrole of the contentspecific elaborationson the various attitudes, several
stepwiseregressionssimilarto the Mitchell and Olson
ad(1981)analyseswereperformed.Net product-related,
indiceswereusedas predictors
related,repetition-related
of attitudetowardthe product(Ao), purchaseintention
(PI), and attitude toward the ad (Aad).
Net product-related
elaborationsare found to be the
primarypredictorsof bothAo andPI (Table3). Also adrelatedelaborationscontributesignificantlyto the predictionof receivers'attitudetowardthe productbeyond
thatexplainedby product-related
elaboration.However,
they do not contributeto the predictionof purchaseintent. These findingsreplicateMitchell and Olson's results and suggest that thoughad-relatedresponsesmay
transferto receivers'attitudestowardthe productthey
Figure 3
NETINDEXOF AD-RELATEDCOGNITIVERESPONSES(EXCLUDINGREPETITION-RELATED
RESPONSES) BY FREQUENCY
OF EXPOSURE,
RECEIVER
AND
COMMERCIAL
LENGTH
KNOWLEDGE,
LowKnowledge
High Knowledge
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
U)
0
C
90 seconds /
._
O
/30 secon3
Is
U)
1.0
1.0d
30 seconds
o
C
30 seconds
'I
0
0)
0
x
1
la
-1.0
I
I
3
5
Frequencyof Exposure
I
01
-1.0
90 second s
\1
3
Frequencyof Exposure
JOURNAL
OF MARKETING
FEBRUARY
1986
RESEARCH,
58
Table 3
AND AD CRITERION
PRODUCT
VARIABLES
REGRESSION
MODELS
PREDICTING
(beta coefficientsand F-values)
Criterion variable
Step
Att product(A,,)
1
0.37027
(20.34)
2
0.34461
(19.59)
0.34823
(19.72)
3
Purchase intention (PI)
I
2
3
Att ad (Ad)
Net product
index
3
Net repetition
index
R2
0.14
0.31411
(16.27)
0.31493
(16.25)
0.24
-0.03978
(0.26)"
0.24
0.13
0.36566
(19.76)
0.35538
(18.37)
0.35032
(17.98)
0.12576
(2.35)
0.12462
(2.29)"
0.19453
(7.31)
0.19060
(6.92)
0.55609
(57.30)
0.54021
(56.36)
0.53932
(55.87)
1
2
Net ad
index
0.15
0.05565
(0.46)"
0.15
0.30
0.35
0.04319
(0.36).
0.35
'Not significant at < 0.01.
are not a substantial determinant of purchase intention.
Last, the regression analyses show that repetition-related
elaborations do not contribute to an explanation of the
variation in A, and PI beyond that accounted for by the
product- and ad-related thoughts. Thus, Hs, which proposes a mediating role for repetition-relatedelaboration,
is rejected.
The predictors of attitude toward the ad also were examined. As might be expected, ad-related elaborations
are the major determinants of Aad. Product-related responses do have a statistically significant role, but the
size of the contribution must, for all practical purposes,
be considered minimal. Repetition-related elaborations
did not bias the formation of attitude toward the ad.
CONCLUSIONS
Discussion
Two general objectives guided our research. The first
was to investigate whether the positive learning and negative tedium processes presumed by the two-factor theory to underlie message repetition effects appropriately
describe viewers' responses to repeated exposure to a
new-product television commercial. The second was to
explore whether additional manipulations of elaboration
opportunity due to receiver knowledge and commercial
length would moderate attitude formation.
In terms of the first general objective, the results suggest that repeated exposures increase viewers' familiarity with both the new product and the commercial. Recall of ad content also increases with frequency of
exposure. Overall, these findings are consistent with the
hypothesized behavior of the first factor in the two-factor
theory. Increased exposure to a stimulus allows the receiver to experience greater learning, overcome uncertainties about the stimulus, and form a reaction to it.
Direct evidence also is obtained for the hypothesized
development of a tedium/reactance response to repeated
exposure to the commercial. The frequency of negative
repetition-relatedelaboration increased with increases in
repetition, and viewers' attitude toward watching thecommercial again became more negative as exposure
frequency increased. Thus, support is found for the operation of the second factor of the two-factor theory.
