UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN
What is the extent of the effect of distraction
caused by using a mobile phone, while watching
TV, on the effectiveness of TV advertising?
Master Thesis
Thom van der Meer (s1958135) 23-6-2014
Subject: Living in a multiscreen world: cross-channel and synergy effects of screen-based advertising.
Supervisor: L. Lobschat
1
Introduction
People are using their mobile phones more and more in today’s digital world (Chowdhury et al., 2006; Shankar & Balasubramanian, 2009). Around 70% of the people in the world own a mobile phone (Hepburn, 2011). In developed countries this percentage is even higher; in those countries nine out of ten people own a mobile phone (Hepburn, 2011). A mobile phone is a personal device that is used to call or contact other people, but also to surf on the internet and do all kinds of everyday tasks (Ballagas, 2006; Fortunati, 2002). Research has found that especially watching television (hereafter referred to as TV) is usually done together with checking things on the mobile phone or watching videos on this mobile device (Koeppel, 2013; Hepburn, 2011). At this moment the ‘’old’’ media like TV advertising is still very effective and used a lot by marketers (Danaher & Dagger, 2011). However with people increasingly using their mobile phone the effectiveness of TV advertising is likely going to be negatively affected. People are focussing on multiple screens and therefore will pay less attention to the TV screen, which will have a negative impact on the effectiveness of TV advertising. This article will investigate the effects of the usage of a mobile phone on TV advertising.
2 In the scientific literature there is a lacking of research on what effects using a mobile phone have on for example the effectiveness of TV and radio advertising (Goggin, 2006; Tähtinen, 2006; Varnali & Toker, 2010). Few studies investigate research on the usage of a mobile phone in people’s lives (Goggin, 2006). It is assumed by some authors that the use of a mobile phone will have a negative effect on the effectiveness of TV advertising, because it will impose a distraction (Chowdhury et al., 2006; Koeppel, 2013). This distraction causes that people are less able to recall brand names, logos and packaging that are advertised. This sounds logical, but recent scientific evidence for this hypothesis is outdated. A lot of research of distractions on the effectiveness of TV advertising has been conducted in the late 60s and early 70, which is half a century ago (Bither, 1972; McGuire, 1966; Venkatesan & Haaland, 1968). Nowadays, however, there are a lot more possible distractions because of the increasing use of mobile phones (Schatz, 2007). It is interesting to see if the findings they found still hold in this totally new and different landscape. Information spreading goes faster and faster enabled by the internet and the use of mobile phones. People encounter a lot of stimuli, not only in their direct environment, but also online on their mobile phones (Leu & Kinzer, 2000). People want to be constantly updated about everything that goes around them and are therefore used to multitask to make this possible. Always wanting to know everything can become very frustrating and stressful. Resilience can explain heterogeneity across consumers (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007). Resilience is a consumer characteristic that describes how well people cope with stressful situations, such as distractions or multi-screen situations. People who are more resilient can better cope with these stressful situations (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007).
3 research tries to find a moderation effect of resilience on the relationship between distraction and the effectiveness of TV advertising. Resilience is used to measure if how well people are able to cope with distractions. Until now, there are no such experiments conducted. This knowledge can also have impact on managerial decisions. Managers are still spending a lot of their advertising budget on TV advertising, but if this study finds out that, because of the fact that people are using their mobile phone more and more in today’s life, the TV advertising is not very effective anymore, manager should change the allocation of their advertising budget more towards spending it online, for example incorporating mobile phones more with social TV. Wang (2007) address this new social TV. He states that websites accessed on mobile phones may increase the interest and relevance of the TV shows or commercials that viewers watch. So if the message on TV refers to some website, where people can talk about or rate the TV show or commercial this could be beneficial (Wang, 2007). Because in this way people will recall the message better and will likely be more positive towards it. In this way the divided attention does not have to be negative, but can possibly be controlled by managers .This study will examine the effects of the usage of a smartphone while watching TV on the effectiveness of TV advertising: What is the extent of the effect of distraction caused by using
a mobile phone, while watching TV, on the effectiveness of TV advertising?
