“Now You See It, Now
You Don't: Empirical
Findings From An
Experiment On The
Mere Exposure Effect
Of A Web-based
Advertisement”
David R FORTIN
et Ming O WONG
Department of Management
University of Canterbury,
New Zealand
UC Aug 2000
About the Authors
• David is Senior Lecturer at the
University of Canterbury, NouvelleZélande and director of the “Web-L@b
Consumer Research Project”
• Ming Wong is a doctoral student at the
University of Canterbury, N-Z
www.mang.canterbury.ac.nz/weblab
UC Aug 2000
Agenda
• Effects of Web Advertising
• Conceptual Model
• Methodology
• Results
• Discussion
UC Aug 2000
Introduction:
Online Ads
UC Aug 2000
Advertising Effects
• Attitude Measures
• Behavioral measures (click-throughs)
• Residual Effects
UC Aug 2000
Mere Exposure Effects
• “Mere repeated
exposure of the
individual to a stimulus
is a sufficient condition
for the enhancement of
his attitude toward it...”
(Zajonc 1968, p.1)
UC Aug 2000
Mere Exposure Effects
and Advertising
• Positive
preferences can
be generated
independently of
conscious
processing
(Shapiro, Machinnis & Heckler
1997; Thjomoe & Olson
1997; Janiszweski 1988,
1990, 1993; Hawkins & Hoch
1992)
UC Aug 2000
Mere Exposure Effects
and Advertising
• Research in a Web
context
• (Chtourou et
Chandon 2000;
Drèze et Hussher
1999; Mandel et
Jackson 1999)
UC Aug 2000
Mere Exposure and
Banner Ad: A
Conceptual Model
Competitive
Interference
Familiarity
-
+
+
Mere
Exposure
Affect
+
Vividness
+
Ad
Position
UC Aug 2000
Ad/ Brand Familiarity
• H1: The positive
relationship between
mere exposure and
affect toward the ad
(brand) will become
weaker with increasing
ad (brand) familiarity.
UC Aug 2000
Intensity of
Competitive
Interference
• H2: The positive
relationship between
mere exposure and
affect toward the ad
(brand) will become
stronger with
increasing intensity of
competitive
interference.
UC Aug 2000
Vividness
• H3: The positive relationship
between mere exposure and affect
toward the ad (brand) will become
stronger with increasing level of
vividness of the ad. (Fortin et
Dholakia, 2001 JBR)
UC Aug 2000
Ad Position
• H4: The positive relationship
between mere exposure and affect
toward brand name depicted in a
web-based ad will become
stronger with the proper position
of the ad (right to pictorial
information or to the left of written or
verbal information).
• Dax (1836)
• Bogen 1969; Iaccino 1993; Springer
and Deutsch 1981; Hellige 1993
UC Aug 2000
Methodology
• Factorial Design 2 X 3 X 2
• 2 levels of Vividness (lo, hi)
• 3 exposure levels (1, 3 ou 5)
• 2 levels of Position (correct,
incorrect)
• 12 experimental conditions
UC Aug 2000
Dependent Variables
• Non-aided recall
• Aided recall
• Brand Familiarity
• (Aad) 11 items (Batra and Ahtola
1990)
• (Abrand) 4 items MacKenzie and
Lutz (1989)
• Purchase Intent (Pconsid) 3 items
Raman (1996)
UC Aug 2000
Covariate Variables
• Attitude toward web ads (6 items)
• Involvement with movies (5 items)
adapted from Srinivasan and
Ratchford (1991)
• Involvement with weight loss (5
items) adapted from Lichtenstein,
Netemeyer and Burton (1990)
• Web Expertise (1 item)
UC Aug 2000
Experimental
Approach (continue)
• Realistic web site environment
– banner ad imbedded in editorial
news-type content
• Recruiting participants
– randomly directed to one of the 19
experimental cells
– exposed to multiple pages of text &
news
– participating in online questionnaire
UC Aug 2000
Procedure
• Fictitious site about the movie and
entertainment industry
• Participants recruited by e-mail
– assigned randomly to one of 12
conditions
– exposed to all pages of the site
– directed to a questionnaire post-facto
UC Aug 2000
Results
Estimated Marginal Means of FAMB2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
v iv idness
1.5
low
1.4
high
proper
improper
ad position
• 2 interactions sig VIV x POS et VIV
x POS x EXP (disordinal)
• no covariate effect
UC Aug 2000
Results
Estimated Marginal Means of FAMB2
At ad position = proper
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
v iv idness
1.4
low
1.2
1.0
high
1
3
5
exposure
• 2 interactions sig VIV x POS et VIV
x POS x EXP (disordinal)
• no covariate effect
UC Aug 2000
Results
Estimated Marginal Means of FAMB2
At ad position = improper
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
v iv idness
1.4
low
1.3
high
1
3
5
exposure
• 2 interactions sig VIV x POS et VIV
x POS x EXP (disordinal)
• no covariate effect
UC Aug 2000
Results
Estimated Marginal Means of attitude Ad
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
v iv idness
3.0
low
2.9
high
1
3
5
exposure
• 2 interactions sig EXP x VIV et EXP
x POS (disordinal)
• 2 covar. Banatt et INVwl
UC Aug 2000
Results
Estimated Marginal Means of attitude Ad
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
ad position
3.0
proper
2.9
improper
1
3
5
exposure
• 2 interactions sig EXP x VIV et EXP
x POS (disordinal)
• 2 covar. Banatt et INVwl
UC Aug 2000
Results
Estimated Marginal Means of attitude Ad
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
1
3
5
exposure
• Flin=3.54, p=.03 (trend analysis)
UC Aug 2000
Discussion
• H1, H2, H3 partially supported.
• Non-aided recall appears to be a
function of exposure and vividness
• brand familiarity increases with
exposure only if the ad position is
correct and the message is low in
vividness”
• Aad declines with exposure except if
the message is in the proper position
and “low vividness”
UC Aug 2000
Discussion
• Abrand does not seem to be
affected by treatments
• Pconsid increases with exposure
only when message is “low
vividness”
UC Aug 2000
Conclusion
• “mere exposure” effect seems
supported
• Ad position within content impacts
on brand familiarity and Aad
UC Aug 2000
Future Directions
• Replication with brief exposures but
on a repeated basis with
longitudinal tracking (email for
example)
• Ads with and without textual content
UC Aug 2000