This is an investigation of how consumers use the elements of an apparel advertisement to develop their attitudes toward an advertised product. It examined whether participants' involvement level (high or low) and the product type (utilitarian jacket or expressive jacket) influence the ways consumers process a message argument (strong or weak) and background picture (unattractive or attractive) in an apparel advertisement. Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), an experimental study was conducted to examine information processing activities and attitude formation. Participants with a high level of involvement devoted more information processing efforts to specific elements of the advertisement - verbal messages for the utilitarian product and pictorial information for the expressive product - than participants with a low level of involvement. As a result, when the level of involvement was high, the message argument influenced the consumer's attitude toward the utilitarian product, whereas the background picture influenced attitudes toward the expressive product. In this paper, we discuss the applicability of ELM and its extension in explaining attitudes toward an apparel product.
Abraham-Murali, L., & Littrell, M. A. (1995). Consumers' conceptualization of apparel attributes. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 13(2), 65-74.
2.
Babin, L. A., & Burns, A. C. (1997). Effects of print ad pictures and copy containing instructions to imagine on mental imagery that mediates attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 26(3), 33-45.
3.
Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 125-134.
4.
Darley, W. K., & Smith, R. E. (1993). Advertising claim objectivity: Antecedents and effects. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 100-113.
5.
Dröge, C. (1989). Shaping the route to attitude change: Central versus peripheral processing through comparative versus non-comparative advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2), 193-204.
6.
Haggin, J., & Kartomten, B. (1990). More than one way to sell a shirt. Catalog Age, 7(5), 89-90.
7.
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods, and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92-101.
8.
Holbrook, M. B. (1986). Aims, concepts, and methods for the representation of individual differences in esthetic responses to design features. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3), 337-347.
9.
Holbrook, M. B., & Moore, W. L. (1981). Feature interaction in consumer judgments of verbal versus pictorial presentation. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 103-113.
10.
Johar, J. S., & Sirgy, M. J. (1991). Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: When and why to use which appeal. Journal of Advertising, 20(3), 23-33.
11.
Karr, A. (2000, February 22). The NPD: Internet apparel sales pass $1 billion. Women's Wear Daily, 26-26.
12.
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
13.
Kim, H., Damhorst, M. L., & Lee, K. (2003). Apparel involvement and advertising processing model. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 6(3), 272-302.
14.
Laczniak, R. N., & Muehling, D. D. (1993). The relationship between experimental manipulations and tests of theory in an advertising message involvement context. Journal of Advertising, 22(3), 59-73.
15.
MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. (1989, October). Information processing from advertisements: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53, 1-23.
16.
MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of imagery in information processing: Review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 473-491.
17.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Spreng, R. (1992). How does motivation moderate the impact of central and peripheral processing on brand attitudes and intentions?Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 519-529.
18.
Malaviay, P., Kisielius, J., & Sternthal, B. (1996). The effect of type of elaboration on advertisement processing and judgment. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 410-421.
19.
McGuire, W. J. (1976). Some internal psychological factors influencing consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(4), 302-319.
20.
Miniard, P., Bhatla, S., Lord, K., Dickson, P., & Unnava, H. R (1991). Picture-based persuasion processes and the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 92-107.
21.
Minshall, B., Winakor, G., & Swinney, J. L. (1982). Fashion preferences of males and females, risks perceived and temporal quality of styles. Home Economics Research Journal, 10, 369-379.
22.
Mittal, B. (1988). The role of affective choice mode in the consumer purchase of expressive products. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9(4), 499-525.
23.
Mittal, B. (1990). The relative roles of brand beliefs and attitude toward the ad as mediators of brand attitude: A second look. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 209-219.
24.
Morganosky, M. (1984). Aesthetic and utilitarian qualities of clothing: Use of a multidimensional clothing value model. Home Economics Research Journal, 13, 12-21.
25.
Park, C. W., & Young, S. M. (1983). Types and levels of involvement and brand attitude formation. Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 320-323.
26.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1980). Effects of issue involvement on attitudes in an advertising context. In G. Gorn & M. Goldberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the Division 23 Program (pp. 75-79). Montreal: Division 23 of the American Psychological Association.
27.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
28.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.
29.
Phillips, B. J. (1997). Thinking into it: Consumer interpretation of complex advertising images. Journal of Advertising, 26(2), 77-88.
30.
Putrevu, S., & Lord, K. R. (1994). Comparative and non-comparative advertising: Attitudinal effects under cognitive and affective involvement conditions. Journal of Advertising, 23(2), 77-91.
31.
Ratchford, B. T. (1987). New insights about the FCB grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 27, 24-37.
32.
Rudie, R. (1996, August). Fall '97 fabrics pick up fashion pace. Bobbin, 37(12), 86-92.
33.
Sengupta, J., Goodstein, R. C., & Boninger, D. S. (1997). All cues are not created equal. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4), 351-362.
34.
Shavitt, S. (1990). The role of attitude objects in attitude functions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 124-148.
35.
Shavitt, S., Swan, S., Lowrey, T. M., & Wänke, M., (1994). The interaction of endorser attractiveness and involvement in persuasion depends on the goal that guides message processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(2), 137-162.
36.
Swan, J. E., & Combs, L. J. (1976). Product performance and consumer satisfaction: A new concept. Journal of Marketing, 40, 25-33.
37.
Unnava, H. R., & Burnkant, R. E. (1991). An imagery-processing view of the role of pictures in print advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 226-231.
