Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Personality Traits on the Processing of Visual and Verbal Information

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to investigate individuals' preferences for visual as opposed to verbal information and to explore how those preferences relate to processing style personality traits. In comparison to individuals with other processing style personality traits, individuals with a high need for cognition prefer to process verbal information while individuals with a high need for affect prefer to process visual information. Linking processing style personality traits with preferences for visual/verbal information increases our theoretical understanding and practical applicability of personality traits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agnew, Joe. (1987). ‘P-O-P Displays Are Becoming a Matter of Consumer Convenience,’ Marketing News 9 (October), 14.

  • Bem, Sandra L. (1974). ‘The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny,’ Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42 (April), 155-162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, James R. and C. Whan Park. (1980). ‘Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis,’ Journal of Consumer Research 7 (December), 234-248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, Marion C. and Julie A. Edell. (1989). ‘The Impact of Feelings on Ad-based Affect and Cognition,’ Journal of Marketing Research 26, 34-51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty. (1982). ‘The Need for Cognition,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, 116-131.

    Google Scholar 

  • __, Richard E. Petty and C.F. Kao. (1984). ‘The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition,’ Journal of Personality Assessment 119, 197-253.

    Google Scholar 

  • __, Richard E. Petty, C.F. Kao and R. Rodriguez. (1986). ‘Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: An Individual Difference Perspective,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1032-1043.

    Google Scholar 

  • __, Richard E. Petty, Jeffrey A. Feinstein and W. Blair G. Jarvis. (1996). ‘Dispositional Differences in Cognitive Motivation: The Life and Times of Individuals Varying in Need for Cognition,’ Psychological Bulletin 19, 197-253.

    Google Scholar 

  • __, Wendi L. Gardner and Gray G. Berntson. (1999). ‘The Affect System Has Parallel and Integrative Processing Components: Form Follows Function,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(5), 839-855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Celsi, Richard L. and Jerry C. Olson. (1988). ‘The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes,’ Journal of Consumer Research 15 (September), 210-224.

  • Childers, Terry L., Michael J. Houston and Susan E. Heckler. (1985). ‘Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual Versus Verbal Information Processing,’ Journal of Consumer Research 12 (September), 125-134.

  • Deubel, Heiner and Werner X. Schneider. (1993). ‘There Is No Expressway to a Comprehensive Theory of the Coordination of Vision, Eye Movements and Visual Attention,’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (September), 575-576.

  • Engel, James F., Roger D. Blackwell and Paul W. Miniard. (1995). Consumer Behavior. Orlando, FL: The Dryden Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, Erik H. (1968). Identity. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foxall, Gordon R. and Seema Bhate. (1993). ‘Cognitive Style and Personal Involvement as Explicators of Innovative Purchasing of Healthy Food Brands,’ European Journal of Marketing 27, 5-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giese, Joan L. and Jane Z. Sojka. (1998). ‘The Relationship Between Processing Styles and Self-Control Behavioral Charecteristics,’ Marketing Letters 9(4), 371-382.

    Google Scholar 

  • __, Jane Z. Sojka, Eric R. Spangenberg and Joseph A. Cote. (1999). ‘A Scale to Measure Need for Affect,’ Working Paper, Washington State University.

  • Haugtvedt, Curtis P., Richard E. Petty, John T. Cacioppo and Theresa Steidley. (1988). ‘Personality and Ad Effectiveness: Exploring the Utility of Need for Cognition.’ In Advances in Consumer Research ed. Thomas K. Srull, Vol. 16, Provo, UT: Association of Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • __, Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo. (1992). ‘Need for Cognition and Adverising: Understanding the Role of Personality Variables in Consumer Behavior,’ Journal of Consumer Psychology 1, 239-260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janiszewski, Chris. (1988). ‘Preconscious Processing Effects: The Independence of Attitude Formation and Conscious Thought,’ Journal of Consumer Research 15 (September), 199-209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, Barbara E. and Alice M. Isen. (1993). ‘The Influence of Positive Affect on Variety Seeking Among Safe, Enjoyable Products,’ Journal of Consumer Research 20 (September), 257-270.

  • Kassarjian, Harold. (1971). ‘Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review,’ Journal of Marketing Research (November) 409-418.

  • __ and Mary Jane Sheffet. (1991). ‘Personality and Consumer Behavior: An Update.’ In Perspective in Consumer Behavior eds. H. Kassarjian, and T. Robertson, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 281-303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, Donald R., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Scot Burton. (1995). ‘Assessing the Domain Specificity of Deal Proneness: A Field Study,’ Journal of Consumer Research 22 (December), 314-326.

