Rethinking Information Objectivity and Its Effectiveness in Print Communications

ABSTRACT - This paper seeks to advance the state of knowledge about the effectiveness of objective and subjective product information in print communications. Issues with respect to operationalization of objective and subjective information and prior findings are identified. A revised classification framework of information objectivity is proposed. Furthermore, how product type and consumer knowledge may influence the relative effectiveness of objective versus subjective information is examined through an experiment. Results and implications are discussed.



Citation:

Chung-kue Hsu and Kent B. Monroe (1998) ,"Rethinking Information Objectivity and Its Effectiveness in Print Communications", in AP - Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 3, eds. Kineta Hung and Kent B. Monroe, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 210-215.

Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 3, 1998      Pages 210-215

RETHINKING INFORMATION OBJECTIVITY AND ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN PRINT COMMUNICATIONS

Chung-kue Hsu, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U.S.A.

Kent B. Monroe, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT -

This paper seeks to advance the state of knowledge about the effectiveness of objective and subjective product information in print communications. Issues with respect to operationalization of objective and subjective information and prior findings are identified. A revised classification framework of information objectivity is proposed. Furthermore, how product type and consumer knowledge may influence the relative effectiveness of objective versus subjective information is examined through an experiment. Results and implications are discussed.

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT

Information Objectivity

One fundamental dimension of the verbal content in a persuasive communication is the degree to which a message is objective or subjective (Holbrook 1978). Indeed, product information varying in perceived objectivity has been used extensively in print persuasive communications. To investigate the effects of information objectivity on consumers’ responses, it is essential to distinguish between objective and subjective information. Prior studies on claim objectivity generally have pointed out that objective inormation is comprised of factual, specific descriptions of tangible, physical attributes; whereas subjective information is comprised of impressionistic descriptions of intangible aspects of a product (Edell and Staelin 1983; Holbrook 1980; Darley and Smith 1993, 1995; Iyer 1988). Namely, information objectivity contains two dimensions, i.e., attribute tangibility and description factualness (Darley and Smith 1993). Accordingly, they classified advertising claims into four categories based on tangibility of attributes and factualness of descriptions. Objective claims consist of tangible attributes and factual descriptions. Subjective claims are composed of intangible attributes and impressionistic descriptions. Mixed claims refer to claims that combine tangible attributes with impressionistic descriptions. Finally, intangible/factual claims represent an empty cell since nonphysical attributes, in nature, cannot be determined by standard scales.

Previous studies tend to conceptualize intangible attributes as functional benefits of products while image associations or symbolic benefits from using a product unaddressed. This drawback can be overcome by integrating Myers and Shocker’s (1981) attribute typology. They proposed a three-category classification schema for the various types of attributes used to describe products, services or brands. The first category, characteristic attributes, refers to physical characteristics or properties of a product. These attributes are objective in nature and are used to describe a product or service. This category of characteristic attributes is product referent. The second category, beneficial attributes, reflects the perceived consequences of using a product or service. These attributes are used to describe the advantages of the product or service and are intrinsically desirable, ceteris paribus. This type of attribute is evident from consumption or use and involves consumers’ subjective evaluations. These attributes are task or outcome referent. The third category, imagery attributes, reflects what the product itself or use of the product implies or says about the user. These attributes are not intrinsic to the product itself; instead, they are suggested by promotions or by users and are also subjective in nature. These attributes are user referent. It should be noted that, in this attribute typology, beneficial attributes concern utilitarian or functional benefits while imagery attributes suggest symbolic benefits (Lefkoff-Hagius and Mason 1993).

While Myers and Shocker’s (1981) attribute typology takes into consideration imagery attributes and extends the scope of subjective information, it has not explicitly considered the way an attribute is presented (i.e., factual versus impressionistic). Hence, a combined view of Darley and Smith’s (1993) definition of claim objectivity and Myers and Shocker’s (1981) attribute typology would provide a more comprehensive description of objective and subjective information. A classification framework of information objectivity based on attribute tangibility, description factualness, attribute typology and target of referent is proposed in Table 1. Product information can be categorized as: (1) objective information, i.e., characteristic (tangible) attributes with factual descriptions; (2) mixed information, i.e., characteristic (tangible) attributes with impressionistic descriptions; (3) beneficial-subjective information, i.e., beneficial intangible attributes with impressionistic descriptions; and (4) imagery-subjective information, i.e., imagery intangible attributes with impressionistic descriptions. The first two categories are product referent in nature and the last two categories are outcome and user referent respectively.

