The effects of affective and cognitive elaborations from Facebook posts on consumer attitude...

The effects of affective and cognitive elaborations from Facebook posts onconsumer attitude formation

KUAN-JU CHEN*, JOOYOUNG KIM and JHIH-SYUAN LIN

Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, The University of Georgia, Athens,

GA 30602-3018, USA

ABSTRACT

This research investigates the effects of affect and cognition in consumers’ information processing of branded content on Facebook pages. Amodel was suggested to delve into the elaboration process leading to consumer attitude formation. A 2 (purchase-decision involvement: lowversus high) × 2 (product categories: hedonic versus utilitarian) × 2 (sources of Facebook posts: brand posts versus consumer posts)between-subjects experiment was conducted online. The validated model demonstrates the main effects that affective elaboration signifi-cantly supersedes cognitive elaboration in forming attitudes toward the posts and attitudes toward the brand. Post hoc analyses show furtherevidence of the interaction effects that affective elaboration is the dominant influencer when consumers process brand-related information inFacebook posts across situations. Theoretical implications for future research and managerial suggestions for social media marketing arediscussed. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

Given the rapidly growing number of social media users,brands of all shapes and sizes have recognized the impor-tance of leveraging brand presence via social media. Mar-keters have embraced branded content in social media toaugment their marketing strategies and enhance consumers’brand experience (eMarketer, 2013). For instance, brandedcontent can be presented in the format of advertising-like textmessages (i.e., posts) to promote the brands on social mediapages. Of the many social media sites active in the market,Facebook pages serve as the most representative social mediaplatform, because Facebook is “the dominant social network-ing platform” that attracts numerous users (Duggan andSmith, 2013, p. 1). In this light, marketers could utilizebrand-related Facebook posts to reach consumers and pros-pects, as well as to stimulate purchasing behaviors andincrease both consumer engagement and brand loyalty(Lipsman et al., 2012).

Albeit the promising practice of social media in alluringconsumers, topics related to consumer mechanisms of pro-cessing brand-related information in social media posts andmaking attitudinal judgments remain understudied. In con-sumer behavior literature, extant research has illustrated theformation of consumer attitudes after exposing to traditionaladvertising tactics, such as print advertisements, TV com-mercials, and product trials (e.g., Kempf, 1999; Phamet al., 2001; Kim et al., 2012). Regarding research on socialmedia, empirical work has examined consumers’ motivationto consume and generate brand-related posts via social media(e.g., Chu, 2011; Chu and Kim, 2011; Muntinga et al., 2011;Wien and Olsen, 2012). Considering these research trends,scant research has been conducted to investigate how con-

sumer attitudes are constructed in the social media realm,Facebook especially. Because Facebook posts could be gen-erated not only by marketers but also consumers, they aredifferent from advertising messages, which used to be solelycreated by marketers. Also, unlike passive exposure to ads,consumers voluntarily visit Facebook pages to view brand-related Facebook posts (de Vries et al., 2012). Given the dis-parities between Facebook posts and ads, however, it is notclear whether consumers possess a similar mechanism to pro-cess Facebook posts as they do for processing ads.

Research has defined elaboration as the number of infer-ences immediately elicited by given messages in workingmemory (McQuarrie and Mick, 1999). Specific to con-sumers’ information processing, traditional views specifytwo major dimensions, namely, affect and cognition, as eval-uative bases for attitude formation (MacKenzie, et al., 1986).Such elicited affect and cognition are thus conceived as af-fective and cognitive elaborations, which serve as the in-process outputs in determining attitudes (Petty et al., 2001;Kim et al., 2012). In line with the multiprocess approach ofdecision making, still, some scholars (Petty and Cacioppo,1986; Petty and Wegener, 1999) have claimed that cognitiveelaboration plays the primary role in the process of attitudeformation, while other scholars (Pham et al., 2001; Kimand Morris, 2007) have suggested that affective elabora-tion primarily influences attitudes. Because social media(e.g., Facebook pages) significantly transform how brandpresence is managed online and consumers are in need ofshared content (e.g., Facebook posts) to learn about brands(Heinonen, 2011), the psychological states—including affec-tive and cognitive elaborations—through which consumersprocess brand-related information to form attitudes in socialmedia contexts are a timely topic requiring sustained attention.

Taken together, the purposes of this study are three-fold. First, it seeks to identify the roles of affective andcognitive elaborations in consumers’ attitude formationprocess induced by brand-related information in Facebookposts. Second, drawing on the conceptualization by

*Correspondence to: Kuan-Ju Chen, Department of Advertising and PublicRelations, Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, The Uni-versity of Georgia, Journalism Building, Room 410, Athens, GA 30602-3018, USA.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. 14: 208–218 (2015)Published online 12 March 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.1515

MacKenzie et al. (1986) regarding attitudes toward the ad,this study suggests a model to bring up the construct of atti-tudes toward the posts and delineate its influence on attitudestoward the brand. Third, this study further investigates theeffects of affective and cognitive elaborations on attitudesin various marketing situations, including purchase-decisioninvolvement (PDI), product categories, and sources ofFacebook posts.

To this end, this study contributes to the literature in con-sumer behavior by clarifying the stepwise procedures forinformation processing and the influences of affect andcognition on making brand evaluations in social mediacontexts. The model adds to the explanation concerningthe relationships between elaboration constructs and con-sumer attitudes, specifically toward Facebook posts as wellas the brand. As such, model comparisons identify whichinfluence dominates consumers’ processing of brand-relatedinformation in Facebook posts across real-world resemblingsituations. Based on the marketing potential of Facebook,the results of this study thereby offer managerial suggestionsfor brands that intend to use social media marketing toincrease their visibility and likability. The findings alsohighlight ways in which marketers can capitalize upon theiruse of branded content with affective and cognitive mes-sages to bolster consumers’ brand evaluations via socialmedia platforms.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

In the digitally empowering marketplace, consumers tend toseek brand-related information online when they have tomake attitudinal judgments toward certain brands (Bronnerand de Hoog, 2010; de Vries et al., 2012). Similarly, onFacebook pages, brand-related information presented inFacebook posts not only engages interested consumers butalso guides them through the process of brand evaluation(Muntinga et al., 2011; Lipsman et al., 2012). This studyaims to demystify how consumers process informationcontained in Facebook posts regarding the effects of affectiveand cognitive elaborations on attitude formation. The follow-ing section first suggests a model with which to explain therelationships between both affective and cognitive elabora-tions and consumer attitudes. It then reviews literatureaddressing the influence of affective and cognitive elabora-tions on attitudes in different decision-making situations topostulate the hypotheses and research question.

