Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of affect in attitude formation: A classical conditioning approach

  • Research Note
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the role of affect in attitude formation. Two experiments, using established conditioning procedures, assessed the impact of affect on attitude formation. The results of Experiment 1 indicate that affect can influence attitudes even in the absence of product beliefs. The results of Experiment 2 suggest that affect plays as important or more important a role than the belief mechanism in attitude formation, depending on the number of repetitions. Implications of the results for understanding the role of affect in advertising are discussed.

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

  • Alba, Joseph W. and Wesley J. Hutchinson 1987. “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise.”Journal of Consumer Research 13 (March): 411–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, Chris T. and Thomas J. Madden. 1985. “A Closer Look at Classical Conditioning.”Journal of Consumer Research 12 (December): 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand, Punam and Morris B. Holbrook. 1990. “Reinterpretation of Mere Exposure or Exposure of Mere Reinterpretation?”Journal of Consumer Research 17 (September): 242–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierley, Calvin, Frances K. McSweeney, and Renee Vannieuwkerk. 1985. “Classical Conditioning of Preferences for Stimuli.”Journal of Consumer Research 12 (December): 316–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Steven P. and Douglas M. Stayman. 1992. “Antecedents and Consequences of Attitude Toward the Ad: A Meta Analysis.”Journal of Consumer Research 19 (June): 34–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, John T., Beverly S. Marshall-Goodell, Louis G. Tassinary, and Richard E. Petty. 1992. “Rudimentary Determinants of Attitudes: Classical Conditioning is More Effective When Prior Knowledge About the Attitude Stimulus Is Low Than High.”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 28: 207–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and Richard E. Petty. 1985. “Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: The Role of Message Repetition.” InPsychological Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research and Applications. Eds. Linda Alwitt and Andrew Mitchell. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 91–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, Alice H. and Shelly Chaiken. 1993.The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen. 1975.Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Susan Middlestadt. 1995. “Noncognitive Effects on Attitude Formation and Change: Fact or Artifact?”Journal of Consumer Psychology 4 (2): 181–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, Lawrence D. 1996. “What Can One TV Exposure Do?”Journal of Advertising Research 36 (March/April): 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorn, Gerald J. 1982. “The Effects of Music in Advertising on Choice Behavior: A Classical Conditioning Approach.”Journal of Marketing 46 (Winter): 94–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gresham, Larry G. and Terence A. Shimp. 1985. “Attitude Toward the Advertisement and Brand Attitudes: A Classical Conditioning Perspective.”Journal of Advertising 14 (1): 10–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, Timothy B. 1990. “The Logic of Mere Exposure: A Reinterpretation of Anand, Holbrook, and Stephens.”Journal of Consumer Research 17 (September): 237–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janiszewski, Chris and Luk Warlop. 1993. “The Influence of Classical Conditioning Procedures on Subsequent Attention to the Conditioned Brand.”Journal of Consumer Research 20 (September): 171–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kardes, Frank R. 1994. “Consumer Judgment and Decision Processes.” InHandbook of Social Cognition. Vol. 2. Eds. Robert S. Wyer and Thomas K. Srull. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 399–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellaris, James J. and Anthony D. Cox. 1989. “The Effects of Background Music in Advertising: A Reassessment.”Journal of Consumer Research 16 (June): 113–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, John, Chris T. Allen, and Frank R. Kardes. 1996. “An Investigation of the Mediational Mechanisms Underlying Attitudinal Conditioning.”Journal of Marketing Research 33 (August): 318–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, Herbert E. 1975. “What Makes Advertising Effective.”Harvard Business Review 54 (March–April): 96–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandese, Joe. 1995. “Revisiting Ad Reach and Frequency.”Advertising Age 66 (November 27): 46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Middlestadt, Susan E. 1990. “The Effect of Background and Ambient Color on Product Attitudes and Beliefs.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Vol 17. Eds. Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald J. Gorn, and Richard W. Pollay. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. 244–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, Danny L., Douglas Hausknecht, and Kanchana Thamodaran. 1986. “Time Compression, Response Opportunity, and Persuasion.”Journal of Consumer Research 13 (June): 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pechmann, Cornelia and David W. Stewart. 1988. “Advertising Repetition: A Critical Review of Wearin and Wearout.”Current Issues & Research in Advertising 11: 285–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo. 1985.Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Debuque, IA: WCB.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann 1983. “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement.”Journal of Consumer Research. 10 (September): 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —, Rao H. Unnava, and Alan J. Strathman. 1991. “Theories of Attitude Change.” inHandbook of Consumer Behavior. Eds. Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 241–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla, Robert A. 1967. “Pavlovian Conditioning and Its Proper Control Procedures.”Psychological Review 74 (January): 71–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1988. “Pavlovian Conditioning: It’s Not What You Think It Is.”American Psychologist 43 (March): 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimp, Terence A. 1991. “Neo-Pavlovian Conditioning and Its Implications for Consumer Theory and Research.” InHandbook of Consumer Behavior. Eds. Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 162–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, Elnora W. Stuart, and Randall W. Engle. 1991. “A Program of Classical Conditioning Experiments Testing Variations in the Conditioned Stimulus and Contents.”Journal of Consumer Research 18 (June): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Ruth A. 1991. “The Effects of Visual and Verbal Advertising Information on Consumers’ Inferences.”Journal of Advertising 20 (December): 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, Elnora W., Terence A. Shimp, and Randall W. Engle 1987. “Classical Conditioning of Consumer Attitudes: Four Experiments in an Advertising Context.”Journal of Consumer Research 14 (December): 334–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surmanek, Jim. 1995. “One-Hit or Miss: Is a Frequency of One Frequently Wrong?”Advertising Age 66 (November 27): 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, David and Tony M. Dubilsky. 1994. “Why Liking Matters.”Journal of Advertising Research 34 (May/June): 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilke, John R. 1993. “Digital Technology Changes How Images Are Edited, and Gives Them a New Look.”Wall Street Journal 75 (November 2): B1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, Robert B., Paula Pietromonaco, and John Bargh 1982. “Independence and Interaction of Affect and Cognition.” InAffect and Cognition. Eds. Margaret S. Clark and Susan T. Fiske. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oakland University, Oakland, USA

