Materialistic Cue Effects in Print Advertising
Introduction
Materialism is conceptualized in the buyer behavior literature as either a consumer trait
(Belk 1984, 1985) or a consumer value (Richins and Dawson 1992). It is used to
describe advertising as well. Belk and Pollay (1985) define materialistic advertising as
one that emphasizes luxury, prestige, and pleasure seeking, while Sirgy and Lee (1998)
refer to the content of television (i.e. both program content and advertising) as being
materialistic.
It is important to study the representation of materialistic values in advertising because
these values often become institutionalized in a particular culture and ultimately affect
society as a whole. Advertising as a carrier of cultural values, plays a major role in the
mass media, thus giving it far more universal influence than other institutions. Because
materialism has been cited as one of the most prevalent Western values leading to overconsumption (Zinkhan 1994), unhappiness and dissatisfaction with life (Belk 1984, 1985;
Dawson and Bamossy 1991; Richins 1987; Richins and Dawson 1992) and lower ethical
consumer standards (Muncy and Eastman 1998), the impact of materialistic advertising
cues is of importance to advertisers, public policy makers, and those embracing the social
responsibility component of marketing.
The present study examines the effects of materialistic elements in an ad on consumer
judgments and evaluations. Specifically, this study employs a well-grounded paradigm
in social psychology, assimilation and contrast, to examine the context effects induced by
simultaneously presenting a context with a target product. The similarity between the
background setting context and the target product information in the ad is manipulated.
We define similarity as the perceived distance between ad elements, (i.e., product
information and ad background setting) along the materialism dimension. Similarity is
manipulated experimentally and its effects are captured using consumers as subjects. The
next section provides a review of context effects in advertising.
Context Effects
Childers and Houston (1984) suggest that the image of a product is created by the
incidental cues that appear in the setting of an ad. An automobile parked in front of a
large brick home with a brick driveway provides the automobile with a prestigious or
luxurious image. This image is quite different from one created by a mountainous setting
for the same car. In this latter case, the setting imbues the qualities of ruggedness and
durability upon the car.
Advertisers use contextual cues to create the theme and/or imagery of an advertisement.
In print advertising, color (Gorn et al. 1997), odors (Ellen and Bone 1998), verbal cues
(Meyers-Levy and Sternthal 1993), celebrity endorsements (Sengupta, Goodstein and
Boninger 1997), and brand name cues (Sengupta, Goodstein and Boninger 1997) have all
been found to affect information processing and print advertising effectiveness.
More relevant to this study are investigations of the pictorial, or visual cues in print
advertisements that are often found in the background setting of an ad. Numerous studies
have investigated the effects of these visual cues in print ads (Childers, Heckler, and
Houston 1986; Childers and Houston 1984; Edell and Staelin 1983; Gardner and Houston
1986; Heckler and Childers 1992; Kisielius and Sternthal 1984; Lutz and Lutz 1977;
Miniard et al. 1991; Mitchell and Olson 1981; Shimp, Urbany, and Camlin 1988; Stafford
1996; and Starch 1966). The impact of individual pictures or picture/word combinations
have been found to offer value to an advertiser in terms of attention-getting power,
comprehension, and ultimately facilitating recall.
A contextual cue can be presented prior to or together with a product stimulus. The
former relies on the priming technique, while the latter approach may utilize an
information-processing paradigm, such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
(Petty and Cacioppo 1981, 1986). Research in social psychology has substantiated that
the presentation of a stimulus (i.e., prime) can affect the interpretation of a subsequent
stimulus (Wyer and Srull 1989). As in Yi's studies (1990, 1993), it is often a verbal prime
as well as verbal components of an advertisement that are used in context effect research.
However, Schmitt (1994) investigates priming effects on the visual components of an ad.
This research concludes that visual elements of an ad are subject to priming effects, much
like that of verbal components. A prime provides an interpretive framework for visual ad
stimuli. Subjects, depending on the primed context, give different interpretations of the
same pictorial element.
Meyers-Levy and Sternthal (1993) state that context effect research would be of greater
practical importance if context effects were shown to occur when a single contextual cue
is presented as part of the target object message. This approach and finding would
suggest that context effects could be subject to strategic control by the advertiser's
selection of message context. Therefore, the present research investigates context effects
when the target product information and the ad context are presented together, providing
external validity for context effects.
The ELM allows for the examination of central and peripheral elements in an ad when
both sets are presented simultaneously. Central elements are message cues that evoke
cognitive responses and are of central importance to the advertised product, while
peripheral cues generally evoke emotional responses. Advertisers incorporate central and
peripheral elements in ads and executions to capture the attentions of consumers and aid
them in their comprehension of the advertisement. (See Petty and Cacioppo, 1986 for an
excellent review of their findings.) The ELM examines the effects of individual elements
and not similarity among them, thus is not appropriate for our study.
