Student Researcher: John McGrath (PhD Student), and Chad Mahood (MA Student). This paper was based on a graduate independent study.
Faculty Supervisor: Dr. Mary Beth Oliver
Introduction
This study investigated the possibility that two theoretical constructs may have an interactive impact upon the effectiveness of advertising messages. Specifically, the study examined whether excitation transfer, a theoretical concept from the mass communications literature, in tandem with consumer product involvement, a theoretical concept from the marketing literature, might produce distinctive effects on consumers. The study attempted to marry the two theoretical constructs with an everyday mass communications phenomenon: the impact of advertising messages for products with varying levels of involvement potential embedded within different television programming environments. The key challenge of this study is to build upon the existing work, noted above, on excitation transfer and product involvement, and to investigate possible interactions between the two constructs. Therefore, the following research question is proposed: What is the relationship between programming arousal level and product involvement on brand attitudes, purchase intentions and cognitive responses for the brand promoted in the advertising stimulus?
Hypotheses
Based on excitation transfer theory and also prior evidence from the product involvement literature, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1a: Attitudes and buying intentions will be more favorable in response to an advertisement immediately following an arousing stimulus than for an advertisement seen after a delay.
H1b: Attitudes and buying intentions will be more favorable when an advertising message follows a highly arousing stimulus and features a high-involvement product, than for an advertisement for a low-involvement product seen after a delay.
H2a: Cognitive responses will be weaker in response to an advertisement which immediately follows an arousing stimulus than for advertisements which follow after a delay.
H2b: Cognitive responses will be stronger in response to an advertisement for high-involvement products than for low-involvement products regardless of their placement following and arousing stimulus.
Method
Seveny-five participants took part in a 2 (immediately after arousing programming, delayed) x 2 (high involvement, low involvement) mixed design experiment. All participants saw two commercials: one immediately following an arousing program segment and one after a delay (Lost World or Saving Private Ryan).
For half the participants, the commercials featured low-involvement products (i.e. cereal), and for the other half, the commercials featured high-involvement products (i.e. automobiles). The experiment followed a four-step procedure . For the first step of the experiment, the administrator left the room and initiated the stimulus videotape. All subjects first viewed one of the two arousing programming segments. These segments were followed immediately by either an automobile advertisement (for participants in the high-involvement condition) or a cereal advertisement (for participants in the low-involvement condition).
In step two, subjects completed a paper and pencil questionnaire instrument, collecting data on some of the dependent variable measures noted earlier (i.e. Aad, Ab etc.) as well as some data on demographics, media usage and other habits. For step three, the administrator again left the room and initiated the second advertising stimulus segment, a :30 television commercial. In step four, the administrator returned to the room and supervised the completion of the final questionnaire instruments, collecting attitudinal and manipulation check data as well as items measuring recall.
Results
H1a: Partially Supported. The analysis of Aad revealed a significant main effect for Ad Placement, with more favorable scores reported for the advertisement immediately following the arousing stimulus than for the delayed advertisement
H1b: Not supported. Analysis of Aad, Ab , Aact, and BI revealed no significant main effects or interactions based upon product involvement.
H2a: Supported. The analysis of recall revealed a main effect for Ad Placement, with recall scores lower for the immediate than for the delayed advertisement. Similar results were also obtained for the number of cognitions analysis. This revealed a main effect of Ad Placement, with lower scores reported for the immediate than for the delayed advertisement.
H2b: Not supported. Analyses conducted using a 2 (Ad Placement) x 2 (Brand Order) repeated measures analysis of variance, with Ad Placement as a within-subjects factor, and Brand Order as a between-subjects factor revealed no significant interactions, thus providing no support for H2b.
Conclusion
This study found that, regardless of product involvement,
advertisements immediately following an arousing programming stimulus had
higher scores on attitudes toward the ad, but lower scores on other attitudinal
measures as well as recall and number of cognitions. In addition, this effect
did not appear to be a function of the affect associated with the arousing
programming stimulus because no significant effects were obtained for the
specific program segment employed. The findings also seem to contradict
the existing literature, as well as intuitive thought, that products with
an intrinsically higher level of consumer involvement potential (i.e. automobiles)
would be likely to benefit more from the effects of residual arousal. This
finding might imply that excitation transfer occurs at such a superficial
level that consumers really are not processing information at a level much
beyond affect toward the advertising stimulus. From a practical industry
standpoint, this study provides some interesting media planning implications
for professionals in this field at advertising agencies and media buying
services. Specifically, the study suggests that it may be more beneficial
to place advertising for certain products within the context of highly arousing
programming vs. less arousing programming based upon the advertising objectives
of their clients.
Mary Beth Oliver
Associate Professor
210, Carnegie Building
College of Communications
Penn State University
University Park, PA 16802
Ph: (814) 863 5552
E-mail: mbo@psu.edu
Back to Research Projects Page
Media Effects Research Laboratory |
 |