Cognitive response coding is relevant for researchers who collect cognitive responses from individuals in the form of answers to open-ended questions or as thoughts produced while exposed to advertising messages. Coding of these cognitive responses is normally completed by a panel of two to four independent judges. This article is the first to empirically investigate cognitive intent congruence aspects underlining the data generated through cognitive response coding. The results show that there are definite gaps in the congruence of cognitive intent between the cognitive coding results that respondents, serving as cognitive response coders of their own thoughts, can provide and those cognitive response patterns provided by independent raters. The current study’s results raise a “yellow” caution flag regarding external independent raters’ ability to produce valid cognitive intent coding patterns that cannot be ignored by future researchers. The authors offer interpretation, implications, limitations, and directions for future research.
Arias-Bolzmann, Leopoldo, Goutam Chakraborty, and John C. Mowen. 2000. “Effects of Absurdity in Advertising: The Moderating Role of Product Category Attitude and the Mediating Role of Cognitive Responses.”Journal of Advertising29 (1): 35-49.
2.
Assael, Henry and Michael A. Kamins. 1989. “Effects of Appeal Type and Involvement on Product Disconfirmation: A Cognitive Response Approach Through Product Trial.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science17 (3): 197-207.
3.
Bacal, Robert. 2004. Manager’s Guide to Performance Reviews. New York: McGraw-Hill.
4.
Belch, George 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 Research18 (August): 333-349.
5.
Bhat, Subodh, Thomas W. Leigh, and Daniel L. Wardlow. 1998. “The Effect of Consumer Prejudices on Ad Processing: Heterosexual Consumers’ Responses to Homosexual Imagery in Ads.”Journal of Advertising27 (4): 9-25.
6.
Bush, Alan J. and A. Parasuraman. 1985. “Mall Intercept Versus Telephone-Interviewing Environment.”Journal of Advertising Research25 (2): 36-43.
7.
Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty. 1981.“Social Psychological Procedures for Cognitive Response Assessment: The Thought-Listing Technique.” In Cognitive Assessment. Eds. T. V. Merluzzi, C. R. Glass, and M. Genest. New York: Guilford, 309-342.
8.
Chattopadhyay, Amitava and Kunal Basu. 1990. “Humor in Advertising: The Moderating Role of Prior Brand Evaluation.”Journal of Marketing Research27: 466-476.
9.
Coulter, Keith S.1998. “The Effects of Affective Response to Media Context on Advertising Evaluation.”Journal of Advertising27 (4): 41-51.
10.
Ericsson, Karl Anders and Herbert A. Simon. 1993. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
Greenwald, Anthony G.1968. “Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change.” In Psychological Foundations of Attitudes: A Series of Monographs, Treatises, and Texts. Eds. A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, and T. M. Ostrom. New York: Academic Press, 147-170.
12.
Hair, Joseph F., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and William C. Black. 1995. Multivariate Data Analysis. 4th ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13.
Hair, Joseph F., Jr., Robert P. Bush, and David J. Ortinau. 2003. Marketing Research: Within a Changing Information Environment. 2d ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.
14.
Hastak, Manoj and Jerry C. Olson. 1989. “Assessing the Role of Brand-Related Cognitive Responses as Mediators of Communication Effects on Cognitive Structure.”Journal of Consumer Research15 (March): 444-456.
15.
Hoch, Stephen J.1988. “Who Do We Know: Predicting the Interests and Opinions of the American Consumer.”Journal of Consumer Research15 (3): 315-324.
16.
Johar, Gita Venkataramani and Carolyn J. Simmons. 2000. “The Use of Concurrent Disclosures to Correct Invalid Inferences.”Journal of Advertising26 (4): 307-322.
17.
Kerlinger, Fred N. and Howard B. Lee. 2000. Foundations of Behavioral Research. 4th ed.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
18.
McDaniel, Carl and Roger Gates. 2005. Marketing Research. 6th ed.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
19.
Munch, James M., and John L. Swasy. 1988. “Rhetorical Question, Summarization Frequency, and Argument Strength Effects on Recall.”Journal of Consumer Research15 (June): 69-76.
20.
Perreault, William D., Jr. and Laurence E. Leigh. 1989. “Reliability of Nominal Data Based on Qualitative Judgments.”Journal of Marketing Research26:135-148.
21.
Petty, Richard E., Gary L. Wells, and Timothy C. Brock. 1976. “Distraction Can Enhance or Reduce Yielding to Propaganda: Thought Disruption Versus Effort Justification.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology34 (5): 874-884.
22.
Pham, Michel Tuan, Joel B. Cohen, John W. Pracejus, and G. David Hughes. 2001. “Affect Monitoring and the Primacy of Feelings in Judgment.”Journal of Consumer Research28 (2): 167-188.
23.
Reichert, Tom, Susan E. Heckler, and Sally Jackson. 2001. “The Effects of Sexual Marketing Appeals on Cognitive Processing and Persuasion.”Journal of Advertising30 (1): 13-27.
24.
Smith, Robert E. and William R. Swinyard. 1988. “Cognitive Response to Advertising and Trial: Belief Strength, Belief Confidence and Product Curiosity.”Journal of Advertising17 (3): 3-14.
25.
Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand. NewYork: Ballantine Books.
26.
Wright, Peter L.1973. “The Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of Advertising.”Journal of Marketing Research10 (February): 53-62.
27.
Wright, Peter L.1975. “Factors Affecting Cognitive Resistance to Advertising.”Journal of Consumer Research2 (June): 1-9.
28.
Wright, Peter L.1980. “Message-Evoked Thoughts: Persuasion Research Using Thought Verbalizations.”Journal of Consumer Research7:151-175.
