Emotions that make your ad go viral!
The effect of positive and negative ad-evoked emotions by viral
advertising on consumers’ intention to share, brand attitude and
attitude towards the advertisement.
Master of Science (M.Sc.)
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication
Author: Navina Wabnitz
Student number: 10373195
Supervisor: Dr. Sophie Boerman
College Year: 2014
Master Communication Science
Track Persuasive Communication
Master’s Thesis
1
Abstract
This study aimed to narrow down the influential role of ad-evoked emotions in viral
advertising, especially in the most used viral advertising tool of viral video ads. Some
researchers suggest that the emotions that get evoked with the viewer during exposure to a
viral advertisement is what likely drives consumers’ intention to share which ultimately
causes the advertisement to go viral, consumers’ attitude towards the brand which is promoted
in the viral ad and it also their attitude towards the viral ad itself. Next to loads of viral video
ads that evoke positive emotions with the viewer, there are still some viral video ads designed
by marketers that evoke mainly negative emotions. This study hypothesized that there is a
difference in effect between positive and negative evoked emotions and that positive
ad-evoked emotions have a more positive effect on consumers’ intention to share, brand attitude and attitude towards the ad. An experiment was conducted where two viral video ads were
compared: One that evoked positive emotions and one that evoked negative emotions with the
participants. As hypothesized, results indicated that positive ad-evoked emotions have a more
positive effect on consumers’ intention to share, brand attitude and attitude towards the ad
compared to negative ad-evoked emotions. To control the viral success of viral video ads,
marketers should create video ads that evoke primarily positive emotions with the viewer.
Introduction
Consumers are constantly exposed to attempts from companies to gain their attention. This
causes a growing selectivity (MindComet, 2006) and companies are realizing that new
marketing strategies are required to be able to overcome consumers’ selective burden. One
effective strategy that has established itself in the media landscape is to increase consumers’
involvement in the company’s marketing processes (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Increased
2 viral advertising has shown to be an appropriate tool for providing exactly this active
participation (Trusov, Bucklin, & Pauwels, 2009).
The term ‘viral advertising’ was first introduced by Knights in 1996 and refers to a marketing strategy that focusses on spreading commercial information about a brand’s
product or the brand itself from one user to another through the internet like a virus. This can
be a viral video, image or written text. To get spread, viral advertising intends to affect
peoples’ intention to share the advertisement with others through different social media
channels. As a consequence of peoples’ sharing behavior, the ad gets viral and reaches a huge
amount of potential customers in a short time (Lindgren & Vanhamme, 2005). However, if
viral success lies in the power of affecting peoples’ intention to share, what are the features
that drives consumers to pass the advertisement on to their peers? Some researchers suggested
that the emotions that get evoked with the viewer when being exposed to a viral ad involves
people in a process of social sharing of these emotions to search for social agreement and
emotional confirmation (Dobele, Toleman, & Beverland, 2005; Phelps, Lewis, Mobilio,
Perry, & Raman, 2004).
In real life, there is a huge difference between viral ads regarding the emotions they
evoke with the viewer. Most of them intend to evoke positive emotions as fun, pleasure and
inspiration, but some others intend to evoke negative emotions like fear, shame and anger. At
first sight, negative ad-evoked emotions seem to be less effective when positively influencing consumers’ intention to share compared to positive ad-evoked emotions. Still, some marketers create viral video ads that evoke mainly negative emotions with the consumers during
exposure. We assume that this can result either from a lack of knowledge that negative
ad-evoked emotions are not effective in positively influencing peoples’ intention to share or from
the fact that negative ad-evoked emotions actually are more effective. To clarify the
difference in effect between positive and negative ad-evoked emotions in the context of viral
3 ad-evoked emotions in the context of the current most extensively used viral advertising tool
of viral video ads. However, before people actually share an advertisement, they form an
attitude towards the advertisement and an attitude towards the brand promoted in the ad (Lutz,
1977; Olson, Portner, & Bell, 1982; Wright, 1973). Because these variables are found to be
relevant in the process of intention formation, the variables attitude towards the ad and brand
attitude were also taken into account in the present study. Therefore, the main purpose was:
To what extent do positive ad-evoked emotions and negative ad-evoked emotions by viral
video ads have a positive effect on consumers’ intention to share, brand attitude and attitude
towards the ad and is this effect mediated by their attitude towards the advertisement?
Theoretical background
The difference in effect between positive and negative ad-evoked emotions on intention to
share, brand attitude and attitude towards the ad in viral advertising appears to be an
under-researched phenomenon. First, previous research focused on particular ad-evoked emotions
by investigating the effect per emotion as fear, surprise, inspiration, sadness and amusement.
However, the researchers made no comparison between these particular ad-evoked emotions
to investigate whether some of them are more effective than others in positively influencing
consumers’ intention to share, brand attitude and attitude towards the ad. Second, most of previous research focused on ad-evoked emotions by traditional advertising as radio and
television ads and not by viral advertising as viral video ads.
The next sections will narrow down the relevant concepts for this study, starting with
viral video ads. After, the independent variable of ad-evoked emotions will be defined. Here,
the categorization of positive and negative ad-evoked emotions will be explained based on
Lang's Limited Capacity Model of Motivated Mediated Message Processing (LC4MP).
4 relationship to evoked emotions will be discussed based on previous research on
ad-evoked emotions to explain the formulated hypotheses.
Viral videos
Previous studies on ad-evoked emotions focused mostly on ad-evoked emotions in traditional
advertising. Contrary, this study aimed to test ad-evoked emotions in the currently very
relevant marketing field of viral advertising. One of the extensively used viral advertising
tools is the viral video ad (MindComet, 2006). Viral video ads refer to online video
advertisements that get spread over the internet within a viral marketing campaign
(MindComet, 2006). Poels and Dewitte (2006) suggested viral video ads to be an appropriate
medium to measure consumers’ motivations affected by emotional stimuli. According to
Poels and Dewitte (2006) viral video ads have the potential to engage more complex and
intense emotional processes than viral images or viral written content because of their high
emotional arousal, integrating audio and image that is able to evoke strong emotions with the
viewer. Based on the recommendation of Poels and Dewitte (2006), the present study found
viral video ads to be the most relevant and appropriate viral advertising tool to measure
ad-evoked emotions and their effect on peoples’ motivations towards an ad after exposure.
Positive and negative ad-evoked emotions
Van Raaij (1984) described ad-evoked emotions as "primary affective reactions to an
advertisement” (p.78) and compared ad-evoked emotions to the emotional affect the viewer
encounters when being exposed to an advertisement. The term ‘affect’ is used by many
researchers when referring to ad-evoked emotions as for example by Bagozzi, Gobinath and
Nyer (1999) who tested emotional affect to measure the feelings that get evoked by television
ads by different health organizations. Because of the suggested similarity, the present study
used the terms emotional affect and ad-evoked emotions interchangeably. Within emotional
5 in line with the former suggested categories of negative and positive ad-evoked emotions.