The Effectiveness of Objective versus Subjective information

The question follows is whether objective and subjective product information would differ in their persuasiveness. A few empirical studies have examined the effects of claim objectivity on consumers’ responses. A summay table outlining each of these studies is presented in Table 2. In brief, these studies have consistently shown that objective information, in contrast to subjective information, is more persuasive in terms of inducing more favorable brand beliefs, ad credibility, ad attitudes, brand attitudes, purchase intentions, and cognitive responses.

Although extant studies consistently appear to suggest a superiority of objective information, no conclusion is made that objective claims are always superior to subjective claims. Rather, a question regarding "under what conditions will objective claims be superior to subjective claims" remains; it is urged that future claim research should identify a fuller array of factors that determine content effectiveness (Darley and Smith 1993). We will focus on two factorsCproduct type and consumers’ product knowledge in this present study.

Product Type: Utilitarian Versus Value-Expressive Products

One factor that may moderate the effects of information objectivity on consumers’ responses is product type (Iyer 1988; Darley and Smith 1993). In view of the studies reviewed above, the test products (car, calculator, camera, antacids, weighing scale, automatic blanket) can be viewed as predominantly serving a utilitarian function; the services (hotel and auto repair) also appeal primarily to utilitarian aspects of the offerings (e.g., price, facilities). Whether previous findings can be generalized to value-expressive products remains a question. Nevertheless, no extant empirical studies on claim objectivity have investigated the impact of product type.

Researchers have suggested the existence of non-utilitarian needs of consumers (e.g., Batra and Ahtola 1990; Holbrook and Hirschman 1982; Park and McClung 1986; Park and Mittal 1985; Park and Young 1986). Shavitt’s (1989, 1990) object-based attitude function approach posited that the purposes a product (object) serves influences the functions of attitudes toward the product. It was found that advertising appeals emphasizing product features and benefits associated with the product appear persuasive for utilitarian products, while appeals focusing on what the products express about one’s identity and values appear persuasive for value-expressive products (Shavitt 1990).

TABLE 1

PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORK OF INFORMATION OBJECTIVITY

Objective, mixed, and beneficial information is similar to utilitarian appeals in that they deal with product features and rewards associated with it. In contrast, imagery information is similar to value-expressive appeals in that it is based on what the product is perceived to symbolize and communicate about one’s own identity and values to others. Hence, we predict that:

H1a:  For a utilitarian product, compared to imagery information, objective information will lead to more favorable attitudes toward the ad, ad credibility, brand beliefs, attitudes toward the brand, stronger purchase intentions, and greater favorability of thoughts about the brand.

H1b:  For a value-expressive product, compared to imagery information, objective information will lead to less favorable attitudes toward the ad, ad credibility, brand beliefs, attitudes toward the brand, weaker purchase intentions, and lower favorability of thoughts about the brand.

H2a:  For a utilitarian product, compared to imagery information, mixed information will lead to more favorable attitudes toward the ad, ad credibility, brand beliefs, attitudes toward the brand, stronger purchase intentions, and greater favorability of thoughts about the brand.

H2b:  For a value-expressive product, compared to imagery information, mixed information will lead to less favorable attitudes toward the ad, ad credibility, brand beliefs, attitudes toward th brand, weaker purchase intentions, and lower favorability of thoughts about the brand.

H3a:  For a utilitarian product, compared to imagery information, beneficial information will lead to more favorable attitudes toward the ad, ad credibility, brand beliefs, attitudes toward the brand, stronger purchase intentions, and greater favorability of thoughts about the brand.

