The Moderating Influence of Advertising
Context on Ad Repetition Effects:
The Role of Amount and Type of Elaboration
PRASHANT MALAVIYA*
Although several advertising studies report that message repetition leads to favorable evaluation of the advertised brand, a surprisingly large number of studies
fail to find this repetition effect. This article investigates the influence of the advertising context in which the ad is presented on the repetition effect. The ad
context, along with the ad content and individual differences in expertise, are found
to influence the type of elaboration (item-specific and relational elaboration) a
message receives. Message repetition affects evaluation when the additional exposures facilitate the complementary generation of these two types of elaboration
of the ad message. When either type of elaboration dominates or when the message recipient spontaneously generates the impoverished type of elaboration, the
effect of ad repetition is not observed. These findings provide evidence for the
distinct influence on evaluation of the amount and type of elaboration that an
advertising message receives.
T
is presented might be responsible for the absence of a repetition effect.
As a starting point in addressing this question, consider
the notion of cognitive elaboration, which is the prevailing
explanation for the effect of repetition on target evaluation
(Anand and Sternthal 1990; Cacioppo and Petty 1979). According to this view, increasing exposure from a low to a
moderate level provides greater opportunity to elaborate on
message content. In turn, this elaboration results in the representation of the message content in memory, which
prompts a more favorable evaluation of the view expressed
in the message. Beyond a certain level, additional exposures
induce the allocation of more resources than are required to
process the message. This stimulates the generation of idiosyncratic thoughts that tend to be less positive than the
arguments presented in the message, which are designed to
be highly persuasive. As a result, evaluations become less
favorable at high levels of message repetition.
This theorizing offers a straightforward reason for why
an effect of ad repetition on evaluation may not be observed
in everyday settings. Contextual material introduces clutter
(Brown and Rothschild 1993), which usurps resources that
might otherwise be used to elaborate on the message content,
thus mitigating the effect of repetition. As plausible as this
analysis seems, it is incomplete. For instance, the notion
that clutter interferes with message elaboration suggests that
a repetition effect is less likely to be observed when the
context is composed of ads for competing products than it
is when the context has advertising unrelated to a target ad
he effect of advertising repetition on product evaluation
has been investigated extensively (Anand and Sternthal
1990; Cacioppo and Petty 1979; Campbell and Keller 2003;
Nordhielm 2002; Pechmann and Stewart 1989; Sawyer
1981). The findings indicate that repetition is nonmonotonically related to message persuasion: increasing message
exposures from a low to a moderate level enhances its persuasive impact, whereas a further increase in exposures results in wear-out and a decline in the favorableness toward
the message advocacy. However, there are also a number
of studies in which repeated exposure to an ad message does
not affect judgments (Batra and Ray 1986; Belch 1982;
Burke and Srull 1988; Rethans, Swasy, and Marks 1986).
In all of these studies, the context in which exposures to
the target message occurred included programming, editorials, and nontarget ads that consumers would typically encounter in everyday situations. This observation raises the
possibility that the everyday context in which advertising
*Prashant Malaviya is associate professor, Department of Marketing,
INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, 77305 Fontainebleau Cedex, France
(Prashant.Malaviya@insead.edu). The author would like to thank the editor,
the associate editor, and the reviewers for their insightful feedback during
the review process. The author also thanks Brian Sternthal and Alice Tybout
for their guidance during the early stages of this project.
Dawn Iacobucci served as editor and Gita Johar served as associate editor
for this article.
Electronically published March 21, 2007
32
䉷 2007 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 34 ● June 2007
All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2007/3401-0004$10.00
AMOUNT AND TYPE OF ELABORATION AND EVALUATION
since the competing context has greater intensity of clutter.
However, the failure to observe a repetition effect on evaluation has been documented in the context of ads for both
competing (Burke and Srull 1988) and unrelated products
(Rethans et al. 1986).
A more detailed analysis of the effect of ad context on
the processing of ad messages is needed to account for these
outcomes. In addition to influencing the amount of message
elaboration, ad context also influences the type of elaboration a message receives. Two types of elaboration have
been identified in the literature (Hunt and Einstein 1981;
Malaviya, Kisielius, and Sternthal 1996; Meyers-Levy
1991). One type is termed “item-specific elaboration.” It
involves representing the specific message content in memory by associating the attributes that are mentioned in the
ad with the target product. Item-specific elaboration is likely
when a target ad is presented in a context of ads that belong
to unrelated and dissimilar categories. The other type of
elaboration is relational, which involves associating information pertaining to the category in which the target brand
is perceived to hold membership or to the people and occasions related to the category. The presence of competing
ads makes the category in which the target holds membership salient, and elaboration of category information dominates message processing (Law 2002; Malaviya et al. 1996;
Malaviya, Meyers-Levy, and Sternthal 1999).
