sentimentos e emoções na comunicação publicidade

8/17/2019 Sentimentos e Emoções Na Comunicação Publicidade

1/11


2/11

Feelings, on the contrary, are those conscious and cognitive perceptions we use to describe our more primitive non-cognitive emotional control of what we do. We may talk about feelings of sadness, jealousy, happiness, etc. Suchfeelings are much more detailed in nature than emotions andthey can be described verbally in more or less precise terms

by the individual experiencing such feelings. In the paper,we shall review some of the findings relating to emotions aswell as to feelings and look into the possibilities of gaininginsight about emotional response potentials from measure-ments of feelings.

2. Alternative information processing and other ways of handling incoming information

Cognitive psychology has dominated the consumer behaviour researchers’ study of information and information processing since the middle of the century. Early contribu-tions are Hovland et al. (1953) , Rogers (1962/1995) , Hansen(1976) , Fishbein (1966) , McGuire (1976) and Bettman(1979) . Fig. 1 summarizes some of the major models of thiskind. The classical AIDA formulation goes back to the endof the 19th century and is explicitly formulated by Copeland(1925) . The hierarchy of effects model is most convincingly presented by McGuire (1976) or W7 rneryd (1959). TheDefined Advertising Goal for Measured Advertising Results(DAGMAR) model is presented by Colley (1961) on behalf of the Advertising Research Foundation and the product adoption model represents Rogers’ (1962/1995) integrationof a wealth of research to explain the way in which new

products and ideas are accepted among consumers.Different researchers offer a number of observations that

are difficult to interpret in terms of the cognitive effect hierarchy way of thinking ( Hansen, 1976 ). Picture percep-tion has been studied by psychologists and Nickerson

(1968) presents highly relevant findings for our purpose.Imagine an experiment where you show 200 pictures for 2 seach to an audience of 200 (often undergraduate students).On the following day, you do the same; only this time, youinclude 200 new pictures to make a total of 400 pictures.Following the exposure of each picture, you ask a question

to test if people can recognise the pictures from the day before. The overall observation in such an experiment is that 95–100% of the stimuli presented on the first day arerecognised. The research has gone on to look into how suchrecognition persists over time, the role of the length of theexposure time, the nature of the pictures presented, and themotivation of the subjects in the audience. Provided 2 s areallowed for exposure (or 1 s for exposure and 1 s for undisturbed information processing before the next expo-sure), the recognition process is extremely efficient anddocuments an enormous capacity for storing of suchinformation in the brain. This information storage is not limited to short- or medium-term memory and may persist for years.

Another line of research has been reported by Zajonc(1968) . Here, the purpose was to study how the evaluationof items, to which subjects is exposed, increase with thenumber of exposures. In a classic study, Chinese charactersand nonsense words have been used. The experimentaldesign is simple. On the first day, you show a sequence of,for instance, Chinese characters, but you control your stimuli so that some of the characters are shown 1, 2, 5,10, or even 25 times. The following day, you ask the samerespondents what they think the meaning is of the different Chinese characters in terms of being more or less positive.

Findings from such studies have shown a clear d

mereexposure T hypothesis.

Mere exposure improves evaluation in many situations, but, of course, limits exist. If the words are not nonsensewords, but rather meaningful ones, such as names of known

Fig. 1. Information-processing models used in testing of communication.

F. Hansen / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 1426–1436 1427


3/11


4/11

b We have outlined two basic routes to persuasion. One routeis based on the thoughtful (though sometimes biased)consideration of arguments central to the issue, whereasthe other is based on affective associations or simpleinferences tied to the peripheral cues in the persuasioncontext. When variables in the persuasion situation render the elaboration likelihood high, the first kind of persuasionoccurs (central route). When variables in the persuasionsituation render the elaboration likelihood low, the secondkind of persuasion occurs (peripheral route). Different consequences occur from the two routes to persuasion.

Attitude changes via the central route appear to be more persis tent, resistant, and predictive of behaviour thanchanges induced via the peripheral route Q .

The Petty and Cacioppo (1986) Elaboration LikelihoodModel (ELM) is modified by Hansen (1997) in terms of anElaboration Likelihood Advertising Model (ELAM). Thismodel is illustrated in Fig. 3. Here, central information processing focuses first and foremost on product and brandrelevant information, which generates brand awareness, brand perception, image preferences and eventually buyingintentions.

Fig. 3. The ELAM ( Hansen, 1997 ).

Fig. 2. The Rossiter–Percy grid ( Rossiter and Percy, 1999 ).



5/11

Peripheral information processing following exposureand attention concerns itself more with how the messagelooks, what the story is, what perceptual representations,such as, e.g., music, pictures, etc., appear in the advertise-ment or commercial. These, in turn, generate attitudestowards the ad (rather than towards the brand) and

emotional responses all reflected in ad liking. Attitudestowards the ad and ad liking may influence the extent andnature of the parallel central information processing to theextent that such occur. It may also lead to implicitly storedmemories that may eventually be generated as recognitionand possible purchase influence in purchase situations.Variables used to reflect the central processing are often brand related in terms of brand recall, brand recognition, brand processing, attitude towards the brand preferences for the brand, purchase intentions and possibly changing purchase behaviour. Measurements more related to periph-eral information processing are concerned with ad recall, adrecognition, ad processing, attitudes towards the ad emo-tions and ad liking. Particularly in connection withadvertising processing, different studies have been con-ducted to identify the characteristics of peripheral versuscentral processing at the Center for CommunicationResearch at the Copenhagen Business School.

4. The Copenhagen peripheral versus centralinformation processing studies

Center for Marketing Communication has had access to18 standardised advertising pretests for fast-moving con-

sumer goods, conducted by Gallup/TNS in Denmark 1998– 1999. Each of these included 120–150 respondents. Theyfollow the lines described in the ELAM model. In each test,questions are partly formulated at the brand level (e.g.,attitudes toward the brand) and partly at the advertising level(advertising recall and A-Ad). A more detailed account of this study is found in Hansen (1997) and Hansen and Hansen(2001) . Here, we are particularly concerned with the extent of peripheral versus central information processing and the

nature of the responses depending upon which data process-ing approach is dominating. Responses from three openquestions asked in the course of the test, partly evaluating positive and negative aspects of the ads and partly asking for what the respondent thinks the advertising is supposed tocommunicate, were analysed. A standardised procedure for probing respondents was used and responses were coded bytwo independent coders to their basic elements; for instance ab good-looking girl in beautiful car Q was divided into b good-looking girl Q and b beautiful car Q .

Subsequently, all such informational items were categor-ised depending on whether they were positive or negative,and depending on whether they primarily related to the product, its use, its advantages (central) or whether they primarily reflected the story in the ad, its pictures, itsunderlying music, and its execution (peripheral; see Table 1 ).The relatively few items that were unclassifiable along thesedimensions were excluded. On average, around two informa-tional elements were registered for each respondent. Thetotal number of useful statements totalled 4117. Severalobservations can be made from these figures. First, more

than three times as many peripheral statements can beidentified relative to the number of central informationalones. Secondly, when central information processing domi-nated, respondents were mostly positive in their responses.With peripheral information processing however, negativestatements near the number of positive ones, and here, 650 or more than 1/3 of the respondents reported positive as well asnegative ad-related items. Only 44 respondents (353+231 540) repeated both positive and negative, centrally(brand) related statements.

Summary results regarding the nature of central versus peripheral communication effects are shown in Table 2.Table 1

Number of central and peripheral responses in a study of 18 ads (a

respondent may be counted both as one with negative and as one with positive central responses, or as one with both negative and positive peripheral responses)

No. of respondents No. of statements

Central positive 353 706Central negative 231 320Central 540 1026Peripheral positive 1209 1603Peripheral negative 1068 1488Peripheral 1627 3091 No. of respondents classified 2167Unclassified respondents 310 a

Total 2477 4117a Respondents with no classifiable responses are excluded.

Table 2Self-rated recall, liking and buying intention

Self-ratedrecall

Liking Buyingintention

Respondents with centralinformation processing

3.9 3.9 2.4

Respondents with peripheralinformation processing

2.3 2.2 1.1

On a 6 point scale, 5–0. All differences significant, P b .01.

Table 3Attitudes towards the ad in % of respondents with central or peripheralinformation processing

Central, n =540 (%) Peripheral , n =1627 (%)

Exciting 22 19*Credible 42 33*Sensitive 31 27*Warm 22 21Entertaining 36 32*Informative 32 29*Stupid 19 24*Irritating 17 24*

* Significant, P b .01 t test.



6/11

Here, when central information processing dominates, thead is recalled better, liking is higher, brand preference ishigher and buying intention (here measured as positive self-rated changes in buying intention following the exposure) ishigher. In addition, attitudes towards the ad show the same picture. The items here are borrowed from the Gallup–

Robinson standardised advertising pretesting procedure(Metha, 1994 ). Two statements from each of the four factors underlying this instrument (informative, entertaining,evaluative and negative attitudes) are used (see Table 3 ).Five out of six positive attitudes score (significantly) higher when central information processing is involved, and thenegative ones do the opposite.

All measures suggest that better communication resultsare achieved when central information processing isgenerated. One exception occurs. The test included 12feeling statements ( Table 4 ). Here, we found that peripheralinformation processing resulted in more positive emotionalresponses and fewer negative emotional ones. Of the 12items used, 9 show significant differences in the directionindicated here.

Summarizing this second part: when predominantlyconcerned with fast-moving consumer goods advertising,75% of the information processing is peripheral. Whencentral information processing occurs, it is always moreefficient as indicated by practically all commonly usedmeasurements of the communication effect. When periph-eral information dominates, only the emotional responsestend to be more positive.

An overall conclusion may be that we may like togenerate central information processing as much as we can;

however, when we cannot achieve this, we must beconcerned particularly with the emotional responses follow-ing the peripheral information processing. In designingcampaigns, it is likely to be a basic issue whether one shouldemphasise central information processing by providing lotsof relevant product and use information or whether oneshould focus on creating more attention and thereby possibly also ending up with more peripheral information

processing. The more creative advertising executions mayhave a tendency to do the latter. That is, high attention isachieved at a price in terms of lesser informational content.Of course, the good, creative solution generates both centraland peripheral information, but is difficult to get at.

5. The nature of emotional responses

Presenting an extensive review of contemporary neuro- psychological research is impossible here. Excellent dis-cussions are available in Damasio (2000) , Goode (2002) andFranzen and Bouwman (2001) . It is, however, necessary for our discussion of emotional responses to repeat some basicobservations from this line of research. Basically, the braincan be seen as composed of three elements. The so-calledneo cortex, that is, the outer part of the brain and in humans by far the largest. Cognitive processes are primarily believedto take place here and this occurs with some specialisationin terms of the left and right side of the brain as discussedearlier. The second part, the so-called old cortex, is found inmammals and in all animals as low as at the reptilian stageof development. This system functions as the controlling brain system in most animals and plays an important role ininteracting with the cortex in the human brain. Finally, theinner central or oldest part of the brain—the prereptilian brain is where the most basic, elementary, controlling processes occur. Particularly, the prereptilian part of the brain contains thalamus through which most sensorystimulation passes and amygdale , which is shaped like analmond and controls the most elementary responses, such as

glandular behaviour and autonomous responses, and hippo-campus —named after its shape, which resembles a seahorse (Fig. 4).

In the hippocampus, very elementary information isstored, and in interaction with amygdale, it controls thesimple emotional responses. It may be the seat of implicit memory. Contemporary neuropsychology refers to the processes controlled by thalamus, amygdale and hippo-campus as emotional. They may occur before any cognitiveactivity is activated in responses to stimuli and they controlvery elementary approach and defensive, aggressiveresponses of importance to the survival of the individual.The entire prereptilian brain interacts with the cortex andinformation is transmitted, coded, edited and stored here. Inaddition, in this part of the brain, the occurrence of different kinds of feelings (different from emotions) can appear.

Whereas the basic emotional responses are of a rather primitive avoidance/approach character, people report inmuch more detail when asked to describe aspects of therelationship between perceived situations, goals and more basic emotions (feelings). Emotional responses can first andforemost be identified with the use of physiologicalmeasurements. Their EEG response, eye movements, heart rate, voice and facial expressions are measures frequentlyused. Because the emotions seem to be products of the

Table 4Self-rated feelings/emotions associated with central and peripheral infor-mation processing (in % of respondents)

Central, n =540 (%) Peripheral, n =1627 (%)

Pleasure 26 40*Hope 29 33*Acceptance 22 34*Happiness 27 41*Dominate 9 13*Enjoyment 46 58*Inspiring 29 28Surprising 19 23*Mistrust 8 9Sorrow 7 5*Anger 12 7*Fear 3 5

* Significant, P b .01 t test.



