cum sa captivezi publicul

8/10/2019 Cum sa captivezi publicul

1/7

How captive is your audience? Dening overall advertising involvement

Nathalie Spielmann a,, Marie-Odile Richard b,1

a Reims Management School, 59 rue Pierre Taittinger, BP 302, 51061 Reims Cedex, Franceb University of Montreal, Ecole d'Optomtrie, Canada

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 1 February 2011

Received in revised form 1 November 2011

Accepted 1 December 2011Available online 5 January 2012

Keywords:

Overall advertising involvement

Message involvement

Media involvement

Creative involvement

Scale development

This article aims to reconcile some inconsistencies on the three constructs of advertising involvement, advertis-

ingrelevanceand media engagement. Thenit develops a scale to holisticallymeasureoverall advertisinginvolve-

ment. Three previously measured types of involvement (message, media, and creative) are regrouped into one

multidimensionalstructure withthree correlated dimensions. The scale is thenused to showthat overalladver-

tising involvement is capable of shaping attitudes leading to various consumer outcomes. Contributing to

the literature on advertising involvement, this research conrms that overall advertising involvement is

both situational and enduring. From a professional perspective, the research proposes a measurement tool better

suited to understanding the scope of overall consumer involvement with advertising.

2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In 1964, Marshall McLuhan stated: The medium is the message

and mass media was not about the size of the audience, but of thefact that everybody becomes involved (p. 349). McLuhan meant

that consumers are not immune to advertising stimuli; rather, they

react to various components of advertising, and media, message,

and creative execution may all together work to inuence consumers.

For example, would Super Bowl ads for Doritos be as involving if they

were in print rather than on television, about nutritional facts rather

than the pleasure of snacking during a great game, presented in a

bland rather than a humorous execution?

The advent of new formats, media convergence and diversication

of consumer target markets is forcing advertisers to reconsider and

recongure campaign metrics in order to better understand why ad-

vertising works, not just if it does (Rappaport, 2007; Woodard, 2006).

Thus, the ad industry wants to dene involvement with media, subject,

and advertiser, and this has led to the desire to shift from impression-

basedmodels to what advertisersare calling engagement-based models

(Abdul-Ghani, Hyde, & Marshall, 2011; Mollen & Wilson, 2010; Skerik,

2011). Unfortunately, advertisers have various denitions of what

are involvement, relevance, and/or engagement. The same is true of

researchers, e.g. Wang (2006) considers it contextual relevance

whereas Heath (2009) considers it to be the result of stimulation of

emotions.

This article seeks rst to review and reconcile some inconsis-

tencies on the three constructs advertising involvement, relevance

and engagement, and to introduce the concept of overall advertising

involvement. Then, we develop a scale to holistically measure overalladvertising involvement. Three types of involvement (i.e., message,

media, and creative) are regrouped into one second-order construct

with three correlated dimensions. The new measure is used to show

that overall advertising involvement is able to shape attitudes leading

to several consumer outcomes.

Contributing to the literature on advertising involvement, this

article conrms that overall advertising involvement is both situational

and enduring. From a managerial perspective, we propose a measure

better suited to understanding overall advertising involvement.

2. Literature review

2.1. Dening advertising involvement

A literature review reveals that since 1960, the topic of involve-

ment has been widely discussed. For Krugman (1965), consumers

can be in low involvement and change their attitudes after ad repeti-

tions and only if their perceptions are inuenced. Alternatively, con-

sumers in high involvement experience rapid changes in cognitions

and beliefs post ad exposure, leading to attitudinal and behavioral

changes. Greenwald and Leavitt (1984) discuss four levels of audi-

ence involvement: preattention, focal attention, comprehension, and

elaboration.Ray et al. (1973) claim that different levels of involve-

ment lead to different sequences of impacts on cognitions, affect

and behavior.Zaichkowsky (1986)showed that different consumers

can be involved with an ad, i.e., more involved consumers respond

Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 499505

Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 6 03 32 34 09; fax: +33 3 26 04 69 63.

E-mail addresses:[email protected](N. Spielmann),

[email protected](M.-O. Richard).1 Tel.: +1 514 738 3520.

0148-2963/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.002

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.002mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.002http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01482963http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01482963http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.002mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.002http://-/?-http://-/?-


2/7

more to ads, and consumers use different cues when evaluating ads

depending on the relevance of the topic. SinceKrugman's (1965)dual

intensity model of involvement, and in light ofMitchell's (1979) exper-

imental manipulations of involvement, most researchers used (various

types of) involvement as a mediating or moderating variable by classi-

fying respondents as either high or low involvement, and not based

on the type of involvement.

