<%BANNER%>

Effect of Involvement on Message Sidedness

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110218_AAAAAM INGEST_TIME 2011-02-18T06:55:22Z PACKAGE UFE0014520_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 6938 DFID F20110218_AAAHKC ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH lim_d_Page_47thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
8870f518d39f0f1dd41c36a06b0b1afc
SHA-1
021158aabcb302935becaf4e16027963597c4b0f
930402 F20110218_AAAHFF lim_d_Page_12.jp2
653fcce45881aaecce5db866782ed52c
3a6ddd62fe80df6ad493c371fef3d9d2bbeddaf2
8423998 F20110218_AAAGYH lim_d_Page_43.tif
531859c2441e3071eab34b853fb6cc9f
bf6cbf84bc30a090f0225d1339855fcd0f6dff55
1917 F20110218_AAAHAH lim_d_Page_42.txt
bfdb5dce151449a7e7193a13133ca1bf
17772469b335e796bb4287e528529a5288bce67f
7952 F20110218_AAAHKD lim_d_Page_18thm.jpg
e5073815e753ccc98bb121a8e29da81a
cae634da9b3fabcf4d2e610bc16477b0f007e6ce
1051960 F20110218_AAAHFG lim_d_Page_13.jp2
2b23b3dc76b1ef035cbf6d568b426c97
5436450f26a70f05499ae89b720e6ae71f718b4f
F20110218_AAAGYI lim_d_Page_44.tif
7c43889cb2ffac0fac4620e63e1b678d
c453dd1670943e528869b0818baedefaa4d37e4e
564 F20110218_AAAHAI lim_d_Page_43.txt
041fcaa1e0a803838d05e368ee2204ca
f9b02e456afebcd96e818bd349cd94fd250313c1
1051924 F20110218_AAAHFH lim_d_Page_14.jp2
ab4bd8a2216de3f957eb4543051679cc
436fcda9f562bcb0ffa66ab0370f02788cf38950
F20110218_AAAGYJ lim_d_Page_45.tif
9307aa01654a5996795e79ec90bc0a57
03bc31a210828ac45bdfe74286338fb690a32480
2397 F20110218_AAAHAJ lim_d_Page_44.txt
9d83950a3df891e6e7fada9ed407c01b
1950ffe4614d38bf7210f4ddf59246035e368e5e
32574 F20110218_AAAHKE lim_d_Page_20.QC.jpg
03392193c5d2ffe1872cbe95aa5323f5
1020897e14edce15f0b8da07455bc939eba4234a
1051975 F20110218_AAAHFI lim_d_Page_15.jp2
722085846ac80b5bd67faab14be166f4
9b4fe7534695357342b17827fd848fae5baf7020
F20110218_AAAGYK lim_d_Page_46.tif
6397fbb4ed92a19e62da968359a39d75
08738b22726ae76379b0e9a4d9f7295ef9e528ce
726 F20110218_AAAHAK lim_d_Page_45.txt
53355019ec8e9c76b96f2638c4ad757e
2a1f24b5256cda44eb3277d451c820c72cd5f598
7553 F20110218_AAAHKF lim_d_Page_32thm.jpg
c89773446e35f08534e8789d40ea0f27
5d9e13d243830c5a4493de6f8b6f476ddce73bcb
1051958 F20110218_AAAHFJ lim_d_Page_17.jp2
b2521c6a30f77aa71f4f206cb26ec753
3e1a8ab89fb651d2728d5287015b73063c15948b
F20110218_AAAGYL lim_d_Page_47.tif
8022375d46f3e511df6e1c0f822e021b
5cb64d56e1449db269a39046ea1409a10450a26d
384 F20110218_AAAHAL lim_d_Page_48.txt
c3a95c35e90e55b1db75e1079569054f
23bfdba94adc70476f0ae732a6f608d7783b9bc5
3570 F20110218_AAAHKG lim_d_Page_38thm.jpg
0f205af13411c42b5623b52ac69bdec2
6fe70df5428cb452017cb832a2305f1b66b1044f
1051978 F20110218_AAAHFK lim_d_Page_18.jp2
22ad35856da0556c4d5a2ab4259e7334
470d9d1ec5d09e5eb2a52f0803f169fc1eb93549
F20110218_AAAGYM lim_d_Page_48.tif
c36476f781c4e02026c51c6668948cc7
556c6c2e66a89a9d0d67c9afacbd4cbe75993749
1573 F20110218_AAAHAM lim_d_Page_49.txt
c29bcd6cb8c162da9954ef835d374d6e
4db234e13be02f8e50a857198d9d8050cff8f203
92666 F20110218_AAAHKH UFE0014520_00001.xml FULL
88ab9f7eac77289e1c920e8401a101e0
85f29589e915d2e9837c7ad9601e145f2ff6cc8b
1051944 F20110218_AAAHFL lim_d_Page_19.jp2
add65278d611c2105e2abd9f32006c9c
530275fb7f5a9d59a5ff4cff92837955483b6139
F20110218_AAAGYN lim_d_Page_49.tif
db00412a50a9ca2769c062b0ab92da73
23d92dab73fbe531ee39d71b1d22767d0b2175b0
1545 F20110218_AAAHAN lim_d_Page_50.txt
d59d6a0302153968e0ee77c5e739194a
2963ecfd303d05b5a14d0b9d4b99a815428106a7
33155 F20110218_AAAHKI lim_d_Page_18.QC.jpg
8f1ca8f766dc6cb274625d2de6d97221
b898b358c2cac8c18746cb051b0b6324b7da26d2
F20110218_AAAGYO lim_d_Page_50.tif
401fbc111b21c16f509a9076c27fbab9
13c016e6ba2e617ee5f4ba09ce0a48b86d7587b1
557 F20110218_AAAHAO lim_d_Page_51.txt
969d14d05186ae40bbfc2da3bc661e83
970a3a13b4e14bb5a0640d56dc5700a204ba554e
33542 F20110218_AAAHKJ lim_d_Page_21.QC.jpg
a0f3ec7272ed4c3cdf5474301295bed0
65231b0be15460bd9e1b005f8952107872d6feae
1051935 F20110218_AAAHFM lim_d_Page_20.jp2
42950d134845a0e7b55ded3ddeddb178
a96c0d581cf07375d0d994f874412b1e5c7a6b6a
F20110218_AAAGYP lim_d_Page_51.tif
85637f6eb01e5077c4239e29cafa2ee2
e0093307d1f70a3521d4e1377525c7c76adb770d
1969 F20110218_AAAHAP lim_d_Page_52.txt
a052afcbb2049462924a803704fcb004
5faca2550126592b3d7b0056f34dcd2b6586f978
19107 F20110218_AAAHKK lim_d_Page_24.QC.jpg
a33145169948cde5c4ad17a93e5046e6
ff0c6953cc3ad79a4db4c56648e239a1248912b9
1051985 F20110218_AAAHFN lim_d_Page_21.jp2
781c2bf9ad713535273ed47334f291f3
039b1edf25be48b846782c12fd6b21fe1fcb693b
F20110218_AAAGYQ lim_d_Page_52.tif
a38e0dcb29cad3875d771d429cf3cc98
69c212352f70e54bfcf17e9ebaa188affcdb43e8
2340 F20110218_AAAHAQ lim_d_Page_53.txt
c11772239b3ee5d31d631b3b8d9313b0
208fea79408f4bda34cf07ed0b73473235d6f6c6
32731 F20110218_AAAHKL lim_d_Page_29.QC.jpg
1ca56276b8588e47824575dde88b9a5b
2bd59fa752e7e7a6073596e575c7ce6dba714866
1051970 F20110218_AAAHFO lim_d_Page_22.jp2
58812ead884ed9500ea0c8f38dcf82a6
950aa0ae18edd9e7679217a830738522dc969c57
F20110218_AAAGYR lim_d_Page_53.tif
60fc69111d69cd24271a45daf4d42ea2
7dc1eae69262ceae9945d2f5befe43e347c250ed
2465 F20110218_AAAHAR lim_d_Page_54.txt
68987bbcecc85d3825dbe3fb2f5e1670
bb68065af073502f26fdfec90db51ea951e92862
29356 F20110218_AAAHKM lim_d_Page_34.QC.jpg
aa6a0eb60cfba049dc25319da90ab425
8df5d1faafd17600315d7c4a0bcb3e2724a93d78
1051933 F20110218_AAAHFP lim_d_Page_23.jp2
1c6cf25434f0d5426611fa8f87ff859a
2990acc24c7ad83a320eeebdcc9c173e8264627e
F20110218_AAAGYS lim_d_Page_54.tif
af253425293cb1529c78549b34e683a0
6e6f9be2db6a996579c5a779e5cb43fdf2f9850b
2442 F20110218_AAAHAS lim_d_Page_55.txt
e12c3187138429d5993df5481c7068cb
98030b6077eccbe5d02914d07727c305428cb5cc
30068 F20110218_AAAHKN lim_d_Page_37.QC.jpg
597402e7ab7abda669d4d2acb87cf51c
59d1f20652679fcc810c5b33dbff1af59956728a
619768 F20110218_AAAHFQ lim_d_Page_24.jp2
ec4301c74447fcf76c78aa0d1b10f8eb
156df0fd356a7ae0f356f4156e8ef73fc3a2045c
F20110218_AAAGYT lim_d_Page_55.tif
45e304010cdff27c686880cb6e265b65
54cd74aa31a1658c867c3841ae091d81f7a320a4
178 F20110218_AAAHAT lim_d_Page_56.txt
dede2bab062f5cb58630db48209faa3b
06fe014b1b168cd4405f32b0c311cec169470ce5
5810 F20110218_AAAHKO lim_d_Page_48.QC.jpg
2ba9198661f3f8c47ff7b9ed6dd64e9a
7e43639dc8d2079efd6b1362d093ef3a9d5accfa
1051893 F20110218_AAAHFR lim_d_Page_25.jp2
fb09936aacaf936c4a8334b971108ea5
d6715ff1b55a6d737beb43534d73c25f9a38713d
F20110218_AAAGYU lim_d_Page_56.tif
fa3500c8698772f00ae161d254265447
3e7c61a983b5353e1293f90228a3a465d6e675b7
7040 F20110218_AAAHAU lim_d_Page_01.pro
406f57d6ffa263cd1bb1f10680dfdf43
478b201aeb97887bd431ca91d8de3111a3201e49
34421 F20110218_AAAHKP lim_d_Page_55.QC.jpg
1261f8fff2907a47e307032283656b96
5f07aaea3c15bfcd174f1d300fab225d5a9338ca
690285 F20110218_AAAHFS lim_d_Page_26.jp2
b739f7f8abcf101015b184df08b613b5
54f10cce896a02288180292a80e9a4ab3a8ad35e
F20110218_AAAGYV lim_d_Page_57.tif
fd55fb45a12bf5207720cd135ea385ee
79081128a81e54547ff88a1d3872b94673f6365d
1066 F20110218_AAAHAV lim_d_Page_02.pro
0d43fed183d5d2bbfab3ebeaf1b36580
4f1c1d24357a052aa4b206bece7692adb5a5bb8f
2421 F20110218_AAAHKQ lim_d_Page_04thm.jpg
a9a78728a2f8ddfed2f19a317cc7c263
173dc285ec4ab9234273395b26b2a496f5cc8e63
708702 F20110218_AAAHFT lim_d_Page_27.jp2
b96fc04cca231300b1641ac9e29ef2d6
5edb6ee2bcc9888602e2dcac208600966990f72d
399 F20110218_AAAGYW lim_d_Page_01.txt
c6c13c23fed3fe7ef97a9dcd0c51ea31
71b76e333f0fc020b12b94fc2acc15bb88609d20
1478 F20110218_AAAHAW lim_d_Page_03.pro
32007f6889a338f41a695bbc2ed815c7
5d8b999f3421f80e2f7536bb94b588d378a2cd8e
861135 F20110218_AAAHFU lim_d_Page_28.jp2
d936dd3332d867d271d737d29873f761
95a3e2686610075e4be6da6e50b031cee3edd467
478 F20110218_AAAGYX lim_d_Page_04.txt
ca7b602ad181f35092869b2e627a6807
29ec9016abc5f83a520886f381c30ab061fc36ff
10783 F20110218_AAAHAX lim_d_Page_04.pro
0ac77d742056f5d18d06bd1a405f1247
2712a990c4f6693ccb330e7c0f2c9c440a13e155
7642 F20110218_AAAHKR lim_d_Page_14thm.jpg
eee192e20311203b4dca492ad1794ebe
7a7cf989cefc2e043219a3017a1eddd6cf49ed83
1051955 F20110218_AAAHFV lim_d_Page_29.jp2
c0b462413c8a9419c320fae254ee59b4
a0427ec46819128e8ac4f8a02719ced10908c94a
3384 F20110218_AAAGYY lim_d_Page_05.txt
33a04efaaf4ac376dd6f9c75fe51dc15
44df22f7f11e1ab6919b4b81d5b4e324df111386
81833 F20110218_AAAHAY lim_d_Page_05.pro
4d02dcc7bd6e6dbe94f4dd7d55457f20
3b90c7b940f872c9e42605b638bb15e89e020668
7454 F20110218_AAAHKS lim_d_Page_39thm.jpg
74e0ad5078904e1aad730d304df9df5f
5c4279f0901a6aee45dbd69aff4933a35669ea6e
1029440 F20110218_AAAHFW lim_d_Page_30.jp2
35e45dd19a97fc8fd2093ab995da472e
17faf4f69216f896eb1946c1198329a1dc5e6610
48962 F20110218_AAAGWA lim_d_Page_52.pro
8a3f0920a5253458b7d6aece663b19a6
6ad59e0ea02cb1b3d2a5068fe69d3a8a5ebae8f4
1473 F20110218_AAAGYZ lim_d_Page_06.txt
5b159c776c7b0a78582d064380aaf143
b83f8f2529afc55d858c548cf98a21942725f61b
37927 F20110218_AAAHAZ lim_d_Page_06.pro
1a859cdd767d344a2c065f459da4e7d4
51448c14848c124080d7011f85a7066375f3c1c8
7731 F20110218_AAAHKT lim_d_Page_42thm.jpg
01c311bfac682ec00acc52bec5e70c49
ed24d31682e5f118404e37824556f6719f26d0b4
613871 F20110218_AAAHFX lim_d_Page_31.jp2
245b2b26012a7063583e05f357441187
10053c1ac827ae30216503d0680dd456a7e1051b
9874 F20110218_AAAGWB lim_d_Page_43.QC.jpg
c92fb75317e0457d4f11529f0055b3d1
662ee2b44b31cfed9617bc5df35506319e9be3be
6634 F20110218_AAAHKU lim_d_Page_49thm.jpg
74835cf596867eaaa27413d57a496813
0d64c79454f48833d4f492b15772198994974be8