This article is structured as follows. First the extant literature is reviewed to develop a conceptual model regarding the usage of a mobile phone and TV advertising. Then the conceptual model of TV advertising is drawn and hypotheses are formulated. Subsequently, the methodology and the results are described. Finally, the most important findings of this article are discussed and the study will end with the managerial implications, the limitations and gives guidance for future research.
Theoretical framework
Distraction effects on TV advertising
People are increasingly using their mobile phones to constantly check their mails and be updated about all news in the world (Shakar & Balasubramanian, 2009). A mobile phone is a personal device that is always around the people who own the device. In this article a mobile phone is defined as followed: ‘’a mobile phone is a device always carried with you that helps
4 more important and advanced. People tend to use the mobile phone while simultaneously doing other things (Koeppel, 2013). This phenomenon is also known as multitasking (Hembrooke & Gay, 2003; Jeong & Fishbein, 2007). What this means is that people are focussing on doing, seeing or listening to multiple things at the same time. Hence their attention is divided and not fully focussed on one activity (Wang, 2007). For example, normally when people are watching TV, their attention is directed to the TV screen. However, nowadays many people are using their mobile phone while they are watching TV (Koeppel, 2013). This usage of the mobile phone can then be regarded as a distraction, because people are not paying fully attention the TV screen anymore. Distraction in literature is defined as: ‘’
shift in attention away from the original content towards another event ‘’ (Gardner,
1970:p25). Distraction while listening to a persuasive marketing communication occurs when something that is happening in the surrounding divides the attention of the subject (Gardner, 1970). This can be anything, such as a noise, movement or visual in the direct surrounding of the person which grabs his attention and divides that attention from the initial task the person is doing (Keating & Brock, 1974). The person, for example, is watching television, but his mobile phone makes a certain noise, which means that he is getting a message from someone. He grabs his phone to see what this message is and is therefore not concentrating on the TV screen anymore. Because he is not paying fully attention to the TV screen he therefore also is not fully aware of the things happening on the TV screen. This will have major implications for the effectiveness of TV advertising, because if people are not paying attention to the TV screen, what will they then remember from the advertisements? Effective TV advertising can be considered as: ‘’Advertising communication goals can be parsimoniously stated as
reaching a target audience, increasing brand recall, and increasing sales‘’ (Chowdhury et
5 and therefore is more likely to accept the persuasive communication as true. Because the person was not able to attend the whole persuasive communication he thinks he has missed crucial information to fully understand the communication and therefore is more likely to regard the communication as true. He does not want to think too much about the information and just thinks: ‘If they say that it is the best product, then it will be the best product’ (Festinger and Maccoby, 1964). Other studies found the exact opposite. McGuire (1966) observed that from a simple learning theory interpretation one would expect distraction to have the negative effect, interfering with the comprehension of the argument and thus lowering persuasive impact. This is founded on the assumption that whenever a person does not see the whole advertisement, because he is distracted, he will miss important arguments made in the advertisement. Because he missed these arguments, he is not persuaded by the advertisement. In this case the person is less likely to be persuaded, because he was distracted during the advertisement.
6 will be effective if it can hold the consumers’ attention and prevent him from engaging in any other behavioural or visual distraction. Once the attention of the consumers is grabbed, the commercial should convey a simple and clear persuasive message. Especially the first part of the commercial is a key part, because the commercial should capture and hold the attention from consumers to prevent them from tuning out.
