Attitude toward brand: an integrative look at mediators and moderators.

Najmi, Manoochehr ; Atefi, Yashar ; Mirbagheri, Seyed Alireza 等

INTRODUCTION

Delving into the processes through which advertising efforts stimulate consumers to buy a particular brand has been an area of interest among marketing researchers for a long time (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). In this way, attitude, the cynosure of social psychologists, has been a cornerstone of consumer research as well. In most studies in this area, attitudes have served as dependent variables and the impact of different ads, their repetition, and other factors on attitude formation and change have been studied (Berger & Mitchell, 1989). Cognitive perspective of attitude was the dominant viewpoint in the years when consumer behavior was a fledgling body of knowledge, owing much to Fishbeinian theories and multi-attribute models (e.g. Fishbein, 1963). However, the pioneering works of Mitchell and Olson (1981) and others (such as Zajonc, 1980; Shimp, 1981) gave rise to a new stream of research in which alternative paths to persuasion were explored. The influential Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983) and the series of studies by Lutz, MacKenzie, and Belch (1983), MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986), and MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) further expanded our knowledge of attitude formation and change to include peripheral paths, especially through attitude toward the ad. While some studies were carried out to probe into the nature of this new construct (e.g. Gresham & Shimp, 1985), purely affective influences of advertisements on attitudes also came to light (Batra & Ray, 1986; Edell & Burke, 1987).

However, attitude researchers have focused on selected areas developing the now voluminous attitude literature in different and even disconnected directions. Along with a need for integration, current theories include relationships between some constructs that do not effectively explain the nature of effects or neglect the role of moderator variables. Argument quality, for example, has been noted in many studies (e.g. Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983; Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995) in terms of its direct effect on brand attitudes; however the mediating role of brand cognitions has not received worthy attention. The moderating role of irrelevant thoughts on Arg-[C.sub.b] relationship and the importance of availability of cognitive resources in moderating that relationship are also less accentuated. Our study aims at providing an integrative framework that encompasses both cognitive and affective determinants of brand attitudes in the field of advertising effectiveness. This framework also includes the different processes and constructs that become activated as a result of emotional versus informational ads, a comparison neglected in previous studies. We developed our framework from a more detailed model which we propose later in the paper and provided several propositions for future validation.

In the following sections of this paper, first, we will discuss attitude formation and change by distinguishing between attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand. Antecedents and moderators of these two constructs will be explained in depth. Subsequently, we will discuss the relationship between attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand, and finally, we will propose an integrative model uncovering the processes which underlie the formation and change of these two constructs.

ATTITUDE FORMATION AND CHANGE

There are two major perspectives with regards to attitude structure. First, we can view attitudes as evaluative responses influenced merely by beliefs (e.g., Wyer, 1970). This view of attitude reached its pinnacle with the famous expectancy-value models of which theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) is of paramount importance. The well-known formula (A=[summation] [b.sub.i][e.sub.i]) indicates that the attitude is the sum of all evaluative beliefs regarding the attitude object where [b.sub.i] is the consumer's belief defined as the extent to which the object possesses attribute i, and [e.sub.i] is the evaluation of attribute i.

Second, the three-component model of attitudes asserts that along with beliefs (cognitive component), affective and behavioral components also underlie attitudes (Maio, Esses, Arnold, & Olson, 2004). For example, one might form a positive attitude towards classic music, in that one believes that listening to this type of music will enhance one's appreciation and understanding of music (cognitive part), it reminds one's fond memories of the past (affective part), and he/she remembers that he/she was an avid fan of (or at least used to listen to) classic music in his/her youth (behavioral part).

Moreover, researchers discriminate between consumers' response to marketing stimuli such as advertisement and their response to the brand (Kirmani & Campbell, 2009). Shimp (1981) posits that audiences of a particular ad have different degrees of involvement with advertisement based on the degree of attention and the processing strategy. Therefore, four types of attitude formation possibly arise from processing of an ad (Shimp, 1981): (1) if both brand and non-brand information of an ad are processed, both attitude toward the ad ([A.sub.ad]) and attitude toward the brand ([A.sub.b]) will be formed; (2) if merely brand information of an ad is processed, only [A.sub.b], and (3) if merely non-brand information of an ad is processed, only [A.sub.ad] will be shaped; (4) if neither brand information nor non-brand information is processed, no attitude will be formed.

Two kinds of appeals can be used to form the content of an ad message (Keller, 2001; Belch & Belch, 2004): (1) Rational appeals which focus on tangible aspects of brand such as physical product attributes and benefits; (2) Emotional appeals which emphasize social and psychological needs of customers and also focus on intangible aspects of product such as user imagery, usage imagery, and brand personality. Creating favorable attitudes toward the brand ([A.sub.b]) can be done by designing ads that influence beliefs and evaluations regarding the desired outcomes of consuming the brand (Shimp, 1981). Formation of favorable attitude toward the brand increases the probability of trial or repetition of purchasing the advertised brand (Shimp, 1981).

The objective of advertising is not to exert influence on consumers' beliefs toward the attributes or benefits of a specific brand per se. Instead, marketers are more fervently trying to create a favorable attitude toward the advertisement in order to induce a positive feeling in the consumers after processing the ad (Shimp, 1981). It is widely accepted that feelings evoked by marketing communications (e.g. advertisements) have important effects on consumers' response to the brand (Kirmani & Campbell, 2009). We can, accordingly, assume that the audience exposed to an advertising message builds up an attitude toward the ad ([A.sub.ad]) which influences attitude toward the brand ([A.sub.ab]), purchase intentions (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983), and consumers' buying behavior (Gresham & Shimp, 1985).

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD

"Attitude toward the ad" can be defined as the set of thoughts and feelings consumers have about an ad (Kirmani & Campbell, 2009); however, some researchers define it as consumer's affective responses (such as likable-dislikable, favorable-unfavorable, and interesting-uninteresting) to the ad itself (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986) during a particular exposure time (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Also, two different aspects of attitude toward the ad, cognitive and emotional, can be recognized (Shimp, 1981).