Affective and cognitive elaborations in attitude formationFirstly, McQuarrie and Mick (1999) define elaboration ininformation processing as “the extent to which a readerengages a text or the amount of interpretation occasionedby a text or the number of inferences drawn” (p. 39).MacInnis and Price (1987) suggest that elaboration, whenevoked by a stimulating message, is related to affective andcognitive experiences in working memory, as well as deter-mines how the message is processed. In this vein, Kimet al. (2012) specify that for attitude formation, affectiveelaboration reflects message-related feelings induced in the

process, while cognitive elaboration refers to message-related thoughts elicited in the same process. Both of whichare immediately generated as in-process outputs that serveas initial resources for information processing. In conse-quence, Petty and Cacioppo (1986) state that the amount ofcognitive elaboration consumers devoted to process a mes-sage contributes to the formation of attitudes. Batra andRay (1986) also argue that increased affective elaborationcomparably enhances a message’s persuasive effect, whichleads to strong and stable attitudes.

Although scholars have identified the necessities of affectand cognition on how consumers process brand-related infor-mation, their views regarding the effects of affective and cog-nitive elaborations on attitude formation remain diverse. Onestrand of research (Petty et al., 1983; Petty and Cacioppo,1986; Petty and Wegener, 1999) has posited that cognitiveelaboration is decisive in shaping attitudes, while anotherstrand (Forgas, 1995; Pham et al., 2001; Kim and Morris,2007) has suggested that affective feelings, such as affectiveelaboration, significantly influence attitudes. Because affectand cognition are both anchors for consumers’ brand evalua-tions (MacKenzie et al., 1986), the present study conceivesthat affective and cognitive elaborations both initiate con-sumers’ information processing.

Indeed, attitude formation involves multiple processes.When consumers are exposed to any stimulus that providesbrand-related information—it could be an advertisement, aproduct trial, or a Facebook post, among others—they willinstantly generate message-related responses, includingaffective and cognitive ones (Batra and Stephens, 1994;Kempf, 1999). Such responses involve affective and cogni-tive elaborations that constitute consumer attitudes (Kimet al., 2012). MacKenzie et al. (1986) have found thatconsumers’ affective and cognitive responses to a particularadvertising stimulus result in attitudes toward the ad and thateach attitude is defined as a “predisposition to respond in afavorable or unfavorable manner to a particular advertisingstimulus during a particular exposure occasion” (p. 130).Using empirical evidence, that study specified four modelsto demonstrate that affective and cognitive responses are cru-cial determinants of attitudes toward the ad and are conse-quently transferred to attitudes toward the brand as overallbrand evaluations. By extension, other research has sug-gested that attitudes toward the ad precede attitudes towardthe brand, as well as mediate relationships between the elab-oration constructs and ultimate attitudinal outcomes (Brownand Stayman, 1992).

Applied to consumers process information in Facebookposts, although Facebook posts differ from online paid ad-vertising (e.g., banner ads), they include brand-related infor-mation that can serve a purpose similar to adverting insofaras it stimulates consumer responses (de Vries et al., 2012).A Facebook post is thus defined as advertising-like messagecontent that induces consumer responses. Conceiving as inte-gral parts of information processing, affective and cognitiveelaborations tend to be elicited at the same time (Petty andWegener, 1999; Petty et al., 2001). Furthermore, as the re-sults of Kim et al. (2012) imply, affective and cognitive elab-orations regarding Facebook posts are elicited response

Affect and cognition in attitude formation 209

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 14: 208–218 (2015)

DOI: 10.1002/cb

variables that precede attitudes. Both affective and cognitiveelaborations may lead to the formation of attitudes toward theposts, which is similar to those toward the ad, and follow-upattitudes toward the brand (MacKenzie et al., 1986).

In this sense, affective and cognitive elaborations elicitedby Facebook posts could positively contribute to consumers’attitudes toward the posts (+P1 and +P2, respectively).Building on previous research, it is expected that afterconsumers have processed brand-related information inFacebook posts, their attitudes toward the posts positively in-fluence their attitudes toward the brand (+P3) as their overallbrand evaluations. In sum, affective and cognitive elabora-tions occur simultaneously when consumers are exposed toFacebook posts. The elicited affective and cognitive elabora-tions should determine attitudes toward the posts, which arethereafter transferred to attitudes toward the brand. In themodel (Figure 1), paths (indicated as P# with + signs) predictrelationships between constructs.

HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH QUESTION

Although Petty et al. (2001) have suggested that consumerattitude formation is determined by the combined effects ofaffect and cognition, the effects of affective and cognitiveelaborations on attitudes in this process could vary across sit-uations. To explain, this section reviews extant literature inorder to postulate hypotheses and a research question thatwill facilitate comparisons of the effects of affective and cog-nitive elaborations on attitudes. The conditions establishedhere resemble situations that consumers can possibly faceupon encountering brands on Facebook pages; they includePDI (low versus high) and product categories (hedonic ver-sus utilitarian), both of which have been tested in previousresearch (e.g., Kim and Morris, 2007; Kim et al., 2012).Most importantly, these conditions also include sources ofFacebook posts (brand versus consumer) that simulate thecomposition of a brand’s Facebook page. Including differentsources of Facebook posts is expected to increase the robust-ness of the research context, as well as advance the applica-bility of the research results.

Purchase-decision involvementThe involvement construct pertains to consumers’ perceivedimportance of a stimulus based upon their inherent needs,values, and interests when making brand evaluations andpurchasing decisions (Greenwald and Leavitt, 1984; Mittal,1995). Mittal (1989) has defined PDI as “the extent ofinterest and concern that a consumer brings to bear upon apurchase-decision task” (p. 150). The literature has

suggested that PDI concerns the extent to which consumersdeliberately process information when making correct judg-ments (i.e., attitudes), which can unequivocally predict pur-chasing behavior (Mittal, 1989). In this regard, researchershave shown that the level of consumer involvement signifi-cantly moderates the effects of affect and cognition on atti-tudes. For instance, Batra and Stephens (1994) have arguedthat the effect of affect is salient in conditions of low involve-ment because affective responses influence informationprocessing peripherally. They conducted an experiment tocompare the effects of affective responses and cognitiveelaboration on consumers’ information processing of adver-tising stimuli as manipulated by involvement. The resultsconfirmed that affective responses are more powerful thancognitive elaboration in determining attitudes in conditionsof low involvement.