The hypothesis considered here is that the effect of repetition on evaluation depends on whether the message and
the context in which it is presented provide both types of
elaboration. When this occurs, repetition enhances evaluation of the target message, whereas if only one type of
elaboration is prompted, repetition effects are muted. This
prediction will be referred to as the dual elaboration hypothesis. This hypothesis posits that forming an evaluation
requires message recipients to represent the message content
in memory and to invoke a relevant comparison referent to
draw inferences about the claims of the advertised product
(Brendl and Higgins 1996; Meyers-Levy and Malaviya
1999; Schwarz and Bless 1992). As Schwarz and Bless
(1992, 218) note, when respondents are asked to form a
judgment of a target stimulus, they need to first have “some
cognitive representation of it. In addition, they need to determine some standard of comparison to evaluate the stimulus.” Interpreted from the perspective of dual elaboration,
item-specific elaboration facilitates the cognitive representation of the message and relational elaboration helps invoke
the standard of comparison. The implication is that, when
message repetition fosters complementary levels of the two
types of elaboration, a message recipient can assess the ad
claims, which are usually positive, leading to more favorable
evaluation of the target. When only one type of elaboration
dominates, assessing the ad claims is difficult, and the effects
of ad repetition are muted.
To clarify this prediction, consider the example of an ad
for a camera that mentions that the brand is a single-lens
reflex model that possesses a special extra-wide zoom lens,
an external flash, and other features. The association of these
33
features with the target brand would constitute item-specific
elaboration. Relational elaboration would occur by invoking
a category to which the target belongs and elaborating on
the features associated with this category that would serve
as the referent against which the target is judged. For instance, one feature associated with the category might be
that cameras often possess fixed lenses or lenses with limited
zoom settings. In relation to this typical category feature,
the target camera’s extra-wide lens would be perceived to
be distinctive. Ad repetition would provide the opportunity
to engage in such item-specific and relational elaboration
and to discern additional distinctive features, leading to more
favorable evaluations. Thus, the dual elaboration hypothesis
prediction is that the effect of ad repetition would be observed when both types of message elaboration occur but
not when one type of elaboration dominates. Three studies
were conducted to test this prediction.
EXPERIMENT 1
Experiment 1 examined the effect of ad repetition in a
setting where item-specific and relational elaboration had
previously been successfully manipulated, such that when
both types of elaboration were prompted, evaluations were
more favorable compared to when only one type of elaboration occurred. Malaviya et al. (1996) describe an experiment where evaluations were more favorable when a target
ad with image-focused pictures, which induced relational
elaboration, was presented in the context of unrelated ads,
which facilitated item-specific elaboration. Evaluations were
also more favorable when the target ad featuring product
attribute–focused pictures, which prompted item-specific
elaboration, was presented in a context of competing ads
where greater relational elaboration was observed. Thus,
when ad context and ad content together prompted both
types of elaboration, evaluations were more favorable.
In order to test the dual elaboration hypothesis and extend
these findings, experiment 1 includes an ad repetition variable in addition to the ad context and ad content manipulations. The prediction is that ad repetition will have an
effect on evaluation only when ad context and ad content
together prompt item-specific and relational elaboration and
that an effect of ad repetition will not be observed when ad
context and ad content induce only one type of elaboration.
Method
Design and Stimulus. The study was a 2 # 2 # 2
full-factorial design. Two types of ad context (unrelated
product ads or competing product ads), two types of ad
content (image-focused pictures or attribute-focused pictures), and two levels of ad repetition (two or four exposures)
were manipulated. In the unrelated products condition, context ads were for a brand of jewelry, skin care, health care,
and a vacation place. In the competing products context,
ads for four brands of cameras were presented. Ad content
was manipulated by varying the pictures included in the
target ad (keeping the ad copy the same across all conditions,
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
34
which described 10 product features). The image-focused
target ad showed three pictures of a couple on vacation that
ostensibly had been taken with the target camera, whereas
the attribute-focused target ad included four pictures of various product features (Malaviya et al. 1996). Repetition of
the ad was varied by presenting it either two or four times.
These target and context ads were presented along with
other filler ads and editorial materials in the form of a 19page booklet that was described as an excerpt from a magazine. A different booklet was prepared for each of the eight
experimental conditions. For the two repetition conditions,
the booklet was identical to that described in Malaviya et
al. (1996). However, in order to accommodate the four repetitions condition, some changes were made in the order in
which the stimulus materials were presented in the booklet,
as explained in table 1.
Procedure. One hundred undergraduate business students at the University of Illinois at Chicago were recruited
to participate in the experiment in return for course credit.
Respondents participated in groups ranging from two to 12.
They were randomly assigned to an experimental condition
by being given one of the eight stimulus booklets. The booklet informed the participants that a publisher was conducting
a survey to find out the reaction of students to a new magazine. Their task was to study the material in the booklet
and evaluate the suitability of the editorial and advertising
content of the magazine for students. Participants were asked
to go through the magazine at their normal pace in the order
that the material was presented. On average it took respondents 10 minutes to read the stimulus materials.