The terminology on advertising involvement is varied. Making dis-

tinctions among involvement, relevance and engagement can be dif

-cult, as the words are often used interchangeably, even within the

same manuscript. For example, for Laczniak and Muehling (1993), con-

sumers who are highly involved attend to ad claims that they nd

relevant. Similarly,for Batra andRay (1986), message involvementoccurs

when the message is deemed relevant. ForWang (2006), engagement

results from contextualrelevance. Thus, relevance cannot be present if

consumers are not involved and engagement is a result of perceived rel-

evance. Thus, it appears that involvement, relevance and engagement

are more synonyms than distinct constructs. The differences in use de-

pend on the scope (i.e., academic or professional). For the rest of this ar-

ticle, we dene all forms of consumer involvement, engagement, and

perceived relevance as dimensions of overall advertising involvement.

2.2. Types of involvement used in advertising research

In the advertising literature, while the discourse on ad involvement

is wide, how to classify ad involvement and the results of studies using

ad involvement do not always allow for a clear understanding of what

involvement entails (Day, Stafford, & Camacho, 1995). Several types of

involvement can be found: situational (Celsi & Olson, 1988); product-

related (Zaichkowsky, 1994); enduring (Lumpkin, 1985); message

(Lord & Burnkrant, 1993); purchase (Slama & Tashchian, 1985); and

program(Levy & Nebenzahl, 2006) involvement, to name a few. Gener-

ally, involvement types are regrouped into either enduring or situation-

al (Day et al., 1995), even if some types can be classied as both,

dependingon the ad context and how they are manipulated. For exam-

ple, political involvement can be situational when a campaign is rele-

vant or interesting, or enduring when politics have a central role for

consumers. Thus,political involvement differs basedon how consumersanswer two similar but distinct statements: this political campaign is

important to meand I am interested in politics.

ForCelsi and Olson (1988), situational involvement occurs when

individuals are motivated to act upon their feelings. It is a more action

oriented aspect of involvement. What is relevant to consumers is out-

lined as felt involvement (Celsi, Chow, Olson, & Walker, 1992). This

perspective explicitly recognizes that a consumer's perception or feel-

ing of personal relevance for an object or event is an acute state that

only occurs at certain times and in certain situations(Celsi & Olson,

1988, p. 211). Situational involvement is ephemeral and at times in-

consistent, as what is relevant today may not be tomorrow. Thus, sit-

uational involvement can be highly subjective and dependent on past

experiences, memories, interpretations and ultimately, on how rele-

vant the advertising is to the consumer well-being (Petty, Cacioppo,& Goldman, 1981).

In contrast, enduring involvement relates to interests and rele-

vance.Howard and Sheth (1969)mention types of products or char-

acteristics as reasons for involvementstating that the relevance of

these likely leads to purchase intent. Other examples are involvement

with politics (Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, & Burton, 1990), or product

involvement (Zaichkowsky, 1994). Other than product, media can

have an inuence if consumers feel an ad is relevant. For Krugman

(1965), television is a low involvement medium, and print is a high

involvement one, regardless of the content or the advertiser. De

Pelsmacker, Geuens, and Anckaert (2002) discuss media context as

an important situational factor. Media context is dened as the

characteristics of the content of the medium in which an ad is

inserted

(p. 49). Seemingly, they allude to media involvement as

being situational rather than enduring, in contrast toKrugman (1965).

Yet they make the link between content and media and the relationship

between these two features of advertising working in tandem rather

than independently.

In marketing, involvement is a state modied by personal character-

istics, including motivation, and dependent on the personal relevance of

the involving object (Day et al., 1995). As such, involvement can be ma-

nipulated prior to advertising exposure and/or measured after advertis-

ing exposure (Kamins, Assael, & Graham, 1990; Petty & Cacioppo,1979). In advertising, an involvement manipulation requires personal

relevance to be created via stimuli, or relevance to be supported by the

stimuli using quality arguments and evaluative cues (Zaichkowsky,

1986). It is argued that articially manipulating involvement creates sit-

uational involvement whereas classifying respondents based on their

existing levels of involvement gauges enduring involvement (Laczniak

& Muehling, 1993). As such rather than examining involvement as a

state variable, researchers look at the antecedents of involvement as a

means to explain the outcomes of involvement (Bloch & Richins, 1983;

Zaichkowsky, 1986).