By contrast, other research (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986)has suggested that high involvement evokes high cognitiveelaboration insofar as consumers devote more thought to pro-cessing brand-related information. Greenwald and Leavitt(1984) have pointed out that consumers with a high levelof involvement allocate more of their cognitive capacity toanalyze advertising messages. Likewise, Petty et al. (1981)have argued that message persuasiveness is positively associ-ated with the amount of cognitive elaboration. To extendthese findings, cognitive elaboration should dominate infor-mation processing in conditions of high involvement. Assuch, it is anticipated that the effects of affective and cogni-tive elaborations on attitudes depend on consumers’ PDI.Therefore, the first hypothesis proposes the following:

H1a: In evaluating a low-PDI product, affective elabora-tion will influence attitudes more than cognitiveelaboration.

H1b: In evaluating a high-PDI product, cognitive elabo-ration will influence attitudes more than affectiveelaboration.

Product categoriesIn addition to PDI, affective and cognitive elaborations mayexert influences differently when consumers evaluate brandsin different product categories. Of all product categories, he-donic and utilitarian products have been most often tested inprevious research, given that the distinct characteristics ofeach of these categories can prompt a different processingmechanism (Batra and Ahtola, 1991; Roy and Ng, 2012).Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) have suggested that con-sumers’ experiences with hedonic products are primarilyrelated to affective responses, including emotional and sen-sory gratification, which bring satisfaction. On the contrary,consumers’ experiences with utilitarian products are orientedtoward cognitive responses, including a product’s functionalbenefits and utility, which appeal to consumers.

Following this contention, Kempf’s (1999) experimentexamined the roles of affective and cognitive responses in at-titude formation by appealing to product trials with hedonicand utilitarian products. The results indicated that not cogni-tive but affective responses were significant predictors ofFigure 1. Proposed model.

210 K.-J. Chen et al.


DOI: 10.1002/cb

attitudes toward hedonic products. Although cognitive re-sponse was the major factor in shaping consumers’ attitudestoward utilitarian products, results also showed that affectiveresponses significantly impacted attitudes toward utilitarianproducts. More recently, Schulze et al. (2014) have sug-gested that the sociable environment of social media maypredispose consumers to expect brand-related informationon Facebook pages to tap into their emotions. Yet, even forutilitarian products, consumers may rely more heavily upontheir affective feelings in making evaluative judgments(Dijksterhuis et al., 2005) and thus unconsciously devote lesscognitive effort to concentrating on the functional aspects ofutilitarian products. It follows that affective elaboration isliable to more strongly influence attitudes than cognitiveelaboration for both hedonic and utilitarian products. Thus,the second hypothesis put forth the following:

H2a: In evaluating a hedonic product, affective elabora-tion will influence attitudes more than cognitiveelaboration.

H2b: In evaluating a utilitarian product, affective elabo-ration will influence attitudes more than cognitiveelaboration.

Sources of Facebook postsFollowing the predictions made in previous studies, affectiveelaboration seems to exert a stronger effect than cognitiveelaboration on attitude formation for most conditions that dif-ferentiate PDI and product categories. However, the interac-tive environment of a Facebook page suggests a venuecomposed of brand-related information posted by the hostbrand and peer consumers. Nuances in sources of Facebookposts may lead to different ways of information processing.According to the information sources, Facebook posts canbe classified as either brand posts or consumer posts. Onthe one hand, brand posts can be defined as content createdby an identified marketer under the tenet of viral marketing,in which marketers remain in control of the message’s con-tent (van der Lans, et al., 2010; Paek et al., 2011). Usingbrand posts can energize brand performance in the realm ofsocial media and motivate consumers to explore brand prod-ucts (Porter and Golan, 2006; Lipsman et al., 2012). Consid-ering that brand posts can function as a means to disseminateinformation regarding brand features, consumers are prone toexpect informative messages in brand posts that detail the na-ture of the brand (de Vries et al., 2012; Gensler et al., 2013).Along this logic, when consumers process brand-relatedinformation in brand posts, they might experience more cog-nitive thoughts than they do affective feelings while formingtheir attitudes toward brands. Namely, cognitive elaborationwould be more influential than affective elaboration in thisprocess.

On the other hand, drawing on studies of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM), consumer posts refer to any “statementmade by potential, actual, or former customers about a prod-uct or company, which is made available to a multitude ofpeople and institutions via the Internet” (Hennig-Thurauet al., 2004, p. 39). Even if consumers do not know each

other, active consumers tend to share their interests in andexperiences with the brand via consumer posts to advocatethe brand (Chatterjee, 2011; Schindler and Bickart, 2012).In this sense, research (Huang and Chen, 2006) has sug-gested that consumers seek others’ choices and evaluationsas cues for making online product choices, because theseelements are likely to resonate with like-minded peers(Bronner and de Hoog, 2010). In terms of the context ofFacebook pages, Naylor et al. (2012) have found that thepresence of brand supporters—most of whom contributebrand-related information in consumer posts—increases con-sumers’ positive feelings toward the brand. Consumer postswould elicit more affective than cognitive elaboration in in-formation processing. Because the sources of Facebook postscould provoke different effects of affective and cognitiveelaborations on attitudes, the third hypothesis suggests thefollowing:

H3a: In evaluating a product with brand posts, cognitiveelaboration will influence attitudes more than affectiveelaboration.

H3b: In evaluating a product with consumer posts, affec-tive elaboration will influence attitudes more than cogni-tive elaboration.

Furthermore, research has further investigated the specificroles of affect and cognition in consumers’ information pro-cessing under conditions that manipulate both involvementand product categories. Kim and Morris (2007) used a struc-tural equation modeling technique to examine the effects ofaffective responses and cognitive structures on product-trialattitudes. As a result, their experiment that simultaneouslymanipulated both PDI and product categories showed that,in terms of forming product-trial attitudes, affective re-sponses outweighed cognitive structures in all experimentconditions. Also, Pham et al. (2001) have suggested the pri-macy effect of affect in consumers’ information processingregardless of involvement level and product category. Intheir series of experiments, Pham et al. (2001) comparedconsumers’ affective and reason-based responses (i.e., affectand cognition) by exposing consumers to products depictedin newsmagazines and TV commercials in different productcategories and with various amounts of involvement. Theirresults demonstrated that affective responses are more influ-ential than reason-based responses on attitudes, despite themoderating effects of involvement and product categories.

Based on the literature, it is suggested that affective elabo-ration might be the dominant influencer in attitude formationas long as conditions involve only PDI and product categoriesin traditional advertising settings. Yet, it remains unclearwhether distinct sources of Facebook posts interact withPDI and product categories, as well as result in differenteffects of affective and cognitive elaborations on attitudes.Because both brand and consumer posts are valuable assetsthat assist consumers’ brand evaluations (Naylor et al.,2012; Gensler et al., 2013), it is crucial to elucidate the effectsof affective and cognitive elaborations as consumers viewposts from different sources on Facebook pages. Accord-ingly, the research question aims to investigate the interaction



DOI: 10.1002/cb

effects in conditions that consider the combined influence ofPDI, product category, and source of Facebook post.