Here, negative affect is defined as a personality variable that involves the experience
of negative emotions (Watson & Clark, 1984). In line with this, negative affect refers to the
experience of negative emotions evoked by an advertisement. Negative affectivity subsumes a
variety of negative emotions, including anger, contempt, disgust, guilt, and fear and
nervousness. Positive affect is defined as a characteristic that describes how humans
experience positive emotions (Watson & Clark, 1984). In line with this, positive affect refers
to the experience of negative emotions evoked by an advertisement. Those with high positive
affectivity are typically enthusiastic, energetic, confident, active, and alert.
Previous research on ad-evoked emotions tested the effect per ad-evoked emotion as
amusement, fun, and inspiration for example that are all of positive nature and ad-evoked
emotions as fear, sadness, irritation and dissatisfaction for example that are all of negative
nature. Previous research thus indirectly tested both categories of positive and negative
ad-evoked emotions but did not explicitly assigned these to two categories to make them
comparable. Assigning these ad-evoked emotions to a positive and negative category is also
suggested by the extensively applied theoretical framework about the cognition motivated
processing of emotional media content: Lang's Limited Capacity Model of Motivated
Mediated Message Processing (LC4MP) (Lang & Bradley, 2010). This model argues that
humans’ emotions and cognition are acting dependently of each other. This helps the human
mind to evaluate the motivational significance of encountered stimuli in messages as
advertising and helps creating appropriate responses to these messages or ads as for example
to share them (Lang & Bradley 2010).
According to Lang (2009) media content contains a range of motivationally significant
stimuli that activates peoples’ motivations as for example peoples’ sharing intentions. Lang
(2009) describes media content as a series of sensory information and this sensory
6 respond to the media content. Here, Lang (2009) describes two motivational systems, the
appetitive motivational system and the aversive motivational system. The appetitive
motivational system affects peoples’ response to perceived pleasantness of stimuli in media
content and results in approach-related or proactive behavior and the aversive motivational
system is activated in response to perceived unpleasantness which results in defensive,
avoidance-related or reactive behavior (Lang & Bradley, 2010).
Earlier, Watson and Tellegen (1985) described the relationship between perceived
pleasantness and perceived unpleasantness of media content and positive and negative
emotions. They argued that when perceiving pleasant media content, people engage a state of
positive affectivity which evokes positive emotions and the viewer respond with
approach-related behavior or proactive behavior, thus having the intention to share the media content
with others. Contrary, when perceiving unpleasant media content people engage a state of
negative affectivity which automatically evokes negative emotions and the viewer respond
with defensive, avoidance-related behavior or reactive behavior, thus having the intention not
to share the media content with others.
According to Lang and Bradley (2010) there are thus two emotional categories being
evoked by media content like an advertisement: Positive and negative ad-evoked emotions.
The authors also suggested that positive ad-evoked emotions are more effective in positively
influencing peoples’ intention to share as these causes proactive behavior. Based on the model
of LC4MP framework by Lang (2009) we expected that also in the present research positive
ad-evoked emotions have a more positive effect on people’s intention to share, brand attitude
and attitude towards the ad compared to negative ad-evoked emotions. Therefore, we decided
investigate the difference in effect between ad-evoked emotions on consumers’ intention to
share, brand attitude and attitude towards the ad by comparing the two categories of positive
7
Ad-evoked and the dependent variables
The dependent variables intention to share, brand attitude and attitude towards the ad are
suggested by Lutz (1977), Olson et al. (1982) and Wright (1973) within the cognitive
response model to measure consumers’ responses after exposure to an advertisement. This
study used these terms in order to measure the effect that ad-evoked emotions by viral video
ads have on consumers’ attitudes and intention towards the ad. The researchers argued that
peoples’ exposure to commercial content as an advertisement results in certain cognitive
responses: First, in attitude formation towards the advertisement itself (in the present study, ad
attitude), after in attitude formation towards the brand (brand attitude) which is promoted in
the ad and in behavioral intentions towards the ad (intention to share the ad).
Ad-evoked emotions and intention to share.Real life campaigns show that viral advertising effectively overcomes consumers’ selective burden as consumers show to extensively share these ads with others. The feature that makes them share the viral ad is suggested to be the
emotional connection which is built between the viewer and the viral ad during exposure
(Holbrook & Batra, 1987). Thus, the emotions that get evoked with the viewer by the viral ad
during exposure seems to influence consumers’ intention formation. Intention is assumed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) “to capture the motivational factors that influence behaviors; it is an indication of an individual’s willingness and readiness to behave” (p. 105). Thus, an
individual’s intention to share an advertisement as a viral video determines his or her behavior to actually share the ad with others. Previous research suggested a relationship between the
emotions that get evoked by a viral advertisement and the intention to share this ad with
others via multiple social media channels.
In their study about users’ forwarding behavior of e-mails, Phelps et al. (2004) tested
the effect for both particular positive and negative emotions and showed that "messages that
8 forwarded to others" (p. 335). Both positive and negative ad-evoked emotions seem to have
an effect on peoples’ intentions towards the ad. However, these researcher did not compare
positive and negative evoked emotions to investigate whether positive and negative
ad-evoked emotions differ significantly in their effect on consumers’ intentions to forward the
message to their peers. Also Lindgreen and Vanhamme (2005) tested the effect for different
particular ad-evoked emotions. They found that people forward messages to others when
experiencing the emotion of fun and surprise. They conclude that "emotions that are evoked
with the viewer are the key drivers of viral messages" (p. 98).Based on previous findings, we
expected the emotions evoked by a viral ad to be the driver of consumers’ intention to share
the ad with others on social media channels (e.g. Facebook).
Dobele et al. (2007) first made an attempt to explain the underlying processes of the
relationship between ad-evoked emotions and the intention to share by discussing the process
of social sharing of emotions. According to Dobele et al. (2007), consumers want to share the
experienced emotions socially with others. They become social emotions. Dobele et al. (2007)
asked the participants in their study why they have the intention to share the ad and the
answer was ‘because sharing them connected emotionally’. Thus, by sharing the ad people also share the emotions that the advertisement evokes with them. Therefore, the whole sharing
process becomes not only a process of sharing the ad with others but also a process of a social
sharing of emotions (Dobele et al., 2005). According to these findings, ad-evoked emotions
appear to have an effect on consumers’ intention to share and ultimately make these ads go
viral.
Previous research found evidence for the relationship of ad-evoked emotions and the
intention to share. However, those studies investigated the effect for particular positive and
particular negative ad-evoked emotions on the intention to share without comparing these two
categories to investigate whether one is more effective. Based on the discussed research and
9 emotions in their effect on intention to share. We hypothesized that positive ad-evoked
emotions by viral video ads have a more positive effect on consumers’ intention to share
compared to negative ad-evoked emotions. The following hypothesis was tested:
Hypothesis 1: Positive ad-evoked emotions by viral video ads have a more positive effect on consumers’ intention to share compared to negative ad-evoked emotions.
Ad-evoked emotions and brand attitude. Before forming an intention to share the ad,
people form a certain attitude towards the brand which is promoted in the ad (Lutz, 1977;
Olson et al., 1982; Wright (1973). According to Schwarz and Clore (2007), consumers
evaluates advertisements by analyzing their emotions during exposure and interpreting what
these emotions mean for the brand in the ad. This results in an attitude valence which is
defined as the degree of positivity or negativity with which an attitude object (in the current
context, a brand) is evaluated (Schwarz & Clore, 2007).
The relationship of ad-evoked emotions and brand attitude is already found in the
1980s where an influential series of experimental lab studies showed that emotions evoked by
various print, television and radio ads influence consumers' attitude formation towards the
brand in the ad (Aaker, Stayman, & Hagerty, 1986; Batra & Ray, 1986; Edell & Burke, 1987;
Holbrook & Batra, 1987). Contrary to the discussed research on ad-evoked emotions and
intention to share, these studies did make a comparison between positive and negative
ad-evoked emotions and their effect on brand attitude. Participants in these studies reported more
favourable brand attitudes after exposure to the ad that intended to evoke positive emotions
compared to ads that intended to evoke unpleasant emotions with the viewer.
Brown, Homer and Imman (1988) supported these influential series of studies by
making a meta-analysis on the effect of ad-evoked emotions and brand attitude. They found
10 research on this relationship was around r = .35 to .40. Cohen (1988) considered this effect to
be ‘medium to large’.
However, these studies are all conducted in a time when traditional marketing in the
form of radio and television ads were the main way marketers communicated to their
customers. Thus, previous studies tested the effect of ad-evoked emotions in the context of
traditional advertising, not viral advertising. Therefore, the present study aimed to broaden the
effect of positive and negative ad-evoked emotions on brand attitude besides television and
print ads to viral ads like viral video ads. As shown in previous research about ad-evoked
emotions and brand attitude, also in this study we expected positive ad-evoked emotions by
viral ads to have a more positive effect on consumers’ attitude towards the brand compared to
negative ad-evoked emotions. The following hypothesis was tested:
Hypothesis 2: Positive ad-evoked emotions by viral video ads have a more positive effect on consumers’ brand attitude compared to negative ad-evoked emotions.
Ad-evoked emotions and the attitude towards the ad. The third cognitive response during
exposure to advertising is the attitude towards the ad itself (Lutz, 1977; Olson et al., 1982;
Wright, 1973). Attitude towards the ad is defined as “predisposition to respond in a favorable
or unfavorable manner to a particular advertising stimulus during a particular exposure
occasion” (Lutz, 1985, p. 21).
The relationship of ad-evoked emotions and attitude towards the ad is suggested by
Edell and Burke (1987) and Holbrook and Batra (1987) who found the effect of ad-evoked
emotions in traditional advertisements as print, radio and television ads. Contrary to previous
research on evoked emotions, Royo-Vela and Marcela (2005) later tested various
ad-evoked emotions and their effect on peoples’ attitude towards the ad in the context of viral
ads. He investigated the effect of the ad-evoked emotion of joy, fun, irritation, satisfaction and
11 that the ad-evoked emotions joy, fun and satisfaction did elicit more positive attitudes towards
the ad compared to the emotions irritation and fear.
These findings indicate that positive ad-evoked emotions are likely to have a more
positive effect on attitude towards the ad compared to negative ad-evoked emotions.
However, these researchers tested the effect per particular ad-evoked emotion and did not
compare those to conclude whether some do have a more positive effect on consumers’
attitude towards the ad than others. In line with the previous study by Royo-Vela and Marcela
(2005), we expected positive ad-evoked emotions to have a more positive effect on
consumers’ attitude towards the advertisement compared to negative ad-evoked emotions: Hypothesis 3: Positive ad-evoked emotions by viral video ads have a more positive effect on consumers’ attitude towards the advertisement compared to negative ad-evoked emotions.
Besides being an outcome variable, attitude towards the ad is found by previous studies to act
as a mediator in the relationship of ad-evoked emotions on brand attitude and the intention to
share. First, the mediating role of attitude towards the ad in the relationship of ad-evoked
emotions and brand attitude is explained in the work of Mitchell and Olson (1981) and Shimp
(1981). The researchers found that attitude towards the ad treated as affective reaction
towards an ad (Lutz, 1985), can also mediate attitude towards the brand. These studies
supports the mediating role of attitude towards the ad on brand attitude, however they did not
test this relationship in the context of viral advertising but traditional advertising. In the
present study, we intended to indicate that this mediating role exists also in the context of the
more recent viral advertising. Therefore, we retested the mediating role in the context of viral
ads. In line with previous research, we expected attitude towards the ad also in the context of
viral ads to be a mediator in the relationship of ad-evoked emotions and brand attitude. The
12 Hypothesis 4: The effect of ad-evoked emotions by viral video ads on consumers’ brand attitude is mediated by consumer’s attitude towards the ad.
Second, the mediating role of attitude towards the ad in the relationship of ad-evoked
emotions and intention to share can be traced to the earlier mentioned cognitive response
model by Lutz (1977), Olson et al. (1982) and Wright (1973). In terms of attitude towards the
ad as predictor of intention to share, this model suggests that peoples’ exposure to an
advertisement first evokes a cognitive response with the viewer, which will affect attitude
formation, and the attitude will in return result in the formation of intentions. This process
results in a chain of reactions: cognitive response → attitude → intention. Applied to the
present study, we expected participants to form an attitude towards the advertisement first
after exposure which results in the intention formation to share or not to share the viral video
ad with others. However, this mediating role was only tested in traditional advertising, not in
the context of viral advertising. Based on the cognitive response model, we hypothesized
attitude towards the ad to act as a predictor of consumers’ intention to share a viral video ad.
The following hypothesis was tested:
Hypothesis 5: The effect of ad-evoked emotions by viral video ads on consumers’ intention to share is mediated by consumer’s attitude towards the ad.
Method
Design
The proposed hypotheses were addressed with an experiment that incorporated a one factor
between subjects design. To measure the difference in effect between positive and negative
ad-evoked emotions by viral video ads on the dependent variables intention to share, brand
attitude and attitude towards the ad, the emotions in a real life viral video ad were
13 video ad which was presumed to evoke positive emotions with the viewer and the original one
where the emotions have been manipulated. After manipulation, this version was presumed to
evoke negative emotions with the viewer. These two viral videos ads were compared to
investigate the difference in effect of positive and negative ad-evoked emotions on the
mentioned dependent variables.
