Advertisement

Der Involvementbegriff in der Werbeforschung: Zum überfälligen Ende eines schwer greifbaren Konzeptes

  • Brigitte NadererEmail author
  • Jörg Matthes
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

„A concept that includes cognitive responses, felt emotions, attention, recall, information seeking, and discussions about the topic is not very useful. If involvement were all-encompassing, we could easily abandon the concept.“, das schrieb Werner Wirth (2006, S. 209-210) über das Involvementkonzept bereits vor einiger Zeit.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Antil, J. H. (1984). Conceptualization and operationalization of involvement. In T. C. Kinnear (Hrsg.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 11, (S. 203–209). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  2. Batra, R. & Ray, M. L. (1983). Operationalizing involvement as depth and quality of cognitive response. In R. P. Bagozzi & A. M. Tybout (Hrsg.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 10 (S. 309–313). MI: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  3. Boerman, S. C., van Reijmersdal, E. A. & Neijens, P. C. (2015). How audience and disclosure characteristics influence memory of sponsorship disclosures. International Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 576–592.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2015.1009347
  4. Celsi, R. L. & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210–224.  https://doi.org/10.1086/209158
  5. Cervellon, M. C. (2012). Victoria’s dirty secrets: Effectiveness of green not-for-profit messages targeting brands. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 133–145.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2012.10672462
  6. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
  7. Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y. (Hrsg.). (1999). Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chang, C. (2009). “Being Hooked” By Editorial Content: The Implications for Processing Narrative Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 38(1), 21–34.  https://doi.org/10.2753/joa0091-3367380102
  9. Chang, C. (2012). The effectiveness of advertising that leverages sponsorship and cause-related marketing: A contingency model. International Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 317–338.  https://doi.org/10.2501/ija-31-2-317-337
  10. Finn, D. W. (1983). Low-involvement isn’t low-involving. In R. P. Bagozzi & A.M. Tybout (Hrsg.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 10, (S. 419–424). MI: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  11. Greenwald, A. G. & Leavitt, C. (1985). Cognitive theory and audience involvement. In L. F. Alwitt& A. A. Mitchell (Hrsg.), Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects. Theory, Research, and Applications (S. 221–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Ketelaar, P. E., van’t Riet, J., Thorbjornsen, H. & Buijzen, M. (2018). Positive uncertainty: the benefit of the doubt in advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 256–269.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1231163
  13. Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29(3), 349–356.  https://doi.org/10.1086/267335
  14. Krugman, H. E. (1966). The measurement of advertising involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 30(4), 583–596.  https://doi.org/10.1086/267457
  15. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46–70.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x
  16. Matthes, J. (2013). The affective underpinnings of hostile media perceptions: Exploring the distinct effects of affective and cognitive involvement. Communication Research, 40(3), 360–387.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211420255
  17. Matthes, J. & Beyer, A. (2017). Toward a cognitive-affective process model of hostile media perceptions: A multi-country structural equation modeling approach. Communication Research, 44(8), 1075–1098.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215594234
  18. Matthes, J., Schemer, C., Willemsen, H. & Wirth, W. (2005). Zur Wirkung von Product Placements. Theoretische Überlegungen und experimentelle Befunde zum Mere Exposure-Effekt in audiovisuellen Medien. Medien Journal, 29(4), 23–37.  https://doi.org/10.24989/medienjournal.v29i4.304
  19. Matthes, J., Schemer, C. & Wirth, W. (2007). More than meets the eye: Investigating the hidden impact of brand placements in television magazines. International Journal of Advertising, 26(4), 477–503.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2007.11073029
  20. Matthes, J., Schemer, C., Willemsen, H. & Wirth, W. (2005). Zur Wirkung von Product Placements. Theoretische Überlegungen und experimentelle Befunde zum Mere Exposure-Effekt in audiovisuellen Medien. Medien Journal, 29(4), 23–37.  https://doi.org/10.24989/medienjournal.v29i4.304
  21. Matthes, J., Schemer, C. & Wirth, W. (2007). More than meets the eye: Investigating the hidden impact of brand placements in television magazines. International Journal of Advertising, 26(4), 477–503.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2007.11073029
  22. Mitchell, A. A. (1979). Involvement: A potentially important mediator of consumer behavior. In W. L. Wilkie (Hrsg.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 06 (S. 191–196). MI: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  23. Moorman, M., Willemsen, L. M., Neijens, P. C. & Smit, E. G. (2012). Program-involvement effects on commercial attention and recall of successive and embedded advertising. Journal of Advertising, 41(2), 25–38.  https://doi.org/10.2753/joa0091-3367410202
  24. Muehling, D. D., Laczniak, R. N. & Andrews, J. C. (1993). Defining, operationalizing, and using involvement in advertising research: A review. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 15(1), 21–57.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.1993.10504994
  25. Park, C. W. & Young, M. S. (1983). Types and levels of involvement and brand attitude formation. In R. P. Bagozzi & A. M. Tybout (Hrsg.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 10 (S. 320–324). MI: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  26. Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915–1926.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1915
  27. Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69–81.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69
  28. Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Pieters, R. & Wedel, M. (2007). Goal control of attention to advertising: The Yarbus implication. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 224–233.  https://doi.org/10.1086/519150
  30. Ray, M. L. (1973). Marketing communication and the hierarchy-of-effects. In P. Clarke (Hrsg.), New Models for Communication Research (S. 147–176). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Rothschild, M. L. & Ray, M. L. (1974). Involvement and political advertising effect. An exploratory experiment. Communication Research, 1(3), 264–285.  https://doi.org/10.1177/009365027400100302
  32. Schemer, C., Matthes, J. & Wirth, W. (2008). Toward improving validity and reliability of information processing measures in surveys. Communication Methods and Measures, 2, 1-33.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450802310474
  33. Schramm, H. & Hartmann, T. (2008). The PSI-Process Scales. A new measure to assess the intensity and breadth of parasocial processes. Communications, 33(4), 385–401.  https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2008.025
  34. Sherif, M. & Cantril, H. (1947). The Psychology of Ego-Involvements: Social Attitudes and Identifications. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Siegert, G., Wirth, W., Matthes, J., Pühringer, K., Rademacher, P. Schemer, C. & von Rimscha, B. (2007). Die Zukunft der Fernsehwerbung. Produktion, Verbreitung und Rezeption von programmintegrierten Werbeformen in der Schweiz. Bern: Haupt.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, R. E. & Swinyard, W. R. (1982). Information response models: An integrated approach. The Journal of Marketing, 46(1), 81–93.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1251162
  37. Smith, S. M. & Krugman, D. M. (2009). Viewer as media decision-maker: Digital video recorders and household media consumption. International Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 231–255.  https://doi.org/10.2501/s0265048709200552
  38. Torres, I. M. & Briggs, E. (2007). Identification effects on advertising response: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Advertising, 36(3), 97–108.  https://doi.org/10.2753/joa0091-3367360307
  39. Tukachinsky, R. & O’Connor, C. (2017). Involvement with media content. In P. Rössler (Hrsg.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, (S. 1–15). Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Black-well.Google Scholar
  40. Wirth, W. (2001). Aufmerksamkeit: Ein Konzept-und Theorieüberblick aus psychologischer Perspek-tive mit Implikationen für die Kommunikationswissenschaft. In K. Beck & W. Schweiger (Hrsg.), Attention Please! Online-Kommunikation und Aufmerksamkeit (S. 69-89). München: Reinhard Fischer.Google Scholar
  41. Wirth, W. (2006). Involvement. In J. Bryant, & P. Vorderer (Hrsg.), Psychology of Entertainment (S. 199–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Wirth, W. (2012). Präsenzerleben und Involvement in neuen Medien. In L. Reinecke & S. Trepte (Hrsg.), Unterhaltung in neuen Medien. Perspektiven zur Rezeption und Wirkung von Online-Medien und interaktiven Unterhaltungsformaten (S. 100–121). Köln: Halem.Google Scholar
  43. Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., Böcking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., Saari, T., Laarni, J., Ravaja, N., Gouveia, F. R., Biocca, F., Sacau, A., Jäncke, L., Baumgartner, T & Jäncke, P. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology, 9(3), 493–525.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701283079
  44. Wirth, W., Hofer, M. & Schramm, H. (2012). The role of emotional involvement and trait absorption in the formation of spatial presence. Media Psychology, 15(1), 19–43.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2011.648536
  45. Wirth, W., Matthes, J., Schemer, C. & Husmann, T. (2008). Product Placements als Trojanische Pferde? Experimentelle Befunde zur Persuasion ohne explizite Erinnerung. In S. Trepte, U. Hasebrink & H. Schramm (Hrsg.), Strategische Kommunikation und Mediengestaltung – Anwendung und Erkenntnisse der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsforschung (S. 97-114). München: Fischer.Google Scholar
  46. Wirth, W., Matthes, J., Schemer, C. & Stämpfli, I. (2009). Glaubwürdigkeitsverlust durch programm-integrierte Werbung? Eine Untersuchung zu den Kontexteffekten von Produktplatzierungen im Fernsehen. Publizistik, 54, 1-18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-009-0026-0
  47. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352.  https://doi.org/10.1086/208520
  48. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59–70.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1943.10673459

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität WienWienÖsterreich
  2. 2.Institut für Publizistik- und KommunikationswissenschaftUniversität WienWienÖsterreich

Personalised recommendations