RQ: Is affective elaboration or cognitive elaboration thedominant influencer in attitude formation when consider-ing the combined influence of PDI, product category, andsource of Facebook post?

METHODS

Experimental design and stimuliA 2 (PDI: low versus high) × 2 (product categories: hedonicversus utilitarian) × 2 (sources of Facebook posts: brand postsversus consumer posts) between-subjects experimentaldesign was implemented. Fictitious brands were created toeliminate the possible confounding effects of consumers’prior knowledge or evaluations. In order to increase the ro-bustness of the manipulation, two products were chosen foreach experimental cell from a compiled list of products thathad been tested in previous studies (Kim et al., 2010; Kimet al., 2012). Chewing gum and candy were selected aslow-PDI–hedonic products, while perfume and wine were se-lected as high-PDI–hedonic products. Disposable AA batteryand highlighters were selected as low-PDI–utilitarian prod-ucts, while car insurance and wireless laser printer wereselected as high-PDI–utilitarian products. A pretest (N=16)was conducted to assure successful manipulations of the cho-sen low-PDI/high-PDI and hedonic/utilitarian products.

Another pretest (N=20) was conducted to determine theappropriateness of fictitious brand names and product attri-butes featured in the Facebook posts. The pretest confirmedthe neutrality and unfamiliarity of the fictitious brand names.Product attributes were obtained using the free thought-listing technique in which the three most prominent attributeswere chosen for constructing the text of Facebook posts thatadvocated each product. The Flesch–Kincaid reading-easeand grade-level scores were used to ensure the same readabil-ity of Facebook posts placed in all experimental stimuli (Farret al., 1951). All experimental stimuli were identical in lay-out, each consisting of components essential to a Facebookpage (see Appendix A for examples). Brand posts were cre-ated alongside the thumbnail of the brand’s profile pictureand brand name. Consumer posts were created alongsidethe thumbnail of profile pictures randomly selected fromFacebook users with fictitious names.

Sample and procedureThe experiment was administrated online. Participants wererecruited from a crowdsourcing system, Amazon’s Mechani-cal Turk (MTurk). MTurk allows requesters to distributehuman intelligence tasks to a large number of online workerswith compensation. Prior research has suggested that MTurkprovides more demographically diverse samples than stan-dard Internet samples (Buhrmester et al., 2011). MTurk sub-jects are more representative of the US population thanconvenience samples (e.g., student samples) often used inexperimental research (Berinsky et al., 2012). Based on

existing empirical evaluations, MTurk is considered a viablealternative for conducting online experiments (Paolacciet al., 2010) and employed for the current study.

Throughout the experimental procedure, each participantwas randomly assigned to a set of experiment stimuli. Giventhe randomization, they were asked to evaluate two productswith the same PDI, product category, and source ofFacebook post. This step intended to collect more responsesfrom the participants, while the assignment of two productswith similar features avoided any confounding impact onparticipants’ evaluations. For example, a participant couldbe assigned to evaluate two low-PDI–utilitarian products(i.e., disposable AA battery and highlighters) with brandposts. After viewing the Facebook page stimulus, partici-pants were asked to fill out questions, as described later, withregard to the assigned products, respectively. Upon comple-tion, participants were debriefed and thanked.

A total of 258 US participants were recruited for the mainstudy. Every participant was compensated with half a dollarfor their participation. Because a participant was exposed totwo experiment stimuli, the total number of responses was516 (258×2=516). The sample characteristics showed that52.9 per cent were male. The majority of participants(47.9%) were in the age group of 18–29 years, followed bythe age group of 30–39 years (26.4%), and above 40 years(25.7%). The racial composition of the sample was 79.3 percent Caucasian, 8.6 per cent African–American, 7.1 per centAsian, 3.6 per cent Hispanic, and 1.4 per cent indicated theychose either multiracial or “other.”

MeasuresAffective elaborationItems were adapted from the research by Kim et al. (2012)and modified to fit in the context of the current study. Specif-ically, two items, “I had many feelings in response to theposts I saw” and “The posts I saw elicited lots of feeling,”were used to measure affective elaboration. The items weremeasured on a 7-point Likert scale, anchored by “Stronglydisagree/Strongly agree” (α=0.87).

Cognitive elaborationItems were adapted from the research by Kim et al. (2012)and modified to fit in the context of the current study. Twoitems were “I had many thoughts in response to the posts Isaw” and “The posts I saw elicited lots of thinking.” Theitems were measured on a 7-point Likert scale, anchored by“Strongly disagree/Strongly agree” (α=0.86).

Attitudes toward the postsThe instruments of MacKenzie et al. (1986) were adapted tomeasure participants’ attitudes toward the Facebook posts.Respondents were asked to indicate their attitudes towardthe posts on a 7-point Likert scale, anchored by“Unfavorable/Favorable,” “Negative/Positive,” “Good/Bad,”and “No liking/Liked a lot” (α=0.94).

Attitudes toward the brandThe measures were adapted from Priester and Petty’s (2003)research. Four items were included to test participants’



DOI: 10.1002/cb

attitudes toward the fictitious brand advocated by theFacebook posts. Respondents were asked to indicate their at-titudes toward the brand on a 7-point Likert scale, anchored by“Negative/Positive,” “Harmful/Beneficial,” “Foolish/Wise,”and “Unfavorable/Favorable” (α=0.91).

RESULTS

Manipulation checkTo verify the appropriateness of the low-PDI/high-PDI ma-nipulation, Mittal’s (1989) PDI scale was adopted. The scaleconsists of four items and was measured on a 7-point Likertscale, including “In selecting from the many types andbrands of this product available in the market, would yousay that: I would not care at all as to which one I buy/I wouldcare a great deal as to which one I buy,” “Do you think thatthe various types and brands of this product available in themarket are all very alike or are all very different? They arealike/They are all very different,” “How important would itbe to you to make a right choice of this product? Not at allimportant/Extremely important,” and “In making your selec-tion of this product, how concerned would you be about theoutcome of your choice? Not at all concerned/Very muchconcerned.” The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88.

An independent-samples t-test showed that participants inthe low-PDI condition experienced lower PDI toward theproduct (M=2.85, SD=0.99) than that of participants inthe high-PDI condition (M=5.38, SD=0.83). The differencewas significant (t(514) =�31.46, p< 0.001).

