Consumer responses to verbal comparative ad, visual
comparative ad, and noncomparative ad: the moderating effects
of prior knowledge and need for cognition
Master thesis, Msc BA, specialization in Marketing University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Abstract
Previous research mainly focused on discussing the effectiveness of comparative ads. The current research investigated further into this scope, exploring the different effectiveness of verbal comparative ad, visual comparative ad, and noncomparative ad. In this paper, two studies were conducted. Study 1 emphasized the moderating effects of prior knowledge on the relationship between types of comparative ads and consumer response, and study 2 focused on the moderating role of need for cognition on this relationship. The results from Study 1 suggested that for consumers with extensive knowledge, verbal comparative ads provide more information and produce more favorable attitudes and higher purchase intentions to the sponsored brand than visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads, while the opposite effects for consumers with limited knowledge are rejected; the interaction effect on perceived price was not significant. Study 2 finds that consumers‟ level of NFC has no influence on their perceptions of ad informativeness, and that high-NFC consumers produce more favorable attitudes and higher purchase intentions to the sponsored brand advertised via verbal comparative ads than visual comparative ads and noncomparative ad, while the opposite effects for low-NFC consumers are rejected; the interaction effect on perceived price was not significant.
Table of contents
Introduction ... 1
Conceptual framework and hypotheses ... 4
1
Introduction
Comparative advertising has become increasingly popular in the contemporary marketing area. Many firms applied comparative advertising to communicate merits of their products to consumers in order to compete with competitors. Not surprisingly, the prevalence of comparative ads evokes numerous researches on the effectiveness of comparative ads, but the issue concerning whether comparative ads are more effective to persuade consumers than noncomparative ads is pretty controversial. Some studies reveal the positive effects of comparative ads in producing attention (e.g., Wilkie and Farris 1975), favorable attitudes (e.g., Levine 1976; Mazis 1976; Shimp and Dyer 1978), purchase intentions (e.g., Dröge 1989), and sales (Demirdjian 1983) to the sponsored brand. Others suggest that comparative ads have no different effects (e.g., Belch 1981; Goodwin and Etgar 1980) or even adverse responses to the sponsored brand (e.g., Wilson and Muderrisoglu 1980).
Several reasons account for the controversy on the effectiveness of comparative ads. One possible reason is that previous studies only focus on the general comparative ads or ads with comparison on some aspects. Although several studies have identified the different effects of the verbal cues and the visual cues in the ads (e.g. Bitta, Monroe, and McGinnis 1981; Stafford 1996), the different effectiveness of verbal comparative ads and visual comparative ads has received limited attention. Another possible reason is that consumer responses to the ad may differ in group by group (e.g. Thompson and Hamilton 2006; Venkatraman, Marlino, Kardes, and Sklar 1990). That is, consumer variables indeed have significant influences on the ad effectiveness. Compared to one driving a Volkswagen, for example, one driving a Porsche reacts differently to the message with luxury brand or product. The later one may express more positive attitudes to this message or the brand in this message than the former one. Therefore, the reactions of different consumers to the verbal and visual comparative ads need to be further intensified (e.g. McQuarrie and Mick 1996; Phillips 2000).
2
motivation and personal ability are two most vital components to determine whether consumers will go through the central or peripheral route to process the message. On the one hand, prior knowledge as a personal ability influences the information processing and ad judgments (e.g. Hong and Sternthal 2010; Maheswaran and Sternthal 1990). Consumers with extensive knowledge tend to analyze the arguments shown in ads in detail, since they prefer to obtain the judgments based on their own ability, while consumers with limited knowledge tend to base their evaluations on the heuristic cues, such as pictorial components and famous brands (Fennis and Stroebe 2010). Thus, whether consumers have extensive or limited knowledge may moderate the effects of different types of comparative ad on consumer responses. On the other hand, NFC is a motivational factor to determine whether consumers motivate themselves to process the information systematically. With different level of NFC, consumers respond differently to the different ad formats. In general, high-NFC consumers pay more attention to the persuasive information in the ads than the emotional appeals, since these consumers are more likely to deliberate the arguments in the ads (McKay-Nesbitt, Manchanda, Smith, and Huhmann 2011), while the opposite hold for low-NFC consumers. Therefore, whether consumers are high or low in NFC may moderate the effects of different types of comparative ads on consumer responses.
3
In conclusion, the purpose of this study is to examine the different effectiveness among verbal comparative ads, visual comparative ads, and noncomparative ads. Besides this goal, this paper contains two studies. Study 1 is to assess the moderating role of prior knowledge on the relationship between types of comparative ad and consumer responses; Study 2 is to examine whether high-NFC consumers have significantly different reactions to different types of comparative ads than low-NFC consumers. Figure 1 shows an overview of the relationship among these variables.
4
Conceptual framework and hypotheses
Based on two criteria (Wilkie and Farris 1975), comparative ads are defined to compare the same generic product or service of two brands about certain attributes or market position. Regarding the definition of verbal and visual, Fennis and Stroebe (2010) illustrate that the informational appeal (verbal) provides arguments about the detailed attributes or the price of the product, while the emotional appeal (visual) influences respondents‟ emotions and feelings via images. Therefore, for the purpose of this research, the verbal comparative ad is that the sponsored brand compares its product to the same generic product of its competitor‟s brand almost with detailed information or convincing arguments, while the visual comparative ad is that the product of the sponsored brand is compared with the same generic one of its competitor‟s brand mainly with attractive pictures or in an emotional way.
The effectiveness of comparative ads
In the decades, many researches have presented the success and effectiveness of comparative ads. For example, Gorn and Weinberg (1984) reveal the success of comparative ads to reduce the perceived difference between the leading brands and the challengers across the toothpastes, cigarettes, and golf balls. In addition, Grewal, Kavanoor, Fern, Costley, and Barnes (1997) conduct a meta-analysis to test the effectiveness of comparative ads. Based on their Hierarchy of Comparative Advertising Effects Model, they conclude that comparative ads can generate more attentions to the ad, more favorable brand attitudes and higher purchase intentions.
