This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University]

On: 13 November 2013, At: 22:43

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Advertising
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujoa20

Think Outside the Ad: Can Advertising Creativity

Benefit More Than the Advertiser?
a a a
Sara Rosengren , Micael Dahlén & Erik Modig
a
Stockholm School of Economics , Center for Consumer Marketing , Stockholm , Sweden
Published online: 30 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Sara Rosengren , Micael Dahlén & Erik Modig (2013) Think Outside the Ad: Can Advertising Creativity
Benefit More Than the Advertiser?, Journal of Advertising, 42:4, 320-330, DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2013.795122

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.795122

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Advertising, 42(4), 320–330
Copyright C 2013, American Academy of Advertising

ISSN: 0091-3367 print / 1557-7805 online

DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2013.795122

Think Outside the Ad: Can Advertising Creativity Benefit

More Than the Advertiser?
Sara Rosengren, Micael Dahlén, and Erik Modig
Stockholm School of Economics, Center for Consumer Marketing, Stockholm, Sweden

studies have focused mainly on the negative effects of adver-

This article adds to the literature on advertising creativity as tising on, for example, consumer stereotypes, self-image, and
well as the growing body of research on the unintended effects of health behaviors (e.g., Dhar and Baylis 2011; Eisend 2010;
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 22:43 13 November 2013

advertising. In three experimental studies we “think outside the Maher et al. 2008), we hypothesize that advertising can have
ad” and test whether there could be unintended, positive effects
of advertising creativity. The results show advertising creativity to
unintentional positive effects as well.
have a positive influence on consumers’ own creativity as well as Our expectation that consumers who are exposed to creative
their perceptions of media vehicle value. The effects are mediated advertising may become more creative builds on, and contributes
by processing and perceived creativity. In discussing the results we to, two bodies of literature. First, it extends previous research
encourage advertisers not only to take responsibility for avoiding showing advertising creativity to increase consumer processing
unintended negative effects on consumers but also to explore and
factor in potential positive effects that benefit consumers.
of the ad (e.g., Baack, Wilson, and Till 2008; Smith, Chen,
and Yang 2008) to include processing outside the ad as well.
A heightened level of processing has been found to impact
In this article, we apply a “think outside the box” approach to favorably on consumer creativity (e.g., Burroughs and Mick
investigating the effects of advertising creativity. To think out- 2004; Dahl and Moreau 2002, 2007), meaning that an increase
side the ad and test whether advertising creativity could benefit in processing provoked by a creative ad could potentially make
both consumers and the media vehicles in which the ads are the consumer a more creative problem solver. Second, we extend
placed, we pose a question: Can advertising creativity benefit previous research on how advertising can affect consumers’ self-
more than the advertiser? More specifically, we argue that cre- image (e.g., Alwitt and Prabhaker 1992; Marshall et al. 2008;
ative advertising can make consumers who are exposed to the Mehta 1999) to include perceived own creativity. Perceived own
advertising more creative and increase the perceived value of creativity, in turn, has been found to have a significant effect on
the advertising’s media context. actual creativity, as it makes the individual more prone to take a
Our investigation resonates with recent calls to place adver- creative perspective (e.g., Tierney and Farmer 2002, 2011).
tising in a wider context and recognize advertising’s uninten- Our investigation also resonates with repeated calls to inves-
tional effects on consumers (Eisend 2010; Fitzsimons, Char- tigate how advertising affects its media context (e.g., Elliott and
trand, and Fitzsimons 2008; Maher et al. 2008). While previous Speck 1998; Ha and Litman 1997; Nelson, Meyvis, and Galak
2009). In line with recent findings that advertising (versus no
The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous financial support advertising) can have a positive, rather than negative, influence
provided by the Torsten and Ragnar Söderberg Foundation and Jan on consumer enjoyment of the media context (Nelson, Meyvis,
Wallander’s and Tom Hedelius’s foundation that made this research and Galak 2009; Rosengren and Dahlén 2013), we expect that
possible. advertising creativity may increase the perceived value of the
Address correspondence to Sara Rosengren, Associate Professor media context. There are two reasons for this. First, we expect
of Marketing, Stockholm School of Economics, Center for Consumer
Marketing, P.O. Box 6501, SE-113 83 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: increased processing of creative advertising to spill over to pro-
[email protected] cessing of the editorial context, thereby enabling consumers to
Sara Rosengren (PhD, Stockholm School of Economics) is an asso- derive greater value from it. Second, and converse of the adver-
ciate professor of marketing, Center for Consumer Marketing, Stock- tising context literature, which has found that the media context
holm School of Economics. may prime perceptions of the inserted advertising (e.g., Dahlén
Micael Dahlén (PhD, Stockholm School of Economics) is a profes-
sor of marketing, Center for Consumer Marketing, Stockholm School 2005; De Pelsmacker, Geuens, and Anckaert 2002), we expect
of Economics. creative advertising to prime consumers’ perceptions so that
Erik Modig (PhD, Stockholm School of Economics) is an assistant they find the media context more creative (and thereby derive
professor of marketing, Center for Consumer Marketing, Stockholm greater value from it).
School of Economics.

320
 THINK OUTSIDE THE AD 321

Our expectations are tested in three experimental studies. In ple, brain activity (e.g., Rossiter and Silberstein 2001) and visual
a first study, we subject a panel of consumers who have been attention durations (e.g., Pieters, Wedel, and Batra 2010).
exposed to more creative versus less creative ads to a standard Not surprisingly, then, increased consumer processing is gen-
creativity test to find out whether advertising creativity could in- erally considered one of the primary benefits of advertising cre-
deed make consumers more creative and whether such an effect ativity. For example, studies have repeatedly found that more
would be mediated by increased processing and perceived own creative versus less creative ads produce greater recall and more
creativity. In a second study, we replicate these findings using thoughts (e.g., Baack, Wilson, and Till 2008; Phillips 1997;
different manipulations of ad creativity and different measures Smith, Chen, and Yang 2008). While these studies have stayed
of processing and perceived own creativity. In the third study, we within the confines of the ad and measured only intended pro-
manipulate advertising creativity in a magazine and test whether cessing effects related to the advertising, we expect that adver-
it has a favorable influence on consumer-perceived value of the tising creativity could unintentionally evoke consumers’ pro-
media context and whether increased processing and primed cessing per se. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
perceptions of the magazine’s creativity mediate such an effect.
H1: Advertising creativity increases consumers’ processing.

