Men and women watching and reading: Gender and information processing opportunity effects in advertising

References

• AlbaJoseph W., and HowardMarmorstein. 1987. “ The Effects of Frequency Knowledge on Consumer Decision Making.” Journal of Consumer Research14 (June): 14–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BaronReuben M., and David A.Kenny. 1986. “Moderator–Mediator Variables Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51 (6): 1173–1182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BatraRajeev. 1986. “Affective Advertising: Role, Processes, and Measurement.” In The Role of Affect in Consumer Behavior, edited by W. R.Wilson. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Berney-ReddishIlona A., and Charles S.Areni. 2006. “Sex Differences in Responses to Probability Markers in Advertising Claims.” Journal of Advertising35 (2): 7–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BrunelFrederic F., and Michelle R.Nelson. 2000. “Explaining Gendered Responses to ‘Help-Self’ and ‘Help-Others’ Charity Ad Appeals: The Mediating Role of World-Views.” Journal of Advertising39 (3): 15–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CelsiRichard L., and Jerry C.Olson. 1988. “The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes.” Journal of Consumer Research15 (September): 210–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ChaikenShelly, AkivaLiberman, and Alice H.Eagly. 1989. “Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing Within and Beyond the Persuasion Context.” In Unintended Thoughts, edited by John A.Bargh. New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• ChaudhariArjun, and RossBuck. 1995. “ Media Differences in Rational and Emotional Responses to Advertising.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media39: 109–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DahlDarren W., JaideepSengupta, and Kathleen D.Vohs. 2009. “Sex in Advertising: Gender Differences and the Role of Relationship Commitment.” Journal of Consumer Research36 (August): 215–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DarleyWilliam K., and Robert E.Smith. 1995. “Gender Differences in Information Processing Strategies: An Empirical Test of the Selectivity Model in Advertising Response.” Journal of Advertising24 (1): 41–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeightonJohn. 1984. “The Interaction of Advertising and Evidence.” Journal of Consumer Research11 (December): 763–770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EpsteinSeymour, RosemaryPacini, VeronikaDenes-Raj, and HarrietHeier. 1996. “Individual Differences in Intuitive-Experiential and Anaytical-Rational Thinking Styles.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71 (2): 390–505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FisherRobert J., and LauretteDubé. 2005. “Gender Differences in Responses to Emotional Advertising: A Social Desirability Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Research31 (March): 850–858.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HochStephen J., and Young-WonHa. 1986. “Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience.” Journal of Consumer Research13 (September): 221–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KieckerPamela, Kay M.Palan, and Charles S.Areni. 2000. “Different Ways of ‘Seeing’: How Gender Differences in Information Processing Influence the Content Analysis of Narrative Texts.” Marketing Letters11 (1): 49–65.
   Google Scholar
• KrugmanHerbert E.1967. “ The Measurement of Advertising Involvement.”Public Opinion Quarterly30 (Winter): 583–596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacInnisDeborah J., and Bernard J.Jaworski. 1989. “Information Processing From Advertisements: Toward an Integrative Framework.” Journal of Marketing53 (October): 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacInnisDeborah J., ChristineMoorman, and Bernard J.Jaworski. 1991. “Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads.” Journal of Marketing55 (October): 32–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MaheswaranDurairaj, and BrianSternthal. 1990. “The Effects of Knowledge, Motivation, and Type of Message on Ad Processing and Product Judgments.” Journal of Consumer Research17 (June): 66–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers-LevyJoan. 1988. “ The Influence of Sex Roles on Judgment.” Journal of Consumer Research14 (March): 522–530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers-LevyJoan, and DurairajMaheswaran. 1991. “Exploring Differences in Males' and Females' Processing Strategies.” Journal of Consumer Research18 (June): 63–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers-LevyJoan, and PrashantMalaviya. 1999. “Consumers' Processing of Persuasive Advertisements: An Integrative Framework of Persuasion Theories.” Journal of Marketing63 ( Special Issue): 45–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers-LevyJoan, and BrianSternthal. 1991. “Gender Differences in the Use of Message Cues and Judgments.” Journal of Marketing Research38 (February): 84–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers-LevyJoan, and Rui (Juliet)Zhu. 2010. “Gender Differences in the Meanings Consumers Infer from Music and Other Aesthetic Stimuli.” Journal of Consumer Psychology20 (October): 495–507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MooreDanny L., DouglasHausknecht, and KanchanaThamodaran. 1986. “Time Compression, Response Opportunity, and Persuasion.” Journal of Consumer Research13 (June): 85–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OlsonK., C.Camp, and D.Fuller. 1984. “Curiosity and Need for Cognition.” Psychological Reports54: 71–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PeracchioLaura A., and JoanMeyers-Levy. 1997. “Evaluating Persuasion-Enhancing Techniques from a Resource-Matching Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Research24 (September): 178–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PettyRichard E., and John T.Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Spinger-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• PettyRichard E., John T.Cacioppo, and DavidSchumann. 1983. “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement.” Journal of Consumer Research10 (September): 135–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PettyRichard E., and Duane T.Wegener. 1999. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current Status and Controversies.” In Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology, edited by ShellyChaiken, and YaacovTrope, 41–72. New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• PutrevuSanjay, JoniTan, and Kenneth R.Lord. 2004. “Consumer Responses to Complex Advertisements: The Moderating Role of Need for Cognition, Knowledge, and Gender.” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising26 (1): 9–24.
   Google Scholar
• ReberRolf, PiotrWinkielman, and NorbertSchwarz. 1998. “Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgments.” Psychological Science9 (January): 45–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar