Main Article Content
Organizations that have received an accolade or honor often share this information with current or prospective customers, either in a digital (i.e., on their website, social media, etc.) or physical (i.e., on-premise signs, outdoor signs, etc.) format. When publicizing their achievement, marketers must make decisions related to source attribution—that is, how much detail to provide and how prominently (if at all) to mention the thirdparty entity that bestowed the accolade upon them. This is an important question, particularly with respect to physical signs where informational complexity is often detrimental and visual clarity is paramount. In this research, I examine whether source attribution in signage materially affects consumer evaluations and behavioral intentions. Across three studies, I find converging evidence that source attribution in accolade claims does in fact bolster evaluations and behavioral intentions, even in the context of physical signage when consumers are likely to be engaged in heuristic processing. Furthermore, I provide evidence that these more positive judgments arise because attribution increases perceived credibility of the organization receiving the accolade.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Anderson, R. E. and Jolson, M. A. (1980). Technical wording in advertising: implications for market segmentation. Journal of Marketing 44, 57-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298004400108
Balasubramanian, S. K., Mathur, I., and Thakur, R. (2005). The impact of high-quality firm achievements on shareholder value: Focus on Malcolm Baldrige and JD Power and Associates awards. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33(4), 413-422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305277691
Bullough, J. (2017). Factors affecting sign visibility, conspicuity, and legibility: Review and annotated bibliography. Interdisciplinary Journal of Signage and Wayfinding 1(2), 2-25.
Bullough, J. D. (2019). Brief Communication: Impact of Sign Panel Luminance on Visual Comfort. Interdisciplinary Journal of Signage and Wayfinding 3(2), 3-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2470-9670.2019.v3.i2.a45
Burke, R. R. (2009). Behavioral effects of digital signage. Journal of Advertising Research 49(2), 180-185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2501/S0021849909090254
Capital Outdoor. (2020). “Measuring Billboard Effectiveness.” Capitol Outdoor. https://www.capitoloutdoor.com/measuring-billboardadvertising-effectiveness/
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(5), 752-766. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1682
Chaiken, S. and Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460-473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1240
Chamblee, R., Gilmore, R., Thomas, G., Soldow, G. (1993). When copy complexity can help ad readership. Journal of Advertising Research 33(3), 23-28.
Clear Channel Outdoor. (2019). “Guidelines & specifications for designing out of home.” Clear Channel Outdoor. https://clearchanneloutdoor.com/get-creative/
Cowley, E. (2006). Processing exaggerated advertising claims. Journal of Business Research 59(6), 728-734. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.12.004
Dean, D. H. and Biswas, A. (2001). Third-party organization endorsement of products: An advertising cue affecting consumer prepurchase evaluation of goods and services. Journal of Advertising 30(4), 41-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2001.10673650
Garvey, P. M., Zineddin, A. Z., Porter, R. J., and Pietrucha, M. T. (2018). Real world on-premise sign visibility: The impact of the driving task on sign detection and legibility. Washington DC: United States Signage Council Foundation and The US Department of Transportation.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Speech Arts. Leiden: Brill.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: value from fit. American Psychologist 55(11), 1217-1230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217
Isaac, M. S., Brough, A. R., and Grayson, K. (2016). Is top 10 better than top 9? The role of expectations in consumer response to imprecise rank claims. Journal of Marketing Research 53(3), 338-353. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0379
Isaac, M. S. and Grayson, K. (2020). Priming skepticism: Unintended consequences of one?sided persuasion knowledge access. Psychology and Marketing 37(3), 466-478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21313
Jain, S. P. and Posavac, S. S. (2001). Prepurchase attribute verifiability, source credibility, and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology 11(3), 169-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1103_03
Kellaris, J. J. and Machleit, K. A. (2016). Signage as marketing communication: A conceptual model and research propositions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Signage and Wayfinding 1(1).
Kilduff, M. and Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 37(1), 87-108.
King, D. and Janiszewski, C. (2011). The sources and consequences of the fluent processing of numbers. Journal of Marketing Research 48(2), 327-341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.2.327
Kirmani, A. and Rao, A. R. (2000). No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality. Journal of Marketing 64(2), 66-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.126.96.36.19900
Lowrey, T. M. (1998). The effects of syntactic complexity on advertising persuasiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology 7(2), 187-206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_04
MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, C., and Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information form ads. Journal of Marketing 55(October), 32-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1251955
McKenzie, C. R. and Nelson, J. D. (2003). What a speaker’s choice of frame reveals: Reference points, frame selection, and framing effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 10(3), 596-602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196520
Morrison, B. J. and Dainoff, M. J. (1972). Advertisement complexity and looking time. Journal of Marketing Research 9(4), 396-400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377200900406
Ng, A. W. Y. and Chan, A. H. S. (2007). Cognitive design features on traffic signs. In: Recent Advances in Engineering and Computer Science, ed. S. Ao. Hong Kong: Newswood Limited.
Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Communication and Persuasion, Springer Series in Social Psychology. New York: Springer.
Phillips, B. J. (1997). Thinking into it: consumer interpretation of complex advertising images. Journal of Advertising 26 (2), 77-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1997.10673524
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., and Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(4), 364-382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
Reber, R., Wurtz, P., and Zimmermann, T. D. (2004). Exploring “fringe” consciousness: The subjective experience of perceptual fluency and its objective bases. Consciousness and Cognition 13(1), 47-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00049-7
Rossiter, J. R. and Percy, L. (1983). Visual communication in advertising, In: Information Processing Research in Advertising, ed. R. Harris. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology 14(4), 332-348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2
Shah, K. (2020). “Food & Wine best new restaurants 2020.” Food and Wine, 16 June. https://www.foodandwine.com/travel/restaurants/best-new-restaurants
Sher, S. and McKenzie, C. R. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition 101(3), 467-494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.001
Shuptrine, F. K. and McVicker, D. D. (1981). Readability levels of magazine ads. Journal of Advertising Research 21(5), 45-51.
Stempler, A. F. and Polger, M. A. (2013). Do you see the signs? Evaluating language, branding, and design in a library signage audit. Public Services Quarterly 9(2), 121-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2013.785881
Van Loock, N., Vermeir, I., and Geuens, M. (2010). Advertising repetition and complexity of digital signage advertisements: simplicity rules! In: 39th European Marketing Academy Conference. Ghent: Department of Marketing.
Whittlesea, B. W. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19(6), 1235-1253.
Whittlesea, B. W., Jacoby, L. L., and Girard, K. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language 29(6), 716-732. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90045-2
Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., and Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository. https://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934
Wojdynski, B. W. and Evans, N. J. (2016). Going native: Effects of disclosure position and language on the recognition and evaluation of online native advertising. Journal of Advertising, 45(2), 157-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1115380
Yeaman, A. R. (1989). Vital signs: Cures for confusion. School Library Journal 35(15), 23-27.
Zhang, K. Z., Zhao, S. J., Cheung, C. M., and Lee, M. K. (2014). Examining the influence of online reviews on consumers’ decision making: A heuristic–systematic model. Decision Support Systems 67, 78-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.08.005