Strong support is not found for the hypothesized curvilinear relationship between exposure frequency and attitude formation toward the novel product and commercial. The repetition effect on attitudes was not observed,
even though the experiment's level of statistical power
to detect effects at a Type I error rate of 5% is comparableto that of earlier experiments (Cohen 1977; Sawyer and Ball 1981).2 Two-factor theory postulates this
relationship to be the net result of the two opposing factors. In our study, however, the two factors are found
not to be additive. Though an increase in learning was
observed across moderate levels of repetition, the increase in learning did not in turn increase affect. Thus,
stimulus learning is not necessarily related to affective
reactions. At higher levels of repetition the development
of tedium was observed but this tedium did not bias at-
'The mean statistical power of the experiment to detectf = 0.10,
f = 0.25, and./ = 0.40 at alpha of 0.05 (0.10) is 0.17 (0.27), 0.73
(0.82), and 0.99 (> 0.99), respectively (Cohen 1977).
59
THEORY
TWO-FACTOR
WITHINADVERTISING
titudeformation.Overall, then, sufficientevidence for
supportinga two-factortheoryexplanationof repetition
effects withinan advertisingcontext is not providedby
our data. The lack of transferenceof negative tediumrelatedreactionsto attitudetowardthe productor attitudetowardthe commercialin the advertisingcontextis
particularlyinteresting.Viewersappearto separatetheir
negativefeelingstowardseeingthe commercialagainfrom
theirotherattitudes.Viewers'beliefs aboutthe advertisers' persuasive intent, overzealousness, poor media
planning,and otherrelatedexternalfactorsmay be responsiblefor this separation.
The secondgeneralobjectiveof ourresearchinvolved
examiningthe hypothesizedrole of elaborationopportunity. Despite strong manipulationsof exposure frequency and ad length, receivers' attitudetoward the
productdid not exhibitthe hypothesizedeffects. The increasedopportunityto elaborateprovidedby repeated
exposuresto the longercommercial,even for individuals
highly knowledgeableabout the productclass, did not
enhancethe favorabilityof the attitudes.
Perhapsin an advertisingcontextthe formationof an
initialattitudetowarda new productor a new commercial requiresonly a limited amountof cognitive processing on the part of the consumer,and thereforean
increasedopportunityto elaboratedoes not markedlyenhance recognitionof arguments'cogency and message
implicationsas is the case in the clearly counterattitudinal messages used in social psychologyexperimental
contexts. An alternativeand/or complementaryexplanationfor these findingsis thatfor the type of consumer
productfeaturedin the test commercial,productattitudes, once formed, may be enhancedor changedonly
as a resultof the acquisitionof additional,moredetailed
information.This informationcould come from either
external sources (e.g., salespersons, word of mouth,
readingtest reports,etc.) or directexperience(i.e., trial)
(Smithand Swinyard1982).
Thoughthe between-groupanalysesdo not supportthe
elaborationopportunityconcept,the regressionanalyses
show message elaborationsto be indicativeof attitude
formation. The ad-content-basedcoding scheme for
classifyingviewers'responsesprovidesan improvedbasis for addressingthe issue of how elaborationsduring
exposureaffect various attitudecriteria. Our findings
evidence for the Mitchelland Olprovidecorroborating
son (1981) suggestionthat product-related
elaborations
arenotthe only mediatorsof advertisingeffects on brand
attitude.We show that both product- and ad-related
thoughtsinfluence attitudetoward the product. Additional research employing the content-based coding
scheme is needed to develop a betterunderstandingof
the relevantmediatorsof repetitioneffects withina new
productadvertisingcontext.
Giventhe resultsof our studyand similarresultsfrom
the studies by Belch (1982) and Mitchell and Olson
(1977), evidenceappearsto be accumulatingwhichcasts
doubton the appropriateness
of the traditionalinverted-
U hypothesesfor describingnew product advertising
repetitioneffects. Theoreticalaccountsof repetitioneffectsobservedin massedor successiveexposuresto novel
nonsensestimuliandcounterattitudinal
messagesappear
notto be robustframeworksfor describingtelevisionaudience's responsesto repeatedcommercialexposures.
Clearlymore researchis needed to assess this position
and determinewhetherthe two-factorperspectiveis indeed potentiallyuseful (cf. Sawyer 1981).
Limitations
Thoughthe use of professionallyprepared,novel television commercialsin our studyrepresentsan improvement in mundanerealityover previousstudies, several
limitationsmust be mentioned.First, the highest exposurelevel used in the studymay be consideredexcessive
for a less thanone hourprogram.Indeed,for established
productssuch exposurepatternsare likely to be uncommon. For new productlaunchingcampaigns,however,
suchlevels may not be totallyinconsistentwith viewers'
exposureexperienceduringa televisionviewing session.
A secondconcernis relatedto the 90-second version
of the launchingad. Though this commercialactually
was used to introducethe KodakDisc cameraand the
ad lengthmay be particularly
effective
greater-than-usual
in the introductionof new products,the 90-secondcommerciallengthis not the industrystandard.Thereforeany
generalizationsabout the effects of commerciallength
mustbe undertakenwith care.
A final aspect of the study which may be explored
furtherin futureresearchis the effects of the commercial
receptionenvironmenton immediatecognitive elaborations.The small-grouplaboratoryreceptionenvironment
in whichoursubjectsoperatedis not identicalto the home
viewingenvironmentand may have enhancedreceivers'
processingmotivationand opportunity.In a home TVviewingenvironmentfactorsmay be operatingwhichrestrictcognitive elaborationsand responses (cf. Wright
1981).
Further Research
One issue exploredin our study involvedthe explicit
measurementof viewers' tedium/reactancecreatedby
repeatedexposureto the sametelevisioncommercial.We
foundthat tediumdid not bias product-related
elaborations, productattitude,and purchaseintention.Assessment of viewer's attributionsaboutthe causes and implicationsof theirtedium/reactanceresponsestherefore
is needed, particularlygiven the crucialrole of tedium
in the two-factormodels.
The issue of what constitutesappropriateaffect criteriain an advertisingcontextappearsto be an important
one. Past advertisingstudies used measuresof attitude
towardthe productandpurchaseintention,whichon the
surfaceappearto be logical extentionsof the criteriaemployed in the social psychologicalstudies. In our study
these measuresplus measuresof attitudetowardthe ad
and manufacturer
were used becauseviewers are likely
60
to distinguish among product-related feelings and feelings toward the ad and toward the manufacturer.Indeed,
the results of the study suggest that these criteria behave
ratherindependently and do not share the same treatment
effects. It remainsto be explored in future studies whether
the formation of these separate attitudes is based on similar underlying processes. Additional information on this
issue would provide insight on the question of when and
how ad-relatedresponses and attitudesaffect brandchoice
(cf. Shimp 1981).
A third issue is the need for a cognitive response coding scheme which would be appropriatefor an advertising context. We found that an extended coding scheme
could be used to assess the role of repetition and adrelated elaborations in affecting product attitude. Future
research might consider more complex and/or more refined coding schemes to explore further whether viewers' elaboration becomes biased or changes across exposure frequency (cf. Krugman 1972).
A final, related issue is the mediating role of receiver's elaborations. In our study regression analyses using
the content-based elaborations indicate that these responses were significant predictors of the appropriateattitude measures. It is important to note, however, that
the frequencies of these specific content responses did
not indicate treatment effects parallel to the effects observed in the respective attitude criteria. Though this
finding is similar to those in other advertising studies
(e.g., Calder and Sternthal 1980), it suggests that the
issue of whether or not cognitive responses are attitudecontent-specific mediators remains important and remains to be resolved.
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A. (1975), "ADMOD:An AdvertisingDecision
Model,"Journalof MarketingResearch,12 (February),3745.
Belch, G. E. (1981), "An Examinationof Comparativeand
NoncomparativeTelevision Commercials:The Effects of
ClaimVariationand Repetitionon CognitiveResponseand
MessageAcceptance,"Journalof MarketingResearch, 18
(August),333-49.