TV advertising is usually used to persuade viewers. However, people tend to argue with persuasive communications. When people for the first time see a persuasive commercial in which it is for example stated that one product is the best there is, people are automatically arguing with this statement with question like: Is that really true? Or I do not believe it until I have tried it myself (Gardner, 1970). This arguing with the statement in the commercial is called a counterargument. When people are paying full attention to the commercial they are able to counter argue with the statements in the commercial (Gardner, 1970). However, if people are not fully paying attention, because they are distracted, they are less able to question the statements made in the commercial. With this assumption the study of Allyn & Festinger (1961) argued that if consumers are distracted they are less able to counter argue with the persuasive message in the commercial they will be easier accepting this persuasive message. Gardner (1970) argued against this logic, stating that the whenever subject are distracted they significantly recall fewer items about the communication which they had been exposed to. He did not found evidence that the subjects were easier accepting the message, because he found that distraction reduced the understanding of the persuasive message of the subjects. The distraction hypothesis he formulated stated
‘’Whenever subject are distracted they are recalling fewer items and their understanding of the message is reduced’’ (Gardner, 1970:p29).
Gardner (1970:p30) also states that
‘’ It may be entirely possible that distraction would have more impact on responses to
persuasive communication in the printed media, in the visual media such as television, or in personal selling’’
7 this statement by Gardner to TV advertising, knowledge about effectiveness of TV advertising is needed. Krugman (1965) stated in his research paper that TV advertising becomes effective after a consumer has seen the advertisements multiple times. The first time that consumers are exposed to the advertisement they react with a fundamental question: ‘’What is it?’’ After the next exposure the consumer asks himself whether the advertisement is relevant to him and if he likes the advertisement. When the consumer is facing the advertisement another time he is most likely to accept the advertisement and run to the store to buy the product (Krugman, 1965). TV advertising is especially effective if the consumers are frequently exposed to the same advertisement, so it is a frequency medium (Krugman, 1965). TV advertising mostly contains of short commercials with a number of funny images about the brand or product. So the effectiveness of TV advertising is a combination of how often a consumer watches a commercial and how much attention he pays to the short and funny commercials (Koeppel, 2013; Krugman, 1965). In the 1980s and 1990s the length of the commercials became larger, because this gave the marketer more time to get his message across and get the consumers to make a better and quicker purchase decision. Although this worked then, consumers nowadays have a much fragmented attention span. They divide their attention between watching TV, surfing on their IPad and chatting with friends using their mobile phones (Schatz, 2007). All this activities are done simultaneously. People are not paying attention only to TV advertising, so the importance of frequency of the advertisements is becoming increasingly important (Koeppel, 2013). However there is one distinction, namely an advertiser is not only concerned with the TV screen anymore, but he has to deal with all screen consumers are engaged with. Not only does the advertiser have to optimize the advertisements shown on TV, but the advertisements shown on mobile devices or internet have to be consistent with the overall image that the brand propagates (Koeppel, 2013; Naik & Raman, 2003).
8 with the increasing number of distractions that are around in today’s world, like the mobile devices, iPads and wireless laptops (Schatz, 2007). This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: When people are distracted by using a mobile phone this will have a negative effect on the recall and recognition of brands shown on TV.
Multiple distraction effects on TV advertising
Ventakesan & Haaland (1968) also researched what would happen if subjects were distracted multiple times. In their research subject were visually and behaviorally distracted. Subjects in the visual condition were distracted by watching an unrelated video, while at the same time they were listening to the commercial. Subjects in the behavioural condition, were watching the commercial (video and audio), but simultaneously had to do unrelated tasks were they were asked to choose the right answers on some questions and check a list of objectives. They authors found that if the subjects were distracted they recalled significantly less than subject who were not distracted (Ventakesan & Haaland, 1968). Subjects who were exposed to visual distractions did worse in recalling the brand and product names than the subjects that were behaviourally distracted. When subject were both visually and behaviourally distracted their recall of the brand and product names was worst (Ventakesan & Haaland, 1968). So when subjects were distracted multiple times they were less able to recall brand and product names, relative to being distracted just once. This leads to the second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The more tasks, by using a mobile phone multiple times, people have to do, the stronger the negative effect on the recall of brands shown on TV will be.
Resilience effects on coping with distractions
‘’Resilience refers to positive adaptation that is maintained in the face of stressful experiences or trauma’’ (Luthar, Cicchetti & Becker, 2000 p:545). Important for this construct is the
9 to pay attention to both the TV screen and their mobile phone and this situation can be typified as more stressful then the situation in which people only have to pay attention to the TV screen. People with greater resilience are better able to cope with stressful situations and are able to more easily recover from those stress-related events (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007). From this the following can be hypnotised:
Hypothesis 3: The more resilient a person is the better he can cope with distractions and therefore the more brand names he can recall and recognize.