  • Macklin, M. Carol. (1996). ‘Preschoolers’ Learning of Brand Names from Visual Cues,’ Journal of Consumer Research 23 (December), 251-261.

  • Mantel, Susan Powell and Frank R. Kardes. (1999). ‘The Role of Direction of Comparison, Attribute-Based Processing, and Attitude-Based Processing in Consumer Preference,’ Journal of Consumer Research 25 (September), 335-352.

  • McQuarrie, Edward F. and David Glen Mick. (1992). ‘On Resonance: A Pluralistic Inquiry into Advertising Rhetoric,’ Journal of Consumer Research 19 (September), 180-211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers-Levy, Joan and Laura A. Peracchio. (1995). ‘Understanding the Effects of Color: How the Correspondence between Available and Required Resources Affects Attitudes,’ Journal of Consumer Research 22 (September), 121-138.

  • Mitchell, Andrew A. (1986). ‘The Effect of Verbal and Visual Components of Advertisements on Brand Attitudes and Attitude Toward the Advertisement,’ Journal of Consumer Research 13 (June), 12-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, David J., William D. Haris and Hong C. Chen. (1995). ‘Affect Intensity: An Individual Difference Response to Advertising Appeals,’ Journal of Consumer Research 22 (September), 154-164.

  • Mowen, John C. and Michael Minor. (1998). Consumer Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munch, James M., Gregory W. Boller and John L. Swasy. (1993). ‘The Effects of Argument Structure and Affective Tagging on Product Attitude Formation,’ Journal of Consumer Research 20 (September), 294-302.

  • Netemeyer, Richard G., Scot Burton and Donald R. Lichtenstein. (1995). ‘Trait Aspects of Vanity: Measurement and Relevance to Consumer Behavior,’ Journal of Consumer Research 21 (March), 612-626.

  • Peracchio, Laura A. and Joan Meyers-Levy. (1994). ‘How Ambiguous Cropped Objects in Ad Photos Can Affect Product Evaluations,’ Journal of Consumer Research 21 (June), 190-204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo. (1986). ‘The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.’ In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology ed. L. Berkowitz, Vol. 19, New York, NY: Academic Press, 123-205.

    Google Scholar 

  • __, John T. Cacioppo and Jeff A. Kasmer. (1988). ‘The Role of Affect in the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.’ In Communication, Social Cognition, and Affect eds., Donohew, Sypher, and Higgens, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 117-146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pham, Michel Tuan. (1998). ‘Representativeness, Relevance, and the Use of Feelings in Decision Making,’ Journal of Consumer Research 25 (September), 144-159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, John T.E. (1978). ‘Mental Imagery and Memory: Coding Ability or Coding Preference,’ Journal of Mental Imagery 1(1), 109-126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosbergen, Edward, Rik Pieters and Michel Wedel. (1997). ‘Visual Attention to Advertising: A Segment Level Analysis,’ Journal of Consumer Research 24 (December), 305-314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, John R. and Larry Percy. (1983). ‘Visual Communication in Advertising.’ In Information Processing Research in Advertising ed. Richard J. Harris, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 83-125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, Linda M. (1994). ‘Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric,’ Journal of Consumer Research 21 (September), 252-257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sojka, Jane Z. and Joan L. Giese (1997). ‘Thinking or Feeling: An Examination of Interaction Between Processing Styles.’ In Advances in Consumer Research eds., Merrie Brucks, and Deborah J. MacInnis, Provo, UT: Association of Consumer Research, 438-442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, Meera P., Deborah Marlino, Frank R. Kardes and Kimberly B. Sklar. (1990). ‘Effects of Individual Difference Variables on Response to Factual and Evaluative Ads.’ In Advances in Consumer Research eds., Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gorn and Richard W. Pollay, Vol. 17, Provo, UT: Association of Consumer Research, 761-765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Peter. (1975). ‘Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying vs. Optimizing,’ Journal of Marketing Research 12 (February), 6-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, Carolyn. (1997). ‘Age Difference in Consumers’ Processing Strategies: An Investigation of Moderating Influences,’ Journal of Consumer Research 24 (December), 329-342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, Robert B. (1980). ‘Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences,’ American Psychologist 35, 151-175.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, Ohio University, Athens, OH, 45701-2979

    Jane Z. Sojka

  2. Department of Marketing, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 99164-4730

    Joan L. Giese

Authors
  1. Jane Z. Sojka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joan L. Giese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sojka, J.Z., Giese, J.L. The Influence of Personality Traits on the Processing of Visual and Verbal Information. Marketing Letters 12, 91–106 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008132422468

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008132422468

Search

Navigation