893420 F20110218_AAAHFY lim_d_Page_32.jp2
931b6d7e11677ece9dc4bc2b02fc4838
a1d5d13cdc0fcd7db40feeef58e344e724c6b344
25067 F20110218_AAAGWC lim_d_Page_57.jpg
1eb1152a746e135ed21b9c249709ef37
3ceadbdbc44accd9b596187e94a8ca0d552175a3
6351 F20110218_AAAHKV lim_d_Page_50thm.jpg
a9bacf5a406b04ce9e592a0cc99805ae
efaeb87a6bb041256495abf7e1617e14630f3ccc
71554 F20110218_AAAHDA lim_d_Page_05.jpg
4f59316aa0c2b6b39f73c22a3b734674
7fd6aae5b3701f873d547ab263bcd4912ab87347
8247 F20110218_AAAHKW lim_d_Page_54thm.jpg
e4fb03f412af565b641fd4adc5970314
9b6fe2a6fa539eb9e82195a2fda910761633c459
571380 F20110218_AAAHFZ lim_d_Page_33.jp2
79db024fbefae7d3c436dde0b69a0b25
49ad4d8348a1ed77a75df759978ff0fa9de19008
763885 F20110218_AAAGWD lim_d_Page_08.jp2
069a7b999e92635a7662c3ea36ca31dc
da32ffef5dbb04696113adf632319c29d69a3b07
43576 F20110218_AAAHDB lim_d_Page_06.jpg
250ec37df306ba7ea21b95f175dfe38f
ad0de1e1e7797e21a3e3947257fc63da8d4d55fb
2422 F20110218_AAAHKX lim_d_Page_57thm.jpg
10d8b39721e346a4b77131ad0ca9df0b
a4d1cacc56f488ac7cb0309c1ea1252f4f6c4fea
28529 F20110218_AAAGWE lim_d_Page_43.jpg
3061de7b17f6bf843c2231d61984d55f
b26c7a4a912144ba9f01c5fd24f6a2b01cc6cbe6
40532 F20110218_AAAHDC lim_d_Page_07.jpg
5906a4ef681952cbb7474ecde033f69f
ed82b20a1467115dcf7604032b52f3455ab59757
28294 F20110218_AAAGWF lim_d_Page_32.QC.jpg
61d947bd95c5fdad1bc96ac37a03e889
003d48f22789f3c5782d24de529284355cd43edc
29007 F20110218_AAAHIA lim_d_Page_52.QC.jpg
132d949d2647431242f62ffc136f0d86
43ff6659a575e41b43cdd2b099dfcbff00dea355
72359 F20110218_AAAHDD lim_d_Page_08.jpg
c9b8c54b78db8e6acef508f498735f45
866eeac4ee4e9df4532791aa848c6b9f6f9a3605
2082 F20110218_AAAGWG lim_d_Page_30.txt
9b2653bad791a35555812f96a4ac8397
9e4a3dd5d53b98210ee693736901f55834e877ad
7239 F20110218_AAAHIB lim_d_Page_51.QC.jpg
f37374aeb204908f7655f16a0bf80909
04d775b330ea449f2a3461667dd9f6d0e8c76239
11226 F20110218_AAAHDE lim_d_Page_09.jpg
0d1199cdf48d409cabde331000e3eedc
442fde43d936b25e1d7406867aa686ffe76f84d8
166683 F20110218_AAAGWH lim_d_Page_48.jp2
e470fb008902c30671629bebc542d548
43df3ea672eda90911692d2c1fd466c92cec6c8d
7397 F20110218_AAAHIC lim_d_Page_37thm.jpg
04057336caaadb4fa2e5ced6ed9237b2
f1f02adc377db304a9f878ab67d306e9ddb818d5
92111 F20110218_AAAHDF lim_d_Page_10.jpg
4f7090159f4f7fcd8b5450ba58ea50f0
454b78de604a1cb7b9982f2b15ff2d2223b9e2b4
453 F20110218_AAAGWI lim_d_Page_57.txt
ea6b19bda5d3940b060fddb235de065d
fa9b531aa276f7d1ddc438e36725a22f0e8288d7
17401 F20110218_AAAHID lim_d_Page_33.QC.jpg
4f1ef44f7ddcce6f97b6e14eac4f69f1
d77350e4f78801922bd4a504a209c2f8735082a7
88005 F20110218_AAAHDG lim_d_Page_11.jpg
71ba5ef6fc58c2c138c5862a4d4595bc
84af20c29b9d52b9adcff365beaad4cb4bb974b9
250421 F20110218_AAAGWJ lim_d_Page_04.jp2
3713b92da6f211ef111beb1fd6b95e50
e095f529eb6d3e66e9d2bd870c6d159694bdff10
7115 F20110218_AAAHIE lim_d_Page_46thm.jpg
b6d41cca2e44f29364aa4e2ff6e22070
930db587bcc2d3f325f6da1daeb78ada442dcee2
83983 F20110218_AAAHDH lim_d_Page_12.jpg
f0eaa2e773a1bc886c850a03d3be1ab0
3f33433b1bcb5e5fa1f2510cfa5b274d50e9c883
70571 F20110218_AAAGWK lim_d_Page_44.jpg
b0f52a75e43af3130c88c01b7cc54d40
4e1d074b6be4887df2fca107cdc75ff68a13737e
574 F20110218_AAAHIF lim_d_Page_02thm.jpg
1b341410ade3fb49ba60aba74cadfe7b
4a78696079cd03d81f2ebf1eec309e2630eb2701
100847 F20110218_AAAHDI lim_d_Page_13.jpg
a0c26de1dc8457053d4af653659edc72
30f774b00694540b805489e10a1b0d67199e287a
2207 F20110218_AAAGWL lim_d_Page_51thm.jpg
c6015f875df9f460ef2517f25e16196b
3f426716fc4968e86b5f306d3c4ede66eca2318b
6912 F20110218_AAAHIG lim_d_Page_28thm.jpg
f2841f1711ebaa7e93548b6c71aea66f
93296f2bdcc11edab1c7ec23763a8b25a5ab7214
96423 F20110218_AAAHDJ lim_d_Page_14.jpg
3cd20ea8ae8800908e5ab352981dc265
0b753d9ad590d49fd0acdd36433b635711026ef4
27625 F20110218_AAAHIH lim_d_Page_12.QC.jpg
3e5e854930fd71d92b96ba8e174e3799
23d2633f68c5ae63933a2d2626d88b1f0e0f203a
1051974 F20110218_AAAGWM lim_d_Page_16.jp2
86d89cb97af9dda71c7fadeb390f2517
48f0fb49efdf35fb2dc64a75569f082f7f9837be
602 F20110218_AAAHII lim_d_Page_03thm.jpg
9329219ca911324a92f7aba94e089579
3dc97f684fb3302345f3ba70a03964ceb3f86ab6
99584 F20110218_AAAHDK lim_d_Page_15.jpg
530f5fa006202a9125414b3333895caf
50207a2f0f4aaede79f5e90c3b2e00ea9c6c9ef3
3371 F20110218_AAAGWN lim_d_Page_56.QC.jpg
4da059d7f1ea5eb6467fcb7d2b62e0b8
339e558e661590fc612ef9583770faed69d5281d
7013 F20110218_AAAHIJ lim_d_Page_01.QC.jpg
f6ab358de8e542e2a0a8570a5cb52dc4
d065b38f742a2e3df68af52b09c01012e0c7a501
98314 F20110218_AAAHDL lim_d_Page_16.jpg
24af04e6ad0dd8d73eb4f73c8752eff1
8cdcbece5ab97b3de6d2818269ffad3f27f51d77
111 F20110218_AAAGWO lim_d_Page_03.txt
dd44447a39cca5828c5d8caab89c6b43
05ef75650f8858a1351fedb7fe04d2fbf2c94f61
6873 F20110218_AAAHIK lim_d_Page_12thm.jpg
56e149d7530a5f32d5106abb6f45e25f
8142cfb15d47d816151a6ecb4ece287337b4acdc
98511 F20110218_AAAHDM lim_d_Page_18.jpg
feb25e317f1fe810fcfb374e6e7954c5
3979b43428270fff1e221bc4572932b69d9cf207
793 F20110218_AAAGWP lim_d_Page_46.txt
3073fd030bdba01d1c7d1191151ba202
3b630d52f3ae4a22d994787b6742174d82c11d07
1405 F20110218_AAAHIL lim_d_Page_03.QC.jpg
c043a9f139e1f5cc8601550367b5f0f6
101503fc2ad87d57d72ef88190b763cddae3c083
100970 F20110218_AAAHDN lim_d_Page_19.jpg
4bfb8304b3527fe8a900ee36a9d79038
daed78cc9bf22596df7e1d93a89b566b149e09e6
68590 F20110218_AAAGWQ UFE0014520_00001.mets
bd8291f4effc769147daaa5bc4c5b8f7
8bbc36048ec7338ba99a8a9ea4f15aafcffd7f2c
7546 F20110218_AAAHIM lim_d_Page_22thm.jpg
f04ba22b6dd659d6f4681b6576823e58
cd7acb7ea528cb6cac46c3bc0598bf7d1711ce65
102194 F20110218_AAAHDO lim_d_Page_20.jpg
62aaf44c869954ca8e5e1371418bb4b7
35e08e6f09a8f3763edeb3a8b7be4ded46964ccc
26553 F20110218_AAAHIN lim_d_Page_47.QC.jpg
27879a5aa0a5d4761c7affbed6c149a5
951dd81b522f86263d255f472296dd5386710f10
104034 F20110218_AAAHDP lim_d_Page_21.jpg
8d83a9e10bafc581c63935e6cb19a3a1
8c18417b0bc04bc7db661223e60942767f90ffa4
19774 F20110218_AAAHIO lim_d_Page_31.QC.jpg
2950ded4d9191133ceaea11e240d4805
bb971fed83dc849d1f56bb24f1d26572e5aac519
98653 F20110218_AAAHDQ lim_d_Page_22.jpg
f340ce58340394d552840095f518238a
efb9529798be59f0ad1c589464c7fc7577834136
F20110218_AAAGWT lim_d_Page_01.tif
36af5cf799830345c8d1ea920c54a700
9ea5dc09b870f07857ed49c5889f4609726062af
97761 F20110218_AAAHDR lim_d_Page_23.jpg
ff36d6c87d498ea0950e880f53b4d5bb
6d82bbedc58a4618f5eb2e0a7493638fc4134cad
F20110218_AAAGWU lim_d_Page_02.tif
bb754e58a33c3799fe5151ae6514e8e4
ad61d5db9a92fc2b8d6273af21cfb8cf452bdd19
33709 F20110218_AAAHIP lim_d_Page_16.QC.jpg
9bf937b3ee43b65b6b84f3baad33593c
57de9c64effdd3a1474a22201bdfeb03d61595cc
58072 F20110218_AAAHDS lim_d_Page_24.jpg
50c653895cde748c4ccddcfde9146c2b
f5b29c2ef0b196cebd82f2c99f6b88db818bd059
F20110218_AAAGWV lim_d_Page_04.tif
f375deaae8dc18b3f45a30348374adb5
d46b1017e2578835ab87e36ccb8eae003b79fda0
23820 F20110218_AAAHIQ lim_d_Page_50.QC.jpg
402ce37a6059ace25533eebf5bdade4d
10f6ca2f662af9153c4edb948ce378865f492c23
101586 F20110218_AAAHDT lim_d_Page_25.jpg
6f6d99e8cd9116600f19b9ebb9cc6964
c4324ed9e1785665a9ac50ca42346707227e9d84
F20110218_AAAGWW lim_d_Page_05.tif
acc6986dbf4cbcedd59e25e690d3c86c
682b8a6e610175ba0e76b83dea63e5c1152881a7
32599 F20110218_AAAHIR lim_d_Page_17.QC.jpg
06750e4b993763bb594ea6007ccfbd72
a755c55577f1479f3df54e1d8d8f3ce528414bc2
65118 F20110218_AAAHDU lim_d_Page_26.jpg
5096bccd1cf9d1adc254c853aab04498
91ba8948697610060b73117e1230af791ede2218
F20110218_AAAGWX lim_d_Page_06.tif
5a210fe035eabac6d7479536158954c5
c9d2874d96b35c1ef1eeadd20c2968fc634a328a
29738 F20110218_AAAHIS lim_d_Page_10.QC.jpg
74112e9c8fbbd5d6510ca1774529e628
0d888c5b4b80ad380af139c8b2f66663a8ae3534
67218 F20110218_AAAHDV lim_d_Page_27.jpg
ce0a8311d2f493c46c00a4303781a400
bcaea830d65674197564f6a8c5cd27454235f4e8
F20110218_AAAGWY lim_d_Page_07.tif
c06083c7868609fb58c7fdd8b9750d6e
5ca3526ab8280bd650e88aa3b21c9a9038d14839
29592 F20110218_AAAHIT lim_d_Page_39.QC.jpg
201a8b4965e1041f19556089cc58e4b0
805745edc96eeab1c93f9ba8a14b85029ff86c1e
81338 F20110218_AAAHDW lim_d_Page_28.jpg
1ec9b1932e58c7d3bea205e0ac7d8a8c
f6d76579a5178075e40ab290ce6b455213e683b6
F20110218_AAAGWZ lim_d_Page_08.tif
0bcfe2acb49b7cecef77cf940f629e70
9e4b709f76dc802e7d2bcdc638fc8f60c1d13c53
8040 F20110218_AAAHIU lim_d_Page_53thm.jpg
828cc25ace775b50d48117cffff37e49
854a14d98ea7bc2b35d1d5af34f629b68e2ec0aa
96698 F20110218_AAAHDX lim_d_Page_29.jpg
f7c4ff42ece563e1bb12c8379c0114dc
a00f18d75abc7eb456b8df891d63368c44ae48d4
886 F20110218_AAAHIV lim_d_Page_56thm.jpg
77df8c08d69696dcc1dfbe9c1f4431ab
30742170e7ee2f653a3ac9cc590f72bac6a4ee48
1516 F20110218_AAAGZA lim_d_Page_08.txt
4bb042d466a13d0a67d3f3d671af03be
b2eab94d693879654de599f70ccc90407c107b36
28907 F20110218_AAAHBA lim_d_Page_07.pro
1a64d1b3bfa074c6d531b277e57e919e
9a319973319393c618a6e324bd742b15bc4ecd72
93262 F20110218_AAAHDY lim_d_Page_30.jpg
74e500159b2c1c336f09f8ce75968ee8
c905992c41b393d8c9ea98210ca13e051517abb5
21606 F20110218_AAAHIW lim_d_Page_44.QC.jpg
b87d35affc1bac0c2912c602809bc4a3
5546637976f52a322f4abe8a115e5c0c1244adab
33477 F20110218_AAAHBB lim_d_Page_08.pro
ef55c715f5ea8ea31eb7a1883e7fe744
4ef148be3f05a02592999d441cd61c85cd23fc11
60043 F20110218_AAAHDZ lim_d_Page_31.jpg
f09d597864e6c0dd7c0c6dfc81304fa7
7b8f3af305cbcb5aaa29ea8f076019f973df3aef
2003 F20110218_AAAHIX lim_d_Page_01thm.jpg
732183b458b957e93fc3abbfb255ac3e
1ff27319b888d72c674c51e5db25af079231bea4
172 F20110218_AAAGZB lim_d_Page_09.txt
77dad683f3fde392465c613c8e52abe5