Conceptual model
This study investigates the effect of the usage of a mobile phone, while watching TV, on the effectiveness of TV advertising. In the theoretical framework it can be seen that divided attention has a negative impact on the effectiveness of TV advertising (Gardner, 1970; McGuire, 1966; Ventakesan & Haaland, 1968). The research question of the study is formulated as follows: What is the extent of the effect of distraction caused by using a mobile
phone, while watching TV, on the effectiveness of TV advertising? A conceptual model is
constructed to make clear what this study will examine. The independent variable in this study is distractions (by using a mobile phone), number of tasks (the number of tasks the subject does with his mobile phone) is regarded as a moderator effect and the dependent variable is the brand recall and brand recognition. Resilience is another moderator that moderates the effect of the number of tasks on the relationship of distractions and brand recall and brand recognition. The conceptual model is drawn below:
(H1) _ _ (H2) Resilience + (H3) Distraction (by using a mobile) phone)
Brand recall and brand recognition
Number of
10
Figure 1, Conceptual model
Methodology
This study uses an experimental setup to find answers on the questions asked in the paper. The experiment was conduct in a lab in the University of Groningen, which makes it a lab experiment. A lab experiment is chosen to control for the variables. In this way the wanted variables, namely the distraction of the mobile phone could be controlled for by the researcher. Also unwanted variables, such as distractions caused by other people or other events in the surrounding of the respondents could be controlled for by the researcher. The experiment was open to respondents for two weeks. Respondents were randomly assigned. Most of the respondents were students that are studying at the University. All of the respondents were asked to bring their mobile phone to the experiment. The experiment consistent of a part where people were watching a six minute video and of a part were respondents were filling in a survey over the video they watched. Participants were asked to pay fully attention to this six minute video, because afterwards they would have to answer questions about the video. The participants in the experimental condition were asked to pick their mobile phone and are asked to search information on it (1 time, 3 times). They were asked to look up the exact answer on a number of unrelated question and were asked to write this done on a piece of paper and hand it in to the researcher at the end of the experiment. During these search periods the video is still being showed. The respondents in the control group watched the commercials without being asked to search for information on their mobile phones. After the video ends they are asked the same questions about the which brands they recall and recognize. These questionnaires were filled in on a computer. The questionnaire was pre-tested on five subjects and was revised according to their feedback. Respondents were approximally 10 minutes busy with filling in the questionnaire. So in total the whole experiment lasted between 15 and 20 minutes.
Sample
The sample size of this experiment is 140 respondents. There were no missing or excluded data, because every finished questionnaire was filled in fully and correctly.
Data
11 SPSS stands for the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. It is very useful when a researcher wants to explore certain causal relationships, moderating effects and direct effects between two variables. The gathered data will be analyzed by using a number of different tests that are available in SPSS.
Measures
The experiment had a 2x2 experimental between subjects design, but there were three different conditions (shown in table 1). There was a no distraction condition, the control group, a low distractions condition where respondents were asked to use their mobile phone once and a high distraction condition where respondents were asked to use their mobile phone three times at three different times. Respondents served in only one condition and were not allowed to do the experiment twice. This is because the respondents should be unaware of the aim of the experiment and when they have participated in the experiment they know what it is about.
Distraction NO Condition 1
Distraction Low(1x) High(3x)
YES Condition 2 Condition 3
Figure 2, experimental design
Dependent variables
12 recognition are therefore a good measure to see if people are more aware of the brand and if the advertisement was effective.
Brand recall: The recall part was primarily adapted from Till & Baack (2005). In the first part
of the questionnaire respondents were asked to recall the brand names shown. This was done with aided and unaided brand recall. First respondents were asked to list all brands (five in total) they recalled that were shown in the video, this was the unaided brand recall part. Next the respondents were shown the product category of the brand name that were shown in the video and were again asked if they could recall the brand names (five in total). This was the aided part of the brand recall section.