Structural model for testing hypothesesA path analysis with combined data from all experiment cellswas conducted to test the overall relationships (P1–P3)among constructs in the suggested model. The results(χ2 = 6.03, df=2, p=0.05, Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.996,Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.997, Root Mean SquareError of Approximation (RMSEA)=0.063, StandardizedRoot Mean Residual (SRMR)=0.035) showed excellentgoodness-of-fit indices. Specifically, the results (Figure 2)pointed out that when processing Facebook posts, affectiveelaboration positively influenced attitudes toward the posts(β=0.43). The path coefficient of P1 was significant(p< 0.001). Cognitive elaboration (β =0.08) positively influ-enced attitudes toward the posts; however, the path coeffi-cient of P2 was not significant (p=0.33). The pathcoefficient (P3) from attitudes toward the posts to attitudestoward the brand was positive (β=0.81) and significant(p< 001). Lastly, affective elaboration and cognitive

elaboration were highly correlated (r=0.90). The correlationwas significant (p< 0.001).

HypothesesIn order to test the main effects suggested in individual hy-pothesis, the data were divided into six subsets, which weredifferentiated by levels of PDI (low versus high), productcategories (hedonic versus utilitarian), and sources ofFacebook posts (brand versus consumer). To compare theeffects of affective and cognitive elaborations on attitudestoward the posts (direct effects) and attitude toward the brand(indirect effects), formal tests using a bootstrap procedure(N=2000 samples) were performed.

H1a proposes that affective elaboration will influenceattitudes more than cognitive elaboration for the evaluationof a low-PDI product. On the one hand, the direct effect ofaffective elaboration on attitudes toward the post was 0.34,with a bootstrap standard error of 0.13 (Table 1). Becausethe 95 per cent confidence interval fell between 0.09 and0.59 (based on±1.96 ×0.13=± 0.25), which did not includezero, the direct effect estimate was significant at the p=0.05level (p<0.01). By contrast, the direct effect of cognitiveelaboration on attitudes toward the post was 0.04, with abootstrap standard error of 0.12. Because the 95 per centconfidence interval fell between �0.20 and 0.28 (based on±1.96 ×0.12 =± 0.24), which included zero, the direct effectestimate was not significant. Because of the significant differ-ence in the estimates, affective elaboration had a greater directeffect on attitudes toward the posts than cognitive elaboration.

On the other hand, the indirect effect of affective elabora-tion on attitudes toward the brand was 0.26, with a bootstrapstandard error of 0.10. Because the 95 per cent confidence in-terval fell between 0.06 and 0.47, which did not include zero,the indirect effect estimate was significant. By contrast, theindirect effect of cognitive elaboration on attitudes towardthe brand was 0.03, with a bootstrap standard error of 0.10.Because the 95 per cent confidence interval fell between�0.15 and 0.23, which included zero, the indirect effect esti-mate was not significant. Because of the significant differ-ence in the estimates, affective elaboration had a greaterindirect effect on attitudes toward the brand than cognitiveelaboration. Taken together, H1a was supported.

H1b suggests that cognitive elaboration will influenceattitudes more than affective elaboration for the evaluationof a high-PDI product. However, contradictory results werefound. Regarding attitudes toward the posts, the resultsshowed that the direct effect of affective elaboration (0.48,SE=0.11) was significant. On the contrary, the direct effectof cognitive elaboration (0.10, SE=0.11) was not signifi-cant. According to the significant difference, affective elab-oration had a greater direct effect on attitudes toward theposts than cognitive elaboration. Regarding attitudes towardthe brand, the results showed that the indirect effect of affec-tive elaboration (0.39, SE=0.10) was significant, whereasthe indirect effect of cognitive elaboration (0.09, SE=0.09)was not significant. Based on the significant difference,affective elaboration had a greater indirect effect on atti-tudes toward the brand than cognitive elaboration. Theresults indicated that affective elaboration was moreFigure 2. Path coefficients of the model.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

influential than cognitive elaboration in forming attitudes.H1b was not supported.

H2a suggests that affective elaboration will influenceattitudes more than cognitive elaboration for the evalua-tion of a hedonic product. Regarding attitudes towardthe posts, the direct effect of affective elaboration (0.40,SE= 0.13) was significant, whereas the direct effect ofcognitive elaboration (0.13, SE= 0.12) was not significant.The results indicated a significant difference between thedirect effects of affective and cognitive elaborations onattitudes toward the posts. Regarding attitudes towardthe brand, likewise, the indirect effect of affective elabo-ration (0.32, SE=0.11) was significant, whereas the indirecteffect of cognitive elaboration (0.10, SE=0.10) was not signif-icant. The difference was significant. The influence of affectiveelaboration on attitudes toward the brand was stronger thancognitive elaboration. The results supported H2a.

H2b proposes that affective elaboration will influence atti-tudesmore than cognitive elaboration for the evaluation of a util-itarian product. Regarding attitudes toward the posts, the directeffect of affective elaboration (0.48, SE=0.12) was significant,but the direct effect of cognitive elaboration (0.03, SE=0.12)was not significant. The difference was significant. Regardingattitudes toward the brand, the indirect effect of affective elab-oration (0.40, SE=0.10) was significant, but the indirect effectof cognitive elaboration (0.03, SE=0.10) was not significant.The difference was significant. Both significant differencesshowed that affective elaboration had a greater influence onattitudes than cognitive elaboration. H2b was supported.

H3a suggests that cognitive elaboration will influenceattitudes more than affective elaboration for the evaluationof a product with brand posts. Regarding attitudes towardthe posts, the direct effect of affective elaboration (0.45,SE=0.11) was significant, but the direct effect of cognitiveelaboration (0.04, SE=0.10) was not significant. The differ-ence was significant. Regarding attitudes toward the brand,the indirect effect of affective elaboration (0.35, SE=0.08)

was significant, whereas the indirect effect of cognitive elab-oration (0.03, SE=0.08) was not significant. The differencewas significant. Because affective elaboration still showed agreater influence on attitudes than cognitive elaboration,H3a was not supported.

H3b postulates that affective elaboration will influence at-titudes more than cognitive elaboration for the evaluation ofa product with consumer posts. Regarding attitudes towardthe posts, the direct effect of affective elaboration (0.39,SE=0.15) was significant, whereas the direct effect of cogni-tive elaboration (0.14, SE=0.14) was not significant. Thedifference was significant. Regarding attitudes toward thebrand, the indirect effect of affective elaboration (0.33,SE=0.13) was significant, but the indirect effect of cognitiveelaboration (0.12, SE=0.12) was not significant. The differ-ence was significant. Due to the significant differencesbetween the effects of affective and cognitive elaborationson attitudes, H3b was supported.

Answering the research questionIn order to find further support for the research hypotheses,the proposed research question evaluates the interactioneffects (total effects) resulted from PDI, product category,and source of Facebook posts. The data was divided intoeight subsets based on the 2×2×2 experimental designs thatinvolve low-PDI/high-PDI–hedonic/utilitarian products alongwith either consumer posts or brand posts. Post hoc analyseswith the same bootstrap procedure (N=2000 samples) werethen performed.

