How Advertising Works: What Do We Really Know?

Abstract

The authors review more than 250 journal articles and books to establish what is and should be known about how advertising affects the consumer—how it works. They first deduce a taxonomy of models, discuss the theoretical principles of each class of models, and summarize their empirical findings. They then synthesize five generalizations about how advertising works and propose directions for further research. Advertising effects are classified into intermediate effects, for example, on consumer beliefs and attitudes, and behavioral effects, which relate to purchasing behavior, for example, on brand choice. The generalizations suggest that there is little support for any hierarchy, in the sense of temporal sequence, of effects. The authors propose that advertising effects should be studied in a space, with affect, cognition, and experience as the three dimensions. Advertising's positioning in this space should be determined by context, which reflects advertising's goal diversity, product category, competition, other aspects of mix, stage of product life cycle, and target market.

Full text

How Advertising Works:
What Do We Really Know?
Demetrios Vakratsas*
and
Tim Ambler**
Our thanks are due to Paddy Barwise for encouragement throughout this project, Simon Broadbent
for the original stimulus, and Susan Keane and Carolyn Boulard for their valuable assistance in
editing this article. We would also like to thank the editor and three anonymous JM reviewers for
their helpful comments and suggestions throughout the review process.
*Visiting Assistant Professor, School of Management, The University of Texas at Dallas
** Senior Fellow, London Business School.
Any correspondence should be addressed to the first author at:
School of Management
The University of Texas at Dallas
P. O. Box 830688, JO 5.1
Richardson, TX 75083-0688
e-mail: dvakrats@utdallas.edu

How Advertising Works:
What Do We Really Know?
ABSTRACT
The authors review over 250 journal articles and books to establish what is and should be known about
how advertising affects the individual - how it works. They first deduce a taxonomy of models, discuss the
theoretical principles of each class of models and summarize their empirical findings. They then synthesize
five generalizations about how advertising works and propose directions for future research. Advertising
effects are classified into intermediate, e.g., on consumer beliefs and attitudes, and behavioral which relate
to purchasing behavior, e.g., on brand choice. The generalizations suggest that there is little support for any
hierarchy, in the sense of temporal sequence, of effects. The authors propose that advertising effects should
be studied in a space, with affect, cognition and experience being the three dimensions. Advertising’s
positioning in this space should be determined by context, which reflects advertising’s goal diversity,
product category, competition, other aspects of mix, stage of product life cycle and target market.

How Advertising Works:
What Do We Really Know?
1. INTRODUCTION
With much advertising expenditure wasted in ineffective campaigns (Abraham and Lodish 1990, Lodish et
al. 1995a), advertisers should be concerned with how advertising affects individuals, how it works, in
order to formulate more effective advertising strategies. The first formal model is probably AIDA
(AttentionInterestDesire Action), attributed to E. St. Elmo Lewis in 1898 (Strong 1925, p. 76).
These types of “hierarchy of effects” models (Lavidge and Steiner 1961) have dominated the literature
since. Past integrative studies concerning advertising focused on particular models or effects of
advertising (e.g. Frequency of exposure and scheduling - Naples 1979; Market response - Clarke 1976,
Assmus, Farley and Lehmann 1984; Wear-in and Wear-out - Pechmann and Stewart 1988; Hierarchy of
effects - Barry and Howard 1990; Affective responses - Brown and Stayman 1992) rather than evaluating
the full range of different theories and models. One hundred years on, it is time to establish what is, and
what is not but should be, known about how advertising works.
We deduced a taxonomy of the different models as a structure for the discussion of their theoretical
principles and their empirical evidence and then summarized the findings in 25 conclusions, from which
we form five generalizations. In order to identify what should be known, we discuss what issues the
various models in the taxonomy failed to address and propose future research by formulating five
directions.
In order to choose among the numerous advertising-related journal articles, proceedings papers, working
papers and books, we first formulated study selection criteria based on a simple framework of how
advertising works (Figure 1). Advertising, of own and competitive brands, is shown as an input for the

consumer. Scheduling of the media, message content and repetition (Singh and Cole 1993) are
components of this input and comprise the advertising strategy which triggers an individual’s response.
Figure 1 about here
The intermediate type of response implies that, consciously or unconsciously, advertising must have some
mental effect (e.g., awareness, memory, attitudes toward the brand) before it can affect behavior.
Cognition, the “thinking” dimension of an individual’s response, and affect, the “feeling” dimension, are
seen as two major intermediate advertising effects. Individual purchasing and product usage behavior, or
changes thereto, in our model represents the consequential, behavioral, effects of advertising. For most
products, and especially the frequently purchased packaged goods with which much research is
concerned, the consumer’s mind is not a blank sheet awaiting advertising but already contains conscious
and non-conscious memories of product purchasing and usage. Thus behavior feeds back to “experience,”
which is our third principal intermediate effect. Individual responses to advertising are mediated by factors
such as motivation and ability to process information (Cacioppo and Petty 1985; MacInnis and Jaworski
1989) and attitudes toward the ad (MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986). These mediating factors can alter
or radically change response to advertising. They can therefore be considered filters of the initial
advertising input. Our notation, to describe the different theories and models of how advertising works,
follows Holbrook (1986): C for cognition, A for affect. Additionally, we use E for (memories of) prior
experience of brand purchase, usage and advertising.
The studies eventually included were selected from an extensive database of advertising research
constructed primarily by searching the ABI/Inform database using advertising-related keywords, and
consulting Broadbent’s (1992) synopsis of 456 studies of how advertising works, 122 of which were case
histories. Extensive networking also identified candidate studies. The study selection criteria were:
2

(a) Each study should focus on behavioral and/or intermediate effects (Figure 1). Thus, studies concerned
with general economic and social effects of advertising were excluded;
(b) The study should report empirical results, or discuss (review) empirical results of other studies;
(c) The study should be recent (i.e. after 1960) and reflect the trend the current more systematic approach
to studying advertising effects;
(d) English language;
(e) The majority of the studies were published in marketing journals. Relevant books and unpublished
studies (working papers) were included. While this led to some variation in quality, the key
consideration was whether the study (potentially) contributed to the stock of knowledge of how
advertising works.
We make no claim that this selection is complete. There will be practitioner and academic papers we
missed. Furthermore, practitioners employ models of how their advertising works which they do not
publish. The studies selected do, however, so far as we can determine, include every significant and
current theory of how advertising works. Our study also has an international flavor, since it examines
research by academics and practitioners in the USA, UK, Australia, and the Netherlands.
Our approach to evaluating the models and empirical results involved two steps:
1. Classification of the different models and theories of advertising effects; in other words, developing a
taxonomy of models of how advertising works. We discuss the theoretical principles for each class of
models and their most robust empirical findings which are summarized in Table 2.
2. Generalizations based on the empirical findings. We chose the literature review approach (Bass and
Wind 1995) to forming such generalizations rather than meta-analysis or content analysis, due to the
diverse designs of the studies considered (field, single source, experimental) and the measures
employed (advertising-sales elasticities, purchase intentions, awareness, etc.). Each generalization was
supported by at least two different conclusions.
3

2. TAXONOMY
Our taxonomy, summarized in Table 1, describes the various models and theories of how advertising
works. It builds progressively from models that assume no intermediate effects (market response - “-“
in our notation) to models that assume only one type of intermediate effect (cognitive information-
“C” or pure affect - “A”). Then it describes models that assume more than one type of intermediate
effect in a certain hierarchy (persuasive hierarchy models- “CA”, low involvement hierarchy models-
“CEA”), followed by models with varying hierarchies of effects (integrative models- “(C)(A)(E)”)
and finally models that assume no hierarchy of effects at all (hierarchy-free- NH).
Table 1 about here
“Market response models” (econometric models of market response to advertising, “-” in our notation), do
not consider intermediate effects at all. They typically relate advertising, pricing and promotional measures
to behavioral (sales or brand choice) measures. This has the advantage of employing “objective”
(secondary) data and eliminating intermediate measurement uncertainties.
According to one historian (Nevett 1982), advertising has, from its earliest days, been seen as providing
strictly factual information. Such models of advertising purely as information transfer are termed
“cognitive information” (C). “C” models rely heavily on economics (Nelson 1970; 1974; Robinson 1933;
Stigler 1961; Telser 1964) and assume consumer decisions to be rational only. Conversely, “pure affect”
models (A), which appeared later in the literature (e.g., Zajonc 1980), pay little or no attention to cognition
and emotional response.
As noted above, the main stream of advertising research began with AIDA (AttentionInterest
DesireAction). Originally a model of personal selling, it was only later adapted for advertising (Strong
4

1925, p. 76). From this emerged the class of “persuasive hierarchy” models (Table 1) summarized by
Kotler (1997, p. 611) as “Response Hierarchy Models”: AIDA, Hierarchy-of-Effects (Lavidge and Steiner
1961), and Innovation-Adoption (Rogers 1962). All these follow the Cognitive stage  Affective stage 
Behavior sequence, or “CA” in our notation, meaning that cognition is followed by affect. Note that C
always appears before A; advertising is seen as persuading the consumer to buy (more), and E does not
feature at all.
Recognition of the importance of product trial and usage experience led to another class of models termed
here “low involvement hierarchy” models (e.g., Ray 1973). In this category, advertising merely serves to
reinforce behavior as distinct from causing it. Advertising may create awareness (C), but affect and brand
preferences are formed after product trial and experience, thus CognitionExperience
AffectBehavior, or CEA in our notation. This class of models is sometimes known as the “weak
theory” of advertising (Jones 1990), to distinguish it from the “strong,” or persuasive hierarchy (CA).
This is similar to operant, or instrumental, conditioning where learning follows performance (Skinner
1938; Thorndike 1911).
More complex hierarchies have been classified as “integrative” (“(C)(A)(E)”) where the brackets indicate
that the order of a particular effect (C, A, or E) in the sequence is not fixed and depends on context. For
example, the FCB grid (Vaughn 1980; 1986) has C, A and E in various sequences, depending on the
individual’s involvement in the product category and whether consumer choice, in that category, was
primarily determined by cognition or affect. Our final category is that of “hierarchy-free” models, where
no particular processing sequence is assumed. This category is the most sparsely populated, but
recent applications of post-modernism and anthropology to advertising effects suggest that this class
can be expanded. Modern neuroscience, as we discuss later, has important insights for advertising
research.
5

3. MODELS AND EMPIRICAL RESULTS
ON HOW ADVERTISING WORKS
3.1 Market Response Models (-)
Market response models typically relate advertising, price, and promotional measures directly to
purchasing behavior measures such as sales, market share, and brand choice in a regression or logit model
framework. For example, measurement of loyalty would here be based on repeat purchasing behavior
rather than an attitude of mind. Market response models can be further classified into aggregate level
(Bass and Clarke 1972; Blattberg and Jeuland 1981; Hanssens, Parsons, and Schultz 1990; Little 1979;
Rao 1970; Rao and Miller 1975; Rao 1986; Zufryden 1987) and individual level (Deighton, Henderson,
and Neslin 1994; Pedrick and Zufryden 1991; Tellis 1988; Winer 1991). Aggregate-level studies use
market-level data such as brand advertising expenditures or gross rating points and brand sales or market
share. Individual level studies use measures such as individual brand choice and the number of exposures
for an individual (or household), derived from single source data.
Many aggregate-level econometric studies concerned with the long-term, or carryover, effects of
advertising (Bass and Leone 1983; Broadbent 1984; Clarke 1976; Dhalla 1978; Srinivasan and Weir
1988), concluded that the duration of advertising effects depends on the data interval (weekly, biweekly,
monthly, etc.). “Intermediate” interval data (bimonthly, quarterly) appear to provide more realistic results,
though the issue of the appropriate data interval is still open. Clarke (1976) and Assmus, Farley, and
Lehmann (1984), in meta-analytic studies, suggested that 90% of the advertising effects dissipate after
three to fifteen months. Leone (1995), in an empirical generalizations study, suggested that the range be
narrowed to six to nine months. Dekimpe and Hanssens (1995) applied “persistence modeling”, a time
series methodology, to monthly data from a home improvement retail chain and concluded that the effects
of advertising “did not dissipate within a year” (p. 18). This apparent contradiction with Clarke (1976) and
6

