This research investigates the role of involvement and need for cognition in influencing contingency awareness in attitude formation. Two experiments examine the nature of favorable attitudes formulated through established classical conditioning procedures. The results of Experiment 1 indicate that awareness influences attitudes toward a conditioned stimulus, particularly under conditions of high involvement and high need for cognition. Experiment 2 suggests that contingency awareness mediates the relationship between inferential belief formation and attitudes and that this effect is stronger under high involvement and high need for cognition. Implications for understanding the role of classical conditioning procedures in advertising are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, Chris T. and Chris A. Janiszewski. 1989. “Assessing the Role of Contingency Awareness in Attitudinal Conditioning With Implications for Advertising Research.” Journal of Marketing Research26 (February): 30-43.
2.
Allen, Chris T. and Thomas J. Madden. 1985. “A Closer Look at Classical Conditioning.” Journal of Consumer Research12 (December): 301-315.
3.
Baeyens, Frank, Geert Crombez, and Paul Eelen. 1988. “Once in Contact Always in Contact: Evaluative Conditioning Is Resistant to Extinction.” Advanced Behavioral Research and Therapy10:179-199.
4.
Baeyens, Frank, Geert Crombez, Paul Eelen, and Omer van den Bergh. 1990. “Contingency Awareness in Evaluative Conditioning: A Case for Unaware Affective-Evaluative Learning.” Cognition and Emotion4:3-18.
5.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51 (December): 1173-1182.
6.
Blair, M. Elizabeth and Terence A. Shimp. 1992. “Consequences of an Unpleasant Experience with Music: A Second Order Negative Conditioning Perspective,” Journal of Advertising21 (1): 35-43.
7.
Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty, and Chuan Feng Kao. 1984. “The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition.” Journal of Personality Assessment48 (3): 306-307.
8.
Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty, and Regina Rodriguez. 1986. “Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: An Individual Difference Perspective.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51:1032-1043.
9.
Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty, and Katherine J. Morris. 1983. “Effects of Need for Cognition on Message Evaluation, Recall, and Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology45:805-818.
10.
Celsi, Richard L. and Jerry C. Olson. 1988. “The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes.” Journal of Consumer Research15 (September): 210-223.
11.
Garcia, John and Robert A. Koelling. 1966. “Relation of Cue to Consequence in Avoidance Learning.” Psychonomic Science4:123-124.
12.
Gardner, Meryl P., Andrew A. Mitchell, and J. Edward Russo. 1985. “Low Involvement Strategies for Processing Advertisements.” Journal of Advertising14:4-13.
13.
Gelb, Besty D. and George M. Zinkhan. 1986. “Humor and Advertising Effectiveness After Repeated Exposures to a Radio Commercial.” Journal of Advertising15 (2): 15-20.
14.
Gorn, Gerald J. 1982. “The Effects of Music in Advertising on Choice Behavior: A Classical Conditioning Approach.” Journal of Marketing46 (Winter): 94-101.
15.
Greenwald, Anthony G. and Clark Leavitt. 1984. “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels.” Journal of Consumer Research11 (June): 581-592.
16.
Grossman, Randi Priluck, and Brian D. Till. 1998. “The Persistence of Classically Conditioned Brand Attitudes.” Journal of Advertising27 (1): 23-31.
17.
Hamm, Alfons O., Dieter Vaitl, and Peter J. Lang. 1989. “Fear Conditioning, Meaning and Belongingness: ASelective Association Analysis.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology98 (4): 395-406.
18.
Homer, Pamela M. and Lynn R. Kahle. 1990. “Source Expertise, Time of Source Identification and Involvement in Persuasion: An Elaborative Processing Perspective,” Journal of Advertising19 (1): 30-39.
19.
Kahle, Lynn R., Sharon E. Beatty, and Patricia Kennedy. 1987. “ Comment on Classically Conditioning Human Consumers.” Advances in Consumer Research14:411-414.
20.
Kellaris, James and Anthony C. Cox. 1989. “The Effects of Background Music in Advertising: A Reassessment.” Journal of Consumer Research16 (June): 113-118.
21.
Kim, John, Chris T. Allen, and Frank R. Kardes. 1996. “An Investigation of the Mediational Mechanisms Underlying Attitudinal Conditioning.” Journal of Marketing Research33 (August): 318-328.
22.
Kim, John, Chris T. Allen, Jeen-Su Lim, and Mukesh Bhargava. 1998. “The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation: A Classical Conditioning Approach,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science26 (2): 142-152.
23.
Laczniak, Russell N., Darrel D. Muehling, and Sanford Grossbart. 1989. “Manipulating Message Involvement in Advertising Research.” Journal of Advertising18:28-38.
24.
Lord, Kenneth R. and Robert E. Burnkrant. 1993. “Attention Versus Distraction: The Interactive Effect of Program Involvement and Attentional Devices on Commercial Processing.” Journal of Advertising22 (March): 47-60.
25.
MacInnis, Deborah and Bernard J. Jaworski. 1989. “Information Processing From Advertisements: Toward an Integrative Framework.” Journal of Marketing53 (October): 1-23.
26.
MacInnis, Deborah, Christine Moorman, and Bernard J. Jaworski. 1991. “Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information From Ads.” Journal of Marketing55 (October): 32-51.
27.
MacInnis, Deborah and Whan Park. 1991. “The Differential Role of Characteristics of Music on High- and Low- Involvement Consumers’ Processing of Ads.” Journal of Consumer Research18 (September): 161-173.
28.
MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz. 1989. “An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context.” Journal of Marketing53 (April): 48-65.
29.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo. 1981. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
30.
Petty, Richard E. and David Schumann. 1983. “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement.” Journal of Consumer Research10 (September): 135-146.
31.
Petty, Richard E., Rao H. Unnava, and Alan J. Strathman. 1991. “Theories of Attitude Change.” In Handbook of Consumer Behavior. Eds. Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian. New York: Prentice Hall, 241-280.
32.
Rescorla, Robert A. 1988. “Pavlovian Conditioning: It’s Not What You Think It Is.” American Psychologist43 (March): 151-160.
33.
Rozin, Paul and James W. Kalat. 1971. Specific Hungers and Poison Avoidance as Adaptive Specializations of Learning. Psychological Review78 (6): 459-483.
34.
Shimp, Terence A. 1991. “The Role of Subject Awareness in Classical Conditioning: A Case of Opposing Ontologies and Conflicting Evidence.” Advances in Consumer Research18:158-163.
35.
Shimp, Terence A., Elnora W. Stuart, and Randall W. Engle. 1991. “A Program of Classical Conditioning Experiments Testing Variations in the Conditioned Stimulus and Context.” Journal of Consumer Research18 (June): 1-12.
36.
Stuart, Elnora W., Terence A. Shimp, and Randall W. Engle. 1987. “ Classical Conditioning of Consumer Attitudes: Four Experiments in an Advertising Context.” Journal of Consumer Research14 (December): 334-351.
37.
Sujan, Mita. 1985. “Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments.” Journal of Consumer Research12 (June): 31-46.
38.
Zhang, Yong and George Zinkhan. 1991. “Humor in Television Advertising: The Effects of Repetition and Social Setting.” Advances in Consumer Research18:813-818.
