A common belief among marketing practitioners is that increasing the vividness of a message enhances its persuasiveness. This belief has received support in experimental investigations, but vividness also has been found to undermine persuasion or to have no effect. The authors extend a current view of memory operation to predict when and how vividness will affect persuasion. According to this view, the favorableness of available information determines the persuasive effect of vividness. This assertion is tested and supported in a series of experiments. The findings are discussed in terms of strategies for controlling vividness effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ., and BowerG. (1980), Human Associative Memory.Washington: V. H. Winston.
2.
AndreoliV., and WorchelS. (1978), “Effects of Media, Communicator and Message Position on Attitude Change,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 59–70.
3.
BorgidaE. (1979), “Character Proof and the Fireside Induction,”Law and Human Behavior, 3, 189–202.
4.
BorgidaE., and NisbettR. E. (1977), “The Differential Impact of Abstract vs. Concrete Information on Decisions,”Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1, 258–71.
5.
CalderB. J., and InskoC., and YandellB. (1974), “The Relation of Cognitive and Memorial Processes to Persuasion in a Simulated Jury Trial,”Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 62–93.
6.
ChaikinS., and EaglyA. H. (1976), “Communication Modality as a Determinant of Message Persuasiveness and Message Comprehensibility,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 605–14.
7.
DicksonP. R. (1982), “The Impact of Enriching Case and Statistical Information on Consumer Judgments,”Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 398–406.
8.
FinkeR. A. (1980), “Levels of Equivalence in Imagery and Perception,”Psychological Review, 87, 113–32.
9.
FiskeS. T., and TaylorS. E., and EtcoffN. L., and LauferJ. K. (1979), “Imaging, Empathy, and Causal Attributions,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 356–77.
10.
GottliebD. E., and TaylorS. E., and RudermanA. (1977), “Cognitive Bases of Children's Moral Judgments,”Developmental Psychology, 13, 547–56.
11.
GreenwaldA. G. (1968), “Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change,” in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, GreenwaldA. G., and BrockT. C., and OstromT. M., eds. New York: Academic Press.
12.
HamillR., and WilsonT. D., and NisbettR. E. (1980), “Insensitivity to Sample Bias: Generalizing from Atypical Cases,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 578–89.
13.
JuddC. M., and HarackiewiczJ. M. (1980), “Contrast Effects in Attitude Judgment: An Examination of the Accentuation Hypothesis,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 390–8.
14.
MacLachlanJ., and LaBarberaP. (1978), “Time-Compressed TV Commercials,”Journal of Advertising Research, 18, 11–15.
15.
MacLachlanJ., and SiegelM. H. (1980), “Reducing the Costs of TV Commercials by Use of Time Compressions,”Journal of Marketing Research, 17(February), 52–7.
16.
ManisM., and DovalinaI., and AvisN. E., and CardozeS. (1980), “Base Rates Can Affect Individual Predictions,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 231–48.
17.
MitchellA., and OlsonJ. C. (1981), “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?”Journal of Marketing Research, 18(August), 318–32.
18.
MurdockB. B., (1962), “The Serial Position Effect in Free Recall,”Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 482–8.
19.
NisbettR., and RossL. (1980), Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
20.
ReyesR. M., and ThompsonW. L., and BowerG. H. (1980), “Judgmental Biases Resulting from Differing Availabilities of Arguments,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 2–12.
21.
RosenthalR. (1978), “Combining Results of Independent Studies,”Psychological Bulletin, 85, 185–93.
22.
RosenthalR. (1982), “Valid Interpretation of Quantitative Research Results,” in New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science: Forms of Validity, No. 12, BrinbergD., and KidderL., eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,59–75.
23.
TaylorS., and ThompsonS. (1982), “Stalking the Elusive ‘Vividness’ Effect,”Psychological Review, 89, 155–81.
24.
TverskyA., and KahnemanD. (1973), “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability,”Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–32.
25.
WrightP. (1980), “Message-Evoked Thoughts: Persuasion Research Using Thought Verbalizations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 151–75.
26.
ZajoncR. (1980), “Feelings and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences,”American Psychologist, 35, 151–75.
27.
ZajoncR., and MarkusH. (1982), “Affective and Cognitive Factors in Preferences,”Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 123–31.