    John Kim & Mukesh Bhargava

  2. University of Toledo, Toledo, USA

    Jeen-Su Lim

Authors
  1. John Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeen-Su Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mukesh Bhargava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

John Kim is an associate professor of marketing in the School of Business Administration at Oakland University. He earned his Ph.D. in marketing from the University of Cincinnati. His research interests include consumer decision making, advertising effectiveness, and brand equity. His work has appeared in theJournal of Marketing Research, theJournal of Consumer Research, and theJournal of Business Research.

Jeen-Su Lim is Interim Chair and a professor of marketing at the University of Toledo. He received his Ph.D. in marketing from Indiana University. His work has appeared in many journals, including theJournal of Marketing Research, theJournal of Consumer Research, theJournal of Business Research, Industrial Marketing Management, International Marketing Review, Management International Review, Psychology and Marketing, and theJournal of Health Care Marketing, among others. His research interests include consumer inference processes, new product development and competitive strategy, and export marketing.

Mukesh Bhargava is an assistant professor in the Department of Marketing and Management at Oakland University. He has a Ph.D. in marketing from the University of Texas, Austin, and several years of practical experience in advertising and marketing research. His research includes areas such as advertising effectiveness and evaluation of marketing strategy in business and nonprofit organizations. His work has appeared in theJournal of Advertising Research, Marketing Letters, theJournal of Business Research, and theJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, among others.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, J., Lim, JS. & Bhargava, M. The role of affect in attitude formation: A classical conditioning approach. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 26, 143–152 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070398262005

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070398262005

Keywords

Search

Navigation