At least four potential antecedents of attitude toward the ad ([A.sub.ad]) have been identified (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983): (1) ad cognitions ([C.sub.ad]), (2) attitude toward the advertiser ([A.sub.adv]), (3) the recipient's mood during the exposure, and (4) peripheral cues (PC) (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995). It was also postulated in previous studies that attitude toward advertising in general ([A.sub.ag]) exerts an automatic effect on [A.sub.ad] (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983), whereas empirical data showed that [A.sub.ag] has no effect on [A.sub.ad] (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Contrary to ad cognitions which affect [A.sub.ad] via central processing route and require the consumer's elaborated cognitive processing of the ad, the three remaining antecedents of [A.sub.ad] (i.e. [A.sub.av], PC, and mood) affect [A.sub.ad] via peripheral processing route by the simple transfer of affect instead of elaborated cognitive processing (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

AD COGNITIONS

It is widely accepted that ad cognitions, also called ad perceptions, have a direct positive effect on attitude toward the ad (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; Brown & Stayman, Antecedents and Consequences of Attitude toward the Ad: A Meta-analysis, 1992). Ad cognitions ([C.sub.ad]) can be defined as "a multidimensional array of consumer perceptions of the advertising stimulus" (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989, p. 51)--i.e. the audiences' beliefs and perceptions of the ad (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983).

The determining factors of ad cognitions are (1) the ad characteristics, (2) the consumer's attitude toward the advertiser (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989), and (3) conscious processing of executional elements (Shimp, 1981). Moreover, it is observed that consumer's attitude toward the advertiser is a positive, strong, and reliable mediator of ad cognitions (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). This attitudinal determinant of ad cognitions implies that affect can potentially influence the perceptual process (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989).

After being exposed to an advertisement, audiences form a perception about weakness or strength of arguments presented in the ad; accordingly, quality of message argument (Arg) is one example of ad cognitions. Lord et al revealed that the quality of message arguments (Arg) exerts significant impact on both consumers' [A.sub.ad] and [A.sub.b] (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995). As the opportunity for processing the ad message is enhanced, the impact of message arguments (Arg) on [A.sub.ad] is considerably strengthened (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995). Also it is discovered that informative contents of an SMS ad (i.e. rational appeals), focusing on factual information such as product features and benefits, exert positive influence on consumers' attitude toward the ad (Drossos, Giaglis, Lekakos, Kokkinaki, & Stavraki, 2007; Tsang, Ho, & Liang, 2004; Mirbagheri, 2010).

Another example of ad cognitions is ad credibility which received some attention in many previous studies (e.g. Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983). Ad credibility affects weakly both [A.sub.ad] and [A.sub.b] (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Lutz and his colleagues define ad credibility as the extent to which recipients perceive brand-related claims in the ad to be honest and convincing (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). It is hypothesized that consumers evaluate credibility of a given ad based on three independent determinants (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989): perceived ad claim discrepancy, advertiser credibility, and credibility of advertising in general. In addition, an empirical study revealed that credibility of advertising in general has also an indirect influence on ad credibility through the advertiser credibility (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989) Perceived ad claim discrepancy is defined as the extent to which brand-related claims in the ad are in conflict with the consumer's existing brand perceptions (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983). The more ad claims are discrepant, the more ad credibility will hurt. Advertiser credibility is the degree to which a consumer perceives that the sponsor of the ad is truthful or honest (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). This construct is based on customer's prior information and experience often across numerous different ads (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Credibility of advertising "indicates consumers' perceptions of the truthfulness and believability of advertising in general, not simply the particular ad in question" (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989, p. 51). In addition to these three determinants, medium type is another determinant of ad credibility. Interactive media (such as Internet and mobile) can facilitate the trust building through mutual communication, while one-way traditional advertising media have limited capacity to reinforce the consumers' trust (Stewart, Pavlou, & Ward, 2002).

In general, it is proposed that there is a considerable positive relationship between [C.sub.ad] and [A.sub.ad] (P1); in addition, message argument (Arg) and ad credibility are examples of ad cognitions that have a direct influence on [A.sub.ad] (P2 & P3 respectively). Opportunity for processing the ad message moderates the Arg- [A.sub.ad] relationship. The higher the opportunity to process, the stronger the Arg- [A.sub.ad] relationship (P2a).

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ADVERTISER

Although some theoretical studies claim that attitude toward the advertiser ([A.sub.adv]) is a weak mediator of attitude toward the ad ([A.sub.ad]) (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989), some empirical studies hold the view that [A.sub.adv] is a strong predictor of [A.sub.ad] (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). We propose that the relationship between [A.sub.adv] and [A.sub.ad] is significant enough to be considered (P4). Attitude toward the advertiser ([A.sub.adv]) can be defined as recipient's acquired tendency to respond favorably (or unfavorably) and approvingly (or disapprovingly) to the advertiser company (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Attitude toward the advertiser influences [A.sub.ad] roughly automatically and with almost no cognitive thought (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Consumers' perceptions of the advertiser, formed based on their previous knowledge and experience of the advertiser, are the underlying sources of [A.sub.adv] (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983).

Recipient's mood

Mood is defined as "the consumer's affective state at the time of exposure to the ad stimulus" (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983, p. 538; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989, p. 54). These positive or negative feelings transfer to [A.sub.ad] (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983). It is also revealed that one in a good mood has a tendency to not only interpret a stimulus optimistically but also respond positively to it; in addition, it is more probable that one in a good mood retrieves positive than negative thoughts and feelings from memory (Shimp, 1981). A well designed advertisement can also put a recipient in a good mood, which can affect his decision for choosing the advertised brand in the future (Shimp, 1981).As a result, we propose that recipient's mood has a direct and positive effect on [A.sub.ad] (P5).

The three determinants of mood are ad characteristics, individual differences, and context of reception (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Individual differences refer to the consumer's tendency to evaluate situations positively or negatively (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Individual differences also refer to differences in consumers' fields of interest. For instance, it is revealed that sending SMS ads relevant to consumers' fields of interest can have a significant influence on attitude toward SMS ad (Xu, Liao, & Li, 2008; Mirbagheri, 2010).

Moreover, the context of reception includes all the factors external to the communication that influence marketing communication effectiveness (Keller, 2001). Context of reception is comprised of several dimensions such as (1) time, (2) location and condition of physical surroundings (e.g. lighting, clatter, and temperature), and (3) task, that is, what the consumer is doing while receiving communication message (Park, Shenoy, & Salvendy, 2008). For example, if SMS ad is sent at the appropriate time and location such as a lunch suggestion while recipient is near a restaurant at noon, it will affect recipient's attitude positively (Carroll, Barnes, Scornavacca, & Fletcher, 2007; Xu, Liao, & Li, 2008; Mirbagheri, 2010). Two remaining dimensions of context are (4) surrounding ad clutters and (5) the nature of the exposure to ads--i.e. consumer-unsolicited exposure (e.g. TV commercials) versus consumer-solicited exposure (for information search) (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983). If audiences of a mass medium (e.g. TV, radio, and magazine) are exposed to ads that are inconsistent and incompatible with their interests and predilections, these ads may spoil the recipient's mood (Stewart, Pavlou, & Ward, 2002).