After examining the magazine, to complete the guise of
the study, participants indicated their liking of the magazine’s contents. Participants next evaluated the target camera
on 10 seven-point scale items (bad/good, dislike/like, not
useful/useful, not superior/superior, few/many unique features, difficult/easy to use, poor/good lens quality, poor/good
picture quality, low/high performance product, and lacks/
offers important benefits). Finally, respondents listed their
thoughts about the target camera. No time limit was set for
completing these measures.
TABLE 1
DESCRIPTION OF STIMULUS MATERIAL
Experiment
1 and 2
3
4
Experimental
conditions
Stimulus sequence
Massed two repetitions
Massed four repetitions
Massed two repetitions
Massed four repetitions
Spaced two repetitions
Spaced four repetitions
FCETTFECEFECEFECEFF
FCETTTTCEFECEFECEFF
FCETTFFFECEFECEFECF
FCETTTTFECEFECEFECF
FCETFFFTECEFECEFECF
FCETFFFTECETECETECF
NOTE.—The letters in the stimulus sequence stand for the following: T p
target ad, C p context ad, F p filler ad, and E p editorial content.
Results and Discussion
Type of Elaboration of Target Product. Respondents’
thoughts about the target camera were examined to assess the
types of elaboration that occurred in the different experimental
conditions. Thoughts were classified into two categories using
the coding scheme proposed by Malaviya et al. (1996). Itemspecific thoughts were those that were specific to the target
camera, including features mentioned in the target ad (e.g.,
“I like the zoom lens”) or inferences that were drawn from
these features (e.g., “It is easy to use”). Relational thoughts
were those that referenced either the camera or photography
category (e.g., “Not sure how this compares with other cameras”) or the people and occasions associated with cameras
and photography (e.g., “May be this camera is for professionals” and “This can be a camera for special occasions”).
Two independent judges coded thoughts according to this
scheme and exhibited a high degree of consistency (r p
.92). Differences in coding were resolved by discussion with
the experimenter.
Type of thoughts generated was analyzed as an index,
which was the difference between the number of item-specific and relational thoughts, divided by the total number of
thoughts. An index of zero indicates an equal number of
item-specific thoughts and relational thoughts, a positive
index represents more item-specific thoughts than relational
thoughts, and a negative index implies more relational
thoughts than item-specific thoughts. The means and standard deviations for the dependent measures in the various
treatment conditions are reported in table 2.
A main effect of ad context was observed (F(1, 92) p
6.78, p ! .01), such that the type of thought index was
greater in the unrelated products context (M p 0.16) than
in the competing products context (M p ⫺0.14). Further,
a main effect of ad content was also observed
(F(1, 92) p 9.93, p ! .01), where the type of thought index
was greater for the attribute-focused ad (M p 0.20) than
for the image-focused ad (M p ⫺0.16). These outcomes
are consistent with the results reported by Malaviya et al.
(1996). They suggest that an unrelated product context
induced more item-specific elaboration, as did the attribute-focused ad. In contrast, the competing products context
and the image-focused ad prompted mostly relational
elaboration.
The results also show that ad repetition increased the
extent of whatever type of elaboration was prompted by
the ad context and ad content. Specifically, target ad repetition significantly increased the number of item-specific
thoughts in all the context by content conditions (all
p’s ! .05), except when the image-focused ad was presented in the competing products context (F ! 1), where
few item-specific thoughts were expected to be prompted.
Along similar lines, target ad repetition led to an increase
in the number of relational thoughts in all the context by
content conditions (all p’s ! .05), except when the attributed-focused ad was presented in the unrelated product
context (F ! 1), where the number of relational thoughts
was expected to be minimal.
AMOUNT AND TYPE OF ELABORATION AND EVALUATION
35
TABLE 2
EXPERIMENT 1 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
Unrelated products context
Image-focused ad
Evaluation
Total thoughts
Type of thought index
Item-specific thoughts
Relational thoughts
Cell size
Competing products context
Attribute-focused ad
Image-focused ad
Attribute-focused ad
Two
repetitions
Four
repetitions
Two
repetitions
Four
repetitions
Two
repetitions
Four
repetions
Two
repetitions
Four
repetitions
5.55
(.85)
2.67
(2.02)
⫺.06
(.66)
1.17
(.94)
1.50
(1.45)
12
6.16
(.75)
4.79
(1.81)
.01
(.56)
2.29
(1.38)
2.50
(1.56)
14
4.97
(.68)
2.75
(1.60)
.09
(.73)
1.67
(1.44)
1.08
(.79)
12
5.22
(.80)
4.77
(2.35)
.59
(.38)
3.69
(1.84)
1.08
(.95)
13
4.90
(.67)
3.15
(1.57)
⫺.08
(.71)
1.23
(.93)
1.92
(1.44)
13
4.70
(.70)
5.00
(2.17)
⫺.55
(.43)
1.25
(1.06)
3.75
(1.82)
12
5.53
(.79)
2.58
(1.98)
.04
(.59)
1.50
(1.51)
1.08
(.79)
12
6.17
(.83)
5.58
(1.68)
.04
(.36)
3.00
(1.54)
2.58
(1.00)
12
NOTE.—Standard deviations are in parentheses.
