Journal of Consumer Research Inc.

Antecedents and Consequences of Attitude Toward the Ad: A Meta-Analysis

Author(s): Steven P. Brown and Douglas M. Stayman
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Jun., 1992), pp. 34-51
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489186 .
Accessed: 21/11/2011 15:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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.

The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research.

http://www.jstor.org
Antecedents and Consequences of Attitude
toward the Ad: A Meta-analysis

STEVEN P. BROWN
DOUGLAS M. STAYMAN*

A meta-analysis of pairwise relationships involving attitude toward the ad was con-

ducted. Analyses of correlations across studies are first analyzed and reported.
Because significant variance across studies was found, moderator analyses were
conducted to account for interstudy variance. The results suggest a number of
methodological variables that moderate the strengths of relationships found in studies
of ad attitudes. Analyses were also conducted to assess the robustness of the
dual-mediation path model of the effects of ad attitudes. Results indicate support
for the model as well as a more importantrole for the indirectinfluence of ad attitudes
on brand attitudes (via brand cognitions) than that found in previous model tests.

Consumers' affectiveresponsesto ads have been of
increasinginterestto both academicsand practi-
tioners. In particular,one researchstream has investi-
gated the influence of attitude toward the ad (Aad)on
brand attitudes. Articles in the 1970s (e.g., Holbrook
1978) first suggestedthe importance of understanding
viewers'global evaluationsof ads. Articlesby Mitchell
and Olson (1981) and Shimp (1981) introduced and
suggestedthe importanceof the Aadconstruct.
Recently,appliedstudies,particularlythe Advertising
ResearchFoundation copy testing project (Haley and
Baldinger 1991), have suggestedthat liking of an ad
may be the best indicator of advertisingeffectiveness.
Academic studies have focused on such issues as con-
ditions in which ad attitudeshave relativelystrong ef-
fects (e.g., Gardner 1985; Park and Young 1986), the
determinantsof ad attitudes(e.g., MacKenzieand Lutz
1989), the role of feeling responses(e.g., Staymanand
Aaker 1988),and tests of causalmodels focusingon the
role of ad attitudes in determiningad outcomes (e.g.,
Burkeand Edell 1989;Homer 1990;MacKenzie,Lutz,
and Belch 1986;Miniard,Bhatla,and Rose 1990). Fur-
ther, researchers'interest in ad attitudesappearsto be
increasing.Ourliteraturereviewfound 60 articleswith
ad attitudesas a partof the research,with only 9 articles
*Steven P. Brown is assistantprofessorof marketingand distri-
butionat the TerryCollegeof Business,Universityof Georgia,Athens,
GA 30602. DouglasM. Staymanis assistantprofessorat the Johnson
GraduateSchool of Management,Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
14853. The authors,who contributedequally to this article, thank
Bob Peterson,TerryShimp,VithalaRao, and especiallythe reviewers
and editor for their helpful comments on an earlierversion of the
manuscript.Thanksare also expressedto the many researcherswho
generouslyprovidedcorrelationmatricesnot availablein published
studiesfor use in the analysesreportedhere.
34
from before 1985, 21 between 1985 and 1987, and 30
after 1987. In addition, this topic has been sufficiently
importantto merit its own section in the two most re-
cent reviewsof consumerresearchin the AnnualReview
of Psychology(Bettman 1986; Cohen and Chakravarti
1990).
Despite this interest in ad attitudes, there has not
been a comprehensive attempt to assess the general
findingsacrossstudies. Such an attemptappearsuseful
for two reasons.First,researchon ad attitudeshas been
conductedin a numberof methodologicalcontexts, yet
no attempt has been made to assess the robustnessof
effects across conditions. As in other researchstreams
(e.g., Rao and Monroe 1989), such an assessmentcan
be useful in understandingthe general strength and
variabilityof the relationshipsand the studyconditions
that moderatethose relationships.Second, although a
numberof researchershave found that the dual-media-
tion model of the effectsof ad attitudesbest fitsthe data
in individualstudies, more specificfindingsconcerning
pathswithin the model have been mixed. For example,
while some researchershave found no evidence of a
significantindirectpathbetweenad attitudesand brand
attitudes via brand cognitions (e.g., MacKenzie and
Lutz 1989),othershave found a significantindirectpath
(e.g., Homer 1990). Similarly,differentstudieshave re-
ported widely varying strengthsof the direct effect of
ad attitudeson brandattitudes.The relativeimpact of
brandcognitions and ad attitudeson brandattitudesis
of centralconcernin the researchstream,and assessing
these effectsacrossall availablestudies is an important
objectiveof our research.Thus, it appearsuseful to dis-
tinguish between competing models and to assess the
strengthof specific model paths on the basis of effects
aggregatedacross all availableresearch.
? 1992by JOURNALOF CONSUMERRESEARCH,Inc.* Vol. 19 . June 1992
All rightsreserved.0093-5301/93/1901-0004$2.00
EFFECTS OF AD ATTITUDE
Ourresearchfocuses on three areasin which a quan-
titative review is likely to provide useful insights. The
firstobjectiveis to provide a generalassessmentof the
strengthof pairwiserelationshipsbetween ad attitudes
and antecedent and outcome constructs. The second
objective is to assess the variability of pairwise rela-
tionshipsinvolvingad attitudesand the extent to which
they are moderatedby differencesin the contexts in
which these effectshave been studied. The third objec-
tive is to use the aggregatedstudy effectsto investigate
the robustnessof the dual-mediationmodel and to as-
sess the strength of specific paths in the model. The
next sectiondescribesthe researchdomain and specifies
a numberof characteristicsof existing studiesthat may
influencethe strengthof relationshipsinvolving ad at-
titudes.
THE RESEARCH DOMAIN
As Brinbergand Jaccard(1986) and othershave em-
phasized,the primaryquestions of interest in a meta-
analysis concern the robustness of the relationships
studied and the specification of conditions that limit
these relationships'generalizability.In this study, we
assessthe strengthof pairwiserelationshipsbetweenad
attitudes and various antecedent and outcome con-
structsacrossthe diversestudies that constitute the re-
searchstream.Althougha few studieshave investigated
effectsof variablesthat moderaterelationshipsbetween
ad attitudes and other constructs (e.g., Droge 1989;
Homer 1990;Staymanand Aaker 1988), no systematic
attempt has been made to investigatestudy character-
isticsthat mightaccountfor the total variationin results
acrossall availablestudies. Thus, in a manner similar
to Rao and Monroe's(1989) assessmentof variationin
results for the price-qualityrelationship,we pose and
investigatemore specificquestionsconcerninghow the
methodologicaldecisions made by researchersmight
affect the strengthof the relationshipsbetween ad at-
titudes and antecedentand outcome constructs.
Severaldiscussionsof how to code study featuresfor
moderatoranalysesoffereduseful guidelinesfor our re-
search (e.g., Brinbergand Jaccard 1986; Farley and
Lehmann 1986; Hedges and Olkin 1985; Monroe and
Krishnan 1983;Rosenthal 1984). As is typical in meta-
analysis, the coded study characteristicscan be cate-
gorized generallyas variablesrelated to measurement
and operationalizationof constructsor to other study
designfeatures(e.g., Brinbergand Jaccard1986;Farley
and Lehmann 1986). The impact that these potential
moderatorsexert on effect sizes can be furthercatego-
rized as substantiveor methodological. For example,
differentprocessing goals may affect study outcomes
throughsubstantiveprocesses,whereasdifferentoper-
ationalizations of variables may affect them through
methodological processes, such as attenuation from
measurementerror.The potential moderatorvariables
were selected on the basis of a review of the method-
35
ological literatureon meta-analysisand of the substan-
tive literatureon Aad. Eleven study characteristicswere
identifiedas potential moderatorvariables.
Coded Study Characteristics
Number of Scale Items. In all studies included in
the analysis,ad attitudewas conceptualizedas a global
evaluationof a specificadvertisingexecution.However,
there was substantial variety in the number of scale
items used, with most studies (36) using multiple-item
scales, but 11 studies used only a one-item scale. Anal-
ysis of single- versusmultiple-itemscales has been sug-
gested for meta-analysisbecause multiple-item scales
are expected to be more reliableand sensitive (and re-
liability of multi-item scales can be assessed).If, as ex-
pected, multi-item scales are more reliable, less atten-
tuation from measurementerrorshouldresultin greater
effectsizes (Houston, Peter,and Sawyer1983;Johnson
and Eagly 1989).
Sample. The use of student subjectshas often been
debated in consumer research (Calder, Phillips, and
Tybout 1981; Lynch 1982). In meta-analyses,subject
type is often coded as a moderatorbecause the use of
a homogeneousstudentpopulationmay resultin a bias
towardstrongereffectsthan would be found in the gen-
eral population(e.g., Houston et al. 1983;Johnson and
Eagly 1989; Monroe and Krishnan 1983). In addition,
for researchon ad attitudes, the importance of liking
for an ad may differbetween student and nonstudent
samplesbecausemediapreferencesin generalmay differ
between college-studentand adult populations.
Operationalizationof Feelings. In reviewing the
literature,two characteristicsrelatedto feelingresponse
variedacrossstudies and were coded as potential mod-
eratorvariables.First, some studies manipulatedfeel-
ings experimentally,whereas others measured differ-
ences in feelings. Use of manipulatedversus measured
independentvariableshas been suggestedas a potential
moderatorvariable (Brinbergand Jaccard 1986). The
distinction between measured and manipulated vari-
ables is importantbecause measuredvariablesmay re-
flectthe resultof experiencewith the relevantmeasures
in a varietyof contexts, whereasmanipulatedvariables
may reflectonly a single situationalvariablein one spe-
cific context. For a variablehavingsuch strongindivid-
ual differencesas feeling responses to advertisingdo
(Harrisand Moore 1989), experimentalmanipulation
of feelings may not be as effective as measurementof
the intensity of subjects'feelings.
Second, a number of studies assessedthe effectsof a
single feeling on ad attitudes whereas others assessed
the effectsof multiple feelings. Becausethe strengthof
relationships involving ad attitudes may vary across
feelings (Burke and Edell 1989; Stayman and Aaker
1988), averagingeffects across feelings may yield dif-
ferentresultsthan assessingthe effectsof a singlefeeling
would.
36
Products. Two differentproduct-relatedstudychar-
acteristicshave variedacrossstudiesof ad attitudes.The
firstis whetherthe stimulusbrandwas novel or familiar.
