Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T02:07:08.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Program Responses on the Processing of Commercials Placed at Various Positions in the Program and the Block

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2005

MARJOLEIN MOORMAN ,
PETER C. NEIJENS  and
EDITH G. SMIT
MARJOLEIN MOORMAN
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, [email protected]
PETER C. NEIJENS
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, [email protected]
EDITH G. SMIT
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to test if valence and intensity dimensions of responses to general programming affect commercial processing in everyday life. Results from analyses on data from a large telephone survey showed that indicators of program-induced valence and intensity significantly affected several advertising processing measures. Intensity had a positive impact on measures of attention and recall, while valence was positively related to attitude toward the advertisement. Next, we investigated the moderating influences of variations in commercial placement on these relations. We found that effects of intensity and valence on commercial processing were stronger for interrupting blocks than shoulder blocks. However, the position of the commercial within the block did not have an impact on these carryover effects.The study on the effects of program responses on the processing of commercials placed at various positions in the program and the block was part of a Ph.D. project on the relationship between media environments and advertising effects conducted at ASCoR. The authors wish to thank John Faasse, Unilever, and Initiative for making the data available for analyses.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Advertising Research , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 49 - 59
Copyright
© Copyright © 1960-2005, The ARF

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aylesworth, A.B., and S.B. MacKenzie. “Context is Key: The Effect of Program-Induced Mood on Thoughts about the Ad.” Journal of Advertising 27, 2 (1998): 17–31.Google Scholar
Baron, R.M., and D.A. Kenny. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 6 (1986): 1173–1182.Google Scholar
Bauer, R.A., and S.A. Greyser. Advertising in America: The Consumer View. Boston, MA: Harvard University, 1968.
Bryant, J., and P.W. Comisky. “The Effect of Positioning a Message within Differentially Cognitively Involving Portions of a Television Segment on Recall of the Message.” Human Communication Research 5, 1 (1978): 63–75.Google Scholar
Burns, A.C., and E.R. Foxman. “Some Determinants of the Use of Advertising by Married Woman.” Journal of Advertising Research 29, 5 (1989): 57–63.Google Scholar
Byfield, S., and D. Read. “Programme Involvement: Does It Have Any Value in the Commercial Television Market Place?” In Esomar/ARF Worldwide Electronic and Broadcast Audience Research Symposium, Paris, France. Amsterdam: Esomar, 1994.
Celuch, K.G., and M. Slama. “Program Content and Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of the Congruity Hypothesis for Cognitive and Affective Sources of Involvement.” Psychology & Marketing 10, 4 (1993): 285–299.Google Scholar
Celuch, K.G., and M. Slama. “The Effects of Cognitive and Affective Program Involvement on Cognitive and Affective Ad Involvement.” Journal of Business and Psychology 13, 1 (1998): 115–26.Google Scholar
Cronin, J.J., and N.E. Mennely. “Discrimination vs. Avoidance: ‘Zipping’ of Television Commercials.” Journal of Advertising 21, 2 (1992): 1–7.Google Scholar
De Pelsmacker, P., M. Geuens, and P. Anckaert. “Media Context and Advertising Effectiveness: The Role of Context Appreciation and Context/Ad Similarity.” Journal of Advertising 31, 2 (2002): 49–61.Google Scholar
Franzen, G. Advertising Effectiveness: Findings from Empirical Research. Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, U.K.: NTC Publications, 1994.
Goldberg, M.E., and G.J. Gorn. “Happy and Sad TV Programs: How They Affect Reactions to Commercials.” Journal of Consumer Research 14, 3 (1987): 387–403.Google Scholar
Gunter, B. Media Research Methods. London: Sage, 2000.
Heeter, C., and B. Greenberg. “Profiling the Zappers.” Journal of Advertising Research 25, 2 (1985): 15–19.Google Scholar
Judd, C.M., and D.A. Kenny. “Process Analysis: Estimating Mediation in Treatment Conditions.” Evaluation Review 5, 5 (1981): 602–619.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J.R. “How Program Environment Affects TV Commercials.” Journal of Advertising Research 1, 1 (1971): 33–38.Google Scholar
Krugman, H.E. “Television Program Interest and Commercial Interruption.” Journal of Advertising Research 21, 1 (1983): 21–23.Google Scholar
Lloyd, D.W., and K.J. Clancy. “CPMs Versus CPMIs: Implications for Media Planning.” Journal of Advertising Research 31, 4 (1991a): 34–44.Google Scholar
Lloyd, D.W., and K.J. Clancy. “Television Program Involvement and Advertising Response: Some Unsettling Implications for Copy Research.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 8, 4 (1991b): 61–74.Google Scholar
Lord, K.R., and R.E. Burnkrant. “Attention Versus Distraction: The Interactive Effect of Program Involvement and Attentional Devices on Commercial Processing.” Journal of Advertising 22, 1 (1993): 47–60.Google Scholar
Lynch, K., and H. Stipp. “Examination of Qualitative Viewing Factors for Optimal Advertising Strategies.” Journal of Advertising Research 39, 3 (1999): 7–18.Google Scholar
Mattes, J., and J. Cantor. “Enhancing Responses to Television Advertisements via the Transfer of Residual Arousal from Prior Programming.” Journal of Broadcasting 26, 4 (1982): 553–66.Google Scholar
McClung, G.W., C.W. Park, and W.J. Sauer. “Viewer Processing of Commercial Messages: Context and Involvement.” In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, E.C. Hirschman, and M.B. Holbrooke, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1985.
McQuarrie, E.F. “Have Laboratory Experiments Become Detached from Advertiser Goals? A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Advertising Research 38, 6 (1998): 15–25.Google Scholar
Moorman, M. Context Considered. The Relationship between Media Environments and Advertising Effects. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 2003.
Moorman, M., P.C. Neijens, and E.G. Smit. “The Effects of Magazine-Induced Psychological Responses and Thematic Congruence on Memory and Attitude toward the Ad in a Real-Life Setting.” Journal of Advertising 31, 4 (2002): 27–40.Google Scholar
Murry, J.P., Jr., J.L. Lastovicka, and S.N. Singh. “Feeling and Liking Responses to Television Programs: An Examination of Two Explanations for Media Context Effects.” Journal of Consumer Research 18, 3 (1992): 441–51.Google Scholar
Newell, S.J., K.V. Henderson, and B.T. Wu. “The Effects of Pleasure and Arousal on Recall of Advertisements during the Super Bowl.” Psychology and Marketing 18, 11 (2001): 1135–53.Google Scholar
Norris, C.E., and A.M. Colman. “Context Effects on Memory for Television Advertisements.” Social Behavior and Personality 21, 4 (1993): 279–86.Google Scholar
Norusis, M.J. SPSS 11.0 Guide to Data Analyses. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.
Pavelchak, M.A., J.H. Antil, and J.M. Munch. “The Super Bowl: An Investigation into the Relationship among Program Context, Emotional Experience and Ad Recall.” Journal of Consumer Research 15, 3 (1988): 360–67.Google Scholar
Schumann, D.W., and E. Thorson. “The Influence of Viewing Context on Commercial Effectiveness: A Selection Processing Model.” Current Issues and Research in Advertising 12, 1 (1990): 1–24.Google Scholar
Sharma, A. “Recall of Television Commercials as a Function of Viewing Context: The Impact of Program-Commercial Congruity on Commercial Messages.” Journal of General Psychology 127, 4 (2000): 383–96.Google Scholar
Smit, E.G. Mass Media Advertising: Information or Wallpaper. Amsterdam: Spinhuis, 1999.
Soldow, G.F., and V. Principe. “Response to Commercials as a Function of Program Context.” Journal of Advertising Research 21, 2 (1981): 59–65.Google Scholar
Swallen, J. “Time Is on Our Side: The Link between Viewing Duration and Ad Effectiveness.” In World Wide Electronic and Broadcast Audience Research Conference, Miami, FL. Amsterdam: Esomar, 2000.
Tavassoli, N.T., C.J. Shultz, and G.J. Fitzsimons. “Program Involvement: Are Moderate Levels Best for Ad Memory and Attitude toward the Ad?” Journal of Advertising Research 35, 5 (1995): 61–72.Google Scholar
Van Meurs, A. Switching during Commercial Breaks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 1999.
Wright-Isak, C., R.J. Faber, and L.R. Horner. “Comprehensive Measurement of Advertising Effectiveness: Notes from the Marketplace.” In Measuring Advertising Effectiveness, W.D. Wells, ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.
Zillman, D. “Excitation Transfer in Communication-Mediated Aggressive Behavior.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 7, 4 (1971): 419–34.Google Scholar