7/11

prereptilian brain, our verbal questions about feelingresponses do not necessarily relate directly to underlyingemotional states.

If, for example, an individual in the middle of a roadobserves a car approaching with fast speed, the perceptionchannelled through the thalamus may, through the amyg-dale , generate an increased heart rate (autonomousresponse), sweating in the hands (glandular response) andfreezing or running away. All these may occur before anyactivity in cortex takes place. Only later, when information

has been transmitted here, can the more precise nature of the danger be identified and labelled, and possibly, thismay influence the further direction of the response. In amore straightforward consumer behaviour case, the indi-vidual may—faced with a row of coffee brands—identifythe brand usually bought, pick it up and conclude theactivity. This may happen before any coffee information processing occurs or prior to the activation of earlier storedinformation about quality or other aspects of different coffee brands.

Emotional responses, mostly unconscious, automaticreactions, are controlled by information stored in implicit memory. Feeling responses, the associated, perceived,cognitive perceptions of what is going on emotionally,involve centrally stored information, cognitive processingand evaluations. In this connection, the distinction,emotions versus feelings, is not synonymous with thedistinction, conscious versus unconscious processes. Feel-ings may be conscious as well as unconscious. Cognitive processes may be of a high- or low-involvement character and may also relate to emotional activities. We realise theautomatic, very little demanding, fast and energy-savingemotional responses occur in many situations wherecognitions, comparisons and information searches wouldhave been unnecessarily time demanding and complicated.

In earlier psychological theory and in studies of consumer behaviour, emotions and feelings are often usedinterchangeably. In our terminology, feelings have beenstudied since the very early days of psychology and a largenumber of measurement instruments used for identifyingdifferent kinds of feelings based upon verbal responses have been developed ( Franzen and Bouwman, 2001 ). Thenumber of feelings identified with a different instrument varies from few (two to four) to as many as 20 or 30. Inmany of these studies, a factor analysis has been used based

upon the respondents’ own rating of words that reflect different kinds of feelings. One such typical set is reported by Richins (1997) . Departing from several of the moregenerally accepted batteries, such as Izard (1977) andMehrabien and Russell (1974) , she identified 16 plus 4consumption-related feelings. In most cases, these can bereduced to two to three meaningful factors.

One case of this kind is Shaver et al. (1987) . Here, ahierarchical cluster analysis on a large number of feelingitems results in 24 grouped feelings. However, when theseare grouped at higher levels, they fall into two (or three)separate sets: a predominantly positive (approach dimen-sion—love and joy); a predominantly negative set (anger,sadness and fear); and possibly an arousal-like dimensionlabelled surprise. Of course, the amount of varianceexplained with these lower order levels is less than whena larger number of factors are included, but the uniformityof the dimensions and their face validity is such that thesolutions can still be judged to be operationally useful.Some authors have even focussed on these fewer morefundamental dimensions. For instance, Mehrabien andRussell (1974) talk about pleasure versus dissatisfaction.Similarly, in a commercially applied setting introduced byVaughn (1980) , a distinction is made between negative/ positive versus active/passive feelings.

Fig. 4. The function of the emotional brain ( Le Doux, 1998 ).



8/11

The fundamental observation made here is that in theterminology of an SOR model, and with the use of self-administered questionnaires, we may identify 10–20 differ-ent indicator variables describing aspects of feelings.However, in forcing solutions and fewer dimensions uponthe data, more basic dimensions emerge. These dimensions

we may rightfully label emotions. Thus, our major observation at this point is that we may still gain someinsight into emotional responses based on measurement of feelings and by doing a b concentrated Q analysis of the data(i.e., looking for fewer factors).

Here, some of our own data we present from four different studies of communication effects (see also Hansen,1997 ). The design test and the logo tests are reported inmore detail in Kristensen et al. (2000) , and the twosponsoring studies are reported in more detail in Hansenet al. (2002) . All tests are based on the variables used in theELAM test.