Edell and Burke(1987) found effectsof ad attitudesfor
bothnovelandfamiliarbrands,but theydid not explicitly
testfordifferencesin the strengthof relationships
fornovel
versusfamiliarbrands.There are two reasonsto expect
strongereffectsof ad attitudesfor novel brands.First,
Mooreand Hutchinson(1983) have shownthat priorat-
titudestowarda brandcan affectad attitudesand related
constructs.Thus,forfamiliarbrands,priorbrandattitudes
may accountfor variationin relationshipsinvolvingad
attitudes.Second,establishedbrandattitudestowardfa-
miliarbrandsare not likelyto be as stronglyaffectedby
ad attitudesas are brandattitudestowardnovel brands
about which consumers have little other information
(Johnsonand Eagly 1989).
The second product-relatedcharacteristicis the type
of productused in stimulus ads. Approximatelyhalf of
the studiesin researchon ad attitudeshave assessedthe
effects of ads for common repeat-purchaseproducts,
whereasothershave used ads for a wide varietyof other
types of productsand services. Differencesin the type
of productmay promptdifferencesin subjects'involve-
ment with, cognitive elaborationof, and affecttoward
advertisedinformation(Hoyer 1984).
ProcessingGoals
A number of individual studies have suggestedthat
relationshipsinvolving ad attitudesare affectedby sub-
jects' processinggoals at the time of ad exposure(e.g.,
Gardner1985;Keller 199la; Madden,Allen, and Twi-
ble 1988; Park and Young 1986). Gardner(1985) in-
dicated that the effectsof ad attitudesdifferdepending
on whether subjectsviewed ads with an ad- or brand-
evaluationset. Maddenet al. (1988) found that subjects
who wereinstructedto evaluatead executionshad more
subduedaffectiveresponsesto adsthan did subjectswho
were not given any indication that their reactions to
program-imbeddedads were of interest. The Madden
et al. study also found that processingset affectedcog-
nitive and affectiveresponsesdifferently,with sets that
favorgreatercognitiveelaborationenhancingcognitive
responsesand inhibiting affectiveresponses.Addition-
ally, Greenwaldand Leavitt(1984) have suggestedthat,
when viewersare highly involved, messageelaboration
is increasedand cognitive evaluation of ads predomi-
nates over affectiveprocessing.
In light of these observations,coding study charac-
teristicsto permitassessmentof similarquestionsacross
all availablestudiesappearedworthwhile.Threepoten-
tial moderatorsrelated to motivation or direction of
messageprocessingwere codable:advertisingmedium,
whether ads were imbedded in other materials, and
whetherexperimentalinstructionsto subjectsinformed
them that their reactionsto ads were of interest.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Medium. The medium in which a persuasivemes-
sage is presented has been found to be an important
moderator of message elaboration and of persuasion
effects (Chaikenand Eagly 1983; Krugman 1965). Al-
thoughresearchersstudyingad attitudeeffectshaveused
differentmedia (primarilyprint or television),variation
in effects across media generallyhas not been assessed
(for an exception, see Liu and Stout [1987]). Chaiken
and Eagly(1983) found that messageinformation(and
productcognitions)was moreimportantin ad outcomes
for print media, whereasa more peripheralevaluative
cue, communicatorlikability,was more importantfor
audio and videotape.Therefore,it may be expectedthat
the impact of ad attitudes, as a more peripheraleval-
uativecue, would be greaterfor studiesusingtelevision,
whereasbrandcognitioneffectsmaybe relativelygreater
for studies using print media.
Imbeddedness. In some studies, ads were shown
underconditions in whichthey wereimbeddedin other
material, often to mask experimenterinterest in the
ads. Thus, imbeddingadvertisingin otherprogramming
or print content is likely to reduceboth subjects'focus
on ads and their elaborationas comparedwith the sit-
uation in which subjects are exposed to ads as stand-
alone messages.
Experimental Instructions. In some studies, sub-
jects were explicitly told that their reactionsto the ad-
vertisingthey would watch were of interest,whereasin
others this interest was masked by experimentalpro-
cedures.We expectthat elaborationwill be greaterwhen
subjectsknow of experimenterinterestin ad reactions.
Design. Brinbergand Jaccard(1986) suggestusing
type of designto partitiondata in meta-analyses.Many
studies in our sample utilized within-subjectsdesigns
to increase power or to control for individual differ-
ences, whereasothersused completelybetween-subjects
designs. Thus, we expect that within-subjectsdesigns
may yield largereffects.
Article Focus. Finally, one influence on effects re-
ported in the literaturemay be a publication bias fa-
voringstudiesreportinglargereffectsizes (Brinbergand
Jaccard 1986; Monroe and Krishnan 1983; Rosenthal
1984). In the literaturereviewedhere, studies variedin
terms of the centrality of focus on ad attitudes. If a
publicationbias exists, it is likely that studies in which
ad attitudeis the centralconstructof interestwill report
largereffectsthan studiesin whichad attitudeis of more
peripheralinterest.Moreover,the significanceof effects
involving ad attitudes in studies where Aad is not the
centralconstructof interestwould providea strongad-
ditional indication of the generalimportanceof ads in
determiningadvertisingoutcomes.'
'We thank an anonymousreviewerfor this suggestion.
EFFECTS OF AD ATTITUDE
DATA SET AND PROCEDURES
Studies for inclusion in the analysis were identified
througha searchof the Journalof ConsumerResearch,
Advancesin ConsumerResearch,Journalof Marketing
Research,JournalofAdvertising,JournalofAdvertising
Research,JournalofMarketing,Journalofthe Academy
of MarketingScience, and CurrentIssues and Research
in Advertising.In addition,the ABI Informand Psychlit
computerized data bases were searched to ensure a
completereview(but no additionalstudieswerefound).
These sources were searchedfrom 1981, when the ar-
ticles by Mitchell and Olson (1981) and Shimp (1981)
introducingthe Aadconstructappeared,to issuescurrent
at the time the analysiswas conducted(July 1991). Ad-
ditional articleswere identifiedthroughbibliographies
and personalcontacts.In line with the recommendation
of Cooper (1989), all publishedpaperswith effects in-
volving ad attitudeswere included in the analysis.
The effect-size metric selected for the analysis was
the zero-orderproduct-momentcorrelationcoefficient.
This is an easily interpretable,scale-free, effect-size
metric (Hedges and Olkin 1985; Hunter and Schmidt
1990). However, few articles reported pairwise rela-
tionships in a usable form. For example, results from
multivariatemodels could not be used because "par-
tialed" statistics are not directly comparable across
studies unless the same variables are included in the
model in each study (Hunter and Schmidt 1990).
To overcomethis problem,correlationmatriceswere
solicited from the authors of relevant articles that did
not report statistics in a usable form. For studies for
which we did not receivecorrelations,effectsthat could
be included in the analyses were taken from the pub-
lished reports.In these cases, Student's t and F-ratios
with one df in the numeratorwere converted to r by
means of formulasgiven in Hunterand Schmidt(1990,
p. 272):
r = tlVt2 + N- 2,
or
r= 1/FlVF+N-2.
In all, effectsfrom 47 independentsamples(reported
in 43 articles)were included in the analysis.One effect
per pairwiserelationshipper sample was used. If more
than one effect per relationshipwas given for any one
sample (e.g., when ads was a within-subjectsfactorand
resultswere reportedby ad), the mean of the reported
effects(e.g., acrossads) was used so that only one study
effect per relationshipper sample resulted.2Thus, for
2Acomparisonwas made of the effectof using mean (vs. median)
within-studyeffectswhen multipleeffectswithin a single studywere
reportedfor a pairwiserelationship.Most instancesof this situation
involvedthe feelingsand ad attituderelationship.Substitutingme-
dians for means did not change the overall averagecorrelationfor
this relationship.
37
each pairwise relationship analyzed, the individual
study effects included in our analysis representedin-
dependentobservations,and no single sampleprovided
more than a singleobservationin the analysis(Bangert-
Downs 1986; Brinbergand Jaccard 1986).3
After establishingthe relevantarticlesfor inclusion,
each studywas independentlycoded by the two authors
on the 11 variablesof interest identifiedabove. Agree-
ment averaged95 percentacrossthe 11 variables,with
100 percent agreementon 7 variables.A complete list
of studieswith the relevantcodes for each studyis given
in Table L.'
ANALYSIS OF PAIRWISE
RELATIONSHIPS
To present as broad and precise a synthesis as pos-
sible, we calculatedmean and median correlationsand
confidence intervalsfor all pairwiserelationshipswith
ad attitudes that were representedby multiple usable
study effects (as reported in Table 2). However, rela-
tively few studies (five or less) reportedthe effects for
summated Fishbein scales, repetition, message sided-
ness, comparative advertising, prior brand attitudes,
sex-role portrayal,and recall;a greaternumber inves-
tigated effects such as feelings and emotions (17), ad
cognitions (12), and the outcome variables of brand
cognitions (17), brandattitudes (33), and purchasein-
tentions (14). Thus, becauseof sample-sizelimitations,
we conductedsubgroupanalysesonly for the more fre-
quently studied relationships.
The analysis plan for each pairwiserelationshipfol-
lows the procedurefor correlationcoefficientsdescribed
in Hedges and Olkin (1985). This is a statisticallyrig-
orous and commonly used meta-analyticmethod that
emphasizes assessment of variance in study effects by
means of homogeneity tests (Bangert-Downs 1986).
These proceduresfacilitate identification of inconsis-
tencies across studies.
We reportthe resultsin threesections.First,we report
resultsfor the mean strengthof each pairwiserelation-
ship and test for homogeneity of effectsacrossall stud-
ies. If the results are homogeneous, then the existence
of moderatorvariablesis not indicated. When effects
across studies are not homogeneous and the existence
of moderatorsis indicated, we next report the results
3Becauseour unit of analysisis the "independentsample"rather
than the "singlestudy,"some studiesthat reportresultsfrom more
than one independentsamplemay receivegreaterweightin the anal-
ysisthanstudiesreportingresultsfroma singlesample.The alternative
wouldbe to averageeffectsacrossindependentsampleswithinstudies
and weightby the inverse of the varianceof the sum of the sample
sizes. This would not changethe weightingthat we used and would
resultin lesspreciseestimatesof the variancein pairwiserelationships.
4Correlationmatriceswere unavailablefor 14 studies,and in three
studies a unique pairwiserelationship(i.e., one not assessedin any
otherstudy)was examined.Thus, these studieswerenot includedin
the analysisor in Table 1. A list of these studiesis availablefrom the
authors.
 TABLE I
CODED CHARACTERISTICSOF INCLUDEDSTUDIES

Consumer
Novel nondurable
Single or Student or Feelings Single or or (CND) or Instructed Within-or
multiple nonstudent measured or multiple familiar "other" Advertising to attend between-subject Focus on
Study scales sample manipulateda feelingsa product product type medium Imbedded to ads design Aadb

Alpert, Golden,
and Hoyer
1982 Single Student Manipulated TV No Yes Between DV
Park and Young
1983 Single Nonstudent Novel CND TV No Yes Between DV
Belch and Belch
1984 Multiple Student Manipulated Novel Service TV Yes Yes Between DV
Golden and
Johnson
1984 Single Student Manipulated Familiar Mixed TV No Yes Within DV
Duncan and
Nelson
1985 Multiple Student Manipulated Single Novel CND Radio Yes No Between DV
Gresham and
Shimp 1985 Multiple Student Familiar Mixed TV No Yes Within DV
Reddy and
LaBarbera
1985 Multiple Student Novel CND Print No Yes No
Aaker,
Stayman,
and
Hagerty
1986 Single Student Measured Single Familiar Mixed TV No Yes Within DV
Batra and Ray
1986 Single Nonstudent Measured Multiple Familiar Mixed TV No Yes Within DV
Kilbourne 1986 Multiple Nonstudent Novel Durable Print No Yes Between Aad
MacKenzie et al.
1986:
Study 1 Multiple Nonstudent Novel CND TV Yes Yes Aad
Study 2 Multiple Student Novel CND TV/radio Yes/No Yes/No Aad
Mitchell 1986 Multiple Student Novel CND Print No Yes Within Aad
Park and Young
1986 Single Nonstudent Novel CND TV No Yes Between DV
Zinkhan et al.
1986 Multiple Nonstudent Novel Mixed Print No Yes Between DV
Edell and Burke
1987:
Study 1 Single Student Measured* Multiple* Familiar Mixed TV Yes/No Yes Within DV
Study 2 Single Student Measured* Multiple* Novel Mixed TV Yes No Within DV
Goldberg and
Gorn 1987 Single Student Manipulated Single Familiar CND TV Yes No Within No
Holbrook and
Batra 1987 Multiple Nonstudent Measured Multiple Familiar Mixed TV No Yes Within DV
Keller 1987 Multiple Nonstudent Novel CND Print No Yes Within DV
Leigh, Rethans,
and
Whitney
1987 Multiple Nonstudent Familiar CND Print No Yes Between DV
Muehling 1987 Multiple Student Novel Durable Print No Yes Between Aad
Cox and Cox
1988 Multiple Student Novel CND Print Yes/No Yes/No Between Aad
Hill1988 Multiple Student Manipulated Single Novel CND Print No Yes Within DV
Machleit and
Wilson
1988 Multiple Student Measured Multiple Both Mixed TV Yes No Between Aad
Madden et al.
1988 Multiple Student Manipulated* Single* Both CND Radio Yes/No Yes/No Between Aad
Muehling and
Laczniak
1988 Multiple Student Novel Durable Print Yes No Between A-
EFFECTS OF AD ATTITUDE 39

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Consumer
Novel nondurable
Single or Student or Feelings Single or or (CND) or Instructed Within-or
multiple nonstudent measured or multiple familiar "other" Advertising to attend between-subject Focus on
Study scales sample manipulateda feelingsa product product type medium Imbedded to ads design Aadb

Stayman and
Aaker 1988 Single Student Measured Multiple Familiar Mixed TV Yes Yes Within Aad
Burke and Edell
1989 Single Student Measured* Multiple* Novel Mixed TV Yes No Within Aad
Droge 1989 Multiple Student Novel CND Print Yes No Between Aad
Hill1989 Multiple Student Familiar Political Print No Yes Between DV
Kamins et al.
1989 Multiple Nonstudent Novel Service Print No Yes Between No
Laczniak and
Carlson
1989 Multiple Student Novel Durable Print Yes No Between Aad
MacKenzie and
Lutz 1989:
Study 1 Multiple Student Novel Durable Print No Yes Aad
Study 2 Multiple Student Novel Durable Print No Yes Aad
Chattopadhyay
and Basu
1990 Multiple Student Manipulated Single Novel CND TV Yes No Between DV
Homer 1990:
Study 1 Multiple Student Novel CND TV Yes Yes Between Aad
Study 2 Multiple Student Novel Service Print No Yes Between Aad
Kamins 1990 Multiple Student Novel Durable Print No Yes Between No
Miniardet al.
1990 Multiple Student Novel CND Print No Yes Between Aad
Russo and
Stephens
1990 Multiple Student Measured Multiple Novel Mixed TV No Yes Within DV
Yi 1990a Multiple Student Manipulated Single Novel Durable Print Yes Yes Between DV
Yi 1990b Multiple Student Novel Durable Print No Yes Between No
Keller 1991b Multiple Student Novel CND Print No Yes Within DV
Keller 1991 a Multiple Nonstudent Novel CND Print No Yes Within DV
Maclnnis and
Park 1991 Multiple Student Measured Multiple Novel CND TV Yes No Between DV
Olney et al.
1991 Multiple Student Measured Multiple Familiar Mixed TV No Yes Within DV

NOTE.-Empty cells in the table indicate characteristics that were either absent from or not codable in the studies.
aAsterisks indicate that, although the relationship between feelings and Aadwas studied, the study effects were not available in this analysis.
bDVmeans Aadwas used as one of several dependent variables; "No" indicates consideration of Aadwas only incidental to the study; Aadindicates the study focus
centered on Aad-

of moderatoranalyses.Finally, we use regressionanal- tervals. In addition, Figure 1 provides stem-and-leaf

yses to assesswhetherthe moderatorsidentifiedin this
study can account for the preponderanceof variance
in the relationshipsstudied. Significantresidual vari-
ance resultingfrom the regressionswould indicate that
the model as specifieddoes not totally account for the
variancein study effects.
OverallHomogeneity
For each pairwise relationship, Table 2 reports the
numberof studiesfor each effect,the cumulativesample
size from those studies, mean and median observed
correlations,mean and median correlationscorrected
for measurementerror,and 95 percent confidence in-
plots of the distributionof effectsacrossstudies.As can
be seen in Table 2 and Figure 1, significantvariation
in effectsacross studies is apparentfor each frequently
studied pairwiserelationship.
Tests of effecthomogeneitywere conductedon Fish-
er's z-transformsof the correlationcoefficientsaccord-
ing to the formula
Q(n - 3)(Zi-Z
wherez is the mean of the weightedz-transformedcor-
relations(each study effectwas weightedby the inverse
of its variance to give greaterweight to more precise
estimates).This statistichas an approximatechi-square
distributionwith k - 1 degreesof freedom (wherek is
40 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 2
DESCRIPTIVESTATISTICS FOR PAIRWISERELATIONSHIPS

95 Percent
Mean Median Mean Median confidence
Cumulative observed observed corrected corrected interval for
Relationship N r F r r corrected f

Feelings and ad attitude (n = 17) 1,882 .49 .50 .54 .55 .00 < p < .84
Ad cognitions and ad attitude (n = 12) 1,700 .49 .42 .55 .48 .26 < p < .75
Ad attitude and brand cognitions (n = 17) 2,535 .28 .28 .33 .32 .08 <p< .57
Ad attitude and brand attitude (n = 33) 4,613 .60 .60 .67 .68 .26 <p < .85
Ad attitude and purchase intention (n = 14) 1,765 .38 .33 .43 .36 .03 < p< .71
Ad attitude and le1b1(n = 5) 561 .25 .30 .28 .34 -.02 < p< .58
Repetition and ad attitude (n = 4) 905 .15 ... .17 ... .09 < p< .25
Sidedness and ad attitude (n = 3) 537 .36 .37 .41 .42 .35 < p< .39
Comparative versus noncomparative and
ad attitude (n = 3) 600 .26 .27 .31 .33 .22 < p< .40
Prior brand attitude and ad attitude (n = 2) 260 .31 ... .34 ... .24 < p< .44
Sex-role portrayal and ad attitude (n = 2) 189 .17 ... .20 ... .16 < p< .24
Ad attitude and recall (n = 2) 389 .17 ... .20 ... .17 < p< .23

the numberof studies included in the analysis;Hedges
and Olkin 1985, p. 235). The analyses supportedthe
conclusion of significant variation for all of the fre-
quently studied relationships(p < .01).
Further, for each pairwise relationship, the homo-
geneity statistic, Q, was computed with study effects
successively deleted to identify outliers (a procedure
recommended by Hedges and Olkin [1985], p. 256).
Table 3 reportsthe resultsof this procedure,identifying
the studies that were deleted from the overall analyses
to achieve homogeneoussets of study effectsand com-
paring the mean corrected correlation for all studies
reportingthe relationshipwith the mean correctedcor-
relation for the reduced homogeneous set of study ef-
fects. The table reveals that the number of deletions
necessaryto achievea homogeneousset of effectsranged
from 1 of 12 (8 percent) for the ad cognitions and ad
attituderelationshipto 6 of 17 (35 percent)for the feel-
ings and ad attituderelationship.The proportionof ob-
servations deleted to achieve homogeneity of effects,
althoughhighin some cases,is consistentwith previous
meta-analysesand the recommendationsof meta-an-
alytic methodologists(e.g., Hedges and Olkin 1985, p.
250; Johnsonand Eagly 1989).Also, althoughrelatively
few outliers needed to be eliminated to achieve ho-
mogeneity for the ad- and brand-cognitionsvariables,
analysisof the varianceacrossstudiesis still useful(Rao
and Monroe 1989). Thus, in summary, these data do
indicate significantvariationin the frequentlystudied
pairwiserelationshipsand suggestthe usefulnessof an-
alyzing the effectsof moderatorvariables.
Tests of Moderators
Table4 reportsthe resultsof the moderatoranalyses,
includingthe meansand significanceof each moderator
for both the corrected(i.e., for measurementerror)and
uncorrected correlations. The first conclusion drawn
from Table 4 is that the results of the analyses of the
correctedand uncorrectedcorrelationsare very similar.
Significanceof the moderatordifferedbetweenthe two
analysesfor only one of 47 tests (i.e., the effectof study
focus on the ad attitude and purchaseintentions rela-
tionship, with only the correctedresult significantat p
< .05). Thus, the discussionbelow does not distinguish
betweenthe correctedand uncorrectedresults(statistics
for the subgroupanalyses are for the correctedcorre-
lations).
Numberof Scale Items and Sample Type. Two po-
tential moderators,number of scale items and type of
sample, were coded to assess the impact of reliability
and sample homogeneity. Use of multiple-item scales
to measure ad attitude, because they should be more
reliable(Peterand Churchill 1986), was expectedto re-
sult in strongerrelationshipsthan the use of single-item
measures. This expectation was supported for the ad
attitude and brand attitude relationship.The number
of scaleitems had a smallbut not statisticallysignificant
effect on the feelings and ad attitude relationship.No
otherrelationshipswereaffectedby the numberof scale
items. Thus, it appearsthat the effects of using multi-
item scales are relativelysmall with respect to the va-
lidity of relationships.
The type of sample appearedto have a more consis-
tent effect than did the number of scale items across
the five relationships studied. As expected, student
samples (expectedto be more homogeneous;Calderet
al. 1981) tended to yield higher correlationsthan did
nonstudent samples. This result was particularlyap-
parentfor the relationshipsbetween ad attitudeand its
antecedents (i.e., feelings and ad-relatedcognitions).
The effect of sample type on the relationshipsbetween
ad attitudeand outcome variables(i.e., brandattitudes
EFFECTS OF AD ATTITUDE 41

FIGURE1
STEM AND LEAF PLOTS OF PAIRWISERELATIONSHIPS

Feelings Ad Cognitions- Ad Atfitude- Ad Attitude- Ad Atfitude-

Ad Attitude Ad Attitude BrandCognitions BrandAtfitude PurchaseIntention

Stem Leaf Stem Leaf Stem Leaf Stem Leaf Stem Leaf

.9 .9 .9 .9 .9
.8 1 .8 .8 .8 00 113666 .8
.7 068 .7 1 13 .7 .7 013578 .7 5
.6 14 .6 .6 .6 28999 .6 2
.5 23378 .5 778 .5 12 .5 11225569 .5 35
.4 3 .4 06778 .4 00236 .4 346 .4 1 18
.3 2 .3 1 .3 0 12 7 9 .3 1 .3 06
.2 69 .2 .2 0 44 .2 58 .2 2 67 9
.1 79 .1 .1 6 .1 .1 3
.0 .0 .0 9 .0 .0
NOTE.-Plots are of corrected correlation coefficients.

