Ad Typicality Judgments and Creative Television Ad Processing–Model Questionnaire

Abstract

The Ad Typicality Judgments and Creative Television Ad Processing–Model (Peterson & Malhotra, 2023) is an inventory/questionnaire designed to evaluate the influence of consumers’ judgments of typicality on their processing of television advertising. This measurement model, developed to investigate the representativeness of an ad for a product category, builds upon prior research in typicality from Loken & Ward (1990) and Goodstein (1993). The survey was translated into Russian using a back-translation method, ensuring linguistic accuracy through multiple iterations and consensus among native English and Russian translators. Data were collected across three studies, and the psychometric properties, including factor structure, reliability, and validity, were thoroughly reported.

Keywords

Ad Match; Ad Motivation (Social Approval); Attitude toward the Ad; External Validity; Negative Feeling Expectations; Negative Feelings; Positive Feeling Expectations; Positive Feelings; Theme Expectations (Attractiveness)

Authors

Mark Peterson; Naresh K. Malhotra

Purpose

The primary purpose of this measurement model is to assess the role consumers’ judgments of typicality play in the processing of television advertising.

Validity

Convergent/Discriminant Validity: Evidence for both convergent and discriminant validity was established for all factors, meeting the suggested criteria by Campbell and Fiske (1959).

Nomological Validity: Positive Ad-evoked Feelings demonstrated a positive contribution to attitude toward the ad, with a standardized path coefficient of .34. Conversely, Negative Ad-evoked Feelings showed a negative contribution to attitude toward the ad, with a standardized path coefficient of −.26. Furthermore, advertising cognition, operationalized as social approval motivation, positively contributed to attitude toward the ad (standardized path coefficient of .16), consistent with predictions from previous research (Peterson & Malhotra, 1998).

Reliability

Internal Consistency: All constructs demonstrated strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of at least .76.

Test-retest Reliability: Over a 60-day interval, the average Pearson correlation coefficient for test-retests was .50 for Ad Theme Expectations and .51 for Ad Feelings Expectations (with .54 for positive feelings and .44 for negative feelings).

Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Each construct accounted for more than 54 percent of the variance explained in factor analysis, utilizing the maximum likelihood method of extraction (Hair et al., 2019). This analysis confirmed the unidimensionality of each construct (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). The model fit was deemed good, indicated by a Tucker-Lewis Index of .97, a Comparative Fit Index of .98, and an RMSEA of .07.

Common Method Variance (CMV): Harmon’s one-factor test was employed to assess the Positive and Negative Feeling Expectation constructs in relation to their corresponding Ad-evoked Feeling constructs (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). In all cases, two distinct factors emerged, with feeling expectation items loading on one factor and ad-evoked feeling items loading on the other, indicating that CMV biases were not a concern.

Instrument: Ad Typicality Judgments and Creative Television Ad Processing–Model

Test Type: Original Inventory/Questionnaire

Format: The “Ad Match” construct is operationalized using agree-disagree scales.

Language Available: English, Russian

Population Group: Human; Male; Female

Age Group: Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Young Adulthood (18-29 yrs)

Population Details: The study participants were consumers located in Kyrgyzstan.

Test Methodology: The methodology involved a comprehensive approach including Test Validity (Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity, Nomological Validity), Test Reliability (Internal Consistency, Test-Retest Reliability), Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, and the development of a Measurement Model.

Authors Including

Author ORCID Identifier: No data is Available

Affiliation Email Addresses:

• Naresh K. Malhotra: [email protected]

• Mark Peterson: No data is Available

Correspondence Address:

Naresh K. Malhotra: Georgia Institute of Technology, Scheller College of Business, Atlanta, Georgia, United States, [email protected]

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: Contact Publisher

Fee: No

Test Year: 2023

References

Peterson, M., & Malhotra, N. K. (2023). Ad typicality judgments in the processing of creative television ads. International Journal of Advertising: The Review of Marketing Communications, 42(2), 288–316. doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2022.2129331

Items of the Ad Typicality Judgments and Creative Television Ad Processing–Model

This measure consists of 10 items. The constructs measured include: Positive feeling expectations; Negative feeling expectations; Theme expectations (attractiveness); Positive feelings; Negative feelings; Ad motivation (social approval); Ad match; Attitude toward the ad.

Ad Typicality Judgments and Creative Television Ad Processing—Model

Items

Positive Feeling Expectations

To what extent do you typically expect to experience the following feelings during TV ads for compact automobiles: alive, active, cheerful

Negative Feeling Expectations

To what extent do you typically expect to experience the following feelings during TV ads for compact automobiles: critical, skeptical, suspicious

Theme Expectations (Attractiveness)

To what extent do you typically expect TV ads for compact automobiles to utilize the following themes: attractiveness of a clearly sexual nature contributes to a pretty or handsome appearance fun

Positive Feelings

Please tell us how much you agree or disagree that each word listed below describes the feelings you experienced during the ad you have just seen: alive, active, cheerful

Negative Feelings

Please tell us how much you agree or disagree that each word listed below describes the feelings you experienced during the ad you have just seen: critical, skeptical, suspicious

Ad Motivation (Social Approval)

Tell us how much you agree or disagree that the ad used the following themes: owning the automobile would appeal to one’s desire for social approval using the automobile would help one feel less apprehensive in social situations one would be considered more fashionable by using the automobile

Ad Match

The brand as depicted in this ad met my expectations for a typical depiction of a compact automobile.
The themes used in the ad were identical to my expectations for a compact automobile.
The feelings experienced during the ad were the feelings I had expected to experience during an advertisement for compact automobiles.

A ad

Indicate how you rate the preceding commercial – very unfavorable/very favorable dislike very much/like very much very bad/very good