|
Does Reputation Management Reap Rewards?
Does Reputation Management Reap Rewards?
A Path Analysis of Corporate Reputation Advertising's Impacts on
Brand Attitudes and Purchase Decisions
By
Jongmin Park
Doctoral Student
Missouri School of Journalism
Lisa Lyon
Doctoral Student
Henry W. Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Georgia
Glen T. Cameron, Ph.D.
Professor
Missouri School of Journalism
Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Glen T.
Cameron, Gregory Chair in Journalism Research, 134-B Neff Annex, Missouri School
of Journalism, Columbia, MO 65211 office phone: (573) 884-2607, home phone:
(573) 446-4521, office fax: (573) 882-2890, Internet:
[log in to unmask]
Does Reputation Management Reap Rewards?
A Path Analysis of Corporate Reputation Advertising's Impacts on
Brand Attitudes and Purchase Decisions
Abstract
Claims are made for the importance of corporate reputation as essential to the
effective, integrated marketing of a company's branded products. Based on the
Elaboration Likelihood and Combined-Effects Models of persuasion theory, an
experiment was conducted to examine the value of one tool in corporate
reputation management - the corporate ad or corporate image ad. Using path
analysis, findings indicate that the corporate reputation ad had a greater
impact on purchase intention under low involvement conditions than under high
involvement conditions. Subjects who are unmotivated seem to rely more heavily
on reputation information when making a purchase decision. Notably, the
reputation ad had no indirect impact in mediating the effects of attitude toward
the brand and the brand ad on purchase intention. Reputation effects in this
study impacted only in a direct path upon purchase decision. The
Combined-Effects Model showed greater promise than the Elaboration Likelihood
Model for further research on reputation and strategic communication campaign
planning.
Introduction
Purpose of the Study
Historically, advertising in the United States has been oriented toward the
product and the brand. With the advent of modern corporations that offer many
products and services, new types of advertising, such as corporate advertising
and institutional advertising, have appeared. Numerous articles have described
the ways in which corporate advertising has fostered positive public attitudes
toward businesses (Schumann D.W., Hathcote J.M. & West S, 1991). Corporate
advertising is used to establish, alter or maintain a corporation's identity. In
fact, much of corporate advertising serves as a support function to promote a
corporation's character and personality to consumers. In effect, corporate
advertising is a key tool in developing and maintaining the corporation's
reputation.
Quite obviously, both corporate ads and brand ads are subject to many of the
same dynamics of interest to information processing researchers. Using the
Elaboration Likelihood Model and the combined-influence hypothesis as a
framework, this study will examine central versus peripheral route processing by
measuring consumers' attitudes toward a brand, a brand ad and a corporate ad.
Several studies, such as MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986), Droge (1989), Yi
(1990), MacKenzie and Spreng (1992), and Brown and Stayman (1992) have found
that consumers' attitudes toward ads are formed using the peripheral route.
Other studies, such as Burton and Lichenstein (1988), Muehling and Laczniak
(1988), MacKenzie and Lutz (1989), Homer (1990), Miniard, Bhatla, and Rose
(1990), and Mick (1992), however, have indicated that the central-route is used
to form consumers' attitudes toward the ad. Together, these studies indicate
that, because subjects' attitudes toward ads significantly affect brand attitude
and purchase intention for highly involved subjects, both the central and
peripheral route can be used simultaneously. Kenneth R. Lord, Myung-Soo Lee and
Paul L. Sauer (1995) proposed this combined-influence hypothesis, which is
supported by their research.
Corporate reputation, built in part on corporate image advertising, is based
on how the company conducts or is perceived as conducting its business (Morley,
1998). Corporate reputation is a set of attributes ascribed to a firm, inferred
from the firm's past actions, about which one infers that reliability is an
attribute of this person or company. By doing so, one makes judgments about past
infomation and uses these signals to form beliefs in predicting future actions
(Weigelt & Camerer, 1988, p. 443). Likewise, corporate image is like a picture
in a consumer's mind about a corporation's character and personality (Tillman
and Lorpatrick, 1968). This study defines corporate reputation advertising as
promoting a corporation's character and personality to consumers, and brand
advertising as promoting a corporation's brand to consumers.
Advertising for Corporate Reputation
In today's corporate world, everything from toothpaste to internet browsers has
become a commodity. Frequently, there is little or no distinction between
prices, technologies, or product capabilities. A company's reputation,
therefore, can be the overriding basis for a consumer's purchasing decision.
Whether a company is ethical and honest, environmentally friendly, and
responsive to customers' needs can be a company's most powerful asset or its
costliest liability (Caudron, 1997, p. 13). Reputational effects are purported
to impact everything from stock values of the company to employee morale to the
effectiveness of brand advertising, as well as attitudes toward the brand
itself.
Traditionally, lack of a widely accepted measure of reputation has caused
difficulty in creating well-reasoned and defensible answers about corporate
reputation and reputational dymnamics (Frombrun & Van Riel, 1997; Hammond, Annis
& Slocum, 1996). Only recently, however, has formal research outlined some of
the strategic planning implications behind corporate reputation. For example,
Hammond, Annis & Slocum, (1996) found that corporate reputation is linked with a
firm's bottom-line financial performance. Investors may consider less socially
responsibile organizations riskier investments because of possible governmental
intervention. Additionally, if a firm is viewed as socially rsponsible it may
have a relatively low financial risk as a result of its strong relationship with
the surrounding community (p.160). Weigelt and Camerer (1988) further the
notion that bottom-line financial success is linked with corporate reputation by
stating that reputation is an asset vital to an organization's financial
success. McGuire, Schneeweiss and Branch (1994) provide evidence suggesting
that the reputation-financial performance effect is a two-way process: a firm's
financial performance affects its reputation and its reputation affects its
performance.
Morley (1998) suggests that in today's global business atmosphere, a solid
corporate reputation will increase customer loyalty to the products of companies
with good reputations. A good reputation allows for easier product introduction
because customers feel that a "guarantee" comes with it. Bromley (1993) even
suggests that a good image or reputation can allow a company not only to
implement its present plans, but also to pursue its goals in the future. This
has been described as the"halo effect" - where a generally positive attitude
toward the company lends the company to immunity to a certain extent (Bromley,
1993). Goldberg and Hartwick (1993) found evidence of this in an experiment
investigating the combined effects of a company's reputation and advertisements
on product evaluations. Subjects who formed a negative evaluation of the company
based on a bad reputation found the advertisements less credible and rated the
products less favorably than those who received positive reputation information
about the company.
While managing a corporate reputation involves many factors, research suggests
that advertising has been successful in promoting corporate reputations and
company position statements to various audiences (Schumann, Hathcote, & West,
1991). Corporate advertising can help better position American products against
the competition, to meet increased pressure from consumer groups and
politicians, and to repair the corporate reputations of American companies that
are criticized for their roles in creating adverse environmental conditions.
Schumann, Hathcote, and West (1991) compiled a summary of the corporate image ad
studies in Table 1. Almost all of the studies reported ratings of recognition,
image and overall corporate reputation. Levine (1989) said "As business attempts
to respond, corporate advertising is expected to promote images of
environmentally responsible corporate citizens."
[Insert Table 1 about here]
The Brand Image and Corporate Image
Haedrich (1993) identified two levels of images: brand and corporate. He said
that, in the advertising of brand image, "corporations address the extent to
which each marketing instrument contributes to the brand image and the extent to
which that image enhances desired economic behavior of markets." Corporate
images, however, consist of not only brand images, but also other factors such
as the quality of management, corporate leadership and employee orientation.