Peripheral cues

An attitude toward an ad may develop merely because the ad evokes an emotional response, such as a feeling of love, joy, nostalgia, or sorrow, without any conscious processing of executional elements (Shimp, 1981). Peripheral cues (PC) are sources of information unrelated to the actual message--e.g. the source attractiveness (based on physical appearance, personality, or social status) or context of reception (Solomon, 2009). Peripheral cues (PC) exert a significant direct impact on consumers' [A.sub.ad] and [A.sub.b] (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995). As a case in point, consumers may like a specific advertisement because it uses an attractive endorser (e.g. a celebrity), a humorous appeal (Shimp, 1981), or likable background music (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995). Also, entertainments such as funny contents and interactive games sent via an SMS ad have influence on [A.sub.ad] (Tsang, Ho, & Liang, 2004; Xu, Liao, & Li, 2008; Mirbagheri, 2010).

Furthermore, as the opportunity for processing the ad message is enhanced, the impact of peripheral cues (PC) on [A.sub.ad] is considerably weakened (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995). Increasing the number of exposures to an ad (e.g. from one to three exposures) can enhance the opportunity for processing and learning the ad message (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995). It is thus proposed that peripheral cues (PC) significantly affect [A.sub.ad] (P6); moreover, the higher the opportunity to process, the weaker the PC- [A.sub.ad] relationship (P6a).

Attitude toward the Brand

Attitude toward the Brand ([A.sub.b]) can be defined as audiences' affective reaction to the advertised brand (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983). That is, to what extent audiences feel purchasing the brand is good-bad, favorable-unfavorable, and wise-foolish (Lutz, MacKenzie,

& Belch, 1983). In contrast with this affective definition of attitude, Martin Fishbein and his colleagues have given a more important role to cognitive processes in attitude formation and change, while by cognition, belief structures are meant (Fishbein M. , An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object, 1963). So attitude toward the brand is mediated by recipients' brand related cognitive structures (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; Gresham & Shimp, 1985; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Brand Cognitions ([C.sub.b]) can be defined as the audiences' perceptions of the advertized brand (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983)--e.g. perceived brand attributes and benefits.

In addition to cognition, affect is also another element widely studied in terms of its effect on attitude. Affect can be defined as "evaluative reactions that can be embodied" (Clore & Schnall, 2005, p. 438). There has long been a debate over the way attitudes are influenced by affect (Bodur, Brinberg, & Coupey, 2000; Homer, 2006). While some theorists held cognitive structure fully responsible for attitude formation and change and considered the influence of affect on attitude to be mediated by cognitive structure, others have posited that affect has also a direct independent influence on attitude (Bodur, Brinberg, & Coupey, 2000).

Furthermore, the way affect impacts attitude is said to stem from the focus of attitude whether attitude is toward an action or it is toward an object (Clore & Schnall, 2005). If an object is the center of evaluation, then the positive or negative affect can be transferred to the object; however, when the focus is on tasks and actions, affect influences information processing approach (Clore & Schnall, 2005). We proceed by shedding more light on determinants of these two elements ([C.sub.b] and affect).

BRAND COGNITIONS

Since the beginning of attitude research, cognitive processes have been at the heart of the focus (Wegener & Carlston, 2005). Three types of cognitions have been recognized and studied so far in attitude research in terms of their role in attitude formation and change: brand cognitions, ad cognitions, and irrelevant thoughts (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; Gresham & Shimp, 1985; Homer, 1990; Coulter & Punj, 2007). We defined brand and ad cognitions earlier. We define irrelevant (idiosyncratic) thoughts as non-message or non-brand-related thoughts generated in response to a persuasive message (Coulter & Punj, 2007).

As previously defined, brand cognitions are the set of thoughts and salient beliefs regarding the advertised brand. Persuasive messages prompt the receiver to relate the new information to the existing brand-related information, knowledge, attitude, etc., and this juxtaposition generates brand cognitions (Greenwald, 1968). The net result of these brand cognitions determines the new attitude toward the brand. Another perspective (information integration theory (see Frey & Kinnear, 1980)) proposes that new information about a brand is integrated with those brand beliefs already held in memory after attributes of that brand have been evaluated and weighted. This view appears like a variation of the popular expectancy-value model of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) discussed earlier. In the expectancy-value framework, brand cognitions consist of beliefs that the considered brand possesses certain attributes ([b.sub.i]) and the values attached to those attributes (ei) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The sum of these cognitions shapes the overall attitude toward the object. Thus, to change the attitude towards a brand, either the beliefs of brand attribute possession should be altered, or the values attached to those attributes should be modified (Lutz, 1975). While applying the first strategy seems straightforward (e.g. Volvo is safe), the second strategy requires more endeavor. For instance, drawing more attention to certain attributes has proved beneficial for increasing the perceived value ("importance") of those attributes (MacKenzie, 1986; MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989). Moreover, MacKenzie (1986) found that ad characteristics (concrete versus abstract copy) affect the amount of attention absorbed to the advertisement. Thus, we propose that attention drawn to certain features mediates brand cognitions via increasing the value attached to those attributes (P7).

