Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
The Differential Effect of Ad Novelty and Message Usefulness on Brand Judgments Daniel A. Sheinin, Sajeev Varki, and Christy Ashley ABSTRACT: We examine the differential effects of ad novelty and message usefulness—frequently conceptualized as the two major dimensions of ad creativity—on the following variables: attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand, brand trust, ad recall, and brand recall. Novelty and usefulness influence attitude toward the brand, but only usefulness influences brand trust. Both relationships are mediated by attitude toward the ad. We also investigate how novelty and usefulness influence recall by both type (brand and ad) and duration (short term and long term). We find that novelty leads to better short-term ad recall, whereas usefulness leads to better short-term and long-term brand recall. Creativity in advertising is integral to ad effectiveness. As ad clutter increases, ad creativity becomes even more important to generate attention and awareness. At the same time, creative ads also must generate a clear message and brand recall by being relevant enough to the advertised product. Consistent with this reality, Smith and Yang define ad creativity as “the extent to which an advertisement diverges from expectations while remaining useful to the task at hand” (2004, p. 31). The “task at hand” for creative ads is to build brand awareness (as measured by brand recall), strong brand beliefs, and a positive attitude toward the brand (Keller 1993). Most often, advertisers seek to accomplish this task by diverging from expectations through novelty in execution and being relevant by providing useful information. This representation of advertising creativity in the form of execution novelty and message usefulness has received considerable support in the advertising literature (Ang and Low 2000; Smith and Yang 2004; Smith, Chen, and Yang 2008; Smith et al. 2007). Execution novelty, which is sometimes referred to as divergence, is the extent to which ad creativity differs from target customers’ expectations (Hirschman and Wallendorf 1982). Message usefulness, or relevance, refers to the extent to which ad creativity contributes to their understanding of the product (Kover, Goldberg, and James 1995). Although other dimensions of advertising creativity, such as connectedness (e.g., Ang, Lee, and Leong Daniel A. Sheinin (Ph.D., Columbia University) is an associate professor of marketing, College of Business Administration, University of Rhode Island, Kingston. Sajeev Varki (Ph.D., Vanderbilt University) is an associate professor of marketing, College of Business, University of South Florida, Tampa. Christy Ashley (Ph.D., University of Rhode Island) is an assistant professor of marketing, College of Business, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina. 2007), have been articulated in the literature, execution novelty and message usefulness are frequently conceptualized as the “big two” dimensions of advertising creativity (Smith, Chen, and Yang 2008). Apple’s 2003–2004 television ads for the iPod provide an illustration of effective creativity. The ads use creativity by showing rapidly changing primary-color backgrounds with young-looking people in black shadow using their iPods (shown, along with the earphones, in contrasting white) and dancing to music by famous artists such as U2. These executions broke through the clutter and generated a lot of publicity (Anderson 2004; Mucha 2005), winning Apple a Clio award. Furthermore, the ads helped convey the message that an iPod was not just a technological innovation but also a fashion accessory and lifestyle choice. This image seems to have resonated with the targeted young audience, as evidenced by the more than 4.4 million iPods sold that fiscal year, representing an increase of 279% over the previous year and significantly exceeding company expectations (Gibson 2004). Although creativity in advertising has been researched, empirical data linking creativity to effectiveness has been relatively sparse, considering its importance (Baack, Wilson, and Till 2008). In this paper, we examine the differential effect of the dimensions of creativity on ad and brand recall, brand trust, and attitude toward the ad and brand. We explore how the dimensions of creativity influence ad and brand recall, both in the short term and the long term. We are unaware of any paper that has examined the short-term and long-term effects on recall, both for ad and brand, by the individual dimensions of creativity (see Ang, Lee, and Leong 2007; Baack, Wilson, and Till 2008; Pieters, Warlop, and Wedel 2002; Stone, Besser, and Lewis 2000; Till and Baack 2005). We further investigate the differential impact of the dimensions of creativity on attitude toward the brand (Ab) and brand trust. While the effect of creativity on brand attitude has been studied, though not at the dimensional level, there is limited extant research on the effect of creativity on brand Journal of Advertising, vol. 40, no. 3 (Fall 2011), pp. 5–17. © 2011 American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved. ISSN 0091-3367 / 2011 $9.50 + 0.00. DOI 10.2753/JOA0091-3367400301 6 The Journal of Advertising trust. Chaudhuri and Holbrook define brand trust as “the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function” (2001, p. 82). As Sasser and Koslow (2008) note, the relationships between ad creativity and the factors driving brand engagement, which would include brand trust, are underresearched (Sasser and Koslow 2008). By examining the differential impact of novelty and usefulness on brand trust, we seek to help address this gap in the literature. Finally, attitude toward the ad (Aad) is known to mediate the relationship between ad beliefs and Ab (Homer 1990; Lutz, MacKenzie, and Belch 1983; MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986). While these studies have examined ad beliefs pertaining to source effects, repetition, and ad execution, they do not specifically include creativity or its dimensions. We account for the link between ad liking and effectiveness in an analysis of the role of creativity, which extends Aad research by examining its potential mediating role in the relationships between two creativity dimensions (novelty and usefulness) and two brand dimensions (Ab and brand trust). The rest of the paper is structured as follows: After we establish the propositions linking execution novelty and message usefulness with the dependent measures Ab, brand trust, Aad, and brand recall, we report on data from three studies. In Study 1, we examine the effects of novelty and usefulness on Ab and brand trust, with the possible mediating role of Aad. In Study 2, we replicate and extend these findings by additionally investigating ad and brand recall both short term and long term. In Study 3, we conduct an experiment manipulating two levels each of novelty and usefulness, and explore their influence on all of the dependent measures. For greater generalizability, we used different ads and product categories across the studies. Finally, we discuss the conceptual and managerial implications of our findings, delineate limitations of our approach, and outline directions for future research. Conceptual Framework Consistent with Smith and Yang’s (2004) definition cited above, El-Murad and West describe creativity as the “art of establishing new and meaningful relationships between previously unrelated things in a manner that is relevant, believable, and in good taste, but which