Effects of personal nostalgic response intensity on cognitions, attitudes, and intentions

Thecurrentissueandfulltextarchiveofthisjournalisavailableat

http://wendang.chazidian.com/2040-7122.htm

Effectsofpersonalnostalgicresponseintensityoncognitions,attitudes,andintentions

ChristopherMarchegianiandIanPhau

CurtinUniversityofTechnology,Perth,Australia

Abstract

Purpose–Thepaperaimstoexaminetheeffectofvaryingintensitiesofpersonalnostalgiaoncognition,attitudes,andpurchaseintention.

Design/methodology/approach–Datawerecollectedusingconveniencesamplingviaaself-administeredquestionnaireinalargeAustralianuniversity.Respondentswereexposedtonostalgiccueladenadvertisingstimulus.Atotalof514responseswereanalysed.Thequestionnaireincludesathoughtcollectionexerciseandscalestomeasurepersonalnostalgia,attitudes,andintention.Analysisofvarianceandmultivariateanalysisofvariancewereusedtoanalysethedata.Findings–Anumberofcognitivereactionsaresigni?cantlyaffectedwhenmovingfromalowtomoderateorhighlevelofpersonalnostalgia.However,nosigni?cantbene?tinthecognitiveresponsestestedisachievedbymovingfrommoderatetohighlevels.Incontrast,attitudesandintentionsimprovesigni?cantlywitheachincreaseofpersonalnostalgia.

Researchlimitations/implications–http://wendang.chazidian.comparisonsofresponsesundertypesofnostalgicreactionsarealsoneeded.

Practicalimplications–Thepaperprovidespractitionerswithavastlyimprovedunderstandingofconsumerresponseswhenvaryinglevelsofpersonalnostalgiaareexperienced.Practitionersshouldnotethesigni?cantchangeinadvert-executionrelatedthoughtsbetweenintensitylevelscouldbebene?cialorharmful,dependingonthedesiredresponse.Theresearchindicatesitisworthwhiletoencouragehighlevelsofpersonalnostalgiaincomparisontosettlingforalowormoderatelevelasalthoughcognitiveresponsesdonotsigni?cantlychange,attitudesandintentiontopurchasesigni?cantlyimprove.

Originality/value–Thevastmajorityofpreviousstudiesfocusonnostalgiaasauni?edconcept.Althoughpersonalnostalgiaisdistinctfromothernostalgicreactions,noempiricalresearchexamineshowconsumerreactionsareaffectedbyvaryinglevelsofthisspeci?cnostalgicresponse.KeywordsNostalgia,Cognition,Attitudes,Consumerbehaviour,Buyingbehaviour

PapertypeResearchpaperEffectsofresponseintensity241ReceivedJuly2009RevisedOctober2009,January2010AcceptedJanuary2010

Introduction

Marketingliteraturedescribesnostalgiaas:

[...]apreference(generalliking,positiveattitude,orfavourableaffect)towardobjects(people,places,orthings)thatweremorecommon(popular,fashionable,orwidelycirculated)whenonewasyounger(inearlyadulthood,inadolescence,inchildhood,orevenbeforebirth)(HolbrookandSchindler,1991,p.330).

Nostalgiaisshowntosigni?cantlyin?uencearangeofconsumerreactionsimportanttomarketingandadvertisingincludingself-concept,brandloyalty,brandmeaning,thehumansenses,attitudeformation,cognitionandmemoryprocesses,consumptionpreferences,literarycriticism,collectivememory,andemotions(MuehlingandSprott,2004;

JournalofResearchinInteractiveMarketingVol.4No.3,2010pp.241-256qEmeraldGroupPublishingLimited2040-7122

DOI10.1108/17505931011070596

JRIM4,3242NaughtonandVlasic,1998).Nostalgiaalsoaffectspeopleregardlessoftheirage,gender,socialclass,ethnicity,orothersocialgroupings(Greenbergetal.,2004).Animportantdistinctionismadebetweentwodistinctformsofnostalgia:namely“personal”and“historical”nostalgia(Stern,1992;MarchegianiandPhau,2010).Personalnostalgiadealswithautobiographicalmemoryorself-referencing/personalconnections(Brewer,1986;ConwayandFthenaki,2000;ConwayandPleydell-Pearce,