e0d09cbfa3415bb074890e0d4d5aa7ee9e29fc59
4093 F20110218_AAAHBC lim_d_Page_09.pro
a29fd15639c8f7f90e7b8105ce65da85
ecf6f17c8e0f4c4e6d8935deed31b12419519c60
12039 F20110218_AAAHIY lim_d_Page_07.QC.jpg
cab2047c1987428f9acc757e927c81c2
38321734522b5bb835fd5a2ede2c031547a38e89
1825 F20110218_AAAGZC lim_d_Page_10.txt
32a3fe4b29b9423838bcb2f08bd2bf5b
8036061ba27699a79d352cc5c6b1a710dccf0d6a
44387 F20110218_AAAHBD lim_d_Page_10.pro
f505fc7a398397437691908f5a44137b
dfd5a97e230c6d7a0710ef88757e7e5e07660dc9
953364 F20110218_AAAHGA lim_d_Page_34.jp2
9d65dc159b22814a3703811ab969075e
83726e85b7a499588e0eafc868f680a1b3891f45
5066 F20110218_AAAHIZ lim_d_Page_31thm.jpg
a97eb0052cda9890ee9b9980176a4924
950b5551a8fc9ea2401949c7e92c3700228bb7f4
1720 F20110218_AAAGZD lim_d_Page_11.txt
a32e4c02b37a52928f9382fe1abfc832
1ff08fcabcac21553f442fd42d93971dc6340c98
43111 F20110218_AAAHBE lim_d_Page_11.pro
89d8461ff1d87b9b5a375c55c8b44fcc
5e75939b26c6f97f81d7cb9241f447b54b5b7879
993701 F20110218_AAAHGB lim_d_Page_35.jp2
2200960412a25344dc63cefef010c14a
e0d025e2d522a4d405b4cce3db480ef645f97e6f
1727 F20110218_AAAGZE lim_d_Page_12.txt
7f769b63c004a9a372ea3cb88b98718d
c9b5f01b71e8b48cbd52f00f31971c587e65ffd8
40995 F20110218_AAAHBF lim_d_Page_12.pro
e93a3f85480975d02dfffd574df6f8bd
3ea94d05f0c3ac569142ed8fdf7905fb345e227f
971447 F20110218_AAAHGC lim_d_Page_36.jp2
4dbc7489ec47ca277d223a7451df0e4a
56b98d737515d48ae9f016189c9e4059978353ea
1938 F20110218_AAAGZF lim_d_Page_13.txt
2429dec04848444272458bc632c4619f
ed7ffa0015e30562d8aaf4982fa7a5f10cb45077
49012 F20110218_AAAHBG lim_d_Page_13.pro
0c0044aa9fa76c51be14874c46b954f9
839cb7e61d75a2373f2918699de92e94e987dffe
425376 F20110218_AAAHGD lim_d_Page_38.jp2
926f39b973a0725606bf265dda52976a
69f37a150f5acbbcc31746e0e58677bf69000ddf
1854 F20110218_AAAGZG lim_d_Page_14.txt
5fb56c0689fba49941b200546b5e9fc1
21a9c77cb9aef74a9fa5783b28e6a7ed0d8e845e
46916 F20110218_AAAHBH lim_d_Page_14.pro
a32b425d0e526d9fa81bd70b6841957e
0a022a40987a63e44385e3d2fa8323bc78496fa2
1004139 F20110218_AAAHGE lim_d_Page_39.jp2
80f6b224ece212cf941b9e0c241c66d6
a618aefa041f7d705f80bbf904c380557275b783
1931 F20110218_AAAGZH lim_d_Page_15.txt
b863142a4cbbf2f9a0b26d039edbe604
bc954e86a5f1dbd9c184a68920e90e46eb318e0f
977423 F20110218_AAAHGF lim_d_Page_41.jp2
b70ae53c1cc8aa53ccd05fd3e44b3454
660c00c98d07dd40d6455a721b3313873b7ad8f6
48714 F20110218_AAAHBI lim_d_Page_15.pro
9adab7c88c014991cb25e5da67136e5c
de512f4dbdbcdc7754519253a9088d67d056d6b3
1043309 F20110218_AAAHGG lim_d_Page_42.jp2
b35b2f5733ecc17eccf44e2f1a336491
a1a184a1c209a6c8ce10c756965fb8774b716d44
1959 F20110218_AAAGZI lim_d_Page_16.txt
e9b11ffa9854057f9b9fed05332db537
e6a7373893eeb19f78cc7890118b459bb1b6f5bb
49110 F20110218_AAAHBJ lim_d_Page_16.pro
bfcdade53dbec7488d3249e6e4817295
69f24dbac1bd66e9d5fc5eb70c109a96a084104c
291445 F20110218_AAAHGH lim_d_Page_43.jp2
d1523f41842a7b709d5fb4d95d4bd0ac
a57145323efe0728973d9839efa3efb9f9d58fb1
1934 F20110218_AAAGZJ lim_d_Page_17.txt
5d246322fdcce500d174791c20350acd
acb7bc556f34f5c9c97438ad7f69cb6c8412eec2
49026 F20110218_AAAHBK lim_d_Page_17.pro
865fffe7d8c0275a2eccd992753e8cac
cf58b5d77713bde42ad645fe8cd322609374f0c2
900509 F20110218_AAAHGI lim_d_Page_44.jp2
c99a10b1b60221d19a362a13eac039df
d41bcd04e4a09d6a55c80d0e73be98810a78ccc1
1922 F20110218_AAAGZK lim_d_Page_18.txt
56f9cc6c71dcebc82644ac8892d966d1
a63436f764bc63e3557679ea772f30aa481574e9
47973 F20110218_AAAHBL lim_d_Page_18.pro
69e9ee6adf0c6f082c4454f9e905e2c5
13b53585920ed3ce3886b813afff4ca4a6bb9bc3
1051983 F20110218_AAAHGJ lim_d_Page_45.jp2
b30a59e0257dea4628153c8cd53798c0
f709482c9476e3a34b8af014e753537aa32f56c1
2007 F20110218_AAAGZL lim_d_Page_19.txt
03fc0c076b1e8ed7e574bc6969dd0d93
efe0ef326ca98809b56741e593e3ab624e3278d0
50025 F20110218_AAAHBM lim_d_Page_19.pro
5d9db2b1e2b817d0280e332e93e4cdfb
a593e872d8cf1addc7e21295793c368d9c4b465b
1051943 F20110218_AAAHGK lim_d_Page_46.jp2
c82a838322e23fe94511c686a6242103
e84d76d260f060ee2ee862935832542ba1f582a1
1988 F20110218_AAAGZM lim_d_Page_20.txt
45c13f3a584438ca550c494e303967ea
57bf6c463aae88602862b3c726ecf62dd7303732
50489 F20110218_AAAHBN lim_d_Page_20.pro
21242003ce28a48ec15fbb812b473942
cae0da5b0e6b16f86a70d5d4a89376ccbeb1ac83
1051930 F20110218_AAAHGL lim_d_Page_47.jp2
5206e3dc1d5781ff1e0eabb77f58c35c
0437853a86fb0cf42ac1efcc416edab5499fa2fe
2024 F20110218_AAAGZN lim_d_Page_21.txt
d9f642d6084ef4ac45b34bd6a77fa4b7
0934d02e2e2d296888f2622457b974a865358e6c
51447 F20110218_AAAHBO lim_d_Page_21.pro
11a637cf3854ff5be9638f6442dcf682
c8915d349c358c4931bb60687d95ab34efac3f14
694905 F20110218_AAAHGM lim_d_Page_49.jp2
fbc72223f75eef5b3a3eefa299eb9a15
0b6df0aac28bd9eba505da8d76cb800e7691daac
1963 F20110218_AAAGZO lim_d_Page_22.txt
36572cfa95274b8c449f4f41efecc5d8
3633d75382ffdd4086843d3e68db20661b14cc76
1920 F20110218_AAAGZP lim_d_Page_23.txt
d856e4caec5b7b0096100f3119fb4b60
d080d6d07da470a69aae806af2d30afa8606b0fe
48532 F20110218_AAAHBP lim_d_Page_22.pro
59d2cbbab51372a4bfab0ee300e205a5
fcedf083a468ed887b08d96dd4a2cbb6b6a97f8a
689827 F20110218_AAAHGN lim_d_Page_50.jp2
dfab53bb697bea5f739ab3242a94f01c
1edc37e752e6a7d4da435b6640098b9ec54fdec8
1089 F20110218_AAAGZQ lim_d_Page_24.txt
ac8c94112df3c0c3632de0c547adea30
3bedd052b07330a64c08e27747593c8be53e2fbc
47206 F20110218_AAAHBQ lim_d_Page_23.pro
8eb3e2cc34b371f15df19f35b613a16c
2bf6b111f1ecfb85a24428bade8e3551dc8d05b3
222565 F20110218_AAAHGO lim_d_Page_51.jp2
b932548a166a831f43326bb9666de32f
e845659b396d57378a6ede92f924a08a6cdad351
2004 F20110218_AAAGZR lim_d_Page_25.txt
e8b2139cfb79e32d70901ca2ccba1daf
60a83c25131c4addf8e366c1e9e412ca73fcc5bd
27024 F20110218_AAAHBR lim_d_Page_24.pro
18aa437f9eccaf2a0a34cc865dd99da9
f1639d19c368ed65ea320a5cceae810a753feeb9
1051968 F20110218_AAAHGP lim_d_Page_52.jp2
2eadcf416f30471f7ab1e2c10e38c409
88f9e2e1cb754185b2404c08e71f2352f557b149
1275 F20110218_AAAGZS lim_d_Page_26.txt
152383c73afb804866ba58b100612032
9c973a142e771b40c7e4c873fa0d6b6ae16011b0
49847 F20110218_AAAHBS lim_d_Page_25.pro
5674dd40dda03719e4d54e6d5f879ee8
466aa4cfa178d9375d9fe440d7f022eff34ed2a0
1051965 F20110218_AAAHGQ lim_d_Page_53.jp2
6d1416d751c25be079e85d2dd842c9a2
30b44f304afb779132c5b9185f83ee37b8d19935
F20110218_AAAGZT lim_d_Page_27.txt
bd39e05a806e346d0f44a6bb1dfb2b04
5016b8f771fa3e74daa824ae16a4d7ca7ac99de4
31214 F20110218_AAAHBT lim_d_Page_26.pro
7e2b9f0ab81e0d81eba793d043e14f41
0af8baefea8d565b7ad2ca0380ea3b909aa628c0
1051954 F20110218_AAAHGR lim_d_Page_55.jp2
976374e75d4bc8c2e1981b39161c5734
b23383165d4da234b533781d10ed5d2bc09a7625
1921 F20110218_AAAGZU lim_d_Page_28.txt
c102801e1b4b6c71ad53c75b6646b493
27b3743a900bfb0be5215d097e5eeaf5b3a76454
30873 F20110218_AAAHBU lim_d_Page_27.pro
ad185b5eee43146440ae6f85e2c47ac9
35c0d2f51c037d938a10bfc9960574bc224ae6aa
80599 F20110218_AAAHGS lim_d_Page_56.jp2
64adf98472ac91c7d1d921d89757693c
10172fd27da9bd7c5438ab1b697731c90ab721cb
F20110218_AAAGZV lim_d_Page_29.txt
32bdf109519fd5e571686ce6f4e15517
8c7af3ca529e0bde21d0aa62e026231e23909bf9
42050 F20110218_AAAHBV lim_d_Page_28.pro
cadf7e77a17c1b85f32ac72efffc677e
f898cc707d85c7cbcbc0173bbcef883421beb5b0
239867 F20110218_AAAHGT lim_d_Page_57.jp2
3e12caebbefdfc831c1f78f4d921ddab
864e774a7575bb1591b5198d4154949f2dbe954b
1380 F20110218_AAAGZW lim_d_Page_31.txt
105cb6f67d013b184e10ec15db32e12f
a00cbdf53678fb7725a866b380585b6594a5c02d
48711 F20110218_AAAHBW lim_d_Page_29.pro
73ff32f87ded18b804308b300c991fab
8b9319df5e613be324b16155c390726c854709a5
591089 F20110218_AAAHGU lim_d.pdf
8a26f4113d96673e25001fc32c064da4
b1419874af9affb556dc47430e9cd501cd1faa8e
2225 F20110218_AAAGZX lim_d_Page_32.txt
e45a32ff7ea9b646d7b4bd9b3528a432
a722c14997b04b943bbbf11b71abb4d313d35c23
50533 F20110218_AAAHBX lim_d_Page_30.pro
2418140c35d6c3697be07a7119f62611
6a426e9b3a9cd1f6ff96cef6c84675604ded264e
8043 F20110218_AAAHGV lim_d_Page_19thm.jpg
5b5b51c0e80264390ab1f40ae46394f1
dc2cf7e51ca40bb539949b6a5945040b91fb79ff
1138 F20110218_AAAGZY lim_d_Page_33.txt
053c8fea57751d5c58dd0f592d8fb08a
4e6ddad0ac6028d901d63c67fa601fa35fe505fb
28805 F20110218_AAAHBY lim_d_Page_31.pro
6175180c16c0577e71889850037e1f04
07b88a89d09f3b1b7eeebca9b73a18351b7a96a6
32890 F20110218_AAAHGW lim_d_Page_25.QC.jpg
efa4956f0bbc11ad3ff9009c66933254
c13170015d9b98ded22f7d076528eda70017c238
F20110218_AAAGXA lim_d_Page_09.tif
6b2ea9af2e6a1472450773f5eee475fc
cc6bacedca87ccc8871d058d4e1ace67a21d40b5
1929 F20110218_AAAGZZ lim_d_Page_34.txt
619ee3114c863745445a3a2d261a9684
62a305a811f23084190562d5256612be7abc31c2
44482 F20110218_AAAHBZ lim_d_Page_32.pro
66d5107a7d475c33900023750deb1cbd
cac87ec5973577af785a5a25ad9a6cdc9946455e
30513 F20110218_AAAHGX lim_d_Page_35.QC.jpg
cb25c8ad596bf9e5ba55b6b1794f4058
302d380ecaf6af0aa53ef83ed94e84245e4a8587
F20110218_AAAGXB lim_d_Page_10.tif
94e32de3fdd12a392d0718b84b2735be
acdada92d23edc9be307f20e41b2e22ccd08bd41
88632 F20110218_AAAHEA lim_d_Page_32.jpg
480efb4bd4bd69a360403bdcc2bd96ed
5b9fa67f2ebaf5273380627e07be025b9f3de737
7562 F20110218_AAAHGY lim_d_Page_52thm.jpg
5bc164d287a36554e191beb28ec2a726
0894db36cb2b8a81bcca34336854b18f4e14cf00
F20110218_AAAGXC lim_d_Page_11.tif
5b709813a666d6ef353a2e5161a07a90
3ce33c195d641db48beca876be99ad1874eb64ee
55428 F20110218_AAAHEB lim_d_Page_33.jpg
8c8f30db94757b602ea872f6613613a5
56018bb209b74ca0edbd3ada1a8a1960dbb12b4a
27159 F20110218_AAAHGZ lim_d_Page_46.QC.jpg
6a72c69c5770dedcad20ea4124020b61
fb5bd71e20441130134e2e1616227fc8925bbaca
F20110218_AAAGXD lim_d_Page_13.tif
18de7465296699a81605dc8f4a271c97
81d3f1a93dcf82a9d08143dce36ccceb17cb6ce4
89900 F20110218_AAAHEC lim_d_Page_34.jpg
9593a05e29d223216657d398c2a586eb
b65d6ef208960b60a516df55d4540332c0c3b14d
F20110218_AAAGXE lim_d_Page_14.tif
69709c4fe692a996b14474ed2bd9d8a9
cf718b6e80dd2f08e96877634ead80b09614f1e6
92686 F20110218_AAAHED lim_d_Page_35.jpg
a3beccbd698d7ad5a5c770f9efb7b6d5
9e8907f252472a36756078dac5a7882d047a7aad
F20110218_AAAGXF lim_d_Page_15.tif
0d085089d5cad9b4b25e6ff3e71978d4
b7b626751bf2c47f6d51aa2ce1a853b34b21fbad
8291 F20110218_AAAHJA lim_d_Page_20thm.jpg
c97f28b297f8706a3d4b35ef622b9fc4
95218d9944eac7bb7de98551e7ac1f71bdc394f0
93794 F20110218_AAAHEE lim_d_Page_36.jpg
5101897a9207da17706a5daa9e4a9ceb
65933e4cfa9d0fbdf7ad941b5dea061186370659
F20110218_AAAGXG lim_d_Page_16.tif
23e9e404ec3bb7b226ddb7e53d257d13
ae781f991a7342c57c26e809595cdfc1540f6827
3026 F20110218_AAAHJB lim_d_Page_07thm.jpg
e3b0217fbed6aa67e921b27279251264
8ea6e41369af80a7b0ed39f6e806a38ad12c8ba1
92639 F20110218_AAAHEF lim_d_Page_37.jpg
6cb2f17e352433a41654b59a090ff45a
bf1a1a84c1b3fc39769fbc52d10d0537bd9780ed
F20110218_AAAGXH lim_d_Page_17.tif
836cadda641423e0cb5153ca4c947cef
9079b5cf05486df23fe8793ee97b5139cbf8556a
7262 F20110218_AAAHJC lim_d_Page_45thm.jpg
a2bb41180757b7ebf2a5042e57e2fac7
5ad57ccd344722d4991de4caaf77a8fab35ad99f
41839 F20110218_AAAHEG lim_d_Page_38.jpg
99f1ccbbfee98252c3de4fcf28661bb8
2357cdee2646efe24f3561be370a46aabface394
F20110218_AAAGXI lim_d_Page_18.tif
4d2114d28035173a16ac33fbac31ec79
ebe39907229eb30e413eaed3246cf9e9651e7d42
7953 F20110218_AAAHJD lim_d_Page_35thm.jpg
623dc57b7911d5b217b2172861c64fa2
df5901757b958c08fcb93d0590b169002e3d3793
90628 F20110218_AAAHEH lim_d_Page_39.jpg
613e1cf540c6b0dc9e1a1add9a849c5b
d8b1281c2b1138597a81da1696f36f1abe4ef9a2
F20110218_AAAGXJ lim_d_Page_19.tif
7fe17169b10d013b109e3f7fcd65d8bf
8673396baae5ba22d77b9057cacea6e4a9ba7a49
2572 F20110218_AAAHJE lim_d_Page_43thm.jpg
fd04babdfc9eb758edfa02f9d613183b
741ec7983e75725e4981ed94ddc6483127b53911
100986 F20110218_AAAHEI lim_d_Page_40.jpg
c09074b3cef3408e50ca26fc69dc0ad9
80bd46314d4abc275e3735dd42b07f7e0f651923
F20110218_AAAGXK lim_d_Page_20.tif
d5d255fefbbfc5071877ba62379fd17e
6b0718a017d317aa8e206c6765c40d43b3c7e43c
8265 F20110218_AAAHJF lim_d_Page_13thm.jpg
d13c0f75944e7071844cf1931c2cddaa
451800d620db335648610f3ae2a26620f53c4483
91637 F20110218_AAAHEJ lim_d_Page_41.jpg
ae9b39aae3b9314734c1afa503fdd469
f3753fb03e694c27dd8be12f88f7bd49e64921ce
F20110218_AAAGXL lim_d_Page_21.tif
db091df00954f19d5abfed6aff116a57
9672d41cc00ce0aa5299c5dfe15d9335b9faaa82
5531 F20110218_AAAHJG lim_d_Page_27thm.jpg
286451684a47f4879d00d4f61c29cc42
c2b6c0a4be900ecb300280dfa5506149c0e5c093
95663 F20110218_AAAHEK lim_d_Page_42.jpg
5284fe9a33c10e1490ab416aa0ea1114
cc4ddf137df6964f69e69db595b24e84fd0a787c
F20110218_AAAGXM lim_d_Page_22.tif
404662557fe23406593e58b9f86d86d9
96cd5abe60d15b36bed324fbc3eb860d2ca605ef
7899 F20110218_AAAHJH lim_d_Page_16thm.jpg
5293e2b244c69f130116890dd0f3dfe8
7fc2e5a9d8ae7914114be3f1c1f6e9ef78609377
F20110218_AAAGXN lim_d_Page_23.tif
87176e40255ce83ecc70fe278e73ff28
d0cf4ec213b9332b081c188678fe34c0da122473
7850 F20110218_AAAHJI lim_d_Page_23thm.jpg
982cdfc01b15653932bbb10ed73ff906
27cfbe6d9b6965cdb63372e5bb2c8c88a38467d4
F20110218_AAAGXO lim_d_Page_24.tif
dd03f9b3789168e87e6d009ecd2d3364
a146185584e8de510918602a53d1997e213f9cd1
26894 F20110218_AAAHJJ lim_d_Page_28.QC.jpg
68a2a14483b0d35f4318b926d4d2cc82
e9770800a0822dc36fc466c6547f4879e5d69a69
87384 F20110218_AAAHEL lim_d_Page_45.jpg
1ed54137a70772c9262baae26c9d8ff6
ed27bb0e1efb9e45c12b3bbb7d97415294ef4dd8
F20110218_AAAGXP lim_d_Page_25.tif
0e98307665011d6c8d0d75d116f8e71c
8b91840169b1eab5c2dab4301416f26b46e1ae2e
24371 F20110218_AAAHJK lim_d_Page_49.QC.jpg
2564ce75aff687a74c3edc75be8aee24
9712a85f1e2eec1bac7cff36e6165f3d7dbab4ba
87803 F20110218_AAAHEM lim_d_Page_46.jpg
bb01e557d4c4f6ab91942d0a17b512f3
9a164ab671387f504fb9f4bebd21f5b204a37f21
F20110218_AAAGXQ lim_d_Page_26.tif
59ae12ba4384313b870be2cc7022c5f6
26d345ca8f3a64d8ea0238f5d22d014e8b2cd3fc
1125 F20110218_AAAHJL lim_d_Page_09thm.jpg
27d6bb0c2bd8d2e3ee45be29737d58b4
6594d29da77a751c3512a70bc5fb24dda690ae92
85586 F20110218_AAAHEN lim_d_Page_47.jpg
4e37d30601c4b13b1d005e25d221f23a
9d90bfe20dd653c6246782ecf26b4b694a8953d8
F20110218_AAAGXR lim_d_Page_27.tif
8347878b0fdc30c76e8aeed103d46972
4bb5dd7ff287eb6ab79cf0daae1f6bc799f96c0d
28798 F20110218_AAAHJM lim_d_Page_30.QC.jpg
d080e27ea415e425e65cebab7aa15e80
38cf51c6459aa23cb780e77cfbaf066cc4044e40
17643 F20110218_AAAHEO lim_d_Page_48.jpg
8a3f896cebbac320175ee1d487aa0147
c3ab2caba9c3861febc72d3a41bd953c65b46850
F20110218_AAAGXS lim_d_Page_28.tif
c3a0b6bbbac9f85b1ffabf9e547ea3bf
79ca40d2601337f2dd135d810e537b41fa2a321c
2098 F20110218_AAAHJN lim_d_Page_48thm.jpg
9f86601457b5ef009e25e4b941fa19b1
aa272e58dcbdf3817e2503ec3b883e148e936b03
68380 F20110218_AAAHEP lim_d_Page_50.jpg
aec60c487b87c84e37485ff40032abaa
ebe7b8ecd2a3af9bae2646e36f47341ccb833466
F20110218_AAAGXT lim_d_Page_29.tif
6dc69af3623d0a39d21938139107ec73
6e2731a0b675a9c846255854c84a4b91494b29c6
8087 F20110218_AAAHJO lim_d_Page_29thm.jpg
80168e83f9a39a091194bc79be201792
d26553759716ed5a31e15d9a4f1735faf5b2ce02
22827 F20110218_AAAHEQ lim_d_Page_51.jpg
729380f5821367dde7488fff3b2a195f
2f48a5826e2fe6bc887cfd6996decf5d3c246b54
F20110218_AAAGXU lim_d_Page_30.tif
d360b219dc6fe2ffe108de812958ef33
61e5a9bf9bd9bf28af15d599e03f0c24ae0446cd
5859 F20110218_AAAHJP lim_d_Page_44thm.jpg
7a9b7ad4113c28ba51f157fdb7b83e8d
0e45b58497ebc81405b4d336547ee202e80cdf02
97846 F20110218_AAAHER lim_d_Page_52.jpg
3eecf58c70d0853a8f78974d59b256f9
acdee2015f00a18175c4953fdc406afb4cdb2b57
F20110218_AAAGXV lim_d_Page_31.tif
5e8d060260b44bbb411b50d603374b7d
47cfbac1244dc653413ce2be66b8a4d75e63f5bf
112705 F20110218_AAAHES lim_d_Page_53.jpg
48a4491f4fbb104dea4fa21efdb04c0c
550eb2605a2d9a7043671f0dd32c2a7aeaead8d6
F20110218_AAAGXW lim_d_Page_32.tif
8e763337e3d2228300ebb50631bf2a1f
0277782f98fd967f31814d35f8c8988b712b07ed
32605 F20110218_AAAHJQ lim_d_Page_53.QC.jpg
ca5c90f0fd6de8492299ba09057f569f
dad737dafe3105fb6d8127470f3428d42718ffd9
119914 F20110218_AAAHET lim_d_Page_54.jpg
c74e295a010e86144bb7cc98d494d22c
0e0b2ff72e51923db0a02e2d2ab5994f15524bc0
F20110218_AAAGXX lim_d_Page_33.tif
f8fba702d960841b65e3b4bc77d8a53f
bac86679497be2526d4a68639574978c80b39341
8243 F20110218_AAAHJR lim_d_Page_57.QC.jpg
35026b436e977c2ab9230aa2d3c72d01
b382f72c5a5c8203a0ed6b5165df053e7489ccba
118850 F20110218_AAAHEU lim_d_Page_55.jpg
532f032f32bae75f7ac12d3f9d4aab7b
661dc77dfed772ffbe8e9858ac4f36a19a54c82a
F20110218_AAAGXY lim_d_Page_34.tif
78fa923b18e58d80fce541cca8404f26
33d49fb61d3aa41d853b4ddcccb488fbe9982641
15739 F20110218_AAAHJS lim_d_Page_05.QC.jpg
6d83ad5e5024bfc09164588acd7af89b
3f497f59e140a5dd68c90b2f73b547cf8497d27d
9485 F20110218_AAAHEV lim_d_Page_56.jpg
cb5460cd11b8ba5b940b5df2bdb19b6d
8aee5fe950316b6fd182e8c894f14169e461aecf
F20110218_AAAGXZ lim_d_Page_35.tif
28a84216697a82d22f6ecf257660baba
dca09a5eabd74856473b726ed2662bc84a5ead04
4176 F20110218_AAAHJT lim_d_Page_09.QC.jpg
f3a22923e394c5c492bc07ae1982b064
207b7db84d2d1a5d5bd32343fc1929b57bb7f25f
201672 F20110218_AAAHEW lim_d_Page_01.jp2
4c15457fca87bd3903c80e82a5f6f8f9
c5e0a49e31c305a2553da1f0f731c92ffe89863f
3895 F20110218_AAAHJU lim_d_Page_05thm.jpg
baa11dd1006dade068c6d3b58658553e
12b3f867f28fc4b4d3b1c8f2d73aa51815bf1138
24841 F20110218_AAAHEX lim_d_Page_02.jp2
ba15d1fbacc1f2bd0b4c64cffaede34b
c36cf59177c73a5b22e83d1c3946bf6ec6c93a57
21237 F20110218_AAAHJV lim_d_Page_26.QC.jpg
1c3bba97c12d5ee1d06399395c51ac2a
5ef028b139365a0b2847c3e9b1ad7c77d3bc27c9
25432 F20110218_AAAHCA lim_d_Page_33.pro
17a0e64ebd4fa883fdcdf8ff5fdf0fda
f803343cb8bdd4ce176210754a1c7cf101b8d029
32979 F20110218_AAAHEY lim_d_Page_03.jp2
968b98f8184bc8f37694db24ea787052
2bffa10c17989efef33536edb6d726763de3fe30
7873 F20110218_AAAHJW lim_d_Page_15thm.jpg
818a5349bdf6aa62fb58ed9541376d21
22db9587025f02a0ceb67c463b25dacbb3a3633f
43259 F20110218_AAAHCB lim_d_Page_34.pro
27320d433eae6885e708f7e773c415b7
991e2617f92bfc7980b2a94953c450253527acdf
711583 F20110218_AAAHEZ lim_d_Page_05.jp2
b57d4dde76ee591522982c5dd0931f54
9891438f32197862d17bb8c480eee97bb5e821d5
8083 F20110218_AAAHJX lim_d_Page_40thm.jpg
97c68a8940683e0d03457632b22860aa
59b741902ba4187097cab8193eb76b47ad8412b8
46416 F20110218_AAAHCC lim_d_Page_35.pro
ccbd8c59b40486a7952bc3da8f74da72
f0837cd2ec2f51a3531d92a99eaa729d201e176b
8352 F20110218_AAAHHA lim_d_Page_21thm.jpg
865019a957d514de1550a6cd0a5d4228
eea53ddf9879c3586a4ee43172ce1c637dc2e87f
13834 F20110218_AAAHJY lim_d_Page_38.QC.jpg
ea92177e0e67f3235e94793532018050
7cb460f26c3b502c4dfd63cd93810b1370c22bcc
44506 F20110218_AAAHCD lim_d_Page_36.pro
09fc7ae56f2f267775d378be941453b9
0c791ae69d89af2b77df62f5a90cc868efed1f2c
1496 F20110218_AAAHHB lim_d_Page_02.QC.jpg
79eef60dc06ba99748e297d14cc40bb2
f51c5e0aeb876d1c593e3e25d464c244665f8ebd
7447 F20110218_AAAHJZ lim_d_Page_36thm.jpg
d477ec2086d021ef336b734118c40573
6733dbd9002c4f557fb6005fea00052bb5279f76
44765 F20110218_AAAHCE lim_d_Page_37.pro
216eb1e3a5d7e788184452eb5a757b24
cd8f1f178486be54a46be5f9e852d77a787e3ec3
8173 F20110218_AAAHHC lim_d_Page_17thm.jpg
7489de861a68e7b5841dcee03dba0c4b
fde1e9e4428537d42cca3f7fdc311ed3ba2a77e0
19174 F20110218_AAAHCF lim_d_Page_38.pro
b5c0d64c1533688977fbbc3a98f068c4
cce788d3d103a5fcdcabeff0e29f5b91d1bda485
29298 F20110218_AAAHHD lim_d_Page_41.QC.jpg
64cd777baeb4b4c7ed972fb1f3c069b1
81e7c6823bbdb6502d173720cf612e8afb563646
44350 F20110218_AAAHCG lim_d_Page_39.pro
4cd268d45f4043fbd78276248b391f9e
cd0e73ae923430dc4b20197ccb97a4fb9024a58e
27501 F20110218_AAAHHE lim_d_Page_45.QC.jpg
b9f469b2f87e1d48293cc169b1c5420d
2abb0abd7ab836c6ba968bb403f2aa3b1a2834df
50113 F20110218_AAAHCH lim_d_Page_40.pro
31b0ae8304b149379cac22a38e088c4b
cbbe4a239cbf7c0a0c0c14da99cf9c1649a6f63a
11243 F20110218_AAAHHF lim_d_Page_06.QC.jpg
a92ecf1c4e182c30322b373bc60a1375
c4dae378034058ffda87d37764869f18bb621fa7
47297 F20110218_AAAHCI lim_d_Page_42.pro
e946c5bc37eb5f4c551e08c49449db4f
acf93060342c962a184e3daae2e4f2b6cafcc629
107 F20110218_AAAGVK lim_d_Page_02.txt
42deccc103a8d3fb0c1c34d9e623326d
5a552ce74cba98216398ad3cd9f721886163c056
7226 F20110218_AAAHHG lim_d_Page_11thm.jpg
2dbdf68b965f7e8d76a7b4039ef64f48
e15a91e3a67338bb170b3c7ca054b634a3cd272d
1051947 F20110218_AAAGVL lim_d_Page_40.jp2
82cc7704dedf75994b27906b207dbe5c
0f6a15c21a332849b98f733b658a71becb95374d
29638 F20110218_AAAHHH lim_d_Page_11.QC.jpg
03dca17d3efaa5746504c93f33cc38e5
2e3b0d6ea0260000fd1438db0b51a772b9401237
12975 F20110218_AAAHCJ lim_d_Page_43.pro
8ab2c36e3c680f108da73f1e35bd0a6b
d391e8b2650eb47480d5b272ff59c89aa7760135
68266 F20110218_AAAGVM lim_d_Page_49.jpg
11cd4526034e9f2b1a8a5dc8c8c893f2
979f88dea80265e5e135e9ac5b5bc43202d8c827
55792 F20110218_AAAHCK lim_d_Page_44.pro
0ddfcc5e35e6127a49777b5f54b10edc
4f22279b53ec6560224d83f5ed1816ba989bc551
100979 F20110218_AAAGVN lim_d_Page_17.jpg
2c8ae0e31131c9f3c0c3357ba5299902
10640889d1431700a5bd136881f064a01280e743
33316 F20110218_AAAHHI lim_d_Page_54.QC.jpg
6e99815ba07c415f4c5b60be5439a49d
16740fa83ba1c417fd81a9fc84db90637cd853ba
17347 F20110218_AAAHCL lim_d_Page_45.pro
44a50a445648394ee55d9a885a402b8c
3c530974facd92c91ccb7a5043032b9005d1f32e
F20110218_AAAGVO lim_d_Page_54.jp2
645208d9a595cfe1174a043f6b1ee9d9
9f39911f4a3577f55b22b9cc233eb25cc62c132c
5993 F20110218_AAAHHJ lim_d_Page_08thm.jpg
0c874580e0921b5c77de0389a0b9d886
4b158c27c4ee7978f7582b5c84f29794f2eb11e8
17758 F20110218_AAAHCM lim_d_Page_47.pro
37da89a2bfdfab6989a879dc9c52a736
9808a194af3b9c7a15ebdad5fa367bea6ea6ea6e
32020 F20110218_AAAGVP lim_d_Page_15.QC.jpg
3fffb2dc8bac40d554ab7878f358d614
4f679caa0f86126e4c8407131f591a2d623ae992
7485 F20110218_AAAHHK lim_d_Page_41thm.jpg
09243c33bb3bc4f6bee6e49c7b5abebd
e2277884911d7919df7a0fba8f56c89cb27bad73
6072 F20110218_AAAHCN lim_d_Page_48.pro
a5bfcc5a4c6472fcbbb9e7b8d21bc147
3b4778117b7a4613f4ae313b360ddabf890c2a45
F20110218_AAAGVQ lim_d_Page_12.tif
214c8e75709a1a95b6c10fa4248312d0
af9dc3759259dde79191856cee14f530f5a08529
4708 F20110218_AAAHHL lim_d_Page_24thm.jpg
08c732e9e66deee0a2fc4b26b551b5f0
3e8f8256c46ae929434ef0f2b7ddb48989b105a8
36471 F20110218_AAAHCO lim_d_Page_49.pro
75d93e3e53c47f65ef10f3cf36712ad9
417c30e1ccdf82bdef7ca8117d890389852d1537
969972 F20110218_AAAGVR lim_d_Page_37.jp2
c48637c517c824cf1eb7d1d83d829fa6
75806f0386095a1bfeb3bfff1d676ae16af02d9d
31434 F20110218_AAAHHM lim_d_Page_14.QC.jpg
824985e1212533af7386c7efff99bc6f
2384100d1e6f3864abc7000eaf4cb75ce8edeaef
35544 F20110218_AAAHCP lim_d_Page_50.pro
a6f07ac692d2f32a4ea8ef95066e8b5f
c33387ecdd674d582c1b412e64e3e999192d294f
43395 F20110218_AAAGVS lim_d_Page_41.pro
7462fe93fc408b5d430514610ef5d61c
18f0779ebff943edc125e32043d1854e4f542094
31076 F20110218_AAAHHN lim_d_Page_22.QC.jpg
d0d567372e557132e3bb1e703db80eb7
82ddd91ec46cd82ac9b7ab501abf86f69edebd5c
11438 F20110218_AAAHCQ lim_d_Page_51.pro
9253cd952530e1e5b99f10f848edf380
3c5e76965d7b1420a2a1ec8d8908615d24f9a978
F20110218_AAAGVT lim_d_Page_03.tif
058dd0125017b5284fde34204d65f3a9
a61bf8e275fe796d49b76a14f2543996568eccac
58039 F20110218_AAAHCR lim_d_Page_53.pro
eb18bb315aba69858d65cfaa89e90f90
ccebcbf67a2d40481954d13e99efd827e9b4c050
1189 F20110218_AAAGVU lim_d_Page_07.txt
0bf3eeddd996bb3ade29f6a2222fe768
d137f13d13596a86c3579cd76cd527f5bac1175b
5449 F20110218_AAAHHO lim_d_Page_26thm.jpg
55e278bba13f079fcbe50bf3778b2dbf
cdad65aa85640191d61249275ac1a94dad01e98e
61151 F20110218_AAAHCS lim_d_Page_54.pro
45f24f4b5c2fce2f44dbec6eea54cfbc
3b3bcf6a04d92aff464d748c621c4edea7b95584
736 F20110218_AAAGVV lim_d_Page_47.txt
119698ecf6ac22cd932b77a26a6a5c9b
fc3e0555f65125fa32230044084b738b52f715e4
8023 F20110218_AAAHHP lim_d_Page_25thm.jpg
a4e0072ef6360aba7e74c5a581e090cb
8ba9f87e1fcf701cf8e4d958ab6a53dadc55f143
60853 F20110218_AAAHCT lim_d_Page_55.pro
884b2541038b11c5f3435c66466d3a7f
229a6565c84b3da7199b791d22c8dc90227c1f24
19365 F20110218_AAAGVW lim_d_Page_46.pro
41b304c6d604a9517c19f62a3a013e87
5d99cd2909dc289551d127d7c68b34e29a3f85d0
31589 F20110218_AAAHHQ lim_d_Page_42.QC.jpg
cbb6b39a74c532049f71a99c4edf55d9
19f70f97e8f5089aaeb4bb8b96e203698c118ff8
3425 F20110218_AAAHCU lim_d_Page_56.pro
a3d1dd33ff93416b10eafde4b470a83d
0279416948395c6bc25bd8bd19ea513d4703c56a
8540 F20110218_AAAGVX lim_d_Page_04.QC.jpg
5400bc29211018fde2a633f6c010075a
a7f3c3dce1eff04e4ac1023fd3908da8ea192bb2
7551 F20110218_AAAHHR lim_d_Page_10thm.jpg
7ee9a3b889c9c8833755482c819c61e7
10a23643da0ed6a1da4333ecca0cfac621fe56a5
10159 F20110218_AAAHCV lim_d_Page_57.pro
20b4674fc2375248b63dea543aa8ca67
c9bd078d378e4a01d0716b077f94d1f2894cfd36
21822 F20110218_AAAGVY lim_d_Page_08.QC.jpg
684f927cbd2d40b611d337abb911f45e
2b5ae275fcd99d2b4918e269e9e56c5fe60f4b75
2934 F20110218_AAAHHS lim_d_Page_06thm.jpg
bfa536ca72f22bafc51886164da46cde
cbf922f1ca345c4b2e965ceb8fa871c7edc5dc94
22039 F20110218_AAAHCW lim_d_Page_01.jpg
0b24f845dfe31d6ac759bfcafee7024c
11f4def52e261dbcc67019d4e6ba0bb1bc06ae57
5457 F20110218_AAAGVZ lim_d_Page_33thm.jpg
cdbedf079d742a45b6a7a3a3c2559d28
f2d23cbf59c47e3f605cff6d5181a0e3b4266479
21719 F20110218_AAAHHT lim_d_Page_27.QC.jpg
9a762b6b54c66209735d5af8ea2776f0
e2cfc19cc7294b418585a622e898b8951b5c8f22
4463 F20110218_AAAHCX lim_d_Page_02.jpg
432bcb7af697506adfe8bf847c66c5d2
7f30f393daa0765fe29b86847c981e06f82a2f96
33974 F20110218_AAAHHU lim_d_Page_40.QC.jpg
f842137799e123a00c82281a200b950f
4b712d6779b0aa72f6889769d9ecf19e1ea008e2
5342 F20110218_AAAHCY lim_d_Page_03.jpg
772e6c8d7fe0c858ef55e79c77c415e8
52d39e31c28274847715de2be85007eb5a5f9f29
32951 F20110218_AAAHHV lim_d_Page_19.QC.jpg
c3222a46d7800dd7a1f4473c25a1c4d8
5579af842ec0191df6c14059e61269cb7b17cbb0
2012 F20110218_AAAHAA lim_d_Page_35.txt
6983b4df0c4ad9c3247a987b1bd68d50
849d96ca4b4e17fb781cc1ac64426444ca8c29b7
25690 F20110218_AAAHCZ lim_d_Page_04.jpg
322aec604269ae59f2685dce7611d12b
c9395f9214a24de04f92dea4364e96cd5be953d3
8514 F20110218_AAAHHW lim_d_Page_55thm.jpg
2de8a79f66b744d3649e1093251b4230
fb3dd537dea87e0f826a9c559f878ad0ab10b4bd
F20110218_AAAGYA lim_d_Page_36.tif
a9fe1b9871f797b5d1951f713ac06a3f
aa4df26d16d7600e91ab3decfe5b674a626e7838
F20110218_AAAHAB lim_d_Page_36.txt
682e002da9895f8909d3704e63fa8a8f
4d3441affb60b68848afe8e5a828620ec90a0cc0
7440 F20110218_AAAHHX lim_d_Page_34thm.jpg
7f86069b5bf5d28757cf913e1e4a27dc
0906e9c86cf6596db5c4edb02c0561b0fd0de210
F20110218_AAAGYB lim_d_Page_37.tif
4bd8f08c9ae93b0deeaaa1e2f530f862
4be175fcf5726f4ff270f3d55cdf923744c6dafb
1948 F20110218_AAAHAC lim_d_Page_37.txt
84a2309b873376e4603cf5c1e35c903b
447c0ca08a5be2827ff4d1a52b477ffed5a354ec
432528 F20110218_AAAHFA lim_d_Page_06.jp2
145324965e25da7e4fee475e49a2cf4e
ec09275742bd8c1243b8e9b1b3427d695d36ff7c
32150 F20110218_AAAHHY lim_d_Page_23.QC.jpg
522c07ac6840b37e64ded4949cd02073
ed4ff87fff19802bb0afb979a2c955992d1696dc
F20110218_AAAGYC lim_d_Page_38.tif
38b77dd78275a71767526bc9e6e3ee82
7bd094e4ad5017dca17af3b7bd78ff2074150ff9
769 F20110218_AAAHAD lim_d_Page_38.txt
e1ef38ea2ecdce6ca2e35053366276b2
b89a231f0f88534a190251777c6f6f3369071685
411973 F20110218_AAAHFB lim_d_Page_07.jp2
15876876ee9e789ff120525e8b8285fd
c9f7d07959d8d55569429caf229d0ffeec7e73b3
32377 F20110218_AAAHHZ lim_d_Page_13.QC.jpg
e1675b3e7c0a54d525f75103d4979db2
698493cceb3756a3e02b188ec9d2c5bd4c0be1ee
F20110218_AAAGYD lim_d_Page_39.tif
7b212b9a4eb8fe45c9bd6bef0de2b1c1
58b890f67a809430d47bc0a1dd52ab36b81a9b8c
1811 F20110218_AAAHAE lim_d_Page_39.txt
222edee73ab40e8ba1ba76d9d09642e1
440736a86da0ed1fceaba19dfd59f9f9f3e8462a
92742 F20110218_AAAHFC lim_d_Page_09.jp2
0c0bdcba54fb8496b2312542088a7fb4
0a8e2189c48f195373704235dff3c39149750731
F20110218_AAAGYE lim_d_Page_40.tif
6f0e07107859858c30735fceddd7ca58
4345957b2849164d69a1abcfe902123a868d1ae8
F20110218_AAAHAF lim_d_Page_40.txt
58559f4a96eecab4e2ea956db9c95894
8888a682800d944c2ddd1252e6a626cf59cb7047
7287 F20110218_AAAHKA lim_d_Page_30thm.jpg
3198ffd092e109a001f5b2d5f5709acd
c9b3f5b6cf9c6e21f8df09590782c47a6926326e
1007904 F20110218_AAAHFD lim_d_Page_10.jp2
9e7346fc6718462f5d4756ad5d3350db
35bbe3d4b90d4a11c153743f0e9958b93ad73336
F20110218_AAAGYF lim_d_Page_41.tif
5f874010eba171e95ccc4e316d16faa7
413e744e854b1c0a55188166b3d6db73a63db4a6
1904 F20110218_AAAHAG lim_d_Page_41.txt
fc8ccdff18bdab377e002f92c0c336d0
49e9476b13f5ff184544a521b3f1bcae6565db0a
29804 F20110218_AAAHKB lim_d_Page_36.QC.jpg
5ec5c45e06d7698beceb5c47a111a601
31d2810f22ca94389dc7d0cd043bd3c501de51d4
984464 F20110218_AAAHFE lim_d_Page_11.jp2
665a8cb0c38a764dbf77c09fe71ec7c3
4b2af6605d3ec0c0f6ab2dc4cb25207c9163c740
F20110218_AAAGYG lim_d_Page_42.tif
fdd520614dc14fab3a5e4b7bf955c2fc
dcf5d6a8e935a0cacb80ee65915c9b851dc9cee4



PAGE 1

EFFECT OF INVOLVEMENT ON MESSAGE SIDEDNESS By DONGJIN LIM A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ADVERTISING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Dongjin Lim

PAGE 3

To my parents, Eui-Sin Lim and Jung-Sook Shin.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to give special thanks to Dr. Michael Weigold for being an excellent mentor, professor, advisor, and thesis committee chair. I appreciate all the time and knowledge he put into helping me with my thesis, and challenging me to learn more. I also want to thank my thesis committee members, Dr. Johanna Cleary and Dr. Jorge Villegas, for their insight s, patience and support.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................3 Previous Research on Message Sidedness....................................................................3 Applicable Theories on Message Sidedness Effect......................................................7 Attribution Theory.................................................................................................7 Inoculation Theory................................................................................................8 Optimal Arousal Theory (OAT)............................................................................9 Elaboration Likelihood Model......................................................................................9 Involvement................................................................................................................10 Attitude.......................................................................................................................13 Source Credibility.......................................................................................................14 Message Sidedness and Level of Involvement...........................................................16 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................18 Study Design...............................................................................................................18 Subjects.......................................................................................................................18 Product........................................................................................................................19 Pretest........................................................................................................................ .19 Procedure....................................................................................................................20 Stimulus Materials......................................................................................................20 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................22 Manipulation Checks..................................................................................................22 Demographics.............................................................................................................24 Test of Hypotheses.....................................................................................................25 Attitude toward the Brand (Fresco Francesco)....................................................25

PAGE 6

vi Evaluations of Primary Positive Attribute...........................................................26 Source Credibility................................................................................................27 Other Findings............................................................................................................28 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION........................................................................30 Summary of Results....................................................................................................31 Limitations..................................................................................................................32 Future Research..........................................................................................................33 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORM................................................................................35 B ONE-SIDED MESSAGE ADVERTISEMENT.........................................................36 C TWO-SIDED MESSAGE ADVERTISEMENT (UNRELATED)............................37 D TWO-SIDED MESSAGE ADVERTISEMENT (RELATED)..................................38 E QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................................................................39 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................43 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................48

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1. Mean and standard devi ation of each attribute...........................................................19 4-1. Summary of involvement scales.................................................................................22 4-2. Comparison (high vs. low involveme nt group) of involvement scales......................23 4-3. Relatedness between primary positive attribute and other attributes.........................23 4-4. Demographics statistics..............................................................................................24 4-5. Attitude mean and standa rd deviation of each group.................................................25 4-6. Evaluation of positive pr oduct attribute (freshness)...................................................26 4-7. Evaluation of positive product attribute (taste)..........................................................27 4-8. Source credibility mean and st andard deviation of each group..................................28 5-1. The number of participants who recalled negative attribute......................................32

PAGE 8

viii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Advertising EFFECT OF INVOLVEMENT ON MESSAGE SIDEDNESS By Dongjin Lim August 2006 Chair: Michael Weigold Major Department: Advertising Both message sidedness (one vs. two-side d message) and involvement have a long history in social psychology. While a vast amount of research exists on message sidedness and involvement, no known research ha s studied the effect of involvement on message sidedness. This study examined the moderating effect of involvement on message sidedness. Participants were split up into six groups: 2 (involvement: high or low) x 3 (message sidedness: one-sided or two-sided un related or two-sided related). A total of 217 students participated. The researcher predicted that under a high involvement situation only, 1) two-sided (vs. one-sided) advertisements lead to more favorable attitudes, 2) the logical relation between negative and positive product attribut es mentioned in the two-sided ad (pricy, high quality food) facilitates favorable inferen ces about the positive attribute, and 3) twosided (vs. one-sided) advertisements increase source credibility.

PAGE 9

ix However, results did not support these pr edictions, perhaps because of the study limitations. Future research might yield more conclusive results.

PAGE 10

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION For a number of years, advertisers have been defying conventional wisdom by relaxing the prohibition against saying anythi ng negative about th e advertised brand. Classic examples include Avis Rent A Car admitting to being Number Two and Volkswagen with a headline stating the car wa s a Lemon while the copy said there was a scratch on the glove comp artment chrome strip. From the perspective of advertising, a one -sided message is defined as a message which presents only claims that are suppor tive of the product or brand (Kamins & Assael, 1987). A two-sided message is defi ned as a message which, in addition to presenting positive claims on important attri butes, downgrades or limits product or brand performance claims on attributes of minor sign ificance to the consumer so as to establish credibility without deterring purchase (Kamins & Assael, 1987). Message sidedness refers to whether a message contains a one-sided or a two-sided appeal. W. K. Buckley Limited has become one of the leading brands of cough syrup in Canada by using a blunt two-sided slogan, Buc kleys Mixture. It tastes awful. And it works (Belch & Belch, 2004). Ads for the br and poke fun at the cough syrups terrible taste but also suggest that the taste is a re ason why the product is effective. Buckleys Mixture possessed two strong characteristics: bad taste and tremendous efficacy. Using these two points of difference, Buckley s produced an award-winning advertising campaign that made Buckleys Mixture and Frank Buckley household names in Canada (Buckleys, 2005). Even though Buckleys Mi xture achieved a big success with its two-

PAGE 11

2 sided advertising, this is very rare. Traditionally, advertisem ents present only the positive arguments associated with the product, even though many researcher s believe that the two-sided message can be more effectiv e in persuading audiences and increasing sponsors' credibility. Two-sided messages may ultimately increase aspects of advertising effectiveness. Oneversus two-sided messages have been studied for some time in communication, but research has not been developed extensivel y across a variety of advertising contexts, products or tactical considerations. With the message sidedness, the term involvement had been an important concept in studying advertisi ng effectiveness (Petty & C acioppo, 1986). Involvement has been defined as personal relevance (P etty & Cacioppo, 1981). Although there are many specific definitions of involvement within both social and consumer psychology, there is considerable agreement that high involvemen t messages have greate r personal relevance and consequences or elicit more personal connections than low involvement messages (Engel & Blackwell, 1982; Krugman 1965; Petty & Cacioppo, 1979). This study investigates the involvement influence on message sidedness. In the advertising and marketing research area, leve l of involvement is very important in the sense that marketers and advertisers need so me baselines to segment markets according to consumers product involvement. Unfort unately, relatively little scholarship has examined message sidedness and level of i nvolvement. The purpose of this study is to determine the possible role of i nvolvement on message sidedness.

PAGE 12

3 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW As applied to advertising, a two-sided message involves those instances when a communicator claims that the advertised pr oduct performs well on attributes which are important determinants of product (Kamins et al., 1989). Product performance on lessimportant characteristics might be disclaimed and/or limited in scope (Kamins et al., 1989). Alternatively, a one-sided message only presents positive aspects of the product. Message sidedness refers to whether a messa ge contains a one-si ded or a two-sided appeal. Generally, the two-sided communications are not among the most frequently employed message strategies in advertis ing (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). Advertising practitioners are concerned about the nega tive effects of acknowledging a weakness in their brand or do not want to say anything positive about their competitors. On the other hand, in the field of personal selling, the "two-sided" argument is often regarded an effective sales approach (Faison, 1961). That is, the salesperson tends to use the two-sided approach presenting both the positive and negative attributes of a product. With every negative argument, the salesperson follows with a counterargument or an offsetting positive argument. Previous Research on Message Sidedness The study of message sidedness has a long history in social psychology. The first investigations of one versus two sided messa ges go back to the work of Carl Hovland. Hovland, Lumsdaine, and Sheffield (1949) reported that presenting the arguments on

PAGE 13

4 both sides (arguments + refutation of arguments) of an issue is more effective in changing opinion than giving only the arguments supportin g the point of view being offered when individuals are initially opposed to the point of view being presented. Also they argued that more highly educated men were more favorably affected by presentation of both sides of an argument. In the Hovland et al. experiment, effects of the communication were measured only in terms of immediate ch anges in opinion; they did not compare the effects of one-sided versus two-sided communica tions in terms of resistance to the effect of subsequently presented counterarguments. Lumsdaine and Janis (1953) compared the effectiveness of the two forms of presentation after part of the audience had been exposed to a second counterargument (counterpropaga nda). They found two-sided presentations are more effective in the long run than a one-sided argument when the audience is exposed to subsequent counterpropaganda. Faison (1961) found that the effectivene ss of two-sided advertising communication depends on the intelligence level of the audi ence and two-sided arguments are effective in influencing attitudes for audience members who are initia lly opposed to the point of view being presented. Another study (Tannenbaum, 1967) has s hown that individuals who receive a refutational defense prior to an attack messa ge maintain a higher belief level than those who receive only a supportive defense before the attacking arguments. Etgar and Goodwin (1982) evaluated the e ffectiveness of one-sided versus twosided comparative advertising ap peals, in terms of impact on initial attitudes toward newbrand introductions where pr ior beliefs do not exist yet. Their primary research hypothesis was that "a two-sided compar ative appeal (incorporating both positive

PAGE 14

5 arguments and negative arguments) should genera te significantly greater initial attitudes toward a sponsor's new brand than a one-s ided comparative appeal (incorporating positive arguments only)"(p. 460). Etgar and Goodwin (1982) examined these two types of comparative appeals with two commonly purchased products : beer (fixed at socially utilitarian product) and cold remedy (func tionally utilitarian product) using print advertisements. They found that for attitude s toward the sponsori ng brand, the two sided comparison appeal received higher attitude (f avoring the sponsor's brand) than the onesided comparison appeal. For attitude towa rd the advertisement, the ads for the functionally utilitarian product (cold remedy) received higher attitudes than did the socially utilitarian product (beer). Conse quently, as hypothesized, it showed that using the two-sided comparative appeal is more e ffective than using the one-sided comparison appeal in advertising a new-brand. Kamins, Brand, Hoeke, and Moe (1989) studi ed sided message effectiveness in the context of celebrity endorsements. They exam ined celebrity endorsements that utilize a two-sided format in which the celebrity s pokesperson makes both positive and negative statements regarding the advertised product. Th eir results show that "when compared to a traditional one-sided celebrity endorseme nt, the two-sided communication elicited significantly higher advertising credibility and effectiveness ratings, higher evaluation of the sponsor in terms of perceived overall qual ity of service, as well as a significantly great intention to use advertis ed service" (p. 4). These findi ngs are encouraging that the use of a celebrity appeal with two-sided messages might be an effective advertising strategy.

PAGE 15

6 Some findings about the effectiveness of such two-sided ads have been inconclusive. Pechmann (1992) indi cated that in earlier studies critical moderators have been ignored. He found that two-sided adver tising was more effec tive than one-sided only when negatively correlated attributes (e .g., price and quality, a nd number of calories and number of container sizes) were featured. For example, an ice creams number of calories (negative attribute) may be seen as pos itively related to its rich and creamy taste (positive attribute). Accordingly, when these tw o attributes were both mentioned in an ad, recipients evaluated the target ice cream more favorably comp ared to conditions in which either no negative attribute or an unrelated ne gative attribute (small selection of container sizes) was mentioned (Pechmann, 1992). P echmann concluded that "the brand's unfavorable positioning on the negatively correla ted secondary attribute (i.e. "correlation inferences"), as well as the advertiser's hone sty (i.e., "correspondent inferences") jointly enhanced judgments of the brand on the pr imary attribute and thus overall brand evaluations"(p. 450). Crowly and Hoyer (1994) developed a fr amework that encompasses past twosided persuasion research. One of their propo sitions is, Two sided messages are more effective than one-sided messages in cha nging negative attitude s and in creating favorable new attitudes (p. 566). With several propositions on two-sided message effectiveness, they confessed that their knowledge regarding low involvement processing of two-sided messages is limited so they suggest ed that more research on that should be conducted for the future. Igou and Bless (2003) investig ated recipients expecta tions about the order in which arguments are presented. In two-si ded communications (pro arguments, con

PAGE 16

7 arguments), recipients expected communicator s to present their supportive arguments at the end of the message. On the other hand, in one-sided communications (strong arguments, weak arguments), recipients expe cted the strong arguments at the beginning of the communication. These findings suggest that the individual holds expectations about the order in which communicators presen t their arguments. Most importantly, these expectations differ as a function of whethe r the communicator pres ents a oneor a twosided communication. Applicable Theories on Message Sidedness Effect A two-sided appeal contains some pros a nd cons of the advertised brand, with the negative information included voluntarily. In attempting to un derstand two-sided advertising effects, researchers have applie d various theories to their research. Attribution Theory Attribution theory (Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1973) is about how people make causal explanations. It describes the pro cess an individual goes through in assigning causes to events (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). Attribution theory has guided some two-sided advertising studies. The finding th at two-sided advertising enha nces source credibility is the effect that has received the most consiste nt empirical support in several studies using a variety of products and methodologies (Gol den & Alpert, 1987; Kamins et al., 1989; Settle & Golden, 1974). Even in cases in whic h significant increases in credibility for two-sided treatments have not been found (S tayman et al., 1987), in no instance has a significant decrease in credibility occurred. As a part of attribution theory, the Discounting Hypothesis argues that a source who fails to meet an expectation or exceed s an expectation produces reevaluation by an audience (Allen, 1991). The omission of an oppos ing position may lead the audience to

PAGE 17

8 discount the opinion of the communicat or. Thus, the Discounting Hypothesis recommends using a two-sided message. The underlying assumption of the Discounti ng Hypothesis is that persuasion is based on a reaction to the content being presen ted. The key to the effectiveness of a twosided message is the refutational properties of the message. Alle n (1991) found that a two-sided refutational message was the mo st persuasive followed by a one-sided message. The least persuasive message was a two-sided nonrefutational message. A twosided refutational message mentioned the count erarguments to the advocated position and then refuted them. A two-sided nonrefu tational message merely mentioned the counterarguments without refuting them. While attribution theory provides a plau sible explanation for the credibility enhancement engendered by two-sided advertis ing, this theory pr ovides very limited illumination of many other aspects of two-sided advertising effectiveness such as Attitude toward the Ad and Attitude toward the Brand effects (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). Inoculation Theory The Inoculation Theory deals with making attitudes resistant to change, usually by giving audience members small doses of opposing arguments (McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961). This theory, develope d by McGuire and Papageorgis, gets its namesake from the analogy of inoculating a pa tient with a weakened form of the disease in order to build up immunity (Severin & Tankard, 2001). In essen ce, applications of inoculation theory involve strengthening cognitions by including mild attacking arguments and then countering or refuting these negative arguments within the same communication. Inoculation Theory is relate d to message sidedness because inoculation can be looked at as a form of a two-sided a ppeal. Inoculation Theory generally deals with

PAGE 18

9 the use of negative statements that attack well-defined prior beliefs concerning an attitude-object or issue. In the context of messaging, this theo ry involves the speaker pointing out counterarguments and then refuting them. Thus, the receiver obtains some practice in refuting counterclaims (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). The Inoculation Theory is based on the idea that a two-sided refutational message is the most effective because it inhibits counterarguments (Allen, 1991). Optimal Arousal Theory (OAT) The Optimal Arousal Theory (OAT) is ba sed on the idea that stimuli that are moderately novel, surprising, or complex will be preferred over stimuli that offer too much or too little novel ty (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). Exte nding this theory into message sidedness suggests that a two-sided message will have a positive affect because it is pleasingly novel. Conversely, one-sided messages may appear commonplace because that is what is to be expecte d. The key to success in this theo ry is the amount of negative information presented in the two-sided messa ge. Large amounts of negative information will cancel out the positive effects of novelty (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). Elaboration Likelihood Model The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) propo sed there exists two basic routes to persuasion. One is called the central route, and the other is called the peripheral route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The central route is involved when the receiver actively processes the information and is persuaded by the rationality of the arguments (Severin & Tankard, 2001). An understanding of twosided messages can contribute to our knowledge of central route processing, where argument quality is of paramount importance (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). The periph eral route is involved when the receiver

PAGE 19

10 does not expend the cognitive energy to evaluate the arguments and process the information in the message and is guided mo re by peripheral cues such as attractive sources, music, humor and visual s (Severin & Tankard, 2001). The ELM states that a permanent attitude change is the resu lt of an audiences cognitive elaborations after receiving a message (Allen, 1991). Inherently, message sidedness is not directly linke d to the ELM. However, message sidedness is connected to the ELM when, motivation and ability to th ink about the issue will determine the route to persuasion (Allen, 1991). Petty and Cacioppo (1986) provide an exam ple that illustrates message sidedness and the ELM. A message advocating a hos tile position would likely increase an audiences desire to process and scrutinize that message. Give n this situation, a two-sided message would be more persuasive and thus more effective because The content appears well-informed and admits that the reason fo r the audience hostility is rational but not acceptable because a superior set of reas oning exists (Allen, 1991). Conversely, a onesided message would be more persuasive for a favorable audience because it only presents arguments supporting the position. Thus, in this example, the factors relating to motivation for processing information and th e audience favorableness toward the topic, will determine the effectiveness of message sidedness (Allen, 1991). Involvement In the advertising research area, i nvolvement has a long history. Krugman (1965), first drew the involvement issue to th e forefront of advertis ing research. Applying learning theory, Krugman (1965) found that pe ople remembered better those ads which were presented first and last He also operationalised the involvement as the number of bridging experiences, (p. 355) namely connections or personal references per minute

PAGE 20

11 that the viewer made between his/her own life and the advertisement. Since Krugmans seminal argument about television advertisi ng, the construct of i nvolvement has emerged as an important factor in studying advertisi ng effectiveness. In the study of Petty and Cacioppo (1981), involvement refers to persona l relevance to the message and product. On the other hand, Park & Mitt al (1985) defined involvement as arousal, interest, or drive evoked by a specific stimulus, or goal-directed arousal capacity. Cohen (1983) defined it as a person s activation level. The variables proposed as the antecedent s of involvement may be divided into three categories. The first rela tes to the characteristics of the person, the second relates to the physical characteristics of the stimulus. Thus involvement will be different according to the types of media or c ontent of the communication. The third category relates to the situation. For example, the persons involvement will be different if he or she watches the advertising when planning to buy that product. These three categories are usually used for ascertaining involvement. Among these propos ed antecedents, the second and third categories were based on the assumptions that involvement is activated by external stimulus (Taylor & Joseph, 1984). Although involvement has been recognized as an interaction between individual and external stimuli, product involvement has been defined as salience of relevance of a product rather than an indi viduals interest in a produc t (Salmon, 1986, p. 244). Some researchers divided product involvement into two distinct types. The first type is situational involvement which reflects product involvement that occurs only in specific situations. The second type is enduring involvement which represents an ongoing concern with a product that transcends situ ational influences (Houston & Rothschild,

PAGE 21

12 1978; Rothschild, 1979). All thes e constructs are focused main ly on the external stimulus rather than on an individuals general interest in a product. Product involvement is often used in terchangeably with perceived product involvement in the marketing literature (K apferer & Laurent, 1985). The meaning and definition of product involvement differs acr oss researchers. For example, Cushing and Douglas-Tate (1985) defined product involveme nt as how the product fits into that persons life (p. 243). To them, product involvem ent is a sort of degree of importance to a person. To Zaichkowsky (1985), product involve ment is referred to as the relevance that individuals perceive in the products values accordi ng to their own interests and needs. Similarly, Tyebjee (1979) describes pr oduct involvement as strength of belief about the product class, but Mitchell (1979) characterizes involvement in the product class as the relevance or salience of a product class to receivers. According to ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), a persons processing of information differs by his or her level of involvement. When consumers have high MAO (Motivation, Ability and Opportunity) to process communicati on, they are willing or able to exert a lot of cognitive processing effort, which is called high-elaboration likelihood. On the contrary, when MAO is low, consumers are neither willing nor able to exert a lot of effort. However, a persons elaboration lik elihood is also influenced by situational variables such as product type. That is, a high-involvement product situation would enhance a persons motivation for issue-re levant thinking and increase a persons elaboration likelihood, so the central route to persuasion will probably be induced. A low-involvement product situation would proba bly create low consumer motivation to process information, which leads to greater possib ility of a peripheral route to persuasion.