somehow presents the product in a fresh new light” (2004, p. 190). Thus, creativity can provide both a source of novelty or divergence from expectations (Kover, Goldberg, and James 1995), and meaning through message usefulness. Execution novelty and message usefulness should influence Ab and brand trust differentially. Brand trust differs from Ab in that it captures a perception of brand competence (Aaker 1997), as opposed to a more general disposition toward the brand. Although trust is central to the establishment of long-term brand relationships or engagements (Berry 1995; Morgan and Hunt 1994), the role of communications in the development of brand trust remains relatively unexplored except for a recent study on trust appeals by Li and Miniard (2006). More recently, Dahlén, Rosengren, and Törn, short of examining trust directly, suggested creativity could help signal that a brand is “smart” or “able” since “coming up with a creative advertising concept signals the ability and desire to think outside the box” (2008, p. 394). According to the literature, creativity has a positive effect on brand attitudes (Ang and Low 2000). The differential effects of novelty and usefulness can be teased out by applying the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), according to which, functional dimensions are central cues that strongly influence persuasion, whereas hedonic dimensions are peripheral cues that more weakly influence persuasion (Petty and Cacioppo 1986). Applying the ELM model, we expect novelty to lead to psychological, or hedonic, benefits, which can influence Ab by enhancing brand affect (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982). Similarly, we expect usefulness to lead to rational benefits, which can influence Ab by enhancing brand beliefs (Aaker 1991). Thus, based on ELM, only usefulness, a functional dimension, should directly influence brand trust. Given the inherent risk in purchase, messages that are useful to the consumer should help lower perceptions of risk, thus engendering trust in the product (Matzler, Grabner-Kräuter, and Bidmon 2008; Reast 2005). In contrast, novelty, as a hedonic dimension, should only influence Ab and not a belief-based construct such as brand trust. Accordingly, we hypothesize: H1a: Novelty and usefulness will influence Ab . H1b: Only usefulness will influence brand trust. Aad is important to consider because ample evidence concludes ads need to be liked to be most effective (see, e.g., Biehal, Stephens, and Curlo 1992; Galloway 2009). Even if consumers believe an ad is highly creative, they may not transfer the creativity-induced beliefs to the brand if they do not like the ad. Therefore, it is important to consider how Aad relates to novelty and usefulness. In the literature, ample evidence exists of the full mediation effect of Aad between general ad beliefs and Ab (Lutz, MacKenzie, and Belch 1983; MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986). This suggests Aad can be expected to fully mediate the relationship between ad beliefs about novelty and usefulness, and Ab. Aad should only partially mediate the influence of usefulness on brand trust, however. Unlike Ab, which captures a general disposition toward the brand, brand trust references cognitions about the competence of the brand (Aaker 1997; Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001). Hence, Aad, a general disposition toward the ad, should only partially mediate the effect of usefulness on brand trust. Accordingly, we hypothesize that: Fall 2011 7 H2a: The influence of novelty and usefulness on Ab will be fully mediated by Aad . H2b: The influence of usefulness on brand trust will be partially mediated by Aad . With respect to recall, research has clearly established memory-based effects of advertising. However, most researchers limited their scope to one type of recall among short-term and long-term ad and brand recall. Both types of recall are important. While short-term recall is meaningful for certain kinds of products (e.g., impulse purchases), long-term recall is important for a variety of products and services where the time gap between ad exposure and purchase can be considerable. Long-term brand recall offers the advantages of the product being in consumers’ evoked set (Stewart 1989; Stewart and Furse 1986) for longer, suggesting cost savings through reduced media frequency (Shimp 2007). Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between ad recall and brand recall. Often, consumers remember the ad but not the brand, an especially significant risk with both highly creative ads and unfamiliar brands (Lange and Dahlén 2003). Much of the work on recall is based on the accessibilitydiagnosticity framework (Feldman and Lynch 1988). This theory predicts that the probability that a piece of information is recalled when making a judgment is a function of its (1) accessibility, or the ease with which it can be retrieved from memory; and (2) diagnosticity, or the ability to make the judgment based on that information. When consumers evaluate a product, they search accessible knowledge in memory for diagnostic information about it (Lynch, Marmorstein, and Weigold 1988). This knowledge is then used in conjunction with externally available information to make the judgment (Lynch and Srull 1982). Thus, recall is sensitive first and foremost to stimulus accessibility, or retrieval likelihood (Srull 1981). In terms of advertising, novelty can be instrumental in influencing its accessibility. Novel ads lead to higher levels of attention (Bettman 1979; Pieters, Warlop, and Wedel 2002) and elaboration (Moore and Hutchinson 1983), and thus greater recall (Rosbergen, Pieters, and Wedel 1997). This effect is magnified in ads with persuasive messages (Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983). Aided and unaided recall have been investigated within the contexts of outdoor advertising (Donthu, Cherian, and Bhargava 1993), and liked and disliked ads (Stone, Besser, and Lewis 2000). In our research, we concurrently examine the effects of novelty and usefulness on short-term and long-term ad and brand recall (see Keller 1993; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983; Wyer and Srull 1986). Short-term recall stems from information stored temporarily, which is characterized by high accessibility and limited capacity (Keller 1993). In contrast, long-term recall is information stored more perma- nently, which is characterized by uncertain accessibility and unlimited capacity (Bettman 1979; Collins and Loftus 1975). Although short-term recall is important for some types of contexts (e.g., impulse buys), long-term recall is important in most others because of the time delay between advertising exposure and purchase decision. In terms of ad and brand recall, ad recall occurs when consumers can remember execution elements that underlie novelty, such as format, structure, tone, style, and color (e.g., Mitchell and Olson 1981; Silk and Vavra 1974). Conversely, brand recall occurs when consumers can remember the specific brand name in an ad, and stems from message elements that underlie usefulness, such as differentiation, positioning, and features (Chattopadhyay and Alba 1988; Dick, Chakravarti, and Biehal 1990). Based on this evidence, novelty should impact ad recall but not brand recall. The extent to which novelty influences long-term ad recall appears limited, however. Visually distinct information is processed at a sensory level, with little depth of processing. It is stored in memory nonverbally, and thus is