Surprisingly, the [C.sub.b]--[A.sub.b] relationship has shown to be weak or unsubstantiated in a number of studies (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983), especially when [A.sub.ad] was included in the model (Batra & Ray, 1986). Some explanations of this poor relation allude to flaws in the research design (Homer, 1990) and some indicate that the measurement of [C.sub.b] maybe a possible source (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). But the most compelling explanation is the domination of peripheral route through [A.sub.ad] over the central route through [C.sub.b] (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986; Rose, Miniard, & Bhatla, 1990). There is ample literature providing comparison between two different paths to information processing--central, systematic, effortful, etc versus peripheral, heuristic, less effortful, etc (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986; Chen, Duckworth, & Chaiken, 1999) much of which stem from the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983) and Dual Mediation Hypothesis (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). The gist of all these models is that in the absence of motivation to process or low involvement condition, brand attitude is more likely to be formed or changed by heuristic processing and [A.sub.ad] is more predictive of [A.sub.b]. Most researchers define consumer's involvement as consumer's motivation to process the message (Celsi & Olson, 1988). The strong relationship between [A.sub.ad] and [A.sub.b] in the studies which [C.sub.b]--[A.sub.b] was not supported indicates that peripheral processing was in charge of attitude change (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Even those studies demonstrating supportive evidence for [C.sub.b]--[A.sub.b] lacked peripheral cues such as music and were processed with high cognitive involvement (Rose, Miniard, & Bhatla, 1990). In brief, though less pronounced in emotional ad settings, the [C.sub.b]--[A.sub.b] relation cannot be neglected especially in informational contexts where cognitions exert their impact on [A.sub.b]. It is thus proposed that the [C.sub.b]--[A.sub.b] relation is considerable (P8).

Argument quality is another concept worth of further attention. We defined message argument as one of the components of [C.sub.ad]. Strong argument (Arg) in an ad has shown to have positive effect on [A.sub.b] under both high and low involvement conditions (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). Moreover, influence of Arg on [A.sub.b] becomes significantly stronger by moving from low to high involvement conditions (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983; Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995). However, there are some ideas that lead us to revise the aforementioned hypotheses.

The first important point here is that in neither of these studies [C.sub.b] is present in the model--herein, we restate the definition of brand cognition as the set of perceptions and brand-related thoughts (including attribute beliefs and value--the cognitive elements of Fishbein formula). In addition, consumers hold previously formed cognitions for familiar brands. According to cognitive response theory (Greenwald, 1968) and information integration theory (Anderson, 1971), new information should be compared with previous beliefs in order to develop brand cognitions. In other words, information processing to which argument quality is a major input, is a cognitive process that impacts attitude through renewing brand cognitions and perceptions. Therefore we propose that argument quality mediates [C.sub.b] (P9). We also propose that the effect of strong argument on brand cognitions is strengthened under high involvement rather than low involvement (P9a). The mediation effect of [C.sub.ad] on [C.sub.b] has been previously supported (Praxmarer & Gierl, 2009) but further work should be done on the Arg--[C.sub.b] relationship to prove whether this component of [C.sub.ad] influences [C.sub.b] directly.

The extent to which argument quality mediates [C.sub.b] differs substantially under different involvement conditions and recipient's moods. Batra & Stayman (1990) demonstrated that positive mood decreases the amount of required elaboration giving rise to a more heuristic processing and biasing the evaluation of the argument quality (which generates a more favorable evaluation of the argument) (Batra & Stayman, 1990). They also found that positive moods seem to reduce counterarguments when the subjects are exposed to weak messages (Batra & Stayman, 1990). Also, this moderation role of positive mood has shown to be most decisive under low involvement conditions (Batra & Stephens, 1994). In another study, the level of information processing (deep vs. shallow) as well as the type of information processing (schema based vs. data driven) with regards to the effect of mood on them has been explored (Shapiro, MacInnis, & Park, 2002). The findings indicate that positive mood is in charge of activating prior schemas by signaling that there is no need for a detailed information processing, leading to broader categorization and confidently use of accessible cognitions such as stereotypes (Shapiro, MacInnis, & Park, 2002; Clore & Schnall, 2005). The interesting point here is that brand names can also operate like stereotypes (Clore & Schnall, 2005) thus applying an advertising strategy which evokes positive moods can be a powerful tool for established brands. All these studies suggest that positive mood negatively moderates the Arg-[C.sub.b] relationship by impeding thorough evaluation of argument quality (P9b).

The notion that the argument quality is the primary driver of message acceptance has not been supported in a number of studies (Coulter & Punj, 2004). Instead, the integral role of cognitive resources required (RR) and those available for processing (RA) have been a subject of attention in cognitive resource matching (CRM) hypothesis (Coulter & Punj, 2004). According to this hypothesis, regardless of the quality of the argument, the persuasiveness of any message entails a match between resources required and those available for processing. In other words, although according to ELM, higher levels of elaboration will enhance (decrease) persuasion when the argument is strong (weak), increasing elaboration beyond the level where RR equals RA will negatively moderate that effect (Coulter & Punj, 2004). It is therefore proposed that when the RR is greater than RA, lack of consumer's cognitive capacity to process an argument hampers the Arg-[C.sub.b] relationship; on the other hand when RR=RA the Arg-[C.sub.B] relationship is strengthened (P9c).

Furthermore, since irrelevant thoughts also occupy a proportion of cognitive capacity, their role has proved to be detrimental to persuasiveness when the message has a strong argument under low involvement condition (Coulter & Punj, 2007). These irrelevant thoughts take over support arguments, thus negatively moderate Arg--[C.sub.b]. On the contrary, when the message has weak argument, they supplant counterarguments, thus negatively moderate Arg--[C.sub.b] resulting in a more positive brand attitude (Coulter & Punj, 2007). We propose that irrelevant thoughts indirectly by limiting available cognitive resources adversely affect Arg-[c.sub.b] (P10). The summary of these discussions can be illustrated as in Figure 2:

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Non-cognitive regard to attitude can be traced back to the '80s when the mounting importance of attitude toward the ad and its peripheral role in determining [A.sub.b] abounded a plethora of studies (e.g. Mitchell & Olson, 1981). Zajonc's influential work (Zajonc, 1980) in which affect and cognition were concluded to be separate and independent systems was maybe the fountainhead of this separation from purely cognitive literature of attitude and the embarking on dual-path and affect-laden attitude research. Further research (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989) attested to the significant impact of [A.sub.ad] on [A.sub.b] and de-emphasized a purely cognitive process in attitude formation and change, notwithstanding the fact that some other researchers called these findings into question by naming them "methodological artifacts" stemming from flawed use of criteria or invalid predictors (Fishbein & Middlestadt, 1995). Such criticisms were also replied by others (for more details on the series of responses to this issue see Haugtvedt & Kasmer, 2008). However, the rising wave of affect research in the late '80s (Batra & Ray, 1986; Edell & Burke, 1987; Stayman & Aaker, 1988) highlighted the independent path of persuasion through ad-induced affect, and ushered in a new perspective in which affect and cognition were both inextricable mediators of attitude.