H3b:  For a value-expressive product, compared to imagery information, beneficial information will lead to less favorable attitudes toward the ad, ad credibility, brand beliefs, attitudes toward the brand, weaker purchase intentions, and lower favorability of thoughts about the brand.

Consumer Knowledge: High versus Low Knowledge

The preceding hypotheses pertain to the effectiveness of imagery information relative to objective, mixed, and beneficial information. The comparative persuasiveness of objective, mixed, and beneficial information may depend on consumers’ product knowledge. Researchers have suggested that lack of knowledge would likely prevent novice consumers from interpreting physical features and numerical labels (Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Artz and Tybout 1993, 1995; Maheswaran and Sternthal 1990; Viswanathan and Childers 1997). On one hand, the role of knowledge has remained unexplored in claim objectivity studies. On the other hand, despite this neglect, the relative superiority of objective information found in prior studies may be explained in light of consumers’ knowledge. It appears that product information used in prior research was relatively easy to comprehend. Even though technical features and/or numerical presentations were used in some cases, the supplementary descriptions provided meanings for them. For example, in Darley and Smith’s (1993) study, blanket material was described as "loom woven of a 75% acrylic and 25% wool blend for shape retention and softness." Even if subjects had limited knowledge about the test product, they were still able to process the incoming information. However, the relative persuasiveness of objective and subjective information may reverse when low knowledge people are not able to (1) interpret the meaning of the number used to denote the value of the attribute, or (2) comprehend the attribute itself. In the latter case, regardless of the description factualness, low knowledge people lack the ability to interpret the information. It should be noted that the foregoing discussions about product knowledge center on utilitarian products; thus, we will make the following predictions for utilitarian products only:

H4a:  For high knowledge consumers, objective information will lead to most favorable attitudes toward the ad, ad credibility, brand beliefs, attitudes toward the brand, and strongest purchase intentions, and greatest favorability of thoughts about the brand, followed by mixed information, and beneficial information last.

H4b:  For low knowledge consumers, beneficial information will lead to most favorable attitudes toward the ad, ad credibility, brand beliefs, attitudes toward the brand, and strongest purchase intentions, and greatest favorability of thoughts about the brand, followed by mixed information, and objective information last.

TABLE 2

PRIOR STUDIES RELATED TO INFORMATION OBJECTIVITY

METHODOLOGY

Design and Subjects

A four (information objectivity) by two (product type) factorial between-subject design was used. Information objectivity was manipulated at four levels: objective, mixed, beneficial-subjective and imagery-subjective information. Product type, had two classes: utilitarian and vaue-expressive product. Consumers’ product knowledge was a measured variable. Subjects were classified into a high- and a low-knowledge group based on a median split of an overall measure of product knowledge. Also, we attempted to induce a high motivation to process product information from subjects. A total of 280 students enrolled in introductory business courses participated in this study. Each subject was randomly assigned to one of the eight conditions.

Test Products and Stimulus Ads

Two stages of pretests were conducted to determine the appropriate test products and product information. The microwave oven and blazer were selected to represent a utilitarian and value-expressive product respectively, based on pretest results. Subsequently, eight stimulus advertisements were developedC four for the microwave oven and four for the blazer. Every advertisement contained four pieces of objective, mixed, beneficial information, or imagery information. Again, product information appearing in the advertisements was determined based on pretest results. In addition, fictitious brand names (i.e., Best Cook microwave oven and Best Look blazer) were used for both test products to prevent any carry-over effects of existent brand preference. No photos or visual cues were used.

Dependent Variables

The dependent variables of interest were attitudes toward the ad, ad credibility, brand beliefs, attitudes toward the brand, purchase intentions, and favorability of thoughts. Attitudes toward the ad and toward the brand were measured on three seven-point semantic differential scales anchored by bad and good, dislikable and likable, and unfavorable and favorable (Goodstein 1993). Ad credibility was measured on three 7-point scales, anchored by unbelievable and believable, untrustworthy and trustworthy, and not credible and credible (Darley and Smith 1993). Brand beliefs were measured by "How likely do you think it is that the (test product) has (attribute or benefit described product information)?" on a 7-point probability scale from "zero likelihood" to "certain" (Darley and Smith 1993). Purchase intentions were measured by three 7-point items anchored by unlikely and likely, improbable and probable, and impossible and possible (Stafford 1996). Finally, cognitive responses were rated along a favorability scale with values of -3, -1, 0, +1 and +3. A favorability index was calculated for each subject by averaging the favorability scores the subject assigned to his/her thoughts (Shavitt 1990).