Frombrun and Van Reil contend that in marketing research, "reputation," often
labeled brand image focuses on the nature of information processing, resulting
in "pictures in the heads" of external subjects, attributing cognitive and
affective meaning to cues received about an object they were directly or
indirectly confronted with (p.7). Objects in advertising and marketing research
are usually products (such as beer, toothpaste, internet browsers), while
consumers are the principal subject of analyses. However, Page (1998) contends
that to be useful, the lessons learned from this marketing view of reputation
must be expanded to move beyond just the creation of brand equity to increase
"share of mind" (p.6). Among the determinants of "share of mind" is reputation:
the confidence one has that a product baring a particular brand will live up to
the producer's name.
Druckenmiller (1993) stated that a corporate reputation must be given continual
attention because "it must carry a heavier load than corporate brands." Good
corporate reputations are the sum of many parts, including high quality products
and services, years of recognition equity invested in a familiar logo, a
well-known CEO, sponsorship of a high-profile event, and memorable advertising
(p.40).
Using factor-analysis, Lewis C. Winters (1986) categorized corporate image into
three components: business conduct/marketing factors; social conduct/marketing
factors; and contributions factors. He found that "marketing image is an
important component of overall attitude toward a company. Corporate advertising
messages should be aimed at improving the social conduct image of the company,
(e.g., environmental image). Contribution messages would have the least impact
on overall attitude toward the company." Business conduct/marketing image or
reputation is the most important component of corporate image in predicting
overall favorability toward the corporation.
A study by Frombrun and Shanley (1990), investigating the factors that
influence corporate reputation found that audiences (publics) construct
reputations on the basis of three main things. First, publics consider
information about the firm's relative structural positions within the
organizational fields, specifically using market and accounting signals
indicating performance. Second, institutional signals indicating conformity to
social norms are considered. And third, strategy signals indicating strategic
postures influence how publics construct reputation.
Corporations can harmonize their brand and corporate images by way of strategic
advertising campaigns. Corporations can likewise bring their perceived images
into harmony with those of all relevant populations. Haedrich (1993) insisted
that "to harmonize these images, the planning of marketing and public relations
should be integrated at the level of strategic management." Corporate
leadership can meet the overlapping demands of the market and society by
integrating marketing, advertising, and public relations under the common roof
of strategic corporate planning and making them equal instruments of management.
Theoretical Background
The Elaboration Likelihood Model. The Elaboration Likelihood Model was
developed within many fields of study, such as psychological counseling, and
consumers' attitudes in advertising and has received solid empirical support.
The ELM considers varying degrees of subject or client interest as critical
variables in determining how attitudes are formed and what types of attitudes
are formed (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; Petty, Cacioppo, & Heesacker, in press).
Petty and Cacioppo (1982) insisted that:
Enduring attitude change, then, appears to depend on the likelihood that an
issue or argument will be elaborated upon (thought about). It doesn't make sense
for a person to think carefully about every message received daily. Most of the
messages that we receive, in fact, are on issues that are relatively trivial,
and it is not worth our time and energy to scrutinize them carefully.
Reviews of attitude change study that measure persistence (Cook & Flay, 1978;
Petty, 1977b) also support the view that the active cognitive involvement of a
person in the persuasion situation is crucial for enduring attitude changes.
The Elaboration Likelihood Model posits two basic routes of attitude change
(Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). The central route is taken when persuasion results
from thinking about the issue or argument under consideration. The peripheral
route is taken when persuasion comes from non-issue-relevant concern, or cues,
such as impression management, the attractiveness of the message's source, or
one's social role. This Elaboration Likelihood Model holds that consumers who
are both motivated (personally concerned) and able to cognitively process the
content of a persuasive message are likely to be persuaded by the central route.
Consumers who are not motivated and able to think about the persuasive message
are likely to be persuaded by the peripheral route.
Petty and Cacioppo (1982) have found that if the new attitudes of consumers
results from the central route (issue-relevant cognitive activity), attitude
change is likely to be relatively enduring. However, if the new attitude of
consumers results from the peripheral route (various persuasion cues in the
situation), the attitude is likely to exist only as long as the cues remain
salient.
The Central Route versus The Peripheral Route. The central route involves a
subject's personal thoughts about a messages and his own evaluation of the
arguments presented. Attitude change using the central route is more difficult
to achieve than attitude change using the peripheral route. However, attitude
change using the central route lasts longer and influences subjects' and
consumers' behaviors more powerfully.
Petty and Cacioppo (1982) noted that:
Clearly, the elaboration-likelihood model indicates that it is quite difficult
to produce an enduring attitude change by exposing people to a persuasive
communication. The recipient of the message must have both the motivation and
the ability to process the information contained in the communication, and the
information presented must elicit favorable cognitive responses that are
rehearsed and stored in long-term memory.
On the peripheral route, subjects select, from the persuasion context, some cue
associated favorably or unfavorably with the attitude topic. When the cue is no
longer present or recalled, the previous attitudes are said to be elastic.
Attitude changes using the peripheral route are easily produced in the
laboratory but do not influence a subject's behavior as strongly as the central
route (Petty, Cacioppo, & Heesacker, in press).
Low and High Involvement. This Elaboration Likelihood Model holds that when
involvement is high, people are likely to be persuaded by the central route.
When involvement is low, however, people are likely to be persuaded by the
peripheral route. Petty and Cacioppo (1982) noted the relationship between the
degree of personal relevance and issue-relevant cognitive activity. They found
that:
In studies where issue-relevant cognitive activity was likely to be intense
(e.g., role-playing studies, experiments employing personally relevant issues,
etc.), the attitude changes produced have been found to be relatively enduring.
On the other hand, in studies where issue-relevant cognitive activity was likely
to be weak (e.g., experiments employing issues of little personal relevance),
the initial attitude changes produced have been relatively short-lived.
In one study, Petty, Cacioppo and Schumann (1983) studied the impact of the two
routes using a print advertisement for a fictitious disposable razor. They found
that the quality of the arguments (strong versus weak message claims about the
product) had a strong impact on product evaluation under high involvement
conditions and a weaker, but still significant, effect under low involvement
conditions. In contrast, endorser manipulation (celebrities versus average
citizens) influenced product attitude only for those subjects less involved
during message processing (Paul W. Miniard, Peter R. Dickson and Kenneth R,
Lord, 1988).
The Peripheral Cue Hypothesis and the Attitude Toward Ads. Using the Petty and
Cacioppo's Elaboration Likelihood Model, Lutz, MacKenzie, and Belch (1986)
examined the way in which the attitude toward an ad mediates brand attitude and
purchase intention by testing four alternative hypotheses. Their results
indicated the attitude toward an ad is a peripheral process on the part of their
subjects.
MacKenzie and Spreng (1992) examined the role of central and peripheral
processes in driving brand attitude and purchase intention under varying levels
of motivation. They assumed the attitude toward an ad operated exclusively as a
peripheral route. Specifically, they observed that "increasing motivation
decreases the impact of a peripheral cue (the attitude toward the ad) on brand
attitude." Their hypotheses were supported. The results indicated that
increasing the motivation to evaluate an advertised brand has no effect on brand
cognitions, but it increases the impact of brand attitudes on purchase
intentions by directly strengthening the attitude-intention relation and
increasing brand attitudes.
Droge (1989) suggested that the attitude toward an ad operates as a peripheral
route. Droge's modeling of the impact of the attitude toward the ad provided
results consistent with that explanation.
The Combined Influence Hypothesis of Attitude toward the Ad. Several studies;
such as MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986), Droge (1989), Yi (1990), MacKenzie
and Spreng (1992) and Brown and Stayman (1992); supported the assertion that
consumers' attitudes toward ads operate as a peripheral route. However, other
studies; such as Burton and Lichenstein (1988), MacKenzie and Lutz (1989), Homer
(1990), Miniard, Bhatla, and Rose (1990) and Mick (1992); have hinted at a
substantive role of central-route processing in attitudes toward ads.
Muehling and Laczniak (1988) examined the moderating role of involvement in the
relationship of brand attitude with brand beliefs and the attitude toward ads.