The cumulative results (Table 2) substantiated that affec-tive elaboration, compared with cognitive elaboration, wasthe dominant influencer for attitude formation. In sum, thesignificant interaction effects were found when consumersevaluated low-PDI–hedonic products with consumer posts,high-PDI–hedonic products with brand posts, low-PDI–utilitarianproducts with brand posts, and high-PDI–utilitarian productswith brand posts.

Table 1. Main effect estimates

Condition Affective elaboration Cognitive elaboration

Attitudes toward the posts (direct effect)

Low PDI 0.34** (SE= 0.13, CI: 0.09 to 0.59) > 0.04 (SE= 0.12, CI: �0.20 to 0.28)High PDI 0.48** (SE= 0.11, CI: 0.24 to 0.69) > 0.10 (SE= 0.11, CI: �0.12 to 0.32)Hedonic product 0.40** (SE= 0.13, CI: 0.15 to 0.65) > 0.13 (SE= 0.12, CI: �0.11 to 0.36)Utilitarian product 0.48** (SE= 0.12, CI: 0.21 to 0.70) > 0.03 (SE= 0.12, CI: �0.19 to 0.29)Brand posts 0.45** (SE= 0.11, CI: 0.23 to 0.64) > 0.04 (SE= 0.10, CI: �0.17 to 0.25)Consumer posts 0.39** (SE= 0.15, CI: 0.09 to 0.68) > 0.14 (SE= 0.14, CI: �0.13 to 0.42)

Attitudes toward the brand (indirect effect)

Low PDI 0.26** (SE= 0.10, CI: 0.06 to 0.47) > 0.03 (SE= 0.10, CI: �0.15 to 0.23)High PDI 0.39** (SE= 0.10, CI: 0.20 to 0.57) > 0.09 (SE= 0.09, CI: �0.10 to 0.26)Hedonic product 0.32** (SE= 0.11, CI: 0.12 to 0.53) > 0.10 (SE= 0.10, CI: �0.09 to 0.29)Utilitarian product 0.40** (SE= 0.10, CI: 0.17 to 0.57) > 0.03 (SE= 0.10, CI: �0.16 to 0.24)Brand posts 0.35** (SE= 0.08, CI: 0.18 to 0.50) > 0.03 (SE= 0.08, CI: �0.13 to 0.20)Consumer posts 0.33** (SE= 0.13, CI: 0.08 to 0.58) > 0.12 (SE= 0.12, CI: �0.12 to 0.35)

Note: PDI, purchase-decision involvement.**p< 0.01



DOI: 10.1002/cb

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Conceiving Facebook pages as an outlet for marketers to pro-mote brands, the present research provides a thorough viewthat helps understand consumers’ information processing ofbranded content in Facebook posts. The findings suggest thatbeing exposed to brand-related information in Facebookposts, consumers’ affective and cognitive elaborations areelicited concurrently. However, the findings show that onlyaffective elaboration significantly influences the formationof attitudes toward the posts. As a consequence, consumers’attitudes toward the posts determines their overall brandevaluations, attitudes toward the brand. The results pointout that while affective and cognitive elaborations are com-parable in information processing, affective elaboration ismore predictive than cognitive elaboration in determiningconsumer attitudes. As far as the main effects are concerned,the research results indicate the predominant influence of af-fective elaboration on attitudes for all experiment conditions.In addition, the applicability of the results is further substan-tiated by the interaction effects found in half of theexperiment conditions. Therefore, affect is the dominantinfluencer for consumer attitude formation on social mediaplatforms, at least for Facebook pages, given that affectiveelaboration overrides cognitive elaboration in influencingthe decision-making process across situations.

The synthesized results contribute to the consumer psy-chology and marketing literature regarding the significanceof affect and cognition in making brand evaluations specificto social media contexts. The results are consistent with theprimacy effect of affect suggested in previous research(Pham et al., 2001). It implies that the primacy effect ofaffect can be extended to consumers’ brand evaluations inthe social media domain. Moreover, the dominance of affect

in information processing may be explained by Forgas’(1995) affect infusion model, which suggests that “affec-tively loaded information exerts an influence on and becomesincorporated into the judgmental process, entering into thejudge’s deliberations and eventually coloring the judgmentaloutcome” (p. 39). The occurrence of affect infusion is salientif attitude formation is constructive. Because the presentstudy used fictitious brands for the experimental stimuli, con-sumers did not have prior knowledge or evaluations theycould refer to when processing brand-related information inthe Facebook posts. Thus, affect is the major determinantthat predicts attitudinal outcomes. Even though the literature(e.g., Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) has long claimed cognitionas the primarily determinant in the discussions about mes-sage persuasiveness and attitude formation, the findingsimply that affect should be regarded as a powerful factor ininformation processing (e.g., Zajonc, 1980), especially withsocial media contexts.

Furthermore, the findings have managerial implicationsconcerning marketers’ social media marketing modules.Apart from scholars’ (Wien and Olsen, 2012; Schindler andBickart, 2012) contention that consumer-generated content(e.g., consumer posts) is important to induce consumers’ res-onance with brands, marketer-generated content (e.g., brandposts) is also helpful for increasing consumers’ brand evalu-ations. Marketers should consider the design of branded con-tent with affective messages in favor of the brands to elicitconsumers’ emotions. When consumers are exposed to posi-tive sentimental expression in social media contexts, emo-tional contagion can take place and lead them to experiencethe same pleasurable emotions (Kramer et al., 2014). Theseconsumers would likely become fans of the brands basedon their favorable attitudes in consequence. By engagingconsumer fans with brand-related information, brands could

Table 2. Interaction effect estimates

PDI Category Post Affective elaboration Cognitive elaboration

Attitudes toward the posts (total effect)

Low Hedonic Brand 0.06 (SE= 0.27, CI: �0.49 to 0.59) = 0.31 (SE= 0.24, CI: �0.19 to 0.78)Low Hedonic Consumer 0.47* (SE= 0.25, CI: 0.02 to 0.99) > �0.10 (SE= 0.23, CI: �0.57 to 0.34)High Hedonic Brand 0.60** (SE= 0.20, CI: 0.22 to 0.99) > �0.10 (SE= 0.23, CI: �0.59 to 0.32)High Hedonic Consumer 0.31 (SE= 0.31, CI: �0.39 to 0.84) = 0.34 (SE= 0.27, CI: �0.13 to 0.92)Low Utilitarian Brand 0.59* (SE= 0.24, CI: 0.01 to 0.97) > �0.11 (SE= 0.23, CI: �0.52 to 0.40)Low Utilitarian Consumer 0.25 (SE= 0.28, CI: �0.27 to 0.83) = 0.13 (SE= 0.28, CI: �0.46 to 0.63)High Utilitarian Brand 0.51* (SE= 0.16, CI: 0.15 to 0.79) > 0.02 (SE= 0.18, CI: �0.30 to 0.40)High Utilitarian Consumer 0.44 (SE= 0.30, CI: �0.19 to 0.97) = 0.19 (SE= 0.29, CI: �0.35 to 0.77)