Experimental Procedure

At the beginning of each session, the experimenter briefly explained the objective of the study and then passed out a consent form and an experimental booklet to every subject. The booklet began with a description of the purpose, which was, in reality, intended to induce a high motivation from the subjects to process the product information provided later. Following the instructions, subjects completed measurements regarding the predominant attitude function the test product served. Subsequently, measures of subjects’ subjective knowledge, past use experience and ownership about the test product were administered. Participants were then exposed to information of the test product and instructed to read the message at their own pace. Subsequently, subjects were asked to list the thoughts and feelings and rated the favorability of their thoughts. Subjects also responded to other dependent measures. Following this, for subjects in the utilitarian product cells, we measured their objective product knowledge with 15 multiple-choice questions. Next, all subjects were instructed to assess their perceived objectivity of the information content they read. Finally, subjects’ demographic information and their motivation to process the provided information were obtained. To detect any hypothesis guessing, we asked subjects to write down what they think the true pupose of this study was. The session concluded with a debriefing.

RESULTS

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1a predicted a superiority of objective information over imagery information for a utilitarian product. We found that subjects’ beliefs and credibility were significantly more favorable for objective information than for imagery information (beliefs: 5.86 vs. 4.57, t (74)=6.01, p=.00; credibility: 5.43 vs. 4.52, t (74)=3.61, p=.001). However, ad attitudes were significantly more favorable for imagery information than for objective information (4.20 vs. 3.15, t (74)=3.93, p=.00). No significant differences were found for the other three dependent measures at the .05 level. Therefore, hypothesis 1a was partially supported. Conversely, hypothesis 1b predicted a superiority of imagery information over objective information for a value-expressive product. Similar to what we found in the utilitarian product case, objective information led to more favorable beliefs and credibility than imagery information (beliefs: 6.30 vs. 3.72, t (62)=8.98, p=.00; credibility: 6.22 vs. 3.85, t (62)=5.27, p=.00). No significant differences were observed on other dependent measures. As a result, hypothesis 1b was not supported.

Hypothesis 2a proposed that, for a utilitarian product, compared to imagery-subjective product information, mixed information will lead to more favorable responses. Support for H2a was found on subjects’ belief (5.29 vs. 4.57, t (74)=3.00, p=.004), credibility (4.98 vs. 4.52, t (74)=1.82, p=.07), and thought favorability (1.21 vs. .61, t (74)=1.94, p=.06). Also, directional support was observed on product attitudes and purchase intention; yet, these differences were not statistically significant. However, contrary to our prediction, imagery information resulted in more favorable ad attitudes than mixed information (4.20 vs. 3.65, t (74)=2.15, p=.04). Hence, hypothesis 2a received partial support. Hypothesis 2b predicted superiority of imagery information over mixed information for a value-expressive product. Contrary to our predictions, results showed that mixed information led to more favorable beliefs and credibility than imagery information (beliefs: 5.07 vs. 3.72, t (63)=4.77, p=.00; credibility: 4.65 vs. 3.85, t (63)=2.42, p=.02). Non-significant results were observed for the remaining four dependent measures. Therefore, hypothesis 2b was not supported.

Hypothesis 3a made predictions for a utilitarian product, suggesting that beneficial information, in contrast with imagery information, will lead to more favorable consumer responses. Our analyses revealed significant differences on belief (5.01 vs. 4.57, t (74)=2.00, p=.05), credibility (4.94 vs. 4.52, t (74)=1.92, p=.06), and thought favorability (1.23 vs. .61, t (74)=1.85, p=.07). Hypothesis 3a was thus partially supported. Based on hypothesis 3b, for a value-expressive product, compared to imagery information, beneficial information was predicted to be more effective. However, the directions of differences between these two types of information were opposite to our predictions, i.e., higher values on all dependent measures were observed for beneficial information. Specifically, subjects’ belief regarding beneficial and imagery information was significantly different (4.44 vs. 3.72, t (61)=2.24, p=.03). Therefore, hypothesis 3b was not supported.

