1993
DOI: 10.1016/s1057-7408(08)80075-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Memory for print ads: Understanding relations among brand name, copy, and picture

Abstract: How should information in print ads be presented to facilitate memory for the three major components—the brand name, the copy, and the picture? Using associative network models of memory as a framework, we demonstrate that relations among the components facilitate memory. Specifically, in Experiment 1, ads containing relations among ad components were better remembered than ads presenting unrelated components. Moreover, ads with relations among all three ad components resulted in better unaided recall than ads… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
46
0
2

Year Published

1994
1994
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
5
46
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…A manipulation of motivation would be stronger evidence of causality than a measured independent variable. Also, ad recall (Jones, Pentecost, & Requena, 2005;Schmitt, Tavassoli, & Millard, 1993) and attitude toward the ad (Pashupati, 2003) were not measured in this study, leaving for future research the investigation of a possible impact of nonverbal symbolic signs and metaphors on these dimensions of ad response. This research also leaves for future research the effect of individual difference variables such as hemispheric processing (Morgan & Reichert, 1999) and style of processing (Childers, Houston, & Heckler, 1985) on responses to nonverbal symbolic signs and metaphors in advertisements.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…A manipulation of motivation would be stronger evidence of causality than a measured independent variable. Also, ad recall (Jones, Pentecost, & Requena, 2005;Schmitt, Tavassoli, & Millard, 1993) and attitude toward the ad (Pashupati, 2003) were not measured in this study, leaving for future research the investigation of a possible impact of nonverbal symbolic signs and metaphors on these dimensions of ad response. This research also leaves for future research the effect of individual difference variables such as hemispheric processing (Morgan & Reichert, 1999) and style of processing (Childers, Houston, & Heckler, 1985) on responses to nonverbal symbolic signs and metaphors in advertisements.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…In addition, the interplay between the multiple visual (connotative) and verbal (denotative) aspects of printed text appear to allow for two additional effects that may operate more directly on the elements composing brand attitudes and persuasion. The first is enhanced memory for the brand perceptions, as proposed by associative network models of memory (Schmitt, Tavassoli, & Millard, 1993). Specifically, Schmitt et al propose and find that the greater the number of consistent elements within the ad, the greater the memory for the specific brand associations, because of the increased memory links or pathways to the target associations.…”
Section: Typographic Dimensions and Typographic Outcomesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such characterization is useful because (in)congruity has been found SHAPING TIME PERCEPTIONS to influence information processing and memory for events (e.g., Edell & Staelin, 1983;Hastie & Kumar, 1979;Heckler & Childers, 1992;Houston, Childers, & Heckler, 1987;Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989;Schmitt, Tavassoli, & Millard, 1993;Srull, 1981;Srull et al, 1985). Because of its effects on information processing, stimulus congruity may influence the retrospective estimation of event duration.…”
Section: Stimulus Congruitymentioning
confidence: 99%