difficult to retrieve long term (Craik and Tulving 1975; Tulving 1979). Also, according to the ELM (Petty and Cacioppo 1986), novel components of an ad are peripheral cues that produce temporary perceptual shifts. Furthermore, as MacInnis, Moorman, and Jaworski (1991) have suggested in their MOA (motivation, opportunity, ability) processing framework, novel cues, while enhancing the motivation to process the ad, could interfere with the opportunity to process brandrelated information. Hence, novelty’s effects may be limited to short-term ad recall because it creates only a weak link in memory with the underlying ad (Keller 1993). Accordingly, we expect: H3: Novelty will lead to better short-term, but not long-term, ad recall. Conversely, message usefulness should impact brand recall through an emphasis on differentiation, positioning, and features as opposed to ad recall (Chattopadhyay and Alba 1988; Dick, Chakravarti, and Biehal 1990). These influences could prove to be long term since this information tends to be processed semantically, with significant depth of processing, and stored in memory verbally (Craik and Tulving 1975; Tulving 1979). Therefore, it is readily retrievable long term because of its high diagnosticity to brand attitude. Again, according to the ELM (Petty and Cacioppo 1986), message elements of an ad are central cues that are more enduring in memory than are peripheral cues. Obviously, to enter long-term memory, information must be filtered and processed through short-term memory (Bettman 1979; Braun-LaTour and LaTour 2004; Gürhan-Canli 2003; Olson 1978). Thus, message usefulness should enhance both short-term and long-term brand recall but not short-term or long-term ad recall. 8 The Journal of Advertising H4: Usefulness will lead to better brand recall, both short term and long term. Study 1 Method The objective of Study 1 was to test H1a–H2b. Participants were upper-level undergraduate students at a large New England public university, who received extra credit in a marketing course as an incentive (n = 129). Ads in the categories of athletic footwear and fitness clubs were chosen because these categories were found to be of interest to participants in a pretest. We considered two categories (athletic footwear and fitness center) for greater generalization. Within each category, the brand name was held constant across the two stimulus ads. Fictitious brand names were used in the stimulus ads to eliminate biasing effects due to prior brand knowledge and to maximize the likelihood that brand judgments would be sensitive to a single ad exposure. Furthermore, stimulus ads were selected from overseas media to eliminate the possibility of familiarity biases. Each participant saw one ad from one of the two categories. The first footwear ad featured an athletic shoe multiple times in between different vertebrae, and suggests superior shock absorption capabilities. The second ad features the visual of an athlete participating in a football game, and includes testimonial copy about superior performance. The first fitness club ad is copy driven, and contains a humorous suggestion that members could use an authentic photo of themselves in an online personal ad. The second ad is more visual, and shows an overweight Ken and Barbie who could benefit from exercise. Each stimulus ad was embedded within a set of three filler ads (the stimulus ad was the second in the sequence). The filler ads were used to simulate real-life exposure to magazine ads and minimize hypothesis guessing. Procedure Participants were tested in groups of 15 to 20, online in a computer lab while supervised by one of the authors. Following exposure to the set of four ads (three filler ads and one stimulus ad), participants filled out the measures for only the stimulus ad. Participants were debriefed and thanked for their time. Measures Novelty and usefulness were measured using eleven items from previous research (Altsech 1996; Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan 2003). All items (except where noted) were measured using seven-point Likert scales anchored by disagree/agree. We conducted principal components analysis with varimax rotation to see whether the two latent dimensions of creativity were reproduced. The analysis revealed two distinct components (item loadings >.65 and eigenvalues >1) that could be identified from the item loadings as representing novelty and usefulness. Items, loadings, reliabilities (Fornell and Larcker 1981) and AVE for each construct are shown in Table 1. The dimensions of novelty (α = .87) and usefulness (α = .78) exceeded the minimum threshold (α > .70) for reliability (Nunnally 1978). We used three items each to measure Aad and Ab (from Biehal, Stephens, and Curlo 1992), and brand trust (from Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001, and Li and Miniard 2006). All items were selected to be general and nonattribute specific, so they could be logically applied across different types of products and categories. Category involvement was measured via Zaichkowsky (1994) as a potential covariate. Results Since novelty and usefulness measures were found to be reliable and unidimensional via confirmatory factor analysis, the items were averaged for subsequent analyses. As novelty and usefulness were measured and not manipulated in this study, we employed regression.1 We ran two separate multiple regressions with Ab and brand trust alternately as dependent variables and novelty and usefulness as the predictor variables, controlling for category involvement and stimulus ad version as potential covariates. H1a–H1b were supported. Novelty (t123 = 3.89; p < .001) and usefulness (t123 = 3.48; p < .01) were positively related to Ab (R2 = .33), but only usefulness (t123 = 6.01; p < .001) and not novelty ( p > .30) was positively related to brand trust (R2 = .36). The effect of category involvement was not significant in either regression ( p > .80 for Ab and p > .30 for brand trust), possibly because it remained moderately high across both categories (M = 4.27, σ = 1.2 for athletic shoes; M = 5.23, σ = .94 for fitness clubs on a seven-point scale). Of the three dummy variables employed to control for ad version, two were significant in the regression predicting Ab and one was significant in the regression predicting brand trust. However, the relationships between novelty, usefulness, and Ab, and brand trust did not change when the covariates were included. We then examined the mediating effect of Aad on the relationship between novelty and usefulness and Ab using the Baron and Kenny (1986) procedure. Briefly, the Baron and Kenny (1986) procedure checks to see whether the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable is attenuated in the presence of the mediator variable, providing that (1) the mediator variable has been shown to influence the dependent variable on its own, and (2) the independent variable has been shown to influence the mediator. First, novelty (t128 = 11.11; p < .001) and usefulness (t128 = 6.49; p < .001) were each found to influence Aad in independent regressions. Second, Aad Fall 2011 9 Table 1 Study 1 Measurement Items Construct Novelty Usefulness Aad Ab Brand trust Product category involvement Items Loadings AVE M SD Composite reliability This ad is original. This ad is different from my expectations of a print advertisement. This ad is memorable. This ad is visually interesting. This ad is different. This ad is different. This ad is believable. This ad provides relevant information. This ad does a good job of presenting the