Hypothesis 4a predicted that, for high knowledge consumers, objective information will lead to most favorable responses, followed by mixed information, and beneficial-subjective information last. Such a relationship was found to exist only in subjects’ beliefs (5.96 vs. 5.35 vs. 5.14), and the difference between objective and beneficial information was significant, p=.04. In terms of credibility, favorability of thoughts, ad attitudes, product attitudes, and purchase intention, mixed, non-significant esults were found. Overall, we found limited support for this hypothesis. Hypothesis 4b proposed that, for low knowledge consumers, beneficial-subjective information will be most persuasive, mixed information next, and objective information last. The proposed phenomenon was observed for subject’s thought favorability (M=1.36, 1.08, .38) and ad attitudes (M=3.71, 3.53, 2.90). Nevertheless, the differences were not significant at the .05 level. Moreover, results opposite to our predictions were observed for belief and credibility. Objective information was rated most believable and credible, followed by mixed information, and then by beneficial information. Hence, hypothesis 4b was not supported.

Trend Analysis

To further examine the relationships between the four levels of information objectivity/two levels of knowledge and consumers’ reactions, trend analyses were conducted. First, an analysis of trends was performed on the utilitarian product (i.e., microwave oven) and the value-expressive product (i.e., blazer) respectively. Findings showed that for the utilitarian product, the linear trend was significant for belief (F (1, 148)=35.98, p=.000), credibility (F (1, 148)=13.14, p=.000), and ad attitudes (F (1, 148)=15.64, p=.000). We also found that the quadratic trend was significant for the favorability of thoughts (F (1, 148)=7.85, p=.01) and product attitudes (F (1, 148)=3.72, p=.06). For the value-expressive product, belief showed a significant linear trend (F (1, 124)=89.75, p=.000). Moreover, both linear and quadratic trends were significant for credibility (F (1, 126)=36.63, p=.000; F (1,126)=4.82, p=.03 respectively), with the linear trend accounting for a greater proportion of the variance.

The analysis of various trends reveals that for a utilitarian product, as information objectivity increases, belief and credibility perceptions improve; however, ad attitudes ratings decline. Subjects’ thoughts and product attitudes are more favorable as the information presented to them is not at either end of objectivity. For a value-expressive product, subjects’ belief and credibility perceptions about the product information will enhance as the information becomes more objective. This is consistent with the utilitarian product. Nevertheless, no apparent relationships are found between information objectivity and subjects’ thoughts, ad attitudes, product attitudes, and purchase intentions.

Next, an analysis of trends was performed on the two knowledge groups separately. For the high-knowledge group, the linear trend was significant for subjects’ belief (F (1, 65)=22.80, p=.000) and credibility (F (1, 65)=6.00, p=.02). No significant trends were observed on the other dependent measures. For the low-knowledge group, belief showed a significant upward linear trend (F (1, 65)=15.89, p=.000), so did credibility (F(1, 65)=7.66, p=.01) while their ad attitudes revealed a significant downward linear trend (F(1, 65)=15.47, p=.000). Thought favorability showed a significant quadratic trend (F (1, 65)=5.36, p=.02). Moreover, both linear and quadratic trends were significant for product attitudes (F (1, 65)=4.12, p=.05; F (1,65)=6.02, p=.02 respectively), with the quadratic trend accounting for a greater proportion of the variance. Likewise, both linear and quadratic trends were significant for purchase intention (F (1, 65)=5.07, p=.03; F (1,65)=3.15, p=.08, respectively); the linear trend accounted for a greater proportion of the variance

Based on the analysis of various trends, high-knowledge subjects’ belief and credibility perceptions improve with an increase in information objectivity. However, no other trends can be found on other dependent measures. Similarly, low-knowledge subjects’ belief and credibility perceptions also increase as the product information becomes more objective. In contrast, their ad attitudes and purchase intention decrease as the product information becomes objective. Furthermore, subjects’ thoughts and product attitudes will be more favorable as the information is not at either end.

