Download The Attitude toward advertising in general and Attitude toward

Attitude toward Advertising in General and Attitude toward a specific type of
advertising: what link with Aad?
a cross-national study
Christian Dianoux
CEREFIGE - University of Lorraine IUT, Ile du Saulcy, 57045 METZ, France – [email protected]
Zdenek Linhart
Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, PEF
Kamycka 129, 165 21 Praha 6, Czech Republic – [email protected]
Lucie Vnouckova
University of Economics and Management, Prague, VSEM
Narozni 2600/9a, 158 00 Praha 5, Czech Republic – [email protected]
Abstract
Purpose – To find out why standardized international advertising campaigns have satisfactory reach if
cultures differ so much. The purpose of this paper is to show that this gap between theory and practice comes
from the definition of AG. Consumers’ attitudes toward an ad (Aad) have offered a critical theoretical construct
since 1981, with the publication of two influential articles (Mitchell & Olson, 1981; Shimp, 1981). Following
these seminal articles, various studies were dedicated to demonstrating the effects of Aad on brand attitudes and
purchase intentions (e.g., Gardner, 1985; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch 1986; McKenzie, & Lutz, 1989). Other
studies show that Aad notably depends on attitudes toward advertising in general (Lutz, McKenzie, & Belch,
1983; Muehling, 1987; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; Mehta, 2000). Yet attitudes toward advertising in general
(AG) and their influence on advertising effectiveness have rarely been studied in cross-national studies (Mehta,
2000). This gap is puzzling, in that AG seems likely to differ across countries (Durvasula, Lysonski, & Mehta,
1999) and authors add about the countries studied: "consumers in India and Singapore analyze advertisements
differently. Therefore it appears to be inappropriate to standardize all advertising campaigns." (p. 57).
Design/methodology/approach - We show based on an experiment that when it is possible to detect by
country some attitudinal differences toward advertising in general, these differences can be higher or lower
depending on the type of advertising. Indeed, the concept of AG is in some cases too broad and needs to be
replaced by more accurate measurements which focus on specific ads. Data were collected from several
countries with different religion; its impact on brand image was evaluated.
Findings – We have shown that the concept of AG is accompanied by more precise measurements for
contextualizing advertising. We start with a theoretical background to clarify the key constructs of attitude
toward advertising in general and attitude toward an ad, as well as their relationship. In light of our theoretical
background and empirical evidence, we present the international context of our research and develop research
hypotheses. AG of respondents from Ukraine has differed significantly with all other countries. Respondents
from Germany and Bulgaria are more pessimistic and from USA and Poland more optimistic. This difference
was explained by orthodox and atheist religion. Enculturation (Washburn, 2008) may explain why no significant
differences were found in tests of ASG and known brands.
Research limitations/implications – Results of this research have shown that in orthodox and atheist
countries the impact of international advertising campaigns may differ. It is still not clear if cognition, economic
reasons or culture are responsible for this fact.
Keywords:
Attitude toward advertising, Attitude toward advertising in general, hard sell, soft sell, religion,
Bulgaria, Germany, Poland, Ukraine and USA
1
Introduction
Consumers’ attitudes toward an ad (Aad) have offered a critical theoretical construct
since 1981, with the publication of two influential articles (Mitchell & Olson, 1981; Shimp,
1981). Following these seminal articles, various studies were dedicated to demonstrating the
effects of Aad on brand attitudes and purchase intentions (e.g., Gardner, 1985; MacKenzie,
Lutz, & Belch 1986; McKenzie, & Lutz, 1989). Other studies show that Aad notably depends
on attitudes toward advertising in general (Lutz, McKenzie, & Belch, 1983; Muehling, 1987;
MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; Mehta, 2000). Yet attitudes toward advertising in general (AG) and
their influence on advertising effectiveness have rarely been studied in cross-national studies
(Mehta, 2000). This gap is puzzling in that AG seems likely to differ across countries
(Durvasula, Lysonski, & Mehta, 1999). These authors add about the countries studied where
they observed consumers in India and Singapore analyze advertisements differently, it would
“be inappropriate to standardize all advertising campaigns" (p.57).