EFFECTS OF ADVERTISING CREATIVITY We also expect that advertising creativity may have unintended
Thinking “inside the ad,” advertising research has predomi- positive effects on consumers’ perceptions of their own creativ-
nantly been occupied with understanding to what extent adver-
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 22:43 13 November 2013

ity, which would affect their ability to solve unrelated tasks.

tising affects how consumers think about products and them- The expectation that consumers will perceive themselves as
selves for the benefit of the advertiser. The same is true for more creative when exposed to creative advertising is based
research on the effects of advertising creativity (for a review, on previous research findings showing (a) today’s advertising-
see Sasser and Koslow 2008). Inquiries have mainly focused on savvy consumers to be both able and inclined to assess the
how creative ads (that is, ads that are both novel and relevant) can creative level of the advertising they are exposed to (Dahlén,
make consumers think more, and think more favorably, about Rosengren, and Törn 2008) and (b) that consumers have been
the ad and its subject (e.g., Baack, Wilson, and Till 2008; Smith, found to expect, and choose to attend to, advertising that re-
Chen, and Yang 2008). Consequently, the interest in advertising flects their character and needs (e.g., Alwitt and Prabhaker 1992;
creativity has revolved around finding more effective means to Marshall et al. 2008; Mehta 1999). The latter findings suggest
these ends, and the effects of advertising creativity have been that consumers relate advertising to their perceptions of them-
assessed accordingly. selves, their self-concepts (Mehta 1999). The use of different
However, as advertising continues to increasingly permeate appeals, language, and endorsers in advertising communicates
consumers’ everyday lives, there have been recent calls to recog- messages about the type of person it targets. Consumers use
nize advertising’s potential, unintentional effects on consumers. these messages in defining their self-perceptions (e.g., Alwitt
In so doing, studies have investigated advertising’s negative and Prabhaker 1992; Marshall et al. 2008), meaning that they
effects on consumers’ views of themselves and others, for ex- see advertising as indicative of who they are. Combining these
ample, in terms of self-esteem and stereotypes (Eisend 2010; two literatures, we expect advertising creativity to work in the
Maher et al. 2008). Applying this “outside the ad” perspective same way as different appeals and thus affect consumers’ per-
on advertising creativity, we investigate whether creative ad- ceptions of the type of person the ad targets. More specifically,
vertising executions can have unintentional, positive effects on we believe that advertising creativity will prime consumers’
consumers by enhancing their thinking and self-views not only perceived own creativity according to a “if I take part of this
related to the ads for the benefit of the advertiser but in ways that creative ad, it must mean that I am a creative person” chain of
benefit the consumers themselves. We also investigate whether thought.
advertising creativity can benefit the media vehicle in which ads Thinking outside the ad, we extend previous research, which
are included. suggests consumers reward with higher ratings the advertising
that they perceive as treating them as smart individuals (e.g.,
THE IMPACT OF ADVERTISING CREATIVITY ON Dahlén, Rosengren, Törn, and Öhman 2008), to hypothesize that
CONSUMER CREATIVITY advertising creativity may benefit consumers too by increasing
Consumer processing of advertising has always been at the their perceptions of their own creativity:
heart of advertising research. With some notable exceptions
H2: Advertising creativity increases consumers’ perceived own cre-
(e.g., Heath, Brandt, and Nairn 2006; Heath and Nairn 2005),
ativity.
the perennial notion is the more (positive) processing, the better
for the advertiser. Consequently, the most common assessments We expect both the increased processing and the increased per-
of advertising effectiveness throughout the years have been stan- ceived own creativity that advertising creativity evokes to have
dard measures such as attention, recall, and comprehension. a positive effect on consumers’ actual creativity. First, studies
Similarly, the more technologically sophisticated methods of on consumer creativity show that increasing the amount of pro-
recent years have targeted processing by measuring, for exam- cessing individuals devote to a task (by way of, for example,
 322 S. ROSENGREN ET AL.

increased time) enhances their creative output in terms of the and Koslow 2008; Smith, Chen, and Yang 2008). Our decision
number and originality of their alternative task solutions (e.g., to use this method was based on the fact that (a) our interests
Burroughs and Mick 2004; Dahl and Moreau 2007; Moreau and are in outcomes rather than antecedents of creativity and (b) our
Dahl 2005). We believe that a similar effect will occur as the theoretical reasoning and proposed mediations are with regards
increase in processing provoked by a creative ad makes con- to creativity in general rather than its subdimensions. It should
sumers more likely to engage in more processing of a creative also be noted that the use of this type of global judgment of sub-
task. Extending the literature to creative advertising, we thus jective creativity is recommended by Amabile (1996) and has
hypothesize that advertising creativity increases consumers’ ac- also been used by, for example, Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan
tual creativity in solving unrelated tasks by way of increasing (2003) and Stone, Besser, and Lewis (2000).
their amount of processing (hypothesis 3a). We used real advertisements as a starting point for our stimuli,
Second, we expect that consumers’ actual creativity will in- randomly picking two winners from the print category in the
crease as a result of the greater self-perceived creativity that cre- Swedish national creativity award (the Golden Egg) in a time
ative advertising evokes. We base this expectation on research period stretching from five to fifteen years earlier (to avoid
finding that increasing an individual’s belief or conviction that potentially confounding effects from previous exposure). The
he or she is creative enhances this person’s actual creative per- two ads were for well-known brands and had been used in both
formance by encouraging him or her to take more varied and outdoor and magazine settings.
original perspectives in solving tasks (e.g., Tierney and Farmer The two ads were used in their original forms as stimuli for
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 22:43 13 November 2013