They found that the attitude toward ads was shown to significantly affect brand
attitude, and it also affected brand beliefs for highly involved subjects. Among
subjects who had low involvement, the role of beliefs faded to non-significance,
although the attitude toward the ad remained significant.
They pointed out that, because subjects' attitudes toward the ad was shown to
significantly affect brand attitude and purchase intention for highly involved
subjects, attitudes toward ads can consist of central and peripheral components.
In contrast with the peripheral-cue hypothesis, Lord, Lee and Sauer (1995)
proposed the combined-influence hypothesis. According to this hypothesis,
consumer attitudes toward ads are a function of consumer response to both
message arguments and peripheral cues. Their experiment followed a 2 (argument
strength in the ad) x 2 (peripheral cue, the liked music versus the disliked
music) x 2 (number of exposures) x 2 (involvement) treatment design. The results
supported the combined-influence hypothesis. Consumer attitudes toward ads were
found to be directly influenced by the consumers' responses to and evaluation of
message arguments in addition to peripheral cues in the ad or program context.
Consumer attitudes toward ads also exert a consistently significant direct
impact on purchase intentions and an indirect influence that is mediated by
brand attitudes.
Lord, Lee and Sauer (1995) called for future research to examine alternative
peripheral cues including humor, vocal pattern, testimonials and mood or image
in the context of the combined-effects model. The current study partially
fulfills this call.
Research Hypotheses and Path Analysis Design
In this study, consumers' attitudes toward two kinds of ads, corporate
reputation and brand ads, were studied. Subjects using the peripheral route
associate the advocated position not with the issue itself but with secondary
sources, such as an expert, an attractive source or a powerful source. Petty and
Cacioppo (1982) described the peripheral route:
Although all of these secondary techniques have been successful in producing
attitude changes, the elaboration-likelihood model suggests that all of these
changes will not be very permanent. Furthermore, these techniques are not likely
to be very successful in changing people's attitudes when they have a lot of
prior information about the issue or if the issue is very involving to them.
When people have a lot of prior information about an issue and the issue has
personal relevance, they will be motivated to process the issue-relevant
information presented, and peripheral aspects of the persuasion situation will
be less important.
A corporate reputation ad serves as a peripheral cue by providing source
information while the brand ad is central. Based upon the Elaboration
Likelihood Model, four hypotheses are generated.
H1. Attitude toward the brand will have a greater impact on purchase intention
under high involvement conditions than under low involvement conditions.
H2. Attitude toward the corporate reputation ad will have a greater impact on
attitude toward the brand ad under low involvement conditions than under high
involvement conditions.
H3. Attitude toward the corporate reputation ad will have a greater impact on
attitude toward the brand under low involvement conditions than under high
involvement conditions.
H4. Attitude toward the corporate reputation ad will have a greater impact on
purchase intention under low involvement conditions than under high involvement
conditions.
In addition, the Combined Effects Model proposes that attitude toward the brand
ad serves a central one. Based upon the CEM, two hypotheses are generated.
H5. Attitude toward the brand ad will be shown to exert a direct influence on
purchase intention independent of the level of the involvement.
H6. Attitude toward the brand ad will be shown to exert a direct influence on
attitude toward the brand independent of the level of the involvement.
The exogenous variable in this study is the attitude toward the corporate
reputation ad. The endogenous variables are attitude toward the brand ad,
attitude toward the brand, and the purchase intention. Both kinds of variables
are measured by the response to a questionnaire.
[Insert Figure 1 about here]
For path analysis, as Figure 1 indicates, the experiment followed a 2
(involvement) x 3 (subjects' attitude toward the corporate reputation
advertising) x 3 (subjects' attitude toward the brand advertising) x 3
(subjects' attitude toward the brand) x 2 (purchase intention)
treatment-by-blocks design, with the first factor experimentally manipulated and
the second, third, fourth, and fifth acting as blocking variables.
Methodology
Subjects. Using mall intercepts in a mid-western city, a pilot study was done
in April 1998. Fifty respondents (half were men, half were women) were asked to
rate the questionnaire. Respondents found several problems in the questionnaires
and offered suggestions. Some changes were made based on their advice.
A total of 295 male and female students enrolled in an undergraduate course
participated in the study to earn extra credit. Two different ad booklets were
prepared for the study. The first contained the ads in the high involvement
conditions and the second contained the ads in the low involvement conditions.
Advertisement Samples and Measures. Subjects were assigned randomly to the
treatment conditions. Two ad booklets contained the same ad samples (corporate
reputation ad and brand ad) and questionnaires and two different cover pages
that introduced the cereal ad differed in the high and low involvement
conditions. Subjects saw the corporate reputation ad first and were instructed
to indicate their attitudes. Then subjects also saw the brand ad and indicated
their attitudes. On the last page of the questionnaire, subjects' attitudes
toward the brand, as well as purchase intentions, were measured. Upon completion
of the questionnaire, subjects were thoroughly debriefed and thanked for their
participation.
After collecting the data, frequencies were analyzed to determine the subjects'
demographic characteristics and media and advertisement consumption. Next,
t-tests were used to compare the levels of involvement. Then, multiple
regression analysis was conducted to find path coefficients and path routes
among the variables. Finally, two-way analysis of variance was performed to
examine the research hypotheses of this study.
In order to provide a structure that integrated traditional theories and
Learn-Feel-Do hierarchy models with consumer involvement and brain
specialization theories, Vaughn (1980, p. 30) introduced a new Foote, Cone, and
Belding approach to advertising strategy depicted in Table 2. Based on this
model most food and packaged staple goods belong to the third group: Low
Involvement/Thinking (Habit Formation).
[Insert Table 2 about here]
Product decisions in this group involve minimal thought and a tendency to form
buying habits based on convenience. Also, consumers of food/household items have
several "acceptable" brands, and brand loyalty is a function of habit.
Therefore, this group has a Do-Learn-Feel pattern. This study focused
specifically on print advertisements for cereal, an appropriate product to use
to study consumer attitudes toward a brand and corporate reputation to examine
how these factors affect purchase intention. Also, because consumers have
preconceptions about special brands and corporate reputations of products, such
as Kellogg's, the fictitious names (Crown for a company name) and Good Morning
Mates as a brand name.
Measures developed by Lord, Lee, and Sauer (1995) were used in this study.
Attitude toward the brand ad was measured by three seven-point semantic
differential items anchored with good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant and
favorable/unfavorable. General attitude toward the brand ad was measured by the
same systems in this study. The intercorrelation among these measures was very
high (average r = 0.8092). The same scales were used to assess the attitude
toward the corporate reputation ad, which also yielded a high intercorrelation
(average r= 0.8209). To identify the attitude toward the brand, favorability was
used in a seven-point semantic differential measure.
To adjust for the possibility of response differences between intentions and
estimates (Sheppard, Hartwick & Warshaw, 1988), purchase likelihood was measured
with both an intention item (a ten-point semantic differential of very
likely/very unlikely) and an estimation question ("probability that you will
purchase this cereal," ranging from 1=0% to 10 =100%). The correlation between
the two measures was 0.76.
Petty, Cacioppo, and Schuman's (1983) involvement measure was adapted to
bolster the involvement manipulation for this study. Involvment was embedded in
two places in the ad booklet. First, before subjects were asked their attitudes
toward ads and the brand, two different groups of subjects saw two different
cover pages respectively, and these cover pages that introduced the cereal ad
differed in the high and low involvement conditions. High involvement subjects
were told that this survey and research were sponsored by the Crown Cereal
Company and the Advertising Research Center of the sponsoring university. They
were told the advertisement and product would soon be test-marketed in
medium-sized cities throughout the Midwest, including the study site. Low
involvement subjects were told that the advertisement and product were being
test-marketed only on the East Coast. Thus, high involvement subjects were led
to believe that the product would be available in their area in the near future,
and low involvement subjects were led to believe that this cereal would not be
available for purchase in their area in the foreseeable future.