Ad informativeness. Since comparative ads compare the same generic products from two
5
sponsored brand. Therefore, consumers may perceive that verbal comparative ads are more informative than visual comparative ads.
H1a: Consumers will perceive that comparative ads provide more information than
noncomparative ads, regardless of verbal comparison or visual comparison, and that verbal comparative ads are more informative than visual comparative ads.
Attitudes to the sponsored brand. In a comparative ad, the primary factor that influences
attitudes to the sponsored brand (Abr) depends on the comparison brand. According to Droge and Darmon (1987), attitudes to the comparison brand can largely represent attitudes to the sponsored brand. This is also supported by Miniard, Rose, Barone, and Manning (1993) that comparative ads have a special mirror function to generate an impression of the sponsored brand to the comparison brand. That is, if consumers‟ attitudes to comparison brand turn out to be positive, then their attitudes to sponsored brand (Abr) are very possible to be positive and favorable.
H1b: Consumers will express more favorable attitudes to the sponsored brand advertised
via comparative ads than via noncomparative ads, regardless of verbal comparison or visual comparison.
Purchase intentions. As a mediator between attitude and actual purchase, purchase
intention attracts a large amount of attention. Droge (1989) find that attitudes to the sponsored brand (Abr) are more strongly related to purchase intentions via comparative ads than via noncomparative ads. Consistently, Pechmann and Stewart (1990) present that ads with the directly comparative contents have a larger impact on increasing purchase intentions of low-share brands than ads without the comparative contents.
H1c: Consumers will express higher purchase intentions to the sponsored brand
advertised via comparative ads than noncomparative ads, regardless of verbal comparison or visual comparison.
Perceived price. Since perceived price indicates perceived value on the product and
6
Given that comparative ads provide more arguments than noncomparative ads, consumers may perceive that the sponsored brand is enough competent to compare with the comparison brand and has some strengths over the comparison brand. Therefore, they may perceive a higher price to the sponsored brand advertised via comparative ads than noncomparative ads.
H1d: Consumers will perceive a higher price to the sponsored brand advertised via
comparative ads than via noncomparative ads, regardless of verbal comparison or visual comparison.
The moderating effect of prior knowledge
7
H2a: Consumers with extensive knowledge will perceive that verbal comparative ads
provide more information than visual comparative ads and noncompartive ads, while the opposite effects hold for consumers with limited knowledge.
H2b: Consumers with extensive knowledge will express more favorable attitudes to the
sponsored brand advertised via verbal comparative ads than via visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads, while the opposite effects hold for consumers with limited knowledge.
H2c: Consumers with extensive knowledge will express higher intentions to purchase the
sponsored brand advertised via verbal comparative ads than via visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads, while the opposite effects hold for consumers with limited knowledge.
H2d: Consumers with extensive knowledge will perceive a higher price to the sponsored
brand advertised via verbal comparative ads than via visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads, while the opposite effects hold for consumer with limited knowledge.
The moderating effect of NFC
Cacioppo and Petty (1982) define NFC as the propensity for an individual to drive the enjoyment and engagement in thoughtful cognitive thinking. Based on ELM, NFC determines the different routes for consumers to change attitudes. High-NFC people change their attitudes via the central route. They are attracted to the issue-relevant messages shown in verbal comparative ads. Among all consumers, high-NFC ones will change their attitudes relying on the quality of the product attributes in the ads in contrast to low-NFC consumers (Haugtvedt and Petty 1992). Three previous experiments revealed that high-NFC people generate more positive attitudes to the cognitive messages, since they tend to process the messages thoughtfully (Haddock, Maio, Arnold, and Huskinson 2008).
low-8
NFC consumers are more likely to form their attitudes based on the simple heuristic cues, such as vivid pictures and familiar or famous brands (Haugtvedt, Petty, and Cacioppo 1992), which are very likely to occur in the visual comparative ads. In addition, Ruiz and Sicilia (2004) reveal that cognitive- and affective-based stimuli, which match consumers‟ processing type (effortful and effortless processors, separately), produce more positive attitudes to the sponsored brand (Abr) and purchase intentions. Therefore, it is expected that consumers with different NFC will generate different attitudes and purchase intentions toward different types of comparative ads.
H3a: High-NFC consumers will perceive that verbal comparative ads provide more
information than visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads, while the opposite effects hold for low-NFC consumers.
H3b: High-NFC consumers will express more favorable attitudes to the sponsored brand
advertised via verbal comparative ads than via visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads, while the opposite effects hold for low-NFC consumers.
H3c: High-NFC consumers will express higher intentions to purchase the sponsored
brand advertised via verbal comparative ads than via visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads, while the opposite effects hold for low-NFC consumers.
H3d: High-NFC consumers will perceive a higher price to the sponsored brand advertised
9
Study 1
Method
Participants and design
A total of 120 male and female participants (66 male, 54 female; Mage = 26.16 years (range 16-52), SD = 5.66) participated in this field experiment. They were from all walks of life, including students, businessmen, and travelers. In addition, they were selected at public locations, including train station, train cabin, and University Library. Before the experimenter conducting the study, all participants were asked whether they were willing to participate in a printed advertisement experimental research voluntarily. Basically, participants were randomly assigned to one of conditions in a 2 (prior knowledge: extensive or limited) * 3 (type of ads: verbal comparative, visual comparative or noncomparative) between-participants factorial design, with 20 between-participants for each cell. The experiment lasted around 15 minutes from the beginning (the moment that the experimenter greeted the participants) to the end (the moment that the participants left).