2002, 2011). Therefore, we hypothesize that as advertising cre- the “more creative” advertising condition. The creativity of each
ativity increases consumers’ perceived own creativity, it will ad could be characterized using different creative (rhetorical)
also increase their actual creativity in solving unrelated tasks templates identified by Goldenberg, Mazursky, and Solomon
(hypothesis 3b): (1999). The first ad (for a grocery retail brand) used analogy,
and the second ad (for a brand of snacks) used dimensionality
H3: Advertising creativity increases consumers’ actual creativity by
alteration. To lower the perceived creativity for the “less cre-
way of (a) increased processing and (b) increased perceived own
creativity. ative” advertising condition, we removed the creative templates
in the message and communicated the same message in a more
Our theoretical framework and hypotheses 1 through 3 are sum- direct way (see the appendix for the actual ads used).
marized schematically in Figure 1.
Procedure
A total of 274 members of a nation-representative Internet
STUDY 1
panel participated in the study (134 females, mean age 39 years).
Hypotheses 1 through 3 were tested in an experiment in which The participants were asked to participate in a study of consumer
participants were exposed to a more creative or less creative ad, reactions to advertising. They were first exposed to one of the
filled out a questionnaire, and then performed a creativity test. stimulus ads (random assignment) and instructed to process it
for as long as they preferred. Next, they were asked to answer a
Stimulus Development few questions about the advertisement and then given a creativity
To test our hypotheses we employed the design from Dahlén, test. After completion of the creativity test, they were debriefed
Rosengren, and Törn’s (2008) study on the effects of advertising through a text explaining the purpose of the study. The procedure
creativity. More specifically, we developed two pairs of more was in line with ethical guidelines posed by both the university
creative versus less creative ads. For each pair, we used the same and the research firm running the study.
brand, the same key message, and (as far as possible) the same
visual elements and design. This way we could avoid potential Measures
confounds and make sure the differences between conditions Processing (hypothesis 1) was operationalized in terms of ad
are only due to differences in the perceived creativity of the ads. processing. Participants were asked to answer the open-ended
It should be noted that this approach focuses on global judg- question: “Approximately how much time did you spend on
ments of creativity rather than its subdimensions (see Sasser the ad?” The response area was set as follows: “About

FIG. 1. Proposed theoretical model (Study 1 and Study 2).

 THINK OUTSIDE THE AD 323

seconds.” Although self-reports do not give accurate measures advertisements rated significantly higher than the less creative
of actual processing time, previous studies suggest there should advertisements, M more creative = 4.57 versus M less creative = 3.91,
be no systematic differences in estimates between experimental t = 4.12, p < .01.
conditions (e.g., Dahlén, Rosengren, Törn and Öhman 2008).
Self-reports should thus be useful to test the hypothesized
differences in processing between our creativity conditions. Hypothesis Testing
To assess perceived own creativity (hypothesis 2), partici- Hypotheses 1 through 3 were tested by comparing the mean
pants rated their agreement with the item “I feel creative” on a values between conditions (see Table 1). Supporting our first
7-point scale (1 = Do not agree, 7 = Totally agree). hypothesis that advertising creativity increases consumers’ pro-
Actual creativity (hypothesis 3) was assessed through the cessing, the more creative advertisements produced significantly
classic Alternative Uses Test (Wison et al. 1954; Torrance 1966). longer processing times than the less creative advertisements did
The test gauges a person’s ability to conceive alternative uses (M more creative = 11.53 versus M less creative = 10.26, p < .01). Par-
for common objects. In our study, participants were asked to ticipants also rated their perceived own creativity significantly
come up with as many uses they could think of for either a higher in the more creative advertising condition compared to
brick or a paper clip. Answers were given in an open space, and the less creative advertising condition (M more creative = 4.84 ver-
participants were allowed to spend as much time on the task as sus M less creative = 4.42, p < .05), supporting hypothesis 2.
they wanted. To the test our third hypothesis, that advertising creativity
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 22:43 13 November 2013

The uses identified by participants were then rated by two increases consumers’ actual creativity, we first compared con-
expert judges experienced in judging creative output, both of sumers’ actual creativity between the two advertising condi-
whom were marketing academics. The judges were blind to the tions. Both the number of alternative uses (M more creative = 4.22
experimental conditions of the study, and interrater reliability versus M less creative = 3.22, p < .01) and the rated creativity of
was .81. The test produced two dependent variables: The first the alternative uses (M more creative = 6.47 versus M less creative =
was a count of the total number of conceived uses. The second 5.86, p < .01) were significantly higher in the more creative
was an index of rated creativity formed by averaging the rated condition.
flexibility (number of different categories of the generated uses), Next, we tested whether participants’ actual creativity in-
originality (how rare each use was), and elaboration (the detail creased by way of (a) increased processing and (b) increased
of description of the uses), rated on a 7-point scale (1 = low, perceived own creativity by applying Hayes, Preacher, and My-
7 = high; Cronbach’s alpha = .93). ers’ (2011) method for estimating multiple direct and indirect
As a manipulation check, we also included a measure of effects. First, we set our manipulated factor (more versus less
perceived advertising creativity. Participants were asked to rate creative advertising) as the independent variable X and allowed
the creativity of the advertisement stimulus, using the same one- for direct and indirect, mediated effects on the dependent vari-
item 7-point scale as, for example, Dahlén, Rosengren, and Törn able (Y) number of alternative uses. Next, we included ad pro-
(2008) and Stone, Besser, and Lewis (2000), where 1 = Not at cessing (M1) and perceived own creativity (M2) as potential
all creative and 7 = Very creative. mediators. The model produced a significant indirect, mediated
effect from our manipulation on the dependent variables. In
STUDY 1 RESULTS support of hypothesis 3a, ad processing had a significant medi-
ating effect (M1number of uses = .09, t = 3.11) on the dependent
Manipulation Test variable. Similarly participants’ perceived own creativity pro-
First, we ran a t-test comparing the perceived advertising duced a separate, indirect path (M2number of uses = .22, t = 2.23)
creativity of the more creative versus less creative advertisement from our manipulation on the dependent variable, supporting
stimuli. In line with our intended manipulation, the more creative hypothesis 3b.

TABLE 1
Advertising Creativity’s Effect on Consumer Creativity, Study 1
More creative Less creative
Measure advertisements advertisements t value
Processing (time in seconds) 11.53 10.26 2.01
Perceived own creativity 4.84 4.42 1.73
Actual creativity
Number of alternative uses (count) 4.22 3.22 3.32
Rated creativity of alternative uses (index) 6.46 5.86 1.99
 324 S. ROSENGREN ET AL.

The procedure was then repeated with rated creativity of uses of the pairs that they deemed to be the most representative of
as dependent variable (Y). Again, ad processing had a signifi- more creative or less creative ads. The selected ad pairs were
cant mediating effect (M1rated creativity of uses = .05, t = 3.59). A for brands in the following categories: coffee, furniture, con-
mediation was also found for participants’ perceived own cre- traceptives, and pain killers. Creativity was varied in terms of
ativity (M2rated creativity of uses = .17, t = 2.39). Thus hypotheses (a) picture (more or less creatively associated to same text),
3a and 3b are supported for both number and rated creativity of (b) text (more or less creatively associated to same picture),
uses. (c) picture only (no text included), and (d) text only (no pic-
ture included). To avoid idiosyncratic effects the advertiser was
Discussion masked in all ads.
Taken together, the findings from Study 1 suggest that adver-
tising creativity can produce unintended, positive effects that Procedure
benefit more than the advertiser. Supporting our first two hy- A total of 420 members of a nation-representative Inter-
potheses, the more creative advertisements increased partici- net panel participated in the study (207 females, mean age =
pants’ processing as well as their perceived own creativity. Our 41.4 years). To avoid overlap with participants in Study 1 the
analysis also showed that, as a consequence of both these effects, panel was provided by a different research firm. The overall
participants performed better in a subsequent creativity test, sug- procedure was the same as in Study 1, and allocation to the
gesting that they did indeed become more creative themselves different advertisements was random.
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 22:43 13 November 2013

by taking part of more creative versus less creative advertising.

The findings of Study 1 have, however, several limitations re- Measures
lated to both the measurements and the stimulus materials used. Processing (hypothesis 1) was measured by recording the
First, when measuring processing we relied on self-reported as- actual time (in seconds) spent by participants in (a) viewing the
sessments of ad processing. A stronger test of our hypothesis ad and (b) coming up with alternative uses.
would require an assessment of actual processing time. What is To assess perceived own creativity (hypothesis 2), we used
more, we should also take processing of the actual creative task the following four items: “I feel creative”; “My creativity level
into account as this would allow us to test our theoretical rea- is high”; “I can be creative”; and “I see myself as creative.”
soning more carefully (see Burroughs and Mick 2004). Second, Answers were given on a 7-point scale (1 = Do not agree, 7 =
using a multi-item measure of perceived own creativity would Totally agree) and averaged to form an index (alpha = .96).
increase reliability of this measure and thus add credibility to As in Study 1, actual creativity (hypothesis 3) was assessed
our findings. Third, as Study 1 used only two pairs of ads, the through the Alternative Uses Test. This time participants were
results are highly sensitive to idiosyncratic differences due to asked to come up with as many uses they could think of for
the brands, categories, and manipulations of ad creativity used. either stools or hangers. Again, two expert judges blind to the
Additional tests using a different set of brands and creativity experimental conditions were used to rate the uses identified
manipulations would thus be needed. by the participants (interrater reliability = .90). As a manipula-
tion check, we included three measures of perceived advertising
STUDY 2 creativity. Participants were asked to rate their agreement (1 =
Study 2 was conducted to replicate the findings of Study 1 Do not agree, 7 = Totally agree) with the statement “The ad is
using more reliable measures of processing and perceived own creative.”
creativity. It also aimed to rule out the idiosyncratic effects of
the manipulations used in Study 1. As in Study 1, hypotheses STUDY 2 RESULTS
1 through 3 were tested in an experiment in which participants
were exposed to a more creative or less creative ad, filled out a Manipulation Test
questionnaire, and then took a creativity test. First, we ran a t-test comparing the perceived advertising
creativity of the more creative versus less creative advertisement
Stimulus Development stimuli. In line with our intended manipulation, the more creative
As in Study 1 we developed pairs of more creative or less advertisements rated significantly higher than the less creative
creative advertising following Dahlén, Rosengren, and Törn’s advertisements, M more creative = 5.72 versus M less creative = 4.07
(2008) approach. Each pair communicated the same brand and (t = 6.83, p < .01).
the same key message. As far as possible they also included
the same visual elements and design to avoid any potential Hypothesis Testing
confounds. Testing hypotheses 1 through 3, we compared the mean
In this study we used mock ads to avoid the effects of pre- values between conditions (Table 2). Supporting our first
vious exposure. We first developed 10 pairs of more creative hypothesis that advertising creativity increases consumers’
or less creative advertising for brands in 10 different categories. processing, the more creative advertisements produced sig-
Two expert judges (advertising professionals) then selected four nificantly longer processing times than the less creative
 THINK OUTSIDE THE AD 325

TABLE 2
Advertising Creativity’s Effect on Consumer Creativity, Study 2
More creative Less creative
Measure advertisements advertisements t value
Ad processing (time in seconds) 13.85 10.18 2.31
Task processing (time in seconds) 130.03 110.85 1.67
Perceived own creativity 6.58 6.17 1.97
Actual creativity
Number of alternative uses (count) 5.75 4.05 2.97
Rated creativity of alternative uses (index) 5.77 4.81 3.38

advertisements (M more creative = 13.85 versus M less creative = does so using different measures of processing and perceived
10.18, p < .01). The same was also true for processing the cre- own creativity. Mediation analysis also indicates that the ad
ative task (M more creative = 130.03 versus M less creative = 110.85, processing stimulates processing in the creative task, thereby
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 22:43 13 November 2013

p < .05). Similarly, participants rated their perceived own providing additional evidence for our proposed logic.
creativity significantly higher in the more creative advertising So far, then, Study 1 and Study 2 show that the benefits of
condition compared to the less creative advertising condition advertising creativity extend beyond the effects of the advertiser
(M more creative = 6.58 versus M less creative = 6.17, p < .05), documented in previous research (see Sasser and Koslow 2008).
supporting hypothesis 2. Next, we hypothesize that advertising creativity can also have
To the test our third hypothesis, that advertising creativity unintended positive effects on consumers’ derived value of me-
increases consumers’ actual creativity, we first compared con- dia vehicles in which the advertising is featured and potentially
sumers’ actual creativity between the two advertising condi- benefits both the consumers and the media partners.
tions. Both the number of alternative uses (M more creative = 5.75
versus M less creative = 4.05, p < .01) and the rated creativity of
THE IMPACT OF ADVERTISING CREATIVITY ON THE
the alternative uses (M more creative = 5.77 versus M less creative =
MEDIA CONTEXT
4.81, p < .01) were significantly higher in the more creative
condition. Over the years, there have been repeated calls to widen the
We then tested whether participants’ actual creativity in- scope of advertising research to include advertising’s effects on
creased by way of (a) increased processing (M1a = ad process- the media context in which it is inserted (e.g., Elliott and Speck
ing, which leads to M1b = task processing) and (b) increased 1998; Ha and Litman 1997; Nelson, Meyvis, and Galak 2009).
perceived own creativity (M2) by applying Hayes, Preacher, and With the recent exceptions of Nelson, Meyvis, and Galak’s
Myers’s (2011) method for estimating multiple direct and indi- (2009) study of the positive effects of advertising interruption
rect effects. One model was created for each dependent variable and Rosengren and Dahlén’s (2013) study of the effects of ad-
(number of uses and rated creativity of use, respectively). Both vertising content on magazine evaluations, research answering
models produced significant indirect, mediated effects from our these calls has focused mainly on the negative effects adver-
manipulation on the dependent variables. tising has on consumers’ consumption of the media context by
In support of hypothesis 3a, ad-evoked processing had way of clutter and interruption (e.g., Elliot and Speck 1998) and
a significant mediating effect (M1a = .17, t = 3.15) on its potentially damaging consequences to media owners (e.g.,
participants’ processing of the creativity test, which pro- Ha and Litman 1997). All studies have in common that they
duced effects (M1b number of uses = .02, tnumber of uses = 1.98 typically lump all ads together and focus on the presence of
and M1brated creativity of uses = .02, trated creativity of uses = 3.06, re- advertising per se. This means that they disregard the content
spectively) on the dependents. Similarly supporting hypoth- of ads and their effects (for an exception, see Rosengren and
esis 3b, participants’ perceived own creativity produced a Dahlén 2013). Building on the notion that all advertising is not
separate, indirect path from our manipulation on the depen- equal, we believe that, thinking outside the ad, one could expect
dent variables (M2number of uses = .20, tnumber of uses = 1.99 and advertising creativity to have unintended positive effects on con-
M2rated creativity of uses = .28, trated creativity of uses = 2.23, respec- sumers’ consumption of the media context (and, as a conse-
tively). quence, potentially on the media owners).
First, we expect advertising creativity to increase consumers’
processing of the media context. Extending Nelson, Meyvis, and
Discussion Galak’s (2009) finding that advertising interruptions allow con-
Study 2 replicates the findings of Study 1, thereby providing sumers to rest and thereby reinvigorate consumers’ enjoyment
additional support for hypotheses 1 through 3. Most notably, it of the editorial context, we argue that advertising creativity may
 326 S. ROSENGREN ET AL.

