11-07-15 | 1
Processing depth as a possible
explanation for the effectiveness of
irritating advertising
Master thesis, Msc. Marketing Lonneke Groote Haar
11-07-15 | 2
Irritating advertising is ineffective
• Irritation can be defined as a negative emotion
(Aaker & Bruzzone, 1985; De Pelsmacker & Van den Bergh, 1998)
• Irritation always lead to a negative brand effects
(De Pelsmacker & Van den Bergh, 1998; Edell & Burke, 1987)
• Positive relation between liking an ad and ad
effectiveness
11-07-15 | 3 11-07-15 | 3
Irritating advertising is effective
• Irritation as a distraction from counter arguing
(Aaker & Stayman, 1990; Aaker & Bruzzone, 1985) • An irritating ad promotes cognitive processing of
the ad
• Chakrabary & Yelkur (2005)
• Arguments in the ad have to be in positive
11-07-15 | 4 11-07-15 | 4
Processing depth as an explanation
for effective irritating advertising
• High involved consumers are less likely to
experience affective responses (Dens & De Pelsmacker, 2010)
• High product involvement causes consumers to
process an advertised message centrally instead of peripherally
• Less attention is paid to the irritation, since
11-07-15 | 5 11-07-15 | 5 11-07-15 | 5
Conceptual model and hypotheses
H1: The extent of irritation in an ad is positively related to the negativity of the attitude towards the ad
H2: Attitude towards the ad is a mediator between the extent of irritation in the ad and negativity of brand attitude
Method
• 2 (ad type: irritating, neutral) x 2 (processing depth:
processing, no processing) between participants research design
• 82 participants
• Random assignment to one of two commercials • Irritating: Hoyhoy.nl
• Neutral: Consumentenbond Zorgvergelijker
• Random assignment to processing/no processing
Pre-test: commercial selection
› 44 participants
› Random assignments to one of two commercials
› T-test showed a significant difference in perceived
irritation (t(22)=15.56, p=0.00) • Irritating ad: M=3.78, SD=1.17
• Neutral ad: M=2.67, SD=0.97
Step 1: watching the video of the ad Step 2: fill in questionnaire
› Measurement of DV Aad in 24 dimensions based on a scale created
by Burke & Edell (1989)
› Measurement of DV brand attitude in terms of intention to use,
based on a scale created by Lin & Lu (2000)
› Checking the manipulation of IV’s irritation and processing depth
› Control questions
Results
• H1: The extent of irritation in an ad is positively
related to the negativity of the attitude towards the ad • Supported
• Two-way analysis of variance showed a significant
effect (F(1.81)=11.16, p=0.00) of ad type on Aad
• Participants exposed to neutral ad had a more positive Aad than
participants exposed to irritating ad • Neutral ad: M=3.70, SD=0.85
• Irritating ad: M=3.02, SD=0.89
11-07-15 | 10 11-07-15 | 10
Results
• H2: Attitude towards the ad is a mediator between the
extent of irritation in the ad and negativity of brand attitude
• Supported
• Baron & Kenny four step procedure showed a
11-07-15 | 12
Results
• H3: The deeper the advertised message is processed,
the less negative influence the irritation evoked by the ad has on the attitude towards the ad
• Rejected
• Two-way analysis of variance did not show a
Implications
• Based on this study, irritating advertising is not
effective
• What causes irritation in advertising? (Aaker &
Bruzzone, 1985)
• Researching a possible explanation for the
effectiveness of irritating advertising
• New directions for further research of this specific
variable and for new possible explanations
Why is hypothesis 2 rejected?
• Measurement scale was not accurate
• Manipulation therefore only worked marginally
• Type of product/service that is advertised
• Reason for buying
• Division of ‘approach’ and ‘avoidance’ products
(De Pelsmacker & Van den Bergh, 1998)
11-07-15 | 15