In these studies, one statement corresponding to each of the underlying feeling dimensions in the Richins (1997) battery is included. In some of the experiments, the batteryhas been reduced further, but in each of the tests, at least thesame 12 feeling items are used. In addition, there is goodreason to look at findings across the different applications inthe different contexts involving the short list of 12 items. Inall cases, a two- to four-dimensional factor solution ismeaningful. All solutions include an approach (positive) andan avoidance (negative) emotional dimension, and one or two dimensions reflecting involvement with the issue,strength of the emotion or arousal. To force comparabilityupon the data, two-factor solutions are shown for all data in

Table 5 .The amount of variance explained with the relatively

limited number of factors is lower than ideally wished (26– 32%). However, the consistency of the dimensions acrossthe different data sets confirms the general validity of the

underlying dimensions identified. Only in the design test was the avoidance dimension less expressed. Here, onemight better work with three or four factors.

The data give no uniform answer to the question of whether one should ideally work with one, two, three, or maybe even four emotional dimensions. If a need for a more

general, basic measurement instrument is felt, more researchis needed before such standardised list of items can beidentified with the purpose of measuring across verydifferent consumption and communication situations. Still, based on the following case from one of the studies alreadycompleted, it is possible to illustrate the usefulness and thestrengths of such an emotional battery.

6. The value of sponsorships explained by emotions

We choose to look into the findings from the studyconcerned with how possible sponsoring objects (sponsees)are evaluated ( Hansen et al., 2002 ) in a little more detail.Here, the respondents were 169 first-year undergraduatestudents at the Copenhagen Business School completing aself-administered questionnaire for which they received a book on advertising published by the Center for Commu-nication Research as a reward. The authors involved in this project do not claim that the findings are in any wayrepresentative of the Danish population when it comes toevaluating possible sponsees. They do argue, however, that the relationships identified between the different measure-ments are much less sensitive to the sample bias involvedhere and thus suggest a more general usefulness of the

measurement instrument with larger random samples. Sucha project is presently underway.

Basically, the 27 feeling items used are derived fromRichins’ (1997) study. Some feeling statements obviouslyless related to consumer information processing are deleted

Table 5Loadings on two factors in analyses of data on sponsoring, ad-test, design and colours of logo (I=Approach, II=Avoidance)

Sponsoring Ad test Design Colours of logo

I II I II I II I II

Happiness .39 .03 .70 .01 .72 .16 .63 .07Joy .61 .11 .67 .04 .78 .06 .71 .23Pleasure .48 .01 .58 .21 .75 .03 .54 .05Accept .45 .56 .56 .08 .06 .55 .02 .68Inspiring .38 .16 .54 .05 .62 .43 .50 .13Hope .33 .02 .51 .12 .43 .30 .38 .13Surprise .02 .16 .40 .19 .16 .81 .22 .51Anger .07 .61 .01 .67 .84 .11 .53 .47Fear .03 .45 .17 .65 .73 .13 .49 .48Mistrust x) x) .06 .60 .71 .07 .55 .53Trust .32 .36 x) x) x) x) x) x)Sorrow .07 .40 .07 .50 .76 .31 x) x)Dominant .10 .08 .23 .44 .47 .30 .25 .10Trustworthiness x) x) x) x) x) x) .08 .72 None of these x) x) .50 .13 x) x) x) x)

x) indicates missing data.



9/11

and some more appropriate items taken from the Ray andBatra battery (1982) are included. The total list is shown inTable 6 .

The measurement of the feeling responses took place byhaving each respondent choose feeling statements they felt agreed with 27 possible sponsoring events divided into

sports, culture, television programmes and social aidorganisations. The sponsors studied are listed in the first column of Table 7 . With the somewhat crude datacollection procedure of respondents choosing only a fewitems to be associated with each possible sponsoring object and with a total of 27 items reduced to four factors, theamount of variance explained in the data is 29% of the totalvariance.

The face validity of the four factors suggest that each of the factors reflect one important emotional dimension whendealing with sponsoring. The four-dimensional solutionchosen centres on an avoidance (negative emotional) andapproach (positive emotional) dimension (numbers two andthree). Loneliness and sadness are the two highest loadingitems reflecting avoidance, whereas joy, romantic love,enjoyment, happiness are the four items that best represent the approach tendency. The fourth factor in the battery,labelled arousal, reflects feelings, such as excitement,surprise, lack of trust and lack of accept. Finally, the first

item, labelled uncertainty, relies on responses to feelings,such as hope, sorrow, worry and fear. The usefulness of suchan emotional battery, of course, depends upon the extent towhich it meaningfully describes the different items (spon-soring objects) rated, and the extent to which measurementsrelate meaningfully to traditional, well-established effect– measures used in the study of sponsorship effects.