Our study examines the effect of similarity between visual materialistic product
information and materialistic background cues. The assimilation/contrast framework has
previously been used to explain the effect of similarity between a context and a target in
an ad (Meyers-Levy and Sternthal 1993). Our study also relies on this framework to
explain the effects of the distance between an advertised product (i.e., target) and its
background setting (i.e., context) in the ad. The following provides a review of this
framework, leading to the central hypothesis of our study.
Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis
Assimilation/Contrast
Social Judgment Theory suggests that judgments or attitudes toward a stimulus are
affected by the context within which it is being evaluated (Sherif and Hovland 1961). In
other words, a stimulus is judged not only by its own characteristics, but also by
accompanying stimuli (Sherman, Ahlm, and Berman 1978).
Research demonstrates that large discrepancies between context and target stimuli
produce contrast effects, while resemblance between the context and target produces
assimilation effects (Herr 1989; Herr, Sherman, and Fazio 1983; Meyers-Levy and
Sternthal 1993; Sherif and Hovland 1961). A contrast effect occurs when one's judgment
of a target stimulus is in the direction opposite the context, while an assimilation effect
occurs when the judgment of the social stimulus moves toward the context.
Previous research has examined the conditions under which assimilation and contrast
outcomes occur. One aspect of assimilation/contrast effects is explained by the
utilization of cognitive effort (Martin, Seta, and Crelia 1990). Contrast effects require
more cognitive effort and involve a greater magnitude in the movement of the judgment
process than assimilation. This condition has been tested using consumers' needs for
cognition (Martin, Seta, and Crelia 1990) and cognitive styles (Meyers-Levy and
Sternthal 1993).
Assimilation/contrast outcomes are also dictated by the amount of similarity between the
target stimulus and the context within which it is judged (Herr, Sherman, and Fazio
1983). The greater the amount of similarity the more likely assimilation will occur, while
little similarity between the context and target stimulus fosters a situation for contrast
effects.
In an advertising study, Meyers-Levy and Sternthal (1993) examined the impact of
similarity between a context and a target in the processing of an advertised object. The
contextual cues and the target were presented simultaneously in the ad. The ad served to
introduce a new restaurant as the target stimulus and the mention of the name of the
previous tenant as the contextual cue. The high similarity condition was operationalized
by indicating that the previous occupant was a restaurant, while low similarity was
represented by the previous occupant being a clothing store. The image of both the
restaurant and clothing store was also manipulated with regard to the casualness of each
(e.g., a fine French restaurant versus a fast-food restaurant). The authors also examined
the impact of subjects' cognitive styles. Thus, the experimental procedures yielded a
three-factor design. The difference between high/low experimental conditions was
captured in judgments, evaluations, cognitive responses, and recall measures. One
hundred and forty nine subjects participated in this study. Results indicated that in a high
similarity condition (i.e., when the target and context were both restaurants), judgments
of the advertised restaurant were in line with the context; while a low similarity condition
resulted in judgments in the opposite direction of the context. In other words, when the
location of the new restaurant was being compared to that of a previous clothing store
(i.e., low similarity), judgments regarding the casualness of the restaurant were in the
opposite direction of the casualness of the previous clothing store, resulting in contrast.
Furthermore results indicated that subjects in high similarity conditions produced more
favorable evaluations of the new restaurant than in low similarity conditions.
Hypothesis
Based on relevant literature, it is expected in the present study when the ad background
and the target product information are similar, assimilation will occur; while if the
background and the target information are dissimilar, contrast effects will be the realized
outcome. In the present study, similarity is operationalized along the materialism
dimension. Specifically the presence/absence of materialistic notions in the background
of an ad and the presence/absence of materialistic qualities of a product, allow for the
manipulation of different degrees of similarity. Thus, the following central hypothesis
emerges:
H1: When there is similarity (dissimilarity) between the target product
information in an ad and the ad's background context on the materialism
construct, assimilation (contrast) will occur.
Contrast processes have been found to require greater cognitive processing and generate
more exaggerated judgments away from a given context (Martin, Seta, and Crelia 1990).
Thus, movements in judgments of the target stimulus are expected to be greater in cases
where contrast is anticipated and less in assimilation conditions.
Therefore,
H1a: The magnitude of the movement in judgments is expected to be greater in contrast
conditions than assimilation conditions.
Meyers-Levy and Sternthal (1993) state that assimilation processes generate more
favorable associations and ultimately more favorable evaluations than conditions that
foster contrast processes. Thus, it is expected that high similarity with regard to
materialistic qualities between the target product information and the background context
in a print ad will produce more favorable evaluations of the product, features, and the
overall ad itself. This suggests,
H1b: More favorable evaluations will occur in assimilation conditions
than contrast conditions.
Based on attitude-behavior consistency studies (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), it is expected
that in conditions where there are more favorable evaluations, purchase intentions will
also be more positive.
H1c: More positive purchase intentions are to be formed in assimilation
conditions than contrast conditions.
Method
Paralleling the work of Sherif and Hovland (1961), Herr, Sherman, and Fazio (1983),
Herr (1989), and Meyers-Levy and Sternthal (1993), this study examines the impact of
similarity between an ad background and the target product on producing assimilation
and contrast effects. These effects are tested using subjects' judgments, evaluations, and
purchase intentions as dependent measures.
Experimental Stimuli
The present research uses materialistic ad elements as a means for operationalizing the
impact of contextual cue effects in print advertising. This is an appropriate
operationalization of similarity effects because materialism is commonly used in
advertising. Thus, it provides the stimulus with external validity.
Product. An automobile ad was created as the advertising stimulus. Previous context
effect research has stated that it is important to use a product class that is of interest to
subjects in the experiment, as well as one that lends itself to several permissible
interpretations (Yi 1993). Furthermore, other assimilation/context effect research has
also used this product category (Herr 1989).
Pretesting. Similarity can be defined in terms of an advertised target product and its
context (i.e., ad setting). A stimulus ad is high on similarity when the target and its
context are both high or both low in materialistic appeals. By the same token, if the
target is high (low) on materialistic appeals and the context is low (high) on materialistic
appeals, the overall ad corresponds to a low similarity condition.
Pretests were conducted to identify automobiles and ad backgrounds with high or low
materialistic appeals. Consultation with Consumer Reports and other authoritative
sources on automobiles generated a listing of 10 different styles of cars (e.g., 4-door
sedan, station wagon, 2-door mid-size, and sports car), and 20 automobile features (e.g.,
exterior finish, performance, fuel economy, and driver seating) that could be used to
obtain perceptions of the materialistic nature associated with each.
Forty-nine students from an undergraduate marketing course participated in the pretest
survey. The survey asked subjects to rate automobile style on a 7-point scale (1 = "a car
that would be purchased by a person who is unconcerned with image and possessions" to
7 = "a car that would be purchased by a person who is concerned with image and
possessions"). Additionally, the participants were asked to rate the 20 car features using
a 7-point scale (1 = "a feature that would be important to a person unconcerned with
image and possessions" to 7 = "a feature that would be important to a person who is
concerned with image and possessions"). Results from this pretest indicated that a 2-door
sports car best represented a materialistic automobile (mean = 6.59, std. dev.= .64), while
a station wagon was viewed as the most nonmaterialistic (mean = 1.39, std. dev.= .67).
While these styles may not be the most popular styles in the market today, the pretest
suggested that they are good indicators of materialistic/nonmaterialistic automobiles and
therefore provide clear experimental manipulations. In addition, style was rated as the
feature that would most likely be important to a materialist (mean = 6.33, std. dev. = .90),
whereas economic value was judged as the most nonmaterialistic-like feature (mean =
2.71, std. dev.= 1.84).
A second portion the pretest instrument contained questions on ad backgrounds. A
thorough review of automobile advertisements provided a list of common backgrounds
used in automobile advertisements (e.g., golf course, field, white sandy beach). Subjects
rated 11 ad background descriptions using a 7-point scale (1 = "a location where you
might find a person who is unconcerned with image and possessions" to 7 = "a location
where you might find a person who is concerned with image and possessions"). The
subjects indicated that a polo match would most likely be a place where you might find a
person who is concerned with image and possessions (mean = 6.45, std. dev. = 1.0),
while a campground was a place that represented a nonmaterialist's preference in
locations (mean = 2.16, std. dev.= 1.12).
Because similarity between the product and the ad background is the key experimental
variable, a second pretest was conducted to measure the perceived similarity between the
automobiles selected in the pretest - 2-door sport car and station wagon; and selected ad
backgrounds - polo match and campground. Forty undergraduate marketing students
participated in the second pretest. Based on the results of the first pretest that provided
information regarding perceptions of materialistic/nonmaterialistic cars and backgrounds,
four-color ads were developed for the four combinations of product and background.
Subjects were asked to indicate how well matched the product was to the background of
the ad (1 = extremely unmatched to 6 = extremely well matched). Subjects perceived a
greater amount of similarity in the sport car/polo match combination (mean = 4.58, std.
dev. = 1.60) than with the sport car/campground (mean= 2.50, std. dev. = 1.75). The
station wagon/campground achieved a higher similarity score (mean = 3.62, std. dev. =
1.27) than the same car with polo match background (mean = 2.50, std. dev. = 1.39).
While context effect research often uses the priming paradigm (Yi 1993, 1990), MeyersLevy and Sternthal (1993) state that context effect research would have greater
managerial implications by presenting a context and target together simultaneously, and
then comparing the judgments produced by this presentation to a context-free judgment.
A context-free judgment of an advertised product is one that is obtained in the absence of
the experimental context and serves to provide a comparison anchor for contextdependent judgments. Thus, in the present study the context and the target are presented
simultaneously, and the movements in judgment are defined as the difference between
context-dependent and context-free judgments of a target stimulus. Two sets of measures
(i.e., context-free measures and context-dependent measures) are gathered in order to
capture any movement in judgment.
A preliminary study was conducted in order to provide the context-free judgment of the
advertised automobiles, product features and backgrounds. Differences in movements in
judgment could then be examined across experimental conditions. Context dependent
judgments are to be obtained in the main experiment. Any movement in judgments in the
direction of the context-free judgments would indicate an assimilation effect, while
movements away from the context-free responses indicate contrast.
The third pretest was conducted with 40 consumer volunteers. The color ads used in the
second pretest were dissected in order to obtain judgments on each of the individual ad
elements. Each participant was asked to judge the 2-door sports car and station wagon
separately. As in Herr, Sherman, and Fazio (1983), and Meyers-Levy and Sternthal
(1993), several judgment measures were used. A three-item, 9-point semantic scale was
used (high/low prestige, expensive/inexpensive, extremely materialistic/extremely
nonmaterialistic). The participants were also requested to provide judgments on the
automobile features. Subjects were provided with separate pictures of the ad
backgrounds and were asked to use the same three-item measure to judge the two
background settings.
Responses to the three-item judgment measure from the pretest were summed for the
product, features and background settings. Results are found in Table 1. As expected, the
2-door sports car (Pm) was judged as more materialistic than the station wagon (Pnm)
(p .001). Similarly, the materialistic features of the car (Fm) received more materialistic
judgments than the nonmaterialistic features (Fnm) (p .001). Finally, the polo match
activity (Cm) was judged as more materialistic than the camping activity (Cnm) (p
.001). Thus, the ads were deemed appropriate for use in the experimental study.
____________________
Table 1 about here
____________________
Experimental Design and Subjects
A two-by-two factorial experiment was used for this study. The factors are
materialistic/nonmaterialistic product (Pm/Pnm) and materialistic/nonmaterialistic
background context (Cm/Cnm). Thus, the high similarity conditions reside in the Pm/Cm
and Pnm/Cnm cells.
Participants consisted of a total of 104 consumers intercepted at a Midwestern, suburban
shopping mall. This pool was comprised of 50 men and 54 women. The mean age was
39.40. Approximately 82% of the sample was white Americans. Various occupations
were represented by this sample. Specifically, 41% were professionals, 19% were
employed as skilled laborers, 5% held secretarial positions, 3% were unskilled laborers,
12% were retired, and the remainder was students or unemployed individuals. The mean
annual household income was $40,270. Approximately one half of the sample was
single, while 41% was married, 10% was divorced, and 2% were widowed.
Dependent Measures
Judgments. The same nine-point, three-item scale used in the pretest was used in the
main experiment (i.e., high/low prestige, expensive/inexpensive, extremely
materialistic/extremely nonmaterialistic), to measure subjects' judgments of the product
and the product features advertised in the ad (i.e., the context-dependent judgments). The
items were summed to produce overall judgment scores for the product ( = .61) and
product features ( = .69).
Evaluations. Evaluations of the product, product features, and the advertisement itself
were measured using Chatterjee's (1997) three-item, bi-polar scale anchored by values of
1 (bad, unsatisfactory, and unfavorable) and 9 (good, satisfactory, and favorable). Items
were summed in order to obtain overall evaluation scores for the product ( = .69),
features ( = .77), and the ad ( = .89).
Purchase Intentions. Purchase intention was measured using a single, seven-point
semantic differential scale, ranging from 1 (not likely at all) to 7 (very likely)
(MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986). Due to the expensive nature of the experimental
product, subjects were specifically asked to indicate their intention "if money is not an
obstacle."
Procedure
In the main experiment, participants were recruited via a mall intercept format at a
Midwestern, suburban shopping mall on six different days. The mall intercept was
conducted on both weekend and weekdays, during day and evening hours. The mall
management provided an open space with two tables and approximately 10 chairs. Two
researchers administered the experimental sessions.
The researchers indicated to the mall patrons that they must be at least 18 years of age
and be willing to spend 20-30 minutes to participate. They were reminded that their
participation would aid in an academic research project and were offered a free instant
lottery ticket as an incentive for participation. Random assignment was utilized. As the
subjects were recruited, random numbers were selected and assigned to treatments. The
treatments were then assigned to subjects as they were seated in the experimental setting.
Subjects were given two booklets, (1) an Advertisement Booklet, and (2) a Survey
Booklet. The Advertisement Booklet contained a brief overview of the purpose of the
study, a consent form, and an advertisement. They were instructed by the researchers to
carefully read the purpose of the study, spend a few minutes viewing the ad, and then put
the advertisement booklet aside. The Advertisement Booklet contained one of the four
stimuli consisting of a hypothetical product within the context of the ad background.