Several types of affective states have been studied. Here, we are interested in those triggered by the ad and distinguish them from moods, which can exist before the recipient is exposed to the ad (Burke & Edell, 1989) and are not focused on a specific object (Clore & Schnall, 2005).

There is evidence that ad-evoked feelings influence [A.sub.b] through indirect path by [A.sub.ad] (Batra & Ray, 1986; Burke & Edell, 1989). Burke & Edell (1989) suggest that feelings have both a direct and an indirect effect (via judgments of ad's characteristics) on [A.sub.ad].

Furthermore, in recent years researchers have been more inclined to distinguish between positive and negative affect. Edell and Burke (1987) find that positive and negative feelings co-occur while according to Brown et al (1998) they are bi-dimensional not bipolar ("different constructs not merely opposite poles of the same construct") and the way they influence attitude is different (Burke & Edell, 1989; Brown, Homer, & Inman, 1998; Homer, 2006). Negative affect directly inflicts unfavorable effects upon attitude toward the brand (Burke & Edell, 1989), whereas positive affect mediates [A.sub.b] both directly and indirectly not only through brand cognitions (Homer, 2006) but also via attitude toward the ad (Stayman & Aaker, 1988). As Burke and Edell (1989) importantly remark, although eliciting negative effects (such as fear) may have positive effects on consumer purchase intentions, they act to the detriment of attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand. Therefore, it is proposed that negative affect directly influences [A.sub.b] (P11), while positive affect both directly (P12) and indirectly via [C.sub.b] (P13) exerts its effect on brand attitudes. In addition, both positive and negative affect influence [A.sub.ad] (P14, P15).

Another concept primarily studied in decision making and brand preference literature is brand familiarity. Brand familiarity can be defined as "a uni-dimensional construct directly related to the amount of time that has been spent processing information about the brand, regardless of the type or content of the processing that has occurred" (Baker, Hutchinson, Moore, & Nedungadi, 1986, p. 637). As to attitudes, brand familiarity is posited to moderate the influence of [A.sub.ad] on [A.sub.b] (Derbaix, 1995; Brown, Homer, & Inman, 1998; Campbell & Keller, 2003). In other words, consumers with prior brand familiarity will rely more on their existing knowledge about the brand than on [A.sub.ad] in forming their [A.sub.b] (Derbaix, 1995; Campbell & Keller, 2003). Moreover, Derbaix (1995) found that affect had stronger impact on [A.sub.b] for novel brands, but this moderating role of brand familiarity was later found to hold true only for positive affect (Brown, Homer, & Inman, 1998; Homer, 2006). This means that negative affect has a direct and strong impact on brand attitude under both familiar and unfamiliar brand conditions, but positive affect influences [A.sub.b] through [C.sub.b] for familiar brands and directly for novel brands (Homer, 2006). Homer's study (2006) indicates that even facing a completely emotional ad devoid of any product attribute information, the receiver's attitude toward a familiar brand is changed mainly via brand cognitions when positive feelings are evoked (consumers "update" their existing evaluations), but negative affect directly ruins attitude even toward a familiar brand. All in all, brand familiarity acts as a moderator in all mentioned relationships except that between negative affect and brand attitudes. For familiar brands, the strength of positive-affect--[A.sub.b] is reduced while the effect of positive affect on brand cognitions are intensified; for novel brand vice versa happens. Thus brand familiarity negatively moderates positive-affect--[A.sub.b] relationship (P12a) and positively moderates positive-affect--[C.sub.b] relationship (P13a).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

As it is shown in Figure 3, brand familiarity does not moderate the direct effect of negative affect on [A.sub.b], on the grounds that regardless of the level of brand familiarity, this direct influence dominates other indirect routes (Homer, 2006). In contrast, for all other mediations of affect and [A.sub.ad], familiarity acts as a moderator. For unfamiliar brands, (positive and negative) affect directly and indirectly through [A.sub.ad] mediates [A.sub.b] (Homer, 2006), but for familiar products, the cognitions play the major role (Campbell & Keller, 2003; Derbaix, 1995) except for negative affect whose destructive effect on [A.sub.b] is straight and direct (Homer, 2006).

The Relationship between attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand

The relationship between attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand is a controversial issue (Gresham & Shimp, 1985). Based on prior theoretical and empirical research, three possible explanations for relationship between attitude toward the ad ([A.sub.ad]) and attitude toward the brand ([A.sub.b]) are identified (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986).

First, the affect transfer hypothesis (ATH) supposes a unidirectional causation from [A.sub.ad] to [A.sub.b] (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). In other words, it has been hypothesized that affective reactions toward an advertisement of a brand (i.e. [A.sub.ad]) should have impacts on audiences' attitudes toward the brand without changing their brand cognitions (Cb) (Gresham & Shimp, 1985). Affect transfer hypothesis has been supported by some past studies (Mitchell & Olson, 1981); some empirical data (Gresham & Shimp, 1985), however, have not completely supported this hypothesis. Gresham and Shimp (1985) also found that potential effect of negative attitudes toward the ad on weakening the consumers' attitudes toward the brand is much bigger than influence of positive attitudes toward the ad on strengthening the consumers' attitudes toward the brand (Gresham & Shimp, 1985). Recently, a research for online environment found that for consumers who are less motivated to consider a lot of information (i.e. low need for cognition), and have little contact with cyberspace, affect transfer hypothesis is the superior model in explaining the relationship between attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand (Sicilia, Ruiz, & Reynolds, 2006).

Second, the reciprocal mediation hypothesis (RMH) which can be inferred from Balance theory, asserts that there is a mutual causal relationship between [A.sub.ad] and [A.sub.b] (Gresham & Shimp, 1985; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Because the correlation between the ad and the advertised brand is clearly positive, balance theory predicts that a recipient of an ad promoting a specific brand will attempt to obtain a balanced relationship by either liking both the ad and the brand or disliking both (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). In addition, for a recently introduced brand, the influence of [A.sub.ad] on [A.sub.b] should be stronger than the opposite direction; in contrast, for a mature brand with which consumers have more experience, the flow from [A.sub.b] to [A.sub.ad] would govern (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Gresham and Shimp implicitly presented the evidences supporting above statement about new and mature brands (Gresham & Shimp, 1985).