Product
Single-Lens Reflex (SLR) camera was selected as a focal experimental product. Specs V10 as the fictitious brand and type served as the sponsored brand, while Canon as the market leader of SLR camera was selected as the comparison brand, with EOS 550D as the comparison product.
Procedure
10
Participants in the extensive prior knowledge condition read a sheet about a SLR camera, while participants in the limited prior knowledge condition read a sheet about a laptop. Both of the sheets were similarly structured and contained relevant definitions about the generic terms, without any information on brands. Then the experimenter instructed participants to understand the information on the sheets. Participants spent as much time as they needed to keep the information in mind. Besides, they were also informed that after reading the sheet they would finish an assessment form with a 4-item scale for the manipulation check of prior knowledge.
After submitting the assessment form, participants were randomly given one of three booklets containing four pages (appendix 2). All the booklets were in English, and each of them included the same content as each other, except the ad. The first page and the last page of all the booklets were blank. The second pages of all the booklets contained a same short introductory statement about the fictitious SLR camera and one type of ads. At the top of this page was the cover story that “Specs Inc. is a new and booming Japanese company, specializing in manufacturing image and optical products, including digital SLR camera. As you see now, shown below is Specs‟ first SLR camera – Specs V10. It will be available in the Europe market soon.” Below the statement was the printed ad about SLR camera, either verbal comparative, visual comparative or noncomparative. After reading the statement and viewing the ad, participants responded to a questionnaire (appendix 3) about Specs V10 on the third page. At the bottom of the questionnaire sheet participants filled in their age and gender.
Upon completing the questionnaire, participants were given a mood assessment form with a 4-item scale (appendix 4) for the confound check. After finishing the mood assessment, participants returned the booklets with all sheets to the experimenter. Finally, the experimenter appreciated participants‟ participation and help, and participants left.
Independent variables
Type of ads. To manipulate this independent variable, three advertisements were designed.
11
the headline described the topic of this ad, with a statement of „New SLR introduction -
Specs‟. Following the headline, three words, „Competent, Tough, Excellent’, emphasized the
personality of this fictitious brand, Specs (Aaker 1997). Below the highlights was the body text of this ad. The elements, including the attributes, logos, and graphs of two products, enjoyed identical sizes across the ad. The left part of body text accounted for Canon EOS 550D, while the right part represented Specs V10. All attributes were compared in a one-to-one format, with Specs superior to Canon on the five attributes (optical zoom, shutter speed, ISO equivalent, continuous shooting, and price). At the bottom of this ad, the brand name of Specs was re-informed, along with the strong argument of „Your Better Choice‟ to convince consumers.
The second one was visual comparative ad (appendix 6). In this advertisement, the highlights were exactly the same as that in the verbal one. In addition, all elements of two products shared identical sizes across the ad. However, the content of the body text was completely different than that in the verbal comparative ad. Specifically, two identical pictures (a piece of scenery of Santorini, Greece), as sample images of two SLR cameras, were presented in the ad. Importantly, neither the details nor the price about two cameras were mentioned in the ad. As to these two pictures, there were almost no differences in the quality of the image, which meant that the quality of the image from Specs V10 could reach a similar level with that of the image from Canon EOS 550D. Shown below the pictures were the images and types of two cameras, respectively. Finally, the brand name of Specs was re-informed, but the statement of „Handle Your World‟ was considered an affective cue.
12
Prior knowledge. To operationalize prior knowledge a procedure was employed adapted from
previous studies (e.g., Smith, Venkatraman, and Dholakia 1999; Wood and Lynch 2002). In the extensive knowledge condition, participants read a sheet with the definitions of eight attributes about Single-Lens Reflex (SLR) camera, including effective pixels, optical zoom, lens focal length, lens aperture, shutter speed, ISO equivalent, continuous shooting speed, and warranty. This booklet contained the specific definitions about all generic terms, such as “Effective pixels: the number of megapixels actually used to capture the image. It is a camera‟s image sensor resolution measured in millions of tiny dots (pixels). The higher the Effective Megapixels, the better the quality of image.”
In the limited knowledge condition, participants read an information sheet about the laptop, without any information on SLR camera. Eight generic terms were embodied in the sheet to determine the quality of a laptop, including processor, processor speed, display type, system memory, hard drive type, hard drive size, operating system, and warranty. Consistent with that of SLR camera, accurate definitions about these terms were also mentioned in this sheet, e.g. “System memory (RAM) is the memory a computer uses to run its operating system, applications and active data files. Greater amounts of RAM improve speed and enable more applications to run at once.”
Dependent variables
Prior knowledge. A four-item Likert scale derived from Smith and Park (1992) was used to
measure the extent of participants‟ agreement on their knowledge of the product (appendix 8). Cronbach‟s alpha for this four-item scale was 0.897.
The ratings of all other dependent variables were based on the semantic differential scale. Each item of the scale was anchored at 1 to 7 with 4 as the midpoint. For each dependent variable, a mean was created from the scores to represent the overall evaluation.
Ad informativeness. A two-item published scale (uninformative/informative, vague/precise)
13
Attitude to the sponsored brand (Abr). Brand attitude was measured through a six item scale (bad/good, dislikable/likable, unpleasant/pleasant, unfavorable/favorable, negative/positive, and poor quality/high quality) from Batra and Stayman (1990) (α = 0.922).
Purchase intention. A four-item established scale (unlikely/likely, improbably/probably,
uncertainly/certainly, and definitely not/definitely) was used to measure purchase likelihood of the sponsored brand (Bearden, Lichtenstein, and Teel 1984) (α = 0.949).
Perceived price. A statement of “how much do you think this Specs V10 camera costs?” was
applied to measure consumers‟ perceived price, which was an indicator of perceived quality and value (Zeithaml 1988).