In the study reported here, different traditional effect-related measures of sponsoring were included. Awareness of the sponsee was measured on a five-point self-rating scale

Table 6Varimax factor analytical solution based on a four-factor solution onemotional responses to different sponsoring aspects

b Uncertainty Q b Avoidance Q b Approach Q b Arousal Q

1 2 3 4Hope 59 19 19 19Sorrow 57 16 1 0Worry 46 6 3 8Fear 45 14 4 2Inspiring 31 15 0 13Optimism 28 27 17 12Dominating 23 17 6 6Satisfaction 16 9 12 9Shame 0 54 1 4Loneliness 4 40 4 11Anger 3 40 4 11Sad 15 40 2 0Envy 2 37 7 0Desire 7 34 5 30Guilt 3 34 2 7Dissatisfaction 24 28 2 3Joy 6 17 62 20Romantic love 0 5 52 10Enjoyment 14 5 51 0Happiness 14 0 49 3Peacefulness 5 8 31 18Excitement 12 8 17 64Surprising 7 3 2 44Trust 8 11 15 40Accept 8 10 21 35Relief 4 10 1 22Pride 18 7 9 21

Decimals were omitted.

Table 7Standardised scores for 27 different sponsoring objects on awareness, likingand self-rated purchase intention, together with total score for each(geometrical average score)

N =169 Awareness Liking Purchaseint.

Overallscore

The Danish Cancer Society

1.09 1.23 1.16 1.55

Danish Red Cross 1.05 1.19 1.10 1.37Save the Children

Denmark 0.99 1.18 1.11 1.30

The AIDSFoundation

0.91 1.21 1.15 1.26

Danchurchaid 0.78 1.09 1.03 0.88The Danish Muscular

DystrophyAssociation

0.68 1.13 1.09 0.84

The Danish Heart Foundation

0.62 1.18 1.11 0.81

Average—social aidorganisations

0.87 1.17 1.11 1.14

Friends (TV2) 1.33 0.95 1.01 1.27The Weather Report

(TV2)1.23 0.86 0.93 0.98

Ally McBeal (TV2) 1.08 0.89 0.94 0.91Rejseholdet (DR) 0.99 0.88 0.95 0.82Onside (TV3) 0.84 0.88 0.97 0.71Big Brother

(TVDANMARK)1.09 0.67 0.74 0.54

The Hotel (TV2) 0.72 0.78 0.90 0.51The Great Mission

(TV2)0.77 0.76 0.85 0.49

Average—tv programmes

1.01 0.83 0.91 0.78

Tivoli 1.41 1.13 1.07 1.69Eurovision song

contest 1.27 1.02 1.00 1.29

The zoo 1.05 1.07 1.04 1.17The royal theatre 0.98 1.06 1.01 1.05The Roskilde Festival 1.08 0.95 0.96 0.98The Danish National

Gallery of Art 0.80 1.04 1.03 0.86

Arken 0.70 0.94 0.96 0.63Average—culture 1.04 1.03 1.01 1.10Men’s National

Soccer Squad1.22 1.06 1.07 1.39

Women’s NationalHandball Squad

1.11 0.99 0.98 1.08

Team Danmark 0.97 1.06 1.05 1.07FC Copenhagen 1.18 0.95 0.94 1.06Br b ndby I.F. 1.05 0.88 0.87 0.80Average—sport 1.11 0.99 0.98 1.08



10/11

(b How well would you say you know . . . Q ), the same wasdone for liking, and persuasion was quantified as self-reported changes in purchase intentions. The question wasb do you think that it is more likely that you would purchasea product sponsoring d xxxx T after having learned about thesponsorship than before Q . The measurement, crude as it is,

has been applied in most of the studies reported earlier, andon the whole, is sensible and meaningful. On average, 50%of the respondents report that they do not intend to changetheir purchase intentions. However, the rest do report positive as well as negative purchase intentional changes.These measures in ad testing are in accordance with other research believed to make good sense in evaluatingsponsorship attitude based on these.