promote ads from relief to potential catalysts that increase con- tensively to conclude that they must find it more valuable (see
sumers’ processing and stimulate their processing of the media Bodey and Grace 2006); thus we pose hypothesis 6a.
context. In other words, advertising creativity not only inten- Extending the findings from advertising creativity research
tionally increases consumers’ processing of the ad itself but that consumers enjoy (e.g., Dahlén 2005) and perceive creativity
may also unintentionally increase their processing of its media as a quality (e.g., Dahlén, Rosengren, and Törn 2008) in its
context. Therefore, we hypothesize: own right, we expect the increased perceived creativity of the
media context evoked by advertising creativity to increase the
H4: Advertising creativity increases media context processing. perceived value of the media context as well (hypothesis 6b):
We also expect that advertising creativity may unintentionally H6: Advertising creativity increases perceived value of the media
prime consumers’ perceptions of the media context so that they context by way of (a) increased processing and (b) increased per-
ceived media context creativity.
perceive it to be more creative, too. We base this expectation on
the advertising context literature, which finds that the editorial Our theoretical framework and hypotheses 4 through 6 are sum-
context primes consumers’ perceptions of the inserted advertis- marized schematically in Figure 2.
ing (e.g., Dahlén 2005; De Pelsmacker, Geuens, and Anckaert
2002). According to this literature, ads are not perceived in iso-
lation but according to their context, meaning that consumers
STUDY 3
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 22:43 13 November 2013

view advertising in light of the associations that its context

Hypotheses 4 through 6 were tested in an experiment in
evokes. Staying with our notion that advertising may have un-
which participants were exposed to a lifestyle magazine dummy
intentional effects beyond the ad itself, converse to the findings
featuring more creative versus less creative advertising. After
from the advertising context literature we expect neither ads nor
reading the magazine dummy, they filled out a questionnaire.
their editorial context are perceived in isolation and consumers
may view the editorial context in light of the associations that Stimulus Development
the ads evoke (see Rosengren and Dahlén 2013). First, we created a glossy, full-color dummy for a mock
Given that consumers are able and inclined to assess the cre- lifestyle magazine, titled Intense. Intense was created to cater to
ative level of advertising (Dahlén, Rosengren, and Törn, 2008), young men and women (ages 20 and up) by giving inspiration
we expect advertising creativity will evoke consumers’ asso- on a broad range of topics (e.g., career planning, homemaking,
ciations to creativity and, in light of these associations, they travel, self-improvement). It contained 16 pages of editorial ma-
will perceive the media context as more creative. Therefore, we terial as well as four full-page ads, the focus of our manipula-
hypothesize: tions. Both editorial content and advertisements were developed
H5: Advertising creativity increases perceived media context cre-
to fit a target audience consisting of young adults about to start
ativity. their professional careers.
To test hypotheses 4 through 6, we manipulated the adver-
We expect both the increased processing and the increase in per- tisements in the dummy to be more creative versus less creative.
ceived creativity that advertising creativity evokes to favorably To ensure that ads fit with the glossy feel of the magazine, we
affect consumers’ perceived value of the media context. There used real ads as stimuli. All ads were taken from nondomestic,
are three main arguments why more processing would have a international magazines to avoid potentially confounding effects
positive influence on perceived value of the media context. First, from previous exposure. Great care was taken to ensure that the
advertising studies suggest consumers enjoy processing of cre- selected ads were relevant for the theme and target group of the
ative advertising content in its own right (e.g., Dahlén, Rosen- magazine. The use of real ads meant that we could not form
gren, Törn and Öhman 2008). Thus the processing of creative pairs of ads with the same brand as in Studies 1 and 2. Instead,
advertising should in itself add value to the media experience. the ads were matched by category. More specifically, the ads
Second, one would very simply expect more processing to en- were for an interior decoration brand, a food brand, a beauty
able consumers to extract a greater fraction of the actual value care brand, and a travel agency. To avoid brand-specific effects
that the editorial offers. Third, by way of self-monitoring, one and increase comparability between conditions, the advertiser
would expect consumers who process the editorial more ex- was masked in all ads.

FIG. 2. Proposed theoretical model (Study 3).