and purchaseintentions) was directionallyconsistent
with expectationsbut was not statisticallysignificant.
The use of student subjectsin researchon ad attitudes
thus appearsto have an upward-biasingeffect on the
strengthof some relationships,and this effect should
be noted as a limiting condition on the generalizability
of resultsgeneratedfrom student samples.
Product-relatedCharacteristics. Two product-re-
lated characteristicswere examined as potential mod-
erators. We expected relationships to be weaker for
studiesthatusedfamiliarbrandsin stimulusadsbecause
strongpriorbrandattitudesmight inhibit ad effective-
ness. It is interestingthat this expectationwas supported
for the outcome variablesof brand attitudes and pur-
chase intentions but was not significantfor effects in-
volving feelings, ad-relatedcognitions, and brand-re-
lated cognitions. Thus, it appears that the effects of
antecedent variables, such as feelings and ad-related
cognitions, and of ad attitudes on process constructs,
such as brand-related cognitions, are not strongly
influenced by prior brand knowledge. However,
the effect of ad attitudes on relevant outcomes does
appear to be influenced by the existence of brand
familiarity.
The secondproductcharacteristicexaminedwas type
of product (i.e., consumer nondurable vs. "other"
producttypes).It is interestingthat this analysisyielded
effectsoppositeto those resultingfrom the novel versus
familiar brand analysis. Product type significantly
moderatedthe feelingsand ad attitudeand ad attitude
and brand cognitions relationshipsbut had no signifi-
cant effect on the ad cognitions and ad attitude, ad at-
titude and brandattitude,and ad attitudeand purchase
intentions relationships. Thus, in summary, product
novelty does not appearto influence the generationof
ad attitudesbut does affectthe ability of ad attitudesto
influence outcomes such as brand attitudes and pur-
chase intentions. In contrast, product type appearsto
influenceonly the more intermediaterelationships(i.e.,
in the causal sequence;see Homer 1990;MacKenzieet
al. 1986) between ad attitudesand feelings and brand-
relatedcognitions.
Cognitive Processing Goals. Three moderators (ad-
vertising medium, imbeddedness of ads in other ma-
terials, and experimental instructions) were coded in
an attempt to account for the influence of processing
goals on the relationships studied. These processing-
goal variables influenced feelings and brand-related
cognitionsin distinctlydifferentways. As expected,un-
der conditions favoring greater message elaboration
(i.e., for studies using print media, nonimbeddedads,
and those instructingsubjectsto attend to ads),the cor-
relationbetweenfeelingsand ad attitudewas lowerthan
underconditionsnotfavoringmessageelaboration.This
resultis consistentwith expectationsand with the results
of Madden et al. (1988). However, under conditions
favoring greater elaboration, the correlation between
ad attitudeand brandcognitionswas greaterthan under
conditions not favoring message elaboration (the dif-
ferencewas significantfor advertisingmedium but not
for imbeddedness and experimental instructions, al-
though the mean differencesfor the latter two were di-
rectionally consistent). Thus, processinggoal appears
to have an importantbut inconsistentinfluenceon pro-
cesses relatedto ad attitudes.
Processinggoal appearedto have no influenceon ei-
ther the ad cognitions and ad attitude relationshipor
on the ad attitude and brand attitude relationship.
However, both imbeddednessand instructionssignifi-
cantly moderatedthe ad attitude and purchaseinten-
tions relationship, with greater elaboration yielding
highercorrelations.Why processinggoal appearsto in-
fluence purchase intentions but not brand attitude is
not clear and may warrantfurtherresearch.
42 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE3
COMPARISON OF COMPLETESETS OF STUDIES AND HOMOGENEOUSSUBSETS

Complete set Homogeneous subset

No. of Cumulative Corrected No. of Cumulative Corrected

Relationship studies N r studies N r Studies deleted

Feelings and ad
attitude 17 1,882 .54 11 1,163 .48 Machleit and Wilson (1988)
Madden et al. (1988)
Stayman and Aaker (1988)
Chattopadhyay and Basu (1990)
Golden and Johnson (1984)
Batra and Ray (1986)
Ad cognitions and ad
attitude 12 1,700 .55 11 1,497 .53 MacKenzie and Lutz (1989), study 1
Ad attitude and
brand cognitions 17 2,535 .33 15 2,277 .35 Maclnnis and Park (1991)
Chattopadhyay and Basu (1990)
Ad attitude and
brand attitude 33 4,613 .67 23 2,583 .68 Keller (1987)
Keller (1991 a)
Keller (1991 b)
Zinkhan et al. (1986)
MacKenzie and Lutz (1989), study 1
MacKenzie et al. (1986), study 1
MacKenzie et al. (1986), study 2
Droge (1989)
Stayman and Aaker (1988)
Reddy and LaBarbera (1985)
Ad attitude and
purchase intention 14 1,765 .43 10 1,224 .42 Muehling (1987)
Miniardet al. (1990)
Duncan and Nelson (1985)
Muehling and Laczniak (1988)

StudyDesign and Focus. Studydesign appearedto
have an inconsistentbut ratherpervasiveinfluence.Be-
tween-subjectsdesigns resulted in higher correlations
for the feelingsand ad attituderelationship(significant
difference)and for the ad attitude and purchaseinten-
tions relationship(differencesof .11 and .13 for uncor-
rectedand correctedcorrelations,respectively;however,
neitherwas significant,perhapsbecausetherewereonly
two usable within-subjectsstudies). This higher corre-
lation is unexpectedsince within-subjectsdesignstend
to reduce errorvarianceby making each experimental
unit, in essence, its own control (Winer 1971). One ex-
planation for the feelings and ad attitude result is that
virtuallyall of these studiesused ads as the within-sub-
jects factor, and feeling responses across ads may be
quite variable(Holbrook and Batra 1987; Olney, Hol-
brook, and Batra 1991). Hence, it is possible that as-
sessing the impact of feelings on ad attitude across an
assortmentof ads mixes qualitativelydifferenteffects
and diminishesthe overallstrengthof the relationship.
Between-subjects designsdid resultin significantlylower
correlationsfor the ad attitude and brand attitude re-
lationship.
It is noteworthythat the extent to which ad attitude
was the focus of the article had a significantinfluence
on both the feelingsand ad attitudeand ad attitudeand
brandattitude relationships,as well as a significantin-
fluence on the ad attitude and purchaseintentions re-
lationship(for the correctedcorrelations).As expected,
resultswere strongerwhen ad attitudewas a more cen-
tralfocus of the article.These resultssuggesta potential
publicationbias favoringlargereffectsinvolving ad at-
titude when it is a centralfocus of the article.However,
it should also be noted that even for those studies in
whichad attitudewas not the centralfocus of the article,
the mean correlationsare still quite high (rangingfrom
.26 to .61), indicating that it is the magnitude of the
relationships,ratherthan their significance,that is at
issue. In supportof this conclusion, an analysis of the
"file drawer"problem(Rosenthal 1984) indicatedthat
at least 453 studieswith null resultswould be necessary
to reduce the ad attitude and purchase intentions re-
lationshipto nonsignificance.Eachof the otherpairwise
relationshipswould requirea greaternumber of zero-
effect studies to lead to conclusions of nonsignificance
(e.g., at least 758 studiesfor the feelingsand ad attitude
relationship).
OtherResults. Our expectationthat measuringfeel-
ings wouldyield highercorrelationsbetweenfeelingsand
EFFECTS OF AD ATTITUDE 43

TABLE 4
SUBGROUP MEANS BY MODERATORVARIABLES

Ad attitude and Ad attitude and

Feelings and Ad cognitions and brand Ad attitude and purchase
ad attitude ad attitude cognitions brand attitude intention

Single versus multi-item scale

(ad attitude):
Uncorrected K .43 vs. .52 .50 vs. .49 .30 vs. .28 .53 vs. .61** .37 vs. .42
Corrected r .48 vs. .58 .57 vs. .55 .35 vs. .33 .61 vs. .68** .43 vs. .46
N 7vs. 10 1 vs. 11 3vs. 14 7vs. 26 3vs. 11
Student versus nonstudent
subjects:
Uncorrected r .50 vs. .25a .52 vs. .41* .29 vs. .26 .60 vs. .59 .41 vs. .32*
Corrected r .56 vs. .29a .58 vs. 47* .34 vs. .31 .68 vs. .65 .46 vs. .36*
N 16vs. 1 9vs. 3 14vs. 3 26vs. 7 12vs. 2
Novel versus familiarproduct:
Uncorrected K .43 vs. .41 .49 vs. .50 .28 vs. .32 .62 vs. .38** .45 vs. .29**
Corrected r .48 vs. .45 .55 vs. .57 .33 vs. .37 .69 vs. .43** .50 vs. .32**
N 6vs.9 11 vs. 1 16vs. 1 28vs.4 10vs.3
Consumer nondurable versus
' other" product type:
Uncorrected K .30 vs. .50a .47 vs. .52 .25 vs. .36** .62 vs. .65 .45 vs. .41
Corrected r .32 vs. 57a .52 vs. .59 .28 vs. .42** .70 vs. .74 .44 vs. .46
N 6vs.1 6vs.5 9vs.5 16vs.8 2vs.11
TV versus print advertisements:
Uncorrected r .47 vs. .25a .51 vs. .49 .23 vs. 35** .58 vs. .60 .38 vs. .46
Corrected r .51 vs. .26a .55 vs. .55 .26 vs. .41** .65 vs. .67 .44 vs. .50
N 14vs. 1 3vs. 9 7vs. 8 14vs. 17 5vs. 8
Imbedded versus nonimbedded:
Uncorrected K .54 vs. .31** .46 vs. .50 .26 vs. .34 .58 vs. .60 .32 vs. .50
Corrected r .59 vs. 35** .50 vs. .57 .31 vs. .38 .65 vs. .67 .36 vs. .55*5
N 8vs.7 4vs.8 9vs.7 13vs. 17 7vs.7
Instructed to attend to ads versus
not instructed to attend:
Uncorrected K .40 vs. .58** .49 vs. .49 .30 vs. .28 .60 vs. .55 .46 vs. .24**
Corrected r .44 vs. .64** .56 vs. .54 .35 vs. .33 .68 vs. .62 .52 vs. .27**
N 11 vs.5 9vs.3 9vs.7 22vs.9 10vs.4
"Ad attitude study" versus ad
attitude as dependent variable:
Uncorrected r .72 vs. .37** .49 vs. .50 .29 vs. .26 .65 vs. .54** .43 vs. .34
Corrected r .79 vs. .42** .54 vs. .57 .34 vs. .30 .73 vs. .61** .48 vs. 39*
N 3vs. 13 7vs.5 10vs.7 15vs. 17 8vs.6
Withinversus between-subjects
design:
Uncorrected K .42 vs. .54** .47 vs. .47 .30 vs. .29 .65 vs. .53** .31 vs. .42
Corrected K .47 vs. .61** .54 vs ..51 .35 vs. .34 .73 vs. .59** .34 vs. .47
N 11 vs.6 4vs.6 5vs.8 11 Vs. 17 2vs. 12
Single versus multiple feelings:
Uncorrected K .50 vs. .57
Corrected r .57 vs. .63
N 6vs. 9
Measure versus manipulate
feelings:
Uncorrected K .57 vs. 49**
Corrected r .63 vs. 45**
N 10vs. 7

NOTE.-All data are means.

aWhileresults for this test are significant at p < .01, it is noted that only one observation is available for one level of the moderator.
*Significant at p < .05.
**Significantat p < .01.

ad attitudethan would manipulatingfeelingswas sup- Finally,we note that, for severalpotentialmoderator

ported.However,ourexpectationthatassessingsinglever- variables(e.g.,studentvs. nonstudentsubjects,consumer
sus multiplefeelingswouldaffectthe relationshipbetween nondurablesvs. other types of stimulus products,and
feelingsand ad attitudewas not supported. televisionvs. print ads), one of the subgroupscontained
44
so few observations(one or two) that meaningfulconclu-
sions were difficultto draw,althoughsizable and often
statisticallysignificantdifferencesresultedbetweena single
correlationrepresentingone of the subgroupsand the
mean of multiple study effects representingthe other
subgroup.Thus,futureresearchprovidingadditionaldata
pointswouldbe veryuseful.Forexample,researchrelating
feelingsto ad attitudeis homogeneouswith respectto
employingstudentsamplesand using televisionads for
consumernondurableproducts,but it wouldbe usefulto
includestudiesusing nonstudentsamplesand print and
radioads for productsotherthan consumernondurables
to furtherassessthe moderatingeffectsof thesevariables.
In summary,the 11 moderatorsanalyzedhad varied
effectson the five pairwiserelationshipsstudied.It is ev-
ident that differencesin methodsacrossstudieshave led
to much of the variancein resultsin articlesinvolvingad
attitude,and understandingthese methodologicaleffects
leadsto a clearerpictureof the robustnessof the effects
of ad attitudes.To determinehow completelythe coded
studycharacteristics wereableto accountfor variancein
the study effects,furtheranalyseswere undertaken.The
next sectionreportsthese analyses.
RegressionAnalyses
Hedgesand Olkin (1985, pp. 240-241) suggesta two-
step procedurefor analyzingunexplainedvarianceafter
the significance of moderators for correlation coeffi-
cients is assessed.First, homogeneitywithin each level
of a significant moderator is assessed because, if ho-
mogeneityis found, it can be concluded that the mod-
eratoradequatelyaccounts for the variationin the cor-
relationsacrossthe studies analyzed.If homogeneityis
not found, individual study correlations(convertedto
Fisher'sz-transforms)are regressedon the coded study
characteristics(the moderators)to assesswhetherthey,
taken together, can account for the variation. The
weighted sums of squares of the residuals from the
regressionhave an approximatechi-squaredistribution
with k - p degreesof freedom (wherek is the number
of study effects and p is the number of predictorvari-
ablesin the model).Significantvaluesof the test statistic
suggestthat the model is not well specifiedto account
for variancein the study effects.5
In our research,the subgroupswere not completely
homogeneous for any of the moderator variables.
Therefore,the regressionanalysis was run for each of
the five pairwiserelationshipsstudied.
5Onlythe test statisticis reportedbecausebetasfromthe regressions
are not interpretablefor two reasons.First, significantcollinearity
was found. Second, missing or nonclassifiableeffects for any one
moderatorexcluded a study from the regressionanalysis. Because
this occurredfor a numberof studies,the two-grouptest reportedin
the moderatorsectiongives a more accuratepictureof the influence
of each moderatorbecauseit makes more complete use of the data
(i.e., all studiescodableon each moderatorareusedin each analysis).
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
For both the feelings and ad attitude and the brand
cognitionsand ad attituderelationshipsthe test statistic
was not significant (X2(4) = 6.65, p > .10; and X2(6)
= 10.40, p > .25, respectively).Thus, the moderators
appearedto account for the variationin these relation-
ships.Forthe ad cognitionsand ad attituderelationship,
the test statisticwas significant(X2(8)= 18.54,p < .05).
However, as noted above, elimination of one outlier
(MacKenzie and Lutz 1989, study 1) yielded overall
homogeneity for this relationship.
For both outcome relationships, ad attitude and
brandattitudeand ad attitudeand purchaseintentions,
the test statistic was significant (X2(19) = 129.94, p
< .01; x2(3) = 21.56, p < .01, respectively),indicating
that the model did not account well for the variancein
study effects. Thus, for both of these relationshipsthe
clustering procedure recommended by Hedges and
Olkin (1985, p. 280) was implemented to determine
which observationsdifferedsignificantlyfrom one an-
other (in a manner analogousto the Scheff6procedure
for testing post hoc contrasts).
For the ad attitude and brand attitude relationship,
the procedureindicated that the five smallest correla-
tions (r = .25-.44; Droge 1989; Reddy and LaBarbera
1985; Stayman and Aaker 1988; Yi 1990a; Zinkhan,
Locander,and Leigh 1986) differedsignificantlyfrom
the threelargestcorrelations(all r's = .86; Keller 199Ib;
MacKenzie et al. 1986 study 2; MacKenzie and Lutz
1989, study 1). The procedurealso indicated that the
five largest correlations (the three above plus Keller
1991a and MacKenzieet al. 1986 study 1; r = .83 and
.80, respectively)differedsignificantlyfrom the smallest
(Droge 1989; r = .25).
For the ad attitudeand purchaseintentions relation-
ship, the clustering procedure indicated that the six
lowest correlations(r's = .13-.29; Duncan and Nelson
1985; Kamins et al. 1989; Machleit and Wilson 1988;
Muehling and Laczniak 1988; Stayman and Aaker
1988; Yi 1990a) differedsignificantlyfrom the highest
correlation(Muehling 1987; r = .75) and that the two
highest correlations(Muehling 1987; Miniard,Bhatla,
and Rose 1990; r = .62) differedsignificantlyfrom the
lowest correlation (Muehling and Laczniak 1988; r
= .13). Post hoc scrutinyof these significantdifferences
did not suggestany moderatorvariablesin addition to
those originallycoded and describedabove.
In summary, these analyses indicate that the 11
moderators studied in this research not only had a
number of significant influences on the five pairwise
relationshipsstudiedbut also could adequatelyaccount
for the total variationin the study effects for two rela-
tionships involving ad attitude and the intermediate
variablesof feelingsand brandcognitions. Elimination
of one outlier would account for variation in a third
relationship(ad cognitions and ad attitude). However,
furtherresearchis necessaryto accountfor the variation
between ad attitude and the two outcome variablesof
brandattitudesand purchaseintentions.Althoughfour
EFFECTS OF AD ATTITUDE
of our moderatorssignificantlyinfluencedeach of these
relationships(see Table 4), togetherthey could not ac-
count forall of the variationfound, suggestingthat other
potentialmoderatorvariablesnot includedin the mod-
els exist.
CAUSAL MODEL ANALYSIS
One of the most prevalent recent directions in re-
search on ad attitudes has been testing alternative
structuralmodels of the process through which ad at-
titudes are influenced by antecedent variablesand, in
turn, influenceadvertisingoutcomes. The four models
most often tested are those first proposed by Lutz,
MacKenzie,and Belch(1983) and aredepictedin Figure
2: the affect transfer,dual mediation, reciprocal me-
diation, and independentinfluenceshypotheses.
Initial work on the four alternativemodels suggests
supportfor the dual mediation hypothesis(Lutz et al.
1983;MacKenzieet al. 1986). Supportfor the dual me-
diation model has provedrobustto such effectsas level
of involvement and brand considerationset (Gardner
1985; Homer 1990) and the decomposition of ad atti-
tude into claim and nonclaim dimensions (Miniardet
al. 1990).
However,the studiestestingthe model representonly
a small portion of the stimuli, situations, and other
contextual factors under which the role of ad attitude
has been testedthroughoutthe researchstream.Hunter
and Schmidt(1990, p. 40) suggestthat the role of meta-
analysisin theorydevelopmentcan be enhancedby us-
ing weighted mean correlations based on aggregated
empirical study effects in path-analyticmodels speci-
fying hypothesizedcausal relationships.Because path-
analyticmodels have played such an importantrole in
researchon ad attitudes,we estimatedthe variouscausal
models proposed as explanations for the effects of ad
attitudes using the mean correlationsfrom the meta-
analysis.We performedthis analysisto assess the gen-
eralizabilityof previouspath-analyticresults.Thus, our
primarypurposein conducting this meta-analytictest
was to evaluate whether the support for the dual me-
diation model was consistent with data generalized
acrossthe researchstream.In addition, we assessedthe
correspondencebetween the path values found in pre-
vious researchwith those based on the meta-analysis.
Causal Model Estimation. Before estimating the
causal model, we assessedthe effects of using a matrix
of averagecorrelationsconsistingof effectsfrom differ-
ent studies as input data for causal model estimation.
A test of overall equality of correlation matrices, de-
scribedby Wertset al. (1976), was conductedcomparing
the matrix computed from all available studies with a
matrixof averagecorrelationscomputed from only the
studies that made up homogeneous subsets for each
pairwiserelationship.
The test consisted of estimatinga two-groupconfir-
matory-factor-analysismodel by means of LISREL
45
FIGURE2
MODELSOFAD ATTITUDE
FOURALTERNATIVE
A. Affect TransferHypothesis
Ad Cognitions - Ad Attitude
BrandCognitions-0-Brand Attitude-p- PurchaseIntention
B. DualMediationHypothesis
Ad Cognitions - Ad Attitude
BrandCognitions- -Brand Attitude- PurchaseIntention
C. ReciprocalMediationHypothesis
Ad Cognitions -- Ad Attitude
BrandCognitions--*-Brand Attitude- PurchaseIntention
D. IndependentInfluencesHypothesis
Ad Cognitions 0 Ad Attitude
BrandCognitions _- Brand Attitude- PurchaseIntention
(Joreskogand S6rbom 1986), and specifyingthe model
so that correlationsamong the latent factorswereequal
to the correlationsamong the observedvariables(Werts
et al. 1976). The values of the intercorrelationsamong
the factorswerethen constrainedto be equal acrossthe
two groups.The significanceof the chi-squarefit statistic
resultingfrom maximum likelihood estimation consti-
tutesa test of the equalityof the two correlationmatrices
(Werts et al. 1976). Estimating the two-group model
with all parametersconstrainedto be equal across the
two groupsresultedin a fit of X2(15) = 14.42 (p = .49),
which indicates that no significant overall difference
betweenthe two matricesof averagecorrelationsexists.6
On the basis of this result, the matrix of averagecor-
relations calculated from all available pairwise corre-
lations was used in subsequentanalyses.
Causal Model Results. Tests were conducted as-
sessing the fit of the four causal models proposed by
MacKenzie et al. (1986) to the aggregateddata from
the availablestudies.Again, the fourcompetingmodels
are depicted in Figure2.
Estimationof the affect-transfermodel yielded X2(6)
= 171.00, indicatingthat the model fit the data poorly.
The reciprocalmediation model produceda fit to the
data of X2(5) = 156.27, also indicatinga ratherpoor fit.
Fitting the independent influences model resulted in
x2(6) = 693.70, indicating a worse fit to the data. Fi-
nally, fittingthe dual mediationmodel to the aggregated
6In this and the followinganalyses,the median sample size from
the meta-analysisof relationshipsamong constructsin the model (N
= 1,252) was used.
46
data producedx2(5) = 17.32. Althoughthis is still sta-
tisticallysignificant(p < .01), the Joreskogand Sorbom
goodness-of-fitindex (.995) and root mean square re-