Despite these results, it is surprising that a number of advertisements are used
uniformly over several countries and seem reach satisfactory efficiency scores in each
country. It is therefore possible that other factors influence that.
One of these factors is maybe the kind of advertising that people like. Indeed it is not
because somebody likes something in general that he likes a precise thing. In this way Soo
and Chia (2007) have demonstrated that there can be differences between attitudes toward TV
ads and magazine ads. Following this reasoning we suppose here that the attitude toward the
advertising in general can vary depending on the type of ad.
The objective of this paper is to show that the problem comes from the definition
of AG. We try to show from an experiment that, if it is possible to detect by country some
attitudinal differences toward advertising in general, these differences can be higher or lower
and have a variable influence on Aad depending on the type of advertising. So, the concept
the most managerially interesting to predict Aad is maybe not the attitude toward advertising
in general but the attitude toward a specific type of ad.
Indeed, the concept of AG is in some cases too broad and needs to be replaced by
more accurate measurements which focus on specific features of ads. We will try to show
that the concept of AG must be accompanied by more precise measurements which take into
account the main features of advertising.
We start with a theoretical background to clarify the key constructs of attitude toward
advertising in general and attitude toward an ad, as well as their relationship. In light of our
theoretical background and empirical evidence, we present the international context of our
research and develop research questions. Next, we outline our methodology and our research
findings, followed by a discussion, conclusion, and some new way of research.
Review of literature
A lot of studies show that Attitude toward the advertising (Aad) depends on attitudes
toward advertising in general (Lutz, McKenzie, & Belch, 1983; Muehling, 1987; MacKenzie
& Lutz, 1989; Mehta, 2000). In their structural model of the cognitive and affective
antecedents of Aad, MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) suggest attitude toward advertising in
general exerts an important influence, along with several other variables (i.e. ad credibility, ad
perceptions, attitude toward advertiser, and mood). The authors assess four ad exposure
situations (i.e. pure affect transfer, message-based persuasion, contextual evaluation transfer,
and dual mode persuasion) that reflect varying levels of both ad message and ad execution
2
involvement; in all cases, AG served as an important construct for explaining ad-based
persuasion mechanisms.
Despite widespread acceptance of this theory, specific research on the relationship
between AG and Aad is rare. Mehta (2000) cites a few studies dedicated to research the
effects of AG on advertising recall (Donthu, Cherian, & Bhargava, 1993) or on consumer
involvement in specific advertisements (James & Kover, 1992). His research also reveals the
influence of AG on the overall attention paid to print advertisements (measured as brand
recall) and on persuasiveness (measured as buying interest).
Some other research show that AG differs significantly across countries (Durvasula,
Lysonski, & Mehta, 1999).
However, in admitting the above hypotheses (AG influences Aad and AG differs
across countries), it seems not very easy to understand why we observe more and more
identical advertising campaigns which work very well in different countries.
This apparent paradox could be easily explained if AG differs between countries but
do not influence automatically Aad because people answer to general question on AG with a
standard in mind and this standard can be identical or not with the ad they see. For example, if
for the consumer the standard is an informative ad and he has a positive or negative attitude
toward informative ad, there will be a link between AG and Aad essentially when the ad is
informative. If the ad is sensual with only an image of a beautiful girl or boy and the name of
the brand, there will be maybe not any link between AG and Aad. In this case, we can have
the following process if the advertiser has to choose between two campaigns (table 1).
Table 1: Example of two different relationships between AG and Aad
Campaign A (with an informative ad)
(case where AG is a good gauge because the consumer does think at the A-type of ad –here an informative adwhen he answers to the questions about AG)
Country 1
ASG(info)+++ (Attitude toward Specific informative ads in
AG+++ => Aad(a)+++
General)=> Aad(a)+++
Country 2
ASG(info)- - (Attitude toward Specific informative ads in
AG- - => Aad(a)- General)=> Aad(a)- -
Campaign B (with a sensual ad)
(case where AG is not a good gauge because the consumer does think at the A-type (informative ad) and not at Btype of ad –here a sensual ad- when he answers to the questions about AG)
Country 1
ASG(sensual)+++ (Attitude toward Specific sensual ads in
no link between AG (which can be +
General)=> Aad(b)+++
or -) and Aad(b)+++
Country 2
ASG(sensual)++ (Attitude toward Specific sensual ads in
no link between AG (which can be +
General)=> Aad(b)++
or -) and Aad(b)++
Furthermore, we can imagine that campaign B is a communication which use soft-sell
arguments and ASG(b) is the liking of soft-sell advertising type in both countries which
justified the same campaign. On the other side, we can imagine that campaign A is a
communication which use hard-sell arguments, and the announcer asks which of the two ads
he has to choose. The best way to choose would be to know what is the type of ad that people
prefer in both countries and not measure the AG.