(1982), "TheEffects of TelevisionCommercialRepetitionon CognitiveResponse and Message Acceptance,"
Journalof ConsumerResearch,9 (June),56-66.
Berlyne,D. E. (1970), "Novelty, Complexity,and Hedonic
Value,"Perceptionand Psychophysics,8, 279-86.
Bettman,J. R. and C. W. Park (1980), "Effects of Prior
KnowledgeandExperienceandPhaseof the ChoiceProcess
on ConsumerDecisionProcess:A ProtocolAnalysis,"Journal of ConsumerResearch,7 (December),234-48.
Bogart,L. and C. Lehman(1983), "TheCase of the 30-second Commercial,"Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 23
(February/March),11-20.
Cacioppo,J. T. andR. E. Petty(1979), "TheEffectsof Message RepetitionandPositionon CognitiveResponse,Recall
and Persuasion,"Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.
and
(1980), "Persuasivenessof Communicationsis Affectedby ExposureFrequencyandMessageQual-
JOURNAL
OF MARKETING
FEBRUARY
1986
RESEARCH,
ity: A Theoreticaland EmpiricalAnalysisof PersistingAt-
titude Change," in Current Issues and Research
in
Advertising,J. H. LeighandC. R. Martin,eds. Ann Arbor,
MI: Universityof Michigan,97-122.
Calder,B. J., C. A. Insko, and B. Yandell(1974), "TheRelation of Cognitiveand MemorialProcessesto Persuasion
in a Simulated Jury Trial," Journal of Applied Social Psy-
62-93.
chology,4 (January-March),
and B. Sternthal(1980), "Television Commercial
Wearout:An InformationProcessing View," Journal of
Marketing Research, 17 (May), 173-86.
Cohen, J. (1977), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behav-
ioral Sciences. New York:AcademicPress.
Edell,J. A. andA. A. Mitchell(1978), "AnInformationProcessing Approachto Cognitive Response," in Research
Frontiers in Marketing:Dialogues and Directions, S. C. Jain,
ed. Chicago:AmericanMarketingAssociation, 178-83.
Gardner,M. P. (1983), "AdvertisingEffectson AttributesRecalledandCriteriaUsed for BrandEvaluations,"Journalof
Consumer Research, 10 (December), 310-18.
Ginter,J. L. (1974), "An ExperimentalInvestigationof Attitude Change and Choice of a New Brand,"Journal of
Marketing Research, 11 (February), 30-40.
Gorn,G. J. andM. E. Goldberg(1980), "Children'sResponse
to RepetitiveTelevision Commercials,"Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (March), 421-4.
Krugman,H. E. (1972), "Why Three ExposuresMay Be
Enough," Journal of Advertising Research, 3 (December),
11-14.
Little,J. D. C. andL. M. Lodish(1969), "A MediaPlanning
Calculus," Operations Research, 17 (January), 1-35.
of a
Lutz, R. J. and S. C. MacKenzie(1982), "Construction
DiagnosticCognitiveResponseModel for Use in Commercial Pretesting," in Straight Talk About Attitude Research,
M. J. Naples and J. S. Chasin, eds. Chicago:American
MarketingAssociation,145-56.
Mitchell,A. A. and J. C. Olson (1977), "CognitiveEffects
of Advertising Repetition," in Advances in Consumer Re-
search, Vol. 4, W. D. Perreault,Jr., ed. Atlanta:Associationfor ConsumerResearch,213-20.
and
(1981), "AreProductAttributeBeliefs the
Only Mediatorof AdvertisingEffects on BrandAttitude?"
Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 318-32.
Olson, J. C., D. Toy, and P. Dover (1982), "Do Cognitive
ResponsesMediatethe Effects of AdvertisingContenton
Cognitive Structure?"Journal of ConsumerResearch, 9, 245-
62.
Ray, M. L. andA. G. Sawyer(1971a), "Repetitionin Media
Models:A LaboratoryTechnique,"Journal of Marketing
Research,8 (February),20-9.
and
(1971b), "BehavioralMeasurementfor
MarketingModels: Estimatingthe Effects of Advertising
Repetitionfor Media Planning,"ManagementScience, 18
(4-2), 73-89.