2.3. Involvement as an antecedent: one or many dimensions?

Several studies show the value of involvement as a marketing var-

iable. For example,Laczniak and Muehling (1993)compare brand re-

lated beliefs across varying levels of message involvement. Others

sought to create measures for involvement types, for example prod-

uct involvement (Zaichkowsky, 1985). While some proposed scales

of involvement, others caution against generalizing the concept of in-

volvement (Laczniak & Muehling, 1990).Day et al. (1995)state: Be-

cause the object of involvement ranges from activities and issues to

advertisements and purchases, no single scale can measure all kinds

of involvement (p.72). Similarly toZaichkowsky (1986), forDay et

al. (1995) while it is known what types of involvement there are

and how the intensity of involvement can impact marketing vari-

ables, little is known about the combination of these involvement

constructs in advertising and what involves consumers overall. It

could be that an advertisement is involving because the media format

in which it is presented, the product that is shown and the messagesin the ad are all togethercaptivating. Few studies combine involve-

ment with other variables, for example, product involvement and

media format in order to examine consumer outcome behaviors (De

Pelsmacker et al., 2002). However these studies model involvement

and context as opposing factors rather than as related dimensions of

an overall concept.

2.4. Is engagement the same as overall involvement?

The various involvement measures used in academic research can

make understanding what involvement means confusing and difcult

to apply in professional contexts. Recently, both practitioners and aca-

demics tried to understand how integrated marketing communications

work (Calder & Malthouse, 2005) and examined a new concept calledengagement.Wang (2006)denes engagement as a critical measure-

ment of when consumers are strongly engaged in brands, brand mes-

sages, and their surrounding environments (p. 356). Rappaport

(2007)denes engagement as brand relevance and an emotional rela-

tionship between the consumer and the brand, all occurring within a

qualitycontext (see also, Geuens, De Pelsmacker, & Faseur, 2011). Brief-

lyWang (2006) makes the link between engagement and involvement

by claiming that once contextual relevance is achieved, engagement

drives message involvement.

Empirically, engagement is rarely operationalized. In some de-

signs, engagement is manipulated as with or without contextual rel-

evance between a primary task and an online advertisement ( Wang,

2006). When engagement is tested it is identied at the focal atten-

tion stage (Greenwald & Leavitt, 1984), and it is only possible to

500 N. Spielmann, M.-O. Richard / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 499505


3/7

estimate it if consumers are aware of the advertising context ( Wang,

2006). There is no scale to empirically test the level of advertising en-

gagement. Media engagement was proposed as a multiple-dimensional

structure and linked to purchase intentions, but the focus is limited to

the interaction between media format and behavioral outcomes, not

overall advertising engagement (Kilger & Romer, 2007). Thus the ex-

pression of consumer engagement and the measurement of the con-

struct are complicated and relatively untested (Skerik, 2011). For

example,Heath (2009)states that media can fail to capture attention,even if they are involving and that media can be captivating but not at

all engaging. Anecdotally, Siefert et al. (2009)show that Super Bowl

ads are emotionally engaging in a low captivity medium.

In terms of advertising content, consumers do not just interact

with media formats, but also with the visual and artistic aspects of

the ads.Smith and Yang (2004)show that strong creative ads garner

more attention from consumers. Consumers relate to advertising cre-

ative and become more involved as a consequence. Media format can

also be inuential in creating media involvement in combination with

product involvement (De Pelsmacker et al., 2002). Yet the question

still remains: how can advertisers know if their advertising efforts,

the combination of media format, product presentation, and creative

execution lead to relationships between their brand and consumers?

And what is the quality of the relationships created when consumers

are entirely involved?

3. Conceptual framework

Based on this literature, it is clear that advertisers and academics

use different names for advertising involvement. It appears that

most researchers agree on the notion that involvement relates to

the active participation (or not) of an individual when faced with ad-

vertising (Greenwald & Leavitt, 1984). However, understanding what

involves consumers when faced with advertising and why this is so

remains somewhat unclear. Furthermore, it is unknown how levels

of involvement depend on multiple personal, situational, and object

characteristics (Zaichkowsky, 1986). How can advertisers know if

they are advertising at the right place, at the right time, to the right

consumer, and if these actions lead to overall involvement withadvertising?

Beyond the linear models of communication (i.e., sender-message-

receiver), modern advertising contexts are far more complex and usual-

ly include considerations such as the media format ( De Pelsmacker et

al., 2002), and the variable nature of the consumers (Stern, 1994). Con-

sumers interact with media, product and advertising characteristics si-

multaneously when faced with advertising and the measurement of

their involvement should take the overall ad context into consideration

(Laczniak & Muehling, 1990).

Clearly there is a link among media format, creative and content in-

volvement, even if together these have not yet been tested.Smith, Chen,

andYang (2008) found thatcreativeads areperceived as being more in-

teresting andthat creative has the power to inuence cognitions and at-

titudes. Also, certain media formats are more creative, more visual anddynamic (e.g., television) whereas in others it is easier to detail content

(e.g., print). Selecting certain types of media engages higher involve-

ment (i.e., central processing) or lower involvement (i.e., peripheral

processing) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Likewise,the typeof presentation

in an ad can involve consumers: they more likely process information

and direct more attention to verbal cues than to non-verbal cues

(MacInnis, Moorman, & Jaworski, 1991).Maheswaran and Sternthal

(1990)state that increased attention to a message leads to more de-

tailed consideration of its content. The more involving a context is, the

more likely a consumer is to invest resources and is motivated to attend

to the context (Celsi & Olson, 1988).

Combining these results regarding involvement with a creative, or a

media format, or a topic, it is possible to consider multiple outcomes.For

example, combining television with strong creative about a product

germane to consumers may make the ad overall much more involving.

As such, we propose that overall advertising involvement is a three di-

mensional construct:

H1. Overall advertising involvement is a second order construct com-

posed of message involvement, media involvement, and creative

involvement.

The literature on involvement shows clear links with cognitions and

affect; involvement can either modify beliefs or perceptions (Krugman,

1965). In general, models of involvement stipulate that motivation toprocess will result in outcome behaviors (Batra & Ray, 1986). The in-

volvement construct is applicable to advertising because it determines

the way in which information is processed and which component is

most likely to be relied on for attitude formation (Kover, 1995; Petty,

Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). For an advertiser, being able to control

the quality of brand attitudes is important. Attitude is an affective reac-

tion that occursas a result of cognitions (Lazarus, 1984; Roseman, 1984;

Scherer, 1988). Thus, advertisers want to ensure that their ads instigate

brand attitudes leading to favorable behaviors. Beyond just media con-

texts (De Pelsmacker et al., 2002), it is overall advertising (i.e., the com-

bination of message, creative and media) involvement that leads to

outcome behaviors.

H2. Compared with consumers who are overall lowly involved with ad-vertising (i.e., message, creative, media), those who are overall highly

involved have more positive brand attitude and higher outcome

behaviors.

4. Methodology

4.1. Developing a scale for overall advertising involvement

4.1.1. Questionnaire

A questionnaire was added to a professional online study examin-

ing the media habits and perceptions of North American students. The

rst page was an invitation to begin the survey. The second page fea-

tured the stimulus ad with instructions to scroll to the bottom of the

page when they were ready to answer questions. No indication wasgiven to review the ad specically. The use of the creative (a generic

Levi's Jeans ad) was selected because it did not have a gender refer-

ence and is used by both genders and individuals of all ages. After

questions regarding their campus and media habits, respondents

were asked if they recalled seeing an ad in the survey and if so,

which one. Subsequently, they were shown the ad and asked about

their attitude toward the ad. Respondents then answered questions

regarding their post exposure behaviors.

4.1.2. Measures

Previously developed scales for message, media and creative in-

volvement, were included in order to dene an overall advertising in-

volvement measure. All measures were presented on ve point Likert

scales (1 = not at all, 5 = very much). For message involvement, twomeasures were combined into a 15-item measure:Zaichkowsky's

(1994) product involvement scale and Baker and Lutz (2000)ad mes-

sage involvement scale. The ad was once again displayed and respon-

dents were asked to answer the 15-item scale while considering the

ad. The same style of presentation was used for the media involve-

ment and the creative involvement measures. Media involvement

was an 8-item scale constructed from the ad message involvement

measure fromLee (2000) and the ad preference index from Brunel

and Nelson (2001). Creative involvement incorporated motivation

to process items (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and ad involvement from

Laczniak, Muehling, and Grossbart (1989) to form an 8-item scale.

The attitude toward the ad used theSengupta and Johar (2002)mea-

sure for attitudes toward the brand which include the three following

items:

I think the brand is a very good brand

,

I think the brand is a

501N. Spielmann, M.-O. Richard / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 499505


4/7

very useful brand andMy opinion of the brand is very favorable. Single

item measures were used for the various behaviors (see Table 2for the

statements) as perBergkvist and Rossiter (2007)since all the behaviors

were concrete and easily imagined by respondents.

4.1.3. Sample

Respondents came from North American campuses, polled from

the database of a scholarship information website. Of the 643 com-

pleted questionnaires (86.3% completion rate), 73.1% were women,87.5% were between the ages of 18 and 24, 95.6% were full time stu-

dents and 85.7% were undergraduates.

4.1.4. Scale development

Since the scales for message, media, and creative involvement

were constructed by combining previously developed measures, it is

reasonable that some items may have to be dropped during the

scale development process due to redundancy. Furthermore, cross

validation is recommended for such measure purication processes

to minimize error probability and capitalization on chance. Accord-

ingly, responses were randomly split into two halves (Group 1:

n=317; Group 2: n=326) to perform an exploratory factor analysis

with one set and conrmthe validity of the scaleswiththe second set.

The sample from Group 1 was used to uncover the constructs under-

lying overall advertising involvement in an exploratory factor analy-

sis using principal component extraction and oblimin rotation. After

an iterative purication process where low loading indicators and

cross-loading items were removed (Churchill, 1979), a solution with

three factors encompassing ten items for message, six items for

media and four items for creative was retained with all factor load-

ings greater than .70. The total variance explained by this structure

was 74% and the variance per factor was 51.4% for message, 15.4%

for media, and 7.2% for creative. The Cronbach alphas for each factor

were, respectively, .96, .93, and .88.

Following the two-step procedure recommended by Anderson

and Gerbing (1988), we estimated and respecied the measurement

model prior to incorporating the structural paths. The next step in-

volved a conrmatory factor analysis of the puried 20-item mea-

surement model using EQS with ERLS estimation. The three factormeasurement model produced a satisfactory t (2=331, df=167,

2/df=1.98, CFI= .983, and RMSEA=.056). Next, we tested this

model on the second split sample, after removing two outliers. The

resultingt indices indicated that the measurement model had also

a good t to the data (2=360, df=167, 2/df=2.16, CFI =.981,

RMSEA=.060). A more stringent test of measurement equivalence

in a multi-sample conrmatory factor analysis where all factor load-

ings and covariances were constrained to equality between the two

groups showed a metric invariant model (2=704, df=354, 2/

df=1.99, CFI=.982, RMSEA=.056). The model replicated satisfacto-

rily over the two independent samples and it was deemed appropri-

ate to combine them for further analyses. The measurement model

for the combined sample (n=641) showed an even better t to the

data in terms of CFI and RMSEA (2

=495, df=167, 2

/df=2.96,CFI=.983, RMSEA=.055). All items loaded signicantly on their re-

spective constructs with the lowest t-value being 14.2, and the aver-

age variance extracted by each of the constructs greater than .5,

indicating that the variance captured by the construct is greater

than the variance due to measurement error, providing evidence of

convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The results of the mea-

surement model appear inTable 1.

Discriminant validity was assessed by constraining the estimated

correlation parameter between two scales to 1 and comparing the

resulting chi-square statistics to that obtained when the correlation be-

tween pairs of scales was unconstrained (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988;

Bagozzi, 1981). Results of all chi-square difference tests found the

unconstrained models to be statistically better than the constrained

ones, providing evidence of discriminant validity. Discriminant validity

was also assessed byFornell and Larcker's (1981)procedure in which

discriminant validity is established if the average variance extracted is

larger than the squared correlation coefcients between factors. In all

cases, this criterion was met across all pairs of factors (squared correla-

tions between message and media=.30; message and creative=.18,

and media and creative=.45).

4.2. The overall advertising involvement scale

A review of the dimensions and their relationships showed that

the correlations between message and media was .55, message andcreative was .42, and media and creative was .67. These high correla-

tions indicate that overall advertising involvement can be dened by

interrelated dimensions which can be modeled as a second order fac-

tor. A second order CFA (2=495, df= 167,2/df=2.96, CFI= .983,

RMSEA=.055) showed that the media dimension of overall advertis-

ing involvement accounts for more variance in the construct

(=.934) than the creative (=.714) and message (=.589) di-

mensions. All three dimensions are statistically signicant (pb .01).

ThereforeH1is supported.

Overall advertising involvement is postulated to shape brand atti-

tude leading to behaviors and the relationship between the second

order measure of advertising involvement and brand attitude was

tested in a structural CFA model where a path from advertising in-

volvement to attitude was added. In a similar manner, the overall

Table 1

Measurement model for overall advertising involvement (N=641).

Latent factors Standard coef cient

(t value)

Average

variance

extracted

Cronbach

alpha

Message involvement .71 .96

When looking at the ad, you nd

what is advertised to be

Important .721 (16.0)

Of concern to you .806a

Relevant .764 (17.3)

Meaning a lot to you .893 (21.7)

Valuable .881 (21.3)

Benecial .886 (21.4)

Mattering to you .921 (22.8)

Essential .795 (18.3)

Signicant to you .902 (22.0)

Motivating .814 (18.9)

Media involvement .72 .94

When thinking of the ad, did you nd

yourself doing any of the following

Paying attention to the content .809a

Concentrating on the content .909 (22.1)

Thinking about the content .851 (20.)

