See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234055784

Attitude toward Brand: An Integrative Look at Mediators and Moderators

Article  in  Academy of Marketing Studies Journal · January 2012

CITATIONS READS
20 12,643

3 authors:

Manoochehr Najmi Yashar Atefi

Sharif University of Technology University of Denver
23 PUBLICATIONS   468 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   83 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

SeyedAlireza Mirbagheri
Sharif University of Technology
9 PUBLICATIONS   64 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sales Leadership View project

Sales Training View project

All content following this page was uploaded by SeyedAlireza Mirbagheri on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Page 111

ATTITUDE TOWARD BRAND: AN INTEGRATIVE

LOOK AT MEDIATORS AND MODERATORS
Manoochehr Najmi, Sharif University of Technology
Yashar Atefi, Sharif University of Technology
SeyedAlireza Mirbagheri, Sharif University of Technology

ABSTRACT

Exploring the effects of advertisement on attitude toward a brand has been a major
concern to marketing scholars for decades. However, the literature on brand attitudes is so
broad and the areas of focus of researchers are so fragmented that cognitive and affective
elements and processes involved are often studied in isolation, neglecting the joint effects of
these variables and resulting in a disconnected literature. In this paper, an integrative model of
determinants and moderators of attitude toward the brand is provided along with a brief
literature review of its formation and change. Key features of the model are: 1) comprehensive
discussions on antecedents and moderators of brand attitude including new and traditional
viewpoints, 2) inclusion of affect in the model, 3) distinction between positive and negative affect
and their different paths of influence on attitude, 4) recognition of the role of brand familiarity
especially in moderating affective impacts on brand attitude, 5) inclusion of irrelevant thoughts
and their role on cognitions, 6) a more updated discussion of cognitive capacity theory and its
implications on the model, and 7) distinction between informational ads and emotional ads in the
formation of attitude toward the brand.

INTRODUCTION

Delving into the processes through which advertising efforts stimulate consumers to buy
a particular brand has been an area of interest among marketing researchers for a long time
(MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). In this way, attitude, the cynosure of social psychologists,
has been a cornerstone of consumer research as well. In most studies in this area, attitudes have
served as dependent variables and the impact of different ads, their repetition, and other factors
on attitude formation and change have been studied (Berger & Mitchell, 1989). Cognitive
perspective of attitude was the dominant viewpoint in the years when consumer behavior was a
fledgling body of knowledge, owing much to Fishbeinian theories and multi-attribute models
(e.g. Fishbein, 1963). However, the pioneering works of Mitchell and Olson (1981) and others
(such as Zajonc, 1980; Shimp, 1981) gave rise to a new stream of research in which alternative
paths to persuasion were explored. The influential Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty,
Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983) and the series of studies by Lutz, MacKenzie, and Belch (1983),

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 112

MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986), and MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) further expanded our
knowledge of attitude formation and change to include peripheral paths, especially through
attitude toward the ad. While some studies were carried out to probe into the nature of this new
construct (e.g. Gresham & Shimp, 1985), purely affective influences of advertisements on
attitudes also came to light (Batra & Ray, 1986; Edell & Burke, 1987).
However, attitude researchers have focused on selected areas developing the now
voluminous attitude literature in different and even disconnected directions. Along with a need
for integration, current theories include relationships between some constructs that do not
effectively explain the nature of effects or neglect the role of moderator variables. Argument
quality, for example, has been noted in many studies (e.g. Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983;
Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995) in terms of its direct effect on brand attitudes; however the mediating
role of brand cognitions has not received worthy attention. The moderating role of irrelevant
thoughts on Arg-Cb relationship and the importance of availability of cognitive resources in
moderating that relationship are also less accentuated. Our study aims at providing an integrative
framework that encompasses both cognitive and affective determinants of brand attitudes in the
field of advertising effectiveness. This framework also includes the different processes and
constructs that become activated as a result of emotional versus informational ads, a comparison
neglected in previous studies. We developed our framework from a more detailed model which
we propose later in the paper and provided several propositions for future validation.
In the following sections of this paper, first, we will discuss attitude formation and
change by distinguishing between attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand.
Antecedents and moderators of these two constructs will be explained in depth. Subsequently,
we will discuss the relationship between attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand, and
finally, we will propose an integrative model uncovering the processes which underlie the
formation and change of these two constructs.

ATTITUDE FORMATION AND CHANGE

There are two major perspectives with regards to attitude structure. First, we can view
attitudes as evaluative responses influenced merely by beliefs (e.g., Wyer, 1970). This view of
attitude reached its pinnacle with the famous expectancy-value models of which theory of
reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) is of paramount importance. The well-known formula
(A=∑ biei) indicates that the attitude is the sum of all evaluative beliefs regarding the attitude
object where bi is the consumer’s belief defined as the extent to which the object possesses
attribute i, and ei is the evaluation of attribute i.
Second, the three-component model of attitudes asserts that along with beliefs (cognitive
component), affective and behavioral components also underlie attitudes (Maio, Esses, Arnold,
& Olson, 2004). For example, one might form a positive attitude towards classic music, in that
one believes that listening to this type of music will enhance one’s appreciation and

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 113

understanding of music (cognitive part), it reminds one’s fond memories of the past (affective
part), and he/she remembers that he/she was an avid fan of (or at least used to listen to) classic
music in his/her youth (behavioral part).
Moreover, researchers discriminate between consumers’ response to marketing stimuli
such as advertisement and their response to the brand (Kirmani & Campbell, 2009). Shimp
(1981) posits that audiences of a particular ad have different degrees of involvement with
advertisement based on the degree of attention and the processing strategy. Therefore, four types
of attitude formation possibly arise from processing of an ad (Shimp, 1981): (1) if both brand
and non-brand information of an ad are processed, both attitude toward the ad (Aad) and attitude
toward the brand (Ab) will be formed; (2) if merely brand information of an ad is processed, only
Ab, and (3) if merely non-brand information of an ad is processed, only Aad, will be shaped; (4) if
neither brand information nor non-brand information is processed, no attitude will be formed.
Two kinds of appeals can be used to form the content of an ad message (Keller, 2001;
Belch & Belch, 2004): (1) Rational appeals which focus on tangible aspects of brand such as
physical product attributes and benefits; (2) Emotional appeals which emphasize social and
psychological needs of customers and also focus on intangible aspects of product such as user
imagery, usage imagery, and brand personality. Creating favorable attitudes toward the brand (A
b) can be done by designing ads that influence beliefs and evaluations regarding the desired
outcomes of consuming the brand (Shimp, 1981). Formation of favorable attitude toward the
brand increases the probability of trial or repetition of purchasing the advertised brand (Shimp,
1981).
The objective of advertising is not to exert influence on consumers' beliefs toward the
attributes or benefits of a specific brand per se. Instead, marketers are more fervently trying to
create a favorable attitude toward the advertisement in order to induce a positive feeling in the
consumers after processing the ad (Shimp, 1981). It is widely accepted that feelings evoked by
marketing communications (e.g. advertisements) have important effects on consumers’ response
to the brand (Kirmani & Campbell, 2009). We can, accordingly, assume that the audience
exposed to an advertising message builds up an attitude toward the ad (Aad) which influences
attitude toward the brand (Ab), purchase intentions (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983), and
consumers’ buying behavior (Gresham & Shimp, 1985).