Sample
For this experiment, we considered Dutch and German male and female Facebook users with
the age of 18 to 30 years. These participants are all members of Generation Y, those who were
born between 1982 and 2001 (Sheahan, 2005). This generation makes up 22.5 % (CBS, 2014)
of the Dutch and 20.4% (BMI, 2014) of the German population and therefore gives a broad reflection of the Dutch and German society’s attitude and beliefs about the research topic. Second, previous studies found this generation to be the major drivers and consumers of
social media and therefore viral video ads (Berthon, Pitt, & Des Autels, 2011). Consequently,
this generation’s consumers are all familiar with viral video ads on social network sites and
know how to share them. Third, by considering only German and Dutch users we aimed to
measure users’ attitudes and intention that are exclusively evoked by the emotions in the viral
video ad and not by other influential factors. German and Dutch participants were expected to
be almost unfamiliar with the chosen viral video ad and the source, the brand John Lewis.
John Lewis is a national British brand that has no stores outside the UK. Therefore, the participants’ emotions were expected to be evoked by the advertisement itself and not influenced by prior prejudices that participants would have when being familiar with the
brand John Lewis. In the UK, where the John Lewis video ad was launched, people showed to
share it, so we expected that Germans and Dutch would do likewise in this study.
In total 123 respondents participated in the experiment. 31 participants were excluded
14 participants were excluded from analysis because 3 of them indicated to have already seen the
viral video ad before participating in this experiment and 3 of them did not fit in the age group
of 18 to 30 years. Another 2 indicated to have an ‘other’ country of origin besides Germany or
The Netherlands and were therefore deleted from the data set. This left a sample of 84
participants with an age ranging from 18 to 30, and a mean age of 22.85 (SD = 2.66). 47.6%
of the participants were male and 52.4% were female, 34.5% of them were of German and
65.5% of Dutch origin. Most of the respondents were highly educated, with 31% enrolled in a
university and 58.3% enrolled in a university of applied sciences. The participants were split
up into two groups referring to the two conditions, the ‘positive ad-evoked emotions’ condition (n = 40) and the ‘negative ad-evoked emotions’ condition (n = 44).
Procedure
In this experiment, we used an online questionnaire in which the viral video ad was
integrated. Participants were contacted via the social network site Facebook. With the
Facebook option of private messaging, it was possible to control for a specific sample that
met the conditions for age and country of origin and consider different participants for the
main research and the pretest. The online questionnaire was created with the help of the
online survey tool Qualtrics. A group of 326 participants were invited to participate in this
research (see content of this private message with invitation for research in Appendix 2).
These users were sent a brief invitation with the referring Qualtrics link asking to fill in the
questionnaire. When participants clicked on the link, they were transferred to the Qualtrics
website and randomly assigned to one of the two conditions, thus to one of the two videos. On
the Qualtrics website, they first visited a page displaying the factsheet of this study in which
they got informed about the privacy policy of their personal data and the ethical rights of
being a participant in this scientific experiment (see the factsheet in Appendix 3). The next
15 to declare that they understand the terms and agree to the described research policy of the
present study (see the informed consent in Appendix 4). After the privacy policy agreement,
an introductory text explained that the participant will first get to see a video advertisement of
two minutes. Here, it was mentioned that this video is an advertisement by the British
department store John Lewis. Both video names were changed and uploaded on Vimeo to
hide information as amount of views and the real title which could influence participants’
emotions.
All participants, independently of the group, filled in the same questionnaire
measuring the later discussed dependent variables and the control variables. In the last part of
the questionnaire, the participants were thanked for participating in this experiment by
disclosing the research purpose of ad-evoked emotions in the context of viral video ads.
Besides, they were told about the opportunity to get informed about the research results by
contacting the researcher by mail. Moreover, they were invited to write down any questions
and comments about the research in the given text box.
Stimulus material
For the viral video ad, it was chosen for the John Lewis Christmas advertisement of 2013
because of various reasons (see screenshots of the videos in Appendix 1). First, there existed
two versions of this advertisement; the original version itself and a parody to this original.
Both versions were similar in audio and design but were presumed to evoke different
emotions. The original video ad was presumed to evoke positive emotions and the parody was
presumed to evoke negative emotions with the participants. Second, both versions received
high views on YouTube (original: 13 million views; parody: 8 million views, 03.05.14) as
consequence of a high rate of sharing on social media sites where the YouTube video was
embedded by users. Therefore, this video advertisement fulfilled the research purpose as the
16 within a viral marketing campaign. This made the video an appropriate stimulus material
within this research as this aimed to measure ad-evoked emotions in the context of viral
advertising. Both videos started with the same plot, telling the story of two best friends, a bear
and a hare, spending time together all year long until winter time when the bear starts his
winter sleep. From this scene on, the plot of the two versions continues in different directions.
The original video ad was created by John Lewis in November 2013 and launched on
television and on the brand’s social media sites (YouTube, Facebook and Twitter) as a part of
a marketing campaign to stimulate their Christmas business. From the turning scene, where
the two videos start to differentiate, the original employed positive emotions showing the bear
waking up from his winter sleep seeing the Christmas tree and is happy and excited to
experience his first joyful Christmas celebration as a surprise organized by his friends.
The parody was created by an anonymous source in November 2013 right after the
launch of the original video on YouTube. From the turning scene, the second part of this
video displayed a cruel and sad plot showing a bloody hare hunt where the hare together with
others was shot to serve as food within the Christmas dinner.
Pretest
A pretest was conducted to check whether the original video ad really evoked positive
emotions and the parody really evoked negative emotions to compare positive and negative
ad-evoked emotions in their effect on intention to share, brand attitude and attitude towards
the ad. As discussed before, the emotional affect was determined to measure ad-evoked
emotions. Therefore, the extensively used PANAS Scale by Tellegen, Watson and Clark
(1988) was applied. The PANAS scale consists of two separate scales: One measuring
Positive Affect (PA) and the other measuring Negative Affect (NA) (see PANAS scale in
Appendix 5.1). Both these scales, the PA and the NA, contain 10 items that describe feelings
17 disagree, 4 = neutral, 7=strongly agree) according to their subjective emotional state after being exposed to one of the two viral videos. 20 participants (10 participants per video), who
did not take part in the final experiment, were approached to take part in the pretest. The 10
items of each affect scale, the PA and the NA, were tested to composite a reliable factor scale
through Cronbach’s α. A principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation indicated that all 10 separate items of the PA measure one construct, only one components
had an eigenvalue above 1 (EV = 9.32), also indicated by an inflexion in the scree plot. The
factor explained 93.14% of the variance. The PA scale was found to be reliable (α = .99; M =
4.07, SD = 1.13). The principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation for the NA
indicated that all 10 separate items measured one construct, only one component had an
eigenvalue above 1 (EV = 9.40), also indicated by an inflexion in the scree plot. The factor
explained 93.60% of the variance. Also, the NA scale was found to be reliable (α = .99; M =
3.66, SD = 1.04).
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to determine whether the manipulation
of emotion worked. The results indicated that there was a significant difference in scores in
the positive group (M = 5.90, SD = 1.47) and the negative group (M = 2.23, SD = 1.23) in the
PA scale, t(18) = 20.59, p<.001, 95% CI [3.30, 4.05] and also there was a significant
difference in scores in the positive group (M = 1.60, SD = 1.02) and the negative group (M =
5.71, SD = 1.12) in the NA scale, t(18) = 25.33, p<.001, 95% CI [-3.77, 4.45].
The pretest showed that the manipulation of emotion was successful. The original
video ad did significantly evoke more positive emotions than negative emotions with the
participants and the parody did significantly evoke more negative than positive emotions. The
two videos were thus comparable to measure the difference in effect between positive and
negative ad-evoked emotions on intention to share, brand attitude and attitude towards the ad.
Therefore, we named the original video ad in the following main research positive video and
18
Measurement
The online questionnaire created in Qualtrics contained four scales, measuring the three
dependent variables intention to share, attitude towards the brand and attitude towards the ad,
the control variables and the emotional affect checking for the manipulation of emotion. To
note, all questions in the survey were formulated in English in order to be understood by both
Dutch and German participants.
Intention to share. The first dependent variable in the questionnaire was measured with a
scale by Derbaix and Vanhamme (2003). They authors measured the intention to share by the
word-of-mouth that is created as a result of users’ sharing behavior. The three items ‘How
ready are you to share this video ad with your friends, family and colleagues (e.g. on
Facebook)?‘, ‘How likely is it that you are going to share this video ad with your friends,
family and colleagues (e.g. on Facebook)?’ and ‘Do you have the intention to share this video
ad with your friends, family and colleagues (e.g. on Facebook)?’ belonging to this scale, the
participants had to rate on a 7 point Likert scale (1= absolutely not, 4= neutral, 7=
absolutely). These three items were tested to composite a reliable factor scale through
Cronbach’s α. A principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation indicated that all the separate items measured one construct. Only one component had an eigenvalue above 1
(EV = 2.88), also indicated by an inflexion in the scree plot. The factor explained 96.14% of
the variance. The sharing intention scale was found to be reliable (α = .98; M = 3.16, SD =
1.25). No items were excluded to improve the scales reliability (see scale for intention to
share in Appendix 5.1).
Brand attitude. To measure the second dependent variable, a scale designed by Spears and
Singhs (2004) was used in the questionnaire. Participants had to indicate their overall feeling
about the department store brand John Lewis promoted in the viral video ad by rating the
19 ‘bad’-‘good’, ‘unpleasant’-‘pleasant’, ‘unfavorable’-‘favorable’ and ‘unlikeable -‘likeable’. A principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation indicated that the 5 items
measured one construct. Only one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (EV = 4.81), also
indicated by an inflexion in the scree plot. The factor explained 96.14% of the variance. The
brand attitude scale was found to be reliable (α = .99; M = 3.89, SD = 0.98). No items were
excluded in order to improve the scales reliability (see scale for attitude towards the brand in
Appendix 5.2).
Attitude towards the ad. In order to measure the mediator variable, participants’ attitude
towards the advertisement, an adapted scale which was designed by Mitchell and Olson
(1981) was found to be convenient for this research. Participants had to indicate their overall
feeling about the video ad with the help of the four items ‘bad’-‘good’, ‘dislike’-‘like’,
‘irritating’-‘not irritating’ and ‘uninteresting’-‘interesting’ on a 7 point semantic differential scale. A principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation indicated that all four
items belonging to the scale measured one construct. Only one component had an eigenvalue
above 1 (EV = 3.32), also indicated by an inflexion in the scree plot. The factor explained
82.99% of the variance. The brand attitude scale was found to be reliable (α = .93; M = 4.02,
SD = 1.12) (see scale for attitude towards the ad in Appendix 5.3).
Control variables. To control for the set characteristics of the target group, the questionnaire
included the following control variables: age, gender, level of education, and familiarity with
the John Lewis advertisement. In order to control for age, an open question was posed (‘what
is your age?’). Participants were asked to fill in their age in numbers. Gender was measured with one question (‘what is your gender?’). Participants had to choose between ‘male’ of ‘female’. After, the participants were asked for their level of education by indicating their latest education diploma on four given levels (no degree, high school, university and
20 with the advertisement before participating in this research, the participants had to indicate
whether they were ever being confronted to the advertisement (‘Where you familiar with the
advertisement before seeing it in this study?’). They indicated their familiarity with ‘Yes’ or
‘No’. To be sure about the participants were exposed to the manipulation of emotion located in the second part of the video, they had to state whether they were watching the video till the end (‘Yes’ or ‘No’). Besides, it was controlled for participants’ country of origin by giving the choices: The Netherlands, Germany and Other.
Ad-evoked emotions. In order to check for the ad-evoked emotions by the positive and
negative video, the PANAS scale measuring the emotional effect as used in the pretest was
implemented in the questionnaire (see PANAS scale in Appendix 5.4). The items ‘proud’ and ‘attentive’ of PA had to be omitted in order to let all items load on one component. A
principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation indicated that the left 8 separate
items of the PA measured one construct, only one components had an eigenvalue above 1
(EV = 6.83), also indicated by an inflexion in the scree plot. The factor explained 85.41% of
the variance. The PA scale was found to be reliable (α = .98; M = 3.69, SD = 0.98). With the
NA the item ‘ashamed’ had to be omitted in order to let all items load on one component. The
principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation indicated that the left 9 separate
items measured one construct, only one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (EV = 7.71),
also indicated by an inflexion in the scree plot. The factor explained 85.62% of the variance.
The NA scale was found to be reliable (α =.98; M = 3.25, SD = 0.83).
Results
Randomization check
To be sure of two similar samples that were comparable, it was necessary that the two groups
in this experiment did not differ significantly in characteristics such as age, gender, country of
21 differences between the experimental groups with respect to age for the positive group and the
negative group, F(1,82) = .000, p =.988. Chi-square analyses showed that there were no
differences between the two experimental groups with respect to country of origin, x²(1) =.69,
p =.406, neither with respect to gender, x²(1) = .17, p =.677 and there were no differences between the groups also with respect to level of education, x²(3) = .590, p =.899.