Focusing on the content .912 (22.2)

Spending effort looking at the

content

.817 (18.8)

Carefully reading the content .765 (17.2)

Creative involvement .64 .87

When thinking of the ad, did you nd

yourself doing any of the following

Taking note of the visual aspects

of the ad

.769a

Focusing on the colors and/or

images of the ad

.860 (17.4)

Noting some specic colors or

images in the ad

.836 (16.9)

Paying close attention to the ad as a

piece of art

.716 (14.2)

Fit indices

Chi square (df = 167) 494.96

CFI .983

RMSEA .055

a

Fixed.

502 N. Spielmann, M.-O. Richard / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 499505


5/7

advertising involvement effect on behaviors was tested. However,

prior to testing the above relationships, the items of the brand atti-

tude scale were added to the measurement model. The Cronbach

alpha for this measure was .88. This full measurement model had a

2=741, df= 246, 2/df=3.01, CFI=.981, RMSEA=.056, however

one item in the attitude scale (informative) had a high standardized

residual. Removing this item produced a signicant t improvement

in the full measurement model (2=615, df=224, 2/df=2.75,

CFI= .984, RMSEA= .052). The three items used as indicators of atti-

tudes had signicant paths from the construct and the average vari-

ance extracted was .65. Discriminant validity tests showed evidence

of discriminant validity between all pairs of constructs in the full

measurement model (intercorrelations among the measures were at-

titudes and message =.258, attitudes and media= .205, and attitudes

and creative=.249). Results of the structural model in Table 2show

that the second order overall advertising involvement construct is

signicantly related to attitudes and to behaviors, establishing thus

the nomological validity of the overall advertising involvement con-

struct. Therefore,H2is also supported.

Overall advertising involvement, brand attitude and the variousbehaviors were modeled with attitudes as a mediator between over-

all advertising involvement and behaviors. Single item measures

were used for behavior as per Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007) since

all the behaviors were concrete and easily imagined by respondents.

The CFA results for this model indicated a good t for each of the

ve behavioral variables but the LM2 modication index suggested

a model where a path from message to behavior could be added for

each of the ve behaviors. Overall advertising involvement, brand at-

titude and the various behaviors were thus modeled as outlined in

Fig. 1. The model t statistics for each of the behaviors are included

inTable 3. Descriptive statistics appear in Table 4. For each of these

models, all parameter estimates were signicant (pb .01).

5. Discussion

Thendings show that overall advertising involvement as a mea-

sure encompassing message, media, and creative involvement signif-

icantly shapes brand attitude and leads consumers to engage in more

action-oriented marketing behaviors. Additionally, the interest gen-

erated by the message contributes to favorably inuence the behav-

iors directly.

The

ndings con

rm the relationships among overall advertisinginvolvement, brand attitude, and behaviors. They also show that

overall advertising involvement is not well represented using a one-

dimensional approach such as situational (Celsi & Olson, 1988), prod-

uct (Zaichkowsky, 1985), or message (Petty et al., 1983) in isolation.

It is a combination of the three types of involvement that results in

a more powerful representation of how the overall involvement of

consumers actually shapes their brand attitude leading to stronger

marketing responses.

Before forming brand attitude, consumers engage in cognitions

and establish the overall relevance of an advertisement. The rela-

tionship between cognitions and affect is supported by the structural

model. The ndings demonstrate a more coherent picture of the me-

diating role of brand attitude rather than their primary role in

inuencing behavior. The model also demonstrates that brand atti-

tude is not an independent variable capable of inuencing marketing

behaviors, but rather thatin mostcases, brand attitude is rst shaped

by overall advertising involvement.

The overall advertising involvement construct (composed of mes-

sage, media, and creative involvement) shows the interrelated nature

of the various types of involvement and conrms the necessity to

study them together when testing consumer involvement with ads.

The correlations among the three dimensions of the overall advertis-

ing involvement scale indicate that involvement with advertising is

indeed multidimensional. The relationships between the dimensions

are independently shown in the current literature (De Pelsmacker

et al., 2002; Siefert et al., 2009), but they had not been tested simul-

taneously until now. We show that the quality of the message de-

pends on the medium used to communicate it at the same time as

the quality of the media also impacts the perceived level of creativity.As posited byHouston and Rothschild (1978), response involvement,

or conceptualized here as advertising involvement, incorporates both

situational and enduring involvement. The overall context of the ad-

vertising leads to overall involvement.

Media involvement has more variance than the other two dimen-

sions, conrming whatKilger and Romer (2007)highlight with their

study: media vehicle choice matters. However this research goes fur-

ther and highlights that media with a relevant message is more pow-

erful then media alone, echoingMcLuhan (1964).