Second, on the last part of the questionnaire, involvement also was assessed
through the use of a seven-point semantic differential item: "while viewing the
ads, I was: very involved/very uninvolved." One hundred and fifty subjects saw
the cover page in high involvement conditions, and 145 subjects saw the cover
page in low involvement conditions. However, twenty of the 150 subjects who saw
the cover page in high involvement conditions indicated low involvement leading
to exclusion of 20 questionnaires that were not under the expected involvement
condition. Fourteen of the 145 subjects who saw the cover page in the low
involvement condition indicated high involvement and thus were also excluded.
Finally, 261 questionnaires were used for this study.
Analysis and Results
Demographics and Manipulation Checks for Involvement. A sample of 261 valid
subjects was used. One hundred thirty-three (51%) of the subjects were male and
127 subjects (48.7%) were female. One hundred and fourteen subjects (43.7%) said
that they read magazines two or three times a week, 133 subjects (51%) read a
newspaper 1 hour or less every day or two or three times a week and 109 subjects
(41.8%) watched TV more than 1 hour every day. One hundred and fifty-six
subjects (59.8%) responded that they sometimes enjoy seeing advertising.
Ninety-four subjects (36%) answered that they always enjoyed seeing advertising
on TV, magazines and newspapers.
To measure the difference in subjects' attitudes according to the level of
involvement, questions regarding their attitudes toward the corporate reputation
ad, the brand ad, the brand, and purchase intention were included. Attitude
scores on the corporate reputation ad and the brand ad represent the average
rating of the three seven-point semantic differential scales that are anchored
at bad and good, unpleasant and pleasant, and unfavorable and favorable.
Attitudes differed as a function of involvement. Subjects under high
involvement (mean = 5.5) showed more positive attitudes toward the corporate
reputation ad than subjects under low involvement (mean = 4.8; t = 1.37 d.f =
259 p = .0001 < .05 ). Subjects with low involvement (mean = 3.5929) showed
more positive attitudes toward the brand ad than subjects under high involvement
(mean = 3.1564; t = -2.42 d.f = 259 p = .016 < .05 ). Subjects with low
involvement (mean = 3.7939) showed more positive attitudes toward the brand than
subjects under high involvement (mean = 3.3154; t = -3.11 d.f = 230 p = .002 <
.05 ). Subjects with low involvement (mean = 3.8702) showed more positive
attitudes toward the purchase intention than subjects under high involvement
(mean = 2.8154; t = -3.99 d.f = 259 p = .0001 < .05 ).
Interestingly, as can be seen from Q1 of Figure 2, subjects with high
involvement showed more positive attitudes than did subjects under low
involvement only on the corporate reputation ad. However, these results have no
significance in this study because the subjects' attitudes toward ads are
affected by multiple variables within the context of ad, such as the endorser,
the argument and mood. For the variable of interest, different levels of
involvement showed different attitudes to each question about the corporate
reputation ad, the brand ad and the brand.
To verify the research hypotheses of this study, therefore, the relationships
between variables will be examined in the next section.
[Insert Figure 2 about here]
Path analysis. Path analysis was employed to determine the causal effects of
the research variables in this study. It is used to articulate the causal
direction and causal time ordering of dependent variables in relation to each
other and to the independent variables. Path analysis is useful in making
explicit the rationale of conventional regression calculations. Although path
analysis is not a method for discovering causes, it is an analytical technique
that can be applied to a causal model formulated by researchers on the basis of
knowledge and theoretical considerations.
Generally, exogenous and endogenous variables are combined in a path analysis
to identify significant paths corresponding to the hypothesized relations. In
Figure 3, the attitude toward the corporate reputation ad is shown as an
exogenous variable. The relationships among the exogenous variables remain
unspecified and are characterized by standardized partial regression
coefficients. The other factors; attitude toward the brand ad, attitude toward
the brand and purchase intention are considered endogenous variables because
their variation is determined by other variables in the model. Therefore,
exogenous variables are treated as independent factors and the endogenous
variables are regarded as dependent variables.
[Insert Figure 3 about here]
Each arrow in the model bears a path coefficient that represents the direct
effect of the antecedent variable on the dependent factor. In Figure 3, the path
coefficient (p1) is <.05, indicating that the attitude toward the corporate
reputation ad and attitude toward the brand ad are mainly due to indirect
effects. The attitude toward the corporate reputation ad has a weak direct
effect (-.08) on the attitude toward the brand. The direct effect of the
attitude toward the corporate reputation ad on purchase intention is .115,
whereas the total of indirect effects is .023 (.115 - .092). In other words, the
attitude toward the corporate reputation ad has practically a more direct effect
than an indirect one on purchase intention.
Therefore, the observations regarding these variables lead to the conclusion
that the present model can be trimmed. The consistency of the path model can be
increased by excluding the variables which have weak direct effects (Kerlinger
and Pedhazur, 1973, p. 324). The more parsimonious model is presented in Figure
4. The attitude toward the corporate reputation ad in this model, however, has
no statistically significant effect on purchase intention (R Square=.0084,
Signif F=.13191). The attitude toward the corporate reputation ad has to be
excluded in this model.
[Insert Figure 4 about here]
As a result, a more parsimonious path model for these variables is found. Figure
4 shows causal relationships between the research variables and specifies causal
ordering. In this model, the attitude toward the brand ad is an exogenous
variable and the attitude toward the brand and purchase intention are considered
endogenous variables. In this case, the attitude toward the brand ad affects the
attitude toward the brand (path coefficient=.633) and purchase intention (path
coefficient=.3423) highly. This exogenous variable has a positive relationship
with the variables. Also, the attitude toward the brand affects purchase
intention (path coefficient =.4848). That is, there is a positive causal
relationship between two endogenous variables. This path model draws the actual
path coefficients calculated from the study data. The zero-order correlations
of variables from which the path coefficients were calculated are shown in Table
5.
[Insert Table 5 about here]
The path model under high involvement. The path coefficients under high
involvement do not show much difference from the path coefficients (Figure 5)
without controlling involvement. An exogenous variable, the attitude toward the
corporate reputation ad, has weak direct effects on the other variables,
including the attitude toward the brand ad (path coefficient =.019), the
attitude toward the brand (path coefficient=-.118) and purchase intention (path
coefficient=.07). Therefore, the attitude toward the corporate reputation ad is
excluded in the more parsimonious model.
[Insert Figure 5 about here]
The more parsimonious path model is presented in Figure 6, which shows
casual relationships among the research variables and specifies causal ordering.
In this model, the attitude toward the brand ad is an exogenous variable and the
attitude toward the brand and purchase intention are endogenous variables. In
these relationships, the attitude toward the brand ad highly affects the
attitude toward the brand (path coefficient=.686) and purchase intention (path
coefficient=.274) is also affected by it. This exogenous variable has a positive
relationship to the other variables. Also, the attitude toward the brand affects
purchase intention (path coefficient=.6018). That is, there is a positive causal
relationship between the two endogenous variables. The zero-order correlations
of variables from which the path coefficients were calculated can be seen in
Table 8.
[Insert Table 8 and Figure 6 about here]
The path model under low involvement. As an exogenous variable, the attitude
toward the corporate reputation ad under low involvement has weak direct effects
on the other two variables: the attitude toward the brand ad (path coefficient
=.071) and the attitude toward the brand (path coefficient =.013). However, the
direct effect of attitude toward the corporate reputation ad on purchase
intention is .203, and the total of indirect effects is .044 (Figure 7). In
other words, the attitude toward the corporate reputation ad has a more direct
effect than an indirect one on purchase intention. Therefore, the path model
under low involvement will be trimmed. The more parsimonious model is presented
in Figure 8.
In this model, the exogenous variable, which is the attitude toward the
corporate reputation ad, has no direct effect on the attitude toward the brand
ad and the attitude toward the brand. But it has a direct effect on purchase
intention. Therefore, this exogenous variable changes to a residual variable.