product’s benefits. This ad does a good job of building the product’s image. This ad provides practical information. I enjoyed the ad. I liked the ad. My overall feeling about the ad was negative. (r) My attitude toward this brand is favorable. My attitude toward this brand is bad. My attitude toward this brand is positive. This brand is dependable. This brand is reliable. This brand is trustworthy. This product category is important to me. This product category is involving to me. This product category is boring to me. This product category is relevant to me. This product category is appealing to me. This product category is exciting to me. This product category is meaningful to me. This product category is fascinating to me. This product category is worthwhile to me. .70 .85 .66 4.64 1.28 .92 .57 4.02 1.18 .87 .87 4.94 1.69 .95 .70 3.60 .73 .87 .71 3.40 .72 .88 .68 4.80 1.26 .95 .85 .83 .91 .71 .69 .76 .82 .78 .71 .96 .91 .93 .84 .81 .86 .85 .77 .91 .84 .78 .76 .83 .88 .84 .85 .69 .90 Notes: AVE = average variance extracted; Aad = attitude toward the ad; Ab = attitude toward the brand. (t128 = 8.21; p < .001) influenced Ab. Finally, when Aad was included along with novelty and usefulness, the direct effect of novelty ( p > .30) and usefulness ( p > .05) on Ab became nonsignificant in separate regressions. The corresponding Sobel (1982) test confirms the mediation of Aad between novelty (z = 5.80; p < .001) and Ab, and usefulness (z = 4.45; p < .001) and Ab. This is a direct test of path significance from both the independent variable to the mediator, and the mediator to the dependent variable, with significance of the Sobel (1982) statistic representing mediation (Iacobucci 2008). Thus, H2a was supported in that Aad fully mediated the effect of novelty and usefulness on Ab. We used the same procedure to see whether Aad mediated the relationship between usefulness and brand trust. Novelty was not considered, as it had no effect on brand trust (see Baron and Kenny 1986). When Aad is included, usefulness influenced Aad (t128 = 6.49; p < .001) and Aad influenced brand trust (t128 = 4.58; p < .001). However, usefulness still directly influenced brand trust (t128 = 5.43; p < .001), although this is attenuated somewhat from the previous value obtained prior to the inclusion of Aad (t128 = 7.49; p < .001). The Sobel (1982) test confirmed the presence of mediation (z = 2.24; p < .05). Overall, H2b was supported; Aad partially mediated the relationship between usefulness and brand trust. 10 The Journal of Advertising Study 2 Method The objective of Study 2 is to replicate and extend Study 1. The replication is to further test H1a–H2b, and the extension is to explore the recall effects in H3–H4. Participants (n = 113) were upper-level undergraduate students at a large New England public university, who received extra credit in a marketing course as an incentive. For greater generalizability, we used a different ad from a different category from those used in Study 1. In this study, two versions of the same ad were used to test effects across different executions. The ad featured a digital camera with copy about its small size, yet relatively large size of the preview screen. The copy also included technical specifications regarding the camera’s functionality. The concept of a large screen was conveyed through the visual of a small toy family watching the pictures on the digital camera much as one would view an HDTV (high-definition television). We scanned the ad onto a hard drive, and removed the visual of the small toy family using standard photo manipulation software. In this manner, we set up two versions of the ad—the complete ad and the ad with the visual removed—as stimuli. By using the same ad, brand, and copy, we control for other sources of variation that could confound effects. Also, as in Study 1, we used an unfamiliar brand name that would prevent brand-knowledge bias. Here, we used Konica, a brand name that pretested as unfamiliar among the participant pool. Procedure Participants were tested in groups of around 20, online in a computer lab while supervised by one of the authors. The two versions of the ad were each embedded in a set of three filler ads, and the participants were randomly assigned to view one of the two ad versions. Participants saw the stimulus ad and three filler ads (the stimulus ad was second) at their own pace. They then completed a distractor task for approximately five minutes to avoid a potential confound that differential recall was simply a mere exposure effect. After completion of the distractor task, the participants responded to unaided and aided ad and brand recall measures. Subsequent to the collection of these short-term recall measures, participants filled out the measures on the Ab and brand trust for the stimulus ad. Finally, they filled out measures assessing both category and task involvement. At the end of the session, participants were told they would be contacted in two days by e-mail to answer some final questions about the ad. Participants were asked to respond to the e-mail in order to complete the extra credit. As the study was run so each participant saw one version of the ad, the fact that all participants were sensitized to the impending future questions should not differentially influence the results. Fur- thermore, participants were not told the questions would be about recall. Measures Short-term ad and brand recall were measured by one of the authors and a graduate student who coded participants’ cognitive responses (see Dick, Chakravarti, and Biehal 1990). Interrater reliability was 98%, with differences resolved by discussion. If the cognitive response (CR) included the name of the brand featured in the stimulus ad, it was coded “yes” for brand recall. If the CR included a description of the ad, it was coded “yes” for ad recall. Long-term ad and brand recall were measured by e-mailing questions to participants two days after study completion asking them to describe the ads and brands they assessed. The e-mail responses were coded the same way as the short-term CRs. Novelty, usefulness, Aad, brand trust, Ab, and category involvement were measured using the same scales as in Study 1 (see Table 2). Task involvement was measured using items from Muehling and Laczniak (1988). Results As in Study 1, we averaged the items comprising novelty and usefulness for use as predictors in two separate multiple regressions with Ab and brand trust as the dependent variables, while also controlling for ad version, category, and task involvement.2 We found additional support for H1a–H1b. Novelty (t107 = 6.50; p < .001) and usefulness (t107 = 2.19; p < .05) were positively related with Ab (R2 = .38), but only usefulness (t107 = 2.16; p < .05), and not novelty ( p > .15), was positively related with brand trust. Category involvement (each p > .20), task involvement (each p > .50), and ad version (each p > .20) were not significant covariates in either regression. Once again, we used Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure to test for Aad mediation. Both novelty (t112 = 21.18, p < .001) and usefulness (t112 = 5.58, p < .001) had a direct effect on Ab in separate simple regressions that did not include Aad or any other variables. Also, novelty (t113 = 19.61; p < .001) and usefulness (t112 = 3.94; p < .001) each influenced Aad in separate regressions. Consistent with Study 1 and replicating H2a, the direct effects of novelty ( p > .70) and usefulness ( p > .10) became nonsignificant in the presence of Aad. In a separate regression, Aad