Brand recognition: The recognition part was primarily adapted from research from Klatzky
(1980) and Singh & Rothschild (1983). Recognition was tested by showing the respondent 12 brand names and asking them if they had seen the brand names. So participants had to click YES if they had seen the brand in the video and NO if they had not seen the brand. After that respondents were shown five times two brand names and were asked to pick the one that was shown in the video. So in total there were seventeen brand recognition questions.
Resilience: Resilience is measured using a ten part scale. This scale was adopted from
Campbell-Sills & Stein (2007). This scale consists of ten items that measured the resilience of a person. During the questionnaire the respondents rated the statements on a five point scale from 0 (not true at all) to 4 (true nearly all the time) (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007).
Results
Descriptive statistics
13 Gender Average Age
Female Male
Condition 1 26 21 20.94
Condition 2 22 25 20.60
Condition 3 28 18 21.57
Table 1, distribution across conditions
In the table (2) below the results of the unaided brand recall part can be seen. There were only nine people, who correctly recalled all five different brand names, while 39 people did not manage to recall any brand name correctly. The average brand name recalled was 1.59. In the same table (2) the results of the aided brand recall part can be seen. These results are very similar to the unaided recall part, because also here there were only nine people, who correctly recalled all five different brand names. 37 people could not correctly remember any brand name and the average brand name recalled was a little bit higher, namely 1.73 brand names. In the next table (3) the results of the brand recognition part can be seen. The average number of correctly answered brand name recognition question was 13.37. In total there were 17 brand name recognition questions and only one subject provided 17 correct answers. The lowest score on the brand recognition part was 5 correct answers.
Unaided brand recall Aided brand recall Number of brand names
recalled Frequency Frequency 0 39 37 1 33 33 2 38 31 3 16 18 4 5 12 5 9 9
Mean brand names recalled
1.59 1.73
14 Brand recognition
Number of brand names recognized Frequency
5 1 6 0 7 0 8 2 9 1 10 12 11 12 12 15 13 19 14 31 15 24 16 22 17 1
Mean brand names recognized 13.37
Table 3, brand names recognized
Distraction effects on TV advertising
In order to analyze whether or not distraction has an impact on the unaided brand recall of subjects, an way ANOVA of distraction on unaided brand recall is performed. An one-way ANOVA is chosen, because the independent variable distraction is a nominal variable and the dependent variable unaided brand recall is an interval variable. With these variables the one-way ANOVA is the correct method to analyze the results (Leliveld & Hillemans, 2012). This One-way ANOVA was significant, F(1,138) = 29.674, p = 0.000. Distraction does have a significant impact on the unaided brand recall of subjects. Subjects in the control group, who were not distracted, recalled on average 2.43 brand names. Subjects, who were distracted, recalled on average 1.16 brand names. A significant difference of more than one brand name.
15 significant impact on the aided brand recall of subjects. Subjects in the control group, who were not distracted, recalled on average 2.77 brand names. Subjects, who were distracted, recalled on average 1.2 brand names. A significant difference of more than one and a half brand name.
In order to analyze whether or not distraction has an impact on the brand recognition of subjects, an one- way ANOVA of distraction on brand recognition is performed. This One-way ANOVA was significant, F(1,138) = 47.476, p = 0.000. Distraction does have a significant impact on the brand recognition of subjects. Subjects in the control group, who were not distracted, recognized on average 14.87 brand names. Subjects, who were distracted, recognized on average 12.61 brand names. A significant difference of more than two brand names.