Finally, the dual mediation hypothesis (DMH) supposes that [A.sub.ad] affects [A.sub.b] not only directly but also indirectly through its impact on brand cognitions (Cb) (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). We can compare this hypothesis with Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) presented by Petty and Cacioppo (1981). According to ELM, attitude can be changed via one of two routes: central route via which a recipient's extensive thought about content of an advertisement leads to attitude change; and peripheral route via which a recipient's attitude is shaped by positive and negative cues (e.g. an expert source) associated with advertisement or inferences based on simple cues in the context of the ad (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). Accordingly, [A.sub.b] changes via peripheral route when it is directly influenced by [A.sub.ad]; besides, [A.sub.b] changes via central route when [A.sub.ad] affects [C.sub.b] then [C.sub.b] influences on [A.sub.b] (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983). It is also stated that high involvement ad messages, having greater personal relevance and outcomes than low involvement messages, affect the attitude via central route, but low involvement ad messages influence on attitude via peripheral route (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). We can, therefore, hypothesize that under high involvement condition, there is a relatively weak influence of [A.sub.ad] on [A.sub.b] as well as a relatively strong influence of [C.sub.b] on [A.sub.b] (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983). Unlike our expectations, empirical data show that influence of [A.sub.ad] on [A.sub.b] dominates the influence of [C.sub.b] on [A.sub.b], irrespective of involvement condition (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; Muehling & Laczniak, 1988; Homer, 1990; Brown & Stayman, 1992). Hence, the major difference between DMH and ELM is that DMH views central and peripheral processes as intertwined processes instead of substitutes for each other (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986).

Two structural equations analyses (one for TV commercials and the other for print ads) showed that the dual mediation hypothesis (DMH) is superior to the other two hypotheses (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986; Homer, 1990). Although MacKenzie et al hold the view that there are some limitation for generalization of their finding, the generalizability of these findings were checked in a meta-analysis by Brown and Stayman, and dual mediation model was strongly supported (Brown & Stayman, 1992). Recently, a research for online environment discovered DMH is the superior model, especially for consumers willing to deepen their understanding of each phenomenon (i.e. high need for cognition) (Sicilia, Ruiz, & Reynolds, 2006). Accordingly, it is proposed that [A.sub.ad] directly mediates [A.sub.b] (P16); moreover, [A.sub.ad] indirectly mediates [A.sub.b] through its impact on brand cognitions ([C.sub.b]) (P17). That is, consumer's attitude toward the ad has an impact on their attitude toward the brand, through either a simple affect transfer (i.e., the recipient likes the brand since the ad appeals to him or her) or a more intricate cognitive processing (i.e., one likes the brand due to effective tactics used by advertiser) (Kirmani & Campbell, 2009). Furthermore, under situations benefiting from high amount of message elaboration (e.g. print ads), [A.sub.ad]- [C.sub.b] relation is greater than that under situations not having this advantage (e.g. TV commercials) (Brown & Stayman, 1992). In addition, when the advertised brand is novel and less familiar, the correlation between [A.sub.ad] and [A.sub.b] becomes stronger (Brown & Stayman, 1992). Therefore, it is proposed that brand familiarity negatively moderate the [A.sub.ad]--[A.sub.b] relationship (P16a).

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

CONCLUSION

After in depth reviewing of literature, we proposed several propositions that show not only the relationship between each two constructs but also the most important moderators of each relationship. These relationships and moderators are summarized in Table 1.

According to our propositions, [A.sub.ad] influences [A.sub.b] not only directly but also indirectly through its impact on brand cognitions ([C.sub.b]); besides, when the advertised brand is novel and less familiar, the correlation between [A.sub.ad] and [A.sub.b] strengthens.

Major antecedents of attitude toward the ad ([A.sub.ad]) are ad cognitions, attitude toward the advertiser, mood, and peripheral cues. Ad cognitions have a direct impact on attitude toward the ad; two examples of these cognitions are quality of message argument (Arg) and ad credibility. As the opportunity for processing the ad message is increased, the impact of message arguments (Arg) on [A.sub.ad] is considerably strengthened. In addition, both attitude toward the advertiser ([A.sub.adv]) and peripheral cues (PC) as well as consumer's mood are strong mediators of attitude toward the ad ([A.sub.ad]). As the opportunity for processing the ad message is increased, the influence of PC on A ad is weakened.

Brand cognitions were the first elements in the attitude literature to be studied in terms of their effect on [A.sub.b]. Attention drawn to certain product attributes bolds the value (importance) of those attributes; hence, we propose that attention influences [C.sub.b]. A match between cognitive resources required for message processing and those available along with the level of involvement and recipient's mood moderates the effect of argument quality on generation or modification of favorable brand-related thoughts and perceptions. The irrelevant thoughts produced during the exposure to the ad, indirectly by restricting resources available for processing, influence brand cognitions. Negative affect directly and adversely affects [A.sub.b]. However, the path through which positive affects impact [A.sub.b] is subject to brand familiarity. For novel brands positive affect (together with [A.sub.ad]) is the major determinant of attitude, while for familiar brands, the indirect path through brand cognitions dominates all other routes.

Figure 5 joints several parts of our model each of which described earlier:

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Removing moderators from Figure 5 leaves the simplified model shown in Figure 6:

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

The attitude literature is fraught with studies and frameworks which focus either on the information processing paradigms (e.g. MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989) or on affective perspectives (e.g. Batra & Ray, 1986). Also, there are a number of experiments that either discriminate between informational and emotional ads or set only one of the two types above (affect vs. cognition) as the context of their study (e.g. Yoo & MacInnis, 2005; Homer, 2006). By emotional ads, those "designed to appeal to the receiver's emotions by using drama, mood, music, and other emotion-eliciting strategies" and by informational ads, those "designed to appeal to the rationality of the receiver by using objective information describing a brand's attributes or benefits" are meant (Yoo & MacInnis, 2005, p. 1397). The rationale for such classification is somehow clear; with respect to the level of involvement (motivation), according to the above definition, each type calls for either cognitive or affective ways of attitude formation and change. Although these may seem two extremes of the real advertising world, they effectively depict conditions under which one of the routes would be dominant over the other. We, therefore, use this typology to show where information processing is more involved and where an affect-laden process is in work. By this strategy as it is shown in Figure 7, we distinguish between the evaluative section of the model (including brand cognition) and the non-evaluative section (affect). Furthermore, it is noteworthy that although affective responses are non-evaluative (Batra & Ray, 1986), [A.sub.ad] is neither purely evaluative nor purely non-evaluative (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989).