Target Evaluation. An initial factor analysis revealed
that the 10 evaluation scale items loaded on a single factor
that was reliable (a p .89). Consequently, evaluation of the
target camera was analyzed as an average score of the 10
items. Means and standard deviations for this score are reported in table 2. An ANOVA indicated the presence of a
significant three-way interaction among ad context, ad content, and ad repetition, as shown in figure 1 (F(1, 92) p
3.82, p ! .05).1 As expected, the effect of target ad repetition
was observed only when ad context and ad content together
prompted the two types of elaboration. Specifically, in the
unrelated product context, evaluation of the target camera
was more favorable when the image-focused ad was repeated four times (M p 6.16) than when the ad was presented two times (M p 5.55; F(1, 92) p 4.11, p ! .05).
Further, in the competing products context, target camera
evaluation was more favorable when the attribute-focused
ad was presented four times (M p 6.17 ) than when this ad
was repeated twice (M p 5.53; F(1, 92) p 4.26, p ! .05).
When the image-focused ad appeared in the competing products context or when the attribute-focused ad was repeated
in the unrelated product context, no effect of repetition on
evaluation was observed (F ! 1).
These results support the dual elaboration hypothesis
that the effect of ad repetition on product evaluation is
observed when the target message received two types of
elaboration. As indicated by the thoughts respondents
listed, such elaboration occurred when the imaged-focused
ad was presented in the unrelated products context and
when the attribute-focused ad was presented in the competing products context.
1
A main effect of ad repetition (F(1, 92) p 4.58, p ! .05) and an ad
context by ad content interaction (F(1, 92) p 35.01, p ! .0001), which replicated the findings reported in Malaviya et al. (1996), were also observed.
FIGURE 1
TARGET EVALUATION (EXPERIMENT 1)
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
36
EXPERIMENT 2
Experiment 2 was designed to further investigate how ad
repetition facilitates item-specific and relational elaboration.
Instead of varying ad content to induce type of elaboration,
experiment 2 relied on the respondent’s expertise with cameras to generate relational elaboration. Research documents
that experts have greater domain and category knowledge
than novices (Sujan 1985) and can more readily engage in
relational elaboration (Roehm and Sternthal 2001). If this
is the case, when an attribute-focused ad is presented in the
unrelated product context, which represents a combination
with few cues to prompt relational elaboration, an expert
might be able to engage in the necessary relational elaboration of the message, provided that there is adequate opportunity to undertake such processing. Novices would be
less likely to engage in such relational elaboration because
they lack sufficient domain knowledge. Further, if the attribute-focused ad were presented in a competing products
context, which provides contextual cues for prompting relational elaboration, experts might spontaneously generate
relational elaboration, even without the need for repeated
message exposures, because their intrinsic knowledge together with the contextual cues should greatly facilitate such
processing. In contrast, as observed in experiment 1, in this
condition novices should be able to generate relational elaboration only with sufficient exposures to the target ad.
Support for these observations would provide a conceptual replication of the dual elaboration hypothesis that ad
repetition effects are observed when both types of elaboration are prompted. Further, results consistent with the predictions would also clarify how respondents use their cognitive resources to engage in the required type of elaboration.
Specifically, the expectation is that respondents are judicious
in engaging in the required type of elaboration needed to
form an evaluation of the product. If the respondent’s own
knowledge and expertise can facilitate the required elaboration, they would spontaneously do so without having to
rely on repeated ad exposures to achieve this purpose. However, if they do not have the expertise to engage in relational
elaboration, ad repetition could help, provided that the necessary relational cues were present in the ad context. Experiment 2 is designed to test these ideas.
Method
The experimental design includes three factors: ad repetition (two or four massed exposures to the attribute-focused ad; the image-focused ad was not included in this
experiment), ad context (competing products context and
unrelated products context—same as in experiment 1), and
expertise (expert and novices—the respondent’s expertise
was determined using a self-report scale that is described
shortly). The stimulus was organized into four booklets for
each of the four ad repetition by ad context conditions, which
were assembled in the same manner as described in experiment 1 (table 1).
Seventy-eight respondents at the University of Illinois at
Chicago participated in this experiment in return for course
credit. They were randomly handed one of the four booklets.
Instructions for reading the booklet were similar to those
provided in experiment 1. After reading the stimuli, respondents indicated their evaluation of the target product on
a 10-item evaluation scale, as described in the previous experiment. Next, respondents were administered a 10-item
nine-point expertise scale. The items in this scale included
self-reports of perceived knowledge of cameras, others’ perception of the respondent’s knowledge of cameras, expertise
with cameras, involvement in cameras, effort put into purchasing a camera, extent to which the respondent would
shop around before purchasing a camera, knowledge of the
differences between various brands and types of cameras,
ease of understanding the information presented in the target
ad, ease of comprehending the features of the target ad, and
ease of evaluating the quality of the target ad.
Results and Discussion
Analysis of the expertise scale revealed that the 10 items
loaded on to a single factor that was reliable (a p .74). An
average expertise score was calculated, and respondents
were assigned to the expert or novice condition based on a
median split (median p 6.00; M p 5.82). The evaluation
scale was also found to load on to a single factor that was
reliable (a p .88). Consequently, an average evaluation
score was calculated and further analyzed.
A 2 # 2 # 2 ANOVA indicated the presence of a significant three-way interaction (F(1, 70) p 14.31, p ! .001).2
Analysis revealed that the context by repetition interaction
was significant for both novices (F(1, 70) p 9.60, p ! .01)
and experts (F(1, 70) p 5.01, p ! .05) but due to different
reasons. As expected, novices’ evaluation of the target camera was moderated by the ad context: when the target (attribute-focused) ad was presented in the competing products
context, evaluations became more favorable as target repetitions increased from two (M p 4.37) to four (M p
5.59; F(1, 70) p 15.71, p ! .001). In contrast, consistent
with experiment 1, when the target ad was presented in the
unrelated product context, ad repetition had no effect on the
evaluation of novices (F ! 1), which remained relatively
unfavorable for two (M p 4.32) and four repetitions
(M p 4.15). These outcomes support the view that ad repetition influences novices’ evaluations only when the novices engage in both types of elaboration.
Target camera evaluation by experts followed a different
pattern: evaluations became more favorable as exposure to
the target ad in the unrelated products context increased from
two (M p 4.71) to four (M p 5.33; F(1, 70) p 3.89, p !
.05). This suggests that, even though neither the ad context
(unrelated products) nor the ad content (attribute-focused
target ad) prompts adequate relational elaboration, experts’
superior domain knowledge enabled them to generate such
2
Main effects of ad context (F(1, 70) p 10.42, p ! .01), expertise
(F(1, 70) p 12.21, p ! .001), and ad repetition (F(1, 70) p 4.45, p ! .05)
were also observed.
AMOUNT AND TYPE OF ELABORATION AND EVALUATION
elaboration when repeated ad exposures provided them with
the opportunity to do so. Finally, in the competing products
context, repetition of the attribute-focused ad had no effect
on experts’ evaluations (F(1, 70) p 1.38, NS; M2reps p
5.46; M4reps p 5.11). The likely reason for this outcome is
that, in the competing products context, experts were able
to engage in relational elaboration quite readily even at low
levels of repetition, leading to a more favorable evaluation
as compared with that in the unrelated product context
(F(1, 70) p 6.28, p ! .01).
These outcomes for experts extend the results of the first
experiment by documenting that experts are able to generate
relational elaboration when the ad context and the ad content
do not prompt such elaboration. Further, these outcomes indicate that the effect of ad repetition on evaluation is observed
when two conditions are met: both types of elaboration can
occur and the respondent is unable to spontaneously engage
in these types of elaboration without heightened exposure to
the target ad.
EXPERIMENT 3
The objective of the third experiment is to provide another
test of the dual elaboration hypothesis. This was done in
several ways. First, a new related-products ad context condition was introduced, in addition to the unrelated and competing product contexts. This context includes ads for products that are related to the target camera but are not for
competing products, such as ads for different photographic
equipment (ads for a disposable camera, film, lens, and
flash). The expectation was that in this context both itemspecific and relational elaboration would occur. Relational
elaboration should be primed to the extent that message
recipients process the relationship between these related
products, and item-specific elaboration of each ad’s content
should be facilitated because there will be no competing
messages. Interestingly, Batra and Ray (1986) report a study
in which a similar ad context was employed and an effect
of ad repetition on message evaluation was observed. Respondents were exposed to ads for brands of instant coffee,
instant chocolate, and frozen pizza. Perhaps the fact that
these are all convenience foods became salient, and this
prompted relational elaboration, whereas the distinct features of these products encouraged their item-specific elaboration. In such a related products context, both types of
elaboration are expected to occur and the effect of ad repetition would be observed.
A second consideration in the design of this study was
that target ad repetition in the previous studies was massed
in that the repetitions were contiguous. It may be that something about the massed nature of repetition may have influenced their results. To address this concern, in the current
experiment a spaced repetition condition was included in
addition to the massed condition. Greater message elaboration was expected at higher repetitions and for spaced (vs.
massed) presentation (Malaviya and Sternthal 1997). The
effect of message repetition and message spacing was expected to be additive: evaluations would become more fa-
37
vorable as the frequency of massed repetitions increases, but
evaluations would become less favorable, showing wearout, when the frequency of spaced repetitions was increased
(Malaviya and Sternthal 1997). However, these effects of
ad repetition were expected only in the related products
context where both types of elaboration would occur and
not in the unrelated products context or in the competing
products context.