was found to significantly influence Ab (t111 = 3.02; p < .01). The Sobel test confirmed the presence of mediation in the relationship between novelty and Ab (z = 3.67; p < .001), and usefulness and Ab (z = 4.37; p < .001). Inconsistent with Study 1 findings and H2b, however, Aad fully as opposed to partially mediated the relationship between usefulness and brand trust. While usefulness influenced Aad (t112 = 3.94; p < .001), and Aad influenced brand trust (t113 = 3.41; p < .001), the effect of usefulness on brand trust became nonsignificant ( p > .15) Fall 2011 11 Table 2 Study 2 Measurement Items Construct Novelty Usefulness Aad Ab Brand trust Product category involvement Task involvement Items Loadings AVE M SD Composite reliability This ad is original. This ad is different from my expectations of a print advertisement. This ad is memorable. This ad is visually interesting. This ad is interesting. This ad is different. This ad is believable. This ad provides relevant information. This ad does a good job of presenting the product’s benefits. This ad does a good job of building the product’s image. This ad provides practical information. I enjoyed the ad. I liked the ad. My overall feeling about the ad was negative. (r) My attitude toward this brand is favorable. My attitude toward this brand is bad. My attitude toward this brand is positive. This brand is dependable. This brand is reliable. This brand is trustworthy. This product category is important to me. This product category is involving to me. This product category is boring to me. This product category is relevant to me. This product category is appealing to me. This product category is exciting to me. This product category is meaningful to me. This product category is fascinating to me. This product category is worthwhile to me. I carefully read all of the contents of the ads. I was interested in examining the ads. Evaluating these ads was important to me personally. I was involved in examining the ads. .87 .83 4.38 1.77 .97 .63 4.67 1.39 .90 .93 5.04 1.46 .97 .94 .79 .91 .89 .76 .92 .88 .87 .88 .92 .93 .89 .87 .79 .93 .78 4.12 1.19 .91 .74 4.10 .82 .89 .78 4.61 2.01 .97 .84 .64 5.16 1.10 .87 .88 .93 .93 .96 .89 .67 .78 .88 .80 .83 .98 .95 .96 .96 .66 .69 Notes: AVE = average variance extracted; Aad = attitude toward the ad; Ab = attitude toward the brand. when Aad was included. The corresponding Sobel test (z = 2.12; p < .05) confirmed the presence of mediation. To check the effect of usefulness and novelty on recall, we ran logistic regressions on the binary recall variables. Supporting H3, novelty led to greater short-term ad recall (Wald χ2 = 4.52; p < .05), but not long-term ad recall ( p > .30). Also, novelty did not have an effect on brand recall, either short term ( p > .50) or long term ( p > .90). Supporting H4, usefulness lead to greater brand recall, both in the short term (Wald χ2 = 4.40; p < .05) and long term (Wald χ2 = 2.68; p < .05), but did not lead to greater ad recall in either the short term ( p > .50) or long term ( p > .15). 12 The Journal of Advertising Study 3 Method The objective of Study 3 is to replicate and extend Studies 1 and 2. The replication is to test H1a–H4 using an experimental design in which we manipulated novelty and usefulness. Participants were upper-level undergraduate students (n = 112) at a large public university in the Southeast, who received extra credit in a marketing course as an incentive for participation. For greater generalizability, we used a different ad in a different category than those used in Studies 1 and 2. We used a 2 (novelty: higher and lower) × 2 (usefulness: higher and lower) between-participants design. We used one ad for a teeth-whitening gum, and manipulated novelty and usefulness within that execution. All four versions of the ad featured a representation of white teeth against a dark background, and a pack of whitening gum. As in Studies 1 and 2, we used an unfamiliar brand name to eliminate potential biasing effects. We selected HappyDent as the brand, which is from Indonesia but is not available in the United States. In the high-novelty condition, the ad showed rows of hanging light bulbs instead of teeth. In the low-novelty condition, the ad just showed plain white teeth. The high usefulness condition was designed to be more relevant for the respondent’s evaluation of the product. There the copy explained that the gum would provide bright, white teeth. In the low-usefulness condition, the copy explained that the gum provided chewing pleasure. By using the same ad layout and brand, we control for other sources of variation that could confound effects. We then pretested these manipulations (n = 125). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups (31/32 participants per cell), and each group assessed one condition. They rated the novelty and usefulness of the ad with the same seven-point novelty and usefulness scales used in Studies 1 and 2. A 2 × 2 ANOVA (analysis of variance), with novelty as the dependent variable, showed the high-novelty condition (M = 5.73) was more novel than the low-novelty condition (M = 4.12); F(1, 121) = 73.01; p < .001. Furthermore, neither usefulness ( p > .90) nor the novelty X usefulness interaction ( p > .40) was significant. A separate 2 × 2 ANOVA, with usefulness as the dependent variable, showed the high-usefulness condition (M = 5.32) was more useful than the low-usefulness condition (M = 4.77); F(1, 121) = 5.43; p < .05. Neither novelty ( p > .10) nor the novelty X usefulness interaction ( p > .90) was significant. Participants also rated their involvement in the chewing-gum product category using a subset of items from Zaichkowsky (1994). The average rating was above the midpoint (M = 4.11 on a seven-point scale), indicating that the product category was at least moderately important. Procedure Participants were tested in groups of 10 to 15 in a computer lab while supervised by one of the authors. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the four cells. The instructions indicated that the participants would be asked their opinions about different ads. Each participant viewed four ads (three filler ads and the stimulus ad) on a computer screen. The stimulus ad appeared second in the group of four ads. Respondents were free to view the ads for as long as they liked (consistent with viewing print ads in a real setting). After viewing the four ads, participants took part in a distractor task that took several minutes to complete. Unaided ad and brand recall were measured immediately afterward. Participants were asked to write down everything they could recall about the ads. They were also asked to write down the names of any brands they could recall. Next, participants were reminded of the stimulus ad and asked to complete the same Ab and brand trust measures employed in Studies 1 and 2 for the stimulus ad. Following these measures, the participants completed the manipulation checks for novelty (three items: “This ad was original”; “This ad was different from my expectations of a print advertisement”; “This ad was visually interesting”) and usefulness (three items: “This ad provided relevant information about the product”; “This ad did a good job of building the product’s image”; “This ad did a good job of presenting the product’s benefits”). Participants also assessed task involvement (Muehling and Laczniak 1988). They then filled out measures for their interest in advertising and whether English was their first language. Finally, they were asked to submit their e-mail addresses for some