Advertisement

Journal für Betriebswirtschaft

, Volume 55, Issue 4, pp 249–295 | Cite as

Erklärung der persuasiven Wirkung von Werbung

  • Heribert GierlEmail author
  • Sandra Reich
State-of-the-Art-Artikel

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag werden die in der jüngeren Forschung zur Wirkung von Werbung diskutierten und untersuchten Aspekte in einem Werbewirkungsmodell zusammengefasst. Der hier dargestellte Entwurf enthält drei Mediatorvariablen (Gefallen der Werbung, Gedanken über die Werbung, Gedanken über das Werbeobjekt) und zwei Moderatorvariablen (Involvement/Fähigkeit zur Informationsverarbeitung und Kontakthäufigkeit). Die Relevanz dieser fünf Größen wird basierend auf Erkenntnissen in der Literatur theoretisch diskutiert und soweit möglich durch vorhandene empirische Studien belegt. Den Nutzen eines derartigen Modells sehen wir zum einen darin, dass es eine Grundlage bilden kann, die Wirkung vielfältiger weiterer Aspekte der Werbegestaltung (z.B. Variation der Werbemittel bei unterschiedlichen Kontakten) oder von Rezipienteneigenschaften (z.B. bisherige Vertrautheit mit dem Werbeobjekt oder Stimmung) genauer in Form von direkten und indirekten Effekten auf die Verhaltensabsicht gegenüber dem Werbeobjekt untersuchen zu können. Ferner liefert ein derartiges Modell Anhaltspunkte, welche Werbewirkungsgrößen in Werbetests untersucht werden sollten, wenn diagnostische Aussagen bezüglich der Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten von Werbemitteln angestrebt werden.

Schlüsselwörter

Werbewirkungsmodell Persuasive Werbung Mediatorvariablen Moderatorvariablen 

Abstract

This article summarises the results of previously discussed and analysed advertising effects using a model of these effects. The model presented includes three mediating variables (attitude toward the advertisement, advertisement cognitions, and brand cognitions) and two moderating variables (involvement and frequency of exposure). We also discuss the relevance of these five concepts. In addition, we present empirical studies to support particular elements of our model. We see the contribution of this model in the fact that it represents a basis for investigating the direct and indirect effects of advertising concepts (e.g. advertisement variation in the case of increasing exposure) and for analysing the impact of recipients’ characteristics (e.g. their familiarity with advertising object or their mood) on attitudes toward the brand. Furthermore, such a model provides an informative basis with regard to the question of which dimensions of advertising effects should be considered when optimizing advertisements.

Keywords

Models in advertising research persuasion mediating variables moderating variables 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Anand P, Sternthal B (1990) Ease of message processing as a moderator of repetition effects in advertising. J Marketing Res 27:345–353Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson N (1974) Cognitive algebra: Integration theory applied to social attribution. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Adv Exp Soc Psychol 7:1–101Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson RE, Jolson MA (1980) Technical wording in advertising: Implications for market segmentation. J Marketing 44:57–66Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bacon FT (1979) Credibility of repeated statements: Memory for trivia. J Exp Psychol: Human Learn Memory 5:241–252Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker WE (1999) When can affective conditioning and mere exposure directly influence brand choice? J Advert 28:31–47Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Batra R, Ahtola OT (1990) Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Lett 2:159–170Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bem DJ (1972) Self-perception theory. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Adv Exp Soc Psychol 6:1–62Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berlyne DE (1970) Novelty, complexity and hedonic value. Percept Psychophys 8:279–286Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bohner G, Ruder M, Erb H-P (2002) When expertise backfires: Contrast and assimilation effects in persuasion. Brit J Soc Psychol 41:495–519Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bohner G, Wänke M (2002) Attitude and Attitude Change. HoveGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bornstein RF, Leone DR, Galley DJ (1987) The generalizability of subliminal mere exposure effects: Influence of stimuli perceived without awareness on social behavior. J Personal Soc Psychol 53:1070–1079Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bornstein RF (1989) Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research 1968–1987. Psychol Bull 106:265–289Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bornstein RF, D’Agostino PR (1992) Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. J Personal Soc Psychol 63:545–552Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bornstein RF, D’Agostino PR (1994) The attribution and discounting of perceptual fluency: Preliminary tests of a perceptual fluency/attributional model of the mere exposure effect. Soc Cognition 12:103–128Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Kao CF (1984) The efficient assessment of need for cognition. J Personal Assessm 48:306–307Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Catanescu C, Tom G (2001) Types of humour in television and magazine advertising. Rev Bus 22:92–95Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chaiken S (1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J Personal Soc Psychol 39:752–766Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chaiken S, Liberman A, Eagly AH (1989) Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In: Uleman JS, Bargh JA (eds) Unintended thought. New York, S 212–252Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chaiken S, Maheswaran D (1994) Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. J Personal Soc Psychol 66:460–473Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chaiken S, Wood W, Eagly AH (1996) Principles of persuasion. In: Higgins ET, Kruglanski AW (eds) Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York, S 702–742Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chaiken S, Trope Y (1999) Dual-process theories in social psychology. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chen Q, Wells WD (1999) Attitude toward the site. J Advert Res 39:27–38Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen Q, Clifford SJ, Wells WD (2002) Attitude toward the site II: New information. J Advert Res 42:33-45Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen S, Shechter D, Chaiken S (1996) Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing. J Personal Soc Psychol 71:262–275Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen S, Chaiken S (1999) The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In: Chaiken S, Trope Y (eds): Dual-process theories in social sciences. New York, S 73–96Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Darke PR, Chaiken S, Bohner G, Einwiller S, Erb H-P, Hazelwood JD (1998) Accuracy motivation, consensus information, and the law of large numbers: Effects on attitude judgment in the absence of argumentation. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 11:1205–1215Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Fort WorthGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Erb H-P (1998) Sozialer Einfluss durch Konsens: Werbung mit Meinungsübereinstimmung. Z Sozialpsychol 29:156–164Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Erb H-P, Bohner G, Schmälzle K, Rank S (1998) Beyond conflict and discrepancy: Cognitive bias in minority and majority influence. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 24:620–633Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Erb H-P, Kruglanski AW, Chun WY, Pierro A, Mannetti L, Spiegel S (2003) Searching for commonalities in human judgement: The parametric unimodel and its dual mode alternatives. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 14:1–48Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fishbein M (1963) An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that objects. Human Relations 16:233–240Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fishbein M, Middlestadt SE (1995) Noncognitive effects on attitude formation and change: Fact or artifact? J Consumer Psychol 4:181–203Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ghazizadeh UR (1987) Werbewirkungen durch emotionale Konditionierung: Theorie, Anwendung und Meßmethode. Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gorn GJ (1982) The effects of music in advertising on choice behavior: A classical conditioning approach. J Marketing 46:94–101Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Greenwald AG (1968) Cognitive learning: Cognitive responses to persuasion and attitude change. In: Greenwald AG, Brock TC, Ostrom TM (eds) Psychological foundations of attitudes. San Diego, S 147–170Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gresham LG, Shimp TA (1985) Attitude toward the advertisement and brand attitudes: A classical conditioning perspective. J Advert 14:10–17Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hasher L, Goldstein D, Toppino T (1977) Frequency and the conference of referential validity. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 16:107–112Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hastak M, Olson JC (1989) Assessing the role of brand-related cognitive responses as mediators of communication effects on cognitive structure. J Consumer Res 15:444–456Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Haugtvedt CP, Strathman AJ (1990) Situational product relevance and attitude persistence. In: Goldberg M, Gorn G, Pollay, R (eds) Adv Consumer Res 17:766–769Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Haugtvedt CP, Petty RE (1992) Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. J Personal Soc Psychol 63:308–319Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hawkins SA, Hoch SJ (1992) Low-involvement learning: Memory without evaluation. J Consumer Res 19:212–225Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Homer PM (1990) The mediating role of attitude toward the ad: Some additional evidence. J Marketing Res 27:78–86Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jacoby LL, Kelley CM, Dywan J (1989) Memory attributions. In: Roedinger HL, Craik FIM (eds) Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving. New Jersey, S 391–422Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jacoby LL, Whitehouse K (1989) An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception. J Exp Psychol: General 118:126–135Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Janiszewski C (1993) Preattentive mere exposure effects. J Consumer Res 20:376–392Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Janiszewski C, Meyvis T (2001) Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and spacing on processing fluency and judgment. J Consumer Res 28:18–32Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Keller PA (1991) Memory and evaluation effects in competitive advertising environments. J Consumer Res 17:463–476Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kelley CM, Jacoby LL (1990) The construction of subjective experience: Memory attributions. Mind Language 5:49–68Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kelley HH (1973) The process of causal attribution. Am Psychol 28:107–128Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kim J, Allen CT, Kardes FR (1996) An investigation of the mediational mechanisms underlying attitudinal conditioning. J Marketing Res 33:318–328Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kim J, Lim J-S, Bhargava M (1998) The role of affect in attitude formation: A classical conditioning approach. J Acad Marketing Sci 26:143–152Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kirmani A (1990) The effect of perceived advertising costs on brand perceptions. J Consumer Res 17:160–171Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kirmani A (1997) Advertising repetition as a signal of quality: If it’s advertised so much, something must be wrong. J Advert 26 (3):77–86Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kroeber-Riel W, Hemberle G, von Keitz W (1979) Product differentiation by emotional conditioning: A successful marketing-strategy in spite of critical consumer? Working Paper an der Universität des SaarlandesGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kroeber-Riel W, Weinberg P (2003) Konsumentenverhalten, 8. Aufl. MünchenGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kruglanski AW (1990) Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for social attributions. In: Higgins ET, Sorrentino RM (eds) Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, Vol 2. New York, S 335–368Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kruglanski AW, Thompson EP (1999) Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychol Inquiry 10:83–109Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kruglanski AW, Thompson EP, Spiegel S (1999) Separate or equal? Bimodal notions of persuasion and a single-process ,,unimodel“. In: Chaiken S, Trope Y (eds) Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, S 293–313Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kruglanski AW, Sleeth-Keppler D, Erb H-P, Pierro A, Mannetti L, Fishbach A, Spiegel S (2002) All you need is one: The persuasion unimodel and its dual-mode alternatives. New Rev Soc Psychol 1:62–71Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kruglanski AW, Chun WY, Erb H-P, Pierro A, Mannetti L, Spiegel S (2003) A parametric unimodel of human judgment: Integrating dual-process frameworks in social cognition form a single-mode perspective. In: Forgas J, Williams KD, Van Hippel W (Eds): Social judgments: Implicit and explicit processes. Cambridge, S 137–161Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kruglanski AW, Fishbach A, Erb H-P, Pierro A, Mannetti L (2004) The parametric unimodel as a theory of persuasion. In: Haddock G, Maio GR (eds) Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of attitudes. New York, S 175–204Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Langmeyer L (1991) Assessing the effects of celebrity endorsers: Preliminary findings. In: Holman R (ed) Proceedings of the 1991 Conference of The American Academy of Advertising. Atlanta, S 32–42Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Law S, Hawkins SA (1997) Advertising repetition and consumer beliefs: The role of source memory. In: Wells WD (ed) Measuring advertising effectiveness. Mahwah, NJ, S 67–75Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lutz RJ (1975) Changing brand attitudes through modification of cognitive structure. J Consumer Res 1:49–59Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lutz RJ, Swasy JL (1977) Integrating cognitive structure and cognitive response approaches to monitoring communications effects. In: Perreault W (ed) Adv Consumer Res 4:363–371Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lutz RJ, MacKenzie SB, Belch GE (1983) Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: Determinants and consequences. In: Bagozzi RP, Tybout AM (eds) Adv Consumer Res 10:532–539Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lutz RJ (1985) Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual framework. In: Alwitt LF, Mitchell AA (eds) Psychological processes and advertising effects: Theory, research and application. New Jersey, S 45–63Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    MacKenzie SB (1986) The role of attention in mediating the effect of advertising on attribute importance. J Consumer Res 13:174–195Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Madden TJ, Allen CT, Twible JL (1988) Attitude toward the ad: An assessment of diverse measurement indices under different processing sets. J Marketing Res 25:242–252Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Maheswaran D, Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment. J Personal Soc Psychol 61:13–25Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Maheswaran D, Mackie DM, Chaiken S (1992) Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. J Consumer Psychol 1:317–336Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Malaviya P, Kisielius J, Sternthal B (1996) The effect of type of elaboration on advertising processing and judgment. J Marketing 33:410–421Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Mandler G, Nakamura Y, Van Zandt BJS (1987) Non-specific effects of exposure on stimuli that cannot be recognized. J Exp Psychol: Learn Memory Cognition 13:646–648Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Mannetti L, Pierro A, Kruglanski A, Taris T, Bezinovic P (2002) A cross-cultural study of the need for cognitive closure scale: Comparing its structure in Croatia, Italy, USA and The Netherlands. Brit J Soc Psychol 41:139–156Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Martin LL, Seta JJ, Crelia RA (1990) Assimilation and contrast as a function of people’s willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. J Personal Soc Psychol 59:27–37Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    McCracken G (1989) Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. J Consumer Res 16:310–321Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Meyers-Levy J, Malaviya P (1999) Consumers’ processing of persuasive advertisements: An integrative framework of persuasion theories. J Marketing 63(Special Issue):45–60Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Middlestadt SE, Fishbein M, Chan DK-S (1994) The effect of music on brand attitudes: Affect- or belief-based change? In: Clark EM, Brock TC, Stewart DW (eds) Attention, attitude, and affect in response to advertising. New Jersey, S 149–167Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Miller SJ, Mazis MB, Wright PL (1971) The influence of brand ambiguity on brand attitude development. J Marketing Res 8:455–459Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Miniard PW, Bhatla S, Rose RL (1990) On the formation and relationship of ad and brand attitudes: An experimental and causal analysis. J Marketing Res 27:290–303Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Miniard PW, Bhatla S, Lord KR, Dickson PR, Unnava HR (1991) Picture-based persuasion processes and the moderating role of involvement. J Consumer Res 18:92–107Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Mitchell AA, Olson JC (1981) Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? J Marketing Res 18:318–332Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Mitchell AA (1983) The effects of visual and emotional advertising: An information-processing approach. In: Percy L, Woodside AG (eds) Advertising and consumer psychology. Lexington, S 197–217Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Mitchell AA (1986) The effect of verbal and visual components of advertisements on brand attitudes and attitude toward the ad. J Consumer Res 13:12–24Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Mittal B (1990) The relative roles of brand beliefs and attitude toward the ad as mediators of brand attitude: A second look. J Marketing Res 27:209–219Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Moore DL, Hausknecht D, Thamodaran K (1986) Time compression, response opportunity and persuasion. J Consumer Res 13:85–99Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Moreland RL, Zajonc RB (1977) Is stimulus recognition a necessary condition for the occurrence of exposure effects? J Personal Soc Psychol 35:191–199Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Olney TJ, Holbrook MB, Batra R (1991) Consumer responses to advertising: The effects of ad content, emotions, and attitude toward the ad on viewing time. J Consumer Res 17:440– 453Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Olson JC, Toy DR, Dover PA (1982) Do cognitive responses mediate the effects of advertising content on cognitive structure? J Consumer Res 9:245–262Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Park CW, Young SM (1986) Consumer response to television commercials: The impact of involvement and background music on brand attitude formation. J Marketing Res 23:11–24Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1981a) Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. DubuqueGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1981b) Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. In: Monroe KB (ed) Adv Consumer Res 8:20–24Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Goldman R (1981c) Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. J Personal Soc Psychol 41:847–855Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Heesacker M (1981) Effects of rhetorical questions on persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. J Personal Soc Psychol 41:432–440Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Schumann D (1983) Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. J Consumer Res 