A final consideration in the design of this experiment was
to provide convergent evidence for the occurrence of itemspecific and relational elaboration by using a different measure of the type of elaboration. For this purpose, the thoughts
measure used in experiment 1 was replaced with a measure
of recall of target product features. It was predicted that
accurate recall of the target product’s features would indicate
the operation of item-specific elaboration, while the presence
of category and brand intrusions in recall would suggest that
relational elaboration had occurred. Thus, it was expected
that, in the related products context, respondents would list
both accurate features and intrusions, in the competing products context a substantial number of intrusions would be
observed, and in the unrelated products context more accurate features and few intrusions would be listed.
Method
Experiment 3 involved a 2 # 2 # 3 full-factorial design
in which ad repetition (two or four), ad spacing (massed or
spaced presentation), and ad context (related, competing, or
unrelated products) were manipulated. An actual print ad
for a Ricoh 35 millimeter single-lens reflex camera was
selected as the target. In a pretest, respondents indicated that
the contents of the target ad were positive, which was important to make sure that repeated exposure to the target ad
could potentially lead to its favorable evaluation. Repetition
of this ad was varied to influence the amount of target elaboration. In addition, the amount of elaboration was also
varied by manipulating the spacing of ad repetitions. In the
massed condition, the target ad was repeated contiguously,
while in the spaced condition the repetitions were arranged
with three pages of material separating target ad presentations (Burke and Srull 1988; Malaviya and Sternthal 1997).
Ad context was the third factor manipulated in the study
and was done using four context ads. Three context conditions were employed. In addition to the unrelated products
context and the competing products contexts used in the
previous studies, a related products context was included.
Here, the target camera was presented with ads that were
related to cameras but that did not compete with it, including
ads for a photographic lens, for film, for a flash, and for a
disposable camera.
Based on this design, 12 versions of a 19-page booklet
were assembled, one for each condition. The order in which
the stimulus material was presented is described in table 1.
One hundred and twenty-three undergraduate students at the
University of Illinois at Chicago, who were paid $6.00 for
participating in the experiment, were randomly assigned to
an experimental condition by being handed one version of
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
38
TABLE 3
EXPERIMENT 3 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
Related context
Competing context
Massed
Dependent measures
Product evaluation
Type of elaboration
index
Specific feature recall
Category intrusions
Brand intrusions
Cell size
Spaced
Massed
Unrelated context
Spaced
Massed
Spaced
Two
repetitions
Four
repetitions
Two
repetitions
Four
repetitions
Two
repetitions
Four
repetitions
Two
repetitions
Four
repetitions
Two
repetitions
Four
repetitions
Two
repetitions
Four
repetitions
5.39
(.76)
5.28
(1.01)
5.32
(.66)
5.23
(.74)
4.85
(.90)
5.79
(.47)
5.44
(.72)
4.87
(.64)
5.25
(.64)
5.48
(1.13)
5.34
(.64)
5.27
(1.00)
⫺.33
(.65)
.63
(.81)
1.63
(1.75)
.27
(.65)
11
⫺.44
(.69)
.82
(1.08)
1.45
(1.75)
.45
(.69)
11
⫺.25
(.64)
1.10
(.99)
1.20
(1.14)
.70
(1.16)
10
.09
(.62)
1.73
(1.19)
1.27
(1.01)
.18
(.40)
11
⫺.14
(.60)
.70
(.82)
1.00
(1.15)
.00
(.00)
10
⫺.02
(.27)
1.33
(1.00)
1.44
(1.13)
.00
(.00)
9
.22
(.62)
1.11
(.78)
.78
(1.09)
.22
(.67)
9
⫺.09
(.56)
1.22
(.97)
1.44
(1.13)
.00
(.00)
9
.10
(.59)
1.45
(.82)
1.27
(1.01)
.36
(.50)
11
.51
.40
3.20
(1.55)
1.00
(.94)
.10
(.32)
10
.31
(.68)
1.91
(1.38)
.91
(1.14)
.00
(.00)
11
.41
(.45)
2.18
(.87)
1.00
(.77)
.00
(.00)
11
NOTE.—Standard deviations are in parentheses.
the stimulus booklet. After reading the booklet, participants
completed questions pertaining to the guise of the study,
which was to evaluate a magazine. Next, they evaluated the
target product on the same 10-item seven-point scale as
before. Finally, participants were asked to recall as many
features of the target Ricoh camera as they could. No time
limit was set for this measure.
Results and Discussion
Type of Elaboration of Target Product. Evidence for
the type of elaboration in each context condition was obtained by analyzing recall of the target ad’s contents. Participants’ listing of the attributes of the camera were coded
by two judges for specific feature recall (recall of target
camera features mentioned in the target ad), category intrusions (recall of features accurate for the camera category
but not mentioned in the target ad), and brand intrusions
(recall of features that belonged to one of the context
brands). Judges were in agreement in most cases (91%). The
experimenter helped resolve the few disagreements.
In order to determine the relative amount of each type of
elaboration in the ad context conditions, a recall index was
computed. This entailed taking the difference between recall
that was attributable to item-specific elaboration (specific
features recall) and recall that was attributable to relational
elaboration (category intrusions and brand intrusions) and
dividing this difference by the total recall for the respondent.
