8/3/2019 Keller Cue

1/17

Cue Compatibility and Framing in AdvertisingAuthor(s): Kevin Lane KellerSource: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Feb., 1991), pp. 42-57Published by: American Marketing AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3172725 .

Accessed: 20/10/2011 14:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of Marketing Research.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3172725?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3172725?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

2/17

KEVINLANEKELLER*

Findingsrom a laboratoryexperiment upport hree researchpropositions nhow processinggoals at ad exposureand retrieval ues in the branddecisionen-vironment ffect recall of communicationffects and ad and brand udgments.Thefirstproposition,he "cuecompatibilityrinciple,"s thatcompatibilityr a matchbetween the type of information tored in memoryat encodingand the type ofinformation resentas cues at retrieval s necessary or successful ecall of com-municationffects(e.g., cognitive esponses).Thesecondpropositions thatthoughretrieval uescanfacilitaterecallof strongly ssociated nformation,heycaninhibitrecallof other,lessstrongly ssociated nformationnmemory.The hirdpropositionis that becauseprocessinggoals and retrieval uesaffect the accessibility nd di-agnosticity f communicationffects, they"frame"brandjudgments y influencing(1) the importancer weightplacedon different ypesof communicationffectsinad and brandjudgments, nd therefore 2) the actualfavorableness f the judg-ments eached.The heoretical ndmanagerialmplicationsf thesememoryactorson advertisingffectivenessre discussed.

C u e Compatibilityn d F r a m i n g i n Advertising

Advertisingabouta brandprovidesconsumerswithpersuasivenformationrpositiveassociationsdesignedto increasepurchase robability.Withadvertising, ow-ever, initialmessageprocessingand brandpurchase p-portunities re fartherapart n time thanthey are withothermarketing ommunicationse.g., consumerandtradepromotions).Because many consumerdecisionsabouta brandmay be made at the pointof purchase,memorydifficultiesmay inhibitadvertisingeffective-ness. What factors increase the likelihood that any"communicationffects"stored n memory rom ad ex-posurei.e., whatconsumersaw, heard,earned,hought,

felt, etc., whileexposedto anad)influenceconsumers'branddecisions?How canmemoryperformanceor suchcommunicationffectsbe improved?Previous heorizing boutconsumermemory or com-municationffectshasexaminedprimarilyhe effectsofencodingprocesses-how comunication ffects are in-put or stored n memory-leading to conceptssuch as"involvement"Greenwald ndLeavitt1984;KisieliusandSternthal 984)andthe "hierarchyf effects"(Lav-idge andSteiner1961;Rayet al. 1973).Recently,con-sumerbehaviorresearchers averecognized he impor-tanceof alsoconsideringetrieval rocesses-how storedcommunication ffects are output or accessed frommemory(Bakerand Lutz 1987; Friestadand Thorson1990; Keller 1987; Mitchell 1982). The researchre-portedhere considersboth encodingand retrieval ac-tors. As Craik (1979, p. 64) notes, ". . . the generalview thatmemorycanbe understoodn termsof encod-ing processes, retrievalprocesses, and their interrela-tionshas provedof continuingusefulnessover the pastfew years."Specifically, he focushere is on how con-sumerprocessinggoals at encodinginteractwith re-trievalcues in the branddecisionenvironmento affectaccessibilityof communicationffects (i.e., cognitiveresponses) rommemoryandad effectiveness.Threepropositions n how processinggoals and re-trievalcues affectmemoryperformancendadvertising

Kevin Lane Keller is Associate Professor of Marketing, GraduateSchool of Business, StanfordUniversity. In 1990-1991, he is VisitingProfessor at the Australian Graduate School of Management, Uni-versity of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.The author thanks Meg Campbell and Brian Wansink for researchassistance and discussions and Julie Edell, Kathy Englar, Amna Kir-mani, Peter Wright, the JMRreviewers, and participantsof marketingworkshops at the University of Arizona, University of Michigan, Uni-versity of Pennsylvania, and StanfordUniversity for comments on themanuscript. Special thanks are extended to John Lynch for his de-tailed, constructive input. Financial support from the Marketing Sci-ence Institute and a faculty fellowship from the Graduate School ofBusiness at Stanford University provided through the generosity ofJames and Doris McNamara is gratefully acknowledged.

42Journal of Marketing ResearchVol. XXVIII (February 1991), 42-57

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

3/17

CUECOMPATIBILITYND FRAMINGN ADVERTISING 43effectiveness reexamined.Thefirstproposition,he cuecompatibilityprinciple, is that successful recall of com-municationeffects from memory(e.g., cognitive re-sponses) s more ikelyto occurwhenthe typeof infor-mation containedin retrieval cues is compatibleorcongruentwith thetypeof informationtoredpreviouslyduringencoding.In otherwords,recall of communica-tion effects dependsbothon how those effects areen-coded intomemoryand how theycanbe retrieved rommemory.A secondpropositions thatthoughcues canfacilitaterecallof stronglyassociatednformation,heycan inhibit recall of other, less stronglyassociated n-formationn memory.A thirdpropositions thatbecauseprocessinggoalsandretrieval ues affecttheaccessibil-ity and diagnosticityof communication ffects frommemory, hey"frame" d andbrandudgments.That s,processinggoalsandretrieval ues affect(1) the impor-tanceor weightplacedon different ypesof communi-cationeffects (e.g., cognitiveresponses)n laterad andbrandudgments,and therefore2) how favorable hosejudgmentsactuallyare.Insummary,hepurpose f this researchs to examinehowprocessing oalsandretrieval uesin anadvertisingsettinginteract o affect consumermemoryandjudg-ment.The maincontributions the statement ndtestingof three esearch ropositionshat uggest onditionswhenretrieval ues shouldand shouldnot work. After briefconsiderationf some relevant ncodingandretrieval s-sues, hypothesesaddressinghe threeresearchproposi-tions aredeveloped.Next, a laboratory xperiment x-aminingcue compatibility ndframingn advertisingspresented.

CONCEPTUALBACKGROUNDAccessibility of CommunicationEffects

Processing goals. Goals have been shown to have awide varietyof effectson information rocessing SrullandWyer1986,p. 541-2): "Goalsoften determinewhatwe attend o, how we perceiveobjectsandevents,howwe use reasoningprocessesto make inferencesaboutcausalconnections,how theseevents areorganizedandrepresentedn memory,how theyaffectbothlong-termstorageand retrievalof informationor lackthereof) omakehigherorder udgmentsand how they enter intopossibleaffectivereactions."Ofparticularmportancesthe fact thatprocessinggoals influence he type of in-formation onsumersnotice, evaluate,or respond o inan ad, as well as where communication effects are storedin memory.In an advertisingcontext, two importantand commonprocessing goals are ad evaluation and brand evaluation(Gardner, Mitchell, and Russo 1985). Consumers whoview an ad with an ad evaluation goal would be moti-vated to decide whether or not they like the ad executionand how the brand claims are made (e.g., the creativeaspects of the ad). They would be expected to activatefrom memory only information and knowledge neces-

saryto consider he meritsof the adexecution,perhapscomparingt with their standards r expectationsas towhattheyprefer or sucha brandor product.As a con-sequenceof this selective attention Kahneman1973;Normanand Bobrow1975), consumersviewing an adwith an ad evaluation oalwould be expected o processand storein memorymainlyad executioninformationand theirresponses o it.Consumerswith a brand evaluation goal, in contrast,would be motivated o decide whetheror not they liketheadvertised rand.Theywouldbe expected o retrievefrommemoryproduct ategoryknowledgesufficient oprocess any productnformationn the ad to form theirattitudeowardhe brand.However, heirresponse o thead execution tself(MacKenzie ndLutz1989)alsomayinfluence heirbrand valuation.These ad executionef-fects areparticularlyikelywhenconsumers avenotbeengivenmuchproductnformationwithwhichtojudgethebrand-for example,whenthe brand s unfamiliar uchthat heyhave ess ability o processotherwise PettyandCacioppo1986). In suchcases, criticalevaluationsandresponses o the ad execution nformationmaybe of di-agnosticvalue n formingbrand valuations.n anycase,consumerswho view an ad with a brand valuation oalwould be expectedto evaluatecritically ts claims andhow those claims are made.Thus,theywill processandstorebothbrand laimand ad execution nformation.Priorresearchexaminingconsumerprocessinggoalsis consistentwith this theorizing Gardner1985; Lutz,MacKenzie,and Belch 1983;MacKenzie1986, 1989;Parkand Young 1986). Hence, the followingassump-tionsare usedin furtherheorydevelopment:onsumersviewing an ad with eithera brandevaluationor an adevaluationgoal will processad executioninformation;consumersviewingan ad with a brandevaluationgoal,

however,will havegreaterprocessing f brand laim in-formationhanconsumers iewingan ad with anadeval-uationgoal. A briefdescription f some basic memoryretrievalssuesprovidesbackgroundorconsidering owthe memoryandjudgmenteffectsof these two process-ing styles are influencedby different ypes of retrievalcues.Retrieval ues. The"communicationffects" romadencodinginclude ad execution and brandclaim infor-mation,as well as affective andcognitiveresponses othat information Keller 1987, 1991b)-that is, whatconsumers aw, heard, earned,thought,or felt duringad exposure. Only the effects of different ypes of re-trieval cues on recall for the cognitive responses fromprocessing the ad are considered here. Cognitive re-sponses to advertising are characterized here accordingto level of abstraction(specific reactions of overall eval-uations), valence (positive or negative), and source (adexecution or brand claim information)dimensions, con-sistent with priorresearch (e.g., Edell and Keller 1989;MacKenzie 1986; Mitchell 1986). Cognitive responsesduring ad exposure have been shown to have an impor-tant role in evaluations (Hastakand Olson 1989). More-

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

4/17

44 JOURNAL F MARKETINGESEARCH,EBRUARY991over, such effects have been shown to be durableovertime (ChattopadhyayndAlba 1988).An important emory rinciples that nformation aybe available n memory i.e., potentially ecallable)butinaccessiblei.e., unable o be recalled)withoutheproperretrieval ues(TulvingandPearlstone 966;TulvingandPsotka1971). Retrievalcues determine he entry pointintomemory.The contentandorganizationf the com-munication ffects stored n memoryand the natureofthe cues in the retrieval nvironmentwill be importantdeterminantsf howeasily, if at all, communicationf-fects canbe accessedrommemoryKeller1987, 1991b).A retrieval ue is effectiveonly if it helpsto access in-formationrommemory.One influential iew of cue ef-fectiveness is the encoding specificity principle (Tulving1974, 1979), which holds that a cue is effectiveonly ifit was specificallyencodedwith the to-be-rememberedinformation.As Tulvingand Thomson(1973, p. 369)note, "specificencodingoperationsperformed n whatis perceiveddeterminewhat s stored,andwhat s storeddetermineswhatretrieval ues areeffectivein providingaccessto what s stored."TulvingandThomson 1971)providestrongevidenceforencodingspecificity,show-ing that cues presentat inputor encodingcan lead tohigher ecall hangenerallytrongly ssociatedues,eventhough he cues at inputmay only be weaklyotherwiseassociated. na reviewof memory esearch,HortonandMills (1984)conclude hatthe recall benefitof reinstat-ing theencodingcontextat the time of retrieval,as em-phasizedby the encodingspecificityprinciple,has re-ceived "strong upport"n the literature.In many cases, the brandname (and symbol) andproductpackageare the primary etrievalcues presentat the pointof purchase.However,these cues may notadequatelyaccess encoded and potentiallyretrievablecommunicationffects(Keller1987, 1991b).Links romthese cuesto communicationffectsmaybe weak npartbecause a person acked the motivation,ability,or op-portunityo attendo andprocess he brand dentificationinformationn the ad. For example, the presenceandextentof competitive dvertisingBurkeandSrull1988;Keller1987, 1991a)andthefamiliarity ndprominenceof brandname dentificationn the ad executionmayaf-fect the strengthof links formedfromcommunicationeffectsto the brandnameat adexposure. n suchcases,additional etrieval ues, morespecificto the encodingcontext,may be necessaryduring ater branddecisionsto increaseheaccessibilityf communicationffects rommemory.

Advertising retrieval cues are defined as verbal or vi-sual information contained in an ad. When present dur-ing brandevaluations, ad retrieval cues have the poten-tial to improve memory performancefor communicationeffects. Two types of ad retrieval cues are consideredhere, ad execution cues and brand claims cues. An adexecution cue contains executional information from thead. Though such cues are rarely used, one example isQuakerOats' inclusion of a reducedphotoof the "Mikey"

character rom the popularad for Life cerealwith theslogan,"Try he cerealMikey ikes,"on the frontof theLife cerealpackage.The presenceof ad executioncueshas beenfound o lead to improvedecallof brand laimsand evaluative eactions o the adexecution nformation(Keller1987). The othermaintypeof ad retrieval ue,a brandclaimscue, containsattribute r benefit infor-mation rom the ad. This typeof cue is more commonin that manufacturersften place one or more of theiradvertised laimson the productpackage,thoughtheydo so moreto helpconsumerswhohavenotseen the ador did notencodeanythingromadexposure han o helpconsumersaccess any communication ffects. Forex-ample,in addition o the Mikeycue on the frontof theLife cereal package, Quaker Oats also placed twoclaims-"delicious" and"highprotein."The first researchproposition, he cue compatibilityprincipleof advertising,s basedon Tulving'sencodingspecificityprinciple.As Tulvingstates(1979, p. 417),"In short, over a considerablerange of experimentalconditions,empiricalfacts show that remembering fevents is determined y the interaction etween encod-ing andretrieval;he concordant heoretical onclusionholds thatsuccessfulrecollection f an eventdependsonthe congruenceor compatibilitybetween trace infor-mationandretrieval nformation." he cuecompatibilityprinciplemaintains hat successful recall of communi-cation effects from ad exposureoccurs when there iscongruity r a "match" etween hetypeof informationstoredatencodingand the typeof information vailableas cues at laterretrieval.According o the cue compatibility rinciple,ad ex-ecutioncues shouldbe particularlyffectivefor access-ingad-relatedognitiveresponsesandbrand laimscuesshould be particularlyffective for accessingbrand-re-latedcognitiveresponses,in comparisonwith the casewhenno additionalues arepresenti.e., whenonlybrandname andproductcategorycues areevident).In otherwords,the informationhat servedas the basis for cog-nitiveresponsesshouldbe a good reminder f the spe-cific nature f thosecognitiveresponses.Thisrecallben-efit canonlyoccur, however,when the cue informationwas processedandstored n memory.Because it is as-sumedthat consumersviewingan ad with an ad evalu-ation goal do not critically processthe product nfor-mationabout he brand n the ad, the brand laims cueshouldnot have a facilitating ffect on theirrecall. Thisline of reasoning uggeststhe followinghypotheses.

Hia: The numberof ad-related ognitive responsesre-called s higherwith an ad executioncue thanwithno additional ue for bothconsumerswho viewedan ad with a brandevaluationgoal and consumerswho viewedan ad with an ad evaluationgoal.HIb: The number f brand-relatedognitiveresponses e-called is higherwith a brandclaims cue than withno additional ue only for consumerswho viewedan ad witha brand valuation oal.

Thoughcues generallyenhancerecallby identifying

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

5/17

CUECOMPATIBILITYND FRAMINGN ADVERTISING 45categories of forgotten information to aid retrieval, theymay not always do so (e.g., Alba and Chattopadhyay1985a,b, 1986; Hoch 1984). Part-category or part-listcuing suggests that category instances provided as cuesmay sometimes inhibit recall of other items in that cat-egory (Nickerson 1984; Roediger 1973, 1974; Rundus1973). Hence, one reason for the inaccessibility of oth-erwise available information is that the act of recallingsome information inhibits the recall of other similar in-formation at a later time. Moreover, recalling some in-formation also may affect a person's willingness even totry to retrieve other information(Srull and Wyer 1986).Because of these ability and motivation considerations,the second research proposition builds on H1to suggestthat retrieval cues can also inhibit recall, depending onprocessing goals. As consumers with ad evaluationgoalsdevoterelatively ittleprocessingattention o brandclaims,though, these inhibition effects would not be expectedfor their brand-relatedcognitive responses.

H2a: The numberof ad-related ognitive responsesre-called is lower with a brandclaimscue than withno additional ue for bothconsumerswho viewedan ad with a brandevaluationgoal andconsumerswho viewed an ad with an ad evaluationgoal.H2b: Thenumber f brand-relatedognitiveresponses e-calledis lower with an ad executioncue than withno additional ue only for consumerswho viewedan ad with a brandevaluationgoal.

Framing of ConsumerJudgmentsThe third research proposition is that because pro-cessing goals and retrieval cues affect the accessibilityof communicationeffects, they "frame"consumerjudg-ments, affecting both the judgment process (i.e., the re-lationship between communication effects and judg-ments) and outcome (i.e., the actual favorableness of thejudgments reached).Assume that consumers view ads in a difficult mem-

ory environment (e.g., much competitive advertisingvarying in favorability, single ad exposure, unfamiliarbrands, etc.), such that memory for communication ef-fects matters. That is, assume that communication ef-fects have the potential to influence ad and brandjudg-ments, but may be difficult to recall with the brandidentification cues typically available. Assume also thatthe target ad is "good" in the sense that most consumerswould evaluate the ad execution and brand claim infor-mationfavorably(i.e., have positive ad-relatedand brand-related cognitive responses). In such cases, the addi-tional presence of ad retrieval cues is hypothesized tolead to more favorablead and brand udgmentsthan wouldbe made when just brand names are available, as longas the ad retrieval cue information was processed at en-coding.These beneficial effects of ad retrieval cues on ad andbrandjudgments should emerge for four reasons. First,without the ad retrieval cue, consumers may be unableto access any communication effects. As H1 states, the

ad retrieval cue can facilitate recall of closely associatedcognitive responses. Given that target ads are assumedto produce positive ad-related and brand-relatedcogni-tive responses, more favorablejudgments should result.Second, without the ad retrievalcue, consumersmay be-come confused as to which ad corresponded to whichbrand. Given that other competitive ads in the productclass are assumed to evoke less positive reactions, con-fusion should lead to less favorable judgments. Third,the ad retrieval cue can also facilitate correct recall ofthe additionalad execution and brand claim information.Even if consumers have not critically evaluated any ofthis ad informationduring exposure, and thus have nothad any cognitive responses, they would have anotheropportunity for furtherprocessing at retrieval. Finally,the ad retrievalcue can serve as a reminderof the overallfavorabilityof the ad. Given that both ad and brandeval-uation consumers should have judged each ad, even iffor differentpurposes, they shouldhave been able to rec-ognize the overall favorability of the targetad. Priorre-search(e.g., Lichtenstein and Srull 1987; Lingle andOs-trom 1979) has shown that recall of summaryevaluationscan have an important nfluence on memory-basedjudg-ments. In short, the ad retrieval cue helps to access com-munication effects from memory. Though in doing sothe ad retrievalcue may lower recall of other, less stronglyassociated information in memory (as in H2), it allowsfor sufficient access to communicationeffects to producemore favorable ad and brandjudgments.Consistent with this reasoning is the finding (Keller1987) that in a difficult memory environment, the pro-vision of an ad execution cue led to more favorable adandbrand udgments ora good targetad thanwere formedwhen only brandnames were available as cues. The ben-eficial effects of ad retrieval cues on ad and brandjudg-ments depend, however, on consumers' processing goalsat encoding. The additionalprovision of an ad executioncue should be effective for consumers who have viewedan ad with either an ad evaluation or a brandevaluationgoal. The additional provision of a brand claims cue,however, should be effective only for consumers whohave processed the ad with a brandevaluationgoal. Con-sumerswho have processed the ad with an ad evaluationgoal would not have been as likely to store the brand orproduct informationnecessary for the brand claims cueto facilitaterecall. If the targetad is assumed to be good,but seen in a competitive environmentmaking recall dif-ficult, the following hypotheses can be made about theactual favorableness of judgments reached.

H3:Forconsumerswhohaveprocessed n ad witha brandevaluationgoal, ad and brand udgmentsare morepositivewith eithera brand laims cue or an ad ex-ecutioncue than with no additional ue.H4:Forconsumerswhohaveprocessedan ad with an adevaluationgoal, ad and brand udgmentsare morepositivewith an ad executioncue than with a brandclaimscue or no additional ue.Feldman and Lynch (1988) have also proposed a the-

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

6/17

46 JOURNAL F MARKETINGESEARCH,EBRUARY991oretical frameworkof how cognitions are used in deci-sions that allows for explicit predictions about how re-called cognitive responses should affect judgments. Theyargue that the likelihood of any cognition being input toa decision is a function of (1) the accessibility of theinput in memory, (2) the accessibility of alternativein-puts, and (3) the diagnosticity of the input and alterna-tive inputs. Specifically, they posit that given two po-tential inputs in memory, A and B, any factor thatincreases the relative accessibility or diagnosticity of Bwill decrease the use of A (see also Lynch, Marmor-stein, and Weigold 1988). Baker and Lutz (1987) sim-ilarly argue that the relevance and accessibility of com-munication effects determine advertisingeffectiveness.In difficult memory environments, accessibility ofcommunication effects should have an importantrole inhow ad andbrand udgments are formed. HI and H2pre-dict how the processing goal and retrieval cue factorswould facilitate or inhibit the accessibility from memoryof consumers' ad-relatedand brand-relatedcognitive re-sponses. Retrievalcues also may affect the diagnosticityof information.By placing information cues at the pointof purchase,manufacturersmay signal to consumers thatthey consider that information to be relevant and im-portantto the brand.Thus, ad retrievalcues not only canincrease the likelihood that consumers are able to accessinformationfrom memory, if such information alreadyhas been stored, but also may increase the weight placedon that recalled informationin ad and brandjudgments.Becauseprocessing goals and ad retrievalcues affect boththe accessibility and diagnosticity of cognitive re-sponses, they also affect how cognitive responses arere-lated to brandevaluations.

H5:Ad-relatedcognitive responses receive relativelygreaterweight hanbrand-relatedognitiveresponsesin brand valuations or consumerswith an ad exe-cutioncue, in comparisonwith those withoutanad-ditionalcue, for both consumerswho viewed an adwith a brandevaluationgoal and consumerswhoviewedan ad withan ad evaluation oal.H6:Brand-relatedognitiveresponsesreceiverelativelygreaterweight hanad-relatedognitiveresponsesnbrand valuations or consumerswitha brand laimscue, in comparisonwiththosewithoutan additionalcue, only for consumerswho viewed an ad with abrand valuation oal.METHOD

OverviewSubjects were 103 English-speaking adults who weremembers of a local PTA or employed by a large privateuniversity in a variety of capacities. Eighty-nine percentof the sample were women, half of the sample had atleast a college degree, and half were over the age of 40.Subjects participatedin the study as a contribution totheir organizationor in returnfor direct monetary com-

pensation in the form of a small fee and a lottery. Theresearch method closely followed that described previ-ously (Keller 1987) in terms of stimuli, procedure, andmeasures. The experimental cover story pertained to ahypotheticalelectronic information andshopping servicethat would enable consumersto learnaboutproducts e.g.,view ads) and order products through a cable TV andcomputer hook-up. Subjects examined 12 print ads for12 fictitious brandsfrom threeproductcategories. Threeof the ads-one in each product category-were targetads. After viewing the ads and completing a short fillertask, subjects provided memory andjudgment measuresfor the three targetbrandson the basis of mock packagefronts. Two manipulations were used, (1) consumers'processing goals during ad exposure (ad evaluation orbrandevaluation) and (2) retrievalcues present, besidesbrand name and product category, during the memoryandjudgment task (no additionalcue, ad execution cue,or brand claims cue).Stimuli

Ad stimuli. Four ads in each of three product cate-gories (cereal, laundry detergent, and toothpaste) wereused for the study. The ads were basically informationaland identical in format. The top half of the ad consistedof a color-reproduced photo and the bottom half con-sisted of copy-a headline, an introductory paragraphtying together the photo and the brand claims, and twoparagraphseach describing one main brand benefit witha heading summarizingthat claim in bold type above theparagraph.The brand name was pretested to be evalu-atively neutral and nonsuggestive andappeared n capitalletters four times in the ad.Brands within product categorieswere basically uniquein their positioning in that claims across categories weredifferent see Table 1). To create an environment n whichmemory for advertising matters, two "good" and two"bad" ads were made up for each category. Good adscombined an ad photo that reflected favorablyon a brandin the product category with persuasive claims in the adcopy; bad ads combined an ad photo that reflected un-favorably on a brand in the product category with un-persuasiveclaims. All ads for the targetbrandswere goodads. Pretests established the favorability of the pictorialinformation, as well as the overall valence of the ads.'Package stimuli. The mock package frontsfor the tar-get ads were the same size as the print ad. The brandname and product category appearedin large black let-ters at the top of each mock package front. The lowerright corner contained the cue manipulation.

'PretestsKeller1987) ndicatedhatad andbrand valuationswerehigher (1 = very bad, ..., 7 = very good) for good ads (Ab = 5.49;A. = 5.32) than bad ads (Ab = 4.03; A, = 3.66).

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

7/17

CUECOMPATIBILITYND FRAMINGN ADVERTISING 47Table 1DESCRIPTIONFAD STIMULI

Ad photo Brand name/headline Product claimsCerealYoungwoman umping n the air COLONYWill Have You JumpingForJoy Delicious ruit asteHigh proteinLondonBridge EveryoneEatsQUEST FromEngland

Costs lessYoungwomanon scales MONARCHKeepsYour Life in Balance More iberFewer aloriesOldermanbuyinga newspaper Let TRIBUTEStartYourMorning Tastesgood50-year raditionLaundry detergentYoungfamilyof fourhangingclothes BecauseYou Care,TrustYour Clothes o CIRCLE Removes oughstainsAddsfresh scentYoungmanstaringntently BecauseLittleThingsMatter,Use PANORAMA Convenient o useBiodegradableFive youngpeoplehavingfun BARON s The Right DetergentForToday Workswith all fabricsBrightens olorsYoungwomangazing pensively SALUTELooksAfterYourWash Workson delicate abricsAddsgentlesoftnessToothpasteMotherand son smiling DependOnTheProtectionOf HARP Gentlywhitens eethPrevents oothdecayPolishedgold-filled ooth WithDUTY, You Don't HaveTo Put YourMoneyWhereYour Low costMouthIs HelpspreventdecayYoung couplesmiling RITUALKeeps EverybodySmiling FreshensbreathWhitens eethMountain tream FLAGIs TheNaturallyGoodToothpaste All naturalPleasingminttaste"For achproduct ategory, he firstand thirdad descriptions re "good"ads, with the targetad first. Product laimsarethe headings hatservedas the brand laimscues.

ExperimentalProcedureSubjects were assigned randomly to conditions. Sub-jects' first booklet began with a description of the elec-tronic information and shopping service and the pro-

cessing instructions. On turningthe page, subjects weretold to write down in their own words their instructionsfor looking at the ads. After that, they were told to dou-ble-check their understandingof the instructions. Next,subjects were given 40 seconds to examine each of 12different ads. There were four ads in three product cat-egories-cereal, laundry detergent, and toothpaste. Pre-tests had confirmed the two good and two bad ads ineach product category. The target ad for each categorywas a good ad appearing n positions4 through6 to avoidprimacy and recency effects. Ad order was counterbal-anced to avoid confounding product category and adswith exposure position.After viewing the ads, subjectsrespondedto measuresthat asked for their general evaluations of the ads or thebrands in total, consistent with their processing instruc-tions. To furtherreduce the possibility of rehearsal andto clear workingmemory, subjectsthen completeda five-minute distractortask, listing perceived advantages anddisadvantages of the service.Next, ad booklets were collected and subjectsreceiveda second booklet. Subjects were told that shopping with

the serviceinvolvedexamining,on theirTV screen,panelsof information similar to the front of a product package.Then they completed three tasks. First, subjects wrote,on the mock package fronts provided, all they could re-call about the target ads. Next, they wrote down anypersonal reactions they had while viewing the targetadsafter being specifically asked:

Whatdoyourememberhinking rfeelingas youlookedat thead? Didyouhaveany positiveorneg-ativereactionso theadpicture?o thebrand laims?or to thetext?Please writeanything ndeverythingwhichyou can remember boutyourexperienceoflookingat the adsFinally, subjects provided a set of judgments about thetargetbrands(i.e., ad and brandattitudes, confidence inthose attitudes, and purchase intentions). The order ofpanels for the three target brands was the same for allthreetasks and counterbalanced cross subjects.In a thirdbooklet, subjects provided some self-report and covar-iate information.The entireexperimenttook less than anhour.Design and Manipulations

The design was a 2 (processing goal) by 3 (retrievalcue) between-subjects design, replicated within subject

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

8/17

48 JOURNAL F MARKETINGESEARCH,EBRUARY991across threeproductcategories.There were 15 to 18subjects n eachof the six cells.Processinggoal. The processinggoal factorhad twolevels: ad evaluationand brandevaluation.Under thebrand evaluation goal, subjects examined the ads to de-terminehow good they thought he differentbrandsofproductswere. Underthe ad evaluationgoal, subjectsexamined he ads to determinehow interesting nd en-gagingthey were.2Retrievalcue. The retrieval ue factorhadthree ev-els:no additionalue, adexecution ue, andbrand laimscue. In the no additionalcue condition,subjectsweregivenonlybrandnameandproduct ategory ues. Inthead execution uecondition,n additiono the brandnameandproduct ategory dentification, reduced roughlyinhalf)blackandwhitereproductionf the adphotoandheadlinewasplaced n thelowerrightcorner f the mockpackage ronts.Partlybecauseof thisalteration,hecueitself contained ittle persuasive nformation,and pre-tests (Keller1987, 1991a)hadestablished hat evalua-tionsbased uston the mockpackage rontswereequalwith or without he cue. In the brandclaims cue con-dition,in addition o the brandname andproduct ate-goryidentification,he two claimsheadingssummariz-ingthe twomainbrandbenefitswereplaced n thelowerrightcornerof the mockpackage ronts.Measures

Recallprotocols.The ad contents ecall askwascodedin termsof correctrecollectionof the ad photoand thetwo mainbrand laims,whereappropriate.ecause omeof this informationwas includedalso as partof the adretrieval ue conditions, t couldnot be codedforthosesubjects i.e., ad photofor the ad executioncue condi-tions andbrand laimsforbrand laimscue conditions).Therefore,analysisof these data is not reported.Thecognitiveresponses ecall askwascodedalong hethreedimensionsnotedbefore andused in priorrelatedad re-search:1) specificreaction roverallevaluation,2) ad-relatedorbrand-related,nd(3) positiveornegativeva-lence. Two coders independentrom the authorcate-gorized the recall responses. Agreementbetween the

coderswas sufficientlyhigh(averaging 1%agreement)anddifferenceswere resolvedby the coders.Adeffectiveness.Five ad effectivenessmeasuresweretaken, n thefollowingorder, or eachtargetbrand.Sub-jects first responded o three evaluationmeasures re-quentlyused in advertising esearch: 9-item, 7-pointscale of attitude toward the brand (bad-good, low qual-ity-high quality, dislikeable-likeable, useless-useful,unimportant-important,armful-beneficial,disagree-able-agreeable, npleasant-pleasant,wful-nice),an 11-pointscale of purchase ntentions extremelyunlikely-extremely ikely),anda 4-item,7-pointscaleof attitudetoward he ad (dislikeable-likeable,ninteresting-inter-esting, bad-good,unappealing-appealing).he reliabil-ity of the brandand ad attitude cales as measuredbyCronbach's oefficientalphawas high, .94 and .96, re-spectively.Next, subjectsexpressed heirconfidence nthese evaluations n terms of how confident hey werethat he brand ndadratings hey usthadprovidedwouldnot change f they examined he ad again.Seven-pointscales assessed their confidence n their brandand adevaluations not all confident-veryconfident).Confi-dence in advertising-relatedudgmentshas been sug-gested as anothermeasureof ad effectiveness(BergerandMitchell1989;RossiterandPercy 1987).Covariates and self-reports. A third booklet collectedcovariatenformationnd someself-reportmeasures.Thecovariatemeasuresassessedsubjects'productcategorypurchaseandusage frequency 1 = very infrequently,S.7 = very frequently), knowledgeability (1 = notat all knowledgeable, . . ., 7 = very knowledgeable),importance f brandselection(1 = very unimportant,., 7 = very important), ndperceivedqualitydif-ferencesamongbrands 1 = verylittledifference,....= very greatdifference).These five measureswerecombined o forma scale of product ategory nvolve-mentthat had a satisfactoryoefficientalphareliabilityestimateof .71. Six self-reportmeasuresassessedpro-cessing style (1 = strongly disagree, . . ., 7 = stronglyagree).Threemeasurespertainedo the extentto whichsubjectsattended o and processedad execution nfor-mationwhileviewing he ads.Threeothermeasuresper-tainedto the extent to which subjectsattended o andprocessed rand laim nformation hileviewing heads.

RESULTSProcessing Goals

One important assumption in the theoretical devel-opmentis thatsubjectswith a brandevaluationgoal wouldcritically evaluate both brand claim and ad execution in-formation but subjects with an ad evaluation goal wouldcritically evaluate only ad execution information. As-suming greater ecallof cognitiveresponsesreflectsgreaterprocessing intensity (Bjork 1975; Craik and Lockhart1972; Craik and Tulving 1975), one can test the pro-cessing goal assumptions by analysis of subjects' cog-

2Allsubjectsweregiventhefollowing nstructionsrior o viewingthe ads:Theexamples nthefollowingpages llustratewhat headsmight ook like on yourTV screenwhenyou use the

service. Since the sponsoring ompaniesdo not wish touse ads for any of theirreal brands, he ads are all forhypotheticalictitious rands. oreachad,please eadALLwrittenmaterialand examineall photosso thatyou willhave adequatenformation n which to base yourjudg-ments. Afterviewingthe ads for all thebrands,you willthen be askedforyour udgments.Subjects'actualprocessingnstructions, owever,differedaccordingto theprocessing oal manipulations.

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

9/17

CUECOMPATIBILITYND FRAMINGN ADVERTISING 49Table 2MEMORYND JUDGMENT EASURESMEANSANDSTANDARDEVIATIONS)a

Ad evaluationgoal Brandevaluation oalNo Ad Brand No Ad Brandad execution claims ad execution claimsMeasure cue cue cue cue cue cue

RecallSpecificad reactions .59 .86 .31 .59 .72 .29(.88) (.80) (.61) (.90) (.76) (.63)Totalad-related 1.29 1.51 .81 1.15 1.41 .62cognitiveresponses (1.12) (.97) (1.03) (1.16) (1.00) (.68)Specificbrand eactions .22 .16 .17 .30 .37 .51(.50) (.42) (.38) (.57) (.65) (.82)Totalbrand-related .41 .27 .44 .78 .52 1.04cognitiveresponses (.73) (.60) (.72) (.96) (.79) (1.02)JudgmentsBrandattitudes 4.03 4.84 4.25 4.30 4.78 4.83(1.18) (1.12) (1.17) (1.26) (1.30) (1.27)Purchasententions 4.23 4.93 4.58 4.11 5.15 5.61(2.44) (2.49) (2.30) (2.53) (2.73) (2.38)Ad attitudes 3.56 4.04 3.73 3.63 4.27 3.96(1.56) (1.60) (1.53) (1.52) (1.70) (1.86)Brand onfidence 4.21 5.11 4.16 4.04 5.23 4.67(1.70) (1.48) (1.65) (1.70) (1.57) (1.90)Ad confidence 4.52 5.57 4.20 3.85 5.13 4.85(1.55) (1.15) (1.72) (1.55) (1.66) (1.83)'Standardeviations re nparentheses. otalad-relatedndbrand-relatedognitiveresponsesnclude pecificreactions ndoverallevaluations.

nitiveresponses o the brand laimand ad execution n-formationeportedn theirrecallprotocols seeTable2).The analysis here and subsequent esting of the hy-pothesesweredoneby subject ndbytarget d. ANCOVAtestswereperformed y usingthesubjectsnestedwithinprocessinggoal and retrieval ue (i.e., between-subject)sum of squaresas the errorterm and four covariates(productcategory type, subject'sproductcategoryin-volvement,ad orderposition,andpanelorderpositionfor the targetad).Recall of ad-relatedand brand-relatedognitivere-sponsesis consistentwith the processinggoal assump-tions. For the total numberof ad-related ognitivere-sponses recalled (i.e., reportedpositive and negativespecificad reactionsandoverallad evaluations),t wasassumed hattherewouldbe no significantdifference ntheprocessinggoal factor. As expected,the maineffectis not significant p > .25). It was also assumedthatsubjectswitha brand valuation BE)goal would recalla greaternumberof total brand-relatedognitive re-sponses i.e., reportedositiveandnegative pecificbrandreactions ndoverallbrand valuations)han ubjectswithan ad evaluation AE) goal. In this case, the analysisrevealsa significantmaineffectof processinggoal (F1,96= 10.5, p < .01). As expected, subjectswith brandevaluationgoals recalled more brand-relatedognitiveresponsespertargetad, on average,thansubjectswithad evaluation goals (AE = .38, BE = .75). Thus, bothbrandand ad evaluationsubjects appeared o evaluatetheadexecution nformationritically,butonly subjects

witha brandevaluationgoal evaluated he brandclaiminformationritically.3RetrievalCues

