The authors consider the effects of exposure to various advertising appeal types (differing in sidedness) on cognitive response and belief change in the context of inoculation and correspondence theory. In one experiment, subjects were exposed to either a one-sided, two-sided refutational, or two-sided nonrefutational appeal and the degree of cognitive activity incurred was measured. Results are partially supportive of both inoculation and correspondence theory, as two-sided appeals produced significantly less counterargumentation and source derogation than the one-sided appeal. In addition, the refutational appeal led to significantly more support argumentation than the one-sided appeal. However, exposure to either two-sided appeal did not differentially affect cognitions. In a second experiment, a disconfirming product trial experience was introduced as an “attack” condition to observe the effects on belief change given exposure to one of the advertising appeals used before. For all attributes, exposure to the one-sided appeal resulted in the greatest degree of belief change. Dominance for the predictions of inoculation over those of correspondence theory is not evident as belief change did not differ significantly between subjects exposed to either two-sided appeal. Finally, a measure of the change in purchase intent has only (nonsignificant) directional support.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonRolphe E. (1973), “Consumer Dissatisfaction: The Effect of Disconfirmed Expectancy on Perceived Product Performance,”Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (February), 38–44.
2.
AndersonW. ThomasJr., and GoldenLinda L. (1984), “Bank Promotion Strategy,”Journal of Advertising Research, 24 (April/May), 53–65.
3.
BelchGeorge E. (1981), “An Examination of Comparative and Noncomparative Television Commercials: The Effects of Claim Variation and Repetition on Cognitive Response and Message Acceptance,”Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 333–49.
4.
BitherStewart W., DolichIra, and NellElaine (1971), “The Application of Attitude Immunization Techniques in Marketing,”Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (February), 56–61.
5.
EtgarMichael, and GoodwinStephen A. (1982), “One-Sided Versus Two-Sided Message Appeals for New Brand Introductions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (March), 460–4.
6.
FazioRussell H., and ZannaMark P. (1978), “On the Predictive Validity of Attitudes: The Roles of Direct Experience and Confidence,”Journal of Personality, 46 (June), 228–43.
7.
FazioRussell H., and ZannaMark P. (1981), “Direct Experience and Attitude-Behavior Consistency,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 13, BerkowitzL., ed. New York: Academic Press, Inc.,161–202.
8.
FazioRussell H., ZannaMark P., and CooperJoel (1978), “Direct Experience and Attitude-Behavior Consistency: An Information Processing Analysis,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4 (Winter), 48–51.
9.
GoldenLinda L., and AlpertMark I. (1978), “The Relative Effectiveness of One-Sided and Two-Sided Communication for Mass Transit Advertising,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, Keith HuntH., ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research,12–18.
10.
HassR. Glen, and LinderDarwyn E. (1972), “Counterargument Availability and the Effects of Message Structure on Persuasion,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23 (August), 219–33.
11.
HoustonMichael J., and RothschildMichael L. (1977), “A Paradigm for Research on Consumer Involvement,” Working Paper #11-77-46, Graduate School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
12.
HovlandCarl I. (1954), “Effects of the Mass Media of Communication,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, LindzeyG., ed. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
13.
HovlandCarl I., LumsdaineArthur, and SheffieldFred D. (1949), Experiments in Mass Communication: Studies in Social Psychology in World War II, Vol. 3. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
HuntJames M., DomzalTeresa J., and KernanJerome B. (1982), “Causal Attributions and Persuasion: The Case of Disconfirmed Expectancies,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, MitchellAndrew A., ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research,287–92.
15.
HuntJames M., SmithMichael F., and KernanJerome B. (1984), “An Attribution Theory Perspective on Using Two-Sided Messages to Increase Seller Credibility,” in Personal Selling Theory and Research and Practice, JacobyJacob J., and Samuel CraigC., eds. New York: New York University,93–108.
16.
JonesEdward E., and DavisKeith E. (1965), “From Acts to Dispositions,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, BerkowitzL., ed. New York: Academic Press, Inc.,219–66.
17.
KaminsMichael A. (1984), “The Impact of Involvement, Advertising Type, and Expectation Level on Product Evaluation,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate School of Business Administration, New York University.
18.
KaminsMichael A., and AssaelHenry (1985), “A Cognitive Response Model of Consumer Expectation Leading to Product Evaluation Through Trial,” working paper, Graduate School of Business Administration, New York University.
19.
KelleyHarold H. (1973), “The Process of Causal Attribution,”American Psychologist, 28 (February), 107–28.
20.
LutzRichard J. (1975), “First-Order and Second-Order Cognitive Effects in Attitude Change,”Communication Research, 2 (July), 289–99.
21.
McGuireWilliam J. (1961), “The Effectiveness of Supportive and Refutational Defenses in Immunizing and Restoring Beliefs Against Persuasion,”Sociometry, 24 (June), 184–97.
22.
McGuireWilliam J., and PapageorgisDemetrios (1961), “The Relative Efficacy of Various Types of Prior Belief-Defenses in Producing Immunity Against Persuasion,”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62 (March), 327–37.
23.
OliverRichard L. (1977), “Effect of Expectation and Disconfirmation of Post-Exposure Product Evaluations: An Alternative Interpretation,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (August), 480–6.
24.
OlsonJerry C., and DoverPhilip (1979), “Disconfirmation of Consumer Expectations Through Product Trial,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 (April), 179–89.
25.
OlsonJerry C., ToyDaniel R., and DoverPhilip (1978), “Mediating Effects of Cognitive Responses to Advertising on Cognitive Structure,”m Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, Keith HuntH., ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 72–8.
26.
OlsonJerry C., ToyDaniel R., and DoverPhilip (1982), “Do Cognitive Responses Mediate the Effects of Advertising Content on Cognitive Structure?”,Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (December), 245–62.
27.
PettyRichard E., and CacioppoJohn T. (1981), “Issue Involvement as a Moderator of the Effects on Attitude of Advertising Content and Context,” in Advances in Consumer Research, MonroeKent B., ed. Arlington, VA: Association for Consumer Research,20–4.
28.
SawyerAlan G. (1973), “The Effects of Repetition of Refutational and Supportive Advertising Appeals,”Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (February), 23–33.
29.
SettleRobert B., and GoldenLinda L. (1974), “Attribution Theory and Advertiser Credibility,”Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (May), 181–5.
30.
SmithRobert E., and HuntShelby D. (1978), “Attributional Processes and Effects in Promotional Situations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (December), 149–58.
31.
SmithRobert E., and SwinyardWilliam R. (1982), “Information Response Models: An Integrated Approach,”Journal of Marketing, 46 (Winter), 81–93.
32.
SmithRobert E., and SwinyardWilliam R. (1983), “Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The Impact of Product Trial Versus Advertising,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (August), 257–67.
33.
SmithRobert E., and SwinyardWilliam R. (1985), “Cognitive Response to Advertising and Trial,” working paper, Graduate School of Business, Indiana University.
34.
SternthalBrian, PhillipsLynn W., and DholakiaRuby (1978), “The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: A Situational Analysis,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 42 (Fall), 289–314.
35.
SwinyardWilliam R. (1981), “The Interaction Between Comparative Advertising and Copy Claim Variation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (May), 175–86.
36.
SzybilloGeorge, and HeslinRichard (1973), “Resistance to Persuasion: Inoculation Theory in a Marketing Context,”Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (November), 396–403.
37.
TannenbaumPercy H. (1967), “The Congruity Principle Revisited: Studies in the Reduction, Induction, and Generalization of Persuasion,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 3, BerkowitzL., ed. New York: Academic Press, Inc.,271–320.
38.
ThistlethwaiteDonald L., and KemenetzkyJoseph (1955), “Attitude Change Through Refutation and Elaboration of Audience Counterarguments,”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51 (July), 3–12.
39.
ThistlethwaiteDonald L., KemenetzkyJoseph, and SchmidtHans (1956), “Factors Influencing Attitude Change Through Refutative Communication,”Speech Monographs, 23 (Winter), 14–25.
40.
ToyDaniel R. (1982), “Monitoring Communication Effects: Cognitive Structure/Cognitive Response Approach,”Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June), 66–76.
41.
WrightPeter L. (1973), “The Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of Advertising,”Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (February), 53–62.
42.
WrightPeter L. (1974), “Analyzing Media Effects on Advertising Responses,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 38 (Summer), 192–205.
43.
WrightPeter L. (1975), “Factors Affecting Cognitive Resistance to Advertising,”Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (June), 1–9.