Manipulation check
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to determine whether the manipulation of
emotion worked in this experiment and the positive video did evoke more positive emotions
with the participants during exposure compared to the negative video and the negative video
did evoke more negative emotions compared to the positive video. The results demonstrate
that there was a significant difference in scores in the positive video group and the negative
video group in the PA scale, t(82) = 8.01, p<.001, 95% CI [-4.14, -2.50] and also there was a
significant difference in scores in the positive video group and the negative video group in the
NA scale, t(82) = 10.07, p<.001, 95% CI [2.66, 3.97]. The positive video that was presumed
to evoke positive emotions with the participants scored significantly higher (M = 5.12, SD =
2.10) in the PA scale than the negative video that was presumed to evoke negative emotions
with the participants (M = 1.80, SD = 1.69). The negative video that was presumed to evoke
negative emotions with the participants scored significantly higher (M = 4.69, SD = 2.02) in
the NA scale than the positive video that was presumed to evoke positive emotions with the
participants (M = 1.38, SD = 0.54). In line with the results of the pretest, the manipulation of
emotion was also successful in the main research. Therefore, all conclusions in this
experiment can be derived from comparing both groups.
Hypothesis testing
To test the proposed hypothesis, various Analyses of Variance had been conducted. First,
22 differences in main effect of positive and negative ad-evoked emotions on the dependent
variables intention to share, brand attitude and attitude towards the ad between the two
groups. The covariates age, gender, country of origin and level of education were integrated in
this measurement to consider the effects of the covariates on the dependent variables. The
multivariate results were significant for ad-evoked emotions, Pillai’s Trace = .794, F(3,76) =
97.71, p<.001, indicating a difference in intention to share, brand attitude and attitude towards
the ad between the positive and negative group. Results of the univariate F tests for the three
dependant variables were significant, as shown in detail below. The mean scores with
standard deviations for the positive and negative ad-evoked emotions per dependant variable
are shown in Table 1. Second, a mediation analysis using the regression analysis PROCESS
by Hayes (2012) was conducted to test the indirect effect of ad-evoked emotions on the
dependent variables intention to share and brand attitude via the mediator variable attitude
towards the ad.
Intention to share. The first hypothesis tested the main effect of ad-evoked emotions on the
intention to share between the two groups, stating that participants in the positive group are
more intended to share the ad compared to subjects in the negative group. The univariate F
tests demonstrated that there was a significant difference between the positive group and the
negative group for intention to share, F(1,78) = 115.80, p<.001. Participants who had seen the
positive video scored higher on intention to share (M= 5.07, SD= 2.11) than those who had
seen the negative video (M= 1.42, SD= 0.73). Based on these results, H1 was supported.
Positive ad-evoked emotions by viral video ads are found to have a more positive effect on
the intention to share compared to negative ad-evoked emotions.
Brand attitude. The second hypothesis tested the main effect of ad-evoked emotions on
attitude towards the brand between the two groups, stating that the participants in the positive
23 univariate F tests showed that there was a significant difference between the positive group
and the negative group for brand attitude, F(1,78) = 292.04, p<.001. Participants who had
seen the positive video indicated to have a more positive attitude towards the brand (M= 6.01,
SD= 0.98) than those who had seen the negative video (M= 1.96, SD= 1.12). Therefore, H2 is supported. Positive ad-evoked emotions by viral video ads are found to have a more positive
effect on brand attitude compared to negative ad-evoked emotions.
Attitude towards the ad. The third hypothesis tested the main effect of ad-evoked emotions
on attitude towards the ad, stating that participants in the positive group have a more positive
attitude towards the ad after exposure than participants in the negative group. The univariate F
tests showed there was a significant difference between the positive group and the negative
group for attitude towards the advertisement, F(1,78) = 213.80, p<.001. Participants who had
seen the positive video scored higher on attitude towards the ad (M= 5.94, SD= 1.01) than
those who had seen the negative video who intended to have a less positive attitude towards
the ad after exposure (M= 2.26, SD= 1.23). Hence, H3 is supported. Positive ad-evoked
emotions by viral video ads were found to have a more positive effect on attitude towards the
ad compared to negative ad-evoked emotions.
Table 1. A comparison of means (with standard deviations) for positive and negative ad-evoked emotions for the dependent variables intention to share, brand attitude and attitude
towards the ad.
Positive emotion Negative emotion
Intention to share 5.07 (2.11)a 1.42 (.73)a
Attitude towards the brand 6.01 (.98)a 1.96 (1.12)a
Attitude towards the ad 5.94 (1.01)a 2.26 (1.23)a
24
Mediation effect. The fourth and fifth hypothesis tested the mediation effect of ad-evoked
emotions on the two dependent variables brand attitude and the intention to share via the
mediator attitude towards the advertisement. In order to test whether the direct effect of
ad-evoked emotions on the two dependant variables is mediated by attitude towards the ad, a
mediation analysis was conducted. The mediation model (shown in Figure 1) was tested using Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2012). In the analyses for this experiment, 1,000 bootstrap samples were used to estimate the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (BCBCI).
Figure 1 represents the tested mediation model with ad-evoked emotions as the
independent variable, attitude towards the ad as the mediator, and brand attitude and intention
to share as the dependent variables. The paths in this figure correspond to the results in Table
2. The c-path in the model includes the direct effect of ad-evoked emotions on brand attitude
and intention to share, independent of the effect of the mediator (c′), and the total effect of
ad-evoked emotions on brand attitude and intention to share (c), which is the sum of the direct
effect and the indirect effect via the mediator (Hayes, 2012).
Figure 1. Tested mediation model: Effect of ad-evoked emotions on intention to share and brand attitude via attitude towards the ad.
The results in Table 2 show a significant effect of ad-evoked emotions on attitude towards the
ad (a) for both the model with brand attitude and intention to share as dependent variable (ba1
= 3.67, p<.001; ba2 = 3.67, p<.001). Second, there was a significant effect of attitude towards
a b c, c’ Ad-evoked emotions Attitude towards the ad Intention to share Brand attitude
25 the ad on both intention to share (bb1 = .77, p< .001) and brand attitude (bb2 = .70, p< .001).
The direct effect (c’) of emotion on brand attitude showed to be not significant, meaning that the effect of ad-evoked emotions was not significant without mediated by
attitude towards the ad (bc’2 = 1.45, p =.004). In line with this, bootstrapping showed
significant indirect effect via the mediator attitude towards the ad (indirect effect 2.58, SE =
.31, 95% BCBCI [2.021, 3.320]). Attitude towards the ad is thus the mediator in this effect.