A score of +1 for this index would indicate that recall had
been influenced entirely by item-specific elaboration, a score
of ⫺1 would suggest that recall was influenced by relational
elaboration alone, and a score of zero would indicate that
recall resulted from an equivalent amount of each type of
elaboration. The means and standard deviations for the type
of elaboration index are reported in table 3.
Analysis of the type of elaboration index revealed only
a main effect of ad context (F(2, 111) p 10.26, p ! .0001).
Specifically, the type of elaboration index for the unrelated
context (M p 0.33) was significantly greater than the index
for the related context (M p ⫺0.01; F(1, 111) p 6.71,
p ! .01) and greater than the index for the competing context
(M p ⫺0.23; F(1, 111) p 20.28, p ! .0001). The difference between the related and competing contexts was not
significant (F(1, 111) p 3.03, p p .08). The positive value
of the index for the unrelated context indicates the prevalence of item-specific elaboration in this condition, whereas
the negative value of the index for the competing context
suggests greater relational elaboration. The near-zero index
for the related context suggests that the two types of elaboration were equivalent.
Target Evaluation. Factor analysis of the 10-item
seven-point product evaluation scale revealed that these
items loaded on a single factor (a p .86). Thus, the items
were averaged to obtain a single evaluation score. The means
and standard deviations for this evaluation score are reported
in table 3. Evaluation of the target product was analyzed
using analysis of covariance, where evaluation of the editorial materials included in the magazine served as the covariate. This measure was included as a covariate because
evaluation of advertising in a magazine or a TV programming context can be influenced by the editorial and programming content (Snyder and DeBono 1985; Soldow and
Principe 1981). This measure involved having participants
respond to three items on seven-point scales that included
the following: well written/poorly written, interesting/dull,
and relevant/irrelevant. An average score for these three
items was calculated for each respondent and served as the
covariate.
Analysis of product evaluation revealed a significant
three-way interaction among repetition frequency, repetition
AMOUNT AND TYPE OF ELABORATION AND EVALUATION
spacing, and ad context (F(2, 110) p 3.04, p ! .05).3 As
indicated in figure 2, this outcome occurred because the
interaction between repetition frequency and spacing was
significant in the related products context (F(1, 110) p
9.95, p ! .01) but not in the competing or the unrelated
products context (F ! 1).
In the related products context, when target ad exposures
were massed, evaluations were more favorable as exposures
increased from two (M p 4.85) to four (M p 5.79;
F(1, 110) p 7.16, p ! .01). However, increasing spaced exposures from two (M p 5.44) to four (M p 4.87) led to
less favorable evaluations, although this effect did not reach
significance (F(1, 110) p 3.27, p p .07). Further, at two
repetitions, evaluations were more favorable in the spaced
condition than in the massed condition (F(1, 110) p 3.98,
p ! .05), while at four repetitions, evaluations were more
favorable when the presentation was massed rather than
spaced (F(1, 110) p 6.05, p ! .02).
The findings of experiment 3 offer further support for the
theorizing that ad repetition influences evaluation of an advertising message when two types of elaboration are
prompted. Thus, in the related products context an effect of
repetition frequency and spacing was observed, but no such
effect was observed in the other two contexts. The results
of target ad content recall offer support for the predicted
nature of elaboration in the various ad context conditions.
39
FIGURE 2
TARGET EVALUATION (EXPERIMENT 3)
GENERAL DISCUSSION
This research documents for the first time that two aspects
of message elaboration, amount and type, exert independent
influences on product evaluation. The persuasive impact of
a message is maximized when there is a complementary
level of item-specific and relational elaboration of the message and an adequate level of resources is allocated to engage in these processes. Message repetition influenced evaluation when the two types of elaboration were induced by
a combination of ad context and ad content (experiment 1:
attribute-focused ad in the competing context and imagefocused ad in the unrelated context; experiment 2: attributefocused ad in the competing context for novices), when both
types of elaboration were prompted by the ad context itself
(experiment 3: related context), or when the expertise of the
respondent allowed him/her to engage in the necessary type
of elaboration (experiment 2: experts presented the attributefocused ad in the unrelated context). In contrast, when itemspecific and relational elaboration did not occur at similar
levels or when experts found it relatively easy to spontaneously generate the required type of elaboration, varying
the amount of elaboration did not influence target evaluation.
Thus, our findings suggest that the nature of the ad context
and the ad content moderate the repetition effect. In conditions that do not invoke a complementary level of itemspecific and relational elaboration, such as competing and
unrelated contexts, or if the respondent is unable to generate
3
Analysis also revealed a significant repetition frequency by spacing
interaction (F(1, 110) p 4.71, p ! .03).
the impoverished type of elaboration, the effects of repeated
ad exposures are diminished.