, andE. C. Strong(1971), "FrequencyEffects
Revisited," Journal of Advertising Research, 11, 14-20.
Sawyer,A. G. (1981), "RepetitionandCognitiveResponse,"
in Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, R. E. Petty, T. Os-
trum,andT. C. Brock,eds. Hillsdale,NJ: Earlbaum,23762.
and A. D. Ball (1981), "StatisticalPowerand Effect
Size in Marketing Research," Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 18 (August),275-90.
Effects in Adverand S. Ward(1979), "Carry-Over
WITHIN
ADVERTISING
THEORY
TWO-FACTOR
61
in Researchin Marketing,Vol. II,
tisingCommunication,"
J. N. Sheth, ed. Greenwich,CT: JAI Press, 259-314.
Shimp,T. (1981), "AttitudeTowardthe Ad as a Mediatorof
ConsumerBrandChoice," Journal of Advertising,10 (2),
9-15.
Silk, A. J. and J. G. Vavra (1974), "The Influenceof Advertising Affective Qualities on Consumer Response," in
BuyerConsumerInformationProcessing,G. D. Hughesand
M. L. Ray, eds. ChapelHill, NC: Universityof NorthCarolina Press, 157-86.
ReSmith, R. E. and W. R. Swinyard(1982), "Information
sponseModels:An IntegratedApproach,"Journalof Marketing,46 (Winter),81-93.
Stang,D. J. (1975), "TheEffectsof MereExposureon Learning and Affect," Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 31, 7-13.
Webb, P. H. (1979), "ConsumerInitialProcessingin a DifficultMediaEnvironment,"
Journalof ConsumerResearch,
6 (December),225-36.
Wells, D. W., C. Leavitt, and M. McConville(1971), "A
ReactionProfilefor TV Commercials,"Journalof Adver-
Shaped by
tisingResearch, 11 (December),11-17.
Wheatley,J. J. (1968), "Influenceof CommercialLengthand
Position,"Journalof MarketingResearch, 5 (May), 199202.
Winter,F. W. (1973), "A LaboratoryExperimentof Individual AttitudeResponseto AdvertisingExposure,"Journalof
MarketingResearch, 10 (May), 130-40.
Wright,P. L. (1973), "The Cognitive Processes Mediating
Acceptance of Advertising,"Journal of MarketingResearch, 10 (February),53-67.
(1980), "MessageEvokedThoughts:PersuasionResearch Using Thought Verbalizations,"Journal of ConsumerResearch,7 (September),151-75.
(1981), "CognitiveResponsesto Mass Media Advocacy," in CognitiveResponsesIn Persuasion,R. E. Petty,
T. Ostrom,andT. C. Brock,eds. Hillsdale,NJ:Earlbaum,
263-83.
Zajonc,R. B. (1968), "TheAttitudinalEffects of Mere Exposure," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Monograph,9 (2), Part2.
the
s for'80sts
Principles of
Marketing
Secotd Edition
Thomas C. Kinnear, University of Michigan
Kenneth L. Berhardt, Georgia State Uiversity
Available Now
832 pages,hardbound,
Manillustrated,with Instructor's
ual, ResourceBook, Study Guide, Case Book, Transparencies, TestBank, VideotapeProgram, ComputerizedTest
Bank, and DIPLOMA
Are you really satisfied with '60s and '70s analyses
of '86s problems? Most introductory texts offer just
that. Kinnear and Bernhardt's Princples of Marketing
is the only successful new marketing text that has
been truly shaped by the '80s. If you used the First
Edition of thispopuar text, we know that you will
be even more impressed with the Second Edition.
A few Second Edition highlights:
* More material on strategic marketing
More on marketing and public policy
More on industial buying behavior
? More on marketing and the external environment
?0New case applications
New interviews with marketing practitioners
New "Marketing in Action sections
Expanded and purposeful use of full-color
illustrations
* Hundreds of new in-text examples
For further information write Meredith Hellestrae, Department SA-JMR, 1900 EastcLake Avenue, Glenview, Illinois 60025
Scott, :Fore:an and Company