Hence, H4 is supported, the effect of ad-evoked emotions on brand attitude is mediated by
attitude towards the ad. The direct effect (c’) of ad-evoked emotions on the intention to share
showed to be not significant (bc’1 =.76, p =.05), meaning that the direct effect of ad-evoked
emotions on intention to share is mediated by the attitude towards the ad. In line with this,
bootstrapping showed that the indirect effect of ad-evoked emotions on intention to share via
attitude towards the ad was significant in this experiment (indirect effect 2.81, SE = .58, 95%
BCBCI [1.830, 4.110]). Attitude towards the ad is thus the mediator in this effect. This
relationship supports H5, the effect of ad-evoked emotions on the intention to share is only
significant when mediated by attitude towards the ad.
Table 2. Mediation: Effect of ad-evoked emotions on brand attitude and intention to share via attitude towards the ad.
a b c (total) c’ (direct) Indirect effect (95% BCBCI) Intention to share (1) 3.67 (.25)*** .77 (.12)*** 3.57 (.33)*** .76 (.51)+ 2.81 (.58) [1.830; 4.110] Brand attitude (2) 3.67 (.25)*** .70 (.07)*** 4.03 (.23)*** 1.45 (.30)+ 2.58 (.31) [2.021; 3.320]
Note: Unstandardized b-coefficients (with boot SE between parentheses) correspond to the paths in Figure 1; BCBCI =
Bias-corrected 1,000 bootstrap confidence interval; unstandardized b-coefficient for intention to share= b1 and for brand attitude=
26 To summarize, the results supported H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5: Compared to negative
ad-evoked emotions by viral video ads, positive ad-ad-evoked emotions showed to have a more
positive effect on intention to share, brand attitude and attitude towards the ad. Moreover,
ad-evoked emotions by viral video ads showed to influence both intention to share and brand
attitude via the mediator attitude towards the ad. This supports the mediation effects as
proposed with H4 and H5.
Discussion
The present study aimed to investigate the difference in effect between positive and negative
ad-evoked emotions by viral video ads on consumers’ intention to share and brand attitude
and the role attitude towards the advertisement plays in this relationship. A model was
proposed in which positive ad-evoked emotions have a more positive effect on the intention to
share, brand attitude and attitude towards the ad compared to negative ad-evoked emotions.
Results indicated that this model was supported. Participants who were exposed to the
positive video scored significantly higher on brand attitude, intention to share and attitude
towards the ad compared to participants who were exposed to the negative video.
Two goals were set for this study. First, we aimed to complete the literature in the field
of ad-evoked emotions and viral advertising. Most of previous research investigated the effect
of ad-evoked emotions in traditional advertising like in radio, television and print ads as most
of the previous research was conducted between the 1970’s and the 2000’s (Aaker, Stayman,
& Hagerty, 1986; Batra & Ray, 1986; Edell & Burke, 1987; Holbrook & Batra, 1987). This
study aimed to fill in that gap and examined the effect of ad-evoked emotions in the nowadays
very relevant marketing tool of viral advertising. This was successful. The present study
examined the effect of ad-evoked emotions by the most extensively used viral advertising
tool, the viral video ad. Second, most of previous research on ad-evoked emotions as the
27 ad-evoked emotion and made no comparison between ad-evoked emotions. Contrary, we
aimed to compare the effect of positive and negative ad-evoked emotions on consumers’
intention to share, brand attitude and attitude towards the ad. Also this was successful,
demonstrating that both positive and negative ad-evoked emotions were found to have an
effect on intention to share, brand attitude and attitude towards the ad. Here, positive
ad-evoked emotions were found to have a significantly more positive effect compared to negative
ad-evoked emotions. Results demonstrate that the effect of ad-evoked emotions on both brand
attitude and the intention to share is mediated by the attitude towards the ad. Based on the
results, the research question of this study was successfully answered.
To make sure that when comparing the two viral videos, positive and negative
ad-evoked emotions were compared, this study pretested the presumed ad-ad-evoked emotions of
the two viral videos. Here, we found that the presumed positive video, which was the original
John Lewis ad, really evoked positive emotions with the viewer and the presumed negative
video, which was the John Lewis parody, really did evoke negative emotions. Consequently,
the two viral videos were comparable in terms of positive and negative ad-evoked emotions.
The relationship between ad-evoked emotions and the intention to share as presumed
based on the discussed LC4MP by Lang and Bradley (2010) was also found in this study. The
researchers argued that perceived pleasantness of an ad results in a state of positive affectivity
which evokes positive emotions with the viewer that ultimately results in proactive behavior.
In this study, this was shown by participants’ behavior of having the intention to share the
positive video. Contrary, perceived unpleasantness in an ad make people engage in a state of
negative affectivity which evokes negative emotions and results reactive behavior. In this study, this was shown by participants’ behavior of not having the intention to share the negative video.
In terms of the relationship of ad-evoked emotions and brand attitude, previous
28 emotions (Aaker, Stayman, & Hagerty, 1986; Batra & Ray, 1986; Edell & Burke, 1987;
Holbrook & Batra, 1987). The findings of this study support the assumptions of earlier
research, but were first in testing this effect in the context of viral ads whereas previous
studies focused on traditional ads as print, television and radio ads. Therefore, this study
provides a more current insight in how to positively affect consumers brand attitude with the
help of viral advertising.
In terms of the relationship of ad-evoked emotions and attitude towards the ad,
previous research tested the effects of ad-evoked emotions on attitude towards the ad either in
the context of traditional ads as television and radio ads (Edell & Burke, 1987; Holbrook &
Batra, 1987) or did test them in viral ads but then per ad-evoked emotion and made no
comparison between these ad-evoked emotions as in the study of Royo-Vela and Marcela
(2005). Therefore, results of this research completed the literature by comparing positive and
negative ad-evoked emotions by viral video ads in their effect on consumer’s attitude towards
the ad.
Besides investigating attitude towards the ad as outcome variable, this study tested this
variable as mediator in the effect of ad-evoked emotions on both brand attitude and the
intention to share. Results were in line with the cognitive response model by Lutz (1977),
Olson et al. (1982) and Wright (1973) who suggested that during exposure to an
advertisement there is always a process of cognitive responses taking place, starting with
attitude formation towards the ad and ending in intention formation towards the ad. However,
the present research completed the literature by testing this mediation effect of attitude
towards the ad within viral advertising instead of traditional advertising as the previous
research did. The mediating role of attitude towards the ad in the relationship of ad-evoked
emotions and brand attitude was also supported with the results of this study as Mitchell and
Olson (1981) and Shimp (1981) suggested beforehand. Still, these researchers tested
29 succeeded in completing the literature by testing the effect within viral advertising, especially
within the relevant viral ads of viral videos.
