This research demonstrates the importance of thin slices of information in ad and brand evaluation, with important implications for advertising research and management. Three controlled experiments, two in the behavioral lab and one in the field, with exposure durations ranging from very brief (100 msec) to very long (30 sec), demonstrate that advertising evaluation critically depends on the duration of ad exposure and on how ads convey which product and brand they promote, but in surprising ways. The experiments show that upfront ads, which instantly convey what they promote, are evaluated positively after brief but also after longer exposure durations. Mystery ads, which suspend conveying what they promote, are evaluated negatively after brief but positively after longer exposure durations. False front ads, which initially convey another identity than what they promote, are evaluated positively after brief exposures but negatively after longer exposure durations. Bayesian mediation analysis demonstrates that the feeling of knowing what the ad promotes accounts for these ad-type effects on evaluation.
BergerJonah and MilkmanKatherine L. (2012), “What Makes Online Content Viral?”Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (April), 192–205.
3.
BrownSteven P. and StaymanDouglas M. (1992), “Antecedents and Consequences of Attitude Toward the Ad: A Meta-Analysis,”Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (1), 34–51.
4.
CampbellMargaret C. and GoodsteinRonald C. (2001), “The Moderating Effect of Perceived Risk on Consumers’ Evaluations of Product Incongruity: Preference for the Norm,”Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 439–49.
5.
DanaherPeter J. and MullarkeyGuy W. (2003), “Factors Affecting Online Advertising Recall: A Study of Students,”Journal of Advertising Research, 43 (September), 252–67.
6.
DanaherPeter J., MullarkeyGuy W., and EssegaierSkander (2006), “Factors Affecting Web Site Visit Duration: A Cross-Domain Analysis,”Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (May), 182–94.
7.
DeckerJohn S., StannardSarah J., McManusBenjamin, WittigShannon M.O., SisiopikuVirginia P., and StavrinosDespina (2015), “The Impact of Billboards on Driver Visual Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review,”Traffic Injury Prevention, 16 (2), 234–39.
8.
FazioRussell H., HerrPaul M., and PowellMartha C. (1992), “On the Development and Strength of Category-Brand Associations in Memory: The Case of Mystery Ads,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (1), 1–13.
9.
FiskeSusan T. and NeubergSteven L. (1990), “A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 23, ZannaMark P., ed. New York: Academic Press, 1–74.
10.
GawronskiBertram (2009), “Back to the Future of Dissonance Theory: Cognitive Consistency as a Core Motive,”Social Cognition, 30 (6), 652–68.
11.
GoldenbergJacob, MazurskyDavid, and SolomonSorin (1999), “The Fundamental Templates of Quality Ads,”Marketing Science, 18 (3), 333–51.
12.
GoldsteinDaniel G., McAfeeR. Preston, and SuriSiddarth (2011), “The Effects of Exposure Time on Memory of Display Advertisements,”Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 49–58.
13.
GoldsteinDaniel G., McAfeeR. Preston, and SuriSiddarth (2012), “Improving the Effectiveness of Time-Based Display Advertising,”Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, 639–54.
14.
GoldsteinDaniel G., SuriSiddarth, McAfeeR. Preston, Ekstrand-AbuegMatthew, and DiazFernando (2015), “The Economic and Cognitive Costs of Annoying Display Advertisements,”Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (December), 742–52.
15.
GoodsteinRonald (1993), “Category-Based Applications and Extensions in Advertising: Motivating More Extensive Ad Processing,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 87–99.
16.
Grill-SpectorKalanit and KanwisherNancy (2005), “Visual Recognition: As Soon As You Know It Is There, You Know What It Is,”Psychological Science, 16 (2), 152–60.
17.
Harmon-JonesEddie (2000), “Cognitive Dissonance and Experienced Negative Affect: Evidence That Dissonance Increases Experienced Negative Affect Even in the Absence of Aversive Consequences,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (12), 1490–501.
18.
HecklerSusan E. and ChildersTerry L. (1992), “The Role of Expectancy and Relevancy in Memory for Verbal and Visual Information: What Is Incongruency?”Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (4), 475–92.
19.
JaniszewskiChris and MeyvisTom (2001), “Effects of Brand Logo Complexity, Repetition, and Spacing on Processing Fluency and Judgment,”Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (June), 18–32.
20.
KoriatAsher (1995), “Dissociating Knowing and the Feeling of Knowing: Further Evidence for the Accessibility Model,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124 (3), 311–33.
21.
KundaZiva and SpencerSteven (2003), “When Do Stereotypes Come to Mind and When Do They Color Judgment? A Goal-Based Theoretical Framework for Stereotype Activation and Application,”Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4), 522–44.
22.
LeeYih Hwai and MasonCharlotte (1999), “Responses to Information Incongruity in Advertising: The Role of Expectancy, Relevancy, and Humor,”Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (September), 156–69.
23.
LokenBarbara, BarsalouLawrence W., and JoinerChristopher (2008), “Categorization Theory and Research in Consumer Psychology: Category Representation and Category-Based Inference,” in Handbook of Consumer Psychology, HaugtvedtCurtis P., KardesFrank, and HerrPaul, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 133–63.
24.
LunnDavid J., ThomasAndrew, BestNicky, and SpiegelhalterDavid (2000), “Winbugs: A Bayesian Modelling Framework: Concepts, Structure, and Extensibility,”Statistics and Computing, 10 (4), 325–37.
25.
McQuarrieEdward F. and MickDavid Glen (1999), “Visual Rhetoric in Advertising: Text‐Interpretive, Experimental, and Reader‐Response Analyses,”Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (1), 37–54.
26.
McQuarrieEdward F. and MickDavid Glen (2003), “Visual and Verbal Rhetorical Figures Under Directed Processing Versus Incidental Exposure to Advertising,”Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 579–87.
27.
Meyers-LevyJoan and TyboutAlice M. (1989), “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation,”Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June), 39–54.
28.
MilosavljevicMilica, KochChristof, and RangelAntonio (2011), “Consumers Can Make Decisions in as Little as a Third of a Second,”Judgment and Decision Making, 6 (6), 520–30.
29.
PeracchioLaura and LunaDavid (2006), “The Role of Thin-Slice Judgments in Consumer Psychology,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (1), 25–32.
30.
PietersRik and WedelMichel (2012), “Ad Gist: Ad Communication in a Single Eye Fixation,”Marketing Science, 31 (1), 59–73.
31.
PietersRik, WedelMichel, and BatraRajeev (2010), “The Stopping Power of Advertising: Measures and Effects of Visual Complexity,”Journal of Marketing, 74 (September), 48–60.
32.
PleskacTimothy J. and BusemeyerJerome R. (2010), “Two-Stage Dynamic Signal Detection: A Theory of Choice, Decision Time, and Confidence,”Psychological Review, 117 (3), 864–901.
33.
PreacherKristopher J., ZyphurMichael J., and ZhangZhen (2010), “A General Multilevel SEM Framework for Assessing Multilevel Mediation,”Psychological Methods, 15 (3), 209–33.
34.
RatcliffRoger (1993), “Methods for Dealing with Reaction Time Outliers,”Psychological Bulletin, 114 (3), 510–32.
35.
RayMichael L. (1977), “When Does Consumer Information Processing Research Actually Have Anything to Do with Consumer Information Processing?” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, PerreaultWilliam D.Jr., ed. Atlanta: Association for Consumer Research, 372–75.
36.
RaynerKeith and CastelhanoMonica (2007), “Eye Movements During Reading, Scene Perception, Visual Search, and While Looking at Print Ads,” in Visual Marketing, WedelMichel and PietersRik, eds. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 9–42.
37.
RoehmMichelle L. and SternthalBrian (2001), “The Moderating Effect of Knowledge and Resources on the Persuasive Impact of Analogies,”Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (September), 257–72.
38.
SmithRobert E., MacKenzieScott B., YangXiaojing, BuchholzLaura M., and DarleyWilliam K. (2007), “Modeling the Determinants and Effects of Creativity in Advertising,”Marketing Science, 26 (6), 819–33.
39.
StaymanDouglas M., AldenDana L., and SmithKaren H. (1992), “Some Effects of Schematic Processing on Consumer Expectations and Disconfirmation Judgments,”Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (September), 240–55.
40.
TodorovAlexander, OlivolaChristopher Y., DotschRon, and Mendle-SiedleckiPeter (2015), “Social Attributions from Faces: Determinants, Consequences, Accuracy, and Functional Significance,”Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 1–27.
41.
TopolinskiSascha and ReberRolf (2010), “Gaining Insight into the ‘Aha’ Experience,”Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19 (December), 402–05.
42.
TuckerCatherine (2015), “The Reach and Persuasiveness of Viral Video Ads,”Marketing Science, 34 (2), 281–96.
43.
WedelMichel and PietersRik (2015), “The Buffer Effect: The Role of Color When Advertising Exposures are Brief and Blurred,”Marketing Science, 34 (1), 134–43.
44.
WeinreichHarald, ObendorfHartmut, HerderEelco, and MayerMatthias (2008), “Not Quite the Average: An Empirical Study of Web Usage,”ACM Transactions on the Web, 2 (February), 133–42.
45.
Woltman-ElpersJosephine L.C.M., WedelMichel, and PietersRik G.M. (2003), “Why Do Consumers Stop Viewing Television Commercials? Two Experiments on the Influence of Moment-to-Moment Entertainment and Information Value,”Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (November), 437–53.
46.
WyerRobert S.Jr., HungIris W., and JiangYuwei (2008), “Visual and Verbal Processing Strategies for Comprehension and Judgment,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 244–57.
47.
ZhangJie, WedelMichel, and PietersRik (2009), “Sales Effects of Attention to Feature Advertisements: A Bayesian Mediation Analysis,”Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (October), 669–81.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