 THINK OUTSIDE THE AD 327

Using the same scale as in Study 1, we pretested the perceived STUDY 3 RESULTS
creativity of the selected ads. The more creative ads all rated
significantly higher than the less creative ads (M more creative > 5 Manipulation Check
versus M less creative < 3, p < .01, n = 27). First, we ran a t-test comparing participants’ ratings of the
advertisements overall in the magazine, using the same mea-
sure as in Study 1. In line with our intended manipulation, the
Procedure advertisements in the more creative advertising condition rated
In all, 121 adults participated in the study (79 female, mean significantly higher than the advertisements in the less creative
age = 23 years). Participants were recruited by intercept in advertising condition, M more creative = 5.24 versus M less creative =
cafés and restaurants at a large business school campus. The 4.16, t = 8.27, p < .01.
choice of location allowed us to find participants who fit the
target audience of the magazine both in terms of age and inter- Hypothesis Testing
ests. Participants were informed that the magazine, targeted at Testing hypotheses 4 through 6, we first ran a MANOVA
both men and women, was soon to be launched in the region (multivariate analysis of variance) on all dependent variables
of study and that the study was conducted to test its market po- simultaneously, with congruence as a covariate. Our manipu-
tential. They were instructed to look through the dummy for as lated factor (more creative versus less creative advertising) had
long as they wanted and then were asked to answer some ques- significant effects on all dependents, F (4,121) = 6.08, Wilks’
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 22:43 13 November 2013

tions about the magazine. Assignment to the two conditions was lambda = .90, p < .01. Next, we used planned contrasts to com-
random. pare the mean values between conditions and test the hypotheses
individually (Table 3).
Supporting our fourth hypothesis that advertising creativ-
Measures ity increases media context processing, the more creative ad-
Media context processing (hypothesis 4) was gauged using vertising condition produced significantly longer processing
the same measure of processing time (in minutes) as in Study 1. of the magazine than did the less creative advertising con-
Perceived media context creativity (hypothesis 5) was mea- dition (M more creative = 6.43 versus M less creative = 5.80, p <
sured by asking participants to rate the extent to which they .01). Similarly, participants rated the perceived creativity of the
found the magazine to be creative on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = magazine significantly higher in the more creative advertising
Completely disagree, 7 = Completely agree). (M more creative = 4.83 versus M less creative = 3.92, p < .01), thus
Perceived value of the media context was operationalized supporting hypothesis 5.
in two ways. Magazine value was measured with three items: To the test our sixth hypothesis, that advertising creativity
“valuable,” “worth reading,” and “useful,” on a 7-point scale increases the perceived value of the media context, we first
taken from Dahlén, Granlund, and Grenros (2009). They formed compared consumers’ actual creativity between the two adver-
an averaged index (Cronbach’s alpha = .86). In addition, we tising conditions. Participants’ ratings of the perceived value of
measured participants’ willingness to pay (WTP) for the maga- the magazine (M more creative = 4.88 versus M less creative = 4.25,
zine with an open-ended question: “What would you be willing p < .01) and the price they were willing to pay (M more creative =
to pay for this magazine?” The answers were given in the local 7.0 versus M less creative = 6.0, p < .05) were both significantly
currency. To facilitate interpretation, we have converted them higher in the more creative condition.
into equivalent USD value. Next, we tested whether the perceived value of the media
In addition to the dependent variables, we measured congru- context increased by way of (a) increased processing and (b)
ence between the ads and the magazine to include as covariate in increased perceived creativity by once again applying Hayes,
the analysis. Respondents rated the two items mismatch/match Preacher, and Myers’s (2011) method for estimating multiple
and poor fit/good fit on a 7-point semantic differential, to form direct and indirect effects. First, we set our manipulated factor
an averaged index (r = .91). (more creative versus less creative advertising) as the indepen-

TABLE 3
Advertising Creativity’s Effects on the Media Context, Study 3
More creative Less creative
Measure advertisements advertisements p value
Processing (time in minutes) 6.43 5.80 <.01
Perceived creativity 4.83 3.92 <.01
Perceived value 4.88 4.25 <.01
Willingness to pay (WTP) 7.0 6.0 <.05
 328 S. ROSENGREN ET AL.

dent variable X and allowed for direct and indirect, mediated Geuens, and Anckaert 2002) to show that, conversely, advertis-
effects on the two dependent variables (Y), rated perceived ing creativity can have a positive impact on perceptions of the
value of the magazine and participants’ WTP (one model for media context.
each dependent variable). Next, we included processing (M1) Our studies also respond to recent calls to recognize and
and perceived creativity (M2) as potential mediators. Both investigate the potential unintended effects of advertising (e.g.,
models produced a significant indirect, mediated effect from our Eisend 2010; Maher et al. 2008). But while recent efforts have
manipulation on the dependent variables. In support of hypoth- explored the negative effects of advertising on consumers, we
esis 6a, processing had a significant mediating effect (M1) on find that it may have unintended, positive effects as well. This
the dependents (trated value = 3.06, tWTP = 2.20). Similarly sup- may be an important first step to encourage advertisers not only
porting hypothesis 6b, the perceived creativity of the magazine to take responsibility for avoiding unintended negative effects
produced a separate, indirect path (M3) from our manipulation on consumers but also to explore and factor in potential positive
on the dependent variables (trated value = 2.63, tWTP = 2.09). effects that benefit consumers.
Discussion Implications for Advertisers
The results of Study 3 support hypothesis 4 through 6, sug- There are several reasons advertisers should take notice of
gesting that advertising creativity can have unintended, positive our results. On a macro level, the increasing pervasiveness of
effects on the consumption of the media context in which the advertising has been subject to intense debate in recent years
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 22:43 13 November 2013

advertising is featured. More specifically, advertising creativity (e.g., Ashgar 2010; Goodman 1999; Strasburger 2006). The
was found to increase participants’ media context processing discussion has hitherto focused on negative unintended effects
as well as perceived media context creativity. These two ef- of advertising. Targeting and communicating the positive effects
fects were found to simultaneously affect participants’ perceived of advertising creativity that benefit consumers could be an
value of the media context favorably. The positive effects of ad- important way for advertisers to face this critique. Thinking
vertising creativity on consumers thus seem to translate into outside the ad would also extend the argument for the positive
positive effects on media vehicles. The implications of this find- effects of advertising, which has usually focused on its ability
ing are discussed next. to do good in the intended communication of, for example,
cause marketing (e.g., Youn and Kim 2008) and corporate social
GENERAL DISCUSSION responsibility (e.g., Waller and Lanis 2009).
Taken together, our three studies find that creatively “think- Targeting and communicating the positive effects of advertis-
ing outside the box” in advertising is indeed beneficial. Our ing creativity that benefit consumers should also be important on
findings resonate with the numerous previous studies on ad- a micro level. With increasingly advertising-savvy consumers
vertising creativity that documented the positive effect on con- and technological advances (such as TiVo and ad-blocking soft-
sumers that creative advertisements have (e.g., Smith, Chen, ware), advertising is becoming more and more dependent on
and Yang 2008). However, applying “think outside the box” not consumers voluntarily exposing themselves to advertising (e.g.,
only to advertising but also to our research approach, and al- Dahlén and Edenius 2007). This means that advertisers need to
lowing our investigation to think outside the ad, we add to the offer something to consumers in order to earn their attention.
existing knowledge by showing that advertising creativity may Typically advertisers have faced this challenge by focusing on
affect consumers and media vehicles in ways that are beneficial offering entertainment or information (e.g., Ducoffe 1995). Our
not only to the advertiser. findings, that consumers can become more creative and derive
More specifically, our investigation suggests that, by way greater value from their media consumption, highlight that ad-
of increasing consumers’ processing and priming their own ditional value can be offered to consumers in exchange for their
creativity, advertising creativity benefits consumers by mak- attention.
ing them better at creatively solving unrelated tasks. But, as our Although it might be difficult to explain to consumers the
third study finds, it can also allow them to derive greater value value they will get out of creative advertising, media owners
from the context in which they take part of the advertising. In might be more open to our results. Potentially, advertisers could
enhancing the processing and perceived value of the media con- use the findings in negotiations with media owners. Advertising
text, advertising creativity could thus benefit both consumers creativity can benefit media contexts by increasing consumers’
and media owners. processing of the context and favorably priming consumers’
Theoretically, the current studies contribute by linking the lit- perceptions so that they derive greater value from it. This result
erature on advertising creativity (e.g., Dahlén, Rosengren, and reinforces Rosengren and Dahlén’s (2013) findings that certain
Törn 2008; Sasser and Koslow 2008) with research on consumer types of advertising can, indeed, make a media vehicle more
self-perceptions (e.g., Alwitt and Prabhaker 1992; Marshall et al. valuable for consumers. In so doing, it challenges the view
2008) and consumer creativity (e.g., Burroughs and Mick 2004; of advertising as a necessary evil for media. In this view con-
Dahl and Moreau 2002). It also explores the findings from the sumers’ derived value of the media consumption is traded off
advertising context literature (e.g., Dahlén 2005; De Pelsmacker, for advertising revenue (see Ha and Litman 1997). By focusing
 THINK OUTSIDE THE AD 329