Leone (1995) was attributed to the evolving nature (in terms of sales and advertising) of the industry under
study. Winer (1980), using split cable panel data from an undisclosed frequently purchased category,
found, apart from a transitory effect, no permanent advertising effect on consumption. This transitory effect
was found to last for about 16 weeks for one brand and at least 32 weeks for another, both within the
bounds suggested by Assmus, Farley, and Lehmann (1984). In contrast with the previously cited studies
which used aggregate-level data, Mela, Gupta, and Lehmann (1997) used individual-level data on
purchases of an unnamed product category and concluded that advertising helps a brand by making
consumers less price-sensitive and by decreasing the size of the nonloyal segment. Promotions, on the
other hand, make consumers, especially nonloyals, more price-sensitive.
A large-scale, single-source study by Lodish et al. (1995a) concluded that increased advertising weights
increased sales of established brands in only 33% of cases and in 55% of cases for new brands. The
implication, consistent with empirical results reported by Parsons (1975), Arora (1979), and Parker and
Gatignon (1996), is that advertising elasticities are dynamic and decrease over the product life cycle. Winer
(1979), using Lydia Pinkham data, found that while carryover effects decline over time, current advertising
effects increase over the same period. Although the first result is consistent with the product life-cycle
theory, the second result is attributed to the ability of that particular product to attract more new purchasers
rather than retain them. In a study of similar design to their first, Lodish et al. (1995b) suggested that short-
term effects are prerequisite for the achievement of long-term effects, a conclusion also reached by Jones
(1995a) in another study using single-source data across several product categories. The two Lodish et al.
(1995 a, b) studies used an extensive database compiled by IRI for the “How Advertising Works” projects
(see for example Advertising Research Foundation transcript proceedings in 1991, p. 13). Advertising
elasticities were consistently found to be low, typically in the range 0 to 0.2 (Assmus, Farley, and Lehmann
1984; Lodish et al. 1995a), and short-term promotional effects were shown to be larger than the
advertising ones (Deighton, Henderson, and Neslin 1994; Jones 1995a; Tellis 1988).
7

The studies by Tellis (1988), Deighton, Henderson, and Neslin (1994) and Jones (1995a, b) along with the
original single-source study conducted by McDonald (1971), suggest that , short-term advertising effects
diminish fast: More specifically, after the third exposure, response to advertising levels off. Once three
exposures per household are therefore achieved, advertisers should focus on reach (see also Pedrick and
Zufryden 1991; 1993). These results are in general agreement with the conclusions of Naples’ (1979)
review of various empirical advertising studies: “An exposure frequency of two within a purchase cycle is
an effective level” (p. 64) and that “by and large, optimal exposure frequency appears to be at least three
exposures within a purchase cycle” (p. 67). The relative effect of media reach and frequency on
purchasing behavior has been the focus of other market response researchers (Danaher 1988;1989; 1991;
Leckenby and Kishi 1984; Metheringham 1964; Pedrick and Zufryden 1991; 1993; Rust 1986; Rust and
Leone 1984).
Market response category findings are summarized as conclusions 1-8 in Table 2.
3.2 Cognitive Information Models (C)
This class of models assumes that consumer preferences, e.g., the relative weights of attribute importance,
are not changed by advertising and consumer decisions are only rational. Advertising provides information
and/or utility in reducing search costs, e.g., shopping time (Bharadwaj, Varadarjan, and Fahy 1993;
Nelson 1970; 1974). An ad in the Yellow Pages saves the customer having to go from store to store.
Goods are classified into two major categories: experience and search (Nelson 1974) with experience sub-
divided into high, where considerable usage is required before quality can be assessed by the consumer,
and low (Davis, Kay, and Star 1991). For search goods, product quality and the truth of the advertising
claim can be judged by inspection (without trial) and evaluation of relevant objective information (e.g.,
price). A third category of credence goods (Darby and Kirni 1973), can be used in order to refine the
above classification. For credence goods, the “average” consumer cannot determine the quality of the good
8

even after experience, e.g., designer clothes. Advertising is expected to be more effective for experience
and credence than for search goods since it provides information which inspection does not (Nelson 1974;
Verma 1980). Classification of goods into search, and experience (or credence) may be problematic, as
many goods (e.g. autos) consist of both search (e.g., leather seats) and experience (e.g., driving feel)
attributes. A distinction, therefore, between search and experience attributes, rather than goods, appears
more accurate and realistic (Wright and Lynch 1995).
Firms producing high-quality products may have large advertising expenditure to signal their quality to the
consumers, thus achieving long-term advantage (Nelson 1974; Verma 1980). High-quality image and
differential advantages reduce consumer price sensitivity and permit a gradual increase in price, according
to the Market Power theory (Comanor and Wilson 1974; 1979). The Economics of Information theory
(Stigler 1961; Telser 1964), on the other hand, suggests that advertising increases price sensitivity because
it facilitates consumer search (Chiplin and Sturgess 1981; Eskin and Baron 1977). Empirical testing of the
two competing theories brought mixed results. Using aggregate data, Wittink (1977) and Eskin and Baron
(1977) found support for the Economics of Information theory. Using individual-level data, Krishnamurthi
and Raj (1985) supported Market Power, whereas Kanetkar, Weinberg, and Weiss (1992) favored the
Economics of Information explanation. Lambin (1976) used brand-level data to conclude that advertising
leads to lower price sensitivities. Finally, Eastlack and Rao (1986), after analyzing advertising
experimental data for V-8 vegetable juice, concluded that the combined effect of advertising and a price
increase was a temporary increase in price sensitivity, which then came back to historical levels.
Advertising therefore allowed in the long run a price increase, while maintaining the price sensitivity level.
In a meta-analytic study, Kaul and Wittink (1995) concluded that non-price advertising decreases price
sensitivity whereas price advertising increases price sensitivity and ultimately leads to lower prices. This
confirmed prior conjectures about the differential effects of price and non-price advertising by Boulding,
Lee, and Staelin (1992), Farris and Albion (1980), and Krishnamurthi and Raj (1985).
9

We should note the emphasis given to factual information by practitioners. Reeves (1961) created USP
(Unique Selling Proposition) as part of the long-standing recognition of the idea, now called positioning,
that a brand must both differentiate itself, if possible, through tangible product attributes and then
communicate that differentiation positively. Ogilvy (1983, p. 159) bends the knee to Dr. Johnson’s
“promise, large promise, is the soul of an advertisement” and stresses the informative role of advertising.
Their work and that of other practitioners (e.g., Fletcher 1992) may be largely affective but their
publications emphasize the cognitive.
The findings from the cognitive category are summarized as conclusions 9-12 in Table 2.
3.3 Pure Affect Models (A)
Conversely to the economics paradigm, some theories pay little or no attention to cognition but focus on
affective responses, the familiarity and feelings ads may evoke (Aaker, Stayman, and Hagerty 1986;
Alwitt and Mitchell 1985; Peterson, Hoyer, and Wilson 1986). One class of such theories, the so-called
“mere exposure” theories, suggest that awareness of the advertisement is not necessary, though awareness
of the brand is. According to this approach, individuals form their preferences based on elements such as
liking, feelings and emotions induced by the ad or familiarity triggered by mere exposure to the ad, rather
than product/brand attribute information (Batra and Ray 1986; Gardner 1985; Holbrook and Batra 1987;
Janisewski and Warlop 1993; Mitchell and Olson 1981; Shimp 1981; Srull 1983; Stuart, Shimp, and
Engel 1987; Zajonc 1980; 1984; Zajonc and Markus 1982). Two of these theories, namely response
competition (Harrison 1968) and optimal arousal (Berlyne 1960; 1966; Crandall 1970), suggest that
unfamiliar advertising messages create hostility and take longer to reach their optimal effectiveness. That
may well describe the advertising “wear-in” effect observed frequently in advertising studies (Blair 1987;
Pechman and Stewart 1989): a minimum (threshold) number of exposures is necessary for the ad to have
an effect on the consumer. The “two-factor” theory (Berlyne 1970) also suggests a wear-out effect: after a
10

number of exposures, the effect of advertising decreases. Thus the advertising response function has an
inverted-U shape.
Affective responses to advertising can be further classified into two types: one that leads to the formation
of an attitude toward the brand and one that leads to the formation of an attitude toward the ad, an
expression of the likability of the ad itself (Mitchell and Olson 1981; Shimp 1981; and, for a meta-
analysis of attitudes toward the ad studies, Brown and Stayman 1992). Empirical evidence concerning
affective responses and ad likability is based both on experimental and field research. Gorn (1982), in a
classical conditioning experiment, found significant effects of background music on preference. Bierly,
McSweeny, and Vannieuwkerk (1985), in another experimental study, also found music effects on
preference ratings, and Janisewski (1988) concluded that affective processes can be formed independently
of cognitive processes. Both the cumulative effect of liking and its correlation with sales seem to generalize
empirically, but not uniformly: The ARF copy research project (Haley and Baldinger 1991; Joyce 1991)
and the study on US prime time commercials by Biel (1990) suggested that ad likability is positively
correlated with behavior (preference). On the other hand, Hall and Maclay (1991) and Stapel (1987)
suggested that the influence of ad likability on brand preference is not strong. Brown (1991) suggested that
ad likability has a long-term effect.
The absence of cognition suggested by pure affect models is difficult to show, because cognition usually
intervenes in measurement. Asking about feelings brings cognitive processes into play and induces
“cognitive bias,” a bias towards cognitive methods and models (Sawyer 1981). Noncognitive measures
have been developed, such as projective techniques and the Facial Action Coding System developed by
Ekman and Friesen (1978). Bogart (1996, p. 73) notes skin conductivity, pupil dilation and “brain waves”
measured by EEG (electroencephalograph). Unfortunately, none of these are yet reliable for advertising
affect measurement purposes (Scherer and Ekman 1982). Rothschild and Hyun (1990) used EEG
technology to show that TV ad recognition was increased when right brain was employed initially but
11

left hemisphere dominated during the following seconds. Bilateral processing was greatest for
rational commercials and least for emotional, with mixed-appeal commercials between those
extremes. Cognitive bias problems aside, models based purely on affective responses are rather
improbable, as some awareness appears to be a necessary condition for advertising effectiveness (Franzen
1994). Advertising typically works on both the cognitive and affective planes (Agres, Edell, and Dubitsky
1990; Holbrook and O’Shaughnessy 1984). However, this class of models (A) essentially introduced
affective responses to the study of advertising effects, and they have consistently been shown to be
important (Aaker and Stayman 1990a and b).
Conclusions 13, 15 and 16 in Table 2 summarize the findings from the A category.
3.4 Persuasive Hierarchy Models (CA)
The idea that if advertising is to promote sales it must inform and then persuade, has intuitive appeal.
Persuasive models introduced the concept of a hierarchy of effects, i.e., an order in which things happen,
with the implication that the earlier effects, being necessary preconditions, are more important. The
hierarchy concept has played a large part in the development of advertising research. The number of
stages may be increased or refined, (Aaker and Day 1974; Advertising Research Foundation 1961; Colley
1961; Greenwald 1968; Lavidge and Steiner 1961; McGuire 1968; 1978; Robertson 1971; Rogers 1962;
Wright 1973), but the underlying pattern is Cognition Affect Behavior (CA). Two important mediating
factors (“filters” in Figure 1) of individual responses to advertising, involvement and attitude toward the
ad, have been extensively studied within the persuasive hierarchy framework (Batra and Ray 1985; Burke
and Edell 1989; Cacioppo and Petty 1985; Homer 1990; MacKenzie and Lutz 1989; MacKenzie, Lutz,
and Belch 1986; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schuman 1983; Sawyer and Howard 1991). As we have already
discussed the concept of attitude toward the ad in the previous section (3.3), we should first briefly discuss
the concept of involvement before considering persuasive hierarchy models and their empirical results.
12

Krugman (1965; 1967) operationalized involvement as the number of linkages made between the
advertised product and the individual’s life during exposure to an advertisement. Several definitions since
then followed (e.g., Houston and Rothschild 1978; Lastovicka and Gardner 1979; Mitchell 1981; and, for
reviews, see Greenwald and Leavitt 1984 and McWilliam 1993). Rothschild (1984) defined involvement
as “an unobservable state of motivation, arousal, or interest. It is evoked by a particular stimulus or
situation and has drive properties. Its consequence are types of searching, information-seeking and
decision making.”
One of the most comprehensive persuasive models is the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty and
Cacioppo 1980; 1981). ELM distinguishes between elaborate (attribute evaluation) and non-elaborate
(paying attention to execution elements, e.g., celebrity endorsers) information evaluation. Elaboration is
essentially cognitive, and the model introduces alternative paths for consumer responses to advertising.
The two alternative paths, however, follow the same CA sequence. Other multidimensional versions of the
persuasive hierarchy paradigm have been proposed by MacInnis and Jaworski (1989), MacInnis,
Moorman, and Jaworski (1991), and Bloom, Edell, and Staelin (1994). More specifically, MacInnis and
Jaworski (1989) proposed a model with six levels of mental processing (intermediate effects): 1) Feature
analysis leading to mood-generated affect, 2) Basic categorization leading to pure affect transfer, 3)
Meaning analysis leading to heuristic evaluation, 4) Information integration leading to message-based
persuasion, 5) Role-taking leading to empathy-based persuasion, and 6) Constructive processes leading to
self-generated persuasion.
The MacInnis and Jaworski model integrates the brand-processing (Gardner, Mitchell and Russo 1978;
Mitchell 1980) and four-level audience involvement model (Greenwald and Leavitt 1984). Greenwald and
Leavitt, after reviewing definitions of involvement, relate levels of involvement to stages of consumer
information processing as follows: 1) Preattention related to sensory buffering and feature analysis, 2)
Focal attention and channel selection, perceptual and semantic processing, 3) Comprehension related to
13

syntactic analysis, and 4) Elaboration related to conceptual analysis . According to Greenwald and
Leavitt’s model, complex ads, which require inferences on brand quality based on persuasive arguments,
should require a high level of involvement - mainly elaboration. On the other hand, advertising that links a
brand to attractive objects should only require focal attention - a lower-level type of involvement. Bloom,
Edell, and Staelin (1994) use the Fishbein-Ajzen framework of attitude formation, in order to distinguish
among communication, brand, and product category beliefs. These three types of belief lead to
corresponding forms of attitudes (attitude toward the ad, brand and product category), which interact in
affecting behavior.
Batra and Ray (1985), still within the persuasive hierarchy category, suggested an alternative to ELM:
Citing evidence from Bagozzi, Tybout, Craig, and Strenthal (1979), Bagozzi and Burnkrant (1979), and
Bagozzi (1981), they challenged the Fishbein-Ajzen attitude formation model (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975;
Lutz 1975; 1991) adopted by ELM, where attitudes toward the brand are “utilitarian,” i.e., based
exclusively on beliefs about hard product attributes. They suggested that consumers may develop a
“hedonic” effect based on pure liking without evaluation of hard product attributes (Hirschman and
Holbrook 1982; Holbrook and Batra 1987). The multi-dimensionality in consumer response, according to
the Batra and Ray framework, is therefore the result of the different ways attitudes may form (utilitarian
vs. hedonic), rather than the degree of elaboration. This suggests that measures of affect should include
both utilitarian and hedonic components.
Applications of persuasive hierarchy models highlighted the importance of involvement as a moderator of
advertising effects. Using the ELM framework, Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann (1983) suggested that
highly involved individuals choose an elaborate way to evaluate message information (relying on message
argument quality to form their attitudes and purchase intentions) whereas low-involvement individuals
choose a less elaborate way (relying on celebrity status of the product endorser). Cacioppo and Petty
(1985) concluded that repetitions of different versions of an ad have a positive effect on low-involvement
individuals but no effect for high-involvement individuals. In other words, repetition of a series of ads can
14

prevent (or delay) wear-out. Similar results on the differential effects of repetition (single vs. series of ads)
were suggested by Zielske (1959), Zielske and Henry (1980), and Rao and Burnkrant (1991) who found
that varied ad executions maintained ad recall at high levels. Batra and Ray (1986) found that in low-
involvement situations, affective responses influence brand attitudes more positively than in high-
involvement situations. Similarly, using the ELM framework, Dröge (1989) showed that attitude toward
the ad positively affects attitudes towards the brand only in low-involvement situations. By enhancing
brand beliefs to include non-utilitarian attributes, Mittal (1990) showed that the (still significant)
contribution of Attitude towards the ad as predictor of behavior is reduced.
Correlations between measures of attitude (affect) and behavior reported in the literature are usually low
(between 0 and 0.30 - Fazio and Zanna 1979; Wicker 1969) which prompted some researchers to reject
the persuasive hierarchy (Heeler 1972; Palda 1966; Ray 1973; Rothschild 1974; Sawyer 1971; Strong
1972). Barry and Howard (1990) report that only two studies have properly tested the sequence (Batra and
Vanhonacker 1986; Zinkhan and Fornell 1988) with inconclusive results. Some support for the persuasive
hierarchy sequence, however, is provided by some earlier work (Assael and Day 1968; O’Brien 1971) but
not since replicated.
Our conclusions from this research are backhanded: While there is little support for the persuasive (CA)
hierarchy per se, there is considerable support for a multipath approach such as ELM; namely, different
people respond to different ads in different ways, depending on their involvement. While attitudes
correlate poorly with behavior, possibly due to cognitive bias (which we discuss later), affect is relatively
more important in low involvement/non-elaborate situations. Cognitive and affective beliefs may be
independent under these circumstances (Wilson et al. 1989).
Conclusions 14-20 in Table 2 summarize the findings from the CA category.
3.5 Low Involvement Hierarchy Models (CEA)
15

The main alternative to the persuasive approach is Cognition  Experience  Affect (“CEA”) though
“cognition” may mean no more than passing awareness in categories where the consumer has low
involvement. Ehrenberg’s (1974) ATR model (Awareness  Trial  Reinforcement) is typical of this class
of models and suggests that product preferences are formed after initial trial. In low-involvement
hierarchies, product experience is seen as the dominant factor, with advertising reinforcing existing habits,
framing experience and defending the brand’s consumer franchise (Pechmann and Stewart 1989;
Ehrenberg 1994). In the notation of this paper, these experiences, habits, and recollections are collectively
“experience.” This category is termed as “low involvement hierarchy” (Harris 1987; Ray 1973; Smith and
Swinyard 1978; 1982; Swinyard and Coney 1978), because it is associated with the routinized choice
behavior more likely to happen in low-involvement situations.
Empirical applications suggest that product usage experience has a larger impact on beliefs, attitude
formation, and choice than advertising which rather reinforces habits or frames usage experience (Alba,
Hutchinson, and Lynch 1991; Deighton, Henderson, and Neslin 1994; Marks and Kamins 1988; Olson
and Dover 1979; Smith 1993; Smith and Swinyard 1983; 1988; Tellis 1988; Winter 1973). More
specifically, Smith (1993) found that advertising tends to mitigate a negative trial effect when it precedes
trial but has no impact on beliefs and attitudes when trial is positive. Levin and Gaeth (1988) and Hoch
and Ha (1986) provided evidence that when exposure precedes usage experience, advertising is relatively
more effective. Both previous empirical results suggest that advertising’s framing effect is more persistent
when it precedes usage experience - or that advertising has a predictive framing effect. Similar evidence
was found by Deighton (1984) and Deighton and Schindler (1988). Hoch and Ha (1986) also suggested
that advertising’s framing effect is stronger when the product category is ambiguous, i.e., quality is hard to
determine. To the extent that high experience goods (attributes) can be characterized as ambiguous, this
result is in accordance with the cognitive information conclusion on advertising effectiveness for search
and experience goods (attributes). The reinforcing role of advertising was supported by Raj (1982), Tellis
16

(1988), Deighton, Henderson and Neslin (1994), and D’Souza and Rao (1995) in that advertising has
more effect on loyal consumers.
Conclusions 9 and 21-24 in Table 2 summarize the findings from the CEA category.
3.6 Integrative Models {(C)(A)(E)}
In this class of models, different hierarchies of C, A and E are assumed, depending on the context in which
advertising operates. For example, product category and level of involvement may determine the order of
effects. In some of these models, context may also determine the strength of each effect.
The FCB Grid (Vaughn 1980; 1986) uses involvement (high/low), and think/feel (C or A being the
dominant consumer motivator) as the two dimensions for classifying product categories. The type of
involvement used by the FCB grid is therefore category involvement and not brand, personal or situational
involvement. The primary grid validation study was conducted in the USA among 1,800 consumers across
250 products (Vaughn 1986). It was then extended to over 20,000 interviews in 23 countries. The FCB
study carried the operationalization of involvement from laboratory to survey. The managerial implication
was that advertising should be designed according to the quadrant in which the product category belonged.
Frequently purchased packaged goods, for example, were likely to be low-involvement and affect-
motivated. McWilliam (1993) verified that involvement was determined by category, not by brand.
Rossiter and Percy (1997) suggested a development of the FCB grid (the “Rossiter-Percy” grid- see also
Rossiter, Percy, and Donovan 1991) using awareness as a necessary condition for the effectiveness of
advertising and replacing the think/feel dimension with a more directly motivational one
(“informational/transformational”). They also distinguish between product category and brand choices and
prescribe advertising tactics that fit the cells of their grid as defined by involvement and motivation.
17

Smith and Swinyard (1982) distinguish between “higher-order” (strongly held) and “lower-order” beliefs
(weakly held) to introduce context specificity in the way advertising affects the individual. According to
their Information Integration Response Model (IIRM), for low involvement goods, where trial is easy and
inexpensive (e.g. frequently purchased products), advertising is more likely to affect “lower-order” beliefs,
mostly by increasing awareness and introducing uncertainty. Such beliefs are updated after product trial
and experience. Experience would resolve uncertainty, confirm or disconfirm lower-order beliefs, and
either lead to commitment to the brand or rejection of the brand. Higher-order beliefs are therefore formed
only after a number of trial purchases. Such a scenario is consistent with the CEA or low-involvement
hierarchy suggested by Ray (1973) and Ehrenberg (1974). The distinction between trial and committed
purchases in the IIRM is similar to that proposed by Ehrenberg (1974) and Robertson (1976). For high-
involvement products where trial is risky and expensive (e.g. household appliances), higher order beliefs
are formed immediately, but they need not be based exclusively on advertising. Other external information
sources (word of mouth, magazine articles) and past experience should also affect higher order belief
formation. In this case, advertising’s effects are expected to follow the persuasive hierarchy CA, but due to
the influence of other sources, the effect of advertising may not be strong.
Deighton’s (1984; 1986) two-stage model is conceptually similar to the IIRM of Smith and Swinyard. In
the first stage, advertising provides initial arousal and helps in developing expectations (or hypotheses)
about the advertised brand, similarly to the lower-order belief formation stage in the IIRM. The second
stage is the product trial/experience stage, where initial expectations are confirmed or disconfirmed. As
confirmation may not be immediate (i.e., after the first product trial), these two stages continuously interact
with experience, updating expectations. Conceptually, the model can be perceived as a hierarchy where C,
E and A exchange positions. Using experimental data, Deighton (1984) provided evidence for the
existence of interactions between expectations and usage experience.
18

The (C)(A)(E) category evidence (mostly based on the application of the FCB Grid) robustly supports the
concept of involvement and the idea that C or A determining choice is dependent on the product category.
The research assumes individual homogeneity, whereas one would expect involvement to be personally as
well as product-driven. No evidence supports the idea that consumers process advertising information in a
hierarchic fashion.
Conclusion 25 in Table 2 summarizes the findings from the (C)(A)(E) category.
3.7 Hierarchy-Free Models (NH)
While most research falls more or less neatly into the previous six categories, we reserved a final section
for all others. This proved to be the smallest category a fact which itself provides some support for the
classification methodology. This last category generally presents a more person-centered view of
advertising, which can be thought of as an extension of a basic reinforcement model. It discounts the
persuasive view of advertising (see CA) and rational decision making, and suggests that advertising is a
part of a brand totality (King 1975; Lannon and Cooper 1983; Lannon 1986; Lannon 1994). The example
of New Coke beating the “real thing” in product tests (attribute evaluation) but not in the marketplace
(where the real thing is an established entity) is suggested as an illustration of the added value framework.
It could also reflect the artificiality, or cognitive bias, of that type of research.
Anthropomorphizing the brand and accommodating it in the consumer's real world (Buttle 1991; Troiano
1996) may help the understanding of marketers and copywriters, and clarify the nature of the
communications they are creating, i.e., brand advertising. The literature does not reveal, however, how
these models actually work nor how the effects of advertising may be measured. In other words, empirical
validation is largely experiential. This category would include relating the meaning of advertising with
brands as myths and marketing as myth-making which was sourced from anthropology (Lannon 1994;
19

Lévi-Strauss 1963; Stern 1995) and its neighbor, semiotics (Mick 1988). Stern has also analyzed
advertising from the standpoints of feminist literary criticism (1993) and drama criticism (1994). The
latter usefully distinguished sympathy (for the characters in TV commercials), from empathy. The length of
the commercial gave time to recognize the plight of the protagonists, but not to identify with them.
Post-positivist/post-modern researchers (e.g., Hirschman and Holbrook 1986) regard introspection and
experiential learning as a valid methodology alongside the hypothetico-deductive tradition that underlies
most of the work reported here. The flavor of the debate between the various new “isms” and the
traditionalists is given by Hirschman and Holbrook (1986), Hunt (1992), Peter (1992), and Zinkhan and
Hirschheim (1992). Much of this is philosophic; at the pragmatic level of how advertising actually works,
we conclude that the post-positivists have, thus far, broadened the width of our understanding but not the
depth. For example, we have not found research to advise the practitioner as to which measures predict ad
effectiveness.
Neuro-science indicates that the brain receives and handles information in a parallel fashion (Rose 1993;
Sutherland 1993). While serial hierarchies exist to pass information from stage to stage, the different
functions of the brain, in this case C and A, receive information in parallel (Martin 1991, p. 335). Sensory
information, apart from smell, reaches the brain through the thalamus which relays it to the cognitive
functions in the neo-cortex and, independently, the affective functions of the limbic system (Kupfermann
1991, p. 737). These in turn are massively interconnected as higher cognitive functions affect feelings and
emotions and vice versa. It would thus seem likely that C and A, if they are both engaged at all, are
engaged simultaneously and interactively. As the human brain has been called the most complex structure
in the universe (Fischbach 1992), steps into this territory have to be rather tentative. From the way the
brain processes (advertising) information, it would appear that the hierarchy of effects concept is deeply
flawed.
20

4. GENERALIZATIONS
Our generalizations used the following criteria:
(a) quality, objectivity, and consistency (Bass 1995; Bass and Wind 1995); and
(b) scope, precision, parsimony, usefulness, and linkage with theory (Barwise 1995).
Based on conclusions 5, 6, 13, 14, 20-24 of Table 2, cognition (C), affect (A) and experience (E) are
significant when studied in combination with or in isolation. According to conclusions 5 and 6, advertising
carryover requires E; conclusions 13 and 14 suggest that both C and A are required; and conclusions 20-
23 stress the impact of E on beliefs, attitudes, and advertising effectiveness. Furthermore (see conclusion
24), beliefs, attitudes, and choice build cumulatively with awareness, trial, word of mouth,
promotions/distribution, and advertising, any of which can be reinforcing or negative. In sum, the evolution
of models from relatively simple (C) to more complex (C)(A)(E) has shown the persistent significance of
all these three key effects and suggests that omission of any one is likely to overstate the importance of the
others. The key conclusion therefore here is that all three effects should be consistently included in studies
of advertising effectiveness. Thus:
G1. Experience, Affect, and Cognition are three key intermediate advertising effects, and the
omission of any one can lead to overestimation of the effect of the others.
Based on conclusions 1, 3, 5, and 20 of Table 2, short-term advertising elasticities are low (0 - 0.2), about
20 times lower than promotions, and weaker than product usage experience effects. They are, however,
significant for about one third of established brands and half of new brands, suggesting that advertising is
more effective in the beginning of the life of a product. Unfortunately, a similar generalization for the long-
term effects of advertising cannot be made. Although studies (primarily of the market response models
variety) have consistently provided evidence for the significance of such effects (Clarke 1976; Lambin
21

1976; Assmus, Farley, and Lehmann 1985; Leone 1995; Dekimpe and Hanssens 1995), there has been no
general agreement for their duration. Thus:
G2. Short-term advertising elasticities are small and decrease over the product life cycle.
Based on conclusions 7 and 8 of Table 2, single-source and experimental studies have repeatedly and
independently verified that one to three exposures per purchasing cycle are “enough” to trigger a
consumer purchase. Accordingly, while more exposures would increase effectiveness, they represent poor
value for the advertiser. This agrees with previous conclusions of Krugman (1972), Simon and Arndt
(1980), and Lambin (1976). The latter notes that “doubling the amount of advertising does not double
sales, because the efficiency of increased advertising exposures always decreases beyond the threshold
level.” (pp. 97-98). Krugman (1972), suggested that the third exposure “clinches a decision” and further
exposures have little value. These conclusions empirically reconcile both economic theories about
diminishing returns to advertising and theories of learning and affective response which recognize that the
first exposure is the most influential. The research supporting conclusions 7, 8, 17, and 18 was based
largely on frequently purchased packaged goods where the brand was already known to the consumer.
Thus:
G3. In mature frequently purchased packaged goods markets, returns to advertising diminish
fast. A small frequency, therefore (one to three reminders per purchase cycle), is sufficient for
advertising an established brand.
Depending on product category, brand, consumer, and time factors, some intermediate effects are more
important than others. Based on conclusions 9, 10, 17, and 21 of Table 2, where product involvement is
low and/or when quality cannot be objectively assessed (e.g., credence or long-term experience goods),
the impact of trial, usage, and the other forms of communication will be relatively low. In those cases,
advertising could be relatively more important. In low-involvement situations (or for low-involvement
products) consumers would not resort to counter-arguing and rather passively receive the advertising
22

message. As low-involvement individuals do not engage in elaborate information processing, advertising
messages in such situations should emphasize “peripheral”, affective cues (celebrity endorsers, execution
elements, etc.) rather than factual product information. The success of the recent humor-oriented
“Snickers” campaign (Advertising Age 1996) exemplifies this situation. Similarly credence, long-term
experience, and high-quality goods brands should advertise more to resolve ambiguity, enhance their
quality perceptions, and ultimately increase their credibility. Based on conclusion 20, experience is more
important than advertising in mature markets and conclusion 4 suggests that advertising is more effective
in the early stages of the product life cycle. Conclusions 1and 3, point out that in the short-term,
promotions are more effective than advertising.
The evidence quoted in the previous paragraph suggests that the significance of the three key intermediate
effects (C, A, E) depends on the context in which advertising operates: C is more important than A for high
involvement goods, A is more important than C for low involvement goods, E is the most important for
mature, familiar products, etc. This suggests that a three dimensional (C, E, A) space is a more realistic
model of advertising effects than a hierarchical one. In such space the “weight” (coordinate) of each
dimension may vary depending on the advertising context.
The hierarchy framework, where effects take place in a particular sequence, does not allow for interaction
between effects. However interactions between advertising and experience have been well documented as
suggested by conclusion 23. What seems to be significant here is importance (dominance) of each of the
effects rather than any temporal sequence, and the fact that the importance of these effects is influenced by
context-related factors, such as product category, stage of product life cycle. This concept of sequence
lacks evidence in the literature (conclusion 20) and, taking the opposing neuroscience conclusions from the
hierarchy-free section (3.7), cannot be supported.
Taking the above two paragraphs together:
23

G4. The concept of a space of intermediate effects is supported, but not a hierarchy (sequence).
Based on conclusions 13-16 of Table 2, affect and advertising effectiveness are not exclusively, or at all,
dependent on an individual’s cognitive response. Yet, conventional forms of attitude or other affect
measurement typically involve verbal questioning, which subjects responses to rationality by both
respondent and researcher. At each level of subsequent formal processing, i.e., as it is thought about,
written down, and presented to others, cognition dominates affect.
Wilson et al. (1989) researched attitude-behavior consistency in studies conducted between 1981 and 1988
and concluded that having to give reasons for attitudes disrupted those attitudes. In other words, the
application of C to A disrupted A. They cite a film festival judge who had to give up because the necessary
analysis destroyed his judgmental ability. Where the respondent is an expert, i.e., has beliefs and
knowledge that have long challenged each other interactively, this problem may disappear, though it did
not for the film judge. But in the low-involvement non-elaborate categories discussed in this paper, it
would be most acute. The issue, therefore, is how affect can be measured unobtrusively. We found it
noteworthy that emotion has only surfaced relatively recently in the literature (mainly since 1980), even
though the conclusions of Table 2 suggest that affect can be more important than cognition. We conclude
that cognitive bias tends both to understate the role of affect and, due to measurement problems, misreport
reality. Thus:
G5. Cognitive bias interferes with affect measurement.
5. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
G4 suggests that the framework implied by persuasive hierarchy framework cannot be supported because
it assumes a sequence of effects and ignores the role of experience, the way it is affected by advertising,
24

and the way it affects subsequent behavior. Our discussion of G4 further suggested that context should
receive more attention in future research:
Goal Diversity: Some advertising seeks to convey factual information through cognitive appeals, some
seeks liking and affect, whereas some merely reinforces habit;
Product category: Advertising varies for high, medium, and low-involvement categories, durables and
non-durables, industrial and consumer products; high quality brands should advertise more than their
low quality competitors;
Competition: The extent of competitive advertising impacts its effectiveness;
Marketing mix: The extent of non-advertising promotional activities;
Stage of the product life cycle: The advertising effects sought for new products are different from those
for mature or post-mature products; and
Target market: The target consumers are themselves diverse; consumer may vary with respect to their
involvement.
We propose five directions for future research based on the above principles:
5.1 Integrating all three intermediate effects
G1 suggests that cognition, affect and experience are the three key intermediate advertising effects which
G4 presents as a space rather than a hierarchy. Beliefs (cognition) for example are not the only, not even a
necessary, condition for the formation of attitudes. We thus propose a three-dimensional space (“EAC
Space”) for the study and measurement of intermediate advertising effects (Figure 2). The “coordinates”
of each dimension (w1, w2, w3, in Figure 2), indicate the relative strength of the corresponding
advertising effect and therefore the position occupied by a particular advertising message.
We propose that advertising’s positioning (i.e., the coordinates in EAC Space) be determined by context.
For example, a classified ad for a second-hand bicycle will require minimal experience and affect, but
25

extensive factual (cognitive) information (make, age, condition and price). In this case w3 should be
considerably higher than w1 and w2, and advertising should be positioned close to the cognition axis.
Conversely, a TV commercial for laundry detergent might minimally target C and concentrate on A, e.g.,
warmth and liking (Aaker and Stayman 1990b), as well as reinforcement of habit (E). In such a case w1
should be higher than w2 and w3, and advertising should be positioned close to the affect axis. This
positioning of advertising would help clarify the client-agency creative briefing process and track
advertising performance.
5.2 Context
The discussion in the beginning of this section suggested that five factors characterize context: goal,
category, competition, stage of the product life cycle, and target market. Any one of the context
components could serve as a starting point, but we prefer to begin with the goal the advertising is
supposed to achieve. Researchers have conventionally assumed that its task is to increase sales, or market
share, but this is not necessarily true. Advertising may be used to support premium pricing or, due to
competitive activity, simply maintain share. If all brands in a category advertise in order to increase share,
they cannot all succeed and yet any brand that decides to opt out would be likely to lose share. Experience
goods and service brands need more creative and affective advertising and can expect a higher return than
industrial and search goods brands, which have to rely on a rational/informational approach. New
products would need to advertise more than established ones in order to break through the clutter, achieve
target awareness levels, and establish an image. Target market can dictate changes in advertising strategies
even for the same brand. For example, a breakfast cereal brand will use a different appeal (mainly
emotional and experiential) when its target audience is children rather than adults buying for their children.
The UK Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) biennially publish winning case histories of effective
advertising (IPA 1981-95). These, and similar sources, contain the context within which the advertising
26

works and may be a suitable foundation for analysis of the effects of the diversity of advertising context.
Future IPA competitors will be required to identify this contextual information.
5.3 Long-term effects
Most of the research we examined in this paper has focused on short-term advertising effects, which are
generally considered weak (G2). Although fewer advertising studies have dealt with long-term effects,
due perhaps to data availability and model complexity, both practitioners (e.g., long-term effects category
in the IPA case histories) and academics (e.g., Leone 1995; Lodish et al. 1995a & b) have identified and
measured them. The study of long-term effects, however, has been primarily at market rather than at the
individual level. One exception, discussed in the market response models section (3.1), is the study by
Mela, Gupta, and Lehmann (1997) which utilized individual-level data, albeit from a single product
category. We need more studies of long-term advertising effects based on individual-level, single-source
data which should build upon and extend the results of previous single source studies (Deighton,
Henderson, and Neslin 1994; Kanetkar, Weinberg, and Weiss 1992; Mela, Gupta, and Lehmann 1997;
Tellis 1988). Future research should also concentrate on developing and comparing different
methodologies for reliable measurement of long-term effects.
5.4 Combining intermediate and behavioral effects
The discussion of econometric market response and conceptual models of intermediate advertising effects
(e.g., hierarchy of effects, affective response, and integrative models) in section 3 suggests that in terms of
knowledge contribution, these two streams of models complement each other. One stream (econometric
studies) focuses on “objective” marketing-mix and purchase behavior measures and studies the effects of
advertising on purchase behavior to provide reliable estimates of the size of behavioral effects. The other
stream (conceptual) focuses on pre-purchase, intermediate effects of advertising using “subjective”
measures of cognition (beliefs, recall, awareness) and affect (feelings, emotions, attitudes). Primarily
experimental procedures isolate advertising effects from, say, promotional and competitive effects, and
27

study the causality of behavioral effects. We propose that the consumer profile information that typically
accompanies single-source household purchase data be augmented by including cognitive, affective, and
experience measures with respect to the particular brands and their advertising. Once such data bases are
compiled, research should focus on the study of long- and short-term, main and interactive effects of
advertising, promotions, cognition, affect, and experience on consumer choice. An opportunity therefore
exists to exploit the advantages of each stream and study both intermediate and behavioral effects in a
single “natural,” non-experimental setting.
5.5 Cognitive bias
More work is needed to calibrate measurement methodologies of affect. Empirical research so far has
suggested that there are at least two components of affective response: utilitarian and hedonic. The
traditional measurement of attitudes through cognitive analysis has been shown to be disruptive (Wilson et
al. 1989) or inadequate (Batra and Ray 1986). Alternatives such as facial, projective and other nonverbal
measures are available, but none has become dominant in practice, an indication that perhaps they are not
entirely satisfactory (Bogart 1996, p. 73). Further recognition needs to be given to the cognitive bias in
subsequent data processing. The problem is not just with the collection of raw data from respondents, but
also with the way it has to be made explicit and verbalized as it is summarized and transmitted from
researcher to manager, and thence through a series of increasingly senior client and agency executives.
Similar considerations arise with academic research.
6. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has classified and reviewed past research of intermediate and behavioral effects of advertising
using a taxonomy of models starting from market response (-), and concluding with integrative ((C)(A)
(E)) and non-hierarchic (NH) models. A major generalization (G4) concerned the persuasive hierarchy
(CA) category of models of advertising effects. Although such models have been actively employed for
28

100 years, we find them to be flawed on two grounds: the concept of hierarchy (temporal sequence) upon
which they are based cannot be empirically supported, and they exclude experience effects. These
observations led us to our first direction for future research: We propose that advertising be evaluated in a
three-dimensional space with the dimensions being experience, affect and cognition (the EAC Space). The
emphasis of a particular advertising campaign can therefore be determined by the coordinates of the three
dimensions. These coordinates of the EAC Space should be adjusted according to the context: product
category, competitive environment, other marketing mix components, stage of the product life cycle and
target audience. We also suggest that behavioral (brand choice, market share) and cognitive and affective
measures (beliefs, attitudes, awareness) be compiled in single-source data bases to allow researchers both
in academia and industry to test the interaction of context, intermediate effects and long- and short-term
behavior. In this effort we will also need to relieve measures of affective responses from cognitive bias.
This will be especially important for low involvement products where habit and affect are much more
important than cognition.
29

Table 1: Taxonomy of Models of How Advertising Works
Model Notation Sequence of Effects
Market Response (-) No intermediate advertising
effects considered
Cognitive Information C “Think”
Pure Affect A “Feel”
Persuasive Hierarchy CA “Think” “Feel”  “Do”
Low Involvement Hierarchy CEA “Think”  “Do”  “Feel”
Integrative (C)(A)(E) Hierarchy not fixed- depends on
product, involvement
Hierarchy-Free NH No particular hierarchy of
effects is proposed
30

Table 2: Summary of Empirical Findings
Model Topic Conclusion Studies
(-) Short-Term Effects:
Advertising Elasticities
1. Advertising elasticities range
from 0-0.20.
Leone and Schultz 1980;
Assmus, Farley and Lehmann
1984; Lodish et al. 1995a.
2. Advertising elasticities for
durables are higher than those for
nondurables.
Leone and Schultz 1980;
Sethuraman and Tellis 1991.
3. Promotional elasticities are up to
20 times higher than advertising
elasticities.
Sethuraman and Tellis 1991;
Lodish et al. 1995a.
(-) Dynamic Advertising
Elasticities
4. Advertising elasticities are
dynamic and decrease over the
product life cycle. Advertising
elasticities are therefore higher for
new than for established brands.
Parsons 1975; Arora 1979;
Winer 1979; McDonald 1992;
Lodish et al. 1995a;
Parker and Gatignon (1996)
(-) Long-Term Effects:
Advertising Carryover
5. Purchase reinforcement, habitual
loyalty effects are stronger than
advertising carryover effects.
Givon and Horsky 1990.
6. 90% of the advertising effects
dissipate after three to fifteen
months.
Clarke 1976; Assmus et al 1984;
Leone 1995.
(-) Advertising Response
Functions, Reach and
Frequency
7. Returns to advertising are usually
diminishing: the first exposure is the
most influential for short-term sales
or share gains.
McDonald 1971;
Simon and Arndt 1980;
Tellis 1988; Deighton ,
Henderson and Neslin 1994;
Jones 1995;
Pedrick and Zufryden 1991.
8. For frequently purchased package
goods share returns to advertising
diminish fast, typically after the
third exposure. After the third
exposure, advertisers should focus
on reach rather than frequency.
McDonald 1971;
Krugman 1972;
Naples 1979;
Tellis 1988; Deighton, Henderson
and Neslin 1994;
Pedrick and Zufryden 1991;
1993.
(C), (CEA) Advertising for search,
experience and ambiguous
goods
9. Advertising is more effective for
experience than search (ambiguous)
goods. Furthermore ads for search
goods contain more product-oriented
information than experience goods
ads.
Nelson 1974;
Verma 1980;
Hoch and Ha 1986.
(C) Advertising as a signal of
product quality
10. Increased advertising signals
high quality when costs of
producing quality are low and
consumers are less responsive to
advertising.
Tellis and Fornell 1988.
31

Table 2 (continued)
Model Topic Conclusion Studies
(C) Advertising effects on
consumer price sensitivity
11. Price advertising increases price
sensitivity whereas non-price
advertising decreases price
sensitivity. Furthermore, price
sensitivity leads to lower prices.
Kaul and Wittink 1995.
12. When consumers rely on
memory to retrieve product
information then advertising
increases price sensitivity; When
consumers rely on point-of-purchase
information then advertising
decreases price sensitivity
Mitra and Lynch 1995.
(A) Advertising and affective
responses
13. Advertising need not be
informative to be effective; nor need
be verbal only; emotional and visual
elements enhance preference.
Zajonc 1980;
Sawyer 1981;
Zajonc and Markus 1982;
Gorn 1982;
Rossiter and Percy 1978; 1983;
Resnik and Stern 1977; Aaker
and Norris 1982; Weinberger
and Spotts 1989; Stern and
Resnik 1991; Stern et al. 1981,
Healy and Kassarjian 1977;
Krugman 1977.
(CA) Brand Attitude Formation 14. Brand attitudes are not
exclusively formed based on beliefs
about the product/brand attributes.
They can also be based on emotions.
For example attitude towards the ad
is a significant moderator in the
formation of brand attitudes.
MacKenzie, Lutz and Belch
1986;
Aaker, Stayman and Hagerty
1986;
Batra and Ray 1986;
Burke and Edell 1989;
Homer 1990;
MacKenzie and Lutz 1989;
Brown and Stayman 1992;
Smith 1993.
(A), (CA) Ad Likability, Attitude
Toward the ad
15. Ad likability highly correlates
with brand preference.
Biel 1990;
Haley and Baldinger 1991.
16. Attitude toward the ad affects
brand attitudes only in non-elaborate
situations.
Droge 1989.
32

Table 2 (continued)
Model Topic Conclusion Studies
(CA) Effects of Message
Repetition on Awareness,
Recall and Attitude
Formation
17. In low involvement situations,
repetition of different versions of an
ad prevents early decay of
advertising effects.
18. Recall and attitudes can be
maintained at high level if an ad
campaign consists of a series of ads.
Cacioppo and Petty 1985.
Zielske 1959; Zielske and
Henry 1980; Calder and
Strenthal 1980;
Rao and Burnkrant 1991.
(CA) Attitude-Behavior
Consistency
19. Attitude-Behavior correlations
range 0 and 0.30.
Wicker 1969;
Fazio and Zanna 1979.
(CA) Sequence of intermediate
effects
20. The concept of a single
hierarchy of effects is not supported.
Heeler 1972; Palda 1966; Ray
1973; Rothschild 1974; Sawyer
1971; Strong 1972; Barry and
Howard 1990.
(CEA) Advertising-Experience
Interaction
21. Product usage experience
dominates advertising influence on
beliefs attitudes and behavior.
Winter 1973;
Olson and Dover 1979;
Hoch and Ha 1986;
Smith and Swinyard 1983;
1988; Marks and Kamins
1988;
Tellis 1988;
Smith 1993.
22. Advertising is superior to
product usage in communicating
quality for credence goods; Product
experience dominates advertising
for search and low experience goods
(attributes).
Wright 1990;
Wright and Lynch 1995.
23. Advertising has a stronger effect
on consumers with high behavioral
loyalty.
Raj 1982;
Tellis 1988;
Deighton , Henderson and
Neslin 1994;
D’Souza and Rao 1995.
24. Advertising is relatively more
effective when it precedes usage
experience (predictive framing), in
particular when such experience is
negative.
Deighton 1984; Deighton and
Schindler 1988;
Hoch and Ha 1986;
Levin and Gaeth 1988;
Smith 1993.
((C)(A)(E)),
(NH)
Advertising process
interaction.
25. The relative importance of C
and A depend on context. Beliefs
generally build cumulatively with
awareness, trial word of mouth,
promotions and advertising. These
effects act interactively and
simultaneously.
Vaughn 1980;
Vaughn 1986;
Smith and Swinyard 1982,
1983, 1988;
Franzen 1994;
Deighton 1984; 1986
Kupfermann; Martin 1991;
Rose 1993; Sutherland 1993.
33

Figure 1
A Framework for Studying How Advertising Works
Advertising Input:
Message content, media scheduling,
repetition
Individual
Cognition Affect Experience
Consumer behavior:
Choice, consumption,
loyalty, habit etc.
Filters:
Motivation, ability (Involvement)
34

Experience
Affect
Co
gnition
Figure 2
EAC Space
w1
w2
w3
35

REFERENCES
Aaker, David and George Day (1974), “A Dynamic Model of Relationships Among Advertising, Consumer Awareness,
Attitudes and Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (3), 281-286.
---- and Donald Norris (1982), “Characteristics of TV Commercials Perceived as Informative,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 22 (April/May), 61-70.
----, Douglas M. Stayman, and Michael R. Hagerty (1986), “Warmth in Advertising: Measurement, Impact and
Sequence Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (March), 365-81.
---- and Douglas M. Stayman (1990a), “Measuring Audience Perceptions of Commercials and Relating them to Ad
Impact”, Journal of Advertising Research, 30 (August/September), 7-17.
---- and Douglas M. Stayman (1990b), “A Micro Approach to studying Feeling Responses to Advertising: The Case of
Warmth”, in Emotion in Advertising: Theoretical and Practical Explorations, Agres, Stuart J., Julie A. Edell and Tony
M. Dubitsky, eds. New York: Quorum Books, 53-68.
Abraham, Magid M. and Leonard M. Lodish (1990), “Getting the most out of Advertising and Promotion,” Harvard
Business Review 3 (May-June), 50-63.
Advertising Age (1996), “Snickers Ads Grab the Elusive ‘Big Idea’,” 67 (36), 37.
Advertising Research Foundation (1961), Toward Better Media Comparisons. New York: Advertising Research
Foundation, Audience Concepts Committee.
Advertising Research Foundation (1991), Breakthrough Marketplace Advertising Research for Bottom Line Results,
Transcript Proceedings. New York: November 6 and 7, 1991.
36

Agres, Stuart J., Julie A. Edell and Tony M. Dubitsky (1990), Emotion in Advertising: Theoretical and Practical
Explorations. New York : Quorum Books.
Alba, Joseph W., J. Wesley Hutchinson, and John G. Lynch, Jr (1991), “Memory and Decision Making,” in Handbook
of Consumer Behavior, Thomas S. Robertson and Harold Kassarjian, eds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1-49.
Alwitt, Linda F. and Andrew A. Mitchell (1985), “Introduction,” in Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects,
Linda F. Alwitt and Andrew A. Mitchell, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1-10.
Arora, Rajinder (1979), “How Promotion Elasticities Change,” Journal of Advertising Research, 19 (June), 57-62.
Assael, Henry and George S. Day (1968), “Attitudes and Awareness as Predictors of Market Share,” Journal of
Advertising Research, 8 (October), 3-10.
Assmus, Gert, John U. Farley, and Donald Lehmann (1984), “How Advertising Affects Sales: Meta Analysis of
Econometric Results,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (February), 65-74.
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1981), “An Examination of the Validity of Two Models of Attitude,” Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 16 (July), 323-59.
---- and Robert E. Burnkrant (1979), “Attitude Organization and the Attitude-Behavior Relationship,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (June), 913-929.
----, Alice M. Tybout, Samuel Craig, and Brian Strenthal (1979), “The Construct Validity of the Tripartite Classification
of Attitudes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 88-95.
Barry, Thomas and Daniel Howard (1990), “A Review and Critique of the Hierarchy of Effects in Advertising,”
International Journal of Advertising, 9 (April-June), 121-135.
37

Barwise, Patrick (1995), "Good Empirical Generalisations", Marketing Science, 14 (3), 429-35.
Bass, Frank M. (1995), “Empirical Generalizations and Marketing Science: A Personal View,” Marketing Science, 14
(3), part 2 of 2, G6-G19.
---- and Jerry Wind (1995), “Introduction to the Special Issue: Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” Marketing
Science, 14 (3), part 2 of 2, G1-G5.
---- and Darral G. Clarke (1972), “Testing Distributed Lag Models of Advertising Effects,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 9 (August), 298-308.
---- and Robert P. Leone (1983), “Temporal Aggregation, the Data Interval Bias and Empirical Estimation of
Bimonthly Relations from Annual Data,” Management Science, 29 (January), 1-11.
Batra, Rajeev and Michael L. Ray (1985), “How Advertising Works at Contact,” in Psychological Processes and
Advertising Effects, Linda F. Alwitt and Andrew A. Mitchell, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 13-44.
---- and ---- (1986), “Affective Responses Mediating Acceptance of Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13
(September), 234-49.
---- and Wilfried R. Vanhonacker (1986), “The Hierarchy of Advertising Effects: An Aggregate Field Test of Temporal
Precedence,” working paper, Columbia Business School.
Berlyne, Daniel E. (1960), Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill
---- (1966), “Curiosity and Exploration,” Science 153 (1), 25-33.
---- (1970), “Novelty, Complexity, and Hedonic Value,” Perception and Psychophysics, 8 (November), 279-286.
38

Bharadwaj, Sunder G., P. Rajan Varadarajan, and John Fahy (1993), “Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Service
Industries: A Conceptual Model and Research Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (October), 83-99.
Biel, Alexander L. (1990), “Love the Ad. Buy the Product? Why Liking the Advertisement and Preferring the Brand
Aren’t Strange Bedfellows After All,” Admap, 26 (September), 21-25.
Bierly, Calvin, Frances K. McSweeney, and Renee Vanieuwkerk (1985), “Classical Conditioning of Preferences for
Stimuli,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 316-23.
Blair, Margaret H. (1987), “An Empirical Investigation of Advertising Wearin and Wearout,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 27 (December/January), 45-50.
Blattberg, Robert C. and Abel P. Jeuland (1981), “A Micromodeling Approach to Investigate the Advertising-Sales
Relationship,” Management Science, 27 (September), 988-1005.
Bloom, Paul N., Julie Edell, and Richard Staelin (1994), “Criteria for Assessing Research on the Effects of Marketing
Communications” Marketing Science Institute working paper no. 94-123, Cambridge, MA.
Boulding, William, Eunkyu Lee, and Richard Staelin (1992), “The Long-Term Differentiation Value of Marketing
Communications Actions,” Marketing Science Institute working paper no. 92-133, Cambridge, MA.
Broadbent, Simon (1984), “Modelling with Adstock,” Journal of the Market Research Society, 26 (October), 295-312.
---- (1992), 456 Views of How Advertising Works. London: Leo Burnett.
Bogart, Leo (1996), Strategy in Advertising, 3rd edition. Lincolnwood, Illinois: NTC Books.
Brown, Gordon (1991), “Monitoring advertising: big stable brands and ad effects fresh thoughts about why, perhaps,
consistent promotion keeps them big,” Admap, 27 (May), 32-37.
39

Brown, Steven P. and Douglas M. Stayman (1992), “Antecedents and Consequences of Attitude Toward the Ad: A
Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), 34-51.
Burke, Marian and Julie Edell (1989), “The Impact of Feelings on Ad-Based Affect and Cognition,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 26 (February), 69-83.
Buttle, Francis (1991), "What Do People Do With Advertising?" International Journal of Advertising, 10 (April-June),
95-110
Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty (1985), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: The Role of Message
Repetition,” in Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects, Andrew A. Mitchell and Linda F. Alwitt, eds.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 91-112.
Calder, Bobby J. and Brian Strenthal (1980), “Television Commercial Wearout: An Information Processing View,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (May), 173-86.
Chiplin, Brian and Brian Sturgess (1981), Economics of Advertising, 2nd Edition. East Sussex: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Clarke, Darral G. (1976), “Econometric Measurement of the Duration of Advertising Effects on Sales,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 13 (November), 345-357.
Colley, Russell H. (1961), Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Results. New York: Association of
National Advertisers.
Comanor, William S. and Thomas A. Wilson (1974), Advertising and Market Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
40

---- and ---- (1979), “The Effects of Advertising on Competition: A Survey,” Journal of Economic Literature, 17 (June)
453-476.
Crandall, James E. (1970), “Predictive Value and Confirmability of Traits and Determinants of Judged Trait
Importance,” Journal of Personality, 38 (March), 77-90.
Danaher, Peter J. (1988), “A Log-Linear Model for Predicting Magazine Audiences,” Journal of Marketing Research,
25 (November), 356-362.
---- (1989), “An Approximate Log-Linear Model for Predicting Magazine Audiences,” Journal of Marketing Research,
26 (November), 473-479.
---- (1991), “A Canonical Expansion Model for Multivariate Media Exposure Distributions: A Generalization of the
Duplication of Viewing Law,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (November), 361-362.
Darby, Michael R. and Edi Karni (1973), “Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud,” Journal of Law and
Economics, 16 (April), 67-86.
Davis, Evan, John Kay, and Jonathan Star (1991), "Is Advertising Rational?" Business Strategy Review, 2 (Autumn), 1-
23
Deighton, John (1984), “The Interaction of Advertising and Evidence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11
(December), 763-70.
---- (1986), “Persuasion as Directed Inference,” in Advances in Consumer Research Vol. 13, Richard Lutz, ed. Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 558-61.
---- and Robert M. Schindler (1988), “Can Advertising Influence Experience?” Psychology & Marketing, 5 (Summer),
103-15.
41

----, Caroline Henderson and Scott A. Neslin (1994), “The Effects of Advertising on Brand Switching and Repeat
Purchasing,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (February), 28-43.
Dekimpe, Marnik G. and Dominique M. Hanssens (1995), “The Persistence of Marketing Effects on Sales,” Marketing
Science, 14 (1), 1-21.
Dhalla, Norman K. (1978), “Assessing the Long-Term Value of Advertising,” Harvard Business Review, 56 (January-
February), 87-95.
Dröge, Cornelia (1989), “Shaping the Route to Attitude Change: Central Versus Peripheral Processing Through
Comparative Versus Noncomparative Advertising,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (May), 193-204.
D’Souza, Giles and Ram C. Rao (1995), “Can Repeating an Advertisement More Frequently Than the Competition
Affect Brand Preference in a Mature Market?,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (April), 32-42.
Eastlack, Joseph O. and Ambar G. Rao (1986), “Modeling Response to Advertising and Pricing Changes for ‘V-8’
Cocktail Vegetable Juice,” Marketing Science, 5 (3), 245-259.
Ehrenberg, Andrew S.C. (1974), “Repetitive Advertising and the Consumer,” Journal of Advertising Research, 14
(April), 25-34.
---- (1994), “Justifying Advertising Budgets,” Admap 30 (January), 11-13.
Ekman, Paul and W. V. Friesen (1978), Facial Action Coding System (FACS): A technique for the measurement of
facial action. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Eskin, Gerald J. and Penny Baron (1977), “Effects of Price and Advertising in Test-Marketing Experiments,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 14 (November), 499-508.
42

Farris, Paul W. and Mark S. Albion (1980), “The Impact of Advertising on the Price of Consumer Products,” Journal
of Marketing, 44 (Summer), 17-35.
Fazio, Russell H. and Mark P. Zanna (1979), “Direct Experience and Attitude-Behavior Consistency,” in Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, R. Berkowitz, ed. New York: Academic Press.
Fischbach, Gerald D. (1992), “Mind and Brain,” Scientific American, 267, 48-57.
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and
Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fletcher, Winston (1992), A Glittering Haze. Henley-On-Thames, England: NTC.
Franzen, Giep (1994), Advertising Effectiveness. London: NTC.
Gardner, Meryl P., Andrew A. Mitchell, and J. Edward Russo (1978), “Chronometric Analysis: An Introduction and an
Application to Low Involvement Perception of Advertisements,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, H. Keith
Hunt, ed. Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research, 581-589.
Gardner, Meryl P. (1985), “Mood States and Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review,” Journal of Consumer Research,
12 (December), 281-300.
Givon, Moshe and Dan Horsky (1990), “Untangling the Effects of Purchase Reinforcement and Advertising
Carryover,” Marketing Science, 9 (3), 171-87.
Gorn, Gerald (1982), “The Effects of Music in Advertising and Choice Behavior: A Classical Conditioning Approach,”
Journal of Marketing, 46 (Winter), 79-85.
43