After they closed the Advertisement Booklet, they were instructed to open the Survey
Booklet and answer the questions as "honestly and accurately" as possible. The Survey
Booklet first asked subjects to rate the automobile in terms of the judgment and
evaluation measures, followed by their intention to purchase the car. Next they were
asked to rate the features of the car. Demographic questions such as age, occupation,
education level, average household income, gender, marital status, and race concluded
the survey. At the end of the experimental session, an administrator collected the
booklets. At this time, each subject was debriefed, thanked for their participation, given
their participation incentive, and released.
Results
Assimilation and contrast effects are measured and captured in the judgment, evaluation
and purchase intention measures. Results are summarized in accordance to the proposed
hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1a. Previous research supports the notion that contrast effects require greater
cognitive effort and occur when a target stimulus and a context are dissimilar.
Conversely, assimilation requires very little cognitive effort and occurs when a high
degree of similarity exists between a target and a context. We use the magnitude of the
movement in judgments to determine whether assimilation or contrast occurred.
In our experiment, the judgment scores of the target stimuli were taken in the presence of
ad backgrounds (i.e., a context dependent situation). Using the context-dependent
judgment scores from each subject in the experiment and the average context-free
judgment scores from the pretest, we computed the magnitude of the change in judgment
in the following way:
Change in judgment = |CDPi - CFB| / CFB
where CDPi =context-dependent product judgment for subject i,
CFB = average context-free background judgment.
For example, a subject in the Pm/Cm condition with a product judgment score of
approximately 21.00 would produce a difference score of 21.0-20.51= .49. See Table
1 for the context-free judgments. Since the average context-free scores are different for
the two types of background, inserting these averages as the denominator in the above
equation removes this source of variation. In our illustration, the change in magnitude
will be |21.0-20.51|/20.51 = .024. See Table 2 for the context-dependent judgments.
____________________
Table 2 about here
____________________
The magnitude of the change in judgments of the target product from the context-free
judgment to the context-dependent judgment was found to be greater in the low similarity
conditions. In the materialistic context conditions (Cm), judgments of a materialistic car
(Pm) changed by an average of .146 as compared to .274 for a nonmaterialistic car
(Pnm). The difference in these two averages was significant at p  .001. It is concluded
that contrast effects have occurred in the low similarity condition, while assimilation is
inferred from the movements in the high similarity condition. In the Cnm conditions, the
average change in judgment for Pm was .969, as compared to .681 for Pnm. The
difference in these averages was statistically significant at p  .008, providing evidence
of contrast and assimilation effects.
Judgments of the target product features mentioned in the ad also suggest contrast effects
in low similarity conditions, and assimilation effects in high similarity conditions. In the
Cm conditions, judgment of materialistic features changed on average by .139 as
compared to .244 as observed for nonmaterialistic features, indicating assimilation and
contrast effects respectively. This difference was significant at p  .008. The average
change in judgment of the materialistic features presented with Cnm was 1.01, and only
.560 for the nonmaterialistic features (p  .001). Again, the greater magnitude in the
movement in judgment for the materialistic product with the nonmaterialistic background
suggests contrast effects, while assimilation can be inferred with the nonmaterialistic
product with the nonmaterialistic background. Overall, these results lend support for
Hypothesis 1a that greater magnitudes in the change in judgments are found in a contrast
condition than in assimilation conditions. See Table 3 for a summary of these results.
____________________
Table 3 about here
____________________
Hypothesis 1b. Previous research supports the notion that more favorable evaluations
result when the target and context are similar (Meyers-Levy and Sternthal 1993). In the
present study, it was posited that the advertised automobile and its features, as well as the
ad itself, would receive more favorable evaluations when the product information was
similar to the ad's background with regard to materialistic orientations, rather than
dissimilar.
As shown in Table 4, average evaluation scores of the product were 18.17 for high
similarity ads versus 15.56 in the low similarity conditions (p  .04). Furthermore,
evaluations of the product features were more favorable for high similarity ads than in
low similarity ads (18.29 versus 17.38). However these results were not statistically
significant. Again, subjects reported average evaluations of 16.69 for the overall ad
evaluation in high similarity conditions and 14.37 for the ad with low similarity (p 
.036). Thus, these results lend overall support for Hypothesis 1b.
____________________
Table 4 about here
____________________
Hypothesis 1c. Subjects reported purchase intentions of 4.21 in high similarity
conditions versus 3.38 in low similarity conditions (p  .03; see Table 4). Thus, the
prediction that assimilation conditions would foster more positive purchase intentions
than contrast conditions is supported.