"Residual variables are introduced to indicate the effect of variables not
included in the model. It is assumed that a residual variable is neither
correlated with other residuals nor with other variables in the system"
(Kerlinger and Pedhazur, 1973, p.309). This variable has a statistically
significant direct effect on purchase intention (R Square=.0612, Signif F=.0044)
but has to be excluded in this model because this variable has no direct effects
on the other variables in the model.
[Insert Figure 7 about here]
The most parsimonious path model is presented in Figure 8, which shows causal
relationships among the research variables. In this model, the attitude toward
the brand ad is an exogenous variable and the attitude toward the brand and
purchase intention are endogenous variables. In these relationships, the
attitude toward the brand ad affects the attitude toward the brand (path
coefficient=.539) and purchase intention (path coefficient=.401). This exogenous
variable has a positive relationship with the variables. Also, the attitude
toward the brand affects purchase intention (path coefficient=.331). That is,
there is a positive causal relationship between the two endogenous variables.
The zero-order correlations of variables from which the path coefficients were
calculated can be seen in Table 11.
[Insert Table 11and Figure 8 about here]
Test of Hypotheses. In the preceding section, the path models were examined in
order to find the relationships between the research variables. Using the path
models and a two-way ANOVA, tests of the research hypotheses for this study is
examined in this section.
The attitude toward the corporate reputation ad and the attitude toward the
brand ad represent the average rating of the product on the three seven-point
semantic differential scales anchored at good-bad, pleasant-unpleasant, and
favorable-unfavorable. Each of these main effects must be qualified and
interpreted in light of the important two-way interactions.
Hypothesis 1 states: Attitude toward the brand will have a greater impact on
purchase intention under high involvement conditions than under low involvement
conditions. In Table 12, involvement is shown to have a statistically
significant impact on purchase intention (F=6.110, df=1/255, p < .014) and the
attitude toward the brand also has a statistically significant impact on
purchase intention (F=60.585, df=2/255, p < .000).
[Insert Table 12 about here]
As Figure 9 indicates, the involvement by the attitude toward the brand
interaction on purchase intention, however, is not significant (F=2.160,
df=2/255, Sig. of F=.117, p > .05). The path coefficients between the attitude
toward the brand and purchase intention are .602 under high involvement and .331
under low involvement (See Figure 6 and 8). Therefore, hypothesis 1 is not
supported. That is, the attitude toward the brand has a significant impact on
purchase intention regardless of the level of the involvement.
Figure 9.
Hypothesis 2 states: Attitude toward the corporate reputation ad will have a
greater impact on attitude toward the brand ad under low involvement conditions
than under high involvement conditions.
In Table 13, involvement has a statistically significant impact on the attitude
toward the brand ad (F=5.44, df=1/255, p < .02) but the attitude toward the
corporate reputation ad has no significant impact on the attitude toward the
brand ad (F=.498, df=2/255, Sig of F=.609, p > .05).
[Insert Table 13 about here]
As Figure 10 indicates, the involvement by the attitude toward the corporate
reputation ad interaction on the attitude toward the brand ad is not
significant. (F=.627, df=2/255, Sig. of F=.535, p > .05). The path coefficients
between the attitude toward the corporate reputation ad and the attitude toward
the brand ad are .019 under high involvement and .071 under low involvement (See
Figure 5 and 7). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is not supported. That is, the attitude
toward the corporate reputation ad has no significant impact on the attitude
toward the brand ad regardless of the level of involvement.
[Insert Figure 10 about here]
Hypothesis 3 states: Attitude toward the corporate reputation ad will have a
greater impact on attitude toward the brand under low involvement conditions
than under high involvement conditions.
In Table 14, involvement has a statistically significant impact on the attitude
toward the brand
(F=6.78, df=1/255, p < .01), but the attitude toward the corporate reputation ad
has no significant impact on the attitude toward the brand (F=.769, df=2/255,
Sig of F=.465, p > .05).
[Insert Table 14 about here]
As Figure 11 indicates, an involvement by the attitude toward the corporate
reputation ad interaction on the attitude toward the brand is not significant
(F=.641, df=2/255, Sig. of F=.528, p > .05). The path coefficients between the
attitude toward the corporate reputation ad and the attitude toward the brand
are -.118 under high involvement and .013 under low involvement (See Figure 5
and 7). Therefore, hypothesis 3 is not supported. That is, the attitude toward
the corporate reputation ad has no significant impact on the attitude toward the
brand regardless the level of the involvement.
[Insert Figure 11 about here]
Hypothesis 4 states: Attitude toward the corporate reputation ad will have a
greater impact on purchase intention under low involvement conditions than under
high involvement conditions.
As shown in Table 15, involvement has a statistically significant impact on
purchase intention (F=10.272, df=1/255, p < .002) and the attitude toward the
corporate reputation ad also has a significant impact on purchase intention
(F=3.607, df=2/255, p < .029).
[Insert Table 15 about here]
As Figure 12 indicates, the involvement by the attitude toward the corporate
reputation ad interaction on purchase intention is statistically significant
(F=3.335, df=2/255, p < .037). The path coefficients between the attitude toward
the corporate reputation ad and purchase intention are .07 under high
involvement and .247 under low involvement (See Figures 5 and 7). Therefore,
Hypothesis 4 is supported. That is, the attitude toward the corporate reputation
ad has a greater impact on purchase intention under low involvement conditions
compared to high involvement conditions.
[Insert Figure 12 about here]
Hypothesis 5 states: The attitude toward the brand ad will be shown to exert a
direct influence on purchase intention independent of the level of the
involvement. As shown in Table 16, involvement has a statistically significant
impact on purchase intention (F=5.609, df=1/255, p < .019) and the attitude
toward the brand ad also has a significant impact on purchase intention
(F=39.288, df=2/255, p < .000).
[Insert Table 16 about here]
As Figure 13 indicates, the involvement by the attitude toward the brand ad
interaction on purchase intention, however, is not statistically significant
(F=2.463, df=2/255, Sig. of F=.087, p > .05). The path coefficients between the
attitude toward the brand and purchase intention are .274 under high involvement
and .401 under low involvement (See Figures 7 and 9 ). Therefore, hypothesis 5
is supported. That is, the attitude toward the brand ad has a significant impact
on purchase intention regardless of the level of the involvement.
[Insert Figure 13 about here]
Hypothesis 6 states: The attitude toward the brand ad will be shown to exert a
direct influence on attitude toward the brand independent of the level of the
involvement.
In Table 17, the attitude toward the brand ad has a statistically significant
impact on purchase intention (F=80.814, df=2/255, p < .0001) and involvement has
a statistically significant impact on purchase intention (F=6.253, df=1/255, p
< .014).
[Insert Table 17 about here]
As Figure 14 indicates, the involvement by the attitude toward the brand ad
interaction on the attitude toward the brand, however, is not significant
(F=2.75, df=2/255, Sig. of F=.058, p > .05). The path coefficients between the
attitude toward the brand ad and the attitude toward the brand are .686 under
high involvement and .539 under low involvement (See Figure 6 and 8). Therefore,
hypothesis 6 is supported. That is, the attitude toward the brand ad has a
significant impact on the attitude toward the brand regardless the level of the
involvement.
[Insert Figure 14 about here]
Conclusion
Implications of the study. The purpose of this study was to verify hypotheses
based on the Elaboration Likelihood Model and the Combined-Effects Model by
taking several central and peripheral routes such as the attitude toward the
brand, the attitude toward the brand ad, and the attitude toward the corporate
reputation ad, all of which can influence consumers' purchase intentions.
Currently, much of corporate advertising plays an important role in the
promotion of a company's products and services. Many researchers disagree about
whether consumers' attitude toward ads has a consistently significant direct
impact on purchase intention. These are reasons why the above three variables
were chosen as the independent variables for this study.