sidual(.018) indicatethe dual-mediationmodel'sability
to reproducethe originalmatrixof averagecorrelations.
These statisticswereless supportiveof the othermodels
(the goodness of fit = .952, .955, and .853 and the root
mean square residual = .129, .115, and .258 for the
affect-transfer,reciprocalmediation, and independent
influences models, respectively).The dual mediation
model's dramaticimprovementin fit over the compet-
ing models is evidence of its superiorityas a represen-
tation of the aggregateddata from the availablestudies.
Thus, these results support the conclusions of Mac-
Kenzie et al. (1986), Miniard et al. (1990), Homer
(1990), and otherswho found supportfor the dual me-
diation model.
Analysis of ParameterValues. Parameterestimates
and t-valuesfor the dual mediationmodel arepresented
in Figure3. Pathcoefficientswereestimatedon weighted
averagecorrelationscorrectedfor measurementunre-
liability.Therefore,pathsfromlatentconstructsto their
single observedindicatorswere set to one. Each struc-
tural path estimated was statistically significant (p
< .01). In general,the resultsare consistent with those
of past studies.However,two points areworthyof note.
First, results of previous empirical estimates of the
dual-mediationmodel havedifferedas to whetherbrand
cognitionssignificantlyaffectbrandattitudes(cf. Homer
1990; MacKenzie and Lutz 1989; MacKenzie et al.
1986). The aggregateddata analyzed here suggestthat
a significantbrand cognition and brand attitude rela-
tionship exists, which is important in understanding
the indirecteffectof ad attitude.It may be worthnoting,
however, that the brand cognition and brand attitude
relationshipis, as in most studies, the weakest in the
model.
Second, while the meta-analyticmodel supports a
significantindirecteffectof ad attitudeon brandattitude
(via brand cognitions), the direct effect of ad attitude
on brandattitudeappearsto be weakerthan that found
in past tests of the model. For example, of the nine
studiesin our literaturereviewthat tested the dual me-
diation model, only two had a parameterestimate less
than .70, and only one had a parameterestimateequiv-
alent to the .57 in our model (Homer 1990, experiment
2; estimate= .55). Giventhatthesecoefficientsarebased
on correlationscorrectedfor measurementerror, this
result is surprisingbecause our path coefficientshould
be increasedby the correction.Thus, the meta-analysis
appearsto suggesta relativelystrongerindirect versus
direct influence of ad attitudethan would be indicated
by previoustests of the model.
DISCUSSION
The results of this meta-analysisprovide a number
of insightsinto the effectsof ad attitudes.First, as with
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
FIGURE3
STRUCTURALPATH ESTIMATESAND T-VALUES
MODEL
FOR THE DUAL-MEDIATION
.52
Ad Cognitions - - Ad Attitude
(21.53)
.57
(25.58)
.20 .73
BrandCognitions - -Brand Attitude IN PurchaseIntention
(8.59) (37.78)
NOTE.-Structural path estimates are standardized coefficients; t-values are
in parentheses, and t-values > 2.0 are statistically significant (Joreskog and
Sorbom 1986, chap. 3, p. 12).
any meta-analysis,the dataprovidea quantitativesum-
mary of the 47 samples reportedin the 43 articles for
which we could obtain usable data. As shown in Table
2 and discussedabove, the aggregatedstudy effectssug-
gest a substantialand significantrelationshipbetween
ad attitudesand a numberof importantconstructs,in-
cluding both antecedents (feelings, r = .54; ad-related
cognitions, r = .55) and "downstream"consequences
(brand-relatedcognitions, r = .33; brand attitude, r
= .67; purchase intentions, r = .43). The 95 percent
confidence interval around the mean correlationsfor
the five focal relationshipsincluded zero for only one
of the relationships(feelings and ad attitude).The fact
that relationships involving ad attitudes were strong
even in studies in which the ad attitude constructwas
not a primaryfocus (r = .26 and .61, respectively)sug-
gests its importancein explainingadvertisingeffects.
An importantgeneralfindingof this study is its sup-
port for the dual mediation model that was first pro-
posed by Lutz et al. (1983; MacKenzie et al. 1986).
This model, which posits a direct effect of ad attitude
on brandattitudeas well as an indirecteffectvia brand
cognitions, has been supportedby a number of studies
(e.g., Homer 1990;Miniardet al. 1990)and thus appears
fairlyrobust. However, the meta-analysissuggeststhat
the indirect route may be relatively more important
than previous researchhas suggestedfor two reasons.
First, the meta-analysissuggestsa substantialand sig-
nificantindirectpathfromad attitudesto brandattitude
via brandcognitions. Previouspath-analyticstudies of
ad attitudes have been divided on whetherbrand cog-
nitions have a significanteffecton brandattitudes.The
path-analyticstudy by MacKenzieand Lutz ( 1989), for
example, did not find a significant effect, whereas
Homer (1990) concludedthat a significantpath did ex-
ist. Our findings,which are based on aggregatedstudy
effects, suggestthat brand cognitions do have a signif-
icant effect on brandattitudes.This point is significant
in view of the fact that researchon ad attitudes grew
out of the Fishbein tradition of attitude research(e.g.,
Mitchell and Olson 1981; Shimp 1981) and modified
the Fishbeinian view that only brand beliefs affected
brand attitudes.
EFFECTS OF AD ATTITUDE
Indeed,the Fishbeinianview was even more extreme
in suggestingthat only utilitarian beliefs affect brand
attitudes. Recently, some studies on Aad (e.g., Mac-
Kenzie and Lutz 1989) have gone so farin the opposite
direction as to suggestthat brand cognitions may not
have a significanteffect on brandattitudes.The results
of our meta-analyticstudysuggestthat brandcognitions
do significantly,albeit modestly,affectbrandattitudes.
Theseresultsareconsistentwith Zannaand Rempel's
(1988; Zanna 1980) attitude model in suggestingthat
brand attitudes can be based on a variety of sources
(e.g., brandcognitions, brand affect, ad cognitions, ad
affect, etc.). In a related study, Brecklerand Wiggins
(1991) demonstratedthat cognitive responsesto a per-
suasive messageare relatedto both affectiveand eval-
uative dimensions of precommunicationattitude. The
meta-analysis supports the results of the study by
Brecklerand Wiggins (1991) in suggestingthat both
affectiveand cognitive influences play a role in deter-
mining brandattitudes.It appearsthat researchon de-
terminantsof brand attitudeshas shifted from one ex-
treme to another but that a more moderate position,
incorporatingboth affective and cognitive influences,
is more accurate.
Second, and perhapsmore interesting,the direct in-
fluence of ad attitude on brand attitude in our meta-
analysis was much weaker than that found in almost
all previous path-analyticinvestigations.Inasmuch as
previous investigations of the dual mediation model
have focused centrally on the ad attitude construct, it
is possible that the strongerad attitude and brand at-
titude effects reportedin those studies reflect a publi-
cation bias against studies reporting smaller effects.
Collectively,these findingssuggestthat caution is war-
ranted not to overemphasizethe direct effect of ad at-
titudes on brandattitudes, nor to underemphasizethe
significantrole played by an indirect effect via brand
cognitions in the determinationof brand attitudes.
Tests of effect homogeneity suggestedthat the effect
of ad-relatedcognitions on ad attitudeand the effectof
ad attitudeson brand-relatedcognitionswererelatively
robust across study contexts and that overall homoge-
neity of effects could be obtained by deleting one or
two outliers.The homogeneitytests, however,indicated
substantial variation in the relationshipsbetween ad
attitudeand feelings,brandattitudes,and purchasein-
tentions. These findingssuggestthat these latter effects
were not robustacross study contexts.
Of 11 coded study characteristicsused as potential
moderatorvariables,all but one had significantmod-
eratingeffectson at least one pairwiserelationship.Of
the nine moderatorsthat were tested with respectto all
five pairwise relationships,eight significantlyaffected
two differentrelationships.Thus, it appearsthat many
methodologicaldecisions regardingstudy context have
significanteffectson the resultsof studies involving ad
attitudes.
47
Moderatoranalysesindicatedthat usingmulti-versus
single-itemscales to measuread attitudehad relatively
minor effectson averagecorrelations,making a signif-
icant differenceonly in the case of the ad attitude and
brandattituderelationship.The use of studentsamples,
a pervasivepracticein researchon ad attitudes,tended
to produce larger effects than the use of nonstudent
samplesdid, and it significantlymoderatedrelationships
between ad attitude and the antecedent constructs of
feelingsand ad-relatedcognitions.These resultssuggest
that the possibility of upwardbias in effect sizes gen-
eratedfrom student samples should be recognizedand
that caution should be used in attemptingto generalize
such resultsto other populations.
The product-relatedmoderatorvariables(i.e., novel
vs. familiarbrandand consumernondurablevs. "other"
product type) each affected differentad attitude rela-
tionships. Studies using novel brands reportedsignifi-
cantly strongerrelationshipsbetween ad attitude and
the outcome constructsof brandattitudeand purchase
intentions, suggestingthat the existence of priorbrand
attitudes reduces the impact of ad attitudes on these
outcomes. Producttype (i.e., consumernondurablevs.
"other")significantlyaffectedthe feelings and ad atti-
tude and ad attitudeand brandcognitionsrelationships
(both relationships were stronger for products other
than consumernondurables).These resultsmay reflect
greatersubject involvement with services and higher-
priced durable products. The results also suggest that
the types of productsrepresentedin stimulusads should
be selectedcarefullybecausethey can significantlyaffect
study outcomes. By using ads for a mixture of product
types as stimuli, a number of studies in the research
stream (e.g., Holbrook and Batra 1987; Olney et al.
1991; Stayman and Aaker 1988) have generalizedthe
effects of ad attitudes across product types, and this
practiceis likelyto be effectivein avoidingany potential
biasing effects of product type.
Threecoded study characteristicsrelatedto subjects'
processinggoalsduringexposureto ads (i.e., advertising
medium, whetherads wereimbeddedin othermaterial,
and whethersubjectswere instructedto attend to ads)
affected ad attitude relationships. As expected, these
variables had different effects on the feelings and ad
attituderelationshipthan they had on the cognitiveand
behavioral outcomes of ad attitudes. Conditions that
favored greater cognitive elaboration (i.e., print ads,
nonimbedded ads, and instructions to attend to ads)
producedsmallereffectsof feelingson ad attitude.These
same conditions, however, tended to yield higher cor-
relations between ad attitudes and the downstream
constructs of brand cognitions, brand attitudes, and
purchase intentions. These results, generalizedacross
the entireresearchstream,corroborateearlierempirical
findingsby Madden et al. (1988) and strongly suggest
that processinggoals that enhance cognitive responses
may inhibit affective responses. Furtherresearchinto
48
these phenomena is likely to produce useful insights
into advertisingeffectiveness.
Within-subjectsstudydesignshad the expectedeffect
of producingsignificantlylargereffect sizes for the ad
attitude and brand attitude relationshipand substan-
tially (thoughnot significantly)largereffectsizes for the
ad attitudeand purchaseintentions relationship.These
results are consistent with those of Rao and Monroe
(1989),who founda strongerpriceand perceivedquality
relationshipfor studies using within-subjectsdesigns.
Study design, however, had the opposite effect on the
feelings and ad attitude relationship.Feelings (or ads
elicitingdifferentfeelings)werethe within-subjectsfac-
tor in virtuallyall studies included in the feelings and
ad attitude analysis. In light of previous evidence that
feelingresponsescan be quite variableacrossads (Hol-
brook and Batra 1987;Olney et al. 1991), it is possible
that attemptingto generalizethe effects of ad attitude
across feelings and feeling executions mixes qualita-
tively different effects and diminishes the overall
strengthof the relationship.In futureresearch,it would
be useful to carefullyidentify the nature and strength
of effectsthat differentfeelingsand differentfeeling ex-
ecutions have on ad attitudes and related advertising
outcomes.
The moderatoranalysessuggestthat the coded study
characteristicsinfluencedifferentportionsof the system
of relationships represented in the dual mediation
model. The novel versus familiar brand variable, for
example, primarilyaffectedthe downstreamrelation-
ships in the nomological network(i.e., ad attitude and
brandattitudeand ad attitudeand purchaseintentions
relationships). Study focus also affected these same
downstreamrelationships,althoughit also had a strong
effect on the feelings and ad attitude relationship.
In contrast,for example,producttype and advertising
medium both significantlyinfluenced the ad attitude
and brand cognitions relationship. It is possible that
the strongereffect for products other than consumer
nondurables reflects higher involvement levels and
greatercognitiveelaborationof advertisedmaterialsfor
more involving products. It is also possible that the
strongereffect for print ads reflectsgreateropportunity
to cognitively elaborate printed information versus
televised information(Chaikenand Eagly 1983).
The ability of moderatorvariablesto accountjointly
for variancein study effectsdifferedacrossthe relation-
ships investigated. After deletion of only one or two
study effects, there was no significantvariance in the
relationshipsbetween ad attitude and ad- and brand-
relatedcognitions left to be explained.For the feelings
and ad attitude and ad attitude and brand cognitions
relationships,the coded moderatorvariableseffectively
accounted for the preponderanceof variancein study
effects,suggestingthat there was no need to specify ad-
ditional potentialmoderators.For the relationshipsbe-
tween ad attitude and brand attitude and purchase
intentions, however, significant residual variance
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
remained after accounting for the joint effects of the
coded moderators,suggestingthat additional sources
of variationexist besides those identifiedhere.
Collectively, these findings suggest that, although
some ad attitude relationships are relatively robust
across study contexts (e.g., ad- and brand-relatedcog-
nitions), othersare more significantlyaffectedby meth-
odological choices. Useful insights are gained by ana-
lyzing the effects of these methodologicalchoices, and
they should be carefully considered in the process of
designing (and interpreting)individual studies. Such
basic methodologicalchoices as advertisingmedium or
whetherto imbed ads in other materials,for example,
are seldom well justified with respect to the research
questions posed, but these meta-analyticfindingssug-
gest that such decisions may have importanteffectson
the resultsobtained.
The partitioningof study effects by design features
indicates the presenceof some systematicbiases in the
methodological choices made by researchers.For ex-
ample, of studies relating feelings to ad attitudes, 14
used television ads, whereas only one used print ads.
Likewise,for all relationshipsinvestigated,the prepon-
deranceof studiesemployedstudentsubjects.Although
moderatoranalyses suggest that some of these design
features may not significantly influence effect sizes,
others suggest that repeated study of a relationship
within the same researchcontext may produce results
that do not generalizeto other contexts. For example,
use of student samples produced largeraveragecorre-
lations in two of the five focal relationships,but only a
small number of studies used nonstudent subjects in
both cases. A greaternumber of studies using nonstu-
dent subjects would permit greaterconfidence in the
validityof conclusionsregardingthe magnitudeof effect
sizes.
For similarreasons,studiesusing producttypes other
than consumer nondurablesto assess the effects of ad
attitudes on ad- and brand-relatedcognitions, brand
attitudes,and purchaseintentions could provideuseful
insights regardingthe effects of prior familiarity and
knowledgeon these relationships.They could also pro-
vide greater confidence in conclusions regardingthe
generalizabilityof these relationships.Suchbroadening
of the contexts in which ad attitudesare studiedshould
increaseconfidencein the effectsizes found and provide
avenues for assessmentof new moderatorvariables.
Finally, in integratingresearchfindings on Aad, we
have been guided by Cooper's(1989) discussion of va-
lidity issues. Cooperhighlightsthe importanceof care-
fully definingthe scope and objectivesof the integrative
review,thoroughlysearchingfor relevantstudies, com-
plete reporting of coding and analytical procedures,
rigorousand systematicanalysis, and carefulinterpre-
tation of results. Like any meta-analysis,the findings
and conclusions of our study should be evaluated in
terms of these criteriafor safeguardingvalidity.
EFFECTS OF AD ATTITUDE
The scope of this reviewassessinga numberof issues
relatedto the effectsof ad attitudeswas broad. A thor-
ough search for relevant studies produced 43 articles
forwhich usabledatacould be obtained.However,data
could not be obtained for 14 additional studies that
were identified as relevant to the topic. Although no
differencesbetween those studies for which data were
or were not available seemed apparent, it is possible
that some differencesmight have resultedif it had been
possibleto include all studies.Thereappearsto be little
if any basis, however,for positing the existence of sys-
tematic differencesin effects for the relatively many
studies included in the analysis and the relativelyfew
for which effectswere not available.
In addition, as noted above, some cells in the mod-
eratoranalyseshad a verysmall numberof studyeffects
(as few as a singleobservation).Thus, particularcaution
must be used in interpretingthese results. Finally, as
with all meta-analyses,the results are constrained by
the methods used in the studies. Althoughresearchon
ad attitudeshas been conductedin a numberof settings
and no one data set was used twice, power to assess
potential moderatingeffectswas underminedby small
subgroupsample sizes. These problems,along with in-
terpretationaldifficultiesin the coding of studies, pre-
cluded specific investigation of such potentially inter-
esting moderator variables as involvement (although
the effects of processing-goalvariablesare likely to be
partiallydue to task involvement).
In summary,effortsto understandthe effects of ad
attitudes appear to represent an important ongoing
stream of research on advertising effects. Our meta-
analysisof findingsrelatedto ad attitude suggeststhat
the relationshipsbetweenad attitudeand othervariables
are strongbut vary accordingto a number of method-
ologicalfactors.In addition,the influenceof ad attitude
appearsto occur via paths specifiedin the dual media-
tion model, with a relativelystrongerindirect path via
brand-relatedcognitionsthan has been reportedin pre-
vious empiricalresearch.However,futureresearchthat
identifiesadditionalsources of variationappearsto be
necessary to completely account for variation in the
relationshipsinvolving ad attitudes.
[ReceivedMarch 1991. Revised November1991.]
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A., Douglas M. Stayman, and Michael R. Hag-
erty (1986), "Warmth in Advertising: Measurement, Im-
pact, and Sequence Effects," Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 12 (March), 365-381.
Alpert, Mark I., Linda L. Golden, and Wayne D. Hoyer
(1982), "The Impact of Repetition on Advertisement
Miscomprehension and Effectiveness," in Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 10, ed. Richard P. Bagozzi and
Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Con-
sumer Research, 130-135.
49
Bangert-Downs, Robert L. (1986), "Review of Developments
in Meta-analytic Method," Psychological Bulletin, 99 (3),
388-399.
Batra, Rajeev and Michael L. Ray (1986), "Affective Re-
sponses Mediating Acceptance of Advertising," Journal
of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 234-249.
Belch, George and'Michael A. Belch (1984), "An Investigation
of the Effects of Repetition on Cognitive and Affective
Reactions to Humorous and Serious Television Com-
mercials," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11,
ed. Thomas C. Kinnear, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for
Consumer Research, 4-10.
Bettman, James R. (1986), "Consumer Psychology," in An-
nual Review of Psychology, Vol. 37, ed. Mark R. Rosen-
zweig and Lyman W. Porter, Palo Alto, CA: Annual Re-
views, 257-290.
Breckler, Steven J. and Elizabeth C. Wiggins (1991), "Cog-
nitive Response in Persuasion: Affective and Evaluative
Determinants," Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 27 (March), 180-200.
Brinberg, David and James Jaccard (1986), "Meta-analysis:
Techniques for the Quantitative Integration of Research
Findings,"in Perspectiveson Methodologyin Consumer
Research, ed. David Brinberg and Richard J. Lutz, New
York: Springer, 155-180.
Burke, Marian Chapman and Julie A. Edell (1989), "The Im-
pact of Feelings on Ad-based Affect and Cognition,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (February), 69-83.
Calder, Bobby J., Lynn W. Phillips, and Alice M. Tybout
(1981), "Designing Research for Application," Journal
of Consumer Research, 8 (September), 197-207.
Chaiken, Shelly and Alice H. Eagly (1983), "Communication
Modality as a Determinant of Persuasion: The Role of
Communicator Salience," Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45 (20), 241-256.
Chattopadhyay, Amitava and Kunal Basu (1990), "Humor
in Advertising: The Moderating Role of Prior Brand
Evaluation,"Journal of MarketingResearch, 27 (No-
vember), 466-476.
Cohen, Joel B. and Dipankar Chakravarti (1990), "Consumer
Psychology," in Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 41,
ed. Mark R. Rosenzweig and Lyman W. Porter, Palo
Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, 243-288.
Cooper, Harris M. (1989), Integrating Research: A Guide for
Literature Reviews, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cox, Dena S. and Anthony D. Cox (1988), "What Does Fa-
miliarity Breed? Complexity as a Moderator of Repetition
Effects in Advertisement Evaluation," Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 15 (June), 111- 116.
Droge, Cornelia (1989), "Shaping the Route to Attitude
Change: Central versus Peripheral Processing through
Comparative versus Noncomparative Advertising,"
Journalof MarketingResearch,26 (May), 193-204.
Duncan, Calvin P. and James E. Nelson (1985), "Effects of
Humor in a Radio Advertising Experiment," Journal of
Advertising, 14 (2), 33-40.
Edell, Julie A. and Marian Chapman Burke (1987), "The
Power of Feelings in Understanding Advertising Effects,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 421-433.
Farley, John U. and Donald Lehmann (1986), Meta-analysis
