The Moderating Influence of Involvement on Two-Sided Advertising Effects

Psychology and Marketing

Volumn 30, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 566-575

  Eisend, Martin ^a  

^a EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY VIADRINA   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878966622     PISSN: 07426046     EISSN: 15206793     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mar.20628     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 390-404.
2. Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Erb, H.-P., & Siebler, F. (2003). When small means comfortable: Relations between product attributes in two-sided advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 454-463.
3. Chebat, J.-C., & Picard, J. (1985). The effects of price and message-sidedness on confidence in product and advertisement with personal involvement as mediator variable. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2, 129-141.
4. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford.
5. Coulter, R. A., Price, L. L., & Feick, L. (2003). Rethinking the origins of involvement and brand commitment: Insights from postsocialist central Europe. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 151-169.
6. Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 561-574.
7. Ein-Gar, D., Shiv, B., & Tormala, Z. L. (2012). When blemishing leads to blossoming: The positive effect of negative information. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 846-859.
8. Eisend, M. (2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 187-198.
9. Eisend, M. (2007). Understanding two-sided persuasion: An empirical assessment of theoretical approaches. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 615-640.
10. Eisend, M. (2010). Explaining the joint effect of source credibility and negativity of information in two-sided messages. Psychology & Marketing, 27, 1032-1049.
11. Ermisch, R., & Hong, C. C. (1999). Daimler-Benz AG: The a-class and the 'moose-test.'. Case 17, Fox School of Business Management, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
12. Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 5-8.
13. Glasman, L. R., & Albarracin, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 778-822.
14. Hastak, M., & Park, J.-W. (1990). Mediators of message sideness effects on cognitive structure for involved and uninvolved audiences. In M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 17, pp. 329-336). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
15. Kao, D. T. (2011). Message sidedness in advertising: The moderating roles of need for cognition and time pressure in persuasion. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 329-340.
16. Kim, S., Haley, E., & Koo, G.-Y. (2009). Comparison of the paths from consumer involvement types to ad responses between corporate advertising and product advertising. Journal of Advertising, 38, 67-80.
17. Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 58-75.
18. Krishnan, H. S., & Smith, R. E. (1998). The relative endurance of attitudes, confidence, and attitude-behavior consistency: The role of information source and delay. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 273-298.
19. Laczniak, R. N., & Muehling, D. (1993). Toward a better understanding of the role of advertising message involvement in ad processing. Psychology & Marketing, 10, 301-309.
20. Luke, J. O. (2004). Implications of two-sided advertising in the automotive industry, MBA Thesis, MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts.
21. Mitchell, V.-W. (1999). Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations and models. European Journal of Marketing, 33, 163-195.
22. Pelham, B. W., Sumatry, T. T., & Myaskovsky, L. (1994). The easy path from many to much: The numerosity heuristic. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 103-133.
23. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IO: Brown.
24. 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, 69-81.
25. 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: Guildford Press.
26. Rucker, D. D., Petty, R. E., & Brinol, P. (2008). What's in a frame anyway? A meta-cognitive analysis of the impact of one versus two sided message framing on attitude certainty. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 137-149.
27. Traylor, M. B., & Joseph, W. B. (1984). Measuring consumer involvement in products: Developing a general scale. Psychology & Marketing, 1, 65-77.
28. Weinstein, N. D., Rothman, A. J., & Nicolich, M. (1998). Use of correlational data to examine the effects of risk perception on precautionary behaviors. Psycholoy and Health, 13, 479-501.
29. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23, 59-70.