Interestingly, while media was the strongest dimension, it did not

relate directly to behavior, as previously posited (Kilger & Romer,

2007). Rather, it is message involvement which can directly orient

Table 2

Nomological validity tests for the advertising involvement construct.

Standard coefcient

(t-value)

2 df CFI RMSEA

Brand attitude .619 (11.1) 638.58 226 .983 .053

Behaviors

Be tempted to purchase

this product

.638 (12.3) 613.29 186 .980 .060

Make an effort to seek

out more information

.541 (10.2) 585.40 186 .981 .058

Tell a friend about the

brand/product

.558 (10.6) 558.28 186 .982 .056

Call the company/go on

their web site

.536 (10.1) 555.01 186 .982 .056

Direct someone you know

to the website

.508 (9.42) 563.77 186 .981 .056

Marketing

behavior

Message

involvement

Media

involvement

Creative

involvement

Overall

advertising

involvement

Brand

attitudes

Fig. 1.Structural model.



6/7


7/7

Bergkvist L, Rossiter JR. The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-itemmeasures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 2007;44(2):17584.

Bloch PH, Richins ML. A theoretical model for the study of product importance perceptions.Journal of Marketing 1983;47(3):6982.

Brunel FF, Nelson MR. Explaining gendered responses to help-self and help-others charity ad appeals: the mediating role of world-views. Journal of Advertising2001;29(3):1528.

CalderBJ, Malthouse EC. Managing mediaand advertising changewith integratedmarketing.Journal of Advanced Research 2005;45(4):35661.

Celsi RL, Olson JR. The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes.

Journal of Consumer Research 1988;15(2):210

24.Celsi RL,ChowS, OlsonJC, WalkerBA. Theconstruct validityof intrinsicsources ofpersonalrelevance: an intra-individual source of felt involvement. Journal of Business Research1992;25(2):16585.

Churchill GA. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.Journal of Marketing Research 1979;16(1):6473.

DayE, Stafford MR,Camacho A. Opportunitiesfor involvementresearch:a scale developmentapproach. Journal of Advertising 1995;24(3):6975.

De Pelsmacker P, Geuens M, Anckaert P. Media context and advertising effectiveness:the role of context appreciation and context/ad similarity. Journal of Advertising2002;31(2):4961.

Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variablesand measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 1981;18(2):3950.

Geuens M, De Pelsmacker P, Faseur T. Emotional advertising: revisiting the role ofproduct category. Journal of Business Research 2011;64(4):41826.

Greenwald AG, Leavitt C. Audience involvement in advertising: four levels. Journal ofConsumer Research 1984;11(1):58192.

Heath R. Emotional engagement: how television build big brands at low attention.Journal of Advanced Research 2009;49(1):6273.

Houston MJ, Rothschild ML. Conceptual and methodological perspectives in involve-ment. In: Jain S, editor. Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions.Chicago: American Marketing Association; 1978. p. 1847.

Howard JA, Sheth JN. The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John Wiley; 1969.Kamins MA, Assael H, Graham JL. Cognitive response involvement model of the process

of product evaluation through advertising exposure and trial. Journal of BusinessResearch 1990;20(3):191215.

Kassarjian HH. Low involvement: a second look. In: Monroe KB, editor. Advances inconsumer research, 8. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research; 1981.p. 314.

Kilger M, Romer E. Do measures of media engagement correlate with product purchaselikelihood? Journal of Advanced Research 2007;47(3):31325.

Kover AJ. Copywriters' implicit theories of communication: an exploration. Journal ofConsumer Research 1995;21(4):596611.

Krugman HE. The impact of television advertising: learning without involvement. PublicOpinion Quarterly 1965;29(3):34956.

Laczniak RN, Muehling DD. Delayed effects of advertising moderated by involvement.Journal of Business Research 1990;20(3):26377.

Laczniak RN, Muehling DD. Toward a better understanding of the role of advertisingmessage involvement in ad processing. Psychology and Marketing 1993;10(4):30119.

Laczniak RN, Muehling DD, Grossbart S. Manipulating message involvement in adver-tising research. Journal of Advertising 1989;18(2):2838.

Lazarus RS. On the primacy of cognition. The American Psychologist 1984;39(2):1249.Lee YH. Manipulating ad message involvement through information expectancy:

effects on attitude evaluation and condence. Journal of Advertising 2000;29(2):2943.

Levy S, Nebenzahl ID. Program involvement and interactive behavior in interactivetelevision. International Journal of Advertising 2006;25(3):30932.