2000;Neisser,1988;Rubin,1986;Sheenetal.,2001;Tulving,1972,1984),andisdiscussedasnostalgiathatrelatesto“thewayIwas”(Stern,1992).Historicalnostalgiadealsinsteadwithcollectivememoryandcanbegeneratedfromatimetherespondentdidnotexperiencedirectly,evenatimebeforetheywereborn(Halbwachs,1950,1992;Pennebakeretal.,1997;Zelizer,2008).Historicalnostalgiaisdiscussedas“thewayitwas”(Stern,1992).Althoughthecognitiveresponsesdiscussedandotherrelatedconsumerreactionsareexpectedtodiffersigni?cantlyasaresultofthetypeofnostalgiaexperienced,thereisasigni?cantde?ciencyofempiricalresearchintothesetwospeci?cnostalgicreactions.Thisde?ciencyincludescomparisonbetweenthenostalgicreactiontypesandexploringchangeswithinthespeci?cnostalgicresponses.Thispaperbeginstoclosethisgapbyexploringspeci?callypersonalnostalgiaandanalysingnumberofhypothesesrelatedtosomeofthemostimportantconsumerreactions;namelycognition,attitudes,andpurchaseintentions.Thesereactionsareexaminedamongrespondentsexperiencinglowpersonalnostalgia(LPN),moderatepersonalnostalgia(MPN),orhighpersonalnostalgia(HPN)reactionstoadvertising.Resultsshowanumberofcognitiveresponsesaresigni?cantlyaffectedwhenmovingfromalowtomoderateorhighlevelofpersonalnostalgia.However,nosigni?cantbene?tinthecognitiveresponsestestedisachievedbymovingfrommoderatetohighlevels.Incontrast,attitudesandintentionsimprovesigni?cantlyateachincreaseofpersonalnostalgia.Nopriorstudiesempiricallyexaminetheseconsumerresponsesinrespondentsexperiencingvaryinglevelsofpersonalnostalgia.Asmarketerscommonlyusepersonalnostalgicappealsinthemarketplacebyencouragingconsumerstothinkbacktopastexperiencesbothrelatedandunrelatedtotheproductbeingsold,itisimportanttounderstandthechangesincognitive,attitudinal,andpurchaseintentreactionswhenavaryinglevelofpersonalnostalgiaisexperienced.Thispaperbeginswithadiscussiononextantliteratureandtheoreticalunderpinningsleadingtothehypothesesdevelopment.Adescriptionoftheresearchmethodanddiscussionoftheanalysisand?ndingsispresentednext.Finally,themanagerialimplicationsandlimitationsofthestudyarehighlighted.

Theoryandhypothesesdevelopment

Cognition

Cognitionisshowntobein?uencedbynostalgiainanumberofstudies(BakerandKennedy,1994;Belk,1991;Davis,1979;HolakandHavlena,1998;HolbrookandSchindler,1991;MuehlingandSprott,2004).Althoughpreviousstudiesexplorecognitivereactionswithnostalgiccomparedtonon-nostalgicappeals,noempiricalresearchoncognitionasaresultoftheintensityofaspeci?cnostalgicreactionhasbeenundertaken.Asdiscussed,thefocusofthisstudyisonchangesinpersonalnostalgia.Extantliteratureonmemoryaccessibility?ndssalientthoughtsaremoreeasilyretrievedandproducedingreaterquantitythanlesssalientthoughts(Bettman,1979;CraikandLockhart,1972;Wright,1980).Researchinthisareaalsoshowssalientthoughts

areoftenself-referencingthoughtsorpersonalconnections(Krugman,1967)andcanin?uencemental-processingactivitywhenattitudesareformedorretrieved(Greenwald,1968).Anincreaseinpersonalrelevancecanalsoalterthelevelofinvolvementinrespondents(Pettyetal.,1983).Assuch,ariseinthelevelofpersonalnostalgic,whichbyde?nitionwouldbedrawnfroma?lteredversionofautobiographicalmemory(Belk,1990;Davis,1979;Stern,1992)duetotheconnectionorassociationwithanindividual’srealoridealizedpast(Belk,1990;HolakandHavlena,1992),shouldresultinagreaternumberofthoughts.Thus,H1apostulatesthatasthelevelofpersonalnostalgiaincreasesinrespondentsthereisasigni?cantincreaseinthenumberofthoughts.Intermsofthecontentofthethoughtsexperienced,H1bpostulatesanincreaseinthenumberofpersonalnostalgia-relatedthoughtsasthelevelofpersonalnostalgiarises.Furthermore,asthesenostalgicthoughtsareexpectedtobegenerallywarmandpositiveinnature(HolakandHavlena,1998;Johnson-LairdandOatley,1989)thereisanexpectationthatrespondentswillbemotivatedtogenerateadditionalthoughtsofthisnatureasopposedtothoughtsthatdonotprovidethisbene?t.Assuch,theratioofpersonalnostalgicthoughtstototalthoughtsisproposedtoincreaseasthelevelofpersonalnostalgiarises(H1c).Basedontheprecedingdiscussion,asummaryofthecognition-relatedhypothesestothispointarepresented:

H1.Asthelevelofpersonalnostalgiaincreasesthereis:

H1a.Asigni?cantincreaseinthenumberofthoughtsoverall.

