Monitoring Communication Effects: A Cognitive Structure/Cognitive Response Approach

The Comparative Statics and Dynamics of Beliefs: The Effect of Message Discrepancy and Source Credibility

“…He found that as message discrepancy increased, the number of counterarguments increased. Similarly, Toy (1982) found that as message discrepancy increased, the number of counterarguments linearly increased and the number of supportive arguments linearly decreased. These counterarguments are expected to induce belief change back toward the receiver's initial position.…”

“…The model suggested that, after message receipt, belief change increases monotonically with a decreasing rate of change. Laroche's (1977) nonlinear mathematical model provided a functional form for the effect of message (Brock, 1967;Cook, 1969;Toy, 1982) suggested that messages that are highly discrepant cause beliefs initially to move in one direction and then to move back toward the initial position, thus creating nonmonotonicity of belief change with respect to time. This push-with-pullback model was tested.…”

Influence of Involvement, Commitment and Familiarity on Brand Beliefs and Attitudes of Viewers Exposed to Alternative Ad Claim Strategies

“…Attempts to model and monitor persuasive communication effects have progressed beyond the traditional approach, where only attitude (A) and/or behavioral intention (BI) measures were taken, to monitoring cognitive variables that presumably mediate attitude and intention formation and change. Toy's (1982) cognitive-structure model captures the essence of the expectancy-value view in a communications context:…”

“…This study seeks to develop and test alternative models of the impact of Widely used ad claim strategies (i.e., subjective-only vs. objective with subjective). The models integrate Lastovicka and Gardner's (1979) multicomponent view of involvement (i.e., enduring involvement, commitment, and familiarity) with Toy's (1982) cognitive structure model and Cohen's (1982) nonanalytic and analytic learning perspective.…”

Cognitive segmentation: Modeling the structure and content of customers' thoughts

“…The latter indicate how strongly an object is believed to possess some attributes (e.g., Bass & Wilkie, 1973;Beckwith & Lehmann, 1976;Bettman, Capon, & Lutz, 1975), whereas the former indicates the degree of cognitive isomorphism with a semantic standard (i.e., reference statements). In addition, in multi-attribute modeling, attributes are common for all the respondents (e.g., Bettman, Capon, & Lutz, 1975;Lutz, 1986;Toy, 1975;Wilkie & Pessemier, 1973), and they represent properties of the evaluated object (e.g., Meyer & Sathi, 1985;Srinivasan, 1979). On the other hand, the aggregated view of cognitive segmentation is linked to an array of personalized PCs for each respondent, which encompasses both attribute-based and holistic (i.e., personal meaning) cognitive dimensions.…”