This hypothesis is consistent with the observation of Okazaki et al (2010) who show
that international identical advertising campaigns are more oriented around soft-sell
communication than hard-sell communication. In other words, that means AG is not always a
good predictor of Aad and we need to measure the attitude toward a specific type of
advertising in general (ASG) which is a better predictor of Aad.
As few cross-national research have been made on this topic (Mehta, 2000), it is
possible that the relationship between AG and Aad has been observed in certain
3
circumstances and could be not observed in all context. So we can imagine the following
hypothesis:
-if the advertising is conform to the ad standard expected by consumer when he answers
to the questions on AG, we can observe a relationship between AG and Aad (the ad
standard could be described as an advertising type that the consumer has in mind when
he answers to questions about his thoughts on advertising in general).
-if the advertising is not conform to the ad standard expected by consumer when he
answers to the questions on AG, we cannot observe any relationship between AG and
Aad.
So it is possible that we have a strong relationship between AG and Aad in some
circumstances and not in others because of the general advertising reference the consumer has
in his mind when he answers to the questions.
This could mean that, in addition to the attitude the consumer may have toward
advertising in general, specific attitude variations can play an important role. Thus we may
have the same relation that Soo and Chia (2007) have shown for attitude toward commercial
ads in general (Atv) which can be different of attitude toward print advertising in general
(Aprint).
We would then have a general attitude which influences Aad but could have
significant distortions depending on the type of advertising measured. Because one can
suppose that this is not the fact of liking the advertising in general but more importantly the
fact of liking a particular type of ad. However, it is also obvious that when a consumer does
absolutely not like the advertising in general, all the ads appear annoying (except maybe some
exceptional ads). But out these extreme and rare cases, what really matters is the type of ad
that people like. The fact of liking advertising in general is a whole interesting concept but
managerially irrelevant, especially in an international context where consumers can have
different advertising standard in mind which vary from one country to another (or maybe can
also vary for the same consumer depending on the ads he has in mind when he answers to the
questions).
So the research question of this paper is the following: is it possible to find situations
where we have an influence of ASG on Aad and no influence of AG on Aad.
Methodology
Sample
Research encompasses seven countries with different economic and cultural
backgrounds with the objective to have strong differences on AG. Groups of respondents
were from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, France, Poland, Ukraine and USA.
Most cross-national studies use student samples, which offer appealing homogeneity
(e.g., Durvasula et al., 1993). We also used student samples; specifically, we surveyed 621
business students (undergraduate and graduate) from Bulgaria (N=78), Germany (N=78),
Poland (N=88), Ukraine (N=108), Czech Republic (N=97), France (N=82), and USA (N=90).
This sample is also interesting for research because of students’ generally more favourable
attitudes toward marketing and advertising (Roberts & Manolis, 2000).
Measures
During the course of a business class, respondents from each country answered some
questions about their attitudes toward advertising in general. To measure it, three items were
used from Pollay and Mittal, 1993. Subjects were asked to indicate the extent to which they
4
agreed or disagreed with three statements on a seven-point scale: “Overall, I consider
advertising a good thing”; “My general opinion about advertising is unfavourable’ (reverse
coded)”; “Overall, I do like advertising”.
We also used the Muehling’s scale (1987) with three semantic-differential item pairs:
“My
attitude
toward
advertising
is
Good/Bad”,
“Favorable/Unfavorable”,
“Positive/Negative”).
To measure attitude toward specific advertising in general, we have taken in account:
1- the attitude toward advertising in specific media (Tan, Chia, 2007) and adapted Pollay and
Mittal’s scale to the billboard media which is studied in this paper (e.g. Overall, I consider
billboard ads a good thing). 2- the attitude toward soft-sell and hard-sell advertising (Okazaki
et al., 2010) and we have retained the following items (see table 2).
Table 2: Maim measures of attitude toward soft and hard-sell advertising in general (Okazaki
et al., 2010)
For Hard-sell appeal:
For Soft-sell appeal:
-concrete (Thinking dimension)
-entertaining (Image Dimension)
-feature centered (Fact dimension)
-visually oriented (Image Dimension)
-informative (Fact dimension)
-emotional (Feeling Dimension)
-instructive (Explicitness dimension)
-abstract (Feeling Dimension)
Adapated for billboard: “In general, how likely do you like or not billboard ads which are (7-point scale: I like very much=7; I totally
dislike=1)
To measure attitude toward the ad, we have adapted both Okazaki et al. (2010a,
2010b) and the believability and irritation measures (Bhat, Leigh, and Wardlow, 1998): “For
you, this ad is rather: (7-point Likert scale with surely disagree=1 and surely agree=7): boring
(reversed), irritating (reversed), disturbing (reversed), credible, good, interesting. Moreover
we have added the item by MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986): “To what extent do you like
or dislike this ad: (7-point Osgood scale with Like=7;not like=1)” for the experimental ads
and for four real ads.
Experiment
In the first step, we have administrated the first part of the questionnaire to measure
AG and ASG. In a second step, we have separated respondents from each country in two
groups: one exposed to an ad for a new brand of mobile phone which used soft-sell
argumentation and one exposed to an ad for the same new brand of mobile phone which used
hard-sell argumentation. The billboard ad (soft-sell for one group and hard-sell for another
group in each country) was projected on the wall during all the duration of the second part of
the questionnaire. The two ads were the same in each country, except for the language used;
we translated and back-translated all content. After exposition, we asked them to complete a
follow-up questionnaire.
Finally during the third step, we projected on the wall four ads (10 seconds each) to all
the participants (two with soft-sell arguments for L’Oréal and Bic and two with hard-sell
arguments for Audi and Nikon). The billboard ads were in English because we wanted to keep
exactly the same ads in both countries. After exposition, we asked them to complete the final
part of the questionnaire (measures of Aad for the four ads) and other miscellaneous
questions.
Respondents from Ukraine, Poland, Bulgaria, CR, France and Germany filled paper
questionnaire. Respondents from USA have not filled their answers on paper form
questionnaire for scanner but online at http://vertiroute.eu/forms.
All items originally in English were translated into languages of the specific country
using the procedure suggested by Brislin (1976). We finalized the items by asking three
5
experts in each country to respond. The data from Poland were collected twice after mistake
was detected in translation of questionnaire. The data from Russia were rejected due to the
mistake in interpretation.
Results
If as expected, we observe very significant differences between countries about the AG,
globally, the results do not go in the direction of our hypothesis as illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3: Correlations between ASG et Aad et AG et Aad for all countries
Fit between ASG and
No fit between ASG and
AG and Aad
Ad
Ad
ASGhard/
ASGsoft/
ASGhard/
ASGsoft/
AG/
AG/
Aad(hard)
Aad(soft)
Aad(soft)
Aad(hard) Aad(hard)
Aad(soft)
0.036
All countries (p=.588)
-0.068
(p=.348)
0.098
(p=.135)
0.006
(p=.933)
0.009
(p=.882)
-0.189**
(p=.001)
Pearson Correlation - ** correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed)
Indeed, globally no significant correlation appears for all countries studied except the
relationship between AG and Aad(soft) which shows a significant negative correlation (p =
.001).
If we now look at the detailed results by country, there still appears no information that would
allow us to support our hypothesis (Table 4).
Table 4: Correlations between ASG and Aad, and AG and Aad country by country
Fit between ASG and Ad
No fit between ASG and
AG and Aad
Ad
ASGhard/
ASGsoft/
ASGhard/
ASGsoft/
AG/
AG/
Aad(hard)
Aad(soft)
Aad(soft)
Aad(hard)
Aad(hard)
Aad(soft
Bulgaria
-0.090
p=.629
Czech Rep.