H1b.Asigni?cantincreaseinthenumberofpersonalnostalgia-relatedthoughts.H1c.Asigni?cantincreaseintheratioofpersonalnostalgic-relatedthoughtsto

totalthoughts.

Thisresearchisbasedonthepropositionthatpersonalandhistoricalnostalgiaaredistinctlydifferentfromoneanother.Whilethisdoesnotsuggesttheyareexclusiveresponses(i.e.respondentsmayfeelelementsofbothtypesifthemessagecuesindicateelicitasmuch)thedistinctionalsomeansthereisnosuggestionthatariseinpersonalnostalgiashouldleadtoahighernumberofspeci?callyhistoricalnostalgia-relatedthoughts.Assuch,itispostulatedthat:

H1d.Nosigni?cantchangeinthenumberofhistoricalnostalgic-relatedthoughts.Sujanetal.(1993)andWilliamsandFaber(1999)cautionencouragingtheretrievalofautobiographicalmemoriesastheycanactasadistractionleadingtorespondentsevokingfewerthoughtsabouttheadvertisedproduct’sfeaturesthanadvertisementsnotencouragingsuchformofmemoryretrieval.Thus,advertisersmayinadvertentlycausebrand/messagerelatedthoughtstobelessaccessible.MuehlingandSprott(2004)empiricallytestedthenumberofbrand/message-related(product)thoughtsgeneratedduringexposuretoanostalgicandnon-nostalgicadvertandfoundnosigni?cantdifferencebetweentreatmentgroups.Althoughthisisregardingsimplythenumberofbrand/message-related(product)thoughts,asopposedtothefeaturerecallandbrandevaluationtestedbySujanetal.(1993)whichfoundwhenautobiographicalmemories(selfreferencing,asperpersonalnostalgicthoughts)areencouragedareducedanalysisof,andmemoryfor,productinformationinconsumersresults.Thisstudyproposesthisdistractionfrombrand/message-relatedthoughtswilloccuraspersonalnostalgiaEffectsofresponseintensity243

JRIM4,3increases,andad-execution-relatedthoughtswillalsoexperiencethisdecrease.Assuch

itispostulatedthat:

H1e.Asigni?cantdecreaseinthenumberofbrand/message-relatedthoughts.H1f.Asigni?cantdecreaseinthenumberofad-execution-relatedthoughts.

244Attitudesandintentions

Attitudestowardstheadvert(Aad),Attitudetowardsthebrand(Ab),andintentionstopurchasethebrand(Ib)areshowntosigni?cantlyimprovewhennostalgiaisexperienced(Pascaletal.,2002;MuehlingandSprott,2004).Thisisconsistentwithmodelsofpersuasionwhichshowtheeffectgeneratedatthetimeofad-exposurehavingsigni?cantimpactonconsumerevaluations(MacKenzieetal.,1986;Zajonc,1980).Baumgartneretal.(1992)alsodemonstratethatincreaseretrievalofmostlypositiveautobiographicalmemoriesresultsinamorefavourableattitudetowardstheadvert.Althoughpreviousresponsesareexploredinrelationtonostalgia,asisthecaseinthehypothesisbasedoncognition,empiricalevidenceonthein?uenceoftheintensityofpersonalnostalgiaisde?cient.Thepreviousstudies,combinedwiththetheoriessupportinganincreasedsalienceandpositivenatureofresponsesaspersonalnostalgiamakesautobiographicalconnections,resultsinthefollowinghypothesis:H2.Asthelevelofpersonalnostalgiaincreasesthereisasigni?cantpositive

increasein:

H2a.Attitudetowardstheadvert.

H2b.Attitudetowardsthebrand.

H2c.Intentiontopurchasethebrand

Method

Sample

TherespondentswerecollectedfromastudentpopulationatalargeAustralianuniversity.Toincreasethelevelofhomogeneousnessinthisconveniencesamplerespondentsaredelimitedtothoseaged18-26.Thissamplealsoassistsinensuringin?uencessuchasconsumer’slifestation,agedifferences,pastexperiences,anddifferencesinbrand/productrecognition/familiarityarediminished.Paststudiesexploringnostalgicreactionstoadvertssuccessfullyusestudentsamples(MuehlingandSprott,2004;BakerandKennedy,1994).Additionally,studentsamplesarefoundtoberepresentativeofgeneralconsumers(Yavas,1994).Atotalof514respondents(47.5percentmale,52.5percentfemale)indicatedasexperiencingahigherlevelofpersonalthanhistoricalnostalgiaasmeasuredbythepersonalandhistoricalnostalgiascales(MarchegianiandPhau,2007a,b)areutilized.

