Are You Involved? Are You Focused?: The Regulatory Fit and Involvement Effects on Advertisement Effectiveness

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. IV)

Part of the book series: EAA Series ((EAA))

  • 4970 Accesses

Abstract

Advertising researchers have been interested in who their audience is, how they process the advertisement, where they process it better, what they are expected to learn and what they actually remember and ultimately whether these advertisements work towards a multiplicity of goals like creating awareness or motivating purchase. Fundamental psychological theories like Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty, Cacioppo & Schumann, 1983) have been employed in this research quest and this study is an effort to bring together one of the most recent motivational theories of the regulatory focus together with the involvement literature which is rather long standing and possesses high predictability power.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (France)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 42.79
Price includes VAT (France)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 52.74
Price includes VAT (France)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
EUR 52.74
Price includes VAT (France)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, J. and A. Y. Lee (2001), “‘I’ Seek Pleasures and ‘We’ Avoid Pains: The Role Of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion,” in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28, 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, J. and A. Y. Lee (2006), “Understanding Regulatory Fit,” in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, 15–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arndt, J. (1967), “Role Of Product-Related Conversations in The Diffusion of a New Product,” in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4, 291–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avnet, T. and E. T. Higgins (2006), “How Regulatory Fit Affects Value in Consumer Choices and Opinion,” in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, And Statistical Considerations, ”in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, P. H. and M. L. Richins (1983), “A Theoretical Model for the Study of Product Importance Perceptions,” in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celsi, R. and J. Olson (1988), “The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Process-es,” in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, 210–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cesario , J.; Grant, H. and E. T. Higgins (2004), “Regulatory Fit and Persuasion: Transfer From ‘Feeling Right’,“ in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol. 86, 388–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, K. and R. W. Belk (1978), “The Effects of Product Involvement and Task Definition On Anticipated Consumer Effort,” in: Advances In Consumer Research, Vol. 5, 313–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, E. and E. T. Higgins, (1997),“Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making,” in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 69, 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dichter, E. (1966), “How Word-of-Mouth Advertising Works,” in: Harvard Business Review, Vol. 16, November-December, 147–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, J. F. and R. D. Blackwell (1982), Consumer Behavior, Fourth edition, Chicago: The Dryden Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, L. M. and R. E. Petty (2003), “Self-Guide Framing and Persuasion: Responsibly Increasing Message Processing to Ideal Levels,” in: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29, 313–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florack, A. and M. Scarabis (2006), “How Advertising Claims Affect Brand Preferences and Cate-gory-Brand Associations: The Role Of Regulatory Fit,” in: Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 23, 741–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florack , A.; Scarabis, M. and S. Gosejohann (2005), “Regulatory Focus and Consumer Information Processing,” F. R. Kardes, P. M. Herr, and J. Nantel (Eds.), Applying Social Cognition To Con-sumer-Focused Strategy (pp. 235–263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freitas , A. L.; Liberman, N. and E. T. nHiggins (2002), “Regulatory Fit and Resisting Temptation During Goal Pursuit,” in: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 38, 291–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A.G. and C. Leavitt (1984), “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels,” in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, April-May, 11–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm , L. R.; Markman, A. B.; Maddox, W. T. and G. C. Baldwin, (2008), “Differential Effects of Regulatory Fit on Category Learning,” in: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 44, 920–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (2002), “How Self-Regulation Creates Distinct Values: The Case Of Promotion and Prevention Decision Making,” in: Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12, 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins , E. T.; Roney, C.; Crowe, E. and C. Hymes (1994), “Ideal Versus Ought Predilections For Approach and Avoidance: Distinct Self-Regulatory Systems,” in: Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, Vol. 66,276–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, M. J. and M. L. Rothschild (1978), “Conceptual and Methodological Perspectives on Involvement,” in: Hunt, H.K. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research,Vol. 5, Ann Arbor MI: Association for Consumer Research, 184–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kardes, F. R. (1988), “Spontaneous Inference Processes in Advertising: The Effects of Conclusion Omission and Involvement on Persuasion,” in: Journal of Consumer Research, 15, September, 225–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, H. E. (1965), “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement,” in: Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29, Fall, 349–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. Y. and J. L. Aaker (2004), “Bringing The Frame Into Focus: The Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing Fluency and Persuasion,” in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 86, 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, T. (1960), “Marketing Myopia,” in: Harvard Business Review, Vol. 38, July-August, 57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. and D. Schumann (1983), “Central And Peripheral Routes To Advertis-ing Effectiveness: The Moderating Role Of Involvement,” in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, W. J. (1963), “The Service Revolution,” in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27, No. 7, 57–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, J. and R. Zhou (2007), “Understanding Impulsive Eaters’ Choice Behaviors: The Motiva-tional Influences Of Regulatory Focus,”in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44, 297–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, J. and E. T. Higgins (2001), “The General Impact of Promotion and Prevention,” in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 80, 693–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shostack, G. L. (1977), “Breaking Free from Product Marketing,” in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41, No. 2, 73–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L. and R. F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, January, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J and A. Y. Lee (2006), “The Role Of Regulatory Focus in Preference Construction,” in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43, 28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werth, L. and J. Förster, (2007), “How Regulatory Focus Influences Consumer Behavior,” in:European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 37, 33–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct,” in: Journal of Consumer Re-search, Vol. 12, No. 3, 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986), “Conceptualizing Involvement,” in: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 15, No. 2, 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ezgi Merdin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Merdin, E., Seraj, M. (2013). Are You Involved? Are You Focused?: The Regulatory Fit and Involvement Effects on Advertisement Effectiveness. In: Rosengren, S., Dahlén, M., Okazaki, S. (eds) Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. IV). EAA Series. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02365-2_25

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Navigation