An examination of qualitative vs. quantitative elaboration likelihood effects

Psychology and Marketing

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 31-49

  Coulter, Keith S ^a,b  

^a CLARK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CLARK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 11244320841     PISSN: 07426046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mar.20045     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Anand, P., & Sternthal, B. (1989). Strategies for designing persuasive messages: Deductions from the resource matching hypothesis. In P. Cafferata & A. Tybout (Eds.), Cognitive and affective responses to advertising (pp. 135-159). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
2. Anand, P., & Sternthal, B. (1990). Ease of message processing as a moderator of repetition effects in advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 345-354.
3. Arbuckle, J. L. (1999). Amos user's guide, version 4.0. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters.
4. Areni, C. (2003). The effects of structural and grammatical variables on persuasion: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 20, 349-375.
5. Bagozzi, R. D., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.
6. Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Situational effects of advertising repetition: The moderating influence of motivation, ability, and opportunity to respond. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 432-445.
7. Brown, S. P., & Stayman, D. M. (1992). Antecedents and consequents of attitude toward the ad: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 34-51.
8. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
9. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). The effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.
10. Calder, B., & Sternthal, B. (1980). Television commercial wearout: An information processing view. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 173-186.
11. Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers' use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 69-83.
12. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford Press.
13. Coulter, K. S., & Punj, G. (1999). Influence of viewing context on the determinants of attitude toward the ad and the brand. Journal of Business Research, 45, 47-58.
14. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
15. Edell, J., & Staelin, R. (1983). The information processing of pictures in print advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 45-61.
16. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1-31.
17. Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can't not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 221-233.
18. Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion and attitude change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 147-170). New York: Academic Press.
19. Homer, P. M. (1990). The mediating role of attitude toward the ad: Some additional evidence. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 78-86.
20. Ito, K. (2002). Additivity of heuristic and systematic processing in persuasion: Effects of source credibility, argument quality, and issue involvement. Japanese Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 41, 137-146.
21. Keller, P. A., & Block, L. G. (1997). Vividness effects: A resource matching perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 295-304.
22. Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley.
23. Laczniak, R. N., & Muehling, D. D. (1993). The relationship between experimental manipulations and tests of theory in an advertising involvement context. Journal of Advertising, 22, 59-74.
24. Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual framework. In L. Alwitt & A. Mitchell (Eds.), Psychological processes and advertising effects (pp. 45-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements. Journal of Marketing, 53, 1-23.
26. MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretest context. Journal of Marketing, 53, 48-65.
27. MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 130-143.
28. MacKenzie, S. B., & Spreng, R. A. (1992). How does motivation moderate the impact of central and peripheral processing on brand attitudes and intentions? Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 519-529.
29. McCarthy, M. S., & Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2002). Effects of typographic factors in advertising-based persuasion: A general model and initial empirical tests. Psychology & Marketing, 19, 663-691.
30. Meyers-Levy, J., & Malaviya, P. (1999). Consumers' processing of persuasive advertisements: An integrative framework of persuasion theories. Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special Issue), 45-60.
31. Meyers-Levy, J., & Peracchio, L. A. (1995). Understanding the effects of color: How the correspondence between available and required resources affects attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 121-138.
32. Mick, D. (1987). Towards a semiotic of advertising story grammars. In J. Umiker-Sebeok (Ed.), Marketing and semiotics: New directions in the study of signs for sale (pp. 249-278). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
33. Peracchio, L. A., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1997). Evaluating persuasion-enhancing techniques from a resource-matching perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 178-191.-
34. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 23-205). New York: Academic Press.
35. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. W. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135-146.
36. Petty, R. E., Haughtvedt, C., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 93-130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford Press.
38. Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., & Brock, T. C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874-884.
39. Rust, R. T., & Cooil, B. (1994). Reliability measures for qualitative data: Theory and implications. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 1-14.
40. Shavitt, S., & Brock, T. C. (1986). Self-relevant responses in commercial persuasion: Field and experimental tests. In J. Olson & K. Sentis (Eds.), Advertising and consumer psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 149-171). New York: Praeger.
41. Shiv, B., Edell, J., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Factors affecting the impact of negatively and positively framed ad messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 228-241.
42. Steenkamp, J. B., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.