in Marketing:Generalizationof ResponseModels, Lex-
ington, MA: Lexington.
50
Gardner, Meryl (1985), "Does Attitude toward the Ad Affect
Brand Attitude under a Brand Evaluation Set?" Journal
of Marketing Research, 22 (May), 281-300.
Goldberg, Marvin E. and Gerald J. Gorn (1987), "Happy and
Sad TV Programs: How They Affect Reactions to Com-
mercials," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (Decem-
ber), 387-403.
Golden, Linda L. and Keren A. Johnson (1984), "The Impact
of Sensory Preference and Thinking versus Feeling Ap-
peals on Advertising Effectiveness," in Advances in Con-
sumer Research, Vol. 10, ed. Richard P. Bagozzi and
Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Con-
sumer Research, 203-208.
Greenwald, Anthony G. and Clark Leavitt (1984), "Audience
Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels," Journal of
Consumer Research, 11 (June), 581-592.
Gresham, Larry G. and Terence A. Shimp (1985), "Attitude
toward the Advertisement and Brand Attitudes: A Clas-
sical Conditioning Approach," Journal of Advertising,
14 (1), 10-17.
Haley, Russel I. and Allan L. Baldinger (1991), "The ARF
Copy Research Validity Project," Journal ofAdvertising
Research, 31 (April/May), 11-32.
Harris, William and David J. Moore (1989), "Affect Intensity
as an Individual Difference Variable in Consumer Re-
sponse to Advertising Appeals," paper presented at the
Association for Consumer Research, New Orleans.
Hedges, Lawrence V. and Ingram Olkin (1985), Statistical
Methods for Meta-analysis, Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
Hill, Ronald Paul (1988), "An Exploration of the Relationship
between AIDS-related Anxiety and the Evaluation of
Condom Advertisements," Journal ofAdvertising, 17 (4),
35-42.
(1989), "An Exploration of Voter Responses to Po-
litical Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 18 (4), 14-
22.
Holbrook, Morris B. (1978), "Beyond Attitude Structure:
Toward the Information Determinants of Attitude,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (November), 545-
556.
and Rajeev Batra (1987), "Assessing the Role of
Emotions as Mediators of Consumer Responses to Ad-
vertising," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (Decem-
ber), 404-420.
Homer, Pamela M. (1990), "The Mediating Role of Attitude
toward the Ad: Some Additional Evidence," Journal of
Marketing Research, 27 (February), 78-86.
Houston, Michael J., J. Paul Peter, and Alan G. Sawyer
(1983), "The Role of Meta-analysis in Consumer Re-
search," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, ed.
Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor,
MI: Association for Consumer Research, 503-508.
Hoyer, Wayne D. (1984), "An Examination of Consumer
Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Prod-
uct," Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (December),
822-829.
Hunter, John E. and Frank L. Schmidt (1990), Methods of
Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research
Findings, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Johnson, Blair T. and Alice H. Eagly (1989), "Effects of In-
volvement on Persuasion: A Meta-analysis," Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 106 (2), 290-314.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Joreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom (1986), LISREL: Analysis
of Linear StructuralRelationships by the Method of
Maximum Likelihood, 4th ed., Mooresville, IN: Scientific
Software.
Kamins, Michael A. (1990), "An Investigation into the
'Match-Up' Hypothesis in Celebrity Advertising: When
Beauty Is Only Skin Deep," Journal of Advertising, 19
(1), 4-13.
, Meribeth J. Brand, Stuart A. Hoeke, and John C.
Moe (1989), "Two-sided versus One-sided Celebrity En-
dorsements: The Impact on Advertising Effectiveness and
Credibility," Journal of Advertising, 18 (2), 4-10.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1987), "Memory Factors in Advertising:
The Effect of Advertising Retrieval Cues on Brand Eval-
uations," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December),
316-333.
(1991 a), "Cue Compatibility and Framing in Adver-
tising," Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (February),
42-57.
(1991b), "Memory and Evaluative Effects in Com-
petitive Advertising Environments," Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 17 (March), 463-476.
Kilbourne, William E. (1986), "An Exploratory Study of the
Effect of Sex Role Stereotyping on Attitudes toward
Magazine Advertisements," Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 14 (Winter), 43-46.
Krugman, Herbert (1965), "The Impact of Television Ad-
vertising: Learning without Involvement," Public Opin-
ion Quarterly,29 (Fall), 349-356.
Laczniak, Russell N. and Les Carlson (1989), "Examining
the Influence of Attitude toward the Ad on Brand Atti-
tudes," Journal of Business Research, 19 (December),
303-311.
Leigh, Thomas W., Arno J. Rethans, and Tamatha Reichen-
bach Whitney (1987), "Role Portrayals of Women in
Advertising,"Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 27 (Oc-
tober/November), 54-63.
Liu, Scott S. and Patricia A. Stout (1987), "Effects of Message
Modality and Appeal on Advertising Acceptance," Psy-
chology and Marketing, 4 (Fall), 167-188.
Lutz, Richard J., Scott B. MacKenzie, and George E. Belch
(1983), "Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of Ad-
vertising Effectiveness: Determinants and Conse-
quences," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10,
ed. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor,
MI: Association for Consumer Research, 532-539.
Lynch, John G., Jr. (1982), "On the External Validity of Ex-
periments in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer
Research, 9 (December), 225-239.
Machleit, Karen A. and R. Dale Wilson (1988), "Emotional
Feelings and Attitude toward the Advertisement: The
Roles of Brand Familiarity and Repetition," Journal of
Advertising,17 (3), 27-35.
Maclnnis, Deborah J. and C. Whan Park (1991), "The Dif-
ferential Role of Characteristics of Music in High- and
Low-Involvement Consumers' Processing of Ads," Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 18 (September), 16 1-173.
MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989), "An Em-
pirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of At-
titude toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Con-
text," Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 48-65.
, Richard J. Lutz, and George E. Belch (1986), "The
Role of Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of Adver-
EFFECTS OF AD ATTITUDE
tising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (May), 130-143.
Madden, Thomas J., Chris T. Allen, and Jacquelyn L. Twible
(1988), "Attitude toward the Ad: An Assessment of Di-
verse Measurement Indices under Different Processing
'Sets,'" Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (August),
242-252.
Miniard, Paul W., Sunil Bhatla, and Randall L. Rose (1990),
"On the Formation and Relationship of Ad and Brand
Attitudes: An Experimental and Causal Analysis," Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 27 (August), 290-303.
Mitchell, Andrew A. (1986), "The Effect of Verbal and Visual
Components of Advertisements on Brand Attitudes and
Attitude toward the Advertisement," Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 13 (June), 12-24.
and Jerry C. Olson (1981), "Are Product Attribute
Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand
Attitudes?" Journal ofMarketing Research, 18 (August),
318-322.
Monroe, Kent B. and R. Krishnan (1983), "A Procedure for
Integrating the Outcomes across Studies," in Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, ed. Richard P. Bagozzi
and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for
Consumer Research, 503-508.
Moore, Danny L. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1983), "The
Effects of Ad Affect on Advertising Effectiveness," in Ad-
vances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, ed. Richard P.
Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor, MI: Associ-
ation for Consumer Research, 526-531.
Muehling, Darrel D. (1987), "Comparative Advertising: The
Influence of Attitude toward the Ad on Brand Evalua-
tion," Journal ofAdvertising, 16 (4), 43-49.
and Russell N. Laczniak (1988), "Advertising's Im-
mediate and Delayed Influence on Brand Attitudes:
Considerations across Message-Involvement Levels,"
Journal ofAdvertising, 17 (4), 23-34.
Olney, Thomas J., Morris B. Holbrook, and Rajeev Batra
(1991), "Consumer Responses to Advertising: The Effects
of Ad Content, Emotions, and Attitude toward the Ad
on Viewing Time," Journal of Consumer Research, 17
(March), 440-453.
Park, C. Whan and S. Mark Young (1983), "Types and Levels
of Involvement and Brand Attitude Formation," in Ad-
vances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, ed. Richard P.
Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor, MI: Associ-
ation for Consumer Research, 320-324.
and S. Mark Young (1986), "Consumer Response to
Television Commercials: The Impact of Involvement and
51
Background Music on Brand Attitude Formation,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (February), 11-24.
Peter, J. Paul and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1986), "Rela-
tionships among Research Design Choices and Psycho-
metric Properties of Rating Scales: A Meta-analysis,"
Journalof MarketingResearch,23 (February),1-10.
Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1989), "The Effect of
Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on Buyers' Percep-
tions of Product Quality: An Integrative Review," Journal
of Marketing Research, 26 (August), 351-357.
Reddy, Srinivas K. and Priscilla A. LaBarbera (1985), "Hi-
erarchical Models of Attitude," Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 20 (October), 451-471.
Rosenthal, Robert (1984), Meta-analytic Proceduresfor Social
Research, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Russo, J. Edward and Debra L. Stephens (1990), "Ad-specific
Emotional Responses to Advertising," in Emotion in
Advertising:Theoreticaland PracticalExplorations,ed.
Stuart Agres et al., Westport, CT: Quorom, 113-124.
Shimp, Terence A. (1981), "Attitude toward the Ad as a Me-
diator of Consumer Brand Choice," Journal ofAdvertis-
ing, 10 (2), 9-15.
Stayman, Douglas M. and David A. Aaker (1988), "Are All
Effects of Ad-induced Feelings Mediated by Aad?"Journal
of Consumer Research, 15 (December), 368-373.
Werts, C. E., D. A. Rock, R. L. Linn, and K. G. Joreskog
(1976), "Comparison of Correlations, Variances, Co-
variances, and Regression Weights with or without Mea-
surement Error," Psychological Bulletin, 83 (6), 1007-
1013.
Winer, B. J. (1971), Statistical Principles in Experimental
Design, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Yi, Youjae (1 990a), "Cognitive and Affective Priming Effects
of the Context for Print Advertisements," Journal ofAd-
vertising, 19 (2), 40-48.
(1 990b), "The Effects of Contextual Priming in Print
Advertisements,"Journal of Consumer Research, 17
(September), 215-222.
Zanna, Mark P. (1990), "Attitude Function: Is It Related to
Attitude Structure?" in Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 12, ed. Marvin Goldberg et al., Ann Arbor, MI: As-
sociation for Consumer Research, 98-100.
and J. K. Rempel (1988), "Attitudes: A New Look at
an Old Concept,"in TheSocial Psychologyof Knowledge,
ed. D. Bar Tal and Arie Kruglanski, New York: Cam-
bridge University Press, 315-334.
Zinkhan, George M., William R. Locander, and James H.
Leigh (1986), "Dimensional Relationships of Aided Re-
call and Recognition," Journal ofAdvertising, 15 (1), 38-
46.