DISCUSSION

A positive relationship between information objectivity and subjects’ belief and credibility perceptions was observed on both products. Such results may be explained in light of a supplemental finding that subjects perceived imagery information to be less informative and more ambiguous, compared with other types of information. However, an increase of information objectivity does not translate into an increase in people’s thought favorability, ad attitudes, product attitudes and purchase intention for both the microwave oven and the blazer. For the microwave oven, ad attitudes even decline as information becomes more objective. Subjects’ cognitive responses may shed light on this result. Some subjects exposed to objective information listed thoughts such as "does not distinguish product from competition," "they’re promoting things that every blazer has," "the blazer seems the same as any other blazer." It appears that even though subjects took objective claims as facts, they did not feel that the advertised product was special or unique. Hence, marketers may need to introduce an element of uniqueness on top of perceived objectivity, especially for parity products.

Our study did not find support for the interaction effect between product type and information objectivity. One possible reason for this result is that the blazer is not perceived a predominantly value-expressive product. On one hand, we found from our manipulation check that the microwave oven and the blazer were perceived significantly different on their "value-expressiveness." On the other hand, subjects’ feelings toward the blazer was equally influenced by the factors of past experience and values/beliefs. Furthermore, the mean rating of its perceived "value-expressiveness" was 4.87 on a 7-point scale. Nevertheless, it is likely that even when a predominantly value-expressive product is advertised with objective information, people will believe and trust the provided information, but still will not generate more favorable thoughts and feelings toward it.

For both knowledge groups, belief and credibility perceptions were found to improve with an increase in information objectivity. However, increasing information objectivity did not bring forth more favorable cognitive responses, ad attitudes, product attitudes and purchase intention for both knowledge groups. For the high-knowledge group, non-significant trends were observed on all of these dependent measures. We speculate that two reasons may account for such results. First, this so-called "high-knowledge" group in fact consisted of people with moderate level of knowledge about the microwave oven. Different results are likely to appear with a group of expert consumers. Second, product selection may be another factor. Although microwave ovens possess a large number of technical attributes (e.g., power levels, wattage, turntable, size, etc.), it appears that subjects do not need to have a high level of product knowledge to be able to process these attributes. The effect of knowledge may be brought out when a technically complex product is selected. In contrast, low-knowledge subjects’ ad attitudes and purchase intention declined as the information became objective. This may be related to the finding that objective information was least easy to understand for them. Some low-knowledge subjects who received objective information listed the following thoughts: "1.2 cubic feetCtoo technical for average person," "how much power is 1000 watts compared to other ovens in industry? A lot vs. a little?" "one touch of 8 food categoriesCtoo many numbersCtoo confusing," "discussing cubic feet and watts isn’t very helpful or appealingCthe average person doesn’t know the difference." It appears to make sense that people will not like the advertising claims or intend to buy the advertised product when they cannot understand the product descriptions properly. Interestingy enough, although these subjects found objective information least easy to understand, they still believed and trusted it most.

Overall, despite its limitations, this study has found that objective information is not necessarily more persuasive than subjective information. Future research may explore the effectiveness of information objectivity by examining the effects of other factors such as consumers’ motivation to process information, product characteristics (e.g., parity product; market standing of a brand), individual differences (e.g., thinking versus feeling type of person), and information source (e.g., celebrity endorser versus expert). In addition, research effort to develop and validate measurement scales for information objectivity and product function is warranted.

REFERENCES

Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), "Dimensions of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), 411-453.

Artz, Nancy and Alice M. Tybout (1993), "Numerical and Verbal Information: Implications for Persuasion," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, Chris Allen and Deborah Roedder John, eds., Provo, UT: Association of Consumer Research, 398.

