The Effects of Advertisement Variation and Need for Cognition on Attitudes toward Products

Stephen C. Nettelhorst; Robert J. Youmans

Stephen C. Nettelhorst California State University, Northridge
Robert J. Youmans George Mason University

Abstract

Consumers are often exposed to advertisement variations—several similar advertisements about the same product or service over time. This study tested whether participants’ initial attitudes about a product changed as cosmetic or substantive features of the advertisement were modified, and whether or not the effect of these modifications depended on participants’ need for cognition, which is the intrinsic motivation to process information. Three hundred nineteen undergraduate students answered questions designed to measure their need for cognition, viewed an initial advertisement for a fictitious electric automobile, and then rated the product. Two days later, the same participants viewed a different version of the advertisement for the automobile in which either cosmetic or substantive features had been changed, and then rated the product again. The results of the study revealed that attitude changes about the automobile were greatest when participants with low need for cognition were exposed to advertisements with cosmetic variations. The results suggest that changing initial public attitudes about an ongoing series of advertisements, public service announcements, or other media might be made most effective by making changes to those features that correspond to the intended audience’s estimated need for cognition.

References

Axelrod, J. N. (1980). Advertising wearout. Journal of Advertising Research, 20(5), 13-18.

Bizer, G. Y., Krosnick, J. A., Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. D., & Wheeler, S. C. (2000), “Need for Cognition and Need to Evaluate in the 1998 National Election Survey Pilot Study,” National Election Studies Report.

Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (1987). Effects of variation in message execution on the learning of repeated brand information. In M. Wallendorf & P. Anderson (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 14) (pp. 173-176). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197-253. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306-307. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. E., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1032-1043. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition of message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 805-818. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805

Coutinho, S. A., & Woolery, L. M. (2004). The need for cognition and life satisfaction among college students. College Student Journal, 38(2), 203-206.

Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1974). Repetitive advertising and the consumer. Journal of Advertising Research, 14(2), 25-34.

Ewing, G., & Sarigollu, E. (2000). Assessing consumer preferences for clean-fuel vehicles: A descrete choice experiment. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 106-118.

Gorn, G. J., & Goldberg, M. E. (1980). Children’s response to television commercials. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(4), 421-424. doi: 10.1086/208785

Grass, R., & Wallace, W. H. (1969). Satiation effects of TV commercials. Journal of Advertising Research, 9(3), 3-8.

Greenberg, A., & Suttoni, C. (1973). Television commercial wearout. Journal of Advertising Research, 13(5), 47-54.

Haugtvedt, C. P., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(3), 239-260. doi: 10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80038-1

Haugtvedt, C. P., Schumann, D. W., Schneier, W. L., & Warren, W. L. (1994). Advertising repetition and variation strategies: Implications for understanding attitude strength. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 176-189. doi: 10.1086/209391

Henning, B., & Vorderer, P. (2001). Psychological escapism: Predicting the amount of television viewing by need for cognition. Journal of Communication, 51(1), 100-120. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02874.x

Inman, J. J., McAlister, L., & Hoyer, W. D. (1990). Promotion signal: Proxy for a price cut? Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 74-81. doi: 10.1086/208538

Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2000). The effects of incomplete information on consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 427-448. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.37.4.427.18796

Kumar, V., Petersen, J. A., & Leone, R. P. (2007). How valuable is word of mouth? Harvard Business Review, 85(10), 139-146.

Lynch, J., & Schuler, D. (1994). The matchup effect of spokesperson and product congruency: A schema theory interpretation. Psychology & Marketing, 11(5), 417-445. doi: 10.1002/mar.4220110502

McCullough, J. L., & Ostrom, T. M. (1974). Repetition of highly similar messages and attitude change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 395-397. doi: 10.1037/h0036658

Nan, X. (2009). The influence of source credibility on attitude certainty: Exploring the moderating effects of timing of source identification and individual need for cognition. Psychology and Marketing, 26(4), 321-332. doi: 10.1002/mar.20275

Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230-253. doi: 10.1518/001872097778543886

Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 224-245). London: Sage.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.

Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. D., Bizer, G. Y., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence and compliance gaining. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., & Brock, T. C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thoughtful disruption verses effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 874-884. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.34.5.874

Pindyck, R. S. (1991). Irreversibility, uncertainty, and investment. Journal of Economic Literature, 29(3), 1110-1148.

Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2003). The influence of spokesperson trustworthiness on message elaboration, attitude strength, and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 408-421. doi: 10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_08

Putrevu, S. (2008). Consumer responses toward sexual and nonsexual appeals: The influence of involvement, need for cognition (NFC), and gender. Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 57-69. doi: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367370205

Ratneshwar, S., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension’s role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 52-62. doi: 10.1086/209240

Rossi, P. E., & Allenby, G. M. (2003). Bayesian statistics and marketing. Marketing Science, 22(3), 304-328. doi: 10.1287/mksc.22.3.304.17739

Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2004). Return of marketing: Using customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing: Special Issue: Practitioner Academic Collaborative Research, 68(1), 109-127. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.68.1.109.24030

Sargent, M. J. (2004). Less thought, more punishment: Need for cognition predicts support for punitive responses to crime. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11), 1485-1493. doi: 10.1177/0146167204264481

Schumann, D. W., & Clemons, D. S. (1989). The repetition/variation hypotheses conceptual and methodological issues. In T. Srull (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 16). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Schumann, D. W., Petty, R. E., & Clemons, D. S. (1990). Predicting the effectiveness of different strategies of advertising variation: A test of the repetition-variation hypotheses. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 192-202. doi: 10.1086/208549

Sivadas, E., & Dwyer, F. R. (2000). An examination of organizational factors influencing new product success in internal and alliance-based processes. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 31-49. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.64.1.31.17985

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Unnava, H. R., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1991). Effects of repeating varied ad execution on brand name memory. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(4), 406-416. doi: 10.2307/3172781

Ventura, A. K., & Mennella, J. A. (2011). Innate and learned preferences for sweet taste during childhood. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care, 14(4), 379-384. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0b013e328346df65

Zhang, Y., & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising messages. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 1-15.