Confounding variable
Mood. Mood was measured by creating a mean of a four-item scale (bad mood/good mood,
irritable/pleased, sad/happy, and depressed/cheerful) used previously (e.g. Barone, Miniard and Romeo 2000; Swinyard 1993). Each item was seven-point, anchored at 1 to 7. (α = 0.899).
Results
Manipulation check. A 2*3 ANOVA on the prior knowledge scores shows a significant main
effect of prior knowledge (F(1,114) = 110.3, p = 0.000). As expected, participants with extensive knowledge were more knowledgeable about the product (M = 4.49, SD = 0.93) than those with limited knowledge (M = 2.25, SD = 1.34). Neither the main effect of types of ad (F < 1) nor the interaction between these two factors is significant (F < 1). This suggests the success of manipulation of prior knowledge.
14
Table 1: Means and standard deviations on the mood index Level of knowledge
Types of ad Extensive knowledge Limited knowledge
Verbal comparative 5.59 (0.72) 5.23 (0.94)
Visual comparative 5.31 (0.89) 5.15 (1.29)
Noncomparative 5.69 (0.83) 5.53 (0.96)
Note: Mood scores represent the mean of four seven-point semantic differential scales anchored at 1 and 7. Standard deviations are in brackets.
Ad informativeness.A 2*3 ANOVA on the ad informativeness scores shows that although the main effect of prior knowledge is not significant (F < 1), a significant main effect of types of ad indicates that participants perceive that both verbal comparative ads (M = 5.60, SD = 1.10) and noncomparative ads provide more information (M = 5.58, SD = 0.76) than visual comparative ads (M = 2.86, SD = 1.62; F(2, 114) = 72.28, p = 0.000), which partially supports H1a. The expected interaction between these two factors is significant (F(2,114) = 6.08, p = 0.003; see Table 2), which partially supports H2a that participants with extensive knowledge will perceive that verbal comparative ads provide more information than visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads, while the opposite effects for participants with limited knowledge are rejected.
Table 2: Means and standard deviations on the ad informativeness index Level of knowledge
Types of ad Extensive knowledge Limited knowledge
Verbal comparative 6.08 (0.65) 5.13 (1.27)
Visual comparative 2.43 (1.31) 3.30 (1.81)
Noncomparative 5.60 (0.68) 5.55 (0.86)
Note: Ad informativeness scores represent the mean of two seven-point semantic differential scales anchored at 1 and 7. Standard deviations are in brackets.
15
(M = 3.92, SD = 1.08) and noncomparative ads (M = 4.73, SD = 0.65; F(2, 114) = 19.25, p = 0.000), which partially supports H1b. An interaction between these two factors is significant (F(2, 114) = 3.32, p = 0.040; see Figure 1). Additionally, the contrast tests reveal that under the extensive knowledge condition, all the differences are significant, which means that participants with extensive knowledge express more favorable attitudes to the sponsored brand advertised via verbal comparative ads than via visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads; however, under the limited knowledge condition, only the difference between Limited PK + Verbal Comp. and Limited PK + Visual Comp. is significant (see Table 3). Therefore, these results partially support H2b.
Figure 1: Means on the attitude to sponsored brand index from types of ad * PK interaction Attitude to the sponsored brand
3.3 3.8 4.3 4.8 5.3 Extensive PK Limited PK Verbal comparative ad Visual comparative ad Noncomparative ad
Note: Brand attitude scores represent the mean of six seven-point semantic differential scales anchored at 1 and 7. Standard deviations are in brackets.
Table 3: Contrast results of the Abr index from types of ad and PK interaction
Repeated contrast Difference Sig.
16
Purchase intention. A 2*3 ANOVA on the purchase intention scores shows that although the
main effect of prior knowledge is not significant (F < 1), a significant main effect of types of ad indicates that participants express higher intentions to purchase the sponsored brand advertised via verbal comparative ads (M = 4.26, SD = 1.19) than via visual comparative ads (M = 3.28, SD = 1.36) and noncomparative ads (M = 3.82, SD = 1.08; F(2, 114) = 6.94, p = 0.001), which partially supports H1c. An interaction between these two factors is significant (F(2, 114) = 4.97, p = 0.009; see Figure 2). Additionally, the contrast tests reveal that under the extensive knowledge condition, all the differences are significant, which means that participants with extensive knowledge express higher intentions to purchase the sponsored brand advertised via verbal comparative ads than via visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads; however, all the effects for participants with limited knowledge are not significant (see Table 4). Therefore, these results partially support H2c.
Figure 2: Means on the purchase intention index from types of ad * PK interaction Purchase intention 2.4 2.9 3.4 3.9 4.4 4.9 Extensive PK Limited PK Verbal comparative ad Visual comparative ad Noncomparative ad
17
Table 4: Contrast results of the purchase intention index from types of ad and PK interaction
Repeated contrast Difference Sig.
Extensive PK + Verbal Comp. vs. Extensive PK + Visual Comp. 1.813 0.000 Extensive PK + Visual Comp. vs. Extensive PK + NonComp. -0.987 0.009 Extensive PK + Verbal Comp. vs. Extensive PK + NonComp. 0.825 0.029 Limited PK + Verbal Comp. vs. Limited PK + Visual Comp. 0.150 0.688 Limited PK + Visual Comp. vs. Limited PK + NonComp. -0.100 0.789 Limited PK + Verbal Comp. vs. Limited PK + NonComp. 0.050 0.894
Perceived price. A 2*3 ANOVA on the perceived price scores shows that the main effects of
prior knowledge (F < 1) and types of ad are not significant (F < 1), which rejects H1d. The interaction effect between these two factors is also not significant (F(2, 114) = 1.06, ns), which rejects H2d.
Discussion
18
Study 2
Method
Participants and design
A total of 120 male and female participants (64 male, 56 female; Mage = 25.84 years (range 17-49), SD = 5.17) participated in the Study 2. Different from Study 1, an internet-based study was applied in the Study 2. Participants in this study were selected online through emails. In general, participants were randomly assigned to one of conditions in a 2 (NFC: high or low) * 3 (type of ads: verbal comparative, visual comparative or noncomparative) between-participants factorial design, with 20 participants for each cell. Like Study 1, Study 2 also lasted 15 minutes throughout the entire experiment.
Product
Study 2 employed the same product, attributes of product and brands as in the Study 1.
Procedure
Similar to Study 1, the experimenter greeted and specified the purpose of the study to consumers. Also, participants who were willing to participate in the experiment were regarded as participants.
Different with Study 1, participants were directly randomized to one of three booklets rather than any other sheets online. All three booklets and their contents were the same as those in Study 1. Following, participants also finished a questionnaire about their responses in the third page of the booklet and filled in age and gender, like in the Study 1.
In addition, upon completing the questionnaire, participants in this study were given a sheet about 18-item NFC scale (appendix 9) to measure individual difference, consistent with the procedure in Haugtvedt and Petty (1992). After completing the questionnaire, a mood assessment form was also applied to the participants for the confound check.
19
Independent variables
Type of ads. All three advertisements were the same as those in the Study 1.
Dependent variables
The items in the scales and the measurements of four dependent variables were the same as those in the Study 1, except the scale reliability (Cronbach alpha).
Ad informativeness. Ad informativeness from participants‟ perception was measured through
a two-item scale (α = 0.885).
Attitude to the sponsored brand (Abr). Brand attitude was measured through a six-item scale
(α = 0.892).
Purchase intention. Purchase likelihood of the sponsored brand was measured through a
four-item scale (α = 0.915).
Perceived price. A statement of “how much do you think this Specs V10 camera costs?” was
applied to measure consumers‟ perceived price and value.
Individual difference variable
Need for cognition. The frequently cited, 18-item NFC Likert-scale (Cacioppo, Petty,
Feinstein, and Jarvis 1996) was used to examine the participants‟ propensity to enjoy effortful thinking. The scale was anchored at 1 (extremely uncharacteristic of me) to 7 (extremely characteristic of me). All scores on NFC were summed by reversing the score of negatively stated items (α = 0.857). Then, a conventional median split (median = 4.50) was used to divide participants into high- or low-NFC groups. The group with rating above the median was high-NFC one, while the group with rating below the median was low-NFC one (Mhigh = 5.10, Mlow = 3.87).
Confounding variable
20
Results
Confound check. A 2*3 ANOVA on the mood scores shows that the main effects of NFC (F
< 1) and types of ad are not significant (F(2, 114) = 2.30, ns). The interaction effect between these two factors is also not significant (F(2,114) = 1.79, ns; see Table 5). These results suggest that participants‟ mood cannot account for any findings.
Table 5: Means and standard deviations on the mood index Level of NFC
Types of ad High NFC Low NFC
Verbal comparative 5.27 (0.69) 5.55 (1.20)
Visual comparative 5.24 (0.86) 5.21 (0.53)
Noncomparative 5.86 (0.56) 5.41 (1.09)
Note: Mood scores represent the mean of four seven-point semantic differential scales anchored at 1 and 7. Standard deviations are in brackets.
Ad informativeness. An 2*3 ANOVA on the ad informativeness scores shows that the main effect of types of ad is significant that participants perceive that both verbal comparative ads (M = 5.49, SD = 1.11) and noncomparative ads (M = 5.10, SD = 1.06) provide more information than visual comparative ads (M = 3.01, SD = 1.48; F(2, 114) = 46.29, p = 0.000), which partially supports H1a. Neither the main effect of NFC (F < 1) nor the interaction between these two factors is significant (F < 1; see Table 6), which rejects H3a.
Table 6: Means and standard deviations on the ad informativeness index Level of NFC
Types of ad High NFC Low NFC
Verbal comparative 5.73 (0.55) 5.25 (1.45)
Visual comparative 3.03 (1.78) 3.00 (1.15)
Noncomparative 5.18 (0.77) 5.02 (1.31)
Note: Ad informativeness scores represent the mean of two seven-point semantic differential scales anchored at 1 and 7. Standard deviations are in brackets.
21
comparative ads (M = 4.81, SD = 0.98) than via visual comparative ads (M = 4.30, SD = 0.96) and noncomparative ads (M = 4.65, SD = 0.76; F(2, 114) = 3.84, p = 0.024), which partially supports H1b. An interaction between these two factors is significant (F(2, 114) = 10.45, p = 0.000; see Figure 4). High-NFC participants express more favorable attitudes to the sponsored brand advertised via verbal comparative ads than via visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads. At first glance, the opposite effects hold for low-NFC participants. However, the contrast tests reveal that the differences of high-NFC participants are significant, while the effects of low-NFC participants are not significant (see Table 7). Therefore, these results partially support H3b.
Figure 3: Means on the Abr index from types of ad * NFC interaction Attitude to the sponsored brand
3.6 4 4.4 4.8 5.2 High NFC Low NFC Verbal comparative ad Visual comparative ad Noncomparative ad
Note: Brand attitude scores represent the mean of six seven-point semantic differential scales anchored at 1 and 7. Standard deviations are in brackets.
Table 7: Contrast results of the purchase intention index from types of ad and PK interaction
Repeated contrast Difference Sig.
22
Purchase intention. A 2*3 ANOVA on the purchase intention scores shows that although the
main effect of NFC is not significant (F < 1), a significant main effect of types of ad indicates that participants express higher intentions to purchase the sponsored brand advertised via verbal comparative ads (M = 3.88, SD = 1.10) than via visual comparative ads (M= 3.25, SD = 1.10) and noncomparative ads (M = 3.68, SD = 1.15; F(2, 114) = 3.77, p = 0.026), which partially supports H1c. An interaction between these two factors is significant (F(2, 114) = 8.73, p = 0.000; see Figure 5). High-NFC participants express higher intentions to purchase the sponsored brand advertised via verbal comparative ads than via visual comparative ads and noncomparative ad. At first glance, the opposite effects hold for low-NFC participants. However, the contrast tests reveal that the differences of high-NFC participants are significant, while the effects of low-NFC participants are not significant (see Table 8). Therefore, these results partially support H3c.
Figure 4: Means on the purchase intention index from types of ad * NFC interaction Purchase intention 2.4 2.9 3.4 3.9 4.4 High NFC Low NFC Verbal comparative ad Visual comparative ad Noncomparative ad
23
Table 8: Contrast results of the purchase intention index from types of ad and PK interaction
Repeated contrast Difference Sig.
Extensive PK + Verbal Comp. vs. Extensive PK + Visual Comp. 1.613 0.000 Extensive PK + Visual Comp. vs. Extensive PK + NonComp. -0.950 0.005 Extensive PK + Verbal Comp. vs. Extensive PK + NonComp. 0.663 0.049 Limited PK + Verbal Comp. vs. Limited PK + Visual Comp. -0.350 0.294 Limited PK + Visual Comp. vs. Limited PK + NonComp. 0.088 0.793 Limited PK + Verbal Comp. vs. Limited PK + NonComp. -0.262 0.431
Perceived price. A 2*3 ANOVA on the perceived price scores shows that the main effects of
NFC (F(1, 114) = 1.73, ns) and types of ad are not significant (F(2, 114) = 2.16, ns), which rejects H1d. The interaction effect between these two factors is also not significant (F < 1), which rejects H3d.
Discussion
24
General Discussion
The present research mainly focuses on studying the moderating roles of prior knowledge and need for on the different types of advertisement. Two experiments were conducted to respectively analyze these two moderating effects.
In general, both two studies find that consumers perceive that verbal comparative ads are more informative than visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads, that consumers will express more favorable attitudes and higher purchase intentions to the sponsored brand advertised via verbal comparative ads than via visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads, and that the effects of types of ad on the perceived price are rejected.
Study 1 finds that consumers with extensive knowledge will perceive that verbal comparative ads provide more information than visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads, while the opposite effects for participants with limited knowledge are rejected. In addition, Study 1 finds that consumers with extensive knowledge will express more favorable attitudes and higher purchase intentions to the sponsored brand advertised via verbal comparative ads than via visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads, while the opposite effects for consumers with limited knowledge are rejected. This is possibly because single-lens reflex camera is a high-involved product. Although the effect is not significant, consumers tend to perceive a higher price to the sponsored brand advertised via verbal comparative ads than via other two types.
Study 2 reveals that consumers‟ level of NFC has no influence on their perceptions of ad informativeness. Additionally, Study 2 reveals that high-NFC consumers will express more favorable attitudes and higher purchase intentions to the sponsored brand advertised via verbal comparative ads than via visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads, while the opposite effects for low-NFC consumers are rejected. Finally, Study 2 does not find any significant effects of types of ad on consumers‟ perceptions of price.
25
and Monroe 1988; Roehm and Sternthal 2001) and NFC (e.g. Haugtvedt, Petty, and Cacioppo 1992; McKay-Nesbitt et al. 2011) on the general comparative ads and noncomparative ads. However, this research suggests that different types of comparative ads also have significantly different effects on the consumer responses. For example, ads in verbal comparison can strongly exert more positive effects on consumers with extensive knowledge or high NFC consumers. Furthermore, previous studies mainly focused on the effects of verbal contents (rational appeals) and pictorial contents (emotional appeals) in an individual ad. However, this paper extends to the complete verbal comparative ads and visual comparative ads rather than just several messages in the ads. Therefore, this study provides insights and taps a new area to test whether verbal comparative ads really are more effective to persuade consumers than visual comparative ads and noncomparative ads.
26
The present research also contains several limitations. First, the selected product – single-lens reflex camera – is a high-involved product rather than low-involved product, which shows that consumers cannot easily express the actual attitudes and purchase intentions when they are exposed to visual comparative ads without gathering enough information about the price and attributes of the camera. Second, the quality of the messages in three ads is not measured. It is possible that the messages in the visual comparative ad are in a low quality, which leads to the lower effectiveness of visual comparative ad than that of other two types.
27
Reference
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 34 (August), 347-356.
Barone, Michael J., Paul W. Miniard, and Jean B. Romeo (2000), “The Influence of Positive Mood on Brand Extension Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (March), 386-400.
Batra, Rajeev and Douglas M. Stayman (1990), “The Role of Mood in Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17(September), 203-214.
Bearden, William O., Donald R. Lichtenstein, and Jesse E. Teel (1984), “Comparison Price, Coupon, and Brand Effects on Consumer Reactions to Retail Newspaper Advertisements,” Journal of Retailing, 60 (2), 11-34.
Belch, George E. (1981), “An Examination of Comparative and Noncomparative Television Commercials: The effects of Claim Variation and Repetition on Cognitive Response and Message Acceptance,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 333-349.
Bitta, Albert J. Della, Kent B. Monroe, and John M. McGinnis (1981), “Consumer Perceptions of Comparative Price Advertisements,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (November), 416-427.
Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty (1982), “The Need for Cognition,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (January), 116-131.
---, ---, Jeffrey A. Feinstein, and W. Blair G. Jarvis (1996), “Dispositional Differences in Cognitive Motivation: The Life and Times of Individual Varying in Need for Cognition,” Psychology Bulletin, 119 (March), 197-253.