-0.181
p=.212
0.157
p=.348
-0.72
p=.749
-0.199
p=.362
-0.272
p=.292
0.007
p=.965
0.083
p=.593
0.100
p=.746
-0.142
p=.820
0.042
p=.864
-0.128
p=.370
0.279
p=.129
-0.266
p=.084
0.023
p=.885
-0.086
p=.646
0.558*
p=.038
0.027
p=.906
0.290*
p=.039
0.081
p=.792
0.009
p=.949
0.016
p=.925
-0.345
p=.403
0.230
p=.472
-0.377*
p=.018
-0.114
p=.430
-0.074
p=.664
0.338*
p=.035
0.251
p=.089
-0.048
p=.861
0.213
p=.122
0.078
p=.637
0.208
p=.203
-0.528**
p=.001
-0.282
p=.058
-0.156
p=.311
-0.373*
p=.019
-0.063
p=.694
0.085
p=.539
-0.076
p=.596
France
Germany
Poland
Ukraine
-0.036
p=.875
USA
0.375*
p=.019
Pearson Correlation – grey case: correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) or less.
On the other hand, it is interesting to consider the relationship between ASG, attitude toward
the brand (Ab), and intend to try it (Ib). While no significant correlation appears between AG
6
and these two variables (p <.348), it seems that links do exist between ASG and Ab (see table
5).
Table 5: Correlations between ASG and Ab and Ib
All
Fit between ASG and
No fit between ASG and
countries
Ab
Ab
ASGhard/
ASGsoft/
ASGhard/
ASGsoft/
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
ASG/Ab
0.048
(p=.478)
ASG/Ib
ASGhard/
Ib
0.179**
(p=.007)
-0.165*
(p=.021)
ASGsoft/
Ib
-0.15
(p=.831)
-0.066
(p=.317)
ASGhard/
Ib
0.096
(p=.147)
-0.004
(p=.958)
ASGsoft/
Ib
0.093
(p=.221)
AG and Ab
AG/
Ab
AG/
Ab
-0.046
(p=.420)
-0.042
(p=.463)
AG/
Ib
AG/
Ib
0.054
(p=.349)
-0.021
(p=.717)
Pearson Correlation – grey case: correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) or less.
Table 5 shows a significant negative correlation between ASG(soft) and Ab and no
correlation when one takes into account the intention to buy the brand. Exactly the opposite is
true with ASG(hard): no correlation between ASG(hard) and Ab but correlation between
ASG(hard) and Ib only if the individual has been exposed to the Hard-sell advertising.
It seems possible that the hard-sell advertising has more influence on the intentions while
soft-sell advertising plays more an important role on Ab, that is the fact to appreciate or not
the brand. Note also that the negative correlation between ASG(soft) and Ab illustrates maybe
that the soft-sell ad is not good for those who enjoy this style of communication.
If these results were reinforced, it could join our hypothesis not taking into account the Aad
but attitudes and intentions toward the brand.
7
Conclusion
We have seen that our results do not allow us to confirm our hypothesis. We cannot
therefore advance that the measure of the attitude in respect of a certain type of advertising in
general is a more operational variable in an international context.
However, some stronger links between ASG and Ab or Ib than AG and Ab or Ib invite
us to think that this hypothesis remains relevant but our experiment may have few defects that
our results did not fit with the hypothesis. Three main limitations seem to us be advanced:
-the first concerns the sample size which for some cells did not exceed 16 and allowed
very hardly to obtain significant relations;
-the second concerns the measures used which were not sufficiently precise to allow us
to make genuine specificities of ASG;
-finally, we wanted to use a fictitious brand with comparable ads in each country. The
differences between the two ads (soft and hard-sell) were maybe not sufficiently
important.
8
References
Dianoux, C., Linhart, Z. & Ognjanov, G. (2012), A cross-european perspective on attitudes
toward advertising in general and attitude toward an ad, 41th Annual Conference of
European Marketing Academy, 22-25 may, Lisbonne.