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD

“Attitude toward the ad” can be defined as the set of thoughts and feelings consumers
have about an ad (Kirmani & Campbell, 2009); however, some researchers define it as
consumer's affective responses (such as likable-dislikable, favorable-unfavorable, and
interesting-uninteresting) to the ad itself (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie, Lutz, &
Belch, 1986) during a particular exposure time (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Also, two different
aspects of attitude toward the ad, cognitive and emotional, can be recognized (Shimp, 1981).

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 114

At least four potential antecedents of attitude toward the ad (Aad) have been identified
(Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983): (1) ad cognitions (Cad), (2) attitude toward the advertiser
(Aadv), (3) the recipient's mood during the exposure, and (4) peripheral cues (PC) (Lord, Lee, &
Sauer, 1995). It was also postulated in previous studies that attitude toward advertising in general
(Aag) exerts an automatic effect on Aad (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983), whereas empirical
data showed that Aag has no effect on Aad (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Contrary to ad cognitions
which affect Aad via central processing route and require the consumer’s elaborated cognitive
processing of the ad, the three remaining antecedents of Aad (i.e. Aadv, PC, and mood) affect Aad
via peripheral processing route by the simple transfer of affect instead of elaborated cognitive
processing (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989).

Figure 1: Antecedents of attitude toward the ad

AD COGNITIONS

It is widely accepted that ad cognitions, also called ad perceptions, have a direct positive
effect on attitude toward the ad (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch,
1986; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; Brown & Stayman, Antecedents and Consequences of Attitude
toward the Ad: A Meta-analysis, 1992). Ad cognitions (Cad) can be defined as “a
multidimensional array of consumer perceptions of the advertising stimulus” (MacKenzie &
Lutz, 1989, p. 51)—i.e. the audiences' beliefs and perceptions of the ad (Lutz, MacKenzie, &
Belch, 1983).
The determining factors of ad cognitions are (1) the ad characteristics, (2) the consumer's
attitude toward the advertiser (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989), and (3) conscious processing of
executional elements (Shimp, 1981). Moreover, it is observed that consumer's attitude toward the
advertiser is a positive, strong, and reliable mediator of ad cognitions (MacKenzie & Lutz,

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 115

1989). This attitudinal determinant of ad cognitions implies that affect can potentially influence
the perceptual process (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989).
After being exposed to an advertisement, audiences form a perception about weakness or
strength of arguments presented in the ad; accordingly, quality of message argument (Arg) is one
example of ad cognitions. Lord et al revealed that the quality of message arguments (Arg) exerts
significant impact on both consumers’ Aad and Ab (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995). As the
opportunity for processing the ad message is enhanced, the impact of message arguments (Arg)
on Aad is considerably strengthened (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995). Also it is discovered that
informative contents of an SMS ad (i.e. rational appeals), focusing on factual information such as
product features and benefits, exert positive influence on consumers’ attitude toward the ad
(Drossos, Giaglis, Lekakos, Kokkinaki, & Stavraki, 2007; Tsang, Ho, & Liang, 2004;
Mirbagheri, 2010).
Another example of ad cognitions is ad credibility which received some attention in
many previous studies (e.g. Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983). Ad credibility affects weakly
both Aad and Ab (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Lutz and his colleagues define ad credibility as the
extent to which recipients perceive brand-related claims in the ad to be honest and convincing
(Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). It is hypothesized that consumers
evaluate credibility of a given ad based on three independent determinants (Lutz, MacKenzie, &
Belch, 1983; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989): perceived ad claim discrepancy, advertiser credibility,
and credibility of advertising in general. In addition, an empirical study revealed that credibility
of advertising in general has also an indirect influence on ad credibility through the advertiser
credibility (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989) Perceived ad claim discrepancy is defined as the extent to
which brand-related claims in the ad are in conflict with the consumer’s existing brand
perceptions (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983). The more ad claims are discrepant, the more ad
credibility will hurt. Advertiser credibility is the degree to which a consumer perceives that the
sponsor of the ad is truthful or honest (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). This construct is based on
customer’s prior information and experience often across numerous different ads (MacKenzie &
Lutz, 1989). Credibility of advertising “indicates consumers' perceptions of the truthfulness and
believability of advertising in general, not simply the particular ad in question” (MacKenzie &
Lutz, 1989, p. 51). In addition to these three determinants, medium type is another determinant
of ad credibility. Interactive media (such as Internet and mobile) can facilitate the trust building
through mutual communication, while one-way traditional advertising media have limited
capacity to reinforce the consumers’ trust (Stewart, Pavlou, & Ward, 2002).
In general, it is proposed that there is a considerable positive relationship between Cad and
Aad (P1); in addition, message argument (Arg) and ad credibility are examples of ad cognitions
that have a direct influence on Aad (P2 & P3 respectively). Opportunity for processing the ad
message moderates the Arg- Aad relationship. The higher the opportunity to process, the stronger
the Arg- Aad relationship (P2a).

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 116

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ADVERTISER

Although some theoretical studies claim that attitude toward the advertiser (Aadv) is a
weak mediator of attitude toward the ad (Aad) (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie &
Lutz, 1989), some empirical studies hold the view that Aadv is a strong predictor of Aad
(MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). We propose that the relationship between Aadv and Aad is significant
enough to be considered (P4). Attitude toward the advertiser (Aadv) can be defined as recipient’s
acquired tendency to respond favorably (or unfavorably) and approvingly (or disapprovingly) to
the advertiser company (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Attitude toward the advertiser influences Aad
roughly automatically and with almost no cognitive thought (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983;
MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Consumers’ perceptions of the advertiser, formed based on their
previous knowledge and experience of the advertiser, are the underlying sources of Aadv (Lutz,
MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983).