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

Implications and Further Research

Whatever the prime goal of marketers is (boosting sales, forming long-term profitable relationships, attracting support and membership for nonprofit businesses, etc), customer persuasion is an integral step towards that goal and both [A.sub.b] and [A.sub.ad] play major roles in persuading prospects to buy a particular brand or support a not-for-profit organization. There are substantial empirical evidences that support existence of a direct causal relationship from attitude toward the brand ([A.sub.b]) to purchase intention (PI) (Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Furthermore, some other researchers have identified that [A.sub.ad] has a moderate direct influence on purchase intention (PI) (Brown & Stayman, 1992; Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995).

Lord et al also found that under low (high) involvement conditions, correlation between [A.sub.ad] and PI is considerably greater (lower) than correlation between [A.sub.b] and PI (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995). In other words, [A.sub.b] can be a superior predictor of consumer's intention to buy a brand under high than under low involvement conditions (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). Also, for novel or less familiar brands, the positive correlation between [A.sub.ad] and PI becomes stronger (Brown & Stayman, 1992). Thus, [A.sub.ad] influences purchase intention not only directly but also indirectly via [A.sub.b] (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1995).

Our proposed model can provide marketers with a framework to understand how their marketing plans, especially advertising and branding plans, influence their consumers. Marketers can use our model both to justify the effectiveness of their plans and to employ its variables as indices for assessing those plans. For example, our model implies that different advertising practices should be applied to brands with different brand familiarity. Marketers of novel brands should focus more on emotional ads to make positive affective reactions transfer to [A.sub.ad] and consequently enhance PI. Also ads for these products should be designed in such ways as to create a positive attitude toward the ad itself. Advertisements for familiar brands, however, should maintain a balance between emotional and informational approaches. Although the cognitive path is dominant for familiar brands, a highly informative ad under low involvement can even hurt the attitude in some circumstances (Coulter & Punj, 2007). In addition, marketers of a familiar brand should not neglect the importance of emotional ads, in that emotional ads put a recipient in a positive mood which decreases the amount of required elaboration and generates a more favorable evaluation of the argument quality.

Our research has some limitations. First, although we relied on the research from the last 30 years to develop our propositions, further research is required to validate the generalizability of these propositions by a series of empirical studies. Second, the advent of new advertising media such as mobile and internet may bring evolutionary changes in the hypotheses on which our model is built. Thus, further research should be conducted to unveil whether differences in media type can influence our integrative model. Finally, future studies are needed to address cross-cultural differences that can alter some of the propositions and relationships.

REFERENCES

Anderson, N.H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78(3), 171-206.

Baker, W., J.W. Hutchinson, D. Moore & P. Nedungadi (1986). Brand familiarity and advertising: Effects on the evoked set and brand preference. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 637-642.

Batra, R. & M.L. Ray (1986). Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 234-249.

Batra, R. & D.M. Stayman (1990). The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 203-214.

Batra, R. & D. Stephens (1994). Attitudinal effects of ad-evoked moods and emotions: The moderating role of motivation. Psychology & Marketing, 11(3), 199-215.

Belch, G.E. & M.A. Belch (2004). Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communication perspective (Sixth International Edition). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

Berger, I.E. & A.A. Mitchell (1989). The effect of advertising on attitude accessibility, attitude confidence, and the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 269-279.

Bodur, H.O., D. Brinberg & E. Coupey (2000). Belief, affect, and attitude: Alternative models of the determinants of attitude. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(1), 17-28.

Brown, S.P. & D.M. Stayman (1992). Antecedents and consequences of attitude toward the ad: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 34-50.

Brown, S.P., P.M. Homer & J.J. Inman (1998). A meta-analysis of relationships between ad-evoked feelings and advertising responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 114-126.

Burke, M.C. & J.A. Edell (1989). The impact of feelings on ad-based affect and cognition. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(1), 69-83.

Campbell, M.C. & K.L. Keller (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 292-304.

Carroll, A., S.J. Barnes, E. Scornavacca & K. Fletcher (2007). Consumer perceptions and attitudes towards SMS advertising: recent evidence from New Zealand. International Journal of Advertising, 26(1), 79-98.

Celsi, R.L. & J.C. Olson (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210-224.

Chen, S., K. Duckworth & S. Chaiken (1999). Motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 44-49.

Clore, G.L. & S. Schnall (2005). The influence of affect on attitude. In D. Albarracin, B.T. Johnson, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes (pp. 437-489). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Coulter, K.S. & G.N. Punj (2004). The effects of cognitive resource requirements, availability, and argument quality on brand attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 53-64.

Coulter, K.S. & G.N. Punj (2007). Understanding the role of idiosyncratic thinking in brand attitude formation. Journal of Advertising, 36(1), 7-20.

Derbaix, C.M. (1995). The impact of affective reactions on attitudes toward the advertisement and the brand: A step toward ecological validity. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(4), 470-479.

Drossos, D., G.M. Giaglis, G. Lekakos, F. Kokkinaki & M.G. Stavraki (2007). Determinants of effective SMS advertising: An experimental study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7(2), 30-38

Edell, J.A. & M.C. Burke (1987). The power of feelings in understanding advertising effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 421-433.

Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16(3), 233-240.

Fishbein, M. & I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fishbein, M. & S. Middlestadt (1995). Noncognitive effects on attitude formation and change: Fact or artifact? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(2), 181-202.

Frey, C.J. & T.C. Kinnear (1980). Information integration theory: An alternative attitude model for consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 350-355.

Greenwald, A.G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A.G. Greenwald, T.C. Brock, & T.M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological Foundations of Attitudes (pp. 147-170). New York: Academic Press.

Gresham, L.G., & T.A. Shimp (1985). Attitude toward the advertisement and brand attitude: A classical conditioning perspective. Journal of Advertising, 14(1), 10-17.

Haugtvedt, C.P., & J.A. Kasmer (2008). Attitude change and persuasion. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology (pp. 419-435). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Homer, P.M. (2006). Relationships among ad-induced affect, beliefs, and attitudes: Another look. Journal of Advertising, 35(1), 35-51.

Homer, P.M. (1990). The mediating role of attitude toward the ad: Some additional evidence. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(1), 78-86.

Keller, K.L. (2001). Mastering the marketing communications mix: Micro and macro perspectives on integrated marketing communication programs. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7/8), 819-847.

Kirmani, A. & M.C. Campbell (2009). Taking the target's perspective: The persuasion knowledge model. In M. Wanke (Ed.), Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior (pp. 297-316). New York, United States of America: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Lord, K.R., M.S. Lee & P.L. Sauer (1995). The combined influence hypothesis: Central and peripheral antecedents of attitude toward the ad. Journal of Advertising, 24(1), 73-85.

Lutz, R.J. (1975). Changing brand attitudes through modification of cognitive structure. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(4), 49-59.

Lutz, R.J., S.B. MacKenzie & G.E. Belch (1983). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: Determinants and consequences. Advances in Consumer Research, 10(1), 532-539.

MacInnis, D.J. & B.J. Jaworski (1989). Information processing from advertisements: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 1-23.

MacKenzie, S.B. (1986). The role of attention in mediating the effect of advertising on attribute importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 174-195.

MacKenzie, S.B. & R.J. Lutz (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48-65.

MacKenzie, S.B., R.J. Lutz & G.E. Belch (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 130-43.

Maio, G.R., V.M. Esses, K.H. Arnold & J.M. Olson (2004). The function-structure model of attitudes. In G. Haddock, & G. R. Maio (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on the Psychology of Attitudes (pp. 9-34). New York: Psychology Press Inc.

Mirbagheri, S. (2010). SMS advertising business model: Toward finding vital elements of its value model. Proceedings of the 2010 European Applied Business Research Conference (EABR), 815-824

Mitchell, A.A. & J.C. Olson (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude?. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318-32.

Muehling, D.D. & R.N. Laczniak (1988). Advertising's immediate and delayed influence on brand attitudes: Considerations across message-involvement levels. Journal of Advertising, 17(4), 23-34.

Park, T., R. Shenoy & G. Salvendy (2008). Effective advertising on mobile phones: A literature review and presentation of results from 53 case studies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 27(5), 355-373.

Petty, R.E. & J.T. Cacioppo (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown.

Petty, R.E., J.T. Cacioppo & D. Schumann (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.

Praxmarer, S. & H. Gierl (2009). The effects of positive and negative ad-evoked associations on brand attitude. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(4), 507-520.

Rose, R.L., P.W. Miniard & S. Bhatla (1990). Brand cognitions as determinants of brand attitudes: The influence of measurement and processing involvement. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 128-134.

Shapiro, S., D.J. MacInnis & C.W. Park (2002). Understanding program induced mood effects: Decoupling arousal from valence. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 15-26.

Shimp, T.A. (1981). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal of Advertising, 10(2), 9-48.

Sicilia, M., S. Ruiz & N. Reynolds (2006). Attitude formation online: How the consumer's need for cognition affects the relationship between attitude towards the website and attitude towards the brand. International Journal of Market Research, 48(2), 139-154.

Solomon, M.R. (2009). Consumer behavior: buying, having, and being (Ninth Edition). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Stayman, D.M. & D.A. Aaker (1988). Are all the effects of ad-induced feelings mediated by [A.sub.ad]?. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 368-373.

Stewart, D.W., P. Pavlou & S. Ward (2002). Media influences on marketing communications. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (Second Edition) (pp.353-95). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Tsang, M.M., S.C. Ho & T.P. Liang (2004). Consumer attitudes toward mobile advertising: An empirical study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3), 65-78.

Wegener, D.T. & D.E. Carlston (2005). Cognitive processes in attitude formation and change. In D. Albarracin, B.T. Johnson, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes (pp. 493-542). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Wyer, R.S. (1970). Quantitative prediction of belief and opinion change: A further test of a subjective probability model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(4), 559-570.

Xu, D.J., S.S. Liao & Q. Li (2008). Combining empirical experimentation and modeling techniques: A design research approach for personalized mobile advertising applications. Decision Support Systems, 44(3), 710-724.

Yoo, C. & D.J. MacInnis (2005). The brand attitude formation process of emotional and informational ads. Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1397-1406.

Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175.

Manoochehr Najmi, Sharif University of Technology

Yashar Atefi, Sharif University of Technology

Seyed Alireza Mirbagheri, Sharif University of Technology

Table 1: Summary of relationships and moderators

Relationship                                   Moderators

                                           Brand     Opportunity
                                        Familiarity  to Process
P1: [C.sub.ad] on [A.sub.ad] (+)
P2: Arg on [A.sub.ad] (+)                              P2a (+)
P3: ad credibility on [A.sub.ad] (+)
P4: [A.sub.adv] on [A.sub.ad] (+)
P5: mood on [A.sub.ad] (+)
P6: PC on [A.sub.ad] (+)                               P6a (-)
P7: attention on [C.sub.b] (+)
P8: [C.sub.b] on [A.sub.b] (+)
P9: Arg on [C.sub.b] (+)
P10: Irrelevant thoughts on RA (-)
P11: Negative affect on [A.sub.b] (-)
P12: Positive affect on [A.sub.b] (+)     P12a(-)
P13: Positive affect on [C.sub.b] (+)     P13a(+)
P14: Positive affect on [A.sub.ad] (+)
P15: Negative affect on [A.sub.ad] (-)
P16: [A.sub.ad] on [A.sub.b] (+)         P16a (-)
P17: [A.sub.ad] on [C.sub.b] (+)

Relationship                                       Moderators

                                        Involvement   Mood    Capacity

P1: [C.sub.ad] on [A.sub.ad] (+)
P2: Arg on [A.sub.ad] (+)
P3: ad credibility on [A.sub.ad] (+)
P4: [A.sub.adv] on [A.sub.ad] (+)
P5: mood on [A.sub.ad] (+)
P6: PC on [A.sub.ad] (+)
P7: attention on [C.sub.b] (+)
P8: [C.sub.b] on [A.sub.b] (+)
P9: Arg on [C.sub.b] (+)                  P9a(+)     P9b(-)    P9c(+)
P10: Irrelevant thoughts on RA (-)
P11: Negative affect on [A.sub.b] (-)
P12: Positive affect on [A.sub.b] (+)
P13: Positive affect on [C.sub.b] (+)
P14: Positive affect on [A.sub.ad] (+)
P15: Negative affect on [A.sub.ad] (-)
P16: [A.sub.ad] on [A.sub.b] (+)
P17: [A.sub.ad] on [C.sub.b] (+)