Greenwald, Anthony G. (1968), “Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Attitude Change,” in Psychological
Foundations of Attitudes, Anthony G. Greenwald, Timothy C. Brock and Thomas M. Ostrom, ed. New York: Academic
Press, 147-170.
---- and Clark Leavitt (1984), “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11
(February), 581-592.
Hall, Mark and Doug Maclay (1991), “How Does Research Practice Match Advertising Theory?” in Proceedings of the
Market Research Society Conference. London: Market Research Society, 51-68.
Haley, Russell I. and Allan L. Baldinger (1991), “The ARF Copy Research Validity Project,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 31 (April/May), 11-32.
Hanssens, Dominique M., Leonard J. Parsons, and Randall L. Schultz (1990), Market Response Models: Econometric
and Time Series Analysis. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Harris, Greg (1987), “The Implications of Low-involvement Theory for Advertising Effectiveness Research,”
International Journal of Advertising, 6 (July-September), 209-221.
Harrison, Albert A. (1968), “Response Competition, Frequency, Exploratory Behavior and Liking,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 9 (4), 363-8.
Healy, John S. and Harold H. Kassarjian (1983), “Advertising Substantiation and Advertiser Response: A Content
Analysis of Magazine Advertisements,” Journal of Marketing, 47( Winter), 107-117.
Heeler, Roger M. (1972), “The Effects of Mixed Media, Multiple Copy Repetition and Competition in Advertising: A
Laboratory Investigation,” doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
44

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Morris B. Holbrook (1982), “Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and
Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (Summer), 92-101.
---- and Morris B. Holbrook (1986), “Expanding the Ontology and Methodology of Research on the Consumption
Experience” in Perspectives on Methodology in Consumer Research, David Brinberg and Richard J. Lutz, eds. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 213-51.
Hoch, Stephen J. and Young-Won Ha (1986), “Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product
Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (October), 221-33.
Holbrook, Morris B. (1986), “Emotion in the Consumption Experience: Toward a New Model of the Human
Consumer,” in The Role of Affect in Consumer Behavior: Emerging Theories and Applications, Robert A. Peterson,
Wayne D. Hoyer and William R. Wilson, eds. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
---- and Rajeev Batra (1987), “Assessing the Role of Emotions as Mediators of Consumer Responses to Advertising,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 404-420.
---- and John O’Shaughnessy, (1984) “The Role of Emotion in Advertising”, Psychology & Marketing, 1 (Summer),
45-64.
Homer, Pamela M. (1990), “The Mediating Role of Attitude Toward the Ad: Some Additional Evidence,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 27 (February), 78-86.
Houston, Michael J. and Michael L. Rothschild (1978), “Conceptual and Methodological Perspectives in Involvement,”
in Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions, Subhash Jain, ed. Chicago: American Marketing
Association, 184-87.
Hunt, Shelby D. (1992), “For Reason and Realism in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (April), 89-102.
45

Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (1981-1995), Advertising Works vols. 1 - 8, Simon Broadbent, Charles
Channon, Paul Feldwick and Chris Baker (2 each), eds. London : Institute of Practitioners of Advertising and NTC.
Janiszewski, Chris (1988), “Preconscious Processing Effects: The Independence of Attitude Formation and Conscious
Thought,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 199-209.
Janiszewski, Chris and Luk Warlop (1993), “The Influence of Classical Conditioning Procedures on Subsequent
Attention to the Conditioned Brand,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (September), 171-89.
Jones, John Philip (1990), “Advertising: Strong Force or Weak Force? Two Views an Ocean Apart”, International
Journal of Advertising, 9 (July-September), 233-246.
---- (1995a), When Ads Work, New York: Lexington Books.
---- (1995b), “Exposure Effects Under a Microscope,” Admap, 30 (February), 28-31.
Joyce, Timothy (1991), “Models of the Advertising Process?” Marketing and Research Today, 19 (November), 205-13.
Kanetkar, Vijay, Charles B. Weinberg, and Doyle L. Weiss (1992), “Price Sensitivity and Television Advertising
Exposures: Some Empirical Findings,” Marketing Science, 11 (4), 359-371.
Kaul, Anil and Dick R. Wittink (1995), “Empirical Generalizations About the Impact of Advertising on Price
Sensitivity and Price,” Marketing Science, 14 (3, part 2 of 2), G151-G160.
King, Stephen (1975), “Practical Progress From a Theory of Advertisements,” Admap, 11 (October), 338-343.
Kotler, Philip (1997), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control, 9th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
46

Krishnamurthi, Lakshman and S. P. Raj (1985), “The Effect of Advertising on Consumer Price Sensitivity,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 22 (May), 119-129.
Krugman, Herbert E. (1965), “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement,” Public Opinion
Quarterly, 29 (Fall), 349-356.
---- (1967), “The Measurement of Advertising Involvement,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 30 (Winter), 583-96.
---- (1972), “Why Three Exposures May Be Enough,” Journal of Advertising Research, 12 (November/December), 11-
14.
---- (1977), “Memory Without Recall, Exposure Without Perception,” Journal of Advertising Research, 17
(August/September), 7-12.
Kupfermann, Irving (1991), “Hypothalamus and Limbic System: Peptidergic Neurons, Homeostasis, and Emotional
Behavior”, in Principles of Neural Science, 3rd edition, Eric R. Kandel, James H. Schwartz and Thomas M. Jessel,
eds. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange, 735-749.
Lambin, Jean J. (1976), Advertising, Competition and Market Conduct in Oligopoly Over Time. Amsterdam: North-
Holland.
Lannon, Judie (1986), “New Techniques for Understanding Consumer Reactions to Advertising,” Journal of
Advertising Research: Research Currents, 26 (August/September), RC6-9.
---- (1994), “Mosaics of Meaning: Anthropology and Marketing,” Journal of Brand Management, 2 (December), 155-
168.
---- and Peter Cooper (1983), “Humanistic Advertising,” International Journal of Advertising, 2 (July-September), 195-
213.
47

Lastovicka, John L. and David M. Gardner (1979), “Components of Involvement,” in Attitudes Play for High Stakes,
John C. Maloney and Bernard Silverman, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Lavidge, Robert J. and Gary A. Steiner (1961), “A Model for Predictive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness ,”
Journal of Marketing, 25 (October), 59-62.
Leckenby, John D. and Shizue Kishi (1984), “The Dirichlet-Multinomial Distribution as a Magazine Exposure Model,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (February), 100-106.
Leone, Robert P. (1995), “Generalizing What is Known About Temporal Aggregation and Advertising Carryover,”
Marketing Science, 14 (3, part 2 of 2), G141-G150.
---- and Randall L. Schultz (1980), “A Study of Marketing Generalization,” Journal of Marketing, 44 (Winter), 10-18.
Levi-Strauss, Claude (1963), Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic.
Levin, Irwin P. and Gary P. Gaeth (1988), “How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information
Before and After Consuming the Product,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (December), 374-8.
Little, John C. (1979), “Aggregate Advertising Models: The State of the Art,” Operations Research, 27 (July-August),
629-665.
Lodish, Leonard M., Magid Abraham, Stuart Kalmenson, Jeanne Livelsberger, Beth Lubetkin, Bruce Richardson and
Mary Ellen Stevens (1995a), “How Advertising Works: A Meta-Analysis of 389 Real World Split Cable TV Advertising
Experiments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (May), 125-139.
----, ----, ----, ----, ----, ---- and ---- (1995b), “A Summary of Fifty Five In-Market Experimental Estimates of the Long-
Term Effects of Advertising,” Marketing Science, 14 (3, part 2 of 2), G133-G140.
48

Lutz, Richard J. (1975), “Changing Brand Attitudes Through Modifications of Cognitive Structure,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 1 (March), 49-59.
---- (1991), “The Role of Attitude Theory in Marketing,” in Perspectives in Consumer Behavior, 4th ed., Harold H.
Kassarjian and Thomas S. Robertson, eds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
MacInnis, Deborah J. and Bernard J. Jaworski (1989), “Information Processing From Advertisements: Toward an
Integrative Framework,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (October), 1-23.
----, Christine Moorman, and Bernard J. Jaworski (1991), “Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation,
Opportunity and Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads,” Journal of Marketing, 55 (October), 32-53.
MacKenzie, Scott B., Richard J. Lutz, and George E. Belch (1986), “The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator
of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (May), 130-43.
---- and Richard J. Lutz (1989), “An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in
an Advertising Pretest Context,” Journal of Marketing 53(April), 48-65.
McDonald, Colin (1971), “What is the Short Term Effect of Advertising?” in Measuring the Effect of Advertising,
David Corkindale and Sherril Kennedy, eds. Farnborough, England: Saxon House Studies, 463-487.
---- (1992), How Advertising Works. London: The Advertising Association in association with NTC.
McGuire William (1968), “The Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd
edition, vol. 3, Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, eds. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 136-314.
---- (1978), “An Information Processing Model of Advertising Effectiveness,” in Behavioral and Management Science
in Marketing, Harry L. Davis and Alvin J. Silk, eds. New York: Wiley, 156-180.
49

McWilliam, Gil (1993), “Consumers’ Involvement in Brands and Product Categories,” doctoral dissertation, School of
Management, Cranfield University, U.K.
Marks, Lawrence J. and Michael A. Kamins (1988), “The Use of Product Sampling and Advertising: Effects of
Sequence of Exposure and Degree of Advertising Claim Exaggeration on Consumers’ Belief Strength, Belief
Confidence and Attitudes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (August), 266-82.
Martin, John H. (1991), “Coding and Processing of Sensory Information,” in Principles of Neural Science, 3rd edition,
Eric R. Kandel, James H. Schwartz and Thomas M. Jessel, eds. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange, 329-340.
Mela, Carl F., Sunil Gupta, and Donald R. Lehmann (1997), “The Long-Term Impact of Promotion and Advertising on
Consumer Brand Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (May), 248-261.
Metheringham, Richard A. (1964), “Measuring the Net Cumulative Coverage of a Print Campaign,” Journal of
Advertising Research, 4 (December), 23-28.
Mick, David G. (1988) “Contributions to the Semiotics of Marketing and Consumer Research,” in The Semiotic Web:
A Yearbook of Semiotics, Thomas Sebeok and Jean Umiker-Sebeok, eds. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 535-84.
Mitchell, Andrew A. (1980), “The Use of an Information Processing Approach to Understanding Effects,” in Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, Jerry C. Olson, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 171-7.
---- (1981), “The Dimensions of Advertising Involvement,” in Advances In Consumer Research, Vol.8, Kent Monroe,
ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
---- and Jerry C. Olson (1981), “Are Product Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?”
Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 318-32.
50

Mitra, Anusree and John G. Lynch Jr. (1995), “Toward a Reconciliation of Market Power and Information Theories of
Advertising Effects on Price Elasticity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (March), 644-659.
Mittal, Banwari (1990), “The Relative Roles of Brand Beliefs and attitude Toward the Ad as Mediators of Brand
Attitude: A Second Look,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (May), 209-219.
Naples, Michael J. (1979), Effective Frequency: The Relationship Between Frequency and Advertising Effectiveness.
New York: Association of National Advertisers.
Nelson, Philip (1970), “Information and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Political Economy, 78 (March/April), 311-
329.
---- (1974), “Advertising as Information,” Journal of Political Economy, 82 (July/August), 729-754.
Nevett, Terence R. (1982), Advertising in Britain: A History. London: Heinemann.
O’Brien, Terrence (1971), “Stages of Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (August), 283-
289.
Ogilvy, David (1983), Ogilvy on Advertising. London: Pan Books.
Olson, Jerry C. and Philip A. Dover (1979), “Disconfirmation of Consumer Expectations Through Product Trial,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 (April), 179-89.
Palda, Kristian S. (1966), “The Hypothesis of a Hierarchy of Effects: A Partial Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 3 (February), 13-24.
Parker, Philip M. and Hubert Gatignon (1996), “ Order of Entry, Trial Diffusion, and Elasticity Dynamics: An
Empirical Case,” Marketing Letters, 7 (1), 95-109.
51