Collectively, the empirical evidence found in the study lends overall support for
Hypothesis 1. This hypothesis stated that in conditions where there is a high degree of
similarity between a context and a target, assimilation will occur; while in conditions
where there is low similarity, contrast is the anticipated outcome. Subjects' changes in
judgment from a context-free situation to a context-dependent situation provide support
for the conclusion that assimilation and contrast effects in judgments have occurred.
Subjects' evaluations also supported the notion that assimilation effects produce more
favorable evaluations than contrast contextual effects. Finally, the hypothesis (H1c) that
more positive purchase intentions will result from assimilation conditions was fully
supported.
Discussion
Previous context effect research has relied heavily on the ELM framework and the
priming paradigm to examine the effects of individual contextual cues on the processing
of ad information. However, print ads are designed in such a way that contextual cues
and product information are combined to create imagery and meaning. For this reason the
present study takes a practical approach to context effect research by investigating the
impact of the combination of the context and target. This was accomplished by
manipulating the degree of similarity between the context and the target of a print ad
along the materialism dimension. This effect was captured in consumer judgments and
evaluations of the product and the ad itself, as well as consumer purchase intentions.
Advertising has been cited as a powerful carrier of consumer values. In fact, Pollay
(1983) states, "while there are many institutions that carry out value transmission, such as
family, church, military, courts, universities, etc., there is good reason to pay particularly
close attention to advertising as a carrier of cultural values" (p. 73). It is also known that
advertising carries materialistic ideals via luxuries and prestigious appeals (Belk and
Pollay 1985; Pollay 1986, 1987). Because materialism is so pervasive in advertising
today, it was deemed appropriate and interesting to examine context effects with
materialistic/nonmaterialistic images in advertising.
This study has two major implications important to advertisers, academicians, and public
policy makers. First, the results of this experiment support the notion that the amount of
similarity illustrated between an advertised product and the ad background context affects
judgments, evaluations, and purchase intentions of an advertised product, as well as
judgments and evaluations of the advertisement itself. Thus, creative directors can affect
judgments and evaluations of an advertised product by manipulating the levels of
similarity/dissimilarity between the product and the background context. It is important
to remember that assimilation effects took place under both materialistic and nonmaterialistic product conditions and ultimately fostered more favorable product
evaluations and more positive purchase intentions. Thus, despite the attention-getting
effect of incongruencies that are often used as advertising tactics, advertisers should be
well advised to create background settings that are perceived to be similar in image to the
product being advertised in order to foster favorable evaluations of the advertised
product. Results of this study suggest that the selection of creatives, an important aspect
of ad development and execution, should not be based on attention-getting power and
aesthetics alone.
Previous research has suggested that materialistic communication negatively affects
consumer perceptions of quality of life, leading them to engage in materialistic
consumption (Mittal 1994; Sirgy and Lee 1998; Zinkhan 1994). It is with this notion that
the present study utilized product and ad representations of materialistic values in order
to assess whether consumers perceive similarity/dissimilarity between various ad
elements along the materialism dimension. Results suggest that consumers do indeed
judge the materialistic nature of products and ads, and use these judgments in their
evaluation processes. Thus, if consumers use materialism as a way to judge and evaluate
products, there is a need for future research to investigate advertising's role in the
production of the materialistic values of society.
As in any study of this nature, limitations may compromise the generalizability of the
results. Specific limitations involve the type of product used, the specific ads that were
used, as well as the sample. This study was conducted in a relatively high-involvement
situation (e.g., automobiles and print advertising). Results of the study may not be
readily generalizable to other product categories, other types of advertising mediums, and
to other populations. Therefore findings should be interpreted with caution. However,
the testing of these effects with other product categories and advertising vehicles
(television advertising, internet advertising, etc.) would serve as interesting future
research avenues and would gain external validity for this research stream.
This study extends executional cue research by employing the assimilation/contrast
paradigm to model the "fit" between advertised product information and background
setting along the materialism dimension. However, it is expected that these effects would
be much the same along other dimensions as well (e.g., quality). Future research should
test these effects using other attributes of products and advertising in order to further our
knowledge about the robustness of these effects within this paradigm.
The context of advertising is experiencing revolutionary changes. Technology has
brought about new ways of creating and disseminating persuasive messages. Product
information mixed with entertainment and interactivity is the future of marketing
communications. The meanings of products will continue to be conveyed via contexts.
Academicians and advertising practitioners must continue to study the ways in which
consumers process the contexts that accompany product information. With the
proliferation of brands, consumers need to find differentiation among them. Contextual
cues provide assistance to consumers for making consumer judgments and evaluations
among similar brands. This may have major implications for marketers trying to establish
or change the position of a product in the marketplace along various dimensions. It is
quite possible that changing the background of print ads is just as effective and perhaps
more cost efficient in changing a product's position, than changing the product's price,
package design, or entire promotional campaign.