Artz, Nancy and Alice M. Tybout (1995), "Source Expertise and Source Bias as Moderators of the Persuasive Effects of Numeric and Verbal Communications," Working Paper.

Batra, Rajeev and Olli T. Ahtola (1990), "Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes," Marketing Letters, 2 (2), 159-170.

Darley, William K. and Robert E. Smith (1993), "Advertising Claim Objectivity," Journal of Marketing, 57 (October), 90-112.

Darley, William K. and Robert E. Smith (1995), "Gender Differences in Information Processing Strategies: An Empirical Test of the Selectivity Model in Advertising Responses," Journal of Advertising, 24 (1), 41-56.

Edell, Julie A. and Richard Staelin (1983), "The Information Processing of Pictures in Print Advertisements," Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (June), 45-61.

Ford, Gary T., Darlene B. Smith and John L. Swasy (1990), "Consumer Skepticism of Advertising Claims: Testing Hypotheses from Economics of Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (March), 433-441.

Goodstein, Ronald C. (1993), "Category-Based Applications and Extensions in Advertising: Motivating More Extensive Ad Processing," Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 87-99.

Holbrook, Morris B. (1978), "Beyond Attitude Structure: Toward the Informational Determinants of Attitudes," Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (November), 545-556.

Holbrook, Morris B. and Elizabeth C. Hirschman (1982), "The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 132-140.

Iyer, Easier S. (1988), "The Influence of Verbal Content and Relative Newness on the Effectiveness of Comparative Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 17 (November), 15-21.

Lefkoff-Hagius, Roxanne and Charolotte H. Mason (1993), Characteristic, Beneficial, and Imagery Attributes in Consumer Judgments of Similarity and Preference, Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 100-110.

Maheswaran, Durairaj and Brian Sternthal (1990), "The Effects of Knowledge, Motivation, and Type of Message on Ad Processing and Product Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (June), 66-73.

Myers, James H. and Allan D. Shocer (1981), "The Nature of Product-Related Attributes," in Research in Marketing, Vol. 5, Jagdish N. Sheth, ed., Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 211-236.

Park, C. Whan and Gordon W. McClung (1986), "The Effect of TV Program Involvement with Commercials," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Richard J. Lutz, ed., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 544-548.

Park, C. Whan and Banwari Mittal (1985), "A Theory of Involvement in Consumer Behavior," in Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 1, Jagdish N. Sheth, ed., Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., 201-231.

Park, C. Whan and S. Mark Young (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Shavitt, Sharon (1989), Operationalizing Functional Theories of Attitude, in Attitude Structure and Function, A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Brecker, and A. G. Greenwald, eds., Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 311-337.

Shavitt, Sharon (1990), "The Role of Attitude Objects in Attitude Functions," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 124-148.

Stafford, Marla Royne (1996), "Tangibility in Service Advertising: An Investigation of Verbal Versus Visual Cues," Journal of Advertising, 25 (3), 13-28.

Viswanathan, Madhubalan and Terry L. Childers (1997), "#5’ Calories or #Low’ Calories? What Do We Know About Using Numbers or Words to Describe Products and Where Do We Go from Here?" in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24, Merrie Brucks and Deborah J. MacInnis, eds., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 412-418.

----------------------------------------

Authors

Chung-kue Hsu, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U.S.A.
Kent B. Monroe, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U.S.A.



Volume

AP - Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 3 | 1998



Share Proceeding

Featured papers

See More

Featured

Trusting the data, the self and “the other” in self tracking practices

Dorthe Brogård Kristensen, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark

Read More

Featured

Pro-Environmental Waste Receptacle Labeling Can Increase Recycling Contamination

Jesse R. Catlin, California State University, Sacramento
Yitong Wang, University of Technology Sydney
Rommel J. Manuel, California State University, Sacramento

Read More

Featured

Paying to Purchase a Conversation Topic

Hillary Wiener, University at Albany
Joshua Wiener, Oklahoma State University, USA

Read More

Engage with Us

Becoming an Association for Consumer Research member is simple. Membership in ACR is relatively inexpensive, but brings significant benefits to its members.