on the content of the ads, one can actually find ways to increase reader paced; it would be interesting to see if similar effects
the value of a media vehicle with advertising. Advertisers, would occur in media that is not, such as, for instance, TV
consumers, and the media could all gain from widening the or radio. Also, using a lifestyle magazine meant that our me-
perspective of minimizing the necessary evil of advertising to dia context was geared toward entertainment. In the future it
promoting its potential mutual benefits. With the increase in would be important to investigate whether similar results can
media competition in recent years, advertising’s potential to in- be found in a more informative media context, such as that of
crease the perceived value of the editorial content should be most newspapers.
welcome by media owners and maybe even costly to neglect. In the light of these limitations, our investigation should be
Taking all this into account, we suggest that advertising considered a first, small step to investigate potential positive
could, and should, target positive effects outside the ad as well. advertising effects from a stakeholder perspective other than the
Advertisers should include them as additional measures of ad- advertiser’s, and we hope it will contribute to expanding the
vertising effectiveness, as they would benefit advertisers both on body of literature on the subject.
a macro level by bettering advertising’s reputation and standing
in the public eye and on a micro level by adding to the value REFERENCES
consumers derive from exposing themselves to advertising. Al- Alwitt, Linda F., and Paul R. Prabhaker (1992), “Functional and Belief Dimen-
though this reasoning might seem idealistic it should be rather sions of Attitudes to Television Advertising: Implications for Copytesting,”
Journal of Advertising Research, 32 (5), 30–42.
easy to implement, as advertising creativity has been found to be
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 22:43 13 November 2013

Amabile, Theresa (1996), Creativity in Context, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

highly effective in terms of brand-related outcomes (e.g., Smith, Ashgar, Rob (2010), “Super Bowl Ads and the Mad Men’s $150 Billion
Chen, and Yang 2008). Con Job,” Huffington Post, February 2, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-
asghar/super-bowl-ads-and-the-ma b 445480.html.
Limitations and Further Research Baack, Daniel W., Rick T. Wilson, and Brian D. Till (2008), “Creativity and
Memory Effects: Recall, Recognition, and an Exploration of Nontraditional
In showing that advertising may have unintended, positive Media,” Journal of Advertising, 37 (4), 85–94.
effects our current inquiry should be seen as a call to learn more Bodey, Kelli, and Debra Grace (2006), “Segmenting Service ‘Complainers’ and
about how advertising can benefit more than the advertiser. The ‘Non-Complainers’ on the Basis of Consumer Characteristics,” Journal of
findings are, however, limited by the scope and focus of our three Services Marketing, 20 (3), 178–87.
studies. The present investigation utilized print ads, manipulated Burroughs, James E., and David G. Mick (2004), “Exploring Antecedents and
Consequences of Consumer Creativity in a Problem-Solving Context,” Jour-
ad creativity, and measured short-term effects. Future research nal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 402–11.
should replicate and extend the present findings, with a natural Dahl, Darren W., and Page C. Moreau (2002), “The Influence and Value of
variation of creativity to other advertising formats and media, Analogical Thinking During New Product Ideation,” Journal of Marketing
and test the longevity of the attained effects. Research, 39 (1), 47–60.
In the current study we argued, and found empirical support, ———, and ——— (2007), “Thinking Inside the Box: Why Consumers Enjoy
Constrained Creative Experiences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (3),
for the proposed relationships. Still, some of these relation- 357–69.
ships are novel, and further research is needed to better under- Dahlén, Micael (2005), “The Medium as a Contextual Cue,” Journal of Adver-
stand the underlying mechanisms. This is especially true for tising, 34 (3), 89–98.
our proposed effect of advertising creativity on perceived own ———, and Mats Edenius (2007), “When Is Advertising Advertising? Com-
creativity, which has not been documented before and warrants paring Responses to Non-Traditional and Traditional Advertising Media,”
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 29 (1), 33–42.
additional studies. ———, Anton Granlund, and Mikael Grenros (2009), “The Consumer-
It should also be noted that there are several different ways to Perceived Value of Non-Traditional Media: Effects of Brand Reputation,
operationalize creativity in advertising research. Most of these Appropriateness, and Expense,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26 (3),
approaches include measures of divergence/novelty and rele- 155–63.
vance. In our study we followed the approach used by Dahlén, ———, Sara Rosengren, and Fredrik Törn (2008), “Advertising Creativity
Matters,” Journal of Advertising Research, 48 (3), 392–403.
Rosengren and Törn (2008). Although the focus of this approach ———, ———, ———, and Niclas Öhman (2008), “Could Placing Ads Wrong
is on global evaluations of ad creativity it relies on a manipula- Be Right?,” Journal of Advertising, 37 (3), 57–67.
tion of creativity that varies divergence/novelty while keeping De Pelsmacker, Patrick, Maggie Geuens, and Pascal Anckaert (2002), “Media
relevance constant. Indeed, this approach removes some of the Context and Advertising Effectiveness: The Role of Context Appreciation
complexity of advertising creativity. In the future it would be and Context/Ad Similarity,” Journal of Advertising, 31 (2), 49–61.
Dhar, T., and K. Baylis (2011), “Fast-Food Consumption and the Ban on Adver-
important to test the robustness of our finding taking both rel- tising Targeting Children: The Quebec Experience,” Journal of Marketing
evance and novelty into account (see Smith, Chen, and Yang Research, 48 (5), 799–813.
2008). A similar concern could also be raised in terms of our Ducoffe, Robert H. (1995), “How Consumers Assess the Value of Advertising,”
assessment of actual creativity as the Unusual Uses Test focuses Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 17, 1–18.
on divergent thinking. Eisend, Martin (2010), “A Meta-Analysis of Gender Roles in Advertising,”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38 (4), 418–40.
In the future it would be important to investigate whether Elliot, Michael T., and Paul S. Speck (1998), “Consumer Perceptions of Adver-
similar effects occur for creative advertising in other adver- tising Clutter and Its Impact Across Various Media,” Journal of Advertising
tising formats and media. Print advertising is special as it is Research, 38 (1), 29–41.
 330 S. ROSENGREN ET AL.