The application of the Elaboration Likelihood Model in this study was not found
perfectly appropriate in measuring the effects of advertisements on purchase
intention. Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 which were based on the Elaboration Likelihood
Model were not supported. That is, the attitude toward the brand had a
significant impact on purchase intention regardless of the level of involvement,
and the attitude toward the corporate reputation ad had no significant impact on
the attitude toward the brand ad and the brand, again regardless of the level of
involvement.
However, hypothesis 4 was supported. That is, the attitude toward the corporate
reputation ad had a greater impact on purchase intention under low involvement
conditions than under high involvement conditions. In addition, under low
involvement, consumer's attitude toward the corporate reputation ad had a
statistically significant direct effect on purchase intention.
This evidence indicates that strategic use of corporate advertising as a means
of managing reputation could not only strengthen consumers' image of the
organizations, but may also have a direct impact on corporate bottom-line
performance under certain conditions. Subjects who are perhaps unmotivated
and/or unable to cognitively process the content of a persuasive message seem to
rely more heavily on reputation information when making a purchasing decision.
Results of this study show the direct, main effect a reputational factor can
have on a behavioral intention measure, bearing out platitudes about bottom-line
importance of reputation management. This direct effect of reputation on
purchase intention supports a study by Lyon and Cameron (1999) that found
subjects were generally more likely to invest in and hold more favorable
attitudes about companies with a good reputation over companies with a bad
reputation. The results of this study, however, help better define the
circumstances and conditions under which subjects will use reputation
information in a consumer, decision-making scenario. This information can help
corporations attempting to harmonize their brand and corporate images and then
bring their perceived images into harmony with those of all relevant
populations, by more accurately defining those populations (Haedrich, 1993).
According to the results, two hypotheses based on the combined effects model
were supported. In other words, the attitude toward the brand ad has a
significant impact on the attitude toward the brand and purchase intention
regardless of the level of involvement.
Finally, the results of this study indicate that the attitudes toward the brand
ad are shown to exert a consistently significant direct impact on purchase
intention in addition to its indirect influence as mediated by the attitude
toward the brand, regardless of the level of involvement. The attitude toward
the corporate reputation ad, however, was shown to exert no consistently
significant direct impact on the attitude toward the brand, regardless of its
indirect influence mediated by the attitude toward the brand ad, or the level of
involvement. Although the attitude toward the corporate reputation ad had no
indirect impact in mediating the effects of attitude toward the brand and the
brand ad on purchase intention, it had a direct impact on purchase intention
under low involvement conditions rather than under high involvement conditions.
Limitations and Suggestions. Additional research is needed to replicate and
expand upon these findings. In this study, the corporate reputation ad,
functioning as a peripheral cue, had significant effects such as a direct impact
on purchase intention under low involvement conditions that should be tested
under other conditions to build upon the results of this study because subjects
were affected by various factors, including stories, pictures and testimonials,
within the context of each ad. Also, additional studies on relations between
consumers' attitudes toward corporations based on reputation and purchase
intention are necessary.
Finally, the combined-influence hypothesis toward the brand ad is supported in
this study. Conceptual and empirical research is encouraged to examine the
implications of the Combined Effects Model and its relationship to reputation
research and integrated communication campaign efforts.
Table 1. A Summary of Public Response Studies (In chronological order by
category) (Corporate Image) (Schumann, D.W.., Hathcote, J.M., and West, S. 1991,
p.44)
Author
Company /Date
Purpose
Methodology
Results
Winters, L.
Chevron 1977
To overcome negative feelings towards the oil industry and Chevron
Employed dinosaur animation campaign
Overcame hostility towards the industry and Chevron
Staff public Relations Journal
TRW 1979
To establish public identity
Experimental design involving 10 major markets and a control
Corporate reputation
ranked good to excellent in 40% - 60% of target market
Zetti, E.
ITT
1983
To explain
company's diverse mission
Awareness test
Awareness rose 65% Three-fourths of target market
Cooper, W
Chessie and Seaboard Railroad 1985
To track recognition factor
Changes in investor's awareness
Recognition factor increased from 17% to 47% (1981 - 1984)
Maier, K.
PPG industries
1985
To promote
corporate identity and boost image
Survey
significant
improvement on
measures of recall of and attitude toward company
Selwitz, R
Beatrice
1985
To promote
corporate name
Experimental
design involving
before and after surveys
After promotion
recognition increased by 6 times
Hartigan and Finch
GTE
1986
To inform public
of solution strategy
Enhanced perception
Staff Nat-ionalUnder-writer
Insurance Information Institute 1987
To improve
image of insurance industry
Before and after focus group interviews
Campaign considered effective
Winters, L.
Chevron 1988
To overcome negative feelings among a subset of the population
(VALS:"innerdirecteds")
Telephone survey to assess campaign effectiveness
Positively altered attitudes and purchasing behavior
Table 2. How Advertising Works: Planning Model (Vaughn 1980, p. 30)
Thinking
Feeling
High Involvement
1.INFORMATIVE(THINKER)
Car-House-Furnishings-New Products
Model: Learn-Feel-Do (Economic?)
(Possible Implications)
Test: Recall, Diagnostics
Media: Long Copy FormatReflective Vehicles
Creative: Specific Information Demonstration
2. AFFECTIVE(FEELER)
Jewelry-Cosmetics-Fashion apparelMotorcycles
Model: Feel-Learn-Do (Psychological?)
(Possible Implications)
Test: Attitude Change, Emotion Arousal
Media: Large Space, Image Specials
Creative: Executional Impact
Low Involvement
3. HABIT FORMATION (DOER)
Food-Household Items
Model: Do-Learn-Feel (Responsive?)
(Possible Implications)
Test: Sales
Media: Small Space Ads, 10 Second I.D.'s
Radio; POS
Creative: Reminder
4. SELF-SATISFACTION (REACTOR)
Cigarettes-Liquor-Candy
Model: Do-Feel-Learn (Social?)
(Possible Implications)
Test: Sales
Media: Billboards, Newspapers, POS
Creative: Attention
Table 3. Regression model analysis on purchase intention for Figure 3.
Variable
B
Path Coefficient
Sig T
R Square
Adj. R Squared
Attitude toward the Brand
.8691
.5000
.0000
.4919
.4899
Attitude toward the Brand Ad
.5057
.3295
.0000
.5622
.5588
Attitude toward the Corporate Reputation Ad
.2021
.1151
.0052
.5753
.5703
Signif F= .000
Table 4. Regression model analysis on purchase intention for Figure 4.
Variable
B
Path Coefficient (Beta)
Sig T
Attitude toward the Brand
.8422
.4848
.0000
Attitude toward the Brand Ad
.5253
.3423
.0000
Multiple R=.7498 R Square=.5622 Adjusted R Squared=.5588 Signif
F=.000
Attitude toward the Corporate Reputation Ad
.1610
.0918
.1391
Multiple R=.0918 R Square=.0084 Adjusted R Squared=.0046 Signif
F=.13191
Table 5. Correlation Matrix of Variables in Path Models for Figure 4.
Attitude toward
the Brand Ad
Attitude toward
the Brand
Purchase
Intention
Attitude toward the Brand Ad
1.000
Attitude toward the Brand
.633
1.000
Purchase Intention
.649
.701
1.000
Table 6. Regression model analysis on purchase intention for Figure 5.
Variable
B
Path Coefficient
Sig T
RSquare
Adj. R Squared
Attitude toward the Brand
.9253
.602
.0000
.6241
.6212
Attitude toward the Brand Ad
.4160
.2741
.0000
.6638
.6585
Signif F= .000
Table 7. Regression model analysis on purchase intention for Figure 6.