H1and H2address he facilitatingand inhibitingef-fects of retrieval ues, positing hat(1) an ad executioncue leadsto higherrecalland a brandclaims cue leadsto lower recall of ad-related ognitiveresponsesthanwouldoccurwithoutanadditionalue (i.e., brandnameandproductcategoryonly) for both ad evaluationandbrand valuationubjects nd(2) a brand laimscue leadsto higherrecallandan ad executioncue leads to lowerrecall of brand-relatedognitiveresponsesthanwouldoccurwithoutan additional ue for only brandevalua-tionsubjects.Facilitationnd nhibition ffectsfor brand-3The ix self-reportmeasures lsowereanalyzed o test theeffectsof theprocessing oalmanipulation. s expected, ubjectswithbrandevaluation oals (BE)andsubjectswith adevaluation oals (AE)donot differsignificantlyp > .25) in reportedevels of agreementorall threemeasures f reported rocessing f ad executionnformation:(1) "Ibasically ocusedon howinterestinghe ads were" AE= 5.27,BE = 5.00), (2) "Imadean overallevaluation f how goodeachadwas"(AE = 5.22, BE = 5.25), and(3) "Ipaidcarefulattentionothe adpicture"AE = 5.14, BE = 4.96). Also as expected,subjectswith brandevaluationgoals reported ignificantlygreater evels ofagreementp < .01) thansubjectswith an ad evaluation oal for allthreemeasuresassessingprocessingof brandclaiminformation:1)"Ibasically ocusedon how goodthe brandswere" AE = 3.65, BE= 4.65), (2) "Imadean overallevaluation f howgoodeachproductwas"(AE = 3.94, BE = 4.96), and(3) "Ipaidcarefulattentionothe descriptions f the brand laims" AE = 4.02, BE = 4.90).

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

10/17

50 JOURNAL FMARKETINGESEARCH,EBRUARY991relatedognitive esponses rehypothesizednlyforbrandevaluation ubjectsbecauseonly they shouldhavefullyprocessedbrand laims.The tests of the hypotheses n-volve planned omparisonswiththe same between-sub-ject error erm and covariatesas describedbefore. Be-cause all hypothesesaredirectional,one-sided ests areemployed.Tests of HI assess the facilitativeproperties f cues.A plannedcontrastof the ad executioncue andno ad-ditionalcue conditions or the totalnumber f ad-relatedcognitiveresponsesrecalledby ad and brandevaluationsubjectsrevealsa marginally ignificanteffect (F1,96=2.0, p < .08). ConsistentwithHIa, recall of ad-relatedcognitiveresponsesper targetad is higherwith an adexecution ue (AC)thanwith no additional ue (NC)forboth brand evaluation subjects (NC = 1.29; AC = 1.51)and ad evaluation subjects (NC = 1.15; AC = 1.41).This effectdoes notvaryby processinggoal (F < 1). Aplannedcontrastof the brandclaimscue and no addi-tionalcue conditions or the total numberof brand-re-lated cognitiveresponsesrecalledby brandevaluationsubjects s directionallyonsistentwithHlb-that is, re-call of brand-relatedognitiveresponsesper targetad ishigherwith a brandclaims cue (CC)than with no ad-ditionalcue for brandevaluationsubjects(NC = .78;CC = 1.04), but the difference s not statistically ig-nificant(F,9, = 1.1, p < .15). Consistent with Hlb, thereis no significantdifferencewiththis recall measure oradevaluation ubjects F < 1).Tests of H2assessthe inhibitiveproperties f cues. Aplannedcontrastof the brandclaimscue and no addi-tional cue conditions or the totalnumberof ad-relatedcognitiveresponses ecalledby adand brand valuationsubjectsreveals a significanteffect (FI,96= 5.8, p

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

11/17

CUECOMPATIBILITYND FRAMINGN ADVERTISING 51areentirely onsistentwiththispatternf findings, houghtheplanned ontrastor ad evaluation ubjectss notsig-nificantfor the ad attitudemeasure F1,94= 1.3, p

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

12/17

52 JOURNAL FMARKETINGESEARCH,EBRUARY991ad reactions are significantly, positively relatedto brandevaluations in the ad execution cue condition.6Overall, the regression results provide some supportfor the process hypotheses that processing goal and re-trieval cue factors affect how cognitive responses are re-lated to brand evaluations. For ad evaluation subjects,the ad reactions beta is significant only in the ad exe-cution cue condition(supportingH5)and the ad and brandreactions betas do not differ between the brand claimscue and no additional cue conditions (supporting H6).For brand evaluation subjects, though there is no differ-ence in the relationshipof ad reactions and brandeval-uations in the ad execution cue and no additional cueconditions-the ad reactions beta is significant in bothcases-the brand reactions beta is insignificant only inthe ad executioncue condition(supportingH5). For brandevaluation subjects, there is no difference in the rela-tionshipof ad andbrandreactions with brandevaluationsin the brandclaims cue and no additional cue conditions(failing to support H6). In short, the ad execution cue,in comparison with the no additionalcue condition, ap-pears to have changed the way in which subjects madetheir brand evaluations. The brand claims cue did nothave such effects, though they were expected only forbrand evaluation subjects.One unexpected finding is that for ad evaluation sub-jects, brand reactions are significant predictorsof brandevaluations in the no additional cue and brandclaims cueconditions, but ad reactions are not. For brand evalua-tion subjects, both ad and brand reactions are significantpredictorsof brand evaluations in the no additional cueand brand claims cue conditions. Thus, though ad andbrand evaluation subjects recalled roughly the samenumber of ad-related cognitive responses in those twocue conditions, the ad reactions had very different as-sociations with brandevaluations. As suggested by Feld-man and Lynch (1988), Baker and Lutz (1987), and oth-ers, more than accessibility is needed to explain howcognitive responses are used in judgments. Perceptionsof the diagnosticity or relevance of the ad-relatedcog-nitive responses may help to explain these processinggoal differences.

One possibility is that because brand evaluation sub-jects generatedad-related ognitive responseswith a brandevaluationgoal in mind, thoseresponses may have seemedmore relevantor diagnosticin laterbrandevaluations hanthey did for ad evaluation subjects, who generatedthemin response to a different task. As noted before, one pos-sible interpretation f why ad-relatedcognitive responseswould be related significantly to brand evaluations forad evaluation subjects in the ad execution cue conditionis that an ad execution cue increases not only the ac-cessibilityof ad-related ognitive responses,but also theirdiagnosticity or relevance in brand evaluations. Placingan ad execution cue on the package may have causedsubjects to feel that it was more appropriate or them toinclude ad-related cognitive responses in their brandevaluations. The presence of a brandclaims cue may nothave changed the use of brand-related cognitive re-sponses, however, because subjects alreadyviewed thoseresponses as relevant for the task. Though it would beinteresting to explore these notions about the diagnos-ticity of the ad-related and brand-relatedcognitive re-sponses in more detail, the amount and nature of therecall protocol dataare insufficient for such tests. Never-theless, the regression results suggest that though acces-sibility appears to have affected the relationship of re-called cognitive responses and brandevaluations,anotherfactor, perhaps diagnosticity or relevance, also appearsto have an effect.

DISCUSSIONSummary of Main Findings

Subjects' processing goals during ad exposure weremanipulated o thatthe subjectsevaluatedeitherhow goodthe advertisedbrandswere (brandevaluationgoal) or howinterestingandengagingthe ads were (adevaluationgoal).The retrieval cues present during later recall and judg-ment were manipulatedto be the brand name, productcategory, and either no additional cue, an ad executioncue, or a brand claims cue. Consistent with prior find-ings, subjectswith a brandevaluationgoal appear o haveprocessed both ad execution and brand claim informa-tion during ad exposure. Subjects with an ad evaluationgoal appearto have processed only ad execution infor-mation during ad exposure. Processing goals interactedwith retrieval cues to produce the following effects.

1. An ad executioncue facilitated ecallof ad-relatedog-nitiveresponses i.e., evaluativereactionsand overallevaluations) nda brandclaimscue inhibitedrecall ofad-related ognitive responsesfor both ad and brandevaluationubjects.A brand laimscue facilitated ecallof brand-relatedognitiveresponsesandan ad executioncue inhibited ecallof brand-relatedognitiveresponsesonly for brandevaluation ubjects,though he facilita-tioneffects forbrand-relatedognitiveresponsesare notstatisticallyignificant.2. Subjectswith brand valuation oals producedmore fa-vorablead andbrandudgmentsi.e., ad andbrand val-uationsandconfidence n thoseevaluations)whenthey

6A more rigorous statistical test (Cohen and Cohen 1983) basicallyreinforces this point. The ad reactions beta for ad evaluation subjectsis significantly greater in the ad execution cue condition than in theno additional cue condition (Z = 1.65, p < .05) and claims cue con-dition (Z = 1.34, p < .09). The brand reactions beta for brand eval-uations subjects is significantly lower in the ad execution cue con-dition than in the no additional cue condition (Z = 1.49, p < .07)but not in the claims cue condition (Z = .92, p < .20). Analyses oftwo other measures reinforce these conclusions. First, a similar pat-tern of significance emerges if the total cognitive responses are used(specific reactions and overall evaluations), though the ad-relatedcog-nitive response beta for ad evaluation subjects with no additional cueis significant. Nevertheless, this beta is significantly lower than thead-relatedcognitive response beta for ad evaluation subjects with anad execution cue (Z = 1.34, p < .10). Second, a virtually identicalpatternof significance emerges if the simple zero-order correlationsare examined.

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

13/17

CUECOMPATIBILITYND FRAMINGN ADVERTISING 53received eitheran ad executioncue or a brandclaimscue thanthey did when no additional ue was present;subjectswith ad evaluationgoals, however,were ableto producemore favorableudgmentsonly whengivenan ad executioncue.3. For ad evaluation ubjects,both specificad and brandreactionswere related o laterbrandevaluationsn thead executioncue conditionbut only specificbrandre-actionswererelated o laterbrand valuationsn the noadditionalue andbrand laimscue conditions.Forbrandevaluation ubjects,bothspecificadandbrand eactionswere relatedto later brandevaluations n the no addi-tionalcue andbrand laimscue conditionsbutonlyspe-cific adreactionswere related o laterbrand valuationsin the ad executioncue condition.

ImplicationsTheoretical. This study replicatespreviouswork(Keller1987) by showing that ad execution cues can facilitaterecall for ad-related cognitive responses and producehigher evaluations of target ads eliciting positive reac-tions for both brand and ad evaluation subjects (thoughthe facilitating effects of cues on recall are less pro-nounced in this study). This study extends the prior re-search by showing that ad retrieval cues can facilitateand inhibit recall of ad-related and brand-relatedcog-nitive responses and by showing that ad retrieval cuesmay not necessarily increase ad effectiveness. Most im-portant, these different effects of ad retrieval cues areshown to depend on subjects' processing goals at en-coding.The study findings provide support for all three re-search propositions on memory factors in advertising.The findings areconsistent with the first proposition, thecue compatibility principle of advertising, which usesTulving's encoding specificity principle to suggest that

encoding and retrievalfactors interact to influence mem-ory performance for communication effects. Specifi-cally, communication effects from ad exposure (e.g.,cognitive responses) can be recalled only when the typesof retrieval cues present have strong associations inmemory with the type of encoded information. More-over, consistentwith the second proposition,there is alsoevidence that retrieval cues make recall less likely forinformation that is less strongly associated in memory.These inhibition effects depend on the amount of infor-mation in memory. Because ad evaluation subjects didnot critically evaluate the brandclaims, little of this in-formation was available in memory and thus no inhibi-tion effects were observed. Finally, the study findingsare also consistent with the third proposition, that en-coding and retrievalfactors "frame"the process and out-come of consumer brand evaluations. Specifically, thefindings indicate that subjects' processing goals duringad encoding and the type of information provided as aretrievalcue affected (1) the importanceor weight placedon ad-related and brand-relatedcognitive responses inlaterbrand evaluationsand (2) the favorablenessof brandevaluations reached. Much research in decision framing

has considered encoding effects, such as the character-istics of the message information and the person duringinitial processing (e.g., Bettman and Sujan 1987; Gard-ner 1983; MacKenzie 1986; Wright and Rip 1980). Thisstudy shows that retrieval factors can interact with en-coding factors to frame consumer judgments (also seeAlba and Chattopadhyay1986; Biehal and Chakravrati1986; Tybout, Calder, and Sternthal 1981).Accessibilityof communicationeffects appearsto havebeen an importantmediator of ad effectiveness in thisstudy. Parallel treatment effects are observed for the re-called cognitive responses predictedby HI (from the cuecompatibilityprinciple)and the ad and brand udgments.A covariance analysis provides further evidence of theextent of mediation of the cognitive responses measureson brand evaluations (Hastak and Olson 1989). Thisanalysisuses the percentagechange in the omega squaredstatisticas an indicatorof the magnitudeof the mediationattributable o a covariate. The dependentmeasurein theanalysis is brand attitudes, the treatment effect is theplanned comparisons of the ad retrieval cue conditionsused to test H3 and H4, and the covariates are the netvalence measures of the ad and brandreactions used totest H5 and H6. The results indicate that the ad-relatedand brand-related cognitive responses measures me-diated about 40% of the cue effects for brand evaluation

subjects (omega squareddroppedfrom .038 to .023) and66% of the cue effects for ad evaluation subjects (omegasquareddroppedfrom .038 to .013).Cognitive responses appearto have mediated some butnot all of the effects of the ad retrieval cues. Consistentwith this conclusion, as Table 3 shows, the patternofinterceptterms in the regression analysis, which reflectssubjects' brand evaluations when they reportedthat theyrecalled no cognitive responses, closely resembles thepatternof brandevaluations predictedby H3and H4. Asnoted previously, differences in brand evaluations dueto ad retrievalcues may be attributable o recall of othercommunication effects besides recall of specific cogni-tive responses, such as furtherprocessing of the ad fromrecalling its contents or recall of overall evaluations. Theimportantpoint here is that ad retrieval cues were nec-essary for later brand evaluations to be favorable eventhough all subjects had made initial ad or brand evalu-ations at encoding. Without the proper retrieval cues,subjects evidently were unable to access stored com-munication effects sufficiently in this difficult memoryenvironment. As furtherevidence of the role of memoryin this study, note that these judgment effects cannot beattributedto evaluations based on the cue informationalone. Pretests (Keller 1987, 1991a) indicated that brandevaluationsbasedon only the mock packagefrontshowedno difference when the ad retrieval cue was present orabsent. Also, in the present study, the mere presence ofthe brandclaims from the ad as a cue when ad evaluationsubjects made brand evaluations did not produce higherjudgments than were produced when only brand nameand product category were provided as cues.

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

14/17

54 JOURNAL FMARKETINGESEARCH,EBRUARY991Finally,the regressionanalysisalso indicates hat adretrievalues canaffect herelationshipf ad-relatedndbrand-relatedognitive responses with brandevalua-tions. Inparticular,n ad executioncue appearso haveincreasedheweightof ad-relatedognitiveresponsesnevaluations.A brand laimscue, however,does not ap-pearto have affectedthe weightof brand-relatedog-nitiveresponses.Accessibilityfactorsalone cannotac-

countfor theseresults,andsubjects'perceptions f therelevanceor diagnosticityof communication ffects inmemory s suggestedas another mportant xplanatoryfactor BakerandLutz1987;Feldman ndLynch1988).Thus, by affecting accessibilityand diagnosticity,re-trievalcues and processinggoals can determinewhatcommunicationffectsfrommemoryare nput nto eval-uationsand whatweightthese effects receive (see alsoCostleyand Brucks1989).Managerial.Becauseadretrieval ues havenot beenused frequently, t is worthwhile o discuss them in abroadermanagerialontext.Thefindings f thisandotherstudies Keller1987, 1991a)demonstratehatthe use ofadvertisingetrieval ues can improveadvertisingffec-tiveness, an important bjectivegiven the increasinglyclutteredmediaenvironmentndthe needforgreater d-vertisingproductivity.Ad retrieval ues addressa verybasicissue. Thereare numerousmarketing xamplesofconsumersailingto associateadvertisingorrectlywiththepromoted rands r, evenworse,confusing hespon-sorshipof the ad with a competingbrand,particularlythe market eader.Undersuchcircumstances, dvertis-ing "worked"n the sense thatmessageswerecompre-hended, emotionswere felt, and argumentswere ac-cepted,andall of thesecommunicationffectswerestoredin memory.Yetadverising failed"n the sensethat hesecommunicationffects could not be used when a deci-sion was madeabout hebrand.Advertisers ften makedecisionsthatincrease he likelihood hatthe first stepwill occur(encodingandstorageof communication f-fects), but makeit more difficultfor the secondsteptooccur(retrieval f communicationffects).Breaking hrough he clutter o get consumers'atten-tion often causesbrand dentificationo diminish.More-over, consumers-particularlyn low involvementsit-uations-may notprocessads ntermsof specificbrandsbutin termsof general ypesof products. n suchcases,the brandnamemaybe an ineffectivecue and otheradinformationtored n memory,such as a key visual ortagline, may be a better cue to stored communicationeffects (e.g., cognitive responses). One common tacticmarketersemploy to achieve ad and point-of-purchasecongruence is to make the brand name and packageprominent in the ad. With this tactic, however, othercommunication effects potentially affecting brandjudg-ments (e.g., what a product is about and why it shouldbe purchased)are less likely to be created.In otherwords,though consumers are better able to recall the ad andtheirreactions to it, there is less to recall. If ad retrievalcues are used, greaterattentioncan be paid in the ad to

supplyingpersuasivenformation ndcreatingpositiveassociations o consumershave a reasonfor buying abrand.Ad retrieval ues allow for creative reedom nthe ad executionbecausethe brandnameandpackageneed not be the centralelements.In short,these research indingsunderscorehe im-portance f ahighdegreeof compatibilityrcongruencebetweenadvertising ndpoint-of-purchasenformation.Advertisingdid not alwaysaffectbrandevaluationsnthe study.Even subjectswith a goal of evaluating hebrandsneededa reminder s to exactlywhichbrand or-responded o which ad. Moreover,ad evaluation ub-jectsdidnotprovidehigher valuations venwhengivena brand laims cue. Becauseconsumers ftenmayviewads with ad evaluations oals, if theyhave any goal atall, the factthat suchpoint-of-purchaselaims are "dis-counted"and fail to affectevaluationss an importantconcern see alsoHoch andHa 1986).The brand laimscuewaseffectiveonlyfor brand valuationubjectswhohadprocessedheadto formbrand valuations nd thushadattendedo theaccompanyingupportinglaimsandpresumably ould recall that information nd/or theircognitive esponsesotheproductnformationndclaims.Limitationsand Future Research

The research eported erehasmanyof the limitationstypicalof experimentalaboratorytudiesof advertising(see Keller1987 for a discussionof limitationsandfu-tureresearch pportunitiesf a closelyrelatedmethod).Several actors n the experiment,f changed,couldaf-fect how consumers ncode an adand howtheyretrievethe communicationffectsandusethem nmakingbranddecisions.Forexample,in othersettings,brandevalu-ationprocessorsmay be less likely thanad evaluationprocessorso requirean adretrieval ue-in this study,allbrandswereunfamiliar, dswere seenonlyonce, andtherewas muchcompetitive dvertising.However,sub-jectsviewed ads under orcedexposurewith instructionsto examine he entireadin making heir udgments.Pro-cessing goals also weremanipulated irectly n the ex-periment.One importantutureresearchdirection s toexaminecue compatibilityffectsunder owerexposureinvolvement,when naturally ccurringgoals are moreimportantnd ess evaluativeprocessingmayresult.Fu-tureresearch lso shouldexamine he antecedents f adprocessingmorecloselyto determine owdifferent re-ativestrategiesor executionalapproachesranslatentoconsumer rocessing oals.Forexample,adswith a highemotional or affective component (e.g., ads with fear,warmth, or humor appeals) may encourage ad evalua-tions, as opposed to brandevaluations, and thus receivea greaterbenefit from ad execution cues.Other limitations are related to the retrieval condi-tions. For example, only a five-minute delay was im-posed and subjects knew only informationfrom the adabout the brand. Though the delay was long enough toproduce accessibilitydifferences,longerelapsedtime mayproduce different delay effects. It is also of interest to

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

15/17

CUECOMPATIBILITYND FRAMINGN ADVERTISING 55explore cue effects in lower decision involvement situ-ations, when retrieval motivation is more importantandthe attentionalaspects of a cue are relevant. Finally, theverbal and visual propertiesof cues must be consideredmore carefully. In this study, ad execution cues con-tained verbal and visual information but brand claimscues contained only verbal information. The effects ofan ad execution cue with only verbal information (e.g.,the slogan or tagline from an ad) should be explored.For example, a study by the Bruskin and Associatesmarketingresearch firm, as reportedin The Wall StreetJournal, indicated that Gillette's recent ad campaignwithDry Idea deodorant had good recognition (60% of sam-ple) but poor brand identification (4% of sample). Pre-sumably as a consequence, Gillette put the slogan fromthe ad, "Never Let Them See You Sweat," on the frontof the package. Understandingthe costs and benefits ofusing different verbal and visual elements as a cue is ahigh priority.Several methodological areasin the studycould be im-proved. The use of less directive memory probes shouldbe considered. The issue here is to what extent the cog-nitive responses were created during ad exposure or inresponse to the directive probe during the recall task,that is, based on reactions at that time to the generalmemory of the ad. As noted previously (Keller 1987),it can be difficult with retrospective recall protocols todistinguish the two effects, though in either case mem-ory accessibility does have an important role in brandevaluations. Clearly, the framingof brandevaluations ofad andbrandprocessors must be examined more closely,especially in terms of the two key constructs, accessi-bility and diagnosticity,in the Feldmanand Lynch (1988)framework. In this study, regression analyses of recallmeasures were used to infer the weights subjects placedon different information recalled from memory in theirbrandevaluations; more direct processing measures dur-ing branddecisions might be useful. Understandinghowtask factors (e.g., processing goals) and retrieval cuesaffect diagnosticity of communication effects is a par-ticularly importantarea to explore and several ideas areexpressed here.

REFERENCESAlba, JosephW. andAmitavaChattopadhyay1985a), "TheEffects of ContextandPart-Categoryueson the RecallofCompeting Brands," Journal of Marketing Research, 22(August),340-9.

and - (1985b), "TheEffect of Part-ListCuingon AttributeRecall:ProblemFramingat the Point of Re-trieval," in Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 12, Eliz-abethC. Hirschman nd MorrisB. Holbrook,eds. Provo,UT:Association or ConsumerResearch,410-13.and (1986), "SalienceEffects in BrandRe-call," Journal of MarketingResearch, 23 (November), 363-9.Baker,WilliamE. and RichardJ. Lutz (1987), "TheRele-vance-AccessibilityModelof AdvertisingEffectiveness,"n

Nonverbal Communications in Advertising, Sidney Heckerand David W. Stewart,eds. Lexington,MA: LexingtonBooks, 59-84.Berger,Ida E. and AndrewA. Mitchell(1989), "TheEffectof Advertisingon AttitudeAccessibility,AttitudeConfi-dence,and the Attitude-Behaviorelationship,"ournalofConsumerResearch, 16 (September), 269-79.Bettman,JamesR. and MitaSujan 1987), "Effectsof Fram-ing on Evaluation f Comparable ndNoncomparable l-ternativesby Expertand Novice Consumers," ournalofConsumerResearch, 14 (September), 141-54.Biehal, Gabriel and DipankarChakravarti1986), "Con-sumers'Use of Memory ndExternal nformationn Choice:Macro and Micro Perspectives," Journal of Consumer Re-search, 12 (March), 382-405.Bjork,RobertA. (1975), "Short-Termtorage:The OrderedOutputof a CentralProcessor," n Cognitive Theory,F.Restle, R. M. Shiffrin,N. J. Castellan,H. R. Lindeman,and D. B. Pisoni, eds. Hillsdale,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.Burke,Raymond,R. andThomasK. Srull(1988), "Compet-itive InterferencendConsumerMemory or Advertising,"Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (June), 55-68.Calder,BobbyJ., ChesterA. Insko,and Ben Yandell 1974),"TheRelationof CognitiveandMemorialProcesses o Per-suasion n a Simulated uryTrial,"Journalof AppliedSo-cial Psychology, 4 (March), 62-93.Chattopadhyay, mitavaandJosephW. Alba (1988), "TheSituationalmportancef RecallandInferencen ConsumerDecision Making,"Journalof ConsumerResearch, 15 (June),1-12.Cohen, Jacoband PatriciaCohen (1983), AppliedMultipleRegression/Correlation Analysis for the Behaviorial Sci-ences,2nded. Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.Costley, Carolyn ndMerrieBrucks 1989), "SelectiveRecallandInformationUse in ConsumerPreferences,"WorkingPaperSeries#46, Departmentf Marketing,UniversityofArizona.Craik,FergusI. M. (1979), "HumanMemory,"AnnualRe-view of Psychology, 30, 63-102.Sand RobertS. Lockhart1972), "Levelsof Processing:A Frameworkor MemoryResearch,"Journalof VerbalLearning and Verbal Behavior, 11 (4), 671-84.Sand EndelTulving(1975), "Depthof Processingandthe Retentionof Words n EpisodicMemory,"JournalofExperimentalPsychology, 104 (2), 268-94.Edell, Julie A. and Kevin LaneKeller(1989), "TheInfor-mation Processing of CoordinatedMedia Campaigns,"Journal of MarketingResearch, 26 (May), 149-63.Feldman,JackM. andJohnG. Lynch,Jr.(1988), "Self-Gen-eratedValidityandOtherEffectsof Measurementn Belief,Attitude, ntention, ndBehavior," ournalofAppliedPsy-chology,73 (August),421-35.Friestad,Marianand EstherThorson(1990), "Memory orAdvertising: he Effectsof EmotionalResponse,EncodingStrategies, ndRetrievalCues,"workingpaper,Departmentof Marketing,Universityof Oregon.Gardner,MerylP. (1983), "Advertising ffects on AttributesRecalledandCriteriaUsed forBrandEvaluations,"ournalof ConsumerResearch, 10 (December), 310-18.- (1985), "Does AttitudeToward he Ad Affect BrandAttitudeUndera BrandEvaluationSet?" Journalof Mar-keting Research, 22 (May), 192-8.- , AndrewA. Mitchell,andJ. EdwardRusso(1985),

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

16/17

56 JOURNAL F MARKETINGESEARCH,EBRUARY991"LowInvolvementStrategiesor ProcessingAdvertising,"Journal of Advertising, 14 (2), 4-12.Greenwald,AnthonyG. andClarkLeavitt 1984), "AudienceInvolvementn Advertising: ourLevels,"Journalof Con-sumer Research, 11 (June), 581-92.Hastak,ManojandJerryC. Olson(1989), "AssessingheRoleof Brand-RelatedCognitiveResponses as MediatorsofCommunication ffectson CognitiveStructure,"ournalofConsumerResearch, 15 (March), 444-56.Hoch, StephenJ. (1984), "Availability nd InterferencenPredictiveJudgment,"Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10, 649-62.- and Young-WonHa (1986), "ConsumerLearning:Advertisingand the Ambiguityof ProductExperience,"Journal of ConsumerResearch, 13 (September), 221-33.Horton,David L. andCarolB. Mills (1984), "HumanLearn-ing and Memory," Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 361-94.Kahneman,Daniel(1973), Attentionand Effort.EnglewoodCliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall,nc.Keller,KevinLane(1987), "MemoryFactorsn Advertising:TheEffect of AdvertisingRetrievalCues on BrandEvalu-ations,"Journalof ConsumerResearch, 14 (December),316-33.

(1991a), "Memoryand EvaluationEffects in Com-petitive AdvertisingEnvironments,"ournalof ConsumerResearch,17 (March), orthcoming.(1991b), "MemoryRetrievalFactorsandAdvertisingEffectiveness," in Advertising Exposure, Memory, andChoice,AndrewA. Mitchell,ed. Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.Kisielius,Jolitaand BrianSternthal1984), "ExaminingheVividnessControversy:An Availability-Valencenterpre-tation," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12 (March), 418-31.Lavidge,RobertJ. andGaryA. Steiner 1961), "AModelforPredictive Measurements f AdvertisingEffectiveness,"Journal of Marketing, 25 (October), 59-62.Lichtenstein,MerylandThomasK. Srull 1987), "Conceptualand Methodologicalssues in Examining he RelationshipBetweenConsumerMemoryandJudgment,"nPsycholog-ical Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research,andApplications,LindaF. AlwittandAndrewA. Mitchell,eds. Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,113-28.Lingle, John H. and ThomasM. Ostrom 1979), "RetrievalSelectivity n Memory-Based udgments," ournalof Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 37 (February), 180-94.Lutz,RichardJ., ScottB. MacKenzie,andGeorgeE. Belch(1983), "AttitudeToward he Ad as a Mediator f Adver-tising Effectiveness:Determinants nd Consequences,"nAdvances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 10, Richard P. Ba-gozzi and Alice M. Tybout,eds. AnnArbor,MI:Associ-ation for ConsumerResearch,532-9.Lynch,JohnG., Jr., HowardMarmorstein,ndMichael F.Weigold (1988), "Choices From Sets IncludingRemem-beredBrands:Use of RecalledAttributes ndPriorOverallEvaluations," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 15 (Septem-ber), 169-84.MacKenzie,ScottB. (1986), "TheRole of Attention n Me-diating heEffectof Attributemportance,"ournalof Con-sumer Research, 13 (September), 174-95.- (1989), "TheModeratingEffects of MotivationonCentraland PeripheralProcessing," workingpaper, De-partment f Marketing,ndianaUniversity.

and RichardJ. Lutz (1989), "AnEmpiricalExami-nationof the Structural ntecedents f AttitudeToward heAd in anAdvertisingPretestingContext," ournalof Mar-keting, 53 (April), 48-65.Mitchell,AndrewA. (1982), "Modelsof Memory: mplica-tions forMeasuringKnowledgeStructures,"n AdvancesnConsumerResearch,Vol. 8, KentB. Monroe,ed. AnnAr-bor, MI: Association or ConsumerResearch,25-30.- (1986), "TheEffectof VerbalandVisualComponentsof Advertisements n BrandAttitudes nd AttitudeTowardthe Advertisement," Journal of Consumer Research, 13(June),12-24.Neter,JohnandWilliamWasserman1974), AppliedLinearStatistical Methods: Regression, Analysis of Variance, andExperimental Designs. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin,Inc.Nickerson,RaymondS. (1984), "Retrieval nhibitionFromPart-SetCuing:A PersistingEnigma n MemoryResearch,"Memory and Cognition, 12 (November), 531-52.Norman,DonaldA. andDanielG. Bobrow 1975), "OnData-Limited and Resource-Limited rocesses, CognitivePsy-chology,7 (January), 4-64.Park,C. Whanand S. MarkYoung(1986), "ConsumerRe-sponseto TelevisionCommercials: heImpactof Involve-mentandBackgroundMusiconBrandAttitudeFormation,"Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (February), 11-24.Petty, RichardE. andJohn T. Cacioppo 1986), Communi-cation and Persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.RayMichaelL., AlanG. Sawyer,MichaelL. Rothschild, ogerM. Heeler, and EdwardC. Strong,and JeromeB. Reed(1973), "MarketingCommunicationnd the Hierarchy fEffects," in New Models for Mass Communication Re-search, PeterClark,ed. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage Publica-tions, Inc., 147-76.Roediger,HenryL. (1973), "Inhibitionn RecallFromCuingWith Recall Targets," Journal of VerbalLearning and Ver-bal Behavior, 12, 644-57.(1974), "InhibitingEffects of Recall,"MemoryandCognition, 2, 261-9.

Rossiter,JohnR. and LarryPercy (1987), AdvertisingandPromotion Management. New York: McGraw-Hill BookCompany.Rundus,Dewey(1973), "NegativeEffectsof UsingListItemsas Recall Cues," Journal of Verbal Learning and VerbalBehavior, 12, 43-50.Srull,ThomasK. andRobertS. Wyer,Jr.(1986), "TheRoleof Chronic ndTemporaryGoals n SocialInformationro-cessing," in Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, R. M.Sorrentino ndE. Tory Higgins,eds. New York:GuilfordPress,503-49.Tulving,Endel(1974), "Cue-Dependent orgetting,"Ameri-can Scientist, 62 (1), 74-82.(1979), "RelationBetweenEncodingSpecificityandLevels of Processing," in Levels of Processing in HumanMemory,LairdS. Cermakand FergusI. M. Craik,eds.Hillsdale,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,405-27.- andZenaPearlstone1966), "AvailabilityVersusAc-cessibilityof Informationn Memory or Words,"Journalof Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 381-91.- andJosephPsotka 1971), "Retroactivenhibition nFree Recall: Inaccessibilityof InformationAvailable inMemory Store," Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87(1), 1-8.Sand Donald M. Thomson (1971), "Retrieval Processes

8/3/2019 Keller Cue

17/17

CUECOMPATIBILITYND FRAMINGN ADVERTISING 57in RecognitionMemory:Effectsof AssociativeContext,"Journalof Experimental sychology,87 (1), 116-24.and (1973), "EncodingSpecificityand Re-trievalProcesses n EpisodicMemory,"PsychologicalRe-view, 80, 352-73.Tybout,AliceM., BobbyJ. Calder, ndBrianSternthal1981),"Using nformation-Processingheory o Design Marketing

Strategies," Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February),73-9.Wright, Peter L. and Peter Rip (1980), "Product Class Ad-vertising Effects on First-Time Buyers' Decision Strate-gies," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 7 (September), 176-89.

ReprintNo. JMR281103

AMERICANMARKETINGSSOCIATIONREPRINTANDPERMISSION OLICIESANDPROCEDURES ORJOURNALARTICLESTheAmericanMarketingssociations eageroserve ou nthesharingf thevaluablenformationoundn AMA'sournalrticles.REPRINTSIf youwish o orderREPRINTSf anyarticle,write o theAmericanMarketingssociation, eprints epartment,50S. Wacker rive,Chicago,IL60606.Call 312)648-0536or Fax 312) 993-7540.Thepricesbelowapply o each itleordered.Multipleitlesmaybecombinedoreach heminimum rder mountf $15.00.

i ?:?:-:?:?~-~?~?:?~-:-~?:?~?~?~?~?~?~?~?:?~?~?~?~?~?:?~?.;~?~?:~:?~?~?:~""'-':-~ :?~?:?~S?:r:2,?~'=-:.:.f~?~?;s~ ~ .......-.~ ~ ~Tftf:.xt ??. ?. ~Z 2.~ ~j~itP~ ~ i-: ~u~~ss~~?;?~,?~.?-?,?.?-.?,?,?~,=?~.?,?zzz.???.? ???????~zr???? ~?~ 2~.zz. " .-ic?--~2,2.?3?3LCL?~?~?-.?.??Zt.?.?.?.?~L?.?.??.?~?.?.?..L?~?.?.??.?.?-.?.L?~???????-.?~?~?~??Each eproductionillbeprovided ithanattachedover,andreproducedn 20# mattepaper tock.Ordersmustbeprepaidby checkor creditcard.NOREFUNDSOREXCHANGES.

REPRINT RICESminimumrders $15.00)1-14 reproductionsf thesamearticle r anassortment $1.50eachof articles.15-99 reproductionsf thesane article $1.25each100-500 reproductionsfthesamearticle $1.00each>500 reproductionsfthesamearticle callforquoteALL PRICES NCLUDE HIPPING NDHANDLING HARGES

Also,a singlecopyreprintranorder f less than50 copiesmaybe obtainedromUniversityMicrofilmsntemational,00 N. ZeebRoad,AmnnArbor,MI 48106.Articles repriced repaidt$10.75plus$2.25 oreachadditionalopyof thesamearticle.Thosewhohavea standingccountwithUMIpay$8.75perarticle lus$2.25 or eachadditionalopyof thesamearticle.Completessuesareobtainablet$45.00each.PERMISSIONSAMAwouldbeproudo grantPERMISSIONORTHEREPRODUCITONf copyrightedaterials. oobtain ermissiontoreproduceultipleopies romAMApublications,ontactheAmericanMarketingssociation,ermissionsepartmentUnderhe fairuse'provisionf theCopyrightaw, ffective anuary,978,anyonemaymake photocopy f acopyrightedwork or their wnusewithouteeking ermission.To secure ermissionoreproducene'sownworksnquantity,lease ontacthePermissionsepartment.

AN1ERICANA4IRKETINGIOCIATJON