Lichtenstein DR, Netemeyer RG, Burton S. Distinguishing coupon proneness from valueconsciousness: an acquisitiontransaction utility theory perspective. Journal ofMarketing 1990;54(3):5467.

Lord KR, Burnkrant RE. Attention versus Distraction: the interactive effect of programinvolvement and attentional devices on commercial processing. Journal of Adver-tising 1993;22:4760.

Lumpkin JR. Shopping orientation segmentation of the elderly consumer. Journal ofAcademy of Marketing Science 1985;13(2):27189.

MacInnis DJ, Moorman C, Jaworski BJ. Enhancing and measuring consumers' motivation,opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing1991;55(4):3253.

Maheswaran D, Sternthal B. The effects of knowledge, motivation, and type of messageon ad processingand product judgments. Journal of Consumer Research 1990;17(1):6674.

McLuhan M. Understandingmedia:the extensionsof man. Cambridge,MA: MITPress;1964.Mitchell AA. Involvement: a potentially important mediator of consumer behavior. In:

Wilkie WH, editor. Advances in consumer research, 6. Ann Arbor, MI: Association

for Consumer Research; 1979. p. 191

6.Mollen A, Wilson H. Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumerexperience: reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of BusinessResearch 2010;63(910):91925.

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Issueinvolvement can increase or decreasepersuasion by enhancingmessage relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1979;37(10):191526.

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes toattitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1986.

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Goldman R. Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1981;41(5):84755.

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Schumann D. Central and peripheral routes to advertising effec-tiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research1983;10(2):13547.

Rappaport SD. Lessons from online practice: new advertising models. Journal of AdvancedResearch 2007;47(2):13541.

RayML, SawyerAG, RothschildML, HeelerRM, StrongEC, Reed JB.Marketing communicationandthe hierarchyof effects. In:Clarke P, editor.New modelsfor mass communicationresearch, 5. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1973. p. 14776.

Roseman IJ. Cognitive determinants of emotion. In: Shaver P, editor. Review of person-ality and social psychology. Emotions, relationships and healthBeverly Hills, CA:Sage; 1984. p. 1136.

Scherer KR. Criteria for emotion-antecedent appraisal: a review. In: Hamilton V, BowerGH, Frijda NH, editors. Cognitive perspectives on emotion and cognition. Boston,MA: Kluwer Academic; 1988. p. 89-126.

Sengupta J, Johar V. Effects of inconsistent attribute informationon thepredictivevalue ofproduct attitudes: toward a resolution of opposing perspectives. Journal of ConsumerResearch 2002;29(1):3956.

Siefert CJ, Kohturi R, Jacobs DB, Levine B, Plummer J, Marci CD. Winning the super buzzbowl: how biometrically-based emotional engagement correlated with onlineviews and comments for s uper bowl advertisement. Journal of Advanced Research2009;49(3):293303.

Skerik S. The death of the impression & scaling true engagement. accessed online at:PRnews wire: beyond PR; 2011http://blog.prnewswire.com/2011/05/19/the-death-of-the-impression-scaling-true-engagement/. on August 23rd 2011.

Slama ME, Tashchian A. Selected socioeconomic and demographic characteristics asso-ciated with purchasing involvement. Journal of Marketing 1985;49(Winter):7282.

Smith RE, Yang X. Toward a general theory of creativity in advertising: examining therole of divergence. Mark Theory 2004;4(1/2):2955.

Smith RE, Chen J, Yang X. The impact of advertising creativity on the hierarchy ofeffects. Journal of Advertising 2008;37(4):4761.

Stern BB. A revised communication model for advertising: multiple dimensions of thesource, the message, and the recipient. Journal of Advertising 1994;23(2):5-15.

Wang A. Advertising engagement: a driver of message involvement on message effects.Journal of Advanced Research 2006;46(4):35568.

Woodard B. Building engagementone brick at a time. Journal of Advanced Research2006;46(4):3534.

Zaichkowsky JL. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research1985;12(3):341.

Zaichkowsky JL. Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of Advertising 1986;15(2):4-14.ZaichkowskyJL. The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision, and application

to advertising. Journal of Advertising 1994;23(4):5970.

http://blog.prnewswire.com/2011/05/19/the-death-of-the-impression-scaling-true-engagement/http://blog.prnewswire.com/2011/05/19/the-death-of-the-impression-scaling-true-engagement/http://blog.prnewswire.com/2011/05/19/the-death-of-the-impression-scaling-true-engagement/http://blog.prnewswire.com/2011/05/19/the-death-of-the-impression-scaling-true-engagement/

cum sa captivezi publicul

Documents