See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288284979

The impact of affect on memory of advertising

Article  in  Journal of Advertising Research · March 1999

CITATIONS READS

89 2,839

2 authors, including:

Tim Ambler
London Business School
105 PUBLICATIONS   6,121 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

None. Now retired but thanks for asking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tim Ambler on 24 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Impact of Affect on Memory
of Advertising

The impact of affect on memory has been considered by both advertising and
neuroscience research. As part of testing a MAC (Memory zi Affect Z) Cognition) model
of the intermediate effects of advertising, four hypotheses were developed: ads with
higher affective content would have higher recognition and recall, and subjects treated
with p-blockers (Propranolol), which interact with those brain regions known to
mediate affect, would have lower recognition and recall than those treated with
placebos. The hypotheses are tested and broadly supported. This exploratory
research, taken in conjunction with previous work, indicates some ways in which
affect enhances advertising effectiveness. We conclude with directions for further
research and testing the MAC model.

TIM AMBLER WE KNOW THAT EFFECTIVE advertising must change
London Business long-term memory because of the interval be-
School tween ad exposure and its impact on behavior.
\
How that memory change is achieved, and how to
measure it, are less understood. Advertisers have
long used recognition and recall measures though
they have been challenged (Gibson, 1983; Lodish
et al., 1995; Percy and Rossiter, 1997).
The mainstream of-advertising research rests on
cognition as the primary factor of memory change.
Advertising has been thought to need a unique
selling proposition, new news, a logical associa-
tion, or to remind consumers of memories already
in place. The smaller and more recent stream fo-
cuses on affect, such as liking the ad (Biel, 1990;
TOM BURNE
Haley and Baidinger, 1991; Joyce, 1991).
The Open University
This research used p-blockers experimentally to
test the impact of affect on the formation of ad
memories, as measured by recall and recognition.
The authors Ibaiik especial!^
The ingestion of |3-blockers inhibits the experience
Professor Stiivii Rofc mni Dr.
of emotion though they do not remove the sub- state) from feelings (mental state), whereas Cham-
Sliiart Fifhcr nf Opai Unitvr-
ject's ability to recognize emotion in the stimulus bers Dictionary (1993) defines affect as "the emo-
si/y and fliejbur anoniiinous
(Greenblatt et al., 1993; CahiU et al., 1994). They tion that lies behind action" with the implication
sponsors of this research. Also
have no impact on attention nor cognitive
thanks go to Profrssors Patrick
faculties.
Barn'isc, Knit Craysou, ISrucc
ad memory (recall and recognition). After discus-
sion of the results, implications, and limitations,
we conclude with suggestions for further testing
of the model.
THEORY DEVELOPMENT
Before memory issues, we re\ ieu' the impact of the
ad on how we think and feel. Much of the history
of advertising research has been preoccupied with
cognitive, as distinct from affective, brain pro-
cesses. Advertising was seen as providing infor-
mation and reasons to buy and/or prefer the
brand advertised. More recently, the sptitlight has
shifted to include affect as has neuroscience:
"Neuroscientists have, in modem times, been es-
pecially concerned with the neural basis of cttgni-
tive processes such as perception and memor\'.
They have for the most part ignored the brain's
role in emotion" (LeDoux, 1994).
Damasio (1994) distinguishes emotions (body
that emotion is a mental state. To a\ oid these dis-
tinctions, this paper uses emotion, affect, and feel-

Hatdie, CilMcWitliam. HK edi-

tor, mid rei'ieiceri for comments
I'll drafts and encouraging ihe
project.
E-mail: TAmbkr®lbs.ac.uk
tom.bu Tne®bbfrc.ac. uk
This paper reports on a small experiment set in ing interchangeably but in contrast with cogniticm
a wider theoretical context of how advertising (knowledge and thinking).
works. A model of the cognitive, affective, and The advertising literature, has been dominated
memory effects of advertising is drawn from the by "persuasive hierarchy" or "hierarchy of effects"
neuroscience and marketing literature. As a partial models (Hoibrook, 1986; for reviews, see
probe of this model, we empirically test four hy- O'Shaughnessy, 1992; Vakratsas and Ambler,
potheses dealing with the interaction of affect with 1999). In these, advertising is mentally processed