The results are summarized in the table (4) below: Number of Participants Mean of unaided brand recall Mean of aided brand recall Mean of brand recognition Condition 1(control) 47 2.43 2.77 14.87 Condition 2 (distraction) 93 1.16 1.20 12.61 Total 140 1.59 1.73 13.37
Table 4, brand recall and brand recognition distractions vs. control
Multiple distraction effects on TV advertising
In order to analyze whether or not multiple distractions would have an impact on the unaided brand recall of subjects, an independent samples t-test with between condition 2 and 3 and unaided brand recall is performed. This independent samples t-test was significant, t(91) = 4.179, p = 0.000. The average number of brands recalled in condition 2 significantly differs from the average number of brands recalled in condition 3. Subjects, who were distracted once, recalled on average 1.62 brand names. Subjects, who were distracted three times, recalled on average 0.70 brand names. This shows that subjects who were distracted multiple times clearly recalled fewer brand names than subjects who were only distracted once.
16 aided brand recall is performed. This independent samples t-test was significant, t(91) = 3.434, p = 0.001. The average number of brands recalled in condition 2 significantly differs from the average number of brands recalled in condition 3. Subjects, who were distracted once, recalled on average 1.62 brand names. Subjects, who were distracted three times, recalled on average 0.78 brand names. This shows that subjects who were distracted multiple times clearly recalled fewer brand names than subjects who were only distracted once.
In order to analyze whether or not multiple distractions would have an impact on the brand recognition of subjects, an independent samples t-test with between condition 2 and 3 and brand recognition is performed. This independent samples t-test was significant, t(91) = 3.885, p = 0.000. The average number of brands recalled in condition 2 significantly differs from the average number of brands recognized in condition 3. Subjects, who were distracted once, recognized on average 13.38 brand names. Subjects, who were three times distracted, recognized on average 11.83 brand names. This shows that subjects who were distracted multiple times clearly recognized fewer brand names than subjects who were only distracted once.
The results are shown in the table (5) below:
Number of Participants Mean of unaided brand recall Mean of aided brand recall Mean of brand recognition Condition 1 47 2.43 2.77 14.87 Condition 2 47 1.62 1.62 13.38 Condition 3 46 0.70 0.78 11.38 Total 140 1.59 1.73 13.37
Table 5, brand recall and brand recognition in different conditions
Resilience effects on coping with distractions
17 shows a Cronbach’s alpha of α = 0.716, which is above 0.6 (Leliveld & Hillemans, 2012). This means that the ten resilience variables may be transformed into one mean variable. The dependent variables, brand recall and brand recognition, are both count variables. In order to conduct a linear regression these variables have to be transformed, because count variables cannot be entered in a linear regression. Therefore, it is necessary to compute log scores of these dependent variables. The log scores are used in the following linear regression analysis.
In order to analyze whether or not there is a moderation effect of resilience on the effect of distraction on aided brand recall, a linear regression analysis is performed. The regression analysis was significant R² = 0.458, F(3,99) = 8.742, p = 0,000. Resilience does not have a significant positive influence on aided brand recall, B = 0.309, p = 0.240. Distraction does not have a significant negative influence on aided brand recall, B = 0.117, p = 0.786. This effect is also not moderated by resilience, because this interaction effect was not significant, B = -0.117, p = 0.315.
In order to analyze whether or not there is a moderation effect of resilience on the effect of distraction on unaided brand recall, a linear regression analysis is performed. The regression analysis was significant R² = 0.419, F(3,97) = 6.879, p = 0,000. Resilience does not have a significant positive influence on unaided brand recall, B = 0.066, p = 0.804. Distraction does not have a significant negative influence on unaided brand recall, B = -0.194, p = 0.676. This effect is also not moderated by resilience, because this interaction effect was not significant, B = -0.025, p = 0.842.