The present findings also extend prior research pertaining
to the effect of message spacing on evaluation (Malaviya
and Sternthal 1997), which showed that spacing influences
evaluation by affecting the allocation of resources for message processing. The results of experiment 3 are consistent
with this notion, but they add an important qualification to
this claim: these effects are observed only when both types
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
40
of elaboration were prompted by the advertising context.
Indeed, the description of the stimuli in the Malaviya and
Sternthal (1997) study indicates that such a situation may
have existed. Specifically, in that study the target ad for a
fax machine was presented along with advertising for computers and copiers, among other products. These products
could be thought of as being related in that they all represent
different types of office equipment, while at the same time
they share few specific features. Thus, these stimuli provide
a conceptual replication of the related products context,
where both item-specific and relational elaboration of the
target ad was prompted, and this provided the necessary
types of elaboration for the effects of message repetition
and spacing to be manifested.
REFERENCES
Anand, Punam and Brian Sternthal (1990), “Ease of Message Processing as a Moderator of Repetition Effects in Advertising,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (August), 345–53.
Batra, Rajeev and Michael Ray (1986), “Situational Effects of
Advertising Repetition: The Moderating Influence of Motivation, Ability, and Opportunity to Respond,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (March), 432–45.
Belch, George E. (1982), “The Effects of Television Commercial
Repetition on Cognitive Response and Message Acceptance,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June), 56–66.
Brendl, C. Miguel and E. Tory Higgins (1996), “Principles of
Judging Valence: What Makes Events Positive or Negative?”
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 28, ed.
Leonard Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press, 95–160.
Brown, Tom J. and Michael L. Rothschild (1993), “Reassessing
the Impact of Television Advertising Clutter,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 138–46.
Burke, Raymond R. and Thomas K. Srull (1988), “Competitive
Interference and Consumer Memory for Advertising,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 15 (June), 55–67.
Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty (1979), “Effects of Message
Repetition and Position on Cognitive Responses, Recall, and
Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37 (January), 97–109.
Campbell, Margaret C. and Kevin Lane Keller (2003), “Brand
Familiarity and Advertising Repetition Effects,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 30 (September), 292–304.
Hunt, R. Reed and Gilles O. Einstein (1981), “Relational and ItemSpecific Information in Memory,” Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 20 (October), 497–514.
Law, Sharmistha (2002), “Can Repeating a Brand Claim Lead to
Memory Confusion? The Effects of Claim Similarity and
Concurrent Repetition,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39
(August), 366–78.
Malaviya, Prashant, Jolita Kisielius, and Brian Sternthal (1996),
“The Effect of Type of Elaboration on Advertisement Processing and Judgment,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33
(November), 410–21.
Malaviya, Prashant, Joan Meyers-Levy, and Brian Sternthal (1999),
“Ad Repetition in a Cluttered Environment: The Influence of
Type of Processing,” Psychology and Marketing, 16 (March),
99–118.
Malaviya, Prashant and Brian Sternthal (1997), “The Persuasive
Impact of Message Spacing,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6 (3), 233–55.
Meyers-Levy, Joan (1991), “Elaborating on Elaboration: The Distinction between Relational and Item-Specific Elaboration,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (December), 358–67.
Meyers-Levy, Joan and Prashant Malaviya (1999), “Consumers’
Processing of Persuasive Advertisements: An Integrative
Framework of Persuasion Theories,” Journal of Marketing,
63 (Special Issue), 45–60.
Nordhielm, Christie L. (2002), “The Influence of Level of Processing on Advertising Repetition Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (December), 371–82.
Pechmann, Cornelia and David W. Stewart (1989), “Advertising
Repetition: A Critical Review of Wearin and Wearout,” in
Current Issues and Research in Advertising, ed. James H.
Leigh and Claude R. Martin Jr., Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan, 285–329.
Rethans, Arno J., John L. Swasy, and Lawrence J. Marks (1986),
“Effects of Television Commercial Repetition, Receiver
Knowledge, and Commercial Length: A Test of the TwoFactor Model,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (February), 50–61.
Roehm, Michelle L. and Brian Sternthal (2001), “The Moderating
Effect of Knowledge and Resources on the Persuasive Impact
of Analogies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (September), 257–72.
Sawyer, Alan G. (1981), “Repetition, Cognitive Responses, and
Persuasion,” in Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, ed. Richard E. Petty, Thomas M. Ostrom, and Timothy C. Brock,
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 237–61.
Schwarz, Norbert and Herbert Bless (1992), “The Different Routes
to Social Judgments: Experiential versus Informational Strategies,” in The Construction of Social Judgments, ed. Leonard
L. Martin and Abraham Tesser, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,
217–45.
Snyder, Mark and Kenneth G. DeBono (1985), “Appeals to Image
and Claims about Quality: Understanding the Psychology of
Advertising,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
49 (September), 586–97.
Soldow, Gary F. and Victor Principe (1981), “Response to Commercials as a Function of Program Context,” Journal of Advertising Research, 21 (April), 59–65.
Sujan, Mita (1985), “Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation
Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June), 31–46.