A total score is computed as the geometric average of the evaluations of the sponsorships with the sponsoringobjects.

Overall effect score

¼Awareness

Average Awareness

LinkingAverage Linking

Self rated change in buying intentionAv : Self rated change in buying int :

The overall score for all of them is 1.00, suggesting that asponsoring object scoring higher is evaluated as better thanaverage and vice versa. That is, for instance, the liking scorefor the Danish Cancer Society was divided with the averageliking score for all sponsoring objects rated and thereby ascore larger than one reflects an above-average evaluation.The same was done with the awareness and purchase

intention scores and to arrive at a single overall evaluativescore, the three past scores were simply multiplied with eachother.

The critical question now, of course, is to what extent theemotional responses we have identified are able to explainvariations in this overall effect score. This is done bycomputing a factor score for each sponsoring object on thefour dimensions, shown in Table 6 . With these asindependent variables, and with the total effect score of Table 7 as a dependent variable, a multiple regressionanalysis was carried out.

For the 27 rated sponsoring objects as dependent variables, the analysis provides an adjusted R2 score of .60. It appears that negative emotions, positive emotionsand uncertainty are significantly related to the overallevaluation, with the greatest explanatory power associatedwith negative emotions ( b = .003, t = 3.54, P b .001),followed by uncertainty ( b =.0024, t =4.34, P b .001) and positive emotions ( b =.0016, P b .01). We shall not try toextract more far-reaching interpretations from these data, but we do want to emphasise that an adjusted R2 value of .60 in an analysis with 27 observations, four independent variables and basic ratings simply made by having peoplechoose whether specific feeling statements do or do not relate to sponsoring objects seems to be a strong

confirmation of the usefulness of the approach. We look forward to work with larger, more representative sampleswith more sensitive rating procedures applied in other marketing communication contexts than sponsoring. So far,however, we dare conclude that energy spent in thisdirection seems worthwhile.

7. Conclusion

Despite the somewhat tentative nature of the findingsreported here, a number of conclusions emerge to which wewould like to direct the attention of the reader.

(1) More and different measures are available whenstudying marketing communication responses thanwhat is suggested in AIDA and similar formulations.

(2) A distinction between central/peripheral, higher/lower involvement or more or less cognitive information processing seems useful.

(3) The central information processing is, when it occurs, by far more efficient in terms of effect scores normallyused in marketing communication studies.

(4) Only in terms of emotional responses does peripheralinformation processing seem to have a stronger impact.

(5) In the real world, the advertiser may wish to generatestrong concentrated central information processing.

(6) However, competition from other communication,other advertising, low involvement on behalf of thereceivers, etc. set limits to the extent to which this is

feasible.(7) In reality, at least when talking about fast-moving

consumer goods, peripheral information processingseems to be dominant in most instances.

(8) To study emotional responses may be a usefulapproach, when peripheral responses are dominant.

(9) With a distinction introduced between feelings andemotions, it is suggested that an operational measureof more basic emotions may be derived from scores based on statements of feelings of a more cognitive– conscious nature.

In any event, emotional activities contribute signifi-cantly to the overall effectiveness of communication. Thisis not least the case when peripheral communication is at stake. It is not obvious from the data analysed here whether the emotional effect primarily makes other information processing more efficient, or whether it is a more direct effect with information being stored at an emotional(implicit) level and reactivated in purchasing and other situations at the same very low prereptilian brain level. Inall events, we do not know enough about how emotions areformed or how they influence subsequent consumer behaviour. The area must be a central one for futureresearch in consumer behaviour.



11/11

References

Bettman JR. An information processing theory of consumer choice.Reading 7 Addison-Wesley Publishing; 1979.

Colley RH. Defining advertising goals for measured advertising results. New York 7 Association of National Advertisers; 1961.

Copeland MT. Principles of merchandising. New York 7 Shaw; 1925.

Damasio A. The feelings of what happens. London 7 Vintage; 2000.Fishbein M. The relationship between beliefs, attitudes and behavior. In:

Feldman S, editor. Cognitive consistency. New York 7 Academic Press;1966. p. 199–223.