Parsons, Leonard J. (1975), “The Product Life Cycle and Time Varying Advertising Elasticities,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 12 (November), 476-480.
Pechmann, Cornelia and David W. Stewart (1989), “Advertising Repetition: A Critical Review of Wearin and
Wearout,” in Current Issues and Research in Advertising 1988, James H. Leigh and Claude R. Martin, Jr., eds. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 285-9.
Pedrick, James H. and Fred S. Zufryden (1991), “Evaluating the Impact of Advertising Media Plans: A Model of
Consumer Purchase Dynamics Using Single-Source Data,” Marketing Science, 10 (2), 111-30.
---- and ---- (1993), “Measuring the Competitive Effects of Advertising Media Plans,” Journal of Advertising Research,
33 (December/January), 11-20.
Peter, J. Paul (1992), “Realism or Relativism for Marketing Theory and Research: A Comment on Hunt’s ‘Scientific
Realism’,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (April),72-79.
Peterson, Robert A. and Wayne D. Hoyer, and William R. Wilson (1986), “Reflections on the Role of Affect in
Consumer Behavior,” in The Role of Affect in Consumer Behavior: Emerging Theories and Applications, Peterson,
Robert A. and Wayne D. Hoyer and William R. Wilson , eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 141-59.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1980), “Effects of Issue Involvement on Attitude in an Advertising Context,”
in Proceedings of the Division 23 Program, 88th Annual American Psychological Association Meeting, 75-79.
---- and ---- (1981), Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C.
Brown.
----, ----, and David Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating
Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135-46.
52

Raj, S. P. (1982), “ The Effects of Advertising on High and Low Loyalty Consumer Segments,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 9 (June) 77-89.
Rao, Ambar G. (1970), Quantitative Theories in Advertising. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
---- and Peter B. Miller (1975), “Advertising/Sales Response Functions,” Journal of Advertising Research, 15 (April),
1-15.
Rao, Ram C. (1986), “Estimating Continuous Time Advertising-Sales Models,” Marketing Science, 5 (2), 125-142.
Rao, Unnava H. and Robert E. Burnkrant (1991), “Effects of Repeating Varied Ad Executions on Brand Name
Memory,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (November), 406-416.
Ray, Michael L. (1973), “Marketing Communications and the Hierarchy of Effects,” in New Models for Mass
Communication Research, Peter Clarke, ed.. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing, 147-176.
Reeves, Rosser (1961), Reality in Advertising. New York: Alfred A Knopf.
Resnick, Alan and Bruce L. Stern (1977), “An Analysis of Information Content in Television Advertising,” Journal of
Marketing, 41 (January), 50-53.
Robertson, Thomas S. (1971), Innovative Behavior and Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
---- (1976), “Low -commitment Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Advertising Research, 16 (April/May), 19-24.
Robinson, Joan (1933) The Economics of Imperfect Competition. New York: Macmillan.
Rogers, Everett M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovation. New York: Free Press.
53

Rose, Steven P.R. (1993), The Making of Memory. London: Bantam Books.
Rossiter, John R. and Larry Percy (1978), “Visual Imagery Ability as a Mediator of Advertising Response,” in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, H. Keith Hunt, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
---- and ---- (1983), “Visual Communication in Advertising,” in Information Processing Research in Advertising,
Richard J. Harris, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
---- and ---- (1997), Advertising and Promotion Management, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
----, ----, and Robert J. Donovan (1991), “A Better Advertising Planning Grid,” Journal of Advertising Research,
(October-November), 11-21.
Rothschild Michael L. (1974), “The Effects of Political Advertising on the Voting Behavior of a Low-Involvement
Electorate,” doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
---- (1984), “Perspectives on Involvement: Current Problems and Future Directions,” in Advances in Consumer
Research 11, Thomas C. Kinnear, ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 216-7.
---- and Yong J. Hyun (1990), “Predicting Memory for Components of TV Commercials from EEG,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 16 (March), 472-78.
Rust, Ronald T. (1986), Advertising Media Models: A Practical Guide. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
---- and Leone, Robert P. (1984), “The Mixed Media Dirichlet-Multinomial Distribution: A Model for Evaluating
Television-Magazine Advertising Schedules,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (February), 89-99.
54

Sawyer, Alan G. (1971), “A Laboratory Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Repetition of Advertising,” doctoral
dissertation, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
---- (1981), “Repetition, Cognitive Responses and Persuasion,” in Cognitive Responses In Persuasion, Richard E. Petty,
Timothy M. Ostrom, and Thomas C. Brock, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
---- and Daniel J. Howard (1991), “Effects of Omitting Conclusions in Advertisements to Involved and Uninvolved
Audiences ,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (November), 467-474.
Scherer, Klaus R. and Paul Ekman (1982), Handbook of Methods in Nonverbal Behavior Research. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Sethuraman, Raj and Gerard J. Tellis (1991), “An Analysis of the Tradeoff between Advertising and Price
Discounting,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (May), 160-174.
Shimp, Terence (1981), “Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Consumer Brand Choice,” Journal of Advertising,
10 (Summer), 9-15.
Simon, Julian L. and Johan Arndt (1980), “The Shape of the Advertising Response Function,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 20 (August), 11-30.
Singh, Surendra N. and Catherine A. Cole (1993), “The Effects of Length, Content, and Repetition on Television
Commercial Effectiveness,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (February), 91-104.
Skinner, Burrhus F. (1938), The Behavior of Organisms. New York and London: Appleton-Century.
Smith, Robert E. (1993), “Integrating Information from Advertising and Trial: Processes and Effects on Consumer
Response to Product Information,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (May), 204-219.
55

---- and William R. Swinyard (1978), “Involvement and the Hierarchy of Effects: An Integrated Framework,” in A
Look Back, A Look Ahead, G. Hafer, ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 86-98.
---- and William Swinyard (1982), “Information Response Models: An Integrated Approach,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 20 (August), 257-67.
---- and William Swinyard (1983), “Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The Impact of Product Trial Versus Advertising,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (August), 257-267.
---- and William R. Swinyard (1988), “Cognitive Response to Advertising and Trial: Belief Strength, Belief Confidence
and Product Curiosity,” Journal of Advertising, 17 (Fall), 3-14.
Srinivasan V. and Helen A. Weir (1988), “A Direct Aggregation Approach to Inferring Microparameters of the Koyck
Advertising-Sales Relationship from Macro Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May), 145-156.
Srull, Thomas K. (1983), “Affect and Memory: The Impact of Affective Reactions in Advertising on the Representation
of Product Information in Memory,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M.
Tybout, eds. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 520-5.
Stapel, Jan (1987), “Viva Recall. Viva Persuasion,” European Research, 15 (November), 222-225.
Stern, Barbara B. (1993), “Feminist Literary Criticism and the Deconstruction of Ads: A Postmodern View of
Advertising and Consumer Responses,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (March), 556-66.
---- (1994), “Classical and Vignette Television Advertising Dramas: Structural Models, Formal Analysis, and Consumer
Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (March), 601-15.
---- (1995), “Consumer Myths: Frye’s Taxonomy and the Structural Analysis of Consumption Text,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 21 (September), 165-85.
56

Stern, Bruce L., Dean M. Krugman and Alan J. Resnik (1981), “Magazine Advertising: An Analysis of its Information
Content,” Journal of Advertising Research, 21 (April/May), 39-44.
---- and Alan J. Resnik (1991), “Information Content in Television Advertising: A Replication and Extension,” Journal
of Advertising Research, 31 (June/July), 36-46.
Stigler, George (1961), “The Economics of Information,” Journal of Political Economy, 69 (January/February), 213-
225.
Strong, Edward C. (1972), “The Effects of Repetition in Advertising: A Field Experiment,” doctoral dissertation,
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
Strong, Edward K. Jr. (1925), “Theories of Selling,” The Journal of Applied Psychology, 9 (February), 75-86.
Stuart, Elnora W., Terence A. Shimp, and Randall W. Engel (1987), “Classical Conditioning of Consumer Attitudes:
Four Experiments in an Advertising Context,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 334-49.
Sutherland, Max (1993), Advertising and the Mind of the Consumer. St Leonards, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Swinyard, William R. and Kenneth A. Coney (1978), “Promotional Effects on a High- versus Low-Involvement
Electorate,” Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (June), 41-48.
Tellis, Gerard J. (1988), “Advertising Exposure, Loyalty and Brand Purchase: A Two-Stage Model,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 25 (May), 134-44.
---- and Claes Fornell (1988), “The Relationship between Advertising and Product Quality over the Product Life Cycle:
A Contigency Theory,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (February), 64-71.
57

Telser, Lester G. (1964), "Advertising and Competition," Journal of Political Economy, 72 (December), 537-562.
Thorndike, Edward L (1911), Animal Intelligence. New York: MacMillan.
Troiano, Jaime (1996), “Brand Equity: Classifying Consumers Instead of Looking for Magic Numbers”, ESOMAR
Seminar, Volume 203, October. Berlin, 9-11.
Vaughn, Richard (1980), “How Advertising Works: a Planning Model,” Journal of Advertising Research, 20
(October/November), 27-33.
---- (1986), “How Advertising Works: A Planning Model Revisited,” Journal of Advertising Research, 26
(February/March), 57-66.
Verma, Vinod K. (1980), “A Price Theoretic Approach to the Specification and Estimation of the Sales-Advertising
Function,” Journal of Business, 53 (3), S115-S137
Weinberger, Marc G. and Harlan E. Spotts (1989), “A Situational View of Information Content in TV Advertising in
the US and UK,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (January), 89-94.
Wicker, Allan W. (1969), “Attitudes vs. Action: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavioral Responses to Attitude
Objects,” Journal of Social Issues, 25 (Winter), 41-78.
Winter, Frederick W. (1973), “A Laboratory Experiment of Individual Attitude Response to Advertising Exposure,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (May), 130-40.
Wilson, Timothy D., Dana S. Dunn, Dolores Kraft, and Douglas J. Lisle (1989), “Introspection, Attitude Change, and
Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The Disruptive Effects of Explaining Why We Feel the Way we Do,” in Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 22, Leonard Berkowitz, ed. New York: Academic Press, 287-343.
58

Winer, Russell S. (1979), “An Analysis of the Time-varying Effects of Advertising: The Case of Lydia Pinkham,”
Journal of Business, 52 (4), 563-76.
---- (1980), “Estimation of A Longitudinal Model to Decompose the Effects of an Advertising Stimulus on Family
Consumption,” Management Science, 26 (May), 471-82.
---- (1991), “Using Single-Source Data as a Natural Experiment for Evaluating Advertising Effects,” working paper,
Walter A. Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley.
Wittink, Dick R. (1977), “Exploring Territorial Differences in the Relationship Between Marketing Variables,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 25 (May), 134-144.
Wright, Allice Ann (1990), “Advertising vs. Direct Experience as Modes of Communicating Information About
Products,” doctoral dissertation, College of Business Administration, University of Florida.
---- and John Jr. Lynch (1995), “Communication Effects of Advertising versus Direct Experience When Both Search
and Experience Attributes Are Present,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (March), 708-718.
Wright, Peter L. (1973), “Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing Research,
4 (February), 53-62.
Zajonc, Robert B. (1980), “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences,” American Psychologist, 35
(February), 151-175.
---- and Hazel Markus (1982), “Affective and Cognitive Factors in Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9
(September), 123-31.
---- (1984), “On the Primacy of Affect,” American Psychologist, 39 (February), 117-123.
59

Zielske, Hubert (1959), “The Remembering and Forgetting of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23
(January), 239-43.
---- and Walter Henry (1980), “Remembering and Forgetting Television Advertisements,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 20 (April/May), 7-13.
Zinkhan, George M. and Claes Fornell (1989), “A Test of the Learning Hierarchy in High and Low-Involvement
Situations,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16, . Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 152-9.
---- and Rudy Hirschheim (1992), “Truth in Marketing Theory and Research: An Alternative Perspective,” Journal of
Marketing, 56 (April), 80-88.
Zufryden, Fred S. (1987), “A Model for Relating Advertising Media Exposures to Purchase Incidence Behavior
Patterns,” Management Science, 33 (October), 1253-1266.
60