18
Distraction effect Resilience effect Moderation effect (resilience & distraction)
YES/NO B p YES/NO B p YES/NO B p Aided brand recall NO .117 .786 NO .309 .240 NO -.117 .315 Unaided brand recall NO -.194 .676 NO .066 .804 NO -.025 .842
Brand recognition YES -.278 .019 NO -.057 .438 NO .044 .165
Table 6, distraction, resilience and moderation effects
Discussion
19 does not moderate the effect distraction has on ability of people to recall and recognize brand names. It was hypothesized that people who are more resilient would be better able to cope with different distractions and therefore better able to recall and recognize brand names. The results show that there was no significant moderation effect of resilience. So resilience appears to have no effect on the ability of people to cope with distractions. Hence, it can be concluded that people who are more resilient are not necessarily better in coping with distractions and recalling or recognizing brand names. A possible explanation for this is that resilience is more related to bouncing back from trauma or stress, rather than dealing with distractions caused by focussing on multiple screens (Bonnano, 2004; Tugade & Frederickson, 2004). Dealing with distractions caused by multiple screens is of course not nearly as traumatic as coping with the death of a close friend or family member. Hence, maybe another variable, such as people’s confidence in coping with distractions could be used as moderator instead of resilience, which is used in this study (Lesch & Hancock, 2004). Theoretical and managerial implications
This study has some theoretical implications. The first implication is that the distraction hypothesis of Gardner (1970) is still holding its value in this new world. This study adds to the literature that the distractions hypothesis also holds when people are distracted with multiple screens. So when people are distracted by visual material on another screen, instead of visual material on the same screen, they are also recalling and recognizing fewer brand names. Especially when subjects are distracted multiple times, which confirms the findings of Ventakesan & Haaland (1968) and shows that also these findings still hold after forty years. Furthermore, when a subject is using his mobile phone while he is watching TV, he cannot focus on both screens at the same time and therefore misses information shown on TV (Pashler, 1998). Resilience is found to have no moderating effect on relationship between distraction and brand recall and recognition. This study adds to literature that there is no link between resilience and the above mentioned relationship.
20 focussing much more mobile advertising, where people get advertisements on their mobile phones (Kireyev, Pauwels, Gupta, 2013). Another option can be to integrate the mobile phones more with the TV shows. This can be done by giving people a chance to interact with the TV program, by giving them an option to vote, like or comment on certain aspects of the show on their mobile phones (Wang, 2007). This is also known as social TV (Wang, 2007). Limitations and future research
This study has a number of limitations. The first important limitation is that this study only used students as respondents. The average age of the respondents was 21, which is quite young and certainly not generalizable to the whole population. So it is recommended that a similar study will be set up with respondents that than 21 one, with for example adults and elderly to see if this study will yield similar results compared to this one. This study used brand recall and recognition to measure the effectiveness of TV advertising. These are explicit measurements that for a great part rely on explicit knowledge of respondents. However, according to Fennis and Stroebe (2010) TV advertising not only leaves a trace in the explicit memory but also leaves traces in the implicit memory of people and these traces are not detected with explicit measurements. Hence, only using brand recall and recognition measures may result in an underestimation of the effectiveness of the TV advertising (Fennis & Stroebe, 2010) Therefore it is recommended to do a similar study with other more implicit measurements, like a word stem completion (Warrington & Weiskrantz, 1970) and the word fragment identification (Baddeley, 1997). Resilience was found to be not moderating the relationship between distractions and effectiveness of TV advertising. For future research it is recommended to measure a moderation effect of the confidence people have in dealing with different distractions (Lesch & Hancock, 2004).
Conclusion
21 effect is not reduced by people’s ability to cope with distractions or multiple stimuli, also known as resilience.
References
Allyn, J., Festinger, L., (1961), The Effectiveness of Unanticipated Persuasive Communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(1): 35-40.
Baddeley, A. (1997). Human Memory . Brighton: Psychology Press
Ballagas, R., Borchers, J., Rohs, M., Sheridan, J. G. (2006), The smart phone: a ubiquitous input device. Pervasive Computing IEEE, 5(1):70-77
Belch, G. E., Belch, M. A., (2008), Advertising and Promotion. New York, McGraw-Hill companies
Bither, S. W., (1972). Effects of distraction and commitment on the persuasiveness of television advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(1):1-5
Bonanno, G. A., (2004), Loss, trauma, and human resilience. American Psychologist, 59:20-28.