Demirdjian, Z.S. (1983), “Sales Effectiveness of Comparative Advertising: An Experimental Field Investigation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (December), 362-364.
28
Droge, Cornelia (1989), “Shaping the Route to Attitude Change: Central Versus Peripheral Processing Through Comparative versus Noncomparative Advertising,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 26 (May), 193-204.
--- and Rene Y. Darmon (1987), “Associative Positioning Strategies through Comparative Advertising: Attribute versus Overall Similarity Approaches,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 24 (November), 377-388.
Fennis, Bob M. and Wolfgang Stroebe (2010), The Psychology of Advertising, Psychology Press.
Goodwin, Stephen and Michael Etgar (1980), “An Experimental Investigation of Comparative Advertising: Impact of Message Appeal, Information Load, and Utility of Product Class,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (May), 187-202.
Gorn, Gerald J. and Charles B. Weinberg (1984), “The Impact of Comparative Advertising on Perception and Attitude: Some Positive Findings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (September), 719-727.
Grewal, Dhruv, Sukumar Kavanoor, Edward F. Fern, Carolyn Costley, and James Barnes (1997), “Comparative versus Noncomparative Advertising: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal
of Marketing, 64 (October), 1-15.
Haddock, Geoffrey, Gregory R. Maio, Karin Arnold, and Thomas Huskinson (2008), “Should Persuasion Be Affective or Cognitive? The Moderating Effects of Need for Affect and Need for Cognition,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (June), 769-778. Haugtvedt, Curtis P. and Richard E. Petty (1992), “Personality and Persuasion: Need for
Cognition Moderates the Persistence and Resistance of Attitude Changes,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (August), 308-319.
---, ---, and John T. Cacioppo (1992), “Need for Cognition and Advertising: Understanding the Role of Personality Variables in Consumer Behavior,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 1 (3), 239-260.
29
Iyer, Easwar S. (1988), “The Influence of Verbal Content and Relative Newness on the Effectiveness of Comparative Advertisements,” Journal of Advertising, 17 (September), 15-21.
Janiszewski, Chris (1990), “The Influence of Print Advertisement Organization on Affect toward a Brand Name,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (June), 53-65.
Lavidge, Robert J. and Gary Steiner (1961), “A Model of Predictive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Marketing, 25 (October), 59-62.
Levine, Philip (1976), “Commercials That Name Competing Brands,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 16 (December), 7-14.
Maheswaran, Durairaj (1994), “Country of Origin as a Stereotype: Effects of Consumer Expertise and Attribute Strength on Product Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 21 (September), 354-365.
--- and Brian Sternthal (1990), “The Effects of Knowledge, Motivation, and Type of Message on Ad Processing and Product Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (June), 66-73.
Mazis, Michael B. (1976), “A Theoretical and Empirical Examination of Comparative Advertising,” working paper, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Miniard, Paul W., Randall L. Rose, Michael J. Barone, and Kenneth C. Manning (1993), “On the Need for Relative Measures When Assessing Comparative Advertising Effects,”
Journal of Advertising, 22 (September), 41-57.
McKay-Nesbitt, Jane, Rajesh V. Manchanda, Malcolm C. Smith, and Bruce A. Huhmann (2011), “Effects of Age, Need for Cognition, and Affective Intensity on Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Business Research, 64 (January), 12-17.
McQuarrie, Edward F. and David Glen Mick (1996), “Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (May), 424-438.
30
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and
Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, New York: Springer.
---, ---, and Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” 10 (September), 135-146.
Phillips, Barbara J. (2000), “The Impact of Verbal Anchoring on Consumer Response to Image Ads,” Journal of Advertising, 29 (Spring), 15-24.
Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1988), “The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 253-264.
Roehm, Michelle L. and Brian Sternthal (2001), “The Moderating Effect of Knowledge and Resources on the Persuasive Impact of Analogies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (September), 257-272.
Ruiz, Salvador and Maria Sicilia (2004), “The Impact of Cognitive and/or Affective Processing Styles on Consumer Responses to Advertising Appeals,” Journal of Business
Research, 57 (June), 657-664.
Shimp, Terence A. and David C. Dyer (1978), “The Effects of Comparative Advertising Mediated by Market Position Sponsoring Brand,” Journal of Advertising, 3 (Summer), 13-19.
Smith, Daniel C. and C. Whan Park (1992), “The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 296-313.
Smith, Gerald E., Meera P. Venkatraman, and Ruby Roy Dholakia (1999), “Diagnosing the Search Cost Effect: Waiting Time and the Moderating Impact of Prior knowledge,”
Journal of Economic Psychology, 20 (June), 285-314.
Stafford, Marla Royne (1996), “Tangibility in Service Advertising: An Investigation of Verbal versus Visual Cues,” Journal of Advertising, 25 (Autumn), 13-28.
31
Swinyard, William R. (1993), “The Effects of Mood, Involvement, and Quality of Store Experience on Shopping Intentions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (September), 271-280.
Thompson, Debora V. and Rebecca W. Hamilton (2006), “The Effects of Information Processing Mode on Consumers‟ Responses to Comparative Advertising,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 32 (March), 530-540.
Venkatraman, Meera P., Deborah Marlino, Frank R. Kardes, and Kimberly B. Sklar (1990), “The Interactive Effects of Message Appeal and Individual Differences on Information Processing and Persuasion,” Psychology & Marketing, 7 (Summer), 85-96.
Walker, Beth, Richard Celsi, and Jerry Olson (1987), “Exploring the Structural Characteristics of Consumers‟ Knowledge,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, eds. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 17-21.
Wilkie, William L. and Paul W. Farris (1975), “Comparison Advertising: Problems and Potential,” Journal of Marketing, 39 (October), 7-15.