Recipient’s mood

Mood is defined as “the consumer's affective state at the time of exposure to the ad
stimulus” (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983, p. 538; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989, p. 54). These
positive or negative feelings transfer to Aad (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983). It is also revealed
that one in a good mood has a tendency to not only interpret a stimulus optimistically but also
respond positively to it; in addition, it is more probable that one in a good mood retrieves
positive than negative thoughts and feelings from memory (Shimp, 1981). A well designed
advertisement can also put a recipient in a good mood, which can affect his decision for choosing
the advertised brand in the future (Shimp, 1981).As a result, we propose that recipient’s mood
has a direct and positive effect on Aad (P5).
The three determinants of mood are ad characteristics, individual differences, and
context of reception (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Individual differences refer to the consumer’s
tendency to evaluate situations positively or negatively (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Individual
differences also refer to differences in consumers’ fields of interest. For instance, it is revealed
that sending SMS ads relevant to consumers’ fields of interest can have a significant influence on
attitude toward SMS ad (Xu, Liao, & Li, 2008; Mirbagheri, 2010).
Moreover, the context of reception includes all the factors external to the communication
that influence marketing communication effectiveness (Keller, 2001). Context of reception is
comprised of several dimensions such as (1) time, (2) location and condition of physical
surroundings (e.g. lighting, clatter, and temperature), and (3) task, that is, what the consumer is
doing while receiving communication message (Park, Shenoy, & Salvendy, 2008). For example,
if SMS ad is sent at the appropriate time and location such as a lunch suggestion while recipient
is near a restaurant at noon, it will affect recipient’s attitude positively (Carroll, Barnes,
Scornavacca, & Fletcher, 2007; Xu, Liao, & Li, 2008; Mirbagheri, 2010). Two remaining

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 117

dimensions of context are (4) surrounding ad clutters and (5) the nature of the exposure to ads —
i.e. consumer-unsolicited exposure (e.g. TV commercials) versus consumer-solicited exposure
(for information search) (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983). If audiences of a mass medium (e.g.
TV, radio, and magazine) are exposed to ads that are inconsistent and incompatible with their
interests and predilections, these ads may spoil the recipient’s mood (Stewart, Pavlou, & Ward,
2002).

Peripheral cues

An attitude toward an ad may develop merely because the ad evokes an emotional

response, such as a feeling of love, joy, nostalgia, or sorrow, without any conscious processing of
executional elements (Shimp, 1981). Peripheral cues (PC) are sources of information unrelated to
the actual message—e.g. the source attractiveness (based on physical appearance, personality, or
social status) or context of reception (Solomon, 2009). Peripheral cues (PC) exert a significant
direct impact on consumers’ Aad and Ab (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995). As a case in point,
consumers may like a specific advertisement because it uses an attractive endorser (e.g. a
celebrity), a humorous appeal (Shimp, 1981), or likable background music (Lord, Lee, & Sauer,
1995). Also, entertainments such as funny contents and interactive games sent via an SMS ad
have influence on Aad (Tsang, Ho, & Liang, 2004; Xu, Liao, & Li, 2008; Mirbagheri, 2010).
Furthermore, as the opportunity for processing the ad message is enhanced, the impact of
peripheral cues (PC) on Aad is considerably weakened (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995). Increasing the
number of exposures to an ad (e.g. from one to three exposures) can enhance the opportunity for
processing and learning the ad message (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995). It is thus proposed that
peripheral cues (PC) significantly affect Aad (P6); moreover, the higher the opportunity to
process, the weaker the PC- Aad relationship (P6a).

Attitude toward the Brand

Attitude toward the Brand (Ab) can be defined as audiences' affective reaction to the
advertised brand (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983). That is, to what extent audiences feel
purchasing the brand is good-bad, favorable-unfavorable, and wise-foolish (Lutz, MacKenzie, &
Belch, 1983). In contrast with this affective definition of attitude, Martin Fishbein and his
colleagues have given a more important role to cognitive processes in attitude formation and
change, while by cognition, belief structures are meant (Fishbein M. , An investigation of the
relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object, 1963). So
attitude toward the brand is mediated by recipients' brand related cognitive structures (Lutz,
MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; Gresham & Shimp, 1985; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Brand
Cognitions (Cb) can be defined as the audiences' perceptions of the advertized brand (Lutz,
MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983)—e.g. perceived brand attributes and benefits.

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 118

In addition to cognition, affect is also another element widely studied in terms of its
effect on attitude. Affect can be defined as “evaluative reactions that can be embodied” (Clore &
Schnall, 2005, p. 438). There has long been a debate over the way attitudes are influenced by
affect (Bodur, Brinberg, & Coupey, 2000; Homer, 2006). While some theorists held cognitive
structure fully responsible for attitude formation and change and considered the influence of
affect on attitude to be mediated by cognitive structure, others have posited that affect has also a
direct independent influence on attitude (Bodur, Brinberg, & Coupey, 2000).
Furthermore, the way affect impacts attitude is said to stem from the focus of attitude –
whether attitude is toward an action or it is toward an object (Clore & Schnall, 2005). If an object
is the center of evaluation, then the positive or negative affect can be transferred to the object;
however, when the focus is on tasks and actions, affect influences information processing
approach (Clore & Schnall, 2005). We proceed by shedding more light on determinants of these
two elements (Cb and affect).

BRAND COGNITIONS

Since the beginning of attitude research, cognitive processes have been at the heart of the
focus (Wegener & Carlston, 2005). Three types of cognitions have been recognized and studied
so far in attitude research in terms of their role in attitude formation and change: brand
cognitions, ad cognitions, and irrelevant thoughts (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; Gresham &
Shimp, 1985; Homer, 1990; Coulter & Punj, 2007). We defined brand and ad cognitions earlier.
We define irrelevant (idiosyncratic) thoughts as non-message or non-brand-related thoughts
generated in response to a persuasive message (Coulter & Punj, 2007).
As previously defined, brand cognitions are the set of thoughts and salient beliefs
regarding the advertised brand. Persuasive messages prompt the receiver to relate the new
information to the existing brand-related information, knowledge, attitude, etc., and this
juxtaposition generates brand cognitions (Greenwald, 1968). The net result of these brand
cognitions determines the new attitude toward the brand. Another perspective (information
integration theory (see Frey & Kinnear, 1980)) proposes that new information about a brand is
integrated with those brand beliefs already held in memory after attributes of that brand have
been evaluated and weighted. This view appears like a variation of the popular expectancy-value
model of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) discussed earlier. In the expectancy-value framework, brand
cognitions consist of beliefs that the considered brand possesses certain attributes (bi) and the
values attached to those attributes (ei) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The sum of these cognitions
shapes the overall attitude toward the object. Thus, to change the attitude towards a brand, either
the beliefs of brand attribute possession should be altered, or the values attached to those
attributes should be modified (Lutz, 1975). While applying the first strategy seems
straightforward (e.g. Volvo is safe), the second strategy requires more endeavor. For instance,
drawing more attention to certain attributes has proved beneficial for increasing the perceived