Campbell-Sills, L., Stein, M. B., (2007). Psychometric Analysis and refinement of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-Item measure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(6): 1019-1028
Chowdhury, H. K.,, Parvin, N., Weitenberner, C., Becker, M., (2006), Consumer, attitude toward mobile advertising in an emerging market: An empirical study. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 1(2):33-42
Danaher, P. J., Dagger, T. S., Smith M. S., (2011), Forecasting television ratings. International Journal of Forecasting, 27(4):1215-1240
Fennis, B., M., Stroebe, W., (2010), The Psychology of Advertising. New-York, Psychology Press.
22 Gardner, D. M., (1970), The distraction hypothesis in marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 10(6):25-30
Goggin, G (2006), Cell phone culture, Mobile technology in everyday life. New York; Routledge
Hembrooke, H., Gay, G., (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1):46-64
Hepburn, A., (2011), Mobile statistics stats facts marketing, http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/2011-mobile-statistics-stats-facts-marketing-infographic/ accessed on 6-04-2014
Héroux, L., Laroche, M., McGown, K., L., (1988), Consumer product label information processing: an experiment involving time pressure and distraction. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9:195-214
Jeong, S-H., Fishbein, M., (2007), Predictors of multitasking with media: Media factors and audience factors. Media Psychology, 10(3):364-384
Klatzky, R. L. (1980). Human Memory: Structures and Processes. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Keating, J. P., Brock, T. C., (1974), Acceptance of persuasion and the inhibition of counterargumentation under various distraction tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10:301-309
Kireyev, P., Pauwels, K., Gupta, S., (2013), Do Display Ads Influence Search? Attribution and Dynamics in Online Advertising, Harvard Business School, 1-32
Koeppel, P.,( 2013), How to Win Over Dual-Screen Consumers. Response, 1(1):55
Krugman, H., E., (1965), The impact of television advertising: learning without involvement. Public opinion quarterly, 29(3):349-356
McGuire W. J., (1966), Attitudes and Opinions, Annual Review of Psychology, 17(1):475-515
23 Lesch, M., F., Hancock, P., A., (2004), Driving performance during concurrent cell-phone use: are drivers aware of their performance decrements? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(3):471-480
Leu, D., J., Kinzer, C., (2000), The convergence of literacy instruction with networked technologies for information and communication. Reading Research Quarterly, 35:108- 127. Lodish, L.M., Abraham, M., Kalmenson, S. (1995), How TV advertising works: A meta-analysis of 389 real world split cable TV advertising experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2):125-139
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71:543-562
Naik, P. A., and Raman, K. (2003), Understanding the Impact of Synergy in Multimedia Communications, Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4):375-88.
Pashler, H., (1998), The Psychology of Attention, Cambridge: MIT Press
Schatz, R., Wagner, S., Egger, S., (2007), Mobile TV becomes Social – Integrating content with communications. Telecommunications Research, 1220:1-7
Shankar, V., Balasubramanian, S., (2009), Mobile Marketing: A Synthesis and Prognosis, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23 (2):118–29.
Singh, S., N., Rothschild, M., (1983), Recognition as a Measure of Learning from Television Commercials. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(3):235-248
Smith, A., (2010), Mobile Access. Pew Internet & American Life Project 1(4):1-35
Tähtinen, J. (2006) Mobile Advertising or Mobile Marketing. A Need for a New Concept. Frontiers of e-Business Research, 152-164
Till, B., D. and Baack, D., W., (2005), Recall and Persuasion, Journal of Advertising, 34 (3):47-57
24 Unnava R., Sanjeev A., Haugtvedt , C.P., (1996), Interactive Effects of Presentation Modality and Message Generated Imagery on Recall of Advertising Information, Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (1):81-88
Varnali, K., Toker, A. (2010), Mobile marketing research: The-state-of-the-art, International Journal of Information Management, 30(2):144–151.
Ventakesan, M., Haaland, G. A.,( 1968), Divided attention and television commercials: An experimental study. Journal of Marketing Research, 5(2):203-205
Wang, A., (2007), Branding over mobile and internet advertising: The cross-media effect. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 2(1):34-42