References
Belk, Russell W. (1984), "Three Scales to Measure Constructs Related to Materialism:
Reliability, Validity, and the Relationships to Measure Happiness," in Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, T. Kinnear, ed., Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research, 291-297.
__________ (1985), "Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in a Material World,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 265-280.
__________, Russell W. and Richard W. Pollay (1985), "Images of Ourselves: The
Good Life in Twentieth Century Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, 11
(March), 887-897.
Chatterjee, Anindya (1997), "The Role of Materialism in the Processing of Persuasive
Messages: A Combined Functional and Cognitive Approach," Unpublished
Dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
Childers, Terry L. and Michael J. Houston (1984), "Conditions for a Picture-Superiority
Effect on Consumer Memory," Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (September),
643-654.
__________, Heckler, Susan E. and Michael J. Houston (1986), "Memory for the Visual
and Verbal Components of Print Advertisements," Psychology and Marketing, 3
(Fall), 137-150.
Dawson, Scott and G. Bamossy (1991), "If We are What We Have, What are We When
We Don't Have?: An Exploratory Study of Materialism Among ExpatriateAmericans," Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (6), 363-384.
Edell, Julie A. and Richard Staelin (1983), "The Information Processing of Pictures in
Print Advertisements," Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (June), 45-61.
Ellen, Pam Scholder and Paula Fitzgerald Bone (1998), "Does it Matter If It Smells?
Olfactory Stimuli as Advertising Executional Cues," Journal of Advertising, 27
(Winter), 29-39.
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gardner, Meryl P. and Michael J. Houston (1986), "The Effects of Verbal and Visual
Components of Retail Communication," Journal of Retailing, 62 (Spring), 64-78.
Gorn, Gerald J., Amitava Chattopadhyay, Tracey Yi, and Darren W. Dahl (1997),
"Effects of Color as Executional Cue in Advertising: They're in the Shade,"
Management Science, 43 (October), 1387-1400.
Heckler, Susan E. and Terry L. Childers (1992), "The Role of Expectancy and Relevancy
in Memory for Verbal and Visual Information: What is Incongruency?," Journal
of Consumer Research, 1 (March) 475-492.
Herr, Paul M., (1989), "Priming Price: Prior Knowledge and Context Effects," Journal of
Consumer Research, 16 (June), 67-75.
__________, Steven J. Sherman, and Russell H. Fazio (1983), "On the Consequences of
Priming: Assimilation and Contrast Effects," Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 19 (July), 323-340.
Kisielius, Jolita and Brian Sternthal (1984), "Detecting and Explaining Vividness Effects
in Attitudinal Judgments," Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (February), 54-64.
Lutz, Kathy A. and Richard J. Lutz (1977), "Effects of Interactive Imagery on Learning:
Application to Advertising," Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (4), 493-498.
MacKenzie, Scott B., Richard J. Lutz, and George E. Belch (1986), "The Role of Attitude
Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing
Explanations," Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (May), 130-143.
Martin, Leonard L., John J. Seta, and Rick A. Crelia (1990), "Assimilation and Contrast
as a Function of People's Willingness and Ability to Expend Effort in Forming an
Impression," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (July), 27-37.
Meyers-Levy, Joan and Brian Sternthal (1993), "A Two-Factor Explanation
of Assimilation and Contrast Effects," Journal of Marketing Research, 30
(August), 359-368.
Miniard, Paul W., Sunil Bhatla, Kenneth R. Lord, Peter R. Dickson, and H. Rao
Unnava
(1991), "Picture-Based Persuasion Processes and the Moderating Role of
Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (June), 92-107.
Mittal, Banwari (1994), "Public Assessment of TV Advertising: Faint Praise and Harsh
Criticism," Journal of Advertising Research, 34 (January/February), 35-54.
Mitchell, Andrew A. and Jerry C. Olson (1981), "Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only
Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitudes?" Journal of Marketing
Research, 18 (August), 318-332.
Muncy, James A. and Jacqueline K. Eastman (1998), "Materialism and Consumer
Ethics:
An Exploratory Study," Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (January), 137-145.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1981), Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and
Contemporary Approaches, Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
__________ and J.T. Cacioppo (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and
Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pollay, Richard W. (1983), "Measuring the Cultural Values Manifest in Advertising,"
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 71-78.
__________ (1986), "The Distorted Mirror: Reflections on the Unintended
Consequences of Advertising," Journal of Marketing, 50 (April), 18-36.
__________ (1987), "On the Value of Reflections on the Values of the Distorted Mirror,"
Journal of Marketing, 51 (July), 104-109.
Richins, Marsha L. (1987), "Media Materialism and Human Happiness," in Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 14, Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, eds. Ann
Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 352-356.
__________ and Scott Dawson (1992), "A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism
and Its Measurement: Scale Development and Validation," Journal of Consumer
Research, 19 (December), 303-316.