Fitzsimons, Gráinne M., Tanya L. Chartrand, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2008), Phillips, Barbara J. (1997), “Thinking Into It: Consumer Interpretation of Com-
“Automatic Effects of Brand Exposure on Motivated Behavior: How Ap- plex Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 26 (2), 77–87.
ple Makes You ‘Think Different,”’ Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (1), Pieters, Rik, Michel Wedel, and Rajeev Batra (2010), “The Stopping Power
21–35. of Advertising: Measures and Effects of Visual Complexity,” Journal of
Goldenberg, Jacob, David Mazursky, and Sorin Salomon (1999), “Toward Iden- Marketing, 74 (5), 48–60.
tifying the Inventive Templates of New Products: A Channeled Ideation Rosengren, Sara, and Micael Dahlén (2013), “Judging a Magazine by Its Adver-
Approach,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (2), 200–10. tising: Exploring Effects of Advertising Content on Perceptions of a Media
Goodman, Ellen (1999), “Ads Pollute Most Everything in Sight,” Albuquerque Vehicle,” Journal of Advertising Research, 53 (1), 61–70.
Journal, June 27, C3. Rossiter, John R., and Richard B. Silberstein (2001), “Brain-Imaging Detection
Ha, Louisa, and Barry R. Litman (1997), “Does Advertising Clutter Have of Visual Scene Encoding in Long-term Memory for TV Commercials,”
Diminishing and Negative Returns?,” Journal of Advertising, 26 (1), Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (2), 13–21.
31–42. Sasser, Sheila, and Scott Koslow (2008), “Desperately Seeking Advertising
Hayes, Andrew F., Kristopher J. Preacher, and Teresa A. Myers (2011), “Me- Creativity. Engaging in an Imaginative ‘3Ps’ Research Agenda,” Journal of
diation and the Estimation of Indirect Effects in Political Communication Advertising, 37 (4), 5–19.
Research,” in The Sourcebook for Political Communication Research, E. P. Smith, Robert E., Jiemiao Chen, and Xiaojing Yang (2008), “The Impact of
Bucy and R. L. Holbert, eds., New York, NY: Routledge, 434–65. Advertising Creativity on the Hierarchy of Effects,” Journal of Advertising,
Heath, Robert, David Brandt, and Agnes Nairn (2006), “Brand Relationships: 37 (4), 47–61.
Strengthened by Emotion, Weakened by Attention,” Journal of Advertising Stone, Gerald, Donna Besser, and Loran E. Lewis (2000), “Recall, Liking, and
Research, 46 (4), 410–19. Creativity in TV Commercials: A New Approach,” Journal of Advertising
———, and Agnes Nairn (2005), “Measuring Affective Advertising: Impli- Research, 40 (3), 7–18.
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 22:43 13 November 2013

cations of Low Attention Processing on Recall,” Journal of Advertising Strasburger, Victor C. (2006), “Children, Adolescents, and Advertising,” Pedi-
Research, 45 (2), 269–81. atrics, 118 (6), 2563–69.
Koslow, Scott, Sheila L. Sasser, and Edward A. Riordan (2003), “What Is Tierney, Pamela, and Steven M. Farmer (2002), “Creative Self-Efficacy: Its
Creative to Whom and Why? Perceptions in Advertising Agencies,” Journal Potential Antecedents and Relationship to Creative Performance,” Academy
of Advertising Research, 43 (1), 96–110. of Management Journal, 45 (6), 1137–48.
Maher, Jill K., Kenneth C. Herbst, Nancy M. Childs, and Seth Finn (2008), ———, and ——— (2011), “Creative Self-Efficacy Development and Cre-
“Racial Stereotypes in Children’s Television Commercials,” Journal of Ad- ative Performance Over Time,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (2),
vertising Research, 48 (1), 80–93. 277–93.
Marshall, Roger, Wonnbong Na, Gabriel State, and Sonali Deuskar (2008), “En- Torrance, Paul (1966), The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Technical-
dorsement Theory: How Consumers Relate to Celebrity Models,” Journal Norms Manual, research ed., Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
of Advertising Research, 48 (4), 564–72. Waller, David S., and Roman Lanis (2009), “Corporate Social Responsibility
Mehta, Abhilasha (1999), “Using Self-Concept to Assess Advertising Effec- (CSR) Disclosure of Advertising Agencies,” Journal of Advertising, 38 (1),
tiveness,” Journal of Advertising Research, 39 (1), 81–89. 109–21.
Moreau, Page C., and Darren W. Dahl (2005), “Designing the Solution: The Wison, Robert C., Joy P. Guilford, Paul R. Christensen, and Donald J. Lewis
Impact of Constraints on Consumers’ Creativity,” Journal of Consumer (1954), “A Factor-Analytic Study of Creative-Thinking Abilities,” Psy-
Research, 32 (1), 13–22. chometrika, 19, 297–311.
Nelson, Leif D., Tom Meyvis, and Jeff Galak (2009), “Enhancing the Television- Youn, Seounmi and Hyuksoo Kim (2008), “Antecedents of Consumer Attitudes
Viewing Experience Through Commercial Interruptions,” Journal of Con- Toward Cause-Related Marketing,” Journal of Advertising Research, 48 (1),
sumer Research, 36 (2), 160–72. 123–37.