Dianoux, C. & Linhart, Z. (2012) The Attitude Toward Advertising in General and Attitude
Toward Specific Ads: Is It the Same Influence Whatever the Countries? Symposium of
20th Annual Conference on Marketing and Business Strategies for Central and Eastern
Europe. Vienna University of Economics and Business, Institute for Export Management,
ISBN 978-3-9503290-1-8, pp. 15-27
Dianoux, C. & Linhart, Z. The effectiveness of female nudity in advertising in three
European countries. International Marketing Review, June, 2010, Vol.27(5), p.562-578
Durvasula, S., Andrews, J. C., Lysonski, S. & Netemeyer, R.G. (1993), “Assessing the
Cross-national Applicability of Consumer Behavior Models: A Model of Attitude toward
Advertising in General”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 626-636.
Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S. & Mehta, S.C. (1999), “A Cross-Cultural Comparison Of
Cognitive Responses, Beliefs, And Attitudes Toward Advertising In General In Two
Asian Countries”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 48-59.
Gardner, M.P. (1985), “Does Attitude Toward the Ad Affect Brand Attitude Under a Brand
Evaluation Set?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp.192-198.
Hofstede, G. & Bond, M.H. (1988), “The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth”, Organizational Dynamics Vol. 16, pp. 4-21.
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind
(Revised and expanded 2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
James, W.L. &Kover, A.J. (1992), “Observations: do overall attitudes toward advertising
affect involvement with specific advertisements?” Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.
32 No. 5, pp. 78-83.
Kapferer, J.N. & Laurent, G. (1986), “Consumer involvement profiles: A new practical
approach to consumer involvement”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp.
48-56.
MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J. & Belch, G.E. (1986), “The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad as
a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 130-143.
MacKenzie, S.B. & Lutz, R.J. (1989) “Am Empirical Examination of the Structural
Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context.” Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 48 - 65.
Mehta, A. (2000), “Advertising Attitudes and Advertising Effectiveness”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 67-72.
Mitchell, A.A. & Olson, J.C. (1981), “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of
Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 318-332.
Muehling, D.D. (1987), “An Investigation Of Factors Underlying Attitude-TowardAdvertising-In-General”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 32-40.
Muehling, D.D. & McCann, M., (1993) „Attitude Toward The Ad: A Review”, Journal of
Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 15 No.2, pp. 25-59.
Okazaki, S., Mueller, B. & Taylor, C., R. (2010a), « Measuring soft-sell versus hard-sell
advertising appeals », Journal of Advertising, 39, no. 2 (Summer), 5–20.
Okazaki, Shintaro, Barbara Mueller, et Charles R Taylor (2010b), Global Consumer Culture
Positioning: Testing Perceptions of Soft-Sell and Hard-Sell Advertising Appeals Between
U.S. and Japanese Consumers, Journal of International Marketing, 18, 2, pp. 20-34.
9
Percy, L. & Rossiter, J.R. (1992), “Advertising Stimulus Effects: A Review” Journal of
Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 14 No.1, pp.75-90.
Petrovici, D. & Marinov, M. (2007), “Determinants and antecedents of general attitudes
towards advertising: A study of two EU accession countries” European Journal of
Marketing”, Vol. 41 No. 3/4.
Rojas-Méndez, J.I., Davies, G. and Madran, C. (2009), “Universal differences in advertising
avoidance behavior: A cross-cultural study”, Journal of Business Research 62, no.10
(October), 947-954.
Sandage, C. H. & Leckenby, J.D. (1980), “Student Attitudes Toward Advertising: Institution
Vs. Instrument”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp.29-44.
Shimp, T.A., (1981) “Attitude Toward The Ad As A Mediator Of Consumer Brand Choice”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 10 No.2, pp. 9-48.
Soo Jiuan Tan & Lily Chia (2007), “Are we measuring the same attitude? Understanding
media effects on attitude towards advertising”, Marketing Theory 7, no. 4.
Washburn, D (2008) Enculturation and the Degenerative Principle. CONTEMPORARY
issues, (2008) Vol. 1, No. 1
10