The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement

Krugman, Herbert E.

doi:10.1086/267335

Cited by 1,170 publications

(568 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

455

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The involvement construct was introduced by Krugman (1962Krugman ( , 1965 as a term from consumer psychology and has been acknowledged as an important factor in understanding and explaining consumer behavior (Celuch & Taylor, 1999). Based on existing definitions (Krugman 1966;Mittal, 1995;Zaichkowsky, 1985) involvement refers to the perceived importance or relevance of a person to an object/stimulus, which is based on the person's personal needs, values, and interests.…”

Section: Involvement Wine and Wine Tourismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Segmenting Wine Tourists on the Basis of Involvement with Wine

Nella¹,

Christou²

2014

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. As involvement with wine may vary significantly among wine consumers and wine tourists, segmentation based on product involvement seems to be a reasonable choice. A multinational sample of 517 winery visitors is divided into three groups of low, medium, and high involvement levels; similarities and differences are examined. Results confirm that it is meaningful to segment winery visitors on the basis of their involvement with wine, as important differences can be identified in terms of visitation motives and patterns, demographic characteristics, relationship with wine, previsit attitudes towards the winery, evaluation of the winery experience, post-visit attitudes, and future behavioral intentions. Management and marketing implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Involvement Wine and Wine Tourismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Segmenting Wine Tourists on the Basis of Involvement with Wine

Nella¹,

Christou²

2014

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In retail contexts, Chandon et al (2007Chandon et al ( , 2009) suggest the use of eye movements as an indicator of attention as they are sensitive and objective. In general, physiological response measures (Krugman 1965) such as eye-tracking procedures are a reliable and objective measurement of visual attention (Christianson et al 1991;Deubel and Schneider 1996;Krugman et al 1994;Rosbergen, Pieters, and Wedel 1997;Tsal and Lavie 1993;van der Heijden 1992;Wedel and Pieters 2000). Research in neurology supports the link between attention and eye movements (Kustov and Robinson 1996;Mohler and Wurtz 1976).…”

Section: Visual Attention Centrality and Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

Shining in the Center: Central Gaze Cascade Effect on Product Choice

Atalay¹,

Bodur²,

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Consumers' tendency to choose the option in the center of an array and the process underlying this effect is explored. Findings from two eye-tracking studies suggest that brands in the horizontal center receive more visual attention. They are more likely to be chosen. Investigation of the attention process revealed an initial central fixation bias, a tendency to look first at the central option, and a central gaze cascade effect, progressively increasing attention focused on the central option right prior to decision. Only the central gaze cascade effect was related to choice. An offline study with tangible products demonstrated that the centrally located item within a product category is chosen more often, even when it is not placed in the center of the visual field. Despite widespread use, memory-based attention measures were not correlated with eye-tracking measures. They did not capture visual attention and were not related to choice. The University of Chicago Press

show abstract

“…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

The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement

Cited by 1,170 publications

References 0 publications

Segmenting Wine Tourists on the Basis of Involvement with Wine

Segmenting Wine Tourists on the Basis of Involvement with Wine

Shining in the Center: Central Gaze Cascade Effect on Product Choice

Cue Management: Using Fitness Cues to Enhance Advertising Effectiveness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About