Memory without Recall, Exposure without Perception

Krugman, Herbert E.

doi:10.2501/jar-40-6-49-54

Cited by 98 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because recognition is known to be a better measure for memory than recall especially when people are in a very low involvement situation (e.g. processing an Internet banner ad) (Krugman, 2000), recognition was chosen to measure memory in this study. As a recognition measure, participants were asked to choose one brand they thought they were exposed during online news reading from four choices provided.…”

Section: Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of repetition in Internet banner ads and the moderating role of animation

Lee¹,

Ahn

Park

2015

Computers in Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of repetition in Internet banner ads and the moderating role of animation

Lee¹,

Ahn

Park

2015

Computers in Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Since this preliminary yet seminal model, a myriad of other models have been proposed. Perhaps the two most influential (as measured by their appearance in standard textbooks on advertising management and before the Elaboration Likelihood Model was developed) were the Hierarchical Learning Model (a Think -Feel -Do model, see Lavidge & Steiner 1961) and the Low Involvement Model (a Think -Do -Feel Model, see Krugman 1965Krugman , 1977) -referred to by Jones (1990) as the strong and weak theories of advertising. Yet countless other models also arose, so that by the 1970s the field of persuasion was often characterized as replete with conflicting theoretical models and empirical findings, and lacking any coherent, unifying theory (Bagozzi et al 2002:107).…”

Section: The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Elm)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cue Management: Using Fitness Cues to Enhance Advertising Effectiveness

Vyncke

2011

Evolutionary Psychology in the Business Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current thinking on advertising processing highly parallels contemporary psychological theory and research revealing that there are two distinct brain systems at work in human information processing and decision making: System 1 (S1, evolutionarily old, unconscious/preconscious, automatic, fast, and intuitive) and System 2 (S2, evolutionarily recent, conscious, controlled, slow, and reflective). Indeed, state-of-the-art models of advertising processing equally distinguish two different persuasive routes: one in which the consumer focuses on the content of the ad (product/brand attribute information) and in which he/she engages in extensive and mostly conscious, elaborated information processing (S2), and one in which she/he processes the ad only superficially, quickly and quasiautomatically in terms of a handful of meaningful "cues" (S1). Regarding S2 advertising processing, means-end-chain theory has been developed as a sound theoretical framework that can guide the advertising manager in designing advertising campaigns. However, regarding S1 advertising processing the question remains: What constitutes a meaningful cue?In this paper, I will argue that both the idea of evolutionary old brain systems like the S1 systems (evolved "mental organs") and the idea of cues activating those systems ("fitness cues") are central to evolutionary psychology. Therefore this new science of the mind can provide a framework for cue management. I will also present the results of a large scale experiment investigating the impact these fitness cues can have on ad-likeability scores (as indicators of the advertising effectiveness to be expected). My findings highly support the validity and practical usefulness of the new insights provided by evolutionary psychology.My conclusion then is a suggestion for cue management to be developed as a new and legitimate form of advertising management based on evolutionary psychology.

show abstract

“…In contrast, when the brand choice occurs at home, where most existing alternatives are not available, the consumer may need a higher recall level to access the information stored in memory (Bettman, 1979). Finally, in low involvement contexts or for low involvement convenience goods (as in the experimental manipulation), recognition is more relevant than recall with regard to memory effects (Krugman, 1977;Bettman, 1979;Kent and Allen, 1993). Consequently, we operationalize memory with recognition.…”

Section: Measures Of Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Competitive advertising within store flyers: A win–win strategy?

Chaabane

Sabri²,

Parguel

2010

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the effect of competitive advertising within store flyers on both manufacturers and retailers. Prior research implies that competitive advertising may be detrimental for manufacturers and beneficial for retailers. Findings from an intersubject experiment that uses various familiar and unfamiliar competing brands confirm that store flyers' competitive advertising improves consumers' perceptions of the variety of the retailer's assortment, which has a positive impact on intentions to visit the store and buy.However, increasing the number of competing brands does not harm manufacturers; rather, it enhances recognition of brands, especially for well-known brands. This article concludes with a discussion of the theoretical and managerial implications of these findings for the design of store flyers.

show abstract

Memory without Recall, Exposure without Perception

Cited by 98 publications

References 0 publications

The effect of repetition in Internet banner ads and the moderating role of animation

The effect of repetition in Internet banner ads and the moderating role of animation

Cue Management: Using Fitness Cues to Enhance Advertising Effectiveness

Competitive advertising within store flyers: A win–win strategy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About