Download The Differential Effect of Ad Novelty and Message Usefulness on

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.