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 119

value (“importance”) of those attributes (MacKenzie, 1986; MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989).
Moreover, MacKenzie (1986) found that ad characteristics (concrete versus abstract copy) affect
the amount of attention absorbed to the advertisement. Thus, we propose that attention drawn to
certain features mediates brand cognitions via increasing the value attached to those attributes
(P7).
Surprisingly, the Cb – Ab relationship has shown to be weak or unsubstantiated in a
number of studies (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983), especially when Aad was included in the
model (Batra & Ray, 1986). Some explanations of this poor relation allude to flaws in the
research design (Homer, 1990) and some indicate that the measurement of Cb maybe a possible
source (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). But the most compelling explanation is the
domination of peripheral route through Aad over the central route through Cb (MacKenzie, Lutz,
& Belch, 1986; Rose, Miniard, & Bhatla, 1990). There is ample literature providing comparison
between two different paths to information processing—central, systematic, effortful, etc versus
peripheral, heuristic, less effortful, etc (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983; MacKenzie, Lutz,
& Belch, 1986; Chen, Duckworth, & Chaiken, 1999) much of which stem from the Elaboration
Likelihood Model (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983) and Dual Mediation Hypothesis
(MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). The gist of all these models is that in the absence of
motivation to process or low involvement condition, brand attitude is more likely to be formed or
changed by heuristic processing and Aad is more predictive of Ab. Most researchers define
consumer's involvement as consumer’s motivation to process the message (Celsi & Olson,
1988). The strong relationship between Aad and Ab in the studies which Cb – Ab was not
supported indicates that peripheral processing was in charge of attitude change (MacKenzie,
Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Even those studies demonstrating supportive evidence for Cb – Ab lacked
peripheral cues such as music and were processed with high cognitive involvement (Rose,
Miniard, & Bhatla, 1990). In brief, though less pronounced in emotional ad settings, the Cb – Ab
relation cannot be neglected especially in informational contexts where cognitions exert their
impact on Ab. It is thus proposed that the Cb – Ab relation is considerable (P8).
Argument quality is another concept worth of further attention. We defined message
argument as one of the components of Cad. Strong argument (Arg) in an ad has shown to have
positive effect on Ab under both high and low involvement conditions (Petty, Cacioppo, &
Schumann, 1983). Moreover, influence of Arg on Ab becomes significantly stronger by moving
from low to high involvement conditions (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983; Lord, Lee, &
Sauer, 1995). However, there are some ideas that lead us to revise the aforementioned
hypotheses.
The first important point here is that in neither of these studies Cb is present in the
model—herein, we restate the definition of brand cognition as the set of perceptions and brand-
related thoughts (including attribute beliefs and value—the cognitive elements of Fishbein
formula). In addition, consumers hold previously formed cognitions for familiar brands.
According to cognitive response theory (Greenwald, 1968) and information integration theory

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 120

(Anderson, 1971), new information should be compared with previous beliefs in order to develop
brand cognitions. In other words, information processing to which argument quality is a major
input, is a cognitive process that impacts attitude through renewing brand cognitions and
perceptions. Therefore we propose that argument quality mediates Cb (P9). We also propose that
the effect of strong argument on brand cognitions is strengthened under high involvement rather
than low involvement (P9a).The mediation effect of Cad on Cb has been previously supported
(Praxmarer & Gierl, 2009) but further work should be done on the Arg – Cb relationship to prove
whether this component of Cad influences Cb directly.
The extent to which argument quality mediates Cb differs substantially under different
involvement conditions and recipient’s moods. Batra & Stayman (1990) demonstrated that
positive mood decreases the amount of required elaboration giving rise to a more heuristic
processing and biasing the evaluation of the argument quality (which generates a more favorable
evaluation of the argument) (Batra & Stayman, 1990). They also found that positive moods seem
to reduce counterarguments when the subjects are exposed to weak messages (Batra & Stayman,
1990). Also, this moderation role of positive mood has shown to be most decisive under low
involvement conditions (Batra & Stephens, 1994). In another study, the level of information
processing (deep vs. shallow) as well as the type of information processing (schema based vs.
data driven) with regards to the effect of mood on them has been explored (Shapiro, MacInnis, &
Park, 2002). The findings indicate that positive mood is in charge of activating prior schemas by
signaling that there is no need for a detailed information processing, leading to broader
categorization and confidently use of accessible cognitions such as stereotypes (Shapiro,
MacInnis, & Park, 2002; Clore & Schnall, 2005). The interesting point here is that brand names
can also operate like stereotypes (Clore & Schnall, 2005) thus applying an advertising strategy
which evokes positive moods can be a powerful tool for established brands. All these studies
suggest that positive mood negatively moderates the Arg-Cb relationship by impeding thorough
evaluation of argument quality (P9b).
The notion that the argument quality is the primary driver of message acceptance has not
been supported in a number of studies (Coulter & Punj, 2004). Instead, the integral role of
cognitive resources required (RR) and those available for processing (RA) have been a subject of
attention in cognitive resource matching (CRM) hypothesis (Coulter & Punj, 2004). According
to this hypothesis, regardless of the quality of the argument, the persuasiveness of any message
entails a match between resources required and those available for processing. In other words,
although according to ELM, higher levels of elaboration will enhance (decrease) persuasion
when the argument is strong (weak), increasing elaboration beyond the level where RR equals
RA will negatively moderate that effect (Coulter & Punj, 2004). It is therefore proposed that
when the RR is greater than RA, lack of consumer’s cognitive capacity to process an argument
hampers the Arg-Cb relationship; on the other hand when RR=RA the Arg-Cb relationship is
strengthened (P9c).

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 121

Furthermore, since irrelevant thoughts also occupy a proportion of cognitive capacity,

their role has proved to be detrimental to persuasiveness when the message has a strong
argument under low involvement condition (Coulter & Punj, 2007). These irrelevant thoughts
take over support arguments, thus negatively moderate Arg – Cb. On the contrary, when the
message has weak argument, they supplant counterarguments, thus negatively moderate Arg – Cb
resulting in a more positive brand attitude (Coulter & Punj, 2007). We propose that irrelevant
thoughts indirectly by limiting available cognitive resources adversely affect Arg-Cb (P10).
The summary of these discussions can be illustrated as in Figure 2:

Figure 2: Antecedents of brand cognitions

AFFECT

Non-cognitive regard to attitude can be traced back to the ‘80s when the mounting
importance of attitude toward the ad and its peripheral role in determining Ab abounded a
plethora of studies (e.g. Mitchell & Olson, 1981). Zajonc’s influential work (Zajonc, 1980) in
which affect and cognition were concluded to be separate and independent systems was maybe
the fountainhead of this separation from purely cognitive literature of attitude and the embarking
on dual-path and affect-laden attitude research. Further research (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch,
1983; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989) attested to the significant
impact of Aad on Ab and de-emphasized a purely cognitive process in attitude formation and
change, notwithstanding the fact that some other researchers called these findings into question
by naming them “methodological artifacts” stemming from flawed use of criteria or invalid
predictors (Fishbein & Middlestadt, 1995). Such criticisms were also replied by others (for more
details on the series of responses to this issue see Haugtvedt & Kasmer, 2008). However, the

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 122

rising wave of affect research in the late ‘80s (Batra & Ray, 1986; Edell & Burke, 1987;
Stayman & Aaker, 1988) highlighted the independent path of persuasion through ad-induced
affect, and ushered in a new perspective in which affect and cognition were both inextricable
mediators of attitude.
Several types of affective states have been studied. Here, we are interested in those
triggered by the ad and distinguish them from moods, which can exist before the recipient is
exposed to the ad (Burke & Edell, 1989) and are not focused on a specific object (Clore &
Schnall, 2005).
There is evidence that ad-evoked feelings influence Ab through indirect path by Aad
(Batra & Ray, 1986; Burke & Edell, 1989). Burke & Edell (1989) suggest that feelings have both
a direct and an indirect effect (via judgments of ad’s characteristics) on Aad.
Furthermore, in recent years researchers have been more inclined to distinguish between
positive and negative affect. Edell and Burke (1987) find that positive and negative feelings co-
occur while according to Brown et al (1998) they are bi-dimensional not bipolar (“different
constructs not merely opposite poles of the same construct”) and the way they influence attitude
is different (Burke & Edell, 1989; Brown, Homer, & Inman, 1998; Homer, 2006). Negative
affect directly inflicts unfavorable effects upon attitude toward the brand (Burke & Edell, 1989),
whereas positive affect mediates Ab both directly and indirectly not only through brand
cognitions (Homer, 2006) but also via attitude toward the ad (Stayman & Aaker, 1988). As
Burke and Edell (1989) importantly remark, although eliciting negative effects (such as fear)
may have positive effects on consumer purchase intentions, they act to the detriment of attitude
toward the ad and attitude toward the brand. Therefore, it is proposed that negative affect directly
influences Ab (P11), while positive affect both directly (P12) and indirectly via Cb (P13) exerts
its effect on brand attitudes. In addition, both positive and negative affect influence Aad (P14,
P15).
Another concept primarily studied in decision making and brand preference literature is
brand familiarity. Brand familiarity can be defined as “ a uni-dimensional construct directly
related to the amount of time that has been spent processing information about the brand,
regardless of the type or content of the processing that has occurred” (Baker, Hutchinson, Moore,
& Nedungadi, 1986, p. 637). As to attitudes, brand familiarity is posited to moderate the
influence of Aad on Ab (Derbaix, 1995; Brown, Homer, & Inman, 1998; Campbell & Keller,
2003). In other words, consumers with prior brand familiarity will rely more on their existing
knowledge about the brand than on Aad in forming their Ab (Derbaix, 1995; Campbell & Keller,
2003). Moreover, Derbaix (1995) found that affect had stronger impact on Ab for novel brands,
but this moderating role of brand familiarity was later found to hold true only for positive affect
(Brown, Homer, & Inman, 1998; Homer, 2006). This means that negative affect has a direct and
strong impact on brand attitude under both familiar and unfamiliar brand conditions, but positive
affect influences Ab through Cb for familiar brands and directly for novel brands (Homer, 2006).
Homer’s study (2006) indicates that even facing a completely emotional ad devoid of any

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 123

product attribute information, the receiver’s attitude toward a familiar brand is changed mainly
via brand cognitions when positive feelings are evoked (consumers “update” their existing
evaluations), but negative affect directly ruins attitude even toward a familiar brand. All in all,
brand familiarity acts as a moderator in all mentioned relationships except that between negative
affect and brand attitudes. For familiar brands, the strength of positive-affect – Ab is reduced
while the effect of positive affect on brand cognitions are intensified; for novel brand vice versa
happens. Thus brand familiarity negatively moderates positive-affect – Ab relationship (P12a)
and positively moderates positive-affect – Cb relationship (P13a).

Figure 3: The Role of affect

As it is shown in Figure 3, brand familiarity does not moderate the direct effect of
negative affect on Ab, on the grounds that regardless of the level of brand familiarity, this direct
influence dominates other indirect routes (Homer, 2006). In contrast, for all other mediations of
affect and Aad, familiarity acts as a moderator. For unfamiliar brands, (positive and negative)
affect directly and indirectly through Aad mediates Ab (Homer, 2006), but for familiar products,
the cognitions play the major role (Campbell & Keller, 2003; Derbaix, 1995) except for negative
affect whose destructive effect on Ab is straight and direct (Homer, 2006).

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 124

The Relationship between attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand

The relationship between attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand is a
controversial issue (Gresham & Shimp, 1985). Based on prior theoretical and empirical research,
three possible explanations for relationship between attitude toward the ad (Aad) and attitude
toward the brand (Ab) are identified (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie, Lutz, &
Belch, 1986).
First, the affect transfer hypothesis (ATH) supposes a unidirectional causation from Aad
to Ab (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). In other words, it has been hypothesized that affective
reactions toward an advertisement of a brand (i.e. Aad) should have impacts on audiences'
attitudes toward the brand without changing their brand cognitions (Cb) (Gresham & Shimp,
1985). Affect transfer hypothesis has been supported by some past studies (Mitchell & Olson,
1981); some empirical data (Gresham & Shimp, 1985), however, have not completely supported
this hypothesis. Gresham and Shimp (1985) also found that potential effect of negative attitudes
toward the ad on weakening the consumers’ attitudes toward the brand is much bigger than
influence of positive attitudes toward the ad on strengthening the consumers’ attitudes toward the
brand (Gresham & Shimp, 1985). Recently, a research for online environment found that for
consumers who are less motivated to consider a lot of information (i.e. low need for cognition),
and have little contact with cyberspace, affect transfer hypothesis is the superior model in
explaining the relationship between attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand (Sicilia,
Ruiz, & Reynolds, 2006).
Second, the reciprocal mediation hypothesis (RMH) which can be inferred from Balance
theory, asserts that there is a mutual causal relationship between Aad and Ab (Gresham & Shimp,
1985; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Because the correlation between the ad and the
advertised brand is clearly positive, balance theory predicts that a recipient of an ad promoting a
specific brand will attempt to obtain a balanced relationship by either liking both the ad and the
brand or disliking both (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). In addition, for a recently introduced
brand, the influence of Aad on Ab should be stronger than the opposite direction; in contrast, for a
mature brand with which consumers have more experience, the flow from Ab to Aad would
govern (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Gresham and
Shimp implicitly presented the evidences supporting above statement about new and mature
brands (Gresham & Shimp, 1985).
Finally, the dual mediation hypothesis (DMH) supposes that Aad affects Ab not only
directly but also indirectly through its impact on brand cognitions (Cb) (MacKenzie, Lutz, &
Belch, 1986). We can compare this hypothesis with Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
presented by Petty and Cacioppo (1981). According to ELM, attitude can be changed via one of
two routes: central route via which a recipient’s extensive thought about content of an
advertisement leads to attitude change; and peripheral route via which a recipient’s attitude is
shaped by positive and negative cues (e.g. an expert source) associated with advertisement or

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 125

inferences based on simple cues in the context of the ad (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983).
Accordingly, Ab changes via peripheral route when it is directly influenced by Aad; besides, Ab
changes via central route when Aad affects Cb then Cb influences on Ab (Lutz, MacKenzie, &
Belch, 1983). It is also stated that high involvement ad messages, having greater personal
relevance and outcomes than low involvement messages, affect the attitude via central route, but
low involvement ad messages influence on attitude via peripheral route (Petty, Cacioppo, &
Schumann, 1983). We can, therefore, hypothesize that under high involvement condition, there is
a relatively weak influence of Aad on Ab as well as a relatively strong influence of Cb on Ab
(Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983). Unlike our expectations, empirical data show that influence
of Aad on Ab dominates the influence of Cb on Ab, irrespective of involvement condition (Lutz,
MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; Muehling & Laczniak, 1988; Homer, 1990; Brown & Stayman,
1992). Hence, the major difference between DMH and ELM is that DMH views central and
peripheral processes as intertwined processes instead of substitutes for each other (MacKenzie,
Lutz, & Belch, 1986).
Two structural equations analyses (one for TV commercials and the other for print ads)
showed that the dual mediation hypothesis (DMH) is superior to the other two hypotheses
(MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986; Homer, 1990). Although MacKenzie et al hold the view that
there are some limitation for generalization of their finding, the generalizability of these findings
were checked in a meta-analysis by Brown and Stayman, and dual mediation model was strongly
supported (Brown & Stayman, 1992). Recently, a research for online environment discovered
DMH is the superior model, especially for consumers willing to deepen their understanding of
each phenomenon (i.e. high need for cognition) (Sicilia, Ruiz, & Reynolds, 2006). Accordingly,
it is proposed that Aad directly mediates Ab (P16); moreover, Aad indirectly mediates Ab through
its impact on brand cognitions (Cb) (P17). That is, consumer’s attitude toward the ad has an
impact on their attitude toward the brand, through either a simple affect transfer (i.e., the
recipient likes the brand since the ad appeals to him or her) or a more intricate cognitive
processing (i.e., one likes the brand due to effective tactics used by advertiser) (Kirmani &
Campbell, 2009). Furthermore, under situations benefiting from high amount of message
elaboration (e.g. print ads), Aad- Cb relation is greater than that under situations not having this
advantage (e.g. TV commercials) (Brown & Stayman, 1992). In addition, when the advertised
brand is novel and less familiar, the correlation between Aad and Ab becomes stronger (Brown &
Stayman, 1992). Therefore, it is proposed that brand familiarity negatively moderate the Aad - Ab
relationship (P16a).

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 126

Figure 4: Relationship between attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand

CONCLUSION

After in depth reviewing of literature, we proposed several propositions that show not
only the relationship between each two constructs but also the most important moderators of
each relationship. These relationships and moderators are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of relationships and moderators

Moderators
Relationship Brand Opportunity to Involvement Mood Capacity
Familiarity Process
P1: Cad on Aad (+)
P2: Arg on Aad (+) P2a (+)
P3: ad credibility on Aad (+)
P4: Aadv on Aad (+)
P5: mood on Aad (+)
P6: PC on Aad (+) P6a (-)
P7: attention on Cb (+)
P8: Cb on Ab (+)
P9: Arg on Cb (+) P9a(+) P9b(-) P9c(+)
P10: Irrelevant thoughts on RA (-)
P11: Negative affect on Ab (-)
P12: Positive affect on Ab (+) P12a(-)
P13: Positive affect on Cb (+) P13a(+)
P14: Positive affect on Aad (+)
P15: Negative affect on Aad (-)
P16: Aad on Ab (+) P16a (-)
P17: Aad on Cb (+)

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 127

According to our propositions, Aad influences Ab not only directly but also indirectly
through its impact on brand cognitions (Cb); besides, when the advertised brand is novel and less
familiar, the correlation between Aad and Ab strengthens.
Major antecedents of attitude toward the ad (Aad) are ad cognitions, attitude toward the
advertiser, mood, and peripheral cues. Ad cognitions have a direct impact on attitude toward the
ad; two examples of these cognitions are quality of message argument (Arg) and ad credibility.
As the opportunity for processing the ad message is increased, the impact of message arguments
(Arg) on Aad is considerably strengthened. In addition, both attitude toward the advertiser (Aadv)
and peripheral cues (PC) as well as consumer's mood are strong mediators of attitude toward the
ad (Aad). As the opportunity for processing the ad message is increased, the influence of PC on A
ad is weakened.
Brand cognitions were the first elements in the attitude literature to be studied in terms of
their effect on Ab. Attention drawn to certain product attributes bolds the value (importance) of
those attributes; hence, we propose that attention influences Cb. A match between cognitive
resources required for message processing and those available along with the level of
involvement and recipient’s mood moderates the effect of argument quality on generation or
modification of favorable brand-related thoughts and perceptions. The irrelevant thoughts
produced during the exposure to the ad, indirectly by restricting resources available for
processing, influence brand cognitions. Negative affect directly and adversely affects Ab.
However, the path through which positive affects impact Ab is subject to brand familiarity. For
novel brands positive affect (together with Aad) is the major determinant of attitude, while for
familiar brands, the indirect path through brand cognitions dominates all other routes.
Figure 5 joints several parts of our model each of which described earlier:

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 128

Figure 5: Integrative model uncovering antecedents and moderators of both Aad and Ab

Removing moderators from Figure 5 leaves the simplified model shown in Figure 6:

Figure 6: Simplified integrative model

The attitude literature is fraught with studies and frameworks which focus either on the
information processing paradigms (e.g. MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989) or on affective perspectives
(e.g. Batra & Ray, 1986). Also, there are a number of experiments that either discriminate
between informational and emotional ads or set only one of the two types above (affect vs.

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 129

cognition) as the context of their study (e.g. Yoo & MacInnis, 2005; Homer, 2006). By
emotional ads, those “designed to appeal to the receiver’s emotions by using drama, mood,
music, and other emotion-eliciting strategies” and by informational ads, those “designed to
appeal to the rationality of the receiver by using objective information describing a brand’s
attributes or benefits” are meant (Yoo & MacInnis, 2005, p. 1397). The rationale for such
classification is somehow clear; with respect to the level of involvement (motivation), according
to the above definition, each type calls for either cognitive or affective ways of attitude formation
and change. Although these may seem two extremes of the real advertising world, they
effectively depict conditions under which one of the routes would be dominant over the other.
We, therefore, use this typology to show where information processing is more involved and
where an affect-laden process is in work. By this strategy as it is shown in Figure 7, we
distinguish between the evaluative section of the model (including brand cognition) and the non-
evaluative section (affect). Furthermore, it is noteworthy that although affective responses are
non-evaluative (Batra & Ray, 1986), Aad is neither purely evaluative nor purely non-evaluative
(MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989).

Figure 7: integrative framework

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 130

Implications and Further Research

Whatever the prime goal of marketers is (boosting sales, forming long-term profitable
relationships, attracting support and membership for nonprofit businesses, etc), customer
persuasion is an integral step towards that goal and both Ab and Aad play major roles in
persuading prospects to buy a particular brand or support a not-for-profit organization. There are
substantial empirical evidences that support existence of a direct causal relationship from attitude
toward the brand (Ab) to purchase intention (PI) (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie,
Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Furthermore, some other researchers have identified that Aad has a
moderate direct influence on purchase intention (PI) (Brown & Stayman, 1992; Lord, Lee, &
Sauer, 1995).
Lord et al also found that under low (high) involvement conditions, correlation between
Aad and PI is considerably greater (lower) than correlation between Ab and PI (Lord, Lee, &
Sauer, 1995). In other words, Ab can be a superior predictor of consumer’s intention to buy a
brand under high than under low involvement conditions (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983).
Also, for novel or less familiar brands, the positive correlation between Aad and PI becomes
stronger (Brown & Stayman, 1992). Thus, Aad influences purchase intention not only directly but
also indirectly via Ab (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995).
Our proposed model can provide marketers with a framework to understand how their
marketing plans, especially advertising and branding plans, influence their consumers. Marketers
can use our model both to justify the effectiveness of their plans and to employ its variables as
indices for assessing those plans. For example, our model implies that different advertising
practices should be applied to brands with different brand familiarity. Marketers of novel brands
should focus more on emotional ads to make positive affective reactions transfer to Aad and
consequently enhance PI. Also ads for these products should be designed in such ways as to
create a positive attitude toward the ad itself. Advertisements for familiar brands, however,
should maintain a balance between emotional and informational approaches. Although the
cognitive path is dominant for familiar brands, a highly informative ad under low involvement
can even hurt the attitude in some circumstances (Coulter & Punj, 2007). In addition, marketers
of a familiar brand should not neglect the importance of emotional ads, in that emotional ads put
a recipient in a positive mood which decreases the amount of required elaboration and generates
a more favorable evaluation of the argument quality.
Our research has some limitations. First, although we relied on the research from the last
30 years to develop our propositions, further research is required to validate the generalizability
of these propositions by a series of empirical studies. Second, the advent of new advertising
media such as mobile and internet may bring evolutionary changes in the hypotheses on which
our model is built. Thus, further research should be conducted to unveil whether differences in
media type can influence our integrative model. Finally, future studies are needed to address
cross-cultural differences that can alter some of the propositions and relationships.

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 131

REFERENCES

Anderson, N.H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78(3), 171-206.
Baker, W., J.W. Hutchinson, D. Moore & P. Nedungadi (1986). Brand familiarity and advertising: Effects on the
evoked set and brand preference. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 637-642.
Batra, R. & M.L. Ray (1986). Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal of Consumer
Research, 13(2), 234-249.
Batra, R. & D.M. Stayman (1990). The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research,
17(2), 203-214.
Batra, R. & D. Stephens (1994). Attitudinal effects of ad-evoked moods and emotions: The moderating role of
motivation. Psychology & Marketing, 11(3), 199-215.
Belch, G.E. & M.A. Belch (2004). Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communication perspective
(Sixth International Edition). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Berger, I.E. & A.A. Mitchell (1989). The effect of advertising on attitude accessibility, attitude confidence, and the
attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 269-279.
Bodur, H.O., D. Brinberg & E. Coupey (2000). Belief, affect, and attitude: Alternative models of the determinants of
attitude. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(1), 17-28.
Brown, S.P. & D.M. Stayman (1992). Antecedents and consequences of attitude toward the ad: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 34-50.
Brown, S.P., P.M. Homer & J.J. Inman (1998). A meta-analysis of relationships between ad-evoked feelings and
advertising responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 114-126.
Burke, M.C. & J.A. Edell (1989). The impact of feelings on ad-based affect and cognition. Journal of Marketing
Research, 26(1), 69-83.
Campbell, M.C. & K.L. Keller (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects. Journal of Consumer
Research, 30(2), 292-304.
Carroll, A., S.J. Barnes, E. Scornavacca & K. Fletcher (2007). Consumer perceptions and attitudes towards SMS
advertising: recent evidence from New Zealand. International Journal of Advertising, 26(1), 79–98.
Celsi, R.L. & J.C. Olson (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of
Consumer Research, 15(2), 210-224.
Chen, S., K. Duckworth & S. Chaiken (1999). Motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Psychological
Inquiry, 10(1), 44-49.
Clore, G.L. & S. Schnall (2005). The influence of affect on attitude. In D. Albarracin, B.T. Johnson, & M.P. Zanna
(Eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes (pp. 437-489). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Coulter, K.S. & G.N. Punj (2004). The effects of cognitive resource requirements, availability, and argument quality
on brand attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 53-64.
Coulter, K.S. & G.N. Punj (2007). Understanding the role of idiosyncratic thinking in brand attitude formation.
Journal of Advertising, 36(1), 7-20.
Derbaix, C.M. (1995). The impact of affective reactions on attitudes toward the advertisement and the brand: A step
toward ecological validity. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(4), 470-479.
Drossos, D., G.M. Giaglis, G. Lekakos, F. Kokkinaki & M.G. Stavraki (2007). Determinants of effective SMS
advertising: An experimental study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7(2), 30-38
Edell, J.A. & M.C. Burke (1987). The power of feelings in understanding advertising effects. Journal of Consumer
Research, 14(3), 421-433.
Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that
object. Human Relations, 16(3), 233-240.