March . April 1 9 9 9 JDIIRnriL OF HDUERTISlOe RESERRCH 2 5

AD MEMORY
sequentially in a series of stages, typically
C 0 A 1) B (cognition 0 affect 0 behavior).
Each is a gate, e.g., an ad rejected by ra-
tional analysis will not reach the next
stage.
In contrast, some theories purely focus
on the affective responses, familiarity, and
feelings that the ads evoke (see, for ex-
ample, Alwitt and Leavitt, 1985; Aaker,
Stayman, and Hagerty, 1986; Peterson,
Hoyer, and Wilson, 1986), Consumers
form their preferences based on feelings,
such as liking, induced by the ad or famil-
iarity triggered by mere exposure to the
ad, rather than product/brand attribute
information (Zajonc, 1980; Mitchell and
Olson, 1981; Shimp, 1981; Zajonc and
Markus, 1982; Srull, 1983, 1990; Stuart,
Shimp, and Engel, 1987; Batra and Ray,
1986; Janisewski and Warlop, 1993).
Moving from advertising inputs to be-
havior, Damasio (1994) suggested that de-
cision-making is primarily associated with
the part of the brain that deals with feel-
Frontal tobes
^^
Ventro-mcdial _,
frontal lobes
Hypo
Amygdala
Rgure 1 Brain Locations
Kiimkl. Schuiirlz. nmt /.ssi'/J, 1991
2 6 JOURnRL Of
ings and social skills—affect, not cogni- versity of California, Irvine. P-blockers,
tion. Patients with lesions in the ventro- conventionally used as antidepressants or
medial frontal lobes (VMFL—see Figure stress relievers, reduce affective responses
1) did not experience the appropriate feel- to stimuli (Greenblatt et al., 1993) and also
ings to the stimuli. As a result of prior selectively impaired long-term (one week)
conditioning they knew what feelings memory for emotionally arousing short
they should have had but were not moved stories (Cahill et al., 1994). CahiU et al.
in those ways. His findings are supported (1995) reported a patient (B. P.), with nor-
by Adolphs et al. (1994) and Phelps and mal cognitive functions but damage to the
Anderson (1997). amygdaloid complex', who did not have
Memory makes the connection between the enhanced memory for the emotional
advertising inputs and behavior: there part of the story that normal controls had.
seems reason to believe that affect, rather Memory for the nonemotional part of the
than cognition, may be the key. Brain lo- story was normal. McGaugh, Cahili, and
cations are relevant to this paper only to Roozendaal (1996) concluded: "The find-
the extent of the closeness of the relation- ings of our studies using human subjects
ship between memory and affect in adver- are consistent with those of our other
tising, relative to cognition, and then de- studies using animal subjects in indicating
cision-making. If Damasio is correct that that fnemory storage is influenced by ac-
decision-making is primarily affective, tivation of p-adrenergic systems and the
then those aspects of advertising and amygdala. Considered together, these
memory deserve more attention. findings provide strong evidence support-
The main research, on which we build, ing the hypothesis that the amygdala, es-
is from CahiU and associates at the Uni- pecially the basolateral nucleus, plays a
c^tral role in modulating the consolida-
tion of long-term memory of emotionally
arousing experiences." In the final and
_,, Neo-cortex
crucial study, Cahill et ai. (1996) showed
two videos, each with 12 film clips, to
eight subjects. The more emotionally
arousing films were significantly {p < 0.05)
.better recalled than the emotionally neu-
tral videos three weeks after viewing. Fur-
thermore, the increased recall for the emo-
tionally arousing videos was correlated
with increased activation of the right
amygdala, as indicated by positron emis-
sion tomography (PET),
Memory, in the advertising literature,
has been tested with recognition and re-
call measures though their value has been
subject to debate. Day-after recall (DAR)
may penalize affective ads as DAR is cog-
nitively biased (Zielske, 1982) or, con-
'Vic amygdala, or amygdaloid complex, functions as the
gateway to and from affect'av memory.
March . Apm 1999
 AD MEMORY

versely, emotive ads are better recalled
(Thorson and Friestad, 1989). Dubow
(1994) proposed that recall has a thresh-
old, nonlinear relationship with sales, i.e.,
recall beyond the threshold or additional
recall yields no benefit. It is thus necessary
but not sufficient. He suggested that recall
be rehabilitated as an indicator of ad in-
trusiveness. Recall and recognition,
though correlated, are not unidimensional
{Finn, 1992; du Plessis, 1994). Recognition
is more sensitive and discriminating than
recall and diminishes with time (Singh,
Rothschild, and Churchill, 1988).
A complicating factor in advertising re-
search has been the endemic bias toward
the cognitive (Vakratsas and Ambler,
1999). Most of the processes of briefing
agencies, researching consumers, and ana-
lyzing the reports are cognitively ex-
pressed—each stage of which is cognitive
and thereby tends to reduce the relative
appearance of affective aspects.
Holbrook, O'Shaughnessy, and Bell
(1990) integrated competing marketing
schools of thought into "An Integrative
Overview of the Consumption Experi-
ence" with three types of component: rea-
sons (thoughts, intention), emotions
(wants, appreciation), and memory (habit,
• |3-blocker intervention is likely to re-
move that advantage of affective ads.
Using the marketing and neuroscience
literature cited above, we propose a model
(Figure 2) which emphasizes memory (us-
age experience, habit, brand and advertis-
ing memories) as not only the key influ-
ence on buying beha\'ior but the temporal
link between ad input and buying occa-
sions. Within that, affect dominates cogni-
tion. In other words, affect may be enough
to modify memory and thence behavior,
but cognition comes into play when affect
is inconclusive. Modifying the earlier no-
tation, this can be expressed as M D A D C
(or "MAC"). Memory, in flie broad sense
used here, sets the context for, decision
making. Within memory, the area of the
brain concerned with (social) feelings is
involved, but thinking (cognition) is not
always essential (mere exposure theories).
At the input stage, ads fight for atten-
tion with other stimuli and competitive
ads. Filters ensure that most potential per-
ceptions do not engage our mental facul-
A MAC Model of Advertising
ties. Those that penietrate at all trigger
memory. "Filters" account for the thresh-
old effects measured by DAR (Dubow,
1994). Within tbat, the effecti\'eness of the
advertising grows where affect is aroused
and, then, cumulatively, cognition. The
nesting shown in Figure 2 implies sigrufi-
cance, not sequence. Attitudes and beliefs
(memory) influence all stages of inbound
processing; and information, supporting
beliefs, is more readily accepted and re-
merfibered (for o\'er\'iews of the attitudes
literature see, inter alios, Johnson, 1991;
Eagly and Chaiken, 1993; Olson and
Zanna, 1993).
This model does not distinguish the
various stages of memory beyond short
and long term. In practice, for advertising'
effects to survive, i.e., reach long-term
memory, several processing stages are re-
quired (Rose, 1993).
Both before and after the advertising
stimulus, behavior moderates perceptual
filters (buying a car makes one more likely
to notice an ad for that car). Behavior is
also processed in short-term memory and

reinforcement, experience). Usage rein-

Ads
forced the emotional components which, Memory
niters

in turn, acted on the rational and habit Affect

Competitors
components which drove acquisition. At Cognition
for Attention Long
the same time, thoughts and wants,
looped with emotions, also moderated Term
reasons. Memory

From the literature we conclude:

Memory
Decision
f
Stimulus
i Affect
Decision-making may be more linked Ct^ltlon
with affect than cognition. Behavior
Affective ads are likely to be better re- New
called. . Information
Better memory is likely to correlate, at
least up to Dubow's threshold, with ad
effectiveness. Figure 2 A Tentative Model of Advertising Effects

April 1999 JOURfllll Of 27

AD MEMORY
thereby modifies brand equity (brand
memories).
A partial test of this model considers
just the relationship between ad affect and
ad memory: the linkage between affect
and recognition-and-recall. In focusing on
affect, we are not suggesting that cogni-
tive appeals are unimportant, merely that
the literature indicates that affect plays a
key role in memory formation, and ad rec-
ognition and recall are long-used mea-
sures of that.
- These advertising and neuroscience
streams of literature, and our model de-
rived therefrom, together provide four hy-
potheses:
HI: Advertisements with high affective
components will have better reaiU fol-
lowing a single presentation.
H2: Advertisements with high affective
components will have better recogni-
tion following a single presentation.
H3: Pharmacological treatments O-
blockers), applied before viewing,
will reduce the differences between
affective and cognitive advertisement
recall.
H4: Pharmacological treatments (p-
blockers), applied before viewing,
will reduce the differences between
affective and cognitive advertisement
recognition.
METHODOLOGY
The experiment had a two (low/high af-
fect ads) by two (placebo/p blocker) de-
sign. We tested affective ad content as the
independent variable on recall and recog-
nition, moderated by the pharmacological
intervention. Subjects viewed a video con-
sisting of a 24-minute university course,
referred to as the background material,
and 6 minutes of advertisements sepa-
rated into two blocks of four TV ads. The
background material concerned the ecol-
ogy of rain forests and was similar in style
28 or RBIieRTISIRG RESERRCR March • Apni 1 9 9 9
and level of entertainment to an educa-
tional TV program. The ad blocks, at ap-
proximately 8 to 11 and 19 to 22 minutes,
resembled regular commercial breaks.
Four well-known (U. K.) brands, all fre-
quently purchased goods and services,
were selected on a convenience basis: a
fast-food restaurant (FFR), a retail bank, a
beer, and an oil company. Two ads were
acquired for each brand. To minimize any
primacy/recency effects, two versions of
the video were made with the pairs
reversed.
The ads were selected from a range of
possibles by an expert panel and pre-
screened by a 20-person (16 female and 4
male, ages 25 to 53) control group which
received no pharmacological intervention
(controls). The controls tested the protocol
(no changes were needed) and also served
to increase the number of non p blocker
subjects.
Each subject viewed one version of the
video assigned by a random design. Be-
fore viewing the video (Day 1) the subjects
were asked to complete a medical and de-
mographic questionnaire. The various
questionnaires used are consolidated as
an Appendix. Eighteen sif>jects (twelve
female and six mal^ same age range) each
received either 40 mg. of Propranolot dis-
solved with black currant juice or a pla-
cebo (black currant juice only) 40 minutes
before watching the video. Subjects, ran-
domly assigned, were unaware of which
treatment they had received and of the
purpose of the experiment. They were in-
structed not to make written notes but to
relax and watch the video as if they were
watching television in their own homes.
We considered the ethical issues im-
plicit in this methodology in discussion
with a medical doctor. Given the full in-
formation provided to volunteers, pre-
screening for medical problems (Section A
of the Appendix) and our recommenda-
tion that they consult their own medical
practitioner before deciding to take part,
ethical considerations had been covered.
Recall,' recognition, and emotion mea-
sures were obtained as follows. Immedi-
ately after viewing the video, the subjects
were asked a series o^«questions (Day 1)
about the ads and the background mate-
rial. They were required to list the brands
and goods advertised and the story line of
any four of the advertisements shown (out
of a possible eight), describing the main
points shown in the background material.
One recall measure was the number of A
and C ads which made up the four cor-
rectly identified. The Objects were not
given any feedback on their performance.
Twenty-four hours later (Day 2) the
subjects were shown 1(K) still images taken
from the video they had seen on Day 1.
The images were 12 x 16 cm., consisted of
256 colors, and were displayed on a com-
puter monitor. Ten images were selected
from each of the eight ads, and twenty
images were selected from the back-
ground material. Each image was dis-
played for 1 second on the monitor, in a
random order, with a fixed inter-stimulus
interval of 10 for image recognition and 20
seconds for image free-recall. Half of the
images were shown with 10-second inter-
vals (5 from each of the ads and 10 from
the background^ material) and the subjects
were asked to indicate, by ticking a box on
the questionnaire, where they had seen
the image (either in the background ma-
terial or from one of the four companies).
Subjects then recorded what happened in
the story line of the ad immediately after
each of the remaining images, shown at
20-second intervals. The maximum score
for image recognition and free-recall was
5 for each ad.
After subjects had viewed all images,
they were asked to rate how emotional
tjiey felt after viewing each ad. Different
subjects respond differently to the same
ads, at least so far as affect is concerned

(Moore et al., 1995). The subjects, them-
selves, thus categorized the ads into those
that were more or less emotional, rather
than allowing other subjects to allocate the
ads. The subject's predisposition for each
of the brands was also recorded. (See the
Appendix for questionnaires and scales.)
In order to assess longer term recall, the
subjects were sent surprise questionnaires
by mail approximately 3 to 4 weeks after
they had viewed the video, "Day 28 re-
call." The instrument was identical to the
Day 1 questionnaire and the measure of
recall used was the number of A and C
ads, out of four, correctly identified. In all,
10 subjects did not return the Day-28
questionnaire, leaving 14 controls, 7 pla-
cebo and 7 3 blocker subjects.
: the relative strength of A ads versus C.
RESULTS
The ads were divided into two groups of
four according to their emotional-
ity/affect rating by the controls and pla-
TABLE X
Responses {±SEM) of Subjects to Advertisements Differing in
Affective Content
Cognitive Ads Affective Ads df (paired Mests)
Ojnti^s/Ptacebo
'••
Emotion (1-7)* 1.8 ± 0.2 3.8 ± 0.3
• "
...}^^I^.^^9!}S^....^:^.^^:^. 3.4 ± 0 . 1
Image free-recall (1-5) 1.0 ± 0 . 1
Day 1 recall 1.4 ± 0 . 1
Day 28 recall 1.4 ± 0.1
^^^°!?!
Emotion (1-7)" .?:;?..T.P.i^...-.
Image recognition (1-5) 3.1 ± 0.2
'''imagefree-recall (1-5)^ 1-1 ± 9;1
Day 1 recall 2 ± 0.2
....R^y 28 recall 2 ±0.3
'Vie numbers in parentheses indicate the ranges of the measurement satlts.
. March • April 1 9 9 9 JOURRRL OF ROenSIRB RCSERRCN 2 9
AD MEMORY
cebo subjects. On this basis, the two FFR, C images for both image recognition (p <
Oil 1, and Bank 1 were allocated to the .001) and image free-recall (p < .02) b\' the
cognitive (G) and the other four to the af- combined controls and placebo group,
fective (A) group. thus supporting H2,
In view of the small sample sizes, the This research design raises the possibil-
results for the controls have been merged ity that responses to the Day 1 question-
with those from the placebo group to gi\'e naire biased responses on Day 28. There
a broader statistical base for the non p is correlation between Day 1 and 28 recaU
blocker group. Therefore, the top half of ('' = 0.52). Neuroscience would expect
Table 1 provides the results for HI and such a link since long-term memory is ro-
H2. Note that Day 1 and Day 28 recall bust. We note the potentialforbias under
scores each add to 4: we scored which, of limitations.
the first four recalled, belong to each The p biocker results are presented in
group. Limiting recall in this way could be thelowerhalf of Table 1 which shows that
thought to bias results toward top of mind the placebo group recalled, both for Day 1
but has the advantage that the stronger and Day 28, nearly twice the A ads rela-
memories are more likely to be recorded. tive to C whereas the Propranolol group
We are concerned not with total recall but recalled A and C equally. The interaction
is significant atp = .036. This supports H3
Within this, HI is supported by the sig- which requires recall of the A ads to be
nificantly (p < .001) greater recall of A ads. significantly different from the cogniHve
Table 1 also shows significantly more A ads for the placebo group but not for the
still images being correctly identified than Propranolol group.
\ H4- proposed that the difference be-
tween the image recognition of A and C
• ads would be reduced by the use of Pro-
pranoioi. Although, as shown by Table i.
^^^^ proved to be the case (3.4 - 2.8 = 0.6
reduced to 3.3 - 3.1 = 0.2), and therefore
t-Value H4 was technically supported, it was for
p * e wrong reason- Most of the reduction
"'^^ '^"^ ^" " ''''^'' recognition of the C
• ads by the Propranolol group for which
28 8.1 0.001 ^ , . \^ , , ,
we have no explanation. The lack of sup-
28 4.0 0.001 p^.^ for the spirit of H4 may be due to the
1.4 ± 0 . 1 28 2.6 0,02 small sample size or less affect may up-
2.6 ± 0 . 1 28 4.9 0.001 weight cognitive factors.
2.6 ± 0.1 20 4.8 0.001
DISCUSSION AND
MANAGERiALiMPUCATIONS
.?.:?..* .9..?. ^.....H. .9..9.9.^ 1"hese results for emoHon appear to be
3.3 ± 0.2 8 1.3 0.13 consistent with the neuroscience literature
^ l"3 ± 0.2 8 0.9 0.38 *^^* ^^^^^' enhances long-term memory' of
- the ad. We did not test the effect of affec-
2 ± 0.2 8 0 1
•• tive advertising or cognitive appeals on
2 ±0.3 6 0 1 ^^,,^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ attitudes, still less the
further effect on behavior. Thus the ex-
 AD MEMORY
. . . affect Is sufficiently Important to merit ad agency
briefing, careful copy<4e«ting, and tracking as a specific
component of advertising. Not ail ads woHc the same
way, and the same ads wori( differentiy with different
peopie.
periment tests only a small part of the
MAC model. Nevertheless it highlights
the significance of affect in the way adver-
tising works.
The Day 1 results confirmed that the af-
fective ads were better recalled than the
cognitive. It is possible that the responses
on Day 1 influenced those three to four
weeks later, but given the importance of
longer term effects, we included the re-
sults as part of the explorative nature of
this research.
Recognition was significantly stronger
for affective ads for controls and the pla-
cebo group (H2), but the result for Pro-
pranolol (H4) was not definitive. Singh
et al. (1988) suggested that recognition
was a more sensitive discriminator than
recall, but this was not supported by these
results.
The main implication for managers is
that affect is sufficiently important to
merit ad agency briefing, careful copy-
testing, and tracking as a specific compo-
nent of advertising. Not all ads work the
same way, and the same ads work differ-
ently with different people. We are not
suggesting that affect should be the major,
or even a major, component of all adver-
tising nor that cognitive components are
unimportant. Furthermore, memory, af-
fect, and cognition are broad labels for a
variety of separate brain functions. Nev-
ertheless, the advertising development
process, where quantitative analysis may
bias participants toward the rational.
30 OF HDUERTISIIIG RESEflRCH March . April 1 9 9 9
needs to give careful consideration to how
ads are held, post exposure, in memory
and the rote of affect in achieving that. The
endemic nature of cognitive bias was
noted in the marketing literature review
above.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Advertising inputs and consumer pur-
chasing or other brand behavior are not
usually simultaneous: long-term brand,
and perhaps advertising, memories con-
nect the two. Future research needs to test
both the input (advertising) and output
(behavioral) stages of the MAC model.
For the input stage, following Roths-
child et al. (1988), modem brain-imaging
techniques would provide greater depth
of understanding than simply 3-bIocking
emotions. Affect covers a broad range of
emotions, feelings, and moods, each of
which may be positive or negative, stron-
ger or weaker. There are biases inherent in
respondents cognitively reporting affec-
tive experience (Wilson et al., 1989). Brain
imaging would, for example, help identify
where and when these biases are taking
place. Fried et al. (1997), for example,
found that the brain was recording stimuli
accurately even when the subjects were
denying them.
We also need greater understanding of
the relationships between emotion, per-
suasion, involvement, and salience. The
confounding discussion above indicates
that ads used for this type of research
should be thoroughly screened to match
stimuli across the truly independent di-
mensions. We need to know, therefore,
the extent to which persuasion and in-
volvement correlate universally, or at
least generally, with emotion and to
which salience is independent. This re-
search provided clues, but no more than
that, of such interactions.
The output stage is more difficult. Test-
ing intermediate effects would be likely to
bias behavior, and vice versa, and con-
sumer choices requiring recall (e.g., when
telephoning an order) may have different
mechanisms to those only requiring rec-
ognition (e.g., when prompted by super-
market displays). Further work is also
needed to relate advertising with brand
memory changes. As Nedungadi (1990)
points out, "in order to anticipate the ef-
fects of external brand primes on choice
probabilities, it is necessary to have a de-
tailed understanding of both retrieval pro-
cesses and the organization of brands in
memory." One possibility, following
brain-imaging work, is "double split chan-
nels." Conventional split-TV-cable chan-
nels and single-source data would be used
to track ad inputs and behayior compara-
bly to Jones (1995) for half the subjects.
The intermediate effects would be mea-
sured for the other (matched) half.
LIMITATIONS
Limitations of the work presented here in-
clude:
• Small sample sizes and laboratory con-
ditions: While conventionally sized for
work in the natural sciences, the phar-
macological treatments inhibit wide-
scale testing. This study is exploratory.
• Narrow methodology for screening and
selecting ads: The possibility exists that
some ad familiarity and/or unequal ad
quality (effectiveness) may have biased
results.

• Subjects were both male and female.
Samples were not demographically nor
psychographically (lifestyle and person-
ahty) matched.
• Day 1 questions may have influenced
Day 28 recall.
We do not consider that these limitations
significantly affected our findings. The
methodology was pre-post comparisons
with the same subjects. The Propranolol
subjects significantly (p < 0.01) recognized
the emotionality so that the division of ads
was valid for them. Taken in isolation, we
would not consider these results defini-
tive. On the other hand, they are consis-
tent with both the neuroscience (especially
Cahill et al.) and marketing literatures. In
short, ad recall and recognition, which are
widely accepted as necessary, but not suf-
ficient, indicators of advertising effective-
ness, are impacted by the emotion in those
ads.
CONCLUSIONS
If the use of cognitive processes to mea-
sure recall discriminates against affect
(Zielske, 1982), then this clear impact of
emotion on recall is the more significant.
One attraction of using pharmacological
intervention (Propranolol) to block emo-
tions is that their effect is unambiguous.
There has been growing interest in the
role of affect in advertising since Zajonc
(1980), which may be accelerated by the
advances in neuroscience. Cartesian as-
sumptions about consumers as rational in-
formation processors seem to be increas-
ingly under challenge. At the same time,
we must be careful not to dismiss the im-
portance of cognition. We need to inte-
grate memory, affective, and cognitive
processes into a single research stream,
and the MAC model is offered in that
context. (E©
AD MEMORY
APPENDIX
CONSOUDATED QUESTIONNAIRES
A. Medical questionnaire
1. We would not like to administer to any pregnant individuals; are you likely to be
pregnant soon or are you pregnant now?
2. Do you suffer from asthma?
3. Do you suffer from any adverse drug reactions?
4. Do you suffer from any allergies? '•
5. Have you ever suffered from heart disease?
6. Would you be willing to take part in the study if you did not have to take Propranolol?
B. Demographic questionnaire
1. What was your age on
2. Are you male or female?
3. What hand to you usually write with?
4. Is English your first language?
5. What is your nationality?
6. Do you drink alcohol regularly (more than 9 drinks a week)?
7. Do you smoke regularly?
8. Have you ever owned a car?
9. Have you ever owned a house?
10. Are you currently employed?
11. What is your highest academic qualification?
12. How many years have you spent studying at a tertiary institution?
13. Do you have any visual impairments?
14. Do you have any auditor^' impairments?
.1 " -
C. Preiiminary questionnaire
1\ Please indicate whether the following companies/categories are familiar to you and
whether you have seen them in print (such as in a magazine) or on television or video.
D. Day 1 questionnaire (aiso: Day 28 questionnaire)
1. What were the companies/organizations advertising their products?
2, What brands were advertised?
3, Write down the story (order of events) of any four advertisements that were in the
video presentation. Write about three to four sentences for each advertisement,
4. In a paragraph or so, describe the themes and the main points of the research carried
out in the main body of the video presentation.
March • April 1 9 9 9 JDURIIHL OF HDUERTISIRG RESERRCH 3 i
AD MEMORY

APPENDIX
TIM AMBLER Is a Senior Fellow at London Business
(Continued) ' School. His executive level introduction to marketing.

Marketing from Advertising to Zen. was published in

E. Day 2 questionnaire
the Rnancfal Times Guide series. His researcd

interests Include measuring mat1<eting performance,

1. Where have you seen this image before? how advertising works, and relationship marketing. He
2. What happened immediately after this image was shown in the video? has recently published in the Journal of Marketing,

the Journal of Marketing Research, and the

F. Follow up questions • tr)temational Journal of Research in Marketing.

He was previously Joint Managing Director.

1. Had you seen any of the material from the video prior to watching it? If so, please Intemational Distillers and Vintners, and originally
indicate your level of certainty on a scale of 0 (never seen before) to 5 (definitely seen qualified as a Chartered Accountant with Peat,
before). Marwick. Mitchell and Co.

2. Please indicate how emotional you felt after watching each component of the video on
a scale of 1 (not emotional) to 7 (highly emotional). TOM BURNE works at the Babraham Institute. He

attended the University of New England .in ^mldale.

G. Htoasures of persuasion, involvement, salience, and predisposition j Australia, where he completed a first class honors

degree in Rural Science. After obtaining a University

Please select your response to the following questions from the list of answers provided. Fellowship and completing a Doctor of Philosophy in

Physiology, he then took up a post doctoral research

1. What impressions did you get about the brand? fellowship with Professor Steven Rose at tfie Open

University. UK. His research interests are broad,

(1) It really stood out as a high quality brand.
focusing mainly on neuroscience and behavior, in
(2) It stood out as being quite different from other brands.
which the majority of his publications can be found.
(3) It was not very different, but it did stand out a bit.
(4) It was much the same as most other brands and didn't stand out very much.
(5) It was the sort of brand you didn't notice and didn't stand out at all.
2. How much did you enjoy the advertisement? REFERENCES
(1) I watched it very closely as it was very appealing advertising.
(2) I watched it quite closely, because it was more appealing than other ads.
AAKER, DAVID A., DOUGLAS M. STAVMAN, and
(3) I watched it quite closely, although it had no more appeal than other advertising.
MICHAEL R. HACERrv. "Warmth in Advertis-
(4) I didn't watch it very closely, because it was less appealing than other advertising.
ing: Measurement, Impact and Sequence Ef-
(5) I made a point of not watching it, because it was not an appealing ad.
fects." journal of Consumer Research 12, 4
3. What impact did the advertisement have on you?
(1986): 365-81.
(1) It really stood out as different advertising.
(2) It stood out as being quite different from other advertising.
ALWITT, LI>JDA F., and ANDREW A. MircHELL.
(3) It was not very different, but it did stand out a bit.
(4) It was much the same as most other advertising and didn't stand out very much. "Introduction." In Psychological Processes and

(5) It was the sort of advertising you didn't notice and didn't stand out at all. Advertising Effects, Linda F. Alwitt and An-

4. How did you feel about the brand before watching the \'ideo? J drew A. Mitchell, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,
(1) It's the brand I prefer and I wouldn't really consider anything else. * 1985.
(2) It's one of the main brands I'd consider along with others.
(3) It's one I'd consider equally along with others. ADOLPHS, R., D.'TRANEL, HANNAH DAMASIO,

(4) It's not the first brand I'd think of, but 1 might consider it. and ANTONIO R. DAMASIO, "Impaired recogni-
(5) I wouldn't' really think of it. tion of emotion in facial expressions foUowing
(6) I would definitely not consider it at all. bilateral damage to the human amygdala."
, (7) I am not familiar with that brand. Nature 372, 6507 (1994): 669-72.

32 QF RDUEHTISinG RESEHHCH March • April 1 9 9 9


BATRA, RAJEVH, and MICHAEL L. RAY. "Affec-
tive Responses Mediating Acceptance of Ad-
vertising." journal of Consumer Research 13, 2
(1986): 234-t9.
BiEL, ALEXANDER L. "Love the Ad. Buy the
Product? Why Liking the Ad\ ertisement and
Preferring the Brand Aren't Strange Bedfel-
lows After All." Admap. September 26, 1990.
CAHILL, LARRY, BRUCE PRINS, MICHAEL WEBER,
and JAMES L. MCGAUGH. "P-Adrenergic activa-
tion and memory for emotional e\'ents." Na-
ture 371, 6499 (1994): 702-704.
, RALF BABINSKY, HA>JS J. MARKOWITSCH,
and JAMES L. MCGAUGH. "The amygdala and
emotional memory." Nature 377, 6547 (1995):
295-96. ;
, RICHARD J. HAIER, JAMES FALLON,
MICHAEL T, ALKIRE, CHEUK TANG, DAVID
KEATOR, JOSEPH WU, and JAMES L. MCGAUGH.
"Amygdala activity at enccsling correlated
with long-term, free-recalt of emotional infor-
mation." Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science USA 93,15 (1996): 8016-21.
CHILDERS, TERRY L., and MiCHArL ). HOUSTON.
"Conditions for a Picture-Superiority Effect on
Consumer Memory." journal of Consumer Ke-
s^nrdi 11, 2 (1984): 643-54. ^ \ "
X •••
DAMASIO, ANTONIO R. Descartes' Error: Emotion,
Reason and the Human Brain. London: Paper-
mac (Macmillan), 1994.
DuBOW, JOEL S. "Point of View: Recall Revis-
ited: Recall Redux." journal of Advertising Re-
search 34, 3 (1994): 92-106. . D. Hoyer, and William R. Wilson, eds. Lex-
DU PLESSIS, ERIK. "Recognition versus Recall."
journal of Advertising Research 34, 3 (1994): 75- HOLBROOK, MORRIS, B., JOHN O'SHAUGHNESSY,
91. • ' ^.
EAGLY, A. H., and S. CHAIKEN. Tlie Psychology
of Attitudes. Ft Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace )o-
vanovich, 1993.
FRIED, ITZHAK, KATHERINE A. MACDCI\ALD, and
CHARLES L: WILSON. "Single Neuron Activity
in Human Hippocampus and Amygdala dur-
ing Recognition of Faces and Objects." Neuron
18, 5 (1997): 753-65.
GIBSON, LARRI' D. "Not Recall." journal of Ad-
vertising Research 23, 1 (1983): 39-16.
GREENBLATT, D. )., j . M. SCAVONE, J. S. HAR-
MATZ, N. ENGELHARDT", and .R. L SHADLR. "Cog-
nitive effects of beta-adrenergic antagonists
after single doses—pharmacokinetics and
pharmacodynamics of propranoioi, atenolot,
lorazepam and placebo." Clinical Pharmacology
and Therapeutics 53, 5 (1993): 577-84.
GREWAL, DHRLV, SUKLMAR KA\ ANOOR, EDWARD
F. FERN, CAROLYN Ccie^TLEV, and JAMES BAR.\ES.
"Comparative Versus Noncomparative Adver-
tising: A Meta-Analysis." lournal of Marketing
61, 4 (1997): 1-15.
1., and
"The ARF Copy Research Validity Project."
Journal of Advertising Research 31, 2 (1991): 11-
,32.
HAMAN\, S. B., L. CAHILL, and L. R. Sc
"Emotional perception and memory in amne-
sia." Neurophysiology 11, 1 (1997); 104-13.
HOLBRtXiK, MORRIS B. "Emotion in the Con-
sumption Experience: Toward a New Model
of the Human Consumer." In The Role of Af-
fect in Consumer Bchni'ior: Emerging Theories
and Applications. Robert A. Peterson, Wayne
ington, MA: Lexington Books, 1986.
and STEPHEN BEI L. "Actions and Reactions in
the Consumption Experience: The Comple-
mentary Roles of Reasons and Eqiotions in
March . April 1 9 9 9 JOURRRL OFflDUERTISIR6RESEDRCIJ 3 3
AD MEMORY
Consumer Beha\ ior." In Research in Consumer
Behavior. Stamford, CT: )A1 Press, 1990.
JANISZEWSKI, CHRIS, and LUK WARLOP. "The
Influence of Classical Conditioning Proce-
dures on Subsequent Attention to the Condi-
tioned Brand." journal of Consumer Research 20,
2 (1993): 171-89.
JOHNSON, BLAIR T. "insights About Attitudes:
Meta-analytic Perspectives." journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology 17, 3 (1991): 289-
99.
JONES, JOHN P. "Advertising: Strong Force or
Weak Force? Two \ iews an ocean apart." In-
ternational journal of Advertising 9, 3 (1990):
233-46.
. When Ads Work. New York: Lexington
Books, 1995.
JOYCE, TIMOIHY. "Models of the Advertising
Process?" Marketing and Research Today 19
(1991): 205-13.
KANDEL, ERIC R., JAMES H . SCHWARTZ, and
THOMAS M. JESSELL, eds. PrincipJes of Neural
Science. Non^ alk, CT: Appleton and t^nge,
1991.
LEDOLX, JOSFPH E. "Emotion, Memor\' and the
Brain." Scientific American, June 1994.
LooiSH, LEONARD M., MAGID ABRAHAM, STLART
KALMENSON, JEANNE LIVELSBERGER, BETH LLBET-
KiN, BRUCE RICHAR[»ON, and MARY ELLEN
STE\ ENS. "How Advertising Works: A Meta-
Analysis of 389 Real World Split Cable TV
Advertising Experiments." Journal of Marketing
Research 32, 2 (1995): 125-39.
MCGALGH, JAMES L., LARR'I CAHILL, and
BENNO ROOZENDAAL. "invoKement of the
amygdala in memory storage: Interaction with
other brain s^'stems." Proceedings of the Na-
AD MEMORY
tional Academy of Science USA 93, 24 (19%):
13508-14.
MALONEY, JOHN C. "Consumer Psychology's
Potential Contribution to Social Science." In
Emotion in Advertising. Stuart J. Agres, Julie A.
Edell, and Tony M. Dubitsky, eds. Westport,
CT: Quorum Books, 1990.
MITCHELL, ANDREW A., and JERRY C. OLSON.
"Are Product Beliefs the Only Mediator of
Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?" jour-
ml of Marketing Research 18, 3 (1981); 318-32.
MOORE, DAVID J., W[LLiA.y D. HARRIS, and
HofiG C. CHEN. "Affect Intensit)': An Indi-
vidual Difference Response to Advertising
Appeals." journal of Consumer Research 22, 2
(1995): 154-64.
NEDLNGADI, PRAKASH. "Recall and Consumer
Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice with-
out Altering Brand Evaluations." journal of
Consumer Research 17, 3 (1990): 263-76.
OLSON, JAMES M., and MARK P. ZANNA. "Atti-
tudes and Attitude Change." Annual Review of
Psychology 44 (1993): 117-54.
Y, JOHN. Explaining Buyer Behav-
ior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
PERCY, LARRY, and JOHN R. RossriER. "A
Theory-Based Approach to Pretesting Adver-
tising." In Measuring Advertising Effectiveness.
WUiiam D. Wells, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,
1997.
PETERSON, ROBERT A., WAYNE D . HOYER, and
WILLIAM R. WILSON. "Reflections on the Role
of Affect in CcMisumer Behavior." In The Role
of Affect in Consumer Behavior: Emerging Theo-
3 4 JOURRRL OF ROOERTISIRB March . April 1 9 9 9
ries and Applications. Robert A. Peterson,
Wajme D. Hoyer, and William R. Wilson, eds.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1986.
PHELPS, ELIZABETH A., and ADAM K. ANDER-
SON. "Emotional memory: What does the
amygdala do?" Current Biology 7, 5 (1997):
R311-R314.
ROSE, STEVEN P. R. The Making of Memory. Lon-
don: Bantam Books, 1993.
ROTHSCHILD, MICHAEL L., and YONG J. HYUN.
"Predicting Memory for Components of TV
Commercials from EEG." }ournal of Consumer
Research 16, 4 (1990): 472-78.
, BYRON REEVES, ESTHER THORSON, and
ROBERT GOLDSTEIN. "Hemispherically Lateral-
ized EEG as a Response to Television Com-
mercials." journal {^Consumer Research 15, 2
(1988): 185-98.
SHIMP, TERENCE A. "Attitude Toward the Ad
as a Mediator of Consumer Brand Choice."
journal of Advertising 10, 2 (1981): 9-15.
SiNGH, SURENDEW N . , MiCHAEL L. ROTHSCHlLD,
and GILBERT A. CHURCHILL, JR. "Recognition
Versus Recall as Measures of Television Com-
mercial Forgetting." journal of Marketing Re-
search 25, 1 (1988): 72-80.
SROLL, THOMAS K. "Affect and Memory: The
impact of affective reactions to advertising on
the representation of product information in
memory." In Advances in Consumer Research.
R. P. Bagozzi and A. Tybout, eds. Ann Arbor,
MI: Association for Consumer Research, 1983.
. "Individual Responses to Advertising:
Mood and Its Effects from an Information
. Processing Perspective." In Emotion in Adver-
tising. Stuart J. Agres, Julie A. Edell, and Tony
M. Dubitsky, eds, Westport, CT: Quorum,
1990.
STUART, ELNORA W., TERENCE A. SHIMP, and
RANTJALL W. ENGEL. "Classical Conditioning
of Consumer Attitudes: Four Experiments in
an Advertising Context." journal of Consumer
Research 14, 3 (1987): 334-49.
THORSON, ESTHER, and M. FRIESTAD. "The Ef-
fects of Emotion on Episodic Memory for
Television Commercials." In Cognitive and Af-
fective Responses to Advertising. P. Cafferata
and A. Tybout, eds. New York: Lexington
Books, 1988.
VAKRATSAS, DEMETRIOS, and TIM AMBLER.
"How Advertising Works: What Do We Real-
ly Know?" journal of Marketing 63,1 (1999):
26-43.
WELSON, TIMOTHY D., DANA S. DUNN, DOLORES
KRAFT, and EJOLGLAS J. LISLE. "Introspection,
Attitude Change, and Attitude-Behavior Con-
sistency: The disruptive effects of explaining
why we feel the way we do." Advances in Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, 22, Leonard
Berkowitz, ed. New York: Academic Press,
1989.
ZAIONC, ROBERT B. "Feeling and Thinking."
American Psychologist 35, 2 (1980): 151-75.
, and HAZEL MARKUS. "Affective and •
Cognitive Factors in Preferences." journal of
Consumer Research 9, 2 (1982): 123-31.
ZiELSKE, HUBERT A. "Does Day-After-Recall
Penalize 'Feeling' Ads?" journal of Advertising
Research 22,1 (1982): 19-22.
View publication stats