Attitudes toward the brand (total effect)

Low Hedonic Brand 0.04 (SE= 0.20, CI: �0.33 to 0.44) = 0.22 (SE= 0.17, CI: �0.13 to 0.56)Low Hedonic Consumer 0.38* (SE= 0.21, CI:0.01 to 0.85) > �0.08 (SE= 0.19, CI: �0.45 to 0.28)High Hedonic Brand 0.47** (SE= 0.15, CI:0.19 to 0.78) > �0.08 (SE= 0.18, CI: �0.45 to 0.26)High Hedonic Consumer 0.26 (SE= 0.27, CI: �0.32 to 0.75) = 0.29 (SE= 0.23, CI: �0.11 to 0.78)Low Utilitarian Brand 0.47* (SE= 0.19, CI:0.03 to 0.78) > �0.09 (SE= 0.19, CI: �0.40 to 0.34)Low Utilitarian Consumer 0.20 (SE= 0.23, CI: �0.22 to 0.68) = 0.10 (SE= 0.23, CI: �0.37 to 0.52)High Utilitarian Brand 0.40* (SE= 0.13, CI:0.12 to 0.62) > 0.01 (SE= 0.14, CI: �0.24 to 0.34)High Utilitarian Consumer 0.39 (SE= 0.27, CI: �0.16 to 0.88) = 0.17 (SE= 0.25, CI: �0.31 to 0.67)

Note: PDI, purchase-decision involvement.*p< 0.05**p< 0.01



DOI: 10.1002/cb

benefit from the probable reach of friends of consumer fansextensively, because social media are built upon consumers’online social networks (Lipsman et al., 2012).

Case in point, Coca-Cola’s “Happiness in a bottle” cam-paign was launched during 2014 FIFA World Cup. The cam-paign asked consumers to submit photos showing theircheerful experiences with Coca-Cola across social mediaplatforms. Millions of photos from consumers around theworld were collected to create the photomosaic, “TheHappiness Flag,” that was shown in the opening game inBrazil. Another example was the 2014 “Share a Coke” globalcampaign in which Coca-Cola placed popular first names onthe specially designed Coke bottles. The campaign then usedsocial media to encourage consumers to post their emotionalreactions when they shared the named bottles with others.The results showed 2 per cent of increased sales volumeand 25 million of increased Facebook followers. Both cam-paigns successfully acquire numerous consumer feedbacksand establish emotional connections with consumers viasocial media (Interbrand, 2014).

Nevertheless, the findings in the current research shouldbe interpreted with a notice of some limitations. First, theartificiality of experimental manipulations was conducted atthe expense of the interactive utilities offered by Facebookpages. Participants’ brand evaluation based on the mockupFacebook pages stimulus could be different from their infor-mation consumption on real Facebook pages, where they canlike, comment, and share the Facebook posts. Future researchwith a setting using actual Facebook pages to stimulate con-sumer responses is encouraged. Second, because of the useof fictitious brands, the model might not be applicable to pre-dict the mechanism of processing branded content from well-known brands. Future research could investigate whetheraffect is still a primary influencer in attitude formation forwell-known brands on Facebook pages. Third, the stimulusFacebook posts were constructed in a textual format. There-fore, future research could investigate how consumersprocess with graphic content in Facebook posts. Researchcould be done on other social media platforms that are richin visual presentations, such as Pinterest and Instagram.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Kuan-Ju Chen, (MS, Iowa State University) is currently a doctoralcandidate at the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communi-cation, University of Georgia. His research interests includeconsumer psychology and behavior, consumer–brand relationshipmanagement, network analysis in social media, and brandanthropomorphization.

Jooyoung Kim (PhD, University of Florida) is an assistant professorin the Department of Advertising and Public Relations, GradyCollege of Journalism and Mass Communication, University ofGeorgia. His research interests include advertising engagement,consumer affect, advertising effectiveness assessment, advertisingintegration effects, social and digital media advertising, brandpersonality, brand loyalty, and brand extension.

Jhih-Syuan Lin (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is an assistantprofessor in the Department of Advertising and Public Relations,Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, Universityof Georgia. Her research interests include consumer–brand

relationships, social media, interactive advertising, and cross-cultural consumer psychology.

REFERENCES

Batra R, Ahtola OT. 1991. Measuring the hedonic and utilitariansources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters 2(2): 159–170.

Batra R, Ray ML. 1986. Affective responses mediating acceptanceof advertising. Journal of Consumer Research 13(2): 234–249.

Batra R, Stephens D. 1994. Attitude effects of ad-evoked moodsand emotions: the moderating role of motivation. Psychologyand Marketing 11(3): 199–215.

Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS. 2012. Evaluating online labormarkets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s mechanicalturk. Political Analysis 20(3): 351–368.

Bronner F, de Hoog R. 2010. Consumer-generated versus marketer-generated websites in consumer decision making. InternationalJournal of Market Research 52(2): 231–248.

Brown SP, Stayman DM. 1992. Antecedents and consequences ofattitude toward the ad: a meta-analysis. Journal of ConsumerResearch 19(1): 34–51.

Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling S. 2011. Amazon’s mechanicalTurk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(1): 3–5.

Chatterjee P. 2011. Drivers of new product recommending and re-ferral behaviour on social network sites. International Journalof Advertising 30(1): 77–101.

Chu S. 2011. Viral advertising in social media: participation inFacebook groups and responses among college-aged users.Journal of Interactive Advertising 12(1): 30–43.

Chu S, Kim Y. 2011. Determinants of consumer engagement inelectronic word of mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites.Journal of Interactive Advertising 30(1): 47–75.

de Vries L, Gensler S, Leeflang PSH. 2012. Popularity of brandposts on brand fan pages: an investigation of the effects of socialmedia marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing 26(2):83–91.

Dijksterhuis A, Smith PK, van Baaren RB, Wigboldus DHJ. 2005.The unconscious consumer: effects of environment on consumerbehavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 15(3): 193–202.

