Gina Song _ Work Sample (ACR posters)
2
Let Me Skip the Ads! Revisiting Reactance Theory in an Advertising Context Abstract Experiencing freedom to skip TV ads led to reactance when the freedom was threatened. However, reactance did not lead to willingness to restore the freedom, which suggests re-examining the psychological reactance theory. Introduction Consumer experience and expectations for controlling advertisements are increasing. People have increased control over TV ads due to online TV services and devices such as DVR. There are also generational differences on expectation toward control over ads. Reactance Theory explains resistance when your freedom is taken away 1 . Perceived freedom Expectation of freedom Reactance Restoration of freedom Importance of freedom Threat to freedom Q: If you are used to being able to avoid or skip ads, is your expectation for that freedom higher when you encounter future ads? If so, will your reactance and restoration of freedom be higher due to higher expectation of that freedom? Hypotheses Perceived freedom Gina Song and Brittany Duff University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Expectation of freedom Reactance Restoration of freedom Importance of freedom H1 H2 H3 H4 H1: Experiencing freedom will lead to greater expectation of freedom H2: Experiencing freedom will lead to greater importance on freedom H3: Experiencing freedom will lead to greater reactance H4: Greater reactance will lead to greater willingness to restore freedom Method • Pretest 1: Stimuli Check • Pretest 2: H1 & H2 • Experiment: H3 & H4 • Expectation • Importance Skip condition No-skip condition Survey Watch with no skipping Survey Watch with skipping Pretest 2:H1 & H2 Stimuli: Modern Family with 6 ad breaks Skip condition No-skip condition Survey Watch with no skipping Survey Watch with skipping Experiment: H3 & H4 Watch with no skipping Watch with no skipping • Reactance • Restoration of freedom Results Conclusions → Experiencing freedom to skip ads only once was enough to elicit greater reactance when that freedom was taken away. 4.46 5.09 1 7 Reactance Towards ads No-skip Skip P = 0.03 α = 0.78 Restoration of Freedom 3.76 4.52 1 7 Voting intention P = 0.10 → Assessed by the monthly fee participants were willing to pay for DVR or VoD and by the voting intention for an initiative to remove commercial breaks in TV shows. There were no differences in restoration of freedom. ◊ Reactance was experienced but it did not lead to willingness to restore the freedom, which suggests re-examining the psychological reactance theory Theoretical implications • Even experiencing the freedom once aroused greater reactance towards the ads • It examines whether reactance is indeed followed by restoration of freedom, which is the gap in the literature • It calls on careful attention to reactance theory, because reactance did not lead to greater restoration of freedom Practical implications • It is essential for advertisers (especially TV advertisers) to understand possible reactance toward ads that interrupt their freedom to watch TV • Advertisers should be aware how using new media devices such as DVR can influence people’s reactance when their TV viewing is interrupted by ads 1 Brehm (1966); Clee and Wicklund (1980); Fitzsimons, Gavan, and Lehmann (2004); White, Zahay, Thorbjornsen, and Shavitt (2008) 11.75 10.76 12.16 12.92 0 10 20 Payment for DVR ($$) Payment for VoD ($$) No-skip Skip P = 0.81 p = 0.24
Transcript of Gina Song _ Work Sample (ACR posters)
Let Me Skip the Ads! Revisiting Reactance Theory in an Advertising Context
Abstract
Experiencing freedom to skip TV ads led to reactance when the freedom was threatened. However, reactance did not lead to willingness to restore the freedom, which suggests re-examining the psychological reactance theory.
Introduction
Consumer experience and expectations for controlling advertisements are increasing.
People have increased control over TV ads due to online TV services and devices such as DVR.
There are also generational differences on expectation toward control over ads.
Reactance Theory explains resistance when your freedom is taken away1.
Perceived freedom
Expectation of freedom
Reactance Restoration of freedom
Importance of freedom
Threat to freedom
Q: If you are used to being able to avoid or skip ads, is your expectation for that freedom higher when you encounter future ads? If so, will your reactance and restoration of freedom be higher due to higher expectation of that freedom?
Hypotheses
Perceived freedom
Gina Song and Brittany Duff University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Expectation of freedom
Reactance Restoration of freedom
Importance of freedom
H1
H2
H3 H4
H1: Experiencing freedom will lead to greater expectation of freedom H2: Experiencing freedom will lead to greater importance on freedom H3: Experiencing freedom will lead to greater reactance H4: Greater reactance will lead to greater willingness to restore freedom
Method
• Pretest 1: Stimuli Check • Pretest 2: H1 & H2 • Experiment: H3 & H4
• Expectation • Importance
Skip condition
No-skip condition
Survey Watch with no skipping
Survey Watch with skipping
Pretest 2:H1 & H2
Stimuli: Modern Family with 6 ad breaks
Skip condition
No-skip condition
Survey Watch with no skipping
Survey Watch with skipping
Experiment: H3 & H4
Watch with no skipping
Watch with no skipping
• Reactance • Restoration of freedom
Results
Conclusions
→ Experiencing freedom to skip ads only once was enough to elicit greater reactance when that freedom was taken away.
4.46 5.09
1
7
Reactance Towards ads
No-skip Skip P = 0.03 α = 0.78
Restoration of Freedom
3.76 4.52
1
7
Voting intention
P = 0.10
→ Assessed by the monthly fee participants were willing to pay for DVR or VoD and by the voting intention for an initiative to remove commercial breaks in TV shows. There were no differences in restoration of freedom.
◊ Reactance was experienced but it did not lead to willingness to restore the freedom, which suggests re-examining the psychological reactance theory
Theoretical implications • Even experiencing the freedom once aroused greater
reactance towards the ads • It examines whether reactance is indeed followed by
restoration of freedom, which is the gap in the literature • It calls on careful attention to reactance theory, because
reactance did not lead to greater restoration of freedom Practical implications • It is essential for advertisers (especially TV advertisers) to
understand possible reactance toward ads that interrupt their freedom to watch TV
• Advertisers should be aware how using new media devices such as DVR can influence people’s reactance when their TV viewing is interrupted by ads
1Brehm (1966); Clee and Wicklund (1980); Fitzsimons, Gavan, and Lehmann (2004); White, Zahay, Thorbjornsen, and Shavitt (2008)
11.75 10.76 12.16 12.92
0
10
20
Payment for DVR ($$)
Payment for VoD ($$)
No-skip Skip P = 0.81 p = 0.24
“The Ultimate Driving Machine”: The Effect of Familiarity and Semantic Similarity on Learning and Recall of Brand Slogans
Abstract Familiarity and semantic similarity between originally and newly learned slogans influence both learning and recall of the original slogans. Moderately unfamiliar slogans benefited the most from repeated learning. Learning semantically similar new slogans facilitates recall of original slogans. These findings provide meaningful implications for brands planning to change their slogans.
Introduction Brand slogans are fundamental building blocks of brand equity, but they compete fiercely within consumers' memory due to intense ad exposure (Dahlén and Rosengren 2005; Mord and Gilson 1985; Reece, Van den Bergh, and Li 1994).
Method
Gina Song, Glenn Wang, and Brittany Duff University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and University of Missouri
Results
Implications
“Run for the border” “Live más”
“Real” “Make it real”
Many brands change their slogans:
One slogan may also spawn many copycats: “Got Milk?” “Got Beer?
Some brands have the same slogan: UNLV and Virginia Tech‘s slogans are both “Invent the Future.”
Familiarity: How do different levels of familiarity influence slogan acquisition and recall? Semantic Similarity: • Advertising literature suggests later presented
slogans impair recall of previously presented slogans when they are conceptually similar (Burke and Srull 1988)
• Linguistics literature shows that increasing semantic similarity may lessen forgetting previously learned slogans (Anderson 2003; Mehler and Miller 1964)
Familiarity & Semantic Similarity:
Original slogan
New slogan Q: How does a new
slogan affect the memory of original
slogan?
The ultimate driving
machine
The
ultimate driving
machine
Original slogan
New slogan
Memory of original slogan
The perfect driving
machine
The brilliant driving
machine
Similar
Dissimilar
• Brief procedure:
• Detailed procedure: 1. All learn original slogans and test them twice 2. Randomly assigned to one of the conditions
below
3. Test the original slogans again
Procedure
Conditions
Control condition
Over-learning
condition (OL)
Semantically similar
condition (SS)
Initial-letter-similar
condition (IS)
Dissimilar condition (DS)
Learn 65 original slogans
The ultimate driving
machine
The ultimate driving
machine
The ultimate driving
machine
The ultimate driving
machine
The ultimate driving
machine
Learn 17 new
slogans Math test
The ultimate driving
machine
The perfect driving
machine
The universal driving
machine
The brilliant driving
machine
Tested with 65 original slogans
The u( )
driving machine
The u( )
driving machine
The u( )
driving machine
The u( )
driving machine
The u( )
driving machine
1. Slogans benefiting the most from repeated learning are those who are moderately unfamiliar.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
RANK
FIRSTTESTSECONDTEST
Familiarity and Learning Effect
2. The forgetting original slogans was observed in form of inhibition (i.e., increased response latency) rather than impairment (i.e., decreased accuracy). • A significant main effect of conditions on RT was observed F(4, 165) = 14.43, p < .001 • Post-hoc multiple comparison tests showed difference in RT in
below conditions compared to control condition - semantically similar (M = 3637.88, SE = 181.75, p < .005) - cue-similar (M = 3711.69, SE = 193.85, p < .005) - dissimilar slogans (M = 3419.22, SE = 199.35, p = .10)
3. Semantic similarity facilitated memory of slogans compared to initial-letter-similar and dissimilar conditions. 4. Familiar slogans: semantically-similar (M=.94, SD=.08) and initial-letter-similar (M=.93, SD=.11) conditions remembered slogans better than that for dissimilar slogans (M=.87, SD=.17), p < .01, p < .05. Unfamiliar slogans: semantically-similar condition (M=.59, SD=.21) remembered slogans better than those in initial-letter-similar condition (M=.47, SD=.22), p < .05
1. Recall of moderately unfamiliar slogans obtains the most benefits by repeated learning. 2. Learning new slogans inhibits rather than impairs memory of original slogans. 3. Learning semantically similar slogans enhanced memory of the original slogans compared with dissimilar slogans (= linguistics literature). • If a company wants to facilitate consumers’ learning, use a slogan semantically similar to the original. • If a company wants consumers forget the original, increase the exposures of a new slogan semantically dissimilar
from the original. 4. Semantically dissimilar slogans impair recall of the original slogans when the original slogans are familiar; Initial-letter-similar slogans impair memory when the original slogans are unfamiliar.
ACCURARY