Wilson, R. Dale and Aydin Muderrisoglu (1980), “An Analysis of Cognitive Responses to Comparative Advertising,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, Jerry C. Olson, ed. San Francisco, CA: Association for Consumer Research, 566-571.
Wood, Stacy L. and John G. Lynch, Jr. (2002), “Prior Knowledge and Complacency in New Product Learning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (December), 416-426.
32
Appendix
Appendix 1
Generic Terms for SLR camera
Single-lens reflex (SLR) camera: a camera that typically uses a semi-automatic moving mirror system that permits the photographer to see exactly what will be captured by the digital imaging system.
N.B. Shown below are the key attributes to determine the quality of a SLR camera.
Effective pixels: the number of megapixels actually used to capture the image. It is a camera‟s image sensor resolution measured in millions of tiny dots (pixels). The higher the Effective Megapixels, the better the quality of image. e.g. 16 Megapixels
Optical zoom: lens‟ true zoom capability. The lens does the work by reducing or enlarging the field of view. The greater the optical zoom, the closer you can get to the subject you are shooting. e.g. 7x, 7.5x, etc
Lens features: focal length (millimeter): a measure of how strongly an optical system converges or diverges light. The larger the focal length, the larger your subject will appear;
e.g. 18-55mm. lens aperture: specified as f-number, the ratio of focal length to effective
aperture diameter. The common variable aperture range in a consumer zoom lens is f/3.5 to
f/5.6.
Shutter speed: the rate (measured in fractions of a second) at which a camera shutter opens and closes to capture an image. Slow shutter speeds are used for low-light conditions, while faster speeds are best for action shots.
ISO equivalent: measurement of a digital camera‟s light sensitivity. The higher the ISO, the clearer the image in low-light conditions will be. e.g. ISO 6400
Continuous shooting speed: also defined as frames per second (fps). The number of pictures can be taken in just one second. e.g. 3 fps
33
Generic Terms for laptop
Laptop (also called portable or notebook computer): a battery- or AC-powered personal computer generally smaller than a briefcase that can easily be transported and conveniently used in different environments.
N.B. Shown below are the key attributes to determine the quality of a laptop.
Processor: (Also known as the CPU) the part of the computer that interprets and executes instructions. Two most popular brands: Intel and AMD.
Processor speed: It means how fast a computer processor carries out instructions. In general, faster is better, but processor speeds across brands may not be equivalent (e.g., a 3.0GHz AMD processor may not be the same speed as a 3.0GHz Intel processor).
Display type: Technology used to display text and images on the screen. The most common display type for laptops is LCD (flat-panel liquid crystal displays).
System memory: The memory a computer uses to run its operating system, applications and active data files. Greater amounts of RAM improve speed and enable more applications to run at once.
Hard drive type: Hard drives are classified based on the interface they use to connect to a computer. Common interfaces for internal hard drives include EIDE, PATA, and SATA; common interfaces for external hard drives include USB 2.0.
Hard drive size: Capacity for storing programs, photos, video, music and other electronic information. The higher capacity, the more documents can be stored.
34
36
Appendix 3
Questionnaire
Please rate the informativeness of this advertisement.
uninformative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 informative
vague 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 precise
Please rate your attitude to the sponsored brand (Specs).
bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 good
dislikable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 likable
unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pleasant
unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 favorable
negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 positive
low quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 high quality
Please rate your intention to buy this sponsored brand (Specs), if you would like to buy a SLR camera in the future.
unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 likely
improbably 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 probably
uncertainly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 certainly
definitely not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 definitely
How much do you think this Specs V10 camera costs? €_________.
37
Appendix 4
Mood assessment
Please rate your current mood.
bad mood 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 good mood
irritable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pleased
sad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 happy
38
39
40
41
Appendix 8
Knowledge assessment
Instructions: For each of the statements below, please indicate to what extent you agree with the statement. If you strongly disagree with the statement, please choose a “1” in the right of the question; if you strongly agree with the statement, please choose a “7” next to the question; if you neither strongly agree nor disagree with the statement, please choose the number in the middle of the scale that describes the best fit. Please keep the following scale in mind as you rate each of the statements below: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = slightly disagree; 4 = neutral; 5= slightly agree; 6 = agree; 7 = strongly agree.
1. I feel knowledgeable about single-lens reflex (SLR) camera.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. If a friend asked me about SLR camera, I could give them advice about the attributes of SLR camera.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. If I had to purchase SLR camera today, I would need to gather little information in order to make a wise decision.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I feel confident about my ability to tell the difference in quality among different brands of SLR camera.
42
Appendix 9
Need for cognition
Instructions: For each of the statements below, please indicate to what extent the statement is characteristic of you. If the statement is extremely uncharacteristic of you (not at all like you), please choose a “1” in the right of the question; if the statement is extremely characteristic of you (very much like you) please choose a “7” next to the question. If a statement is neither extremely uncharacteristic nor extremely characteristic of you, please choose the number in the middle of the scale that describes the best fit. Please keep the following scale in mind as you rate each of the statements below: 1 = extremely uncharacteristic; 2= uncharacteristic; 3 = slightly uncharacteristic; 4 = uncertain; 5= slightly characteristic; 6 = characteristic; 7 = extremely characteristic.
1. I would prefer complex to simple problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires
a lot of thinking.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Thinking is not my idea of fun. a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities. a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is a likely chance
I will have to think in depth about something. a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. I only think as hard as I have to. a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones. a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. I like tasks that require little thought once I have learned them. a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to
me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to
problems.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Learning new ways to think does not excite me very much. a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. I would refer a task that is intellectual, difficult, and important to
one that is somewhat important but does not require much thought.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that
required a lot of mental effort. a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. It is enough for me that something gets the job done; I do not care
how or why it works. a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not
affect me personally.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a
