Previous research on the subject of vividness effects in persuasion has yielded conflicting outcomes that are difficult to interpret. The authors outline a theoretical position that anticipates conditions under which vivid message presentations can either enhance or inhibit message processing and persuasion. The key moderator is vividness congruency, which is defined as the extent to which the vivid elements of a message are congruent with the theme of the message itself. Two experiments were conducted that suggest that this previously unexamined variable is an important moderator of vividness effects. Experiment 1 demonstrated that vividness effects on message recall are contingent on the congruency between message content and vivid elements. Experiment 2 showed that message processing (indexed via an argument quality manipulation) can be reduced by adding vivid but incongruent images to a message, relative to pallid messages. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bergfeld, V. A. , Choate, L. S., & Kroll, N. E. A. (1982). The effect of bizarre imagery on memory as a function of delay: Reconfirmation of interaction effect. Journal of Mental Imagery, 6, 141-158.
2.
Bone, P. F. , & Ellen, P. S. (1990). The effect of imagery processing and imagery content on behavioral intentions. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 449-454.
3.
Bower, G. H. (1970). Imagery as a relational organizer in associative learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 529-533.
4.
Cacioppo, J. T. , & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
5.
Cacioppo, J. T. , Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
6.
Cacioppo, J. T. , Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
7.
Chaiken, S. , Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
8.
Challis, B. H. , Velichovsky, B. M., & Craik, F. I. M. (1996). Levels-of-processing effects on a variety of memory tasks: New findings and theoretical implications. Consciousness & Cognition: An International Journal, 5, 142-164.
9.
Collins, R. L. , Taylor, S. E., Wood, J. V., & Thompson, S. C. (1988). The vividness effect: Elusive or illusory?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 1-18.
10.
Collyer, S. C. , Jonides, J., & Bevan, W. (1974). Images as memory aids: Is bizarreness helpful?American Journal of Psychology, 85, 31-38.
11.
Fabiani, M. , & Donchin, E. (1995). Encoding processes and memory organization: A model of the von Restorff effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 224-240.
12.
Frey, K. P. , & Eagly, A. H. (1993). Vividness can undermine the persuasiveness of messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 32-44.
13.
Hafer, C. L. , Reynolds, K. L., & Obertynski, M. A. (1996). Message comprehensibility and persuasion: Effects of complex language in counterattitudinal appeals to laypeople. Social Cognition, 14, 317-337.
14.
Haugtvedt, C. P. , Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 239-260.
15.
Haugtvedt, C. P. , & Priester, J. R. (1997). Conceptual and methodological issues in advertising effectiveness: An attitude strength perspective. In W. D. Wells (Ed.), Measuring advertising effectiveness (pp. 79-93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Herlocker, C. E. (1996). Vividness as an attention capture mechanism: Conditions under which vividly presented information leads to increased persuasion. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Georgia.
17.
Kiselius, J. , & Sternthal, B. (1984). Detecting and explaining vividness effects in attitudinal judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 54-64.
18.
Malaviya, P. , Kiselius, J., & Sternthal, B. (1996). The effect of type of elaboration on advertisement processing and judgment. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 410-421.
19.
Nappe, G. W. , & Wollen, K. A. (1973). Effects of instructions to form common and bizarre mental images on retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 6-8.
20.
Nisbett, R. E. , & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21.
Paivio, A. (1969). Mental imagery and associative learning in memory. Psychological Review, 76, 241-263.
22.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press.
23.
Sherer, M. , & Rogers, R. W. (1984). The role of vivid information in fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 321-334.
24.
Sherman, S. J. , Mackie, D. M., & Driscoll, D. M. (1990). Priming and the differential use of dimensions in evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 405-418.
25.
Smith, S. M. , & Petty, R. E. (1996). Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 258-269.
26.
Taylor, S. E. , & Thompson, S. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychological Review, 89, 155-181.
