Login | Register

The Moderating Role of Need for Cognition in Consumers’ Responses to Ads with Varied Claims


The Moderating Role of Need for Cognition in Consumers’ Responses to Ads with Varied Claims

Gu, Hangyu (2019) The Moderating Role of Need for Cognition in Consumers’ Responses to Ads with Varied Claims. Masters thesis, Concordia University.

[thumbnail of Gu_MscMarketing_S2019.pdf]
Text (application/pdf)
Gu_MscMarketing_S2019.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Spectrum Terms of Access.


The research focuses on how need for cognition impacts the relationship between ad claim variations and consumer attitudinal and behavioral reactions. The ad claims vary, in this study, in ad format (direct vs. indirect comparative) and message framing (one vs. two sided). What has been investigated is the main and interaction effects of the two constructs that vary ads on consumers’ responses under high and low need for cognition conditions. As most research that discusses ad formats’ effects focuses on the differences between non comparative and comparative ones, this research can fill the gap by exploring how direct and indirect comparative ad formats together with message framing differ in affecting consumers’ responses. Furthermore, the research also investigates how high and low need for cognition consumers process advertising information to make their evaluations by observing the mediating role of their information processing mode in need for cognition levels and attitude certainty, which also impacts their behavioral consequences such as purchase intentions.
The research findings show that message framing has main effects on participants’ responses whereas ad format does not. There are no interaction effects of need for cognition and ad format/message framing on participants’ responses, and information processing mode plays a very important role in their attitudinal and conative reactions. Its’ importance is evidenced by the proposed mediation effect in which it acts a mediator and its relationship with attitude certainty and purchase intentions. These findings reinforce some past relevant studies. Some major managerial implications include a reminder of valuing how consumers process information for ad design and of considering some other factors (e.g. willingness to try a new brand) that may affect consumers’ attitude more than need for cognition and ad format.
Keywords: need for cognition, ad format, message framing, information processing mode, attitude certainty, ad and brand attitude, purchase intention

Divisions:Concordia University > John Molson School of Business > Marketing
Item Type:Thesis (Masters)
Authors:Gu, Hangyu
Institution:Concordia University
Degree Name:M. Sc.
Program:Administration (Marketing option)
Date:22 March 2019
Thesis Supervisor(s):Laroche, Michel
Keywords:need for cognition, ad format, message framing, information processing mode, attitude certainty, ad and brand attitude, purchase intention
ID Code:985122
Deposited By: HANGYU GU
Deposited On:23 Jun 2021 15:46
Last Modified:23 Jun 2021 15:46


Bagozzi, R. P. (2008). Some insights on visual and verbal processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 258-263.

Belch, G. 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 Research, 333-349.

Bergkvist, L. (2009). The role of confidence in attitude–intention and beliefs–attitude relationships. International Journal of Advertising, 28(5), 863-880.

Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology, New York: Meredith.

Brown, S. P., & Stayman, D. M. (1992). Antecedents and consequences of attitude toward the ad: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 34-51.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306-307.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032-1043.

Chang, C. (2007). The relative effectiveness of comparative and noncomparative advertising: Evidence for gender differences in information-processing strategies. Journal of Advertising, 36(1), 21-35.

Chiesi, F., Morsanyi, K., Donati, M. A., & Primi, C. (2018). Applying Item Response Theory to Develop a Shortened Version of the Need for Cognition Scale. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 14(3), 75-86.

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.

Chow, C. W., & Luk, C. L. (2006). Effects of comparative advertising in high-and low-cognitive elaboration conditions. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 55-67.

Cohen, A. R. (1957). Need for cognition and order of communication as determinants of opinion change. The order of presentation in persuasion, C.I. Hovland, ed., 79-97.
Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(2), 291.

Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 561-574.

Eisend, M. (2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(2), 187-198.

Etgar, M., & Goodwin, S. A. (1982). One-sided versus two-sided comparative message appeals for new brand introductions. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(4), 460-465.

Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(4), 398-408.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.

Golden, L. L., & Alpert, M. I. (1987). Comparative analysis of the relative effectiveness of one- and two-sided communication for contrasting products. Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 18-68.

Goodwin, S. M., & Etgar, M. (1980). An experimental investigation of comparative advertising: Impact of message appeal, information load, and utility of product class. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(2), 187-202.

Gross, S. R., Holtz, R., & Miller, N. (1995). Attitude certainty. Attitude strength: Antecedents and Consequences, 4, 215-245.

Hastak, M., & Park, J. W. (1990). Mediators of message sidedness effects on cognitive structure for involved and uninvolved audiences. ACR North American Advances.

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(3), 239-260.

Herz, M., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2013). Activation of country stereotypes: automaticity, consonance, and impact. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(4), 400-417.

Iyer, E. S. (1988). The influence of verbal content and relative newness on the effectiveness of comparative advertising. Journal of Advertising, 17(3), 15-21.

Jackson, D. W., Brown, S. W., & Harmon, R. R. (1979). Comparative magazine advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research, 19(6), 21-26.

Jeon, J. O., & Beatty, S. E. (2002). Comparative advertising effectiveness in different national cultures. Journal of Business Research, 55(11), 907-913.

Jones, D. A., Shultz, J. W., & Chapman, D. S. (2006). Recruiting through job advertisements: The effects of cognitive elaboration on decision making. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(2), 167-179.

Kalro A. D., Sivakumaran, B., & Marathe, R. R. (2010). Comparative advertising in India: A content analysis of English print advertisements. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 22(4), 377-394.

Kalro, A. D., Sivakumaran, B., & Marathe, R. R. (2013). Direct or indirect comparative ads: The moderating role of information processing modes. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(2), 133-147.

Kamins, M. A. (1989). Celebrity and noncelebrity advertising in a two-sided context. Journal of Advertising Research, 29(6), 34-42.

Kamins, M. A., & Assael, H. (1987). Two-sided versus one-sided appeals: A cognitive perspective on argumentation, source derogation, and the effect of disconfirming trial on belief change. Journal of Marketing Research, 29-39.

Kao, D. T. (2011). Message sidedness in advertising: The moderating roles of need for cognition and time pressure in persuasion. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52(4), 329-340.

Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 457-501.

Laroche, M., Cleveland, M., & Maravelakis, I. (2002). Attitude accessibility, certainty and the attitude—behaviour relationship: an empirical study of ad repetition and competitive interference effects. International Journal of Advertising, 21(2), 149-174.

MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of imagery in information processing: Review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 473-491.

MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 130-143.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99-128.

Manning, K. C., Miniard, P. W., Barone, M. J., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Understanding the mental representations created by comparative advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30(2), 27-39.

McGuire, W. J. (1961). The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing and restoring beliefs against persuasion. Sociometry, 24(2), 184-197.

Miniard, P. W., Barone, M. J., Rose, R. L., & Manning, K. C. (2006). A further assessment of indirect comparative advertising claims of superiority over all competitors. Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 53-64.

Mittal, B. (1989). Measuring Purchase-Decision Involvement. Psychology and Marketing, 6(2), 147-162.

Oliver, R. L., Robertson, T. S., & Mitchell, D. J. (1993). Imaging and analyzing in response to new product advertising. Journal of Advertising, 22(4), 35-50.

Pechmann, C., & Stewart, D. W. (1990). The effects of comparative advertising on attention, memory, and purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 180-191.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Electromyograms as measures of extent and affectivity of information processing. American Psychologist, 36(5), 441.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer, New York, NY.

Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, 1, 1-24.

Polyorat, K., Alden, D. L., & Alden, D. L. (2005). Self-construal and need-for-cognition effects on brand attitudes and purchase intentions in response to comparative advertising in Thailand and the United States. Journal of advertising, 34(1), 37-48.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717-731.

Raju, S., Unnava, H. R., & Montgomery, N. V. (2009). The moderating effect of brand commitment on the evaluation of competitive brands. Journal of Advertising, 38(2), 21-36.

Roehm, M. L. (2001). Instrumental vs. vocal versions of popular music in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(3), 49-58.

Rucker, D. D., Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2008). What's in a frame anyway?: A meta‐cognitive analysis of the impact of one versus two sided message framing on attitude certainty. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(2), 137-149.

See, Y. H. M., Petty, R. E., & Evans, L. M. (2009). The impact of perceived message complexity and need for cognition on information processing and attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 880-889.

Settle, R. B., & Golden, L. L. (1974). Attribution theory and advertiser credibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 11(2), 181-185.

Shao, A. T., Bao, Y., & Gray, E. (2004). Comparative advertising effectiveness: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 26(2), 67-80.

Snyder, R. (1992). Comparative advertising and brand evaluation: Toward developing a categorization approach. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(1), 15-30.

Sujan, M. (1985). Consumer knowledge: Effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 31-46.

Swann, W. B., Pelham, B. W., & Chidester, T. R. (1988). Change through paradox: using self-verification to alter beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 268.

Thompson, D. V., & Hamilton, R. W. (2006). The effects of information processing mode on consumers' responses to comparative advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 530-540.

Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 427-442.

Walker, B. A., & Anderson, H. H. (1991). Reconceptualising comparative advertising: a framework and theory of effects. In Holman R. H., Solomon M. R. (eds). Advances in Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research: Provo, UT, 342-347.

Wilkie, W. L., & Farris, P. W. (1975). Comparison advertising: Problems and potential. The Journal of Marketing, 7-15.

Wyer Jr, R. S., Hung, I. W., & Jiang, Y. (2008). Visual and verbal processing strategies in comprehension and judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 244-257.

Yagci, M. I., Biswas, A., & Dutta, S. (2009). Effects of comparative advertising format on consumer responses: The moderating effects of brand image and attribute relevance. Journal of Business Research, 62(8), 768-774.

Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of emotion. American Psychologist, 39(2), 117-123.
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Downloads per month over past year

Research related to the current document (at the CORE website)
- Research related to the current document (at the CORE website)
Back to top Back to top