follow-up questions (to measure long-term recall, though the participants were unaware of this purpose), and were instructed to check their e-mail for a message from the supervising author in about two days. Two days later, participants received a link to a follow-up questionnaire. The first page asked them to write down everything they recalled about the stimulus ad and any of the other ads. Cognitive responses were coded as in Study 2. Measures All measures were identical to those in Study 2. Results We first conducted a manipulation check on novelty and usefulness. A 2 × 2 ANOVA on novelty showed the expected difference (high novelty M = 5.26 versus low novelty M = 3.56; F[1, 110] = 59.33; p < .001), with no significant effects of usefulness ( p > .40) and novelty X usefulness ( p > .05). The same 2 × 2 ANOVA on usefulness again showed the expected Fall 2011 13 Table 3 Study 3 MANCOVA and ANCOVA Results MANCOVA Treatment variable Dependent variables Novelty ANCOVA Wilks’s λ F df Probability .90 5.93 2 p < .01 Ab Brand trust Usefulness .94 3.45 2 F df Probability 12.34 1.32 1 1 p < .001 p > .20 3.64 4.33 1 1 p < .05 p < .05 p < .05 Ab Brand trust Notes: MANCOVA = multivariate analysis of covariance; ANCOVA = analysis of covariance. Covariates used in the analysis included task involvement, whether English was their first language, and interest in advertising. Only task involvement was significant at the 5% level. difference (high usefulness M = 5.12 versus low usefulness M = 4.14; F[1, 110] = 24.66; p < .0001), with no significant effects of novelty ( p > .05) or novelty X usefulness ( p > .30). We first ran a 2 × 2 MANCOVA (multivariate analysis of covariance), with Ab and brand trust as dependent variables, and task involvement, interest in advertising, and English as a second language as covariates, on novelty and usefulness (see Table 3). Both novelty, Wilks’s λ = .90; F(2, 103) = 5.93; p < .01, and usefulness, Wilks’s λ = .94; F(2, 103) = 3.45; p < .05, were significant. Then we ran separate 2 × 2 ANCOVAs (analysis of covariance) on Ab and brand trust to test the hypotheses. Supporting H1a–H1b, novelty, F(1, 104) = 12.34; p < .001, and usefulness, F(1, 104) = 3.64; p < .05, influenced Ab, but only usefulness, F(1, 104) = 4.33; p < .05, and not novelty (p > .20) influenced brand trust. Novelty X usefulness was not significant for either Ab ( p > .20) or brand trust ( p > .40). The effects held when accounting for the competing effect of task involvement ( p < .05) and the other two covariates ( p > .50). We next examined Aad mediation again using the Baron and Kenny (1986) procedure. In separate regressions, novelty (t110 = 5.09; p < .001) and usefulness (t110 = 2.22; p < .05) influenced Ab. Also separately, novelty (t110 = 4.57; p < .001) and usefulness (t110 = 2.99; p < .01) influenced Aad, and Aad in turn influenced Ab (t110 = 10.29; p < .001). When Aad was included in the separate regressions of novelty and usefulness on Ab, however, the direct effects of novelty ( p > .20) and usefulness ( p > .40) became nonsignificant. The corresponding Sobel (1982) test confirmed mediation of novelty (z = 5.29; p < .001) and usefulness (z = 2.05; p < .05) on Ab. Thus, the results support H2a; Aad fully mediated the relationships between novelty and usefulness, and Ab. In a regression, usefulness (t109 = 2.28; p < .05) influenced brand trust. It was established in the previous paragraph that usefulness influenced Aad. Aad in turn influenced brand trust (t109 = 3.47; p < .001). However, when Aad was included in the regression of brand trust on usefulness, the direct effect of usefulness became nonsignificant ( p > .05). The Sobel test supports mediation (z = 1.79; p < .05). Therefore, not supporting H2b, but consistent with Study 2 results, Aad fully (versus partially) mediated the relationship between usefulness and brand trust. Next we ran logistic regressions on the binary recall variables. Supporting H3, novelty led to greater short-term ad recall (Wald χ2 = 9.35; p < .01). However, novelty did not affect long-term ad recall ( p > .15). Nor did novelty influence brand recall, either short term ( p > .15) or long term ( p > .40). Supporting H4, usefulness led to greater brand recall, both in the short term (Wald χ2 = 10.31; p < .01) and long term (Wald χ2 = 3.72; p < .05), but did not lead to greater ad recall in either the short term ( p > .60) or long term ( p > .10). Task involvement was not a significant covariate in these regressions. Discussion We find that the two main dimensions of creativity—novelty and usefulness—have implications for ad effectiveness. Across three studies, novelty influenced both Ab and brand trust, while usefulness only influenced brand trust. Given that the effects of creativity on engagement in consumer–brand relationships are underresearched (Sasser and Koslow 2008), the role of usefulness in its effect on brand trust, an important building block of these relationships (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001), enhances our understanding of how creativity in advertising can strengthen brands (El-Murad and West 2004; Keller 2003; Wansink and Ray 1996). The effect of message usefulness on brand trust is potentially of interest to managers. The findings suggest that creative advertising, especially the usefulness dimension, 14 The Journal of Advertising can engender brand trust. Given that trust is one of the key building blocks of an enduring relationship (Morgan and Hunt 1994) and that consumers can form relationships with brands (Fournier 1998), message usefulness can be the first step toward building a consumer–brand relationship. This is consistent with Fournier’s (1998) argument that the execution of marketing communications to manage impressions can be construed as a form of brand “behavior” aimed at building up consumer relationships. Such consumer–brand relationships have been shown to increase brand-helping behavior and brand commitment (Aggarwal 2004; Hess and Story 2005). Hence, managers may consider strengthening brand trust by enhancing message usefulness when they develop creative advertising. For example, in Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign, the creative strategy involved associating Nike with elite athletes achieving success in their sports, often in novel and dramatic ways. In doing so, Nike helped communicate the message of exceptional performance (message usefulness), and thus built trust in the competence of the brand. Aad fully mediated the relationships between novelty and usefulness and Ab in all three studies. Studies 2 and 3 indicated full mediation of Aad on the relationship between usefulness and brand trust, while Study 1 demonstrated partial mediation. While it was not clear what accounted for the disparate results, it is possible that the differing nature of the stimuli across Study 1 (two different and complete ads), Study 2 (the same ad with and without key visuals), and Study 3 (the same ad with different levels of manipulated novelty and usefulness) may have affected the extent of Aad mediation. Nevertheless, the full mediation in Studies 2 and 3 demonstrates the importance of Aad (ad liking) even in the context of a cognitive relationship between usefulness and brand trust. Future research should tease out the nature of Aad mediation more systematically. With respect to recall, novelty led to better short-term ad recall, but not better long-term ad recall or brand recall (short-term or long-term) across the two studies that tested recall. While prior research has not directly