Franzen Giep, Bouwman Margot. The mental world of brands. Reading 7ACR; 2001.

Goode Alistair. The value of implicit memory. Hanley-on-Thames 7ADMAP; 2002 [December].

Hansen Flemming. Psychological theories of consumer choice. J ConsumRes 1976;3(1):117–42.

Hansen Flemming. Hemispheral lateralization: implications for under-standing consumer behaviour. J Consum Res 1981;8(1):23–7.

Hansen Flemming. Studies of communication effects—methodological andtheoretical papers on left/right lateralization. Copenhagen 7 Civ-ilb konomernes Forlag; 1985.

Hansen Flemming. Quantifying creative contributions: advertising pre-testing’s new generation. ESOMAR Conference Proceedings, Edin- burgh, September, 1997.

Hansen, Flemming and Lotte Yssing Hansen. The Nature of Central andPeripheral Advertising Information Processing, Research Paper,Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, 2001.

Hansen, Flemming, Halling, Jens, Christensen, Lars Bech. ChoosingAmong Alternative Sponsoring Objects for Supporting BrandStrategies, based upon Emotional Responses. Research Paper no.12/2002, Dept. of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, 2002.

Heath Robert. The hidden power of advertising. London 7 AdmapPublications; 2001.

Hovland CI, Janis IL, Kelly HH. Communication and persuasion. NewHaven 7 Yale University Press; 1953.

Izard Carroll E. Human emotions. New York 7 Plenum; 1977.

Kristensen, Tore et al., The Meaning of Colours in Design, Research Paper,Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, 2000.Krugman HE. The impact of television advertising: learning without

involvement. Public Opin 1968;29.Le Doux Joseph. The emotional brain. New York 7 Phoenix; 1998.Lutz Richard J. Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the

ad: a conceptual framework. In: Alwritt L, Mitchell Andrew A., editors.Psychological processes and advertising effects. Hillsdale, NJ 7 Erlbaum;1985. p. 45–63.

MacKenzie SB, Lutz RJ. Monitoring advertising effectiveness: a structuralequation analysis of the mediating role of attitude towards the ad.Working paper No. 117, Center for Marketing Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, 1982.

McGuire WJ. Psychological factors influencing consumer choice. In:Ferber B, editor. Selected aspects of consumer behavior. Washington 7University Press; 1976. p. 319–60.

Mehrabien Albert, Russell James A. An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge (MA) 7 MIT Press; 1974.

Metha Abdilasha. How Advertising Response Modelling (ARM) canincrease ad-effectiveness. J Advert Res 1994; 34(3),1994;62– 74[May/June].

Mitchell AA, Olson JC. Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? J Mark Res 1981;18:318–32.

Nickerson RS. A note on long-term recognition memory for pictorialmaterial. Psychon Sci 1968;11:58.

Petty JT, Cacioppo RE. Communication and persuasion. New York 7Springler-Verlag; 1986.

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Schumann David. Central and peripheral routesto advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement.J Consum Res 1983;10(2):135–46 [September].

Richins ML. Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. J ConsumRes 1997;24;127– 42.

Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York 7 The Free Press; 1962/ 1995.

Rossiter John, Percy Larry. Advertising and promotion management. NewYork 7 McGraw-Hill; 1999.

Shaver Philip, Schwartz Judith, Kirson Donald, O’connor Cary. Emotionknowledge: further exploration of a prototype approach. J Pers SocPsychol 1987;52:1061–86 [June].

Sperry R. Some effects of disconnecting the cerebral hemispheres. Science1982;217:1223–6.

Vaughn R. How advertising works: a planning model. J Advert Res1980;20(5):27–33 [New York, Oct].

W7 rneryd KE. Ekonomisk psykology. Stockholm 7 Institute for EconomicResearch, Stockholm School of Economics; 1959.

Worcester R. Strategic decision research: its communications and use at

ICI. Paper presented at the ESOMAR Congress, Brussels, September,1979.Zaichkowsky JL. Measuring the involvement construct. J Consum Res

1985;12(3):341– 52.Zajonc RB. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J Pers Soc Psychol

1968;9(2).Zajonc RB, Markus H. Affective and cognitive reasons factors in

preferences. J Consum Res 1982;9(2):123– 31.


sentimentos e emoções na comunicação publicidade

Documents