Schmitt, Bernd H. (1994), "Contextual Priming of Visual Information in
Advertisements," Psychology and Marketing, 11 (January/February), 1-14.
Sengupta, Jaideep, Ronald C. Goodstein, and David S. Boninger (1997), "All Cues are
Not Created Equal: Obtaining Attitude Persistence under Low-Involvement
Conditions," Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (March), 351-361.
Sherif, Muzafer and Carl I. Hovland (1961), Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast
Effects in Communication and Attitude Change, New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Sherman, Steven J., Karin Ahlm, and Leonard Berman (1978), "Contrast Effects and
Their Relationship to Subsequent Behavior," Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 14 (July), 340-350.
Shimp, Terence A., Joel E. Urbany, and Sarah E. Camlin (1988), "The Use of Framing
and Characterization for Magazine Advertising of Mass-Marketed Products,"
Journal of Advertising, 17 (1), 23-30.
Sirgy, M. Joseph and Dong-Jin Lee (1998), "Does Television Viewership Play a Role in
the Perception of the Quality of Life?," Journal of Advertising, 27 (Spring), 125143.
Stafford, Marla Royne (1996), "Tangibility in Services Advertising: An Investigation
of Verbal versus Visual Cues," Journal of Advertising, 25 (Fall), 13-28.
Starch, Daniel (1966), "How Does the Shape of Ads affect Readership?" Media/Scope,
10, 83-85.
Wyer, Robert S. and Thomas K. Srull (1981), "Category Accessibility: Some Theoretical
and Empirical Issues Concerning the Processing of Social Stimulus Information,"
in Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium, E.T. Higgins, C.P. Herman, and
M.P. Zanna, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 161-197.
Yi, Youjae (1990), "Cognitive and Affective Priming Effects of the Context for Print
Advertisements," Journal of Advertising, 19 (2), 40-48.
__________(1993), "Contextual Priming Effects in Print Advertisements: The
Moderating Role of Prior Knowledge," Journal of Advertising, 22 (March), 1-10.
Zinkhan, George (1994), "Advertising, Materialism, and the Quality of Life," Journal of
Advertising, 23 (June), 1-4.
Table 1
Judgments In Context-Free Pretest Study
n = 40
Dependent Measures
Mean
Judgments
Product Judgments
Materialistic Product 22.02
Nonmaterialistic Product 12.62 (t = 2.82, p  .001)
Feature Judgments
Materialistic Product 22.56
Nonmaterialistic Product 12.29 (t = 2.71, p  .001)
Background Judgments
Materialistic Context 20.51
Nonmaterialistic Context 9.84 (t = 3.62, p  .001)
Note : Means are the summed value of a three-item measure. Respondents used a nine-point scale
where 9 represented the positive end of the scale
Table 2
Judgments In Context-Dependent Main Study
n = 104
Dependent Measures
Mean
Judgments
Product Judgments
Materialistic Product/Materialistic Context 20.81
Materialistic Product /Nonmaterialistic Context 19.23
Nonmaterialistic Product/Materialistic Context 15.15
Nonmaterialistic Product/Nonmaterialistic Context 16.54
(F = 12.33, p  .001)
Feature Judgments
Materialistic Product/Materialistic Context 21.62
Materialistic Product /Nonmaterialistic Context 19.54
Nonmaterialistic Product/Materialistic Context 15.54
Nonmaterialistic Product/Nonmaterialistic Context 15.35
(F = 17.02, p  .001)
Table 3
Independent Sample T-Test Results For Change in Judgments
n = 104
Dependent Measures
Mean
Change in Judgments
Product Judgments in Cm Conditions
Materialistic Product .146
Nonmaterialistic Product .274 (t = -3.769, p  .001)
Product Judgments in Cnm Conditions
Materialistic Product .969
Nonmaterialistic Product .681 (t = 2.760, p  .008)
Feature Judgments in Cm Conditions
Materialistic Features .139
Nonmaterialistic Features .244 (t = -2.746, p  .008)
Feature Judgments in Cnm Conditions
Materialistic Features 1.01
Nonmaterialistic Features .56 (t = 4.109, p  .001)
Table 4
Independent Sample T-Test Results For Evaluation And
Purchase Intention Measures
High Similarity Vs. Low Similarity Conditions
n = 104
Dependent Measures
Mean
Evaluations
Product Evaluations
High Similarity 18.17
Low Similarity 15.56 (t = 2.09, p  .04)
Feature Evaluations
High Similarity 18.29
Low Similarity 17.38 (t = 1.08, p = n.s.)
Ad Evaluations
High Similarity 16.69
Low Similarity 14.37 (t = 2.13, p  .04)
Purchase Intention
High Similarity 4.21
Low Similarity 3.38 (t = 2.21, p  .03)