10:135–146Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1984) The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. J Personal Soc Psychol 46:69–81Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986a) Communication and persuasion – central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986b) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Adv Exp Soc Psychol 19:123–205Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Petty RE, Haugtvedt CP, Smith SM (1995) Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In: Petty RE, Krosnick JA (1995) Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, S 93– 130Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Petty RE, Wegener DT, Fabrigar LR (1997) Attitude and attitude change. Ann Rev Psychol 48:609–647Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Petty RE, Wegener DT (1999) The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies, In: Chaiken S, Trope Y (eds) Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, S 41–72Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Petty RE, Wheeler SC, Bizer GY (1999) Is there one persuasion process or more? Lumping versus splitting in attitude change theories. Psychol Inquiry 10:156–163Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Pierro A, Mannetti L, Erb H-P, Spiegel S, Kruglanski AW (2004a) Informational length and order of presentation as determinants of persuasion. J Exp Soc Psychol 41:458–469Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Pierro A, Mannetti L, Kruglanski AW, Sleeth-Keppler D (2004b) Relevance override: On the reduced impact of “cues” under high motivation conditions of persuasion studies. J Personal Soc Psychol 86:251–264Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Priluck R, Till BD (2004) The role of contingency awareness, involvement, and need for cognition in attitude formation. J Acad Marketing Sci 32:329–344Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Ratneshwar S, Chaiken S (1991) Comprehension’s role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. J Consumer Res 18:52–62Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Rhine R, Severance LJ (1970) Ego-involvement, discrepancy, source credibility and attitude change. J Personal Soc Psychol 16:175–190Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Rokeach M (1968) Beliefs, attitudes and values. San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Rosenberg MJ (1960) Cognitive reorganization in response to hypnotic reversal of attitudinal affect. J Personal 28:39–63Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Schwartz M (1982) Repetition and rated truth value of statements. Am J Psychol 95:393–407Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Shapiro S, MacInnis D, Heckler SE (1997) The effects of incidental ad exposure on the formation of consideration sets. J Consumer Res 24:94–104Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Smith RE (1993) Integrating information from advertising and trial: Processes and effects on consumer response to product information. J Marketing Res 30:204–219Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Smith SM, Petty RE (1996) Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 22:257–268Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Staats AW, Staats CK (1958) Attitudes established by classical conditioning. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 57:37–40Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Stang DJ (1974) Methodological factory in mere exposure research. Psychol Bull 81:1014–1925Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Stang DJ (1975) Effects of mere exposure on learning and affect. J Personal Soc Psychol 31:9–12Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Steffenhagen H (1996) Wirkungen der Werbung – Konzepte, Erklärungen, Befunde. AachenGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Stuart EW, Shimp TA, Engle RW (1987) Classical conditioning of consumer attitudes: Four experiments in an advertising context. J Consumer Res 14:334–349Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Swasy JL, Munch JM (1985) Examining the target of receiver elaborations: Rhetorical question effects on source processing and persuasion. J Consumer Res 11:877–886Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Vakratsas D, Ambler T (1999) How advertising works: What do we really know? J Marketing 63:26–43Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Vanhuele M (1994) Mere exposure and the cognitive-affective debate revisited. In: Allen CT, Roedder John D (eds) Adv Consumer Res 21:264–269Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Wilson WR (1979) Feeling more than we can know: Exposure effects without learning. J Personal Soc Psychol 37:811–821Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Wood W, Kallgren CA (1988) Communicator attributes and persuasion: Recipients’ access to attitude-relevant information in memory. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 14:172–182Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Wright PL (1973) The cognitive processes mediating acceptance of advertising. J Marketing Res 10:53–62Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Wu C, Shaffer D (1987) Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a function of source credibility and prior experience with the attitude object. J Personal Soc Psychol 52:677–688Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Yalch RF, Elmore-Yalch R (1984) The effect of numbers on the route to persuasion. J Consumer Res 11:522–527Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Zajonc RB (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J Personal Soc Psychol 9:1–27Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Zajonc RB (1980) Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. Am Psychol 35:151–175Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Zajonc RB, Markus H (1982) Affective and cognitive factors in preferences. J Consumer Res 9:123–131Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Austria 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre mit dem Schwerpunkt MarketingUniversität AugsburgAugsburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations