Легкость визуализации потребления и негативный эффект рекламных призывов к генерации образов использования продукта
Петрова П., Чалдини Р.

Аннотация

В исследованиях и рекламных кампаниях подразумевается, что призывы к мысленной визуализации использования продукта существенно влияют на формирование покупательских предпочтений. В процессе трех исследований проанализировано значение генерации образов для потребительского восприятия и выявлены условия, при которых такие призывы не дают обычно наблюдаемого позитивного эффекта.

Содержание

Легкость генерации образов потребления;

Исследование 1: отношение к бренду и покупательские намерения;

Исследование 2: легкость генерации образов, связанных с потреблением;

Исследование 3: выбор продукта (большая опора на собственный опыт);

Ключевые слова: визуализация использования продукта, рекламный призыв, образное мышление потребителя, субъективный опыт
Журнал: «Реклама. Теория и практика» — №5, 2006 (© Издательский дом Гребенников)
Объем в страницах: 17.
Кол-во знаков: около 36,332.

1. Babin L. A., Burns A. C. (1997). Effects of Print Ad Pictures and Copy Containing Instructions to Imagine on Mental Imagery That Mediates Attitudes, Journal of Advertising, 26(3), pp. 33–44.

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

3. Bone P. F. , Ellen P. S. (1992). The Generation and Consequences of Communication-Evoked Imagery. Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), pp. 93–103.

4. Carroll J. S. (1978). The Effect of Imagining an Event on Expectations for the Event: An Interpretation in Terms of the Availability Heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(1), pp. 88–96.

5. Childers T. L., Houston M. J., Heckler S. E. (1985). Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual versus Verbal Information Processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (September), pp. 125–134.

6. Escalas J. E. (2004). Imagine Yourself in the Product. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), pp. 37–48.

7. Fenigstein A., Scheier M. F. , Buss A. H. (1975). Public and Private Self-Consciousness: Assessment and Theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), pp. 522–527.

8. Green M. C., Brock T. C. (2000). The Role of Transportation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), pp. 701–721.

9. Gregory L. W. , Cialdini R. B., Carpenter K. M. (1982). Self-Relevant Scenarios as Mediators of Likelihood Estimates and Compliance: Does Imagining Make It So? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(1), pp. 89–99.

10. Keller P. A. and Block L. G. (1997). Vividness Effects: A Resource-Matching Perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (December), pp. 295–304.

11. Keller P. A. and McGill A. L. (1994). Differences in the Relative Influence of Product Attributes under Alternative Processing Conditions: Attribute Importance versus Attribute Ease of Imagebility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(1), pp. 29–49.

12. Kieras D. (1978). Beyond Pictures and Words: Alternative Information Processing Models for Imagery Effects in Verbal Memory. Psychological Bulletin, 85(3), pp. 532–544.

13. Kisielius J., Sternthal B. (1984). Detecting and Explaining Vividness Effects in Attitudinal Judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (February), pp. 54–64.

14. Kisielius J. (1986). Examining the Vividness Controversy: An Availability-Valence Interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (March), pp. 418–431.

15. Lee A. Y., Labroo A. (2004). The Effect of Conceptual and Perceptual Fluency on Brand Evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), pp. 151–165.

16. MacInnis D., Price L. (1987). The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and Extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), pp. 473–491.

17. Marks D. F. (1972). Individual Differences in the Vividness of Visual Imagery and Their Effect on Function. In The Function and Nature of Imagery, ed. Peter W. Sheehan, New York: Academic Press, pp. 83–107.

18. Marks D. F. (1973). Visual Imagery Differences in the Recall of Pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64(1), pp. 17–24.

19. McGill A. L., Anand P. (1989). The Effect of Vivid Attributes on the Evaluation of Alternatives: The Role of Differential Attention and Cognitive Elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (September), pp. 188–196.

20. Nisbett R., Ross L. (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

21. Peraccio L. A., Meyers-Levy J. (1997). Evaluating Persuasion-Enhancing Techniques from a Resource-Matching Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September), pp. 178–191. Петрова П. К., Чалдини Р. Б.

22. Pham M. T., Meyvis T., Zhou R. (2001). Beyond the Obvious: Chronic Vividness of Imagery and the Use of Information in Decision-Making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(2), pp. 226–253.

23. Rook D. W. (1987). The Buying Impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (September), pp. 189–199.

24. Schlosser A. E. (2003). Experiencing Products in a Virtual World: The Role of Goals and Imagery in Influencing Attitudes versus Intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (September), pp. 184–196.

25. Schwarz N. (2004). Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), pp. 332–348.

26. Sherman S., Cialdini R. B., Schwartzman D. F. , Reynolds K. D. (1985). Imagining Can Heighten or Lower the Perceived Likelihood of Contracting a Disease: The Mediating Effect of Ease of Imagery. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(1), pp. 118–127.

27. Shiv B., Huber J. (2000). The Impact of Anticipating Satisfaction on Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), pp. 202–216.

28. Tybout A. M., Sternthal B., Malaviya P. , Bakamitsos G. A., Se-Bum Park (2005). Information Accessibility as a Moderator of Judgments: The Role of Content versus Retrieval Ease. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June), pp. 76–85.

29. Wanke M., Bohner G., Jurkowitsch A. (1997). There Are Many Reasons to Drive a BMW: Does Imagined Ease of Argument Generation Influence Attitudes? Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September), pp. 170–177.

Петрова Петя К.

Докторант факультета психологии Университета штата Аризона, США (г. Темпе).

Чалдини Роберт Б.

Доктор наук, профессор факультета психологии Университета штата Аризона, США (г. Темпе).