Skip to main content

Predispositions and the comparative effectiveness of rational, emotional and discrepant appeals for both high involvement and low involvement products

Abstract

Advertising effectiveness is often measured by its ability to impact attitudes and purchase intentions among those positively predisposed and negatively predisposed toward the brand. As a consequence, selecting the appropriate appeal is crucial. Information processing theory suggests that the choice should reflect both consumer’s predispositions and their level of involvement. The espoused theories together with prior empirical evidence promoted six sets of hypotheses relating to the comparative effectiveness of rational, emotional, and discrepant appeals. The respective appeals were administered to positively predisposed and negatively predisposed subjects for both high involvement and low involvement products. A MANOVA analysis of the data from a 3×2×2 within-subjects experimental design revealed significant main effect differences in terms of both predisposition and type of appeal.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Agres, S. J. and M. Bernstein. 1984. “Cognitive and Emotional Elements in Persuasion and Advertising,” 92nd Annual Convention of American Psychological Association, Toronto, (August).

  2. ——. “Memory Factors in Consumer Choice: A Review”.Journal of Marketing 43 (Spring): 39–42.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bettman, James R. 1979.An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cox, Donald F. 1967.Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Craik, Fergus and Robert S. Lockhard. 1972. “Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research”.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11 (December): 671–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Crocker, J., D. B. Hannat and R. Weber. 1983. “Person Memory and Causal Attributions”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44 No. 1: 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Engel, James, Roger Blackwell and Paul Miniard. 1986.Consumer Behavior. New York: Dryden Press, 5th ed.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Freedman, J. L. 1964. “Involvement, Discrepancy and Change”.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 69 (September): 290–295.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Greenwald, A. 1968. “Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuation, and Attitude Change”. inPsychological Foundations of Attitudes. Eds. Greenwald, Brock, and Ostrom. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hastie, R. L. and P. Kumar. 1979. “Person Memory: Personality Traits as Organizings Principles in Memory for Behaviors”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Howard, John and L. Ostlund. 1973.Buyer Behavior: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Howard, John and Jagdish Sheth. 1969.The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hughes, G. D. and M. L. Ray, eds. 1974.Buyer/Consumer Information Processing. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kaas, Klaus P. 1983. “Factors Influencing Consumer Strategies in Information Processing”. inAdvances in Consumer Research Ed. Thomas C. Kinnear. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research: 585–590.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Koeske, G. and W. Crano. 1968. “The Effect of Congruous and Incongruous Source-Statement Combinations upon the Judged Credibility of a Communication”.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 4: 384–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kroeber-Riel, Werner. 1979. “Activation Research: Psychobiological Approaches in Consumer Research”.Journal of Consumer Rasearch 5 (March): 240–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Krugman, Herbert E. 1971. “Brain Wave Measures of Media Involvement”.Journal of Advertising Research 11 No. 1 (February) 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. —. 1977. “Memory Without Recall, Exposure With. ut Perception”.Journal of Advertising Research 11 No. 4 (August): 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Krugman, Herbert E. 1972. “Low Involvement Theory in the Light of New Brain Research.” Paper presented at AMA Advertising Research Conference, New York: American Marketing Association 16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mason, J. B. and M. L. Mayer. 1972. “Empirical Observations of Consumer Behavior as Related to Goods Classification and Retail Strategy”.Journal of Retailing (Fall): 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mizerski, Richard W., J. D. White and J. B. Hunt 1984. “The Use of Emotion in Advertising”, inAmerican Marketing Association Educators Proceedings. Ed. Russell Belk. Chicago:American Marketing Association: 244–248.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Moriarity, Sandra E. 1983. “Getting at the Gut with Appeals to Pathos”Madison Avenue (April): 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Morin, Christophe. 1983. “An Assessment of the Comparative Effectiveness of Paradoxical Advertising Messages”. Unpublished Masters Thesis. College of Business Administration, Bowling Green State University. Bowling Green, Ohio.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Olshavsky, Richard W. and Donald H. Granbois. 1979. “Consumer Decision Making-Fact or Fiction?”Journal of Consumer Research (September): 93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Olson, J. 1977. “Price as an Informational Cue: Effects on Product Evaluations”, inConsumer and Industrial Buying Behavior. Eds. A. Woodside, J. Sheth, and P. Bennett. New York: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Petty, Richard E., J. T. Cacioppo and D. Schumann 1983. “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Molerating Role of Involvement”Journal of Consumer Research 10 (Septembur): 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rhine, R. J. and L. J. Severence. 1970. “Ego Involvement, Discrepancy, Source Credibility and Attitude Change”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (October): 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Robertson, Thomas S. 1976. “Low-Commitment Consumer Behavior”,Journal of Advertising Research 16 No. 2 (April): 19–26

    Google Scholar 

  29. Roselius, Ted. 1971. “Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction”,Journal of Marketing 35 (June):56–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rothschild, Michael L. 1979. “Advertising Strategies for High and Low Involvement Situations.” inAttitude Research Plays for High Stakes., Eds. Maloney and Silverman. Chicago: American Marketing Association 74–93.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Scott, C. and A. Tybout. 1978. “The Effect of Uncertainty and Incentives on Consumer Response”. Unpublished Manuscripts. Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sheth, J. and M. Venkatesan. 1968. “Risk Reduction Processes in Repetitive Consumer Behavior”.Journal of Marketing Research 5 (August): 307–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sternthal, Brian and C. Samuel Craig. 1982.Consumer Behavior. An Information Processing Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Walster, E., E. Aronson, and D. Abrahams. 1966. “On Increasing the Persuasiveness of Low Pretige Communicator”.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2:325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holmes, J.H., Crocker, K.E. Predispositions and the comparative effectiveness of rational, emotional and discrepant appeals for both high involvement and low involvement products. JAMS 15, 27–35 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02721951

Download citation

Keywords

  • Comparative Effectiveness
  • Purchase Intention
  • High Involvement
  • American Market Association
  • Involvement Product