Collectionprocedure

Responseswerecollectedinaclassroomstylesettingingroupsofeightto15participants.Afterabrieforientationsessioneachparticipantwasprovidedwithasurveyformtobecompletedafterexposuretonostalgiccueladenbroadcaststyleadvertising.ImmediatelyafterviewingtheconstructedadvertrespondentscompletedathoughtcollectionexercisesimilartoMuehlingandSprott’s(2004)intheirstudyofnostalgia.Thisexercisemade

nomentionwhatsoeverofnostalgiaornostalgia-relatednotions.Respondentsweregiventhreeminutestocompletethistask(Gurhan-CanliandMaheswaran,1998).Theinstrumentsmeasuringattitudestowardtheadvert,attitudestowardthebrand,andintentiontopurchasethebrandwerecompletednext.Themanipulationcheckinstrumentstomeasurethelevelofpersonalandhistoricalnostalgiaarecompletedafterthedependentmeasurestoreducethelikelihoodofanypotentialcontaminatingeffect.Finally,demographicquestionswerecompleted.Eachinstrumentisdiscussedindetailsubsequently.

Stimulus

Thenostalgiccuesaredrawnfromthelargebodyofliteraturewhichsuggestsvariouspromptsforelicitingnostalgia(Allenetal.,1995;Arenietal.,1998;Goulding,2001;Greenbergetal.,2004;HavlenaandHolak,1991;Hirsch,1995;HolakandHavlena,1992;Howell,1991;Lowenthal,1981;Norman,1990;SchindlerandHolbrook,1993;Tannock,1995;Wildschutetal.,2006;Witkowski,1998).Thisincludedstudiesthatsuggestcuespertainingspeci?callytopersonalnostalgia;forexample,Stern(1992)suggestspersonalnostalgiausesfamiliar/real-lifecharactersofteninsentimental/tearfulroles.Thecues,whichoftenreferencedfamilyandspecialoccasions,werepre-testedinfocusgroupdiscussionstoensurethestimuluscouldelicittheintendednostalgicreaction.ThebranddepictedisKodak,whichissuccessfullyusedinpreviousstudiesofnostalgia(MuehlingandSprott,2004)andisconsideredfamiliartothepopulationexamined.Theproductcategoriesassociatedwiththebrandarealsorelevanttopersonalnostalgiccues(e.g.lookingback,remembering)allowingtheappealtobeutilizedinabelievablemanner.

Instruments

Cognitivereactionswerecollectedbyusingathoughtcollectionprocessoccurringimmediatelyafterexposuretotheadvert.Thisconsistsoftherespondentlistingeachthoughttheyhadduringtheadvertonaseparatelinewithinathree-minutetimeframe(asperWright,1980;Gurhan-CanliandMaheswaran,1998;MuehlingandSprott,2004).Wordingoftheinstructionsforthisinstrumentisadaptedfrompreviousstudies(Homer,1990;MacKenzieetal.,1986).TwoindependentjudgeslatercodedthethoughtsintocategoriessimilartothoseofMuehlingandSprott(2004)andSujanetal.(1993).The?vecategoriesarepersonalnostalgia,historicalnostalgia,ad-execution,brand/messagerelated,andmiscellaneous.Disagreementwasresolvedbydiscussionbetweenthetwojudges(Cipollietal.,2001;Gentneretal.,2003;HomerandYoon,1992;JudgeandIlies,2002;MuehlingandSprott,2004).AnalysisofthishypothesisfollowsamethodsimilartoMuehlingandSprott’s(2004)studyofnostalgiainexaminingsimplecountsandratios,exceptthisstudyincludesspeci?callypersonalandhistoricalnostalgiaratherthancombiningthesetwocategories.

Respondentscompletedattitudesandintentionscalescommonlyusedinnostalgicandnon-nostalgicstudiesonadvertising(CoxandCox,1988;Holbrook,1993,1994;HolbrookandSchindler,1994;KrishnamurthyandSujan,1999;Bruneretal.,2001;MuehlingandSprott,2004).Tomeasureattitudetowardstheadvert(Aad)thefouritemsusedaregood/bad,favourable/unfavourable,positive/negative,andpleasant/unpleasant.Attitudetowardsthebrand(Ab)alsoismeasuredbyfouritems:good/bad,like/dislike,favourable/unfavourable,andvaluable/worthless.Finally,intentiontoEffectsofresponseintensity245