Variable
B
Path Coefficient (Beta)
Sig T
Attitude toward the Brand
.9253
.6018
.0000
Attitude toward the Brand Ad
.4160
.2741
.0002
Multiple R=.8148 R Square=.6638 Adjusted R Squared=.6585 Signif F=.000
Table 8. Correlation Matrix of Variables in Path Models for Figure 6.
Attitude toward
the Brand Ad
Attitude toward
the Brand
Purchase Intention
Attitude toward the Brand Ad
1.000
Attitude toward the Brand
.686
1.000
Purchase Intention
.687
.790
1.000
Table 9. Regression model analysis on purchase intention for Figure 7.
Variable
B
Path Coefficient
Sig T
R Square
Adj. R Squared
Attitude toward the Brand Ad
.5826
.388
.0000
.3360
.3308
Attitude toward the Brand
.6671
.327
.0000
.4139
.4048
Attitude toward the Corporate Reputation Ad
.3622
.203
.0025
.4549
.4420
Signif F= .000
Table 10. Regression model analysis on purchase intention for Figure 8.
Variable
B
Path Coefficient (Beta)
Sig T
Attitude toward the Brand
.6746
.3313
.0001
Attitude toward the Brand Ad
.6013
.4011
.0000
Multiple R=.6434 R Square=.4139 Adjusted R Squared=.4048 Signif
F=.000
Attitude toward the Corporate Reputation Ad
.4418
.2474
.0044
Multiple R=.2474 R Square=.0612 Adjusted R Squared=.0539 Signif
F=.0044
Table 11. Correlation Matrix of Variables in Path Models for Figure 8.
Attitude toward the
Brand Ad
Attitude toward
the Brand
Purchase Intention
Attitude toward the Brand Ad
1.000
Attitude toward the Brand
.539
1.000
Purchase Intention
.580
.547
1.000
Table 12. Test for H1. Means for each experimental cell on the purchase
intention
(The central route)
High Involvement
Low Involvement
The attitude
Negative
1.10 (70)
1.44 (43)
Toward
Neutral
1.36 (36)
1.60 (55)
The brand
Positive
2.50 (24)
2.39 (33)
Table 13. Test for H2. Means for each experimental cell on the attitude toward
the brand ad
(The peripheral route)
High Involvement
Low Involvement
The attitude
Negative
1.25 (8)
1.81(32)
Toward the
Neutral
1.83 (12)
1.82(11)
Corporate reputation ad
Positive
1.51 (110)
1.77(88)
Table 14. Test for H3. Means for each experimental cell on the attitude toward
the brand
(The peripheral route)
High Involvement
Low Involvement
The attitude
Negative
1.50 (8)
2.06 (32)
Toward the
Neutral
1.75 (12)
2.09 (11)
Corporate reputation ad
Positive
1.65 (110)
1.85 (88)
Table 15. Test for H4. Means for each experimental cell on the purchase
intention
(The peripheral route)
High Involvement
Low Involvement
The attitude
Negative
1.05 (21)
1.64 (28)
Toward the
Neutral
1.53 (38)
1.39 (23)
Corporate reputation ad
Positive
1.49 (71)
1.89 (80)
Note: Each cell population is in parentheses.
Table 16. Test for H5. Means for each experimental cell on the purchase
intention
High Involvement
Low Involvement
The attitude
Negative
1.17 (92)
1.49 (75)
Toward
Neutral
1.25 (8)
1.67 (9)
The brand ad
Positive
2.27 (30)
2.17 (47)
Table 17. Test for H6. Means for each experimental cell on the attitude toward
the brand
High Involvement
Low Involvement
The attitude
Negative
1.52 (92)
1.61 (75)
Toward
Neutral
1.75 (8)
1.67 (9)
The brand ad
Positive
2.63 (30)
2.47 (47)
Table 18. Two-way ANOVA table for H1
Source of Variation
Sum of
Squares
DF
Mean Square
F
Sig of F
Main Effects
The attitude toward the brand
Involvement
58.977
52.407
2.643
3
2
1
19.659
26.203
2.643
45.454
60.585
6.110
.000
.000
.014
2-way Interaction
1.868
2
.934
2.160
.117
Explained
60.845
5
12.169
28.136
.117
Residual
110.289
255
.433
Total
171.134
260
.658
Table 19. Two-way ANOVA table for H2
Source of Variation
Sum of
Squares
DF
Mean Square
F
Sig of F
Main Effects
The attitude toward the corporate reputation ad
Involvement
5.326
.806
4.408
3
2
1
1.775
.403
4.408
2.191
.498
5.440
.090
.609
.020
2-way Interaction
1.016
2
.508
.627
.535
Explained
6.342
5
1.268
1.565
.170
Residual
206.623
255
.810
Total
212.966
260
.819
Table 20. Two-way ANOVA table for H3
Source of Variation
Sum of
Squares
DF
Mean Square
F
Sig of F
Main Effects
The attitude toward the corporate reputation ad
Involvement
5.937
.913
4.022
3
2
1
1.979
.456
4.022
3.336
.769
6.780
.020
.465
.010
2-way Interaction
.761
2
.380
.641
.528
Explained
6.698
5
1.340
2.258
.049
Residual
151.286
255
.593
Total
157.985
260
.608
Table 21. Two-way ANOVA table for H4
Source of Variation
Sum of
Squares
DF
Mean Square
F
Sig of F
Main Effects
The attitude toward the corporate reputation ad
Involvement
10.985
4.415
6.286
3
2
1
3.662
2.208
6.286
5.983
3.607
10.272
.001
.029
.002
2-way Interaction
4.082
2
2.041
3.335
.037
Explained
15.067
5
3.013
4.924
.000
Residual
156.067
255
.612
Total
171.134
260
.658
Table 22. Two-way ANOVA table for H5
Source of Variation
Sum of
Squares
DF
Mean Square
F
Sig of F
Main Effects
The attitude toward the brand ad
Involvement
44.771
38.200
2.727
3
2
1
14.924
19.100
2.727
30.697
39.288
5.609
.000
.000
.019
2-way Interaction
2.395
2
1.197
2.463
.087
Explained
47.165
5
9.433
19.403
.000
Residual
123.969
255
.486
Total
171.134
260
.658
Table 23. Two-way ANOVA table for H6
Source of Variation
Sum of
Squares
DF
Mean Square
F
Sig of F
Main Effects
The attitude toward the brand ad
Involvement
63.220
58.195
2.251
3
2
1
21.073
29.098
2.251
58.528
80.814
6.253
.000
.000
.014
2-way Interaction
1.980
2
.990
2.750
.058
Explained
65.20
5
13.04
36.222
.000
Residual
91.814
255
.360
Total
157.014
260
.603
Figure 1. Test Model
Attitude toward
the Corporate
Reputation
Ad
Attitude toward Purchase
the Brand
Intention
Attitude toward
the Brand Ad
Figure 2.
Figure 3. The path model based on the research design
Attitude toward P2=.115
(.092)
the Corporate
Reputation Ad
-.08 (-.064)
Attitude toward Purchase
P1=.02
the Brand .5(.701) Intention
.634 (.633)
Attitude toward
.329 (.649)
the Brand Ad
Numbers in parentheses indicate zero-order correlation. Other numbers are path
coefficients.
Figure 4. The more parsimonious path model (Numbers indicate Path Coefficient.)
.3423
Attitude toward
the Brand Ad
Purchase
Intention
.633 .4848 .092
Attitude toward Attitude toward the
the Brand Corporate Reputation
Ad
Figure 5. The path model under high involvement
Attitude toward .07
(.017)
the Corporate
Reputation Ad
-.118(-.106)
Attitude toward Purchase
.019
the Brand .602(.79) Intention
.688 (.686)
Attitude toward
.274 (.649)
the Brand Ad
Numbers in parentheses indicate zero-order correlation. Other numbers are path
coefficients.
Figure 6. The more parsimonious path model under high involvement
Attitude toward
the Brand Ad .274
Purchase
.686
Intention
.6018
Attitude toward
the Brand
Numbers indicate path coefficients, all paths shown are statistically
significant (p <.05)
Figure 7. The path model under low involvement
Attitude toward .203
(.247)
the Corporate
Reputation Ad
.013(.051)
Attitude toward Purchase
.071
the Brand .327(.55) Intention
.538 (.539)
Attitude toward
.388 (.58)
the Brand Ad
Numbers in parentheses indicate zero-order correlation. Other numbers are path
coefficients.
Figure 8. The more parsimonious path model under low involvement
.401
Attitude toward
the Brand Ad
Purchase
Intention
.539
.331 .247
Attitude toward
Attitude toward
the Brand
the Corporate
Reputation Ad
Numbers indicate Path Coefficient.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
References
Burton, Scott and Donald R. Lichtenstein (1988), "The Effect of Ad Claims and Ad
Content on Attitude Toward the Advertisement," Journal of Advertising, 17(1),
3-11.
Bromley, D.B. (1993). Reputation, Image and Impression Manegement. Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Brown, Steven P. and Douglas M. Stayman (1992), "Antecedents and Consequences of
Attitude Toward the Ad: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, 19
(June), 34-51.
Caudron, Sheri (1997) "Forget Image, It's Reputation That Matters." Industry
Week (February 3), 13.
Chaiken, S. (1980), "Heuristic versus Systematic Information Processing and the
Use of Sources Versus Message Cues in Persuasion," Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
Cook, T.D. and B.R. Flay (1978), "The Temporal Persistence of Experimentally
Induced Attitude Change: An Evaluative Review," In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 11). New York: Academic Press.
Droge, Cornelia (1989), "Shaping the Route to Attitude Change: Central versus
Peripheral Processing Through Comparative versus Noncomparative Advertising,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (May), 193-204.
Druckenmiller, Bob (1993, August). "Crises Provide Insight on Image." Business
Marketing, 40.
Eagly, A.H. and S. Himmelfarb (1978), "Attitudes and opinions," In M. Rosensweig
and L. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 29), 517- 554. Palo
Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.
Frombrun, Charles and Mark Shanley (1990). "What's in a Name? Reputation
Building and Corporate Strategy." Academy of Management Journal, 33(1) 233-258.
Frombrun, Charles and Cees Van Reil (1997). "The Reputational Landscape,"
Corporate Reputation Review, 1 (1), 5-13.
Goldberg, Marvine E. and Jon Hartwick (1990). "The Effects of Advertiser
Reputation and Exrtremity of Claim on Advertiser Effectiveness." Journal of
Consumer Research, 17, 172-179.
Haedrich, G. (1993), "Images and Strategic Corporate and Marketing
Planning,"Journal of Public Relations Research 5(2), 83-93.
Hammond, Sue Annis, and John W. Slocum (1996). "The Impact of Prior Firm
Financial Performance on Subsequent Corporate Reputation." Journal of Business
Ethcs, 15 (2) 159-165.
Hartigan, Maureen F. and Peter Finch (1986), "The New Emphasis On Strategy In
Corporate Advertising," Business Marketing, (February), 42-49.
Homer, Pamela M. (1990), "The Mediating Role of Attitude Toward the Ad: Some
Additional Evidence," Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (February), 78-86.
Kenneth R. Lord, Myung-Soo Lee and Paul L. Sauer (1995), "The Combined Influence
Hypothesis: Central and Peripheral Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad,"
Journal of Advertising, 26, 1, (Spring), 73-84.
Kerlinger, F.N. and E.J. Pedhazur (1973), Multiple Regression in Behavioral
Research, New York University, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Kunkel J.H. and L.L. Berry (1968), "A Behavioral Conception of Retail Image,"
Journal of Marketing, 32, (October), 21-27.
Lyon, Lisa and Glen T. Cameron (1999). "Fess Up or Stonewall? An Experimental
Test of Prior Reputation and Response Style in the Face of Negative News
Coverage." Web Journal of Mass Communication Research 1 (4).
MacKenzie, Scott B., Richard J. Lutz and George E. Belch (1986), "The Role of
Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of
Competing Explanations," Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (May), 130-143.
MacKenzie, Scott B., and Richard A. Spreng (1992), "How Does Motivation Moderate
the Impact of Central Processing on Brand Attitudes and Intentions?" Journal of
Consumer Research, 18 (March), 519-529.
Mackenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989), "An Empirical Examination of the
Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad and Advertising Pretesting
Context," Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 48-65.
Maier, Karl A. (1985), "What Corporate Advertising Can Do For You," company
promotional paper, New York: Wells, Rich, Greene Inc.
Mick, David Glen (1992),"Levels of Subjective Comprehension on Advertising
Processing and Their Relations to Ad Perceptions, Attitudes, and Memory,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (March), 411-424.
Miniard, Paul W., Peter R. Dickson and Kenneth R. Lord (1988), "Some Central and
Peripheral Thoughts on the Routes to Persuasion," in Advances in Consumer
Research, Michael J. Houston, ed., Boston: Association for Consumer Research,
204-208.
Miniard, Paul W., Sunil Bhatla and Randall L. Rose (1990), "On the Formation and
Relationship of Ad and Brand Attitudes: An Experimental and Causal Analysis,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (August), 290-303.
Morley, Michael (1998). How to manage your global reputation. MacMillian
Business London.
Muehling, Darrell D. and Russell N. Laczniak (1988), "Advertising's Immediate
and Delayed Influence on Brand Attitudes: Considerations Across
Message-Involvement Levels," Journal of Advertising, 17 (4), 23-24.
National Underwriter (1987), "I.I.I. Launches Image Campaign," (February 9), 33.
Page, Christiane M. (1998). "A Public Relations Perspective on Intrapersonal
Measurement of Corporate Reputations." Paper presented in the Educator's Section
of the Public Relations Society of America, National Conference, Boston MA.
Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo and David Schumann (1983),"Central and
Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of
Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, 10(September), 135-146.
Petty, R.E., J.T. Cacioppo and R. Goldman (1981), "Personal Involvement as a
Determinant of Argument-Based Persuasion," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41, 847-855.
Petty, R. E., J.T. Cacioppo and M. Heesacker (in Press),"Central and Peripheral
Routes to Persuasion: Applications to Counseling," In R.P. McGlynn, J. E.
Maddux, C. D. Stoltenberg, & J.H. Harvey (Eds.) Social Perception in Clinical
and Counseling Psychology. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press.
Petty, R.E. and J.T. Cacioppo, (1982), Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and
Contemporary Approaches, Wm.C. Brown Company Publishers Dubuque, Iowa.
Rothschild, Michael L. (1987). Advertising, MA:D.C. Heath and Company.
Schumann D.W., J.M. Hathcote and S. West (1991), "Corporate Advertising in
America: A Review of Published Studies on Use, Measurement, and Effectiveness,"
Journal of Advertising (September 1991), 35-55.
Sheppard, Blair H., Jon Hartwick and Paul R. Warchaw (1988), "The Theory of
Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for
Modifications and Future Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 15
(December), 325-343.
Sivacek, J., and W.D. Crano (1982), "Vested Interest as a Moderator of
Attitude-Behavior Consistency," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
43, 210-221.
Tillman, R and C.A. Lorpatrick (1968), Promotion: Persuasive Communication in
Marketing.
Vaughn, R. (1980), "How Ad Works: Planning Model," Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 5, 27-33.
Weigelt, Keith and Colin Camerer (1988). "Reputation and Corporate Strategy: A
Review of Recent Theory and Applicaitons." Strategic Management Journal, 9,
443-454.
Winters, L.C., (1986), "The Effects of Brand Advertising on Company Image:
Implications for Corporate Advertising," Journal of Advertising Research, 26
(Apr/May, 1986), 54-59.
Zetti, Ed (1983), "Reading Between The Lines of Corporate Ads," Advertising Age,
(January 24), M-9-M-16.
|