The practical implications of the present findings for designing viral video ads in real
life are significant. As discussed, with the findings of this study, marketers get more insight in
how to strengthen a positive brand attitude and how to enhance the intention to share and
attitude towards the ad of their consumers. By evoking positive emotions with the viewer
through their viral video ads, first marketers can control the viral success of their
advertisements as positive ad-evoked emotions were found to positively affect consumers’
intention to share significantly. Second, they can enhance their brand’s image as positive
ad-evoked emotions were found to positively affect consumers’ brand attitude. The mediating
effect of attitude towards the ad on intention to share and brand attitude shows marketers that
when evoking positive ad-evoked emotions with their consumers, they are able to affect not
only consumers’ direct attitude towards the ad, but automatically their intention to share and
brand attitude as indirect effect. As real life cases demonstrate, there are still some viral video
ads circulating recently that evoke mainly negative emotions (MindComet, 2006). The
findings of the present study first provide marketers with the needed information that there is
actually a difference between positive and negative ad-evoked emotions in their effect on
consumers’ intention to share, brand attitude and attitude towards the ad and that positive
ad-evoked emotions are significantly more effective here. By considering these findings,
marketers know in future how to design their viral video ads in order to make them go viral
and successfully enhance their consumers’ attitude towards their brand.
The limitations of this experiment are multidimensional. First, participants of this
experiment were mainly students with a higher level of educational (78% university of
applied science; 13% university) between 18 and 30 years old which is the prototypical
audience of Generation Y as discussed in the method section. However, the field of social
30 as assumed in this study, also Generation Z should be considered. This generation showed to
be even more active on social media sites and will therefore be the future consumers (Pillai,
Brakenhoff, & Müller, 2010). All consumers that were born after 1990 belong to this
Generation. Comparing to Generation Y, this Generation’s users form attitudes and intentions
even more via social network channels compared to Generation Y (Igel & Urquhart, 2012).
Here lies the chance of viral marketing as social media channels are the place where viral
marketing campaigns try to influence consumers’ attitudes and intentions. Therefore, future
research should also consider Generation Z users as they will be the future main target group
on social media platforms and therefore the target group of viral advertising.
A second limitation of this study addresses this study’s stimulus material. The pretest
and manipulation check demonstrated that the two viral videos were significantly different in
terms of the emotions they evoke and therefore appropriate to test the difference in effect
between positive and negative ad-evoked emotions. The original video ad did evoke
significantly more positive emotions compared to the parody which did evoke significantly
more negative emotions. These viral videos were thus comparable and the measurement of the
difference in effect was successful based on the chosen stimulus material. However, there was
also a relevant limitation. The parody was designed by an anonymous source and put on
YouTube right after launching of the original John Lewis ad. Both videos went viral on the
internet, thus both video were viral videos. However, the source of the parody was neither a
commercial one nor was the parody part of a viral marketing campaign as the original video
ad was. Therefore, the parody was not an advertisement and did not fit in the context of this
research which was viral advertising. Still, we used this parody in this study because it was
found to evoke negative ad-evoked emotions and had a similar plot as the original John Lewis
ad. Ideally, future research should compare ad-evoked emotions by two viral video ads that
are part of a viral marketing campaign in their effect on intention to share, brand attitude and
31
References
Aaker, D. A., Stayman, D. M., & Hagerty, M. R. (1986). Warmth in advertising:
Measurement, impact and sequence effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4),
365–381.
Bagozzi, R. P., Gobinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 184-211.
Batra, R. & Ray, M. L. (1986). Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 234–249.
Berthon, P., Pitt, L., & Des Autels, P. (2011). Unveiling videos: consumer-generated ads as
qualitative inquiry. Psychology and Marketing, 28(10), 1044–1060.
BMI (2014). Demographie. Retrieved from http://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft
Verfassung/Demografie/demografie_node.html.
Brown, S. P., Homer, P. M., & Imman, J. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of relationships between
ad-evoked feelings and advertising responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(1),
69-83.
CBS (2013). Dutch Demography Day 2013. Abstracts. Retrieved from
http://www.nvdemografie.nl/sites/default/files/BookOfAbstracts2013_0.pdf
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Derbaix, C. & Vanhamme, J. (2003). Inducing word-of-mouth by eliciting surprise: A pilot
investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(1), 99 −107.
Dobele, A., Toleman, D., & Beverland, M. (2005). Controlled infection! Spreading the brand
message through viral marketing. Business Horizons, 48(2), 143−149.
Edell, J. A. & Burke, M. C. (1987). The power of feelings in understanding advertising
32 Fishbein, M. & Aijzen, L. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS. A versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modelling (white paper). Retrieved
from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Holbrook, M. B. & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of
consumer responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 404–420.
Igel, C. & Urquhart, V. (2012). Generation Z, meet cooperative learning. Middle School
Journal, 43(4), 267-282.
Knight, M. (1996). Web 2.0 [web technologies]. Communications Engineer, 5(1), 234.
Lang, A. (2009). The limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing.
The Sage Handbook of Media Processes and Effects, Nabi, L.R. & Oliver, M.B. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 193-204.
Lang, P. J. & Bradley, M. (2010). Emotion and the motivational brain. Biological
Psychology, 84(3), 437-50.
Lindgreen, A. & Vanhamme, J. (2005). Viral marketing: The use of surprise. In I.C. Clarke
& T. B. Flaherty (Eds.). Advances in electronic marketing. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Lutz, R. J. (1977). Integrating cognitive structure and cognitive response approaches to
monitoring communications effects. Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 363-371.
Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual
framework. In L. F. Alwitt & A. A. Mitchell (Eds.), Psychological processes and
advertising effects; Theory, research and application. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associate.
MindComet (2006). Viral Marketing: Understanding the concepts and benefits of viral
marketing. Retrieved from http://cmginteractive.com/uploads/viral_marketing.pdf.
33 advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 318-332.
Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Bell, R. Q. (1982). FACES II: Family adaptability and cohesion
evaluation scales. Minnesota: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota. Phelps, P. H., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D., & Raman, N. (2004). Viral marketing or
electronic word-of-mouth advertising: examining consumer responses and motivations
to pass along email. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(4), 333–348.
Pillai, R. S., Brakenhoff, G. J., & Müller, M. (2010). Anomalous behavior in the third
harmonic generation z response through dispersion induced shape changes and
matching χ(3). Applied Physic Letter, 89, 23-78.
Poels, K. & Dewitte, S. (2006). How to capture the heart? Reviewing 20 years of emotion
measurement in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(1), 18-37.
Royo-Vela, A. & Marcela, K. (2005). Emotional and informational content of commercials:
Visual and auditory circumplex spaces, product information and their effects on
audience evaluation. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 27,
13-38.
Schwarz, N. & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins,
& A. W. Kruglanski. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York:
Guilford.
Sheahan, P. (2005). Generation Y: Surviving (and thriving) with Generation Y at work.
Hardy Grant Publishing: Victoria, Australia.
Shimp, T. A. (1981). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal
of Advertising, 10(2), 9-15.
Spears, N. & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase
intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53–66.
Tellegen, A., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