examined the effects of the different dimensions of creativity on recall, it has explored how executional elements influence ad recall (Mitchell and Olson 1981; Petty and Cacioppo 1986; Silk and Vavra 1974). Our results indicate that the effect of novelty on ad recall is purely short term and not long term. In contrast, the usefulness dimension influences brand recall, as opposed to ad recall, both in the short and long term. Marketing researchers who study the effect of memory on consumer choice and judgments have found that memories and thoughts about differentiation, positioning, and features influence brand recall (Chattopadhyay and Alba 1988; Dick, Chakravarti, and Biehal 1990). In an advertising context, however, we found evidence that message usefulness posi- tively influenced brand recall. This is possibly because of stronger memory traces for such messages as a result of verbal encoding of usefulness messages (Craik and Tulving 1975; Tulving 1979), thus producing more enduring brand recall (Petty and Cacioppo 1986). This result is replicated across Studies 2 and 3, the two that tested recall. The managerial implication of the recall results is that while novelty may spark short-term ad recall, a manager interested in getting his or her brand into a consumer’s choice set at the time of purchase needs to emphasize message usefulness, given that message usefulness results in both better short-term and long-term recall. For example, Volvo has long been associated with safety. Although its creative approaches are unlikely to be recalled by the average consumer, Volvo has consistently demonstrated safety. This emphasis on message usefulness has paid strong dividends over time for Volvo. Also, when pretesting ads, managers may want to adjust the time frame of testing when considering ad recall, as ad recall results collected at the time of testing could be misleading given their short life span in consumer memory. The preceding discussion should be assessed with the studies’ limitations in mind. Since we chose products in which students had interest, the products were of medium to high involvement. Even chewing gum, which is a relatively low risk purchase decision, received involvement ratings above the midpoint in the pretest. Future research could seek to explore the role of creativity dimensions under conditions of low involvement. We anticipate that execution novelty could dominate message usefulness in influencing brand judgments under conditions of low involvement because of the peripheral processing of product claims. Second, given the nature of our study, we used a convenience sample in a laboratory setting, as in other studies in the area (e.g., Homer 1990). The use of a more heterogeneous population in a more natural setting would be desirable for purposes of greater external validity, however. Third, we limited our long-term measures to ad and brand recall. However, future work should investigate whether the effects of novelty and usefulness on Ab and brand trust are lasting, and the conditions that would moderate the persistence of these effects in the long run. We anticipate that with repetition, the effect of novelty would wear out, whereas that of message usefulness would strengthen. Last, researchers could seek to replicate our findings with known brands. In our studies, we used unfamiliar brands with no prior, accessible attitudes. Future research could consider replicating our study with known brands to see if prior equity moderates the effect of creativity dimensions on Ab and brand trust. This would allow advertisers additional insights on how to vary the emphasis on execution novelty and message usefulness by strength of a brand’s equity. Fall 2011 15 Notes 1. The correlation between novelty and usefulness was low (.30) but significant. 2. The correlation between novelty and usefulness was low (.36) but significant. References Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, New York: Free Press. ——— (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347–356. Aggarwal, Pankaj (2004), “The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 ( June), 87–101. Altsech, Moses B. (1996), “The Assessment of Creativity in Advertising and the Effectiveness of Creative Advertisements,” Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. Anderson, Mae (2004), “The Fine Print,” Adweek, 45 (23), 24–25. Ang, Swee Hoon, and Sharon Y. M. Low (2000), “Exploring the Dimensions of Ad Creativity,” Psychology and Marketing, 17 (10), 835–854. ———, Yih Hwai Lee, and Siew Meng Leong (2007), “The Ad Creativity Cube: Conceptualization and Initial Validation,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (2), 220–232. Baack, Daniel W., Rick T. Wilson, and Brian D. Till (2008), “Creativity and Memory Effects: Recall, Recognition and an Exploration of Nontraditional Media,” Journal of Advertising, 27 (4), 85–94. Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173–1182. Berry, Leonard L. (1995), “Relationship Marketing of Services: Growing Interest, Emerging Perspectives,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (4), 236–245. Bettman, James R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Biehal, Gabriel, Debra Stephens, and Eleonora Curlo (1992), “Attitude Toward the Ad and Brand Choice,” Journal of Advertising, 21 (3), 19–36. Braun-LaTour, Kathryn A., and Michael S. LaTour (2004), “Assessing the Long-Term Impact of a Consistent Advertising Campaign on Consumer Memory,” Journal of Advertising, 33 (2), 49–61. Chattopadhyay, Amitava, and Joseph W. Alba (1988), “The Situational Importance of Recall and Inference in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (1), 1–12. Chaudhuri, Arjun, and Morris B. Holbrook (2001), “The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust to Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (April), 81–93. Collins, Allan M., and Elizabeth F. Loftus (1975), “A SpreadingActivation Theory of Semantic Processing,” Psychological Review, 82 (6), 407–428. Craik, Fergus I. M., and Endel Tulving (1975), “Depth of Processing and the Retention of Words in Episodic Memory,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104 (3), 268–294. Dahlén, Micael, Sara Rosengren, and Fredrik Törn (2008), “Advertising Creativity Matters,” Journal of Advertising Research, 48 (September), 392–403. Dick, Alan, Dipankar Chakravarti, and Gabriel Biehal (1990), “Memory-Based Inferences During Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (1), 82–93. Donthu, Naveen, Joseph Cherian, and Mukesh Bhargava (1993), “Factors Influencing Recall of Outdoor Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, 33 (3), 64–72. El-Murad, Jaafar, and Douglas C. West (2004), “The Definition and Measurement of Creativity: What Do We Know?” Journal of Advertising Research, 44 ( June), 188–201. Feldman, Jack M., and John G. Lynch, Jr. (1988), “Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (3), 421–435. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluative Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 39–50. Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343–372. Galloway, Graeme (2009), “Humor and Ad Liking: Evidence That Sensation Seeking Moderates the Effects of Incongruity-Resolution Humor,” Psychology and Marketing, 26 (9), 779–792. Gibson, Brad (2004), “TMO Reports—Apple Annual Report: iPod Strong; Education Sales a Major Concern” (December 3), available at www.macobserver.com/ article/2004/12/03.4.shtml (accessed August 2008). Gürhan-Canli, Zeynep (2003), “The Effect of Expected Variability of Product Quality and Attribute Uniqueness on Family Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (1), 105–114. Hess, Jeff, and John Story (2005), “Trust-Based Commitment: Multidimensional Consumer–Brand Relationships,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22 (6), 313–322. Hirschman, Elizabeth C., and Morris B. Holbrook (1982), “Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (Summer), 92–101. ———, and Melanie Wallendorf (1982), “Motives Underlying Information Acquisition and Knowledge Transfer,” Journal of Advertising, 11 (3), 25–31. Homer, Pamela M. (1990), “The Mediating Role of Attitude Toward the Ad: Some Additional Evidence,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (February), 78–86. Iacobucci, Dawn (2008), Mediation Analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 16 The Journal of Advertising Keller, Kevin L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 57 ( January), 1–22. ——— (2003), “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 595–600. Koslow, Scott, Sheila L. Sasser, and Edward A. Riordan (2003), “What Is Creative to Whom and Why? Perceptions in Advertising Agencies,” Journal of Advertising Research, 43 (1), 96–110. Kover, Arthur J., Stephen M. Goldberg, and William L. James (1995), “Creativity Vs. Effectiveness? An Integrating Classification for Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, 35 (6), 29–40. Lange, Fredrik, and Micael Dahlén (2003), “Let’s Be Strange: Brand Familiarity and Ad–Brand Incongruency,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12 (7), 449–461. Li, Fuan, and Paul W. Miniard (2006), “On the Potential for Advertising to Facilitate Trust in the Advertised Brand,” Journal of Advertising, 35 (4), 101–112. Lutz, Richard J., Scott B. MacKenzie, and George E. Belch (1983), “Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: Determinants and Consequences,” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 10, Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, eds., Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 532–539. Lynch, John G., and Thomas K. Srull (1982), “Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Methods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (1), 18–37. ———, Howard Marmorstein, and Michael F. Weigold (1988), “Choices from Sets Including Remembered Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 473–491. MacInnis, Deborah J., Christine Moorman, and Bernard J. Jaworski (1991), “Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity and Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads,” Journal of Marketing, 55 (4), 32–53. 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. Matzler, Kurt, Sonja Grabner-Kräuter, and Sonja Bidmon (2008), “Risk Aversion and Brand Loyalty: The Mediating Role of Brand Trust and Brand Affect,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 17 (3), 154–162. Mitchell, Andrew A., and Jerry C. Olson (1981), “Are Product Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 318–332. Moore, Danny L., and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1983), “The Effects of Ad Affect on Advertising Effectiveness,” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 10, Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, eds., Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 526–531. Morgan, Robert M., and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), “The Commitment–Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 20–38. Mucha, Thomas (2005), “Silhouettes and Synergy,” Business 2.0, 6 (1), 62. Muehling, Darrel D., and Russell N. Laczniak (1988), “Advertising’s Immediate and Delayed Influence on Brand Attitudes: Considerations Across Message Involvement Levels,” Journal of Advertising, 17 (4), 23–34. Nunnally, Jum (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGrawHill. Olson, Jerry C. (1978), “Theories of Information Encoding and Storage: Implications for Consumer Research,” in The Effect of Information on Consumer and Market Behavior, Andrew A. Mitchell, ed., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 49–60. Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, New York: Springer. ———, John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135–146. Pieters, Rik, Luk Warlop, and Michel Wedel (2002), “Breaking Through the Clutter: Benefits of Advertisement Originality and Familiarity for Brand Attention and Memory,” Management Science, 48 (6), 765–782. Reast, Jon D. (2005), “Brand Trust and Brand Extension Acceptance: The Relationship,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14 (1), 4–13. Rosbergen, Rik, Edward Pieters, and Michel Wedel (1997), “Visual Attention to Repeated Print Advertising: A Test of Scanpath Theory,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (November), 424–438. Sasser, Sheila L., and Scott Koslow (2008), “Desperately Seeking Advertising Creativity: Engaging an Imaginative ‘3 Ps’ Research Agenda,” Journal of Advertising, 37 (4), 5–19. Shimp, Terence A. (2007), Advertising, Promotion, and Other Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communication, 7th ed., Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western. Silk, Alvin J., and Terry G. Vavra (1974), “The Influence of Advertising’s Affective Qualities on Consumer Response,” in Buyer/Consumer Information Processing, G. David Hughes and Michael L. Ray, eds., Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 157–186. Smith, Robert E., and Xiaojing Yang (2004), “Toward a General Theory of Creativity in Advertising: Examining the Role of Divergence,” Marketing Theory, 4 (1–2), 31–58. ———, Jiemiao Chen, and Xiaojing Yang (2008), “The Impact of Advertising Creativity on the Hierarchy of Effects,” Journal of Advertising, 37 (4), 47–61. ———, Scott B. MacKenzie, Xiaojing Yang, Laura M. Buchholz, and William K. Darley (2007), “Modeling the Determinants and Effects of Creativity in Advertising,” Marketing Science, 26 (6), 819–833. Sobel, Michael E. (1982), “Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models,” Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312. Srull, Thomas K. (1981), “Person Memory: Some Tests of Associative Storage and Retrieval Models,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7 (6), 440–463. Fall 2011 17 Stewart, David W. (1989), “Measures, Methods and Models in Advertising Research,” Journal of Advertising Research, 29 (3), 54–59. ———, and David H. Furse (1986), Effective EV Advertising: A Study of 1,000 Commercials, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Stone, Gerald, Donna Besser, and Loran E. Lewis (2000), “Recall, Liking, and Creativity in TV Commercials: A New Approach,” Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (3), 7–18. Till, Brian D., and Daniel W. Baack (2005), “Recall and Persuasion: Does Creative Advertising Matter?” Journal of Advertising, 34 (3), 47–57. Tulving, Endel (1979), “Relation Between Encoding Specificity and Levels of Processing,” in Levels of Processing in Human Memory, Laird S. Cermak and Fergus I. M. Craik, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 405–428. Wansink, Brian, and Michael L. Ray (1996), “Advertising Strategies to Increase Usage Frequency,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (1), 31–46. Wyer, Robert S., and Thomas K. Srull (1986), “Human Cognition in Its Social Context,” Psychological Review, 93 (3), 322–359. Zaichkowsky, Judith L. (1994), “The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision and Application to Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 59–70. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.