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 132

Fishbein, M. & I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fishbein, M. & S. Middlestadt (1995). Noncognitive effects on attitude formation and change: Fact or artifact?
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(2), 181-202.
Frey, C.J. & T.C. Kinnear (1980). Information integration theory: An alternative attitude model for consumer
behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 350-355.
Greenwald, A.G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A.G.
Greenwald, T.C. Brock, & T.M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological Foundations of Attitudes (pp. 147-170).
New York: Academic Press.
Gresham, L.G., & T.A. Shimp (1985). Attitude toward the advertisement and brand attitude: A classical
conditioning perspective. Journal of Advertising, 14(1), 10-17.
Haugtvedt, C.P., & J.A. Kasmer (2008). Attitude change and persuasion. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R.
Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology (pp. 419-435). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Homer, P.M. (2006). Relationships among ad-induced affect, beliefs, and attitudes: Another look. Journal of
Advertising, 35(1), 35-51.
Homer, P.M. (1990). The mediating role of attitude toward the ad: Some additional evidence. Journal of Marketing
Research, 27(1), 78-86.
Keller, K.L. (2001). Mastering the marketing communications mix: Micro and macro perspectives on integrated
marketing communication programs. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7/8), 819-847.
Kirmani, A. & M.C. Campbell (2009). Taking the target’s perspective: The persuasion knowledge model. In M.
Wänke (Ed.), Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior (pp. 297-316). New York, United States of
America: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Lord, K.R., M.S. Lee & P.L. Sauer (1995). The combined influence hypothesis: Central and peripheral antecedents
of attitude toward the ad. Journal of Advertising, 24(1), 73-85.
Lutz, R.J. (1975). Changing brand attitudes through modification of cognitive structure. Journal of Consumer
Research, 1(4), 49-59.
Lutz, R.J., S.B. MacKenzie & G.E. Belch (1983). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness:
Determinants and consequences. Advances in Consumer Research, 10(1), 532-539.
MacInnis, D.J. & B.J. Jaworski (1989). Information processing from advertisements: Toward an integrative
framework. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 1-23.
MacKenzie, S.B. (1986). The role of attention in mediating the effect of advertising on attribute importance. Journal
of Consumer Research, 13(2), 174-195.
MacKenzie, S.B. & R.J. Lutz (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the
ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48-65.
MacKenzie, S.B., R.J. Lutz & G.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(2), 130-43.
Maio, G.R., V.M. Esses, K.H. Arnold & J.M. Olson (2004). The function–structure model of attitudes. In G.
Haddock, & G. R. Maio (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on the Psychology of Attitudes (pp. 9-34). New
York: Psychology Press Inc.
Mirbagheri, S. (2010). SMS advertising business model: Toward finding vital elements of its value model.
Proceedings of the 2010 European Applied Business Research Conference (EABR), 815-824
Mitchell, A.A. & J.C. Olson (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand
attitude?. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318-32.
Muehling, D.D. & R.N. Laczniak (1988). Advertising's immediate and delayed influence on brand attitudes:
Considerations across message-involvement levels. Journal of Advertising, 17(4), 23-34.
Park, T., R. Shenoy & G. Salvendy (2008). Effective advertising on mobile phones: A literature review and
presentation of results from 53 case studies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 27(5), 355–373.

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 133

Petty, R.E. & J.T. Cacioppo (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque,
Iowa: William C. Brown.
Petty, R.E., J.T. Cacioppo & D. Schumann (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The
moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.
Praxmarer, S. & H. Gierl (2009). The effects of positive and negative ad-evoked associations on brand attitude. Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(4), 507-520.
Rose, R.L., P.W. Miniard & S. Bhatla (1990). Brand cognitions as determinants of brand attitudes: The influence of
measurement and processing involvement. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 128-134.
Shapiro, S., D.J. MacInnis & C.W. Park (2002). Understanding program induced mood effects: Decoupling arousal
from valence. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 15-26.
Shimp, T.A. (1981). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal of Advertising, 10(2),
9-48.
Sicilia, M., S. Ruiz & N. Reynolds (2006). Attitude formation online: How the consumer’s need for cognition
affects the relationship between attitude towards the website and attitude towards the brand. International
Journal of Market Research, 48(2), 139-154.
Solomon, M.R. (2009). Consumer behavior: buying, having, and being (Ninth Edition). Upper Saddle River:
Prentice Hall.
Stayman, D.M. & D.A. Aaker (1988). Are all the effects of ad-induced feelings mediated by Aad?. Journal of
Consumer Research, 15(3), 368-373.
Stewart, D.W., P. Pavlou & S. Ward (2002). Media influences on marketing communications. In J. Bryant & D.
Zillmann (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (Second Edition) (pp.353-95). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Tsang, M.M., S.C. Ho & T.P. Liang (2004). Consumer attitudes toward mobile advertising: An empirical study.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3), 65-78.
Wegener, D.T. & D.E. Carlston (2005). Cognitive processes in attitude formation and change. In D. Albarracin, B.T.
Johnson, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes (pp. 493-542). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Wyer, R.S. (1970). Quantitative prediction of belief and opinion change: A further test of a subjective probability
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(4), 559–570.
Xu, D.J., S.S. Liao & Q. Li (2008). Combining empirical experimentation and modeling techniques: A design
research approach for personalized mobile advertising applications. Decision Support Systems, 44(3), 710–
724.
Yoo, C. & D.J. MacInnis (2005). The brand attitude formation process of emotional and informational ads. Journal
of Business Research, 58(10), 1397–1406.
Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175.

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

V i e w p u b l i c a t i o n s t a t s