Duggan M, Smith A. 2013. Social Media Update 2013. Available athttp://www.pewinternet.org/2013/12/30/social-media-update-2013/ [accessed on 9 July 2014].

eMarketer. 2013. Social advertisers rely on branded pages morethan paid Ads. Available at http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Social-Advertisers-Rely-on-Branded-Pages-More-Than-Paid-Ads/1009917 [accessed on 9 July 2014].

Farr J, Jenkins J, Paterson DG. 1951. Simplification of the Fleschreading ease formula. Journal of Applied Psychology 35(5):333–357.

Forgas JP. 1995. Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model(AIM). Psychological Bulletin 117(1): 39–66.

Greenwald AG, Leavitt C. 1984. Audience involvement in adver-tising: four levels. Journal of Consumer Research 11(1):581–592.

Gensler S, Völckner F, Liu-Thompkins Y, Wiertz C. 2013. Manag-ing brands in the social media environment. Journal of Interac-tive Marketing 27(4): 242–256.

Heinonen K. 2011. Consumer activity in social media: managerialapproaches to consumers’ social media behavior. Journal ofConsumer Behaviour 10(6): 356–364.

Hennig-Thurau T, Gwinner KP, Walsh G, Gremler DD. 2004. Elec-tronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: whatmotivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet?Journal of Interactive Marketing 18(1): 38–52.

Hirschman EC, Holbrook MB. 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerg-ing concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing46(3): 92–101.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Social-Advertisers-Rely-on-Branded-Pages-More-Than-Paid-Ads/1009917



Huang J, ChenY. 2006. Herding in online product choice.Psychologyand Marketing 23(5): 413–428.

Interbrand. 2014. Best global brands 2014. Available at http://bestglobalbrands.com/assets/downloads/Interbrand-Best-Global-Brands-2014-Report.pdf [accessed on 9 January 2015].

Kempf DS. 1999. Attitude formation from product trial: distinctroles of cognition and affect for hedonic and functional products.Psychology and Marketing 16(1): 35–50.

Kim J, Baek Y, Choi YH. 2012. The structural effects of metaphor-elicited cognitive and affective elaboration levels on attitudetoward the ad. Journal of Advertising 41(2): 79–98.

Kim J, Morris JD. 2007. The power of affective response andcognitive structure in product-trial attitude formation. Journalof Advertising 36(1): 95–106.

Kim J, Yoon HJ, Lee SY. 2010. Integrating advertising and public-ity: a theoretical examination of the effects of exposuresequence, publicity valence, and product attribute consistency.Journal of Advertising 39(1): 97–113.

Kramer ADI, Guillory JE, Hancock JT. 2014. Experimental evi-dence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social net-works. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(24): 8788–8790.

Lipsman A, Mudd G, Rich M, Bruich S. 2012. The power of “like”:how brands reach (and influence) fans through social-mediamarketing. Journal of Advertising Research 52(1): 40–52.

MacInnis DJ, Price LL. 1987. The role of imagery in informationprocessing: review and extensions. Journal of ConsumerResearch 13(4): 473–491.

MacKenzie SB, Lutz RJ, Belch GE. 1986. The role of attitude to-ward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: a test ofcompeting explanations. Journal of Marketing Research 23(2):130–143.

McQuarrie EF, Mick DG. 1999. Visual rhetoric in advertising: text-interpretative, experimental, and reader-response analyses.Journal of Consumer Research 26(1): 37–54.

Mittal B. 1989. Measuring purchase-decision involvement.Psychology and Marketing 6(2): 147–162.

Mittal B. 1995. A comparative analysis of four scales of consumerinvolvement. Psychology and Marketing 12(7): 663–382.

Muntinga DG, Moorman M, Smit EG. 2011. Introducing COBRAs:exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. Inter-national Journal of Advertising 30(1): 13–46.

Naylor RW, Lamberton CP, West PM. 2012. Beyond the “like” but-ton: the impact of mere virtual presence on brand evaluationsand purchase intentions in social media settings. Journal ofMarketing 76(6): 105–120.

Paek H, Hove T, Jeong HJ, Kim M. 2011. Peer or expert? thepersuasive impact of YouTube public service announcementproducers. International Journal of Advertising 30(1): 161–188.

Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG. 2010. Running experiments onAmazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5(5):411–419.

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. 1986. Communication and Persuasion:Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY.

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Heesacker M. 1981. Effects of rhetoricalquestions on persuasion: a cognitive response analysis. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 40(3): 432–440.

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Schumann D. 1983. Central and periph-eral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating roleof involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 10(2):135–146.

Petty RE, DeSteno D, Rucker DD. 2001. The role of affect in atti-tude change. In Forgas JP (ed). Handbook of Affect and SocialCognition. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ; 213–233.

Petty RE, Wegener DT. 1999. The elaboration likelihood model:current status and controversies. In Chaiken S Trope Y (eds).Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. The GuilfordPress: New York, NY; 41–72.

Pham MT, Cohen JB, Pracejus JW, Hughes GD. 2001. Affect mon-itoring and the primacy of feelings in judgment. Journal ofConsumer Research 28(2): 167–188.

Porter L, Golan GJ. 2006. From subservient chickens to brawnymen: a comparison of viral advertising to television advertising.Journal of Interactive Advertising 6(2): 26–33.

Priester JR, Petty RE. 2003. The influence of spokesperson trust-worthiness on message elaboration, attitude strength, and adver-tising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13(4):408–421.

Roy R, Ng S. 2012. Regulatory focus and preference reversalbetween hedonic and utilitarian consumption. Journal ofConsumer Behaviour 11(1): 81–88.

Schindler RM, Bickart B. 2012. Perceived helpfulness of onlineconsumer reviews: the role of message content and style. Jour-nal of Consumer Behaviour 11(3): 234–243.

Schulze C, Schöler L, Skiera B. 2014. Not all fun and games: viralmarketing for utilitarian products. Journal of Marketing 78(1):1–19.

van der Lans R, van Bruggen G, Eliashberg J, Wierenga B. 2010. Aviral branching model for predicting the spread of electronicWord-of-Mouth. Marketing Science 29(2): 348–365.

Wien AH, Olsen SO. 2012. Evaluation context’s role in driving pos-itive word-of-mouth intentions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour11(6): 504–513.

Zajonc RB. 1980. Feeling and thinking: preferences need no infer-ences. American Psychologist 35(2): 151–175.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

http://bestglobalbrands.com/assets/downloads/Interbrand-Best-Global-Brands-2014-Report.pdf



APPENDIX: EXPERIMENTAL STIMULI OF FACEBOOK PAGES

Facebook page with brand posts

Facebook page with consumer posts



DOI: 10.1002/cb

The effects of affective and cognitive elaborations from Facebook posts on consumer attitude...

Documents

Transcript of The effects of affective and cognitive elaborations from Facebook posts on consumer attitude...