PAGE 22

13 Attitude An attitude is an overall evaluation that expresses how much we like or dislike an object, issue, person, or action (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Ou r attitudes also reflect our overall evaluation of something based on the set of associations linked to it. This is why we have attitude towards brands, product categories, ads, people, types of stores, activities, and so forth (Hoyer & Ma clnnis, 2004). Attitude also has been defined as a combining belief, affect, and behavior intervening between stimulus and response. Al lport (1935) considered it as one of the most unique and essential c oncepts in modern social psychology. Conceptually, an attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Eagly and Chaiken (1993) defined psychological tendency as a state that is internal to the person and evaluating as all classes of evaluative responding, whether overt or covert, cognitive, affective, or behavioral. Mitchell and Olson (1981) defined attitude as an individuals internal evaluation of an object such as a branded product. Acco rding to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), attitude is a function of his/her salien t beliefs at a given point in tim e. Beliefs are the subjective associations between any two differentiabl e concepts and salient beliefs are those activated from memory and considered by th e person in a given situation (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Research shows that the co rrelation between attitudes and actions can be strong under certain conditions (Fazio & Zanna, 1981). Attitudes play a key role in predicting purchase behavior for particular brands. Fo r this reason, much study has concentrated on the cognitive and affective determ inants of attitudes in hopes of predicting the conative

PAGE 23

14 factor. The affective link has become the ma in player in todays marketplace (Batra, Myers, & Aaker, 1996). Lindenmann (2002) assert ed that attitude research measures not only what people say about some thing, but also what they k now and think (their mental or cognitive predispositions), what they feel (their emotions), and how they are inclined to act (their motivational or drive tendencies). Brand attitudes are considered import ant phenomena in consumer behavior, marketing, and advertising (Mitchell & Ols on, 1981; Gardner, 1985). Brand attitudes are defined in terms of consumers overall eval uations of a brand (Wilkie, 1990). Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) defined attitude toward the brand as a predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner to a particular brand. Mitchell and Olson (1981) defined attitude toward the brand as the consumers overall evaluation of good or bad. Such evaluations are important to researchers because they often are the basis for consumer behaviors, such as brand choice. Attitude toward the ad (Aad), attitude toward the brand (Ab), and purchase intention (PI) represent the main outcome variables in many studies in advertising effectiveness (Heath & Gaeth, 1994; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). While several studies on message side dness show that two-sided messages are more effective than one-sided messages in cr eating favorable new attitudes, no empirical research has looked at the moderating role of involvement on relationship between message sidedness and attitudes. Source Credibility The concept of credibility has been of in terest to scholars an d practitioners in marketing and advertising (Goldsmith et al., 2000). Credibility is the extent to which the r ecipient sees the source as having relevant

PAGE 24

15 knowledge, skill, or experience and trusts the source to give unbiased, objective information (Belch & Belch, 2004). There are two important dimensions to credibility: expertise and trustworthiness (Belch & Belch, 2004). Expertise is derived from knowledge of the subject, and trustworthiness refers to the honesty and believability of the source (McGinnies & Word, 1980). One of the most reliable effects found in communications research is that expert and/or trustworthy sources ar e more persuasive than sour ces who are less expert or trustworthy (McGuire, 1969). The finding that two-sided messages in creases source credibility has been supported by several studies (Golden & Alpe rt, 1987; Kamins et al., 1989; Settle & Golden, 1974). In advertising contexts wher e communicators are expected to have a strong vested interest, encountering twosided messages (which included negative information about the product or brand) s hould result in positive inferences about communicators trustworthine ss (Bohner et al, 2003).

PAGE 25

16 Message Sidedness and Level of Involvement While there is a vast amount of resear ch on message sidedn ess and level of involvement respectively, there is no known re search that has studied the effects of involvement on message sidedness. An unders tanding of this relationship can help marketers gain a better unders tanding of the potential impact that message sidedness has on consumers and their perceptions of advertised product. Etgar and Goodwin (1982) evaluated the eff ectiveness of one-sided versus twosided comparative advertising ap peals, in terms of impact on initial attitudes toward newbrand introductions where prio r beliefs do not exist yet. Th ey found that for attitudes toward the sponsoring brand, the two-sided co mparison appeal received higher attitude (favoring the sponsor's brand) than the one -sided comparison appeal. Consequently, as hypothesized, it showed that usi ng the two-sided comparative appeal is more effective than using the one-sided comparison appeal in advertising a new brand. This result, with notions that message si dedness is the matter of argument and an argument involves the central route of pers uasion, suggests the following hypothesis. H1: For people in high-involvement situations only, a two-sided advertisement leads to more favorable attitudes than a one-sided advertisement does. Pechmann (1992) found that two-sided a dvertising was more effective in enhancing judgments on the primary attribut e of the brand than one-sided only when negatively correlated attributes (e.g., price and quality, and number of calories and number of container sizes) were featured. Pechmann ( 1992) argued that a critical ingredient of effective twosided advertisements was a connection between the negative and positive attributes that are mentioned. This finding, with notions that message sidedness is the matter of argument and

PAGE 26

17 an argument involves the central route of persuasion, suggests the following hypothesis. H2: For people in high-involvement situations only, a two-sided related advertisement* leads to more favorable evaluations of its primary positive attribute than either a two-sided unrelated advertisement** or a one-sided advertisement does. message contained negative product attri bute that is related to positive attribute ** message contained negative product attribut e that is unrelated to positive attribute Attribution theory has guided a majority of the existing tw o-sided advertising studies. The finding that two-si ded advertising enhances sour ce credibility is the effect that has received the most consistent empiri cal support in several st udies using a variety of products and methodologies (Golden & Alpert, 1987; Kami ns et al., 1989; Settle & Golden, 1974). This finding, with notions that message sidedness is the matter of argument and an argument involves the central route of persuasion, suggests the following hypotheses. H3: For people in high-involvement situations only, a two-sided advertisement leads to higher source credibility than a one-sided advertisement does.

PAGE 27

18 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY An experiment was conducted to investig ate the level of involvement influence on message sidedness effect. Study Design To test the hypotheses, 2 x 3 factorial between subject design was used with the level of involvement (high vs. low) and message sidedness (one-sided vs. two-sided unrelated vs. two-sided relate d) as independent variable s. In this study, dependent variables are attitude toward the brand, evaluation of positive attributes, and source credibility. Subjects The sample consists of 217 students enrolled in an undergraduate course at a large Southeastern university. There are six experi mental groups. All participants will receive minor extra credit in return for their collaboration. Group 1 (38 students): High invol vement + One-sided advertisement Group 2 (36 students): High involvement + Two-sided unrela ted advertisement Group 3 (36 students): High involveme nt + Two-sided related advertisement Group 4 (35 students): Low invol vement + One-sided advertisement Group 5 (36 students): Low involvement + Two-sided unrela ted advertisement Group 6 (36 students): Low involveme nt + Two-sided related advertisement

PAGE 28

19 Product A fictitious new restaurant named Fre sco Francesco (Bohner et al, 2003) was chosen because the preconceptions of establ ished brand name could bias experimental results. Pretest A pretest with a small group of subject s was conducted prior to the main experiment to find out the leve l of importance on attributes wh en they choose the Italian restaurant. A total of 10 underg raduate students participated. Se ven attributes (quality of food; taste and freshness, price, cozy at mosphere, proximity, parking availability, service) were evaluated on a scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 7 (very important). 3-1. Mean and standard de viation of each attribute N Mean Std. Deviation Quality of food (taste, freshness) 10 6.70 .48 Quality of service 10 5.90 .99 Cozy atmosphere 10 5.80 .92 Price 10 5.60 .97 Parking availability 10 3.80 .79 The number of selection of dishes 10 3.10 1.20 Proximity 10 3.10 .88 Among seven attributes, quality of food (tas te, freshness) was the primary featured attribute because it was the most important factor the subject c onsidered when they choose an Italian restaurant. The quality of food was statistically more significant than the second most important attribute; the qua lity of service (scal e: 0 to 7, M = 6.70 vs. 5.90, t = 2.23, p < 0.05). Therefore in this study, the quality of food was selected as the primary positive attribute when people choose an Italian restaurant. Pr ice was selected as

PAGE 29

20 a correlated attribute with the quality of food, and cozy atmosphere selected as an unrelated attribute with the quality of food. Th ese two attributes (price, cozy atmosphere) were about equally important to the subjects when they eval uated the Italian restaurant (scale: 0 to 7, M = 5.60 vs. 5.80, t = .51, p > 0.1). Procedure Before the experiment began, the participan ts were told that the study is designed to find out students beliefs and thoughts on a ne w Italian restaurant Fresco Francesco. Then, their informed consent was secured. In the experiment, each participant was randomly exposed to one of six types of manipulation (high involvement + one-sided message, high involvement + two-sided unrel ated message, high involvement + related message, low involvement + one-sided message low-involvement + two-sided unrelated message, low-involvement + two-sided related message). High involvement subjects were told that the restaurant would soon be opened in Gainesville; low involvement subjects were told that the restaurant is going to be opened only in New York City. High involvement subject s were led to believe that University of Florida students would get a 40 percent discoun t if they bring their Gator 1 card to the restaurant. Low involvement subjects, on the other hand, were led to believe that the restaurant would not be av ailable in their area in the foreseeable future. Following the exposure, they were asked to list anything about the restaurant they recalled seeing in the advertisement. Then they were asked to complete the questionnaire. Upon completing the questionnaire, they were debriefed and thanked. Stimulus Materials Three restaurant advertisem ents (similar ads used in the study of Bohner et al., 2003) were used to manipulate the message si dedness, such that one version employs a

PAGE 30

21 one-sided message appeal and the other ve rsions represent a two-sided unrelated message, and a two-sided related message resp ectively. In all conditions, the ad features the same set of positive claims, including th e taste and freshness of food. For the onesided advertisement, the fo llowing body paragraph was used. Fresco Francesco. Our home-made pasta and other dishes are prep ared by Francesco from fresh ingredients, preserving the foods natural flavor. Therefore, our dishes are a rare treat. Our hearty salads, also made only from fresh ingredients, are uniquely refined by Francescos special dressing. The culinary experience is completed by a selecti on of five Italian wines. You can enjoy all these delicacies and incomparable taste at Fresco Francesco. For two-sided unrelated advertisement, the following body paragraph was used. Fresco Francesco. Our home-made pasta and other dishes are prep ared by Francesco from fresh ingredients, preserving the foods natural flavor. Therefore, our dishes are a rare treat. Our hearty salads, also made only from fresh ingredients, are uni quely refined by Francescos special dressing. The culinary experience is completed by a selec tion of five Italian wines. Although we cant provide you the cozy atmosphere you might expect at Italian restaurant, you can enjoy incomparable taste at Fresco Francesco. For two-sided related adve rtisement, the following body paragraph was used. Fresco Francesco. Our home-made pasta and other dishes are prep ared by Francesco from fresh ingredients, preserving the foods natural flavor. Therefore, our dishes are a rare treat. Our hearty salads, also made only from fresh ingredients, are uni quely refined by Francescos special dressing. The culinary experience is completed by a selec tion of five Italian wines. Although it is somewhat pricy, you can enjoy incomp arable taste at Fresco Francesco.

PAGE 31

22 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Manipulation Checks The involvement question items consisted of four semantic differential scales: interesting/boring (1 = very boring, 7 = very interesting), importan t/not important (1 = not important at all, 7 = very important), i nvolving/not involving (1 = not involving at all, 7 = very involving), relevant/not relevant (1 = not relevant at all, 7 = very relevant). In this study, involvement is the most impor tant construct. Theref ore, item internal consistency for four involvement scales (interesting/boring, impor tant/not important, involving/not involving, relevan t/not relevant) was evaluated in a reliability test. The reliability was satisfactory (Cronbachs = 0.84). And the high involvement group showed higher involvement scores than the low involvement group did. 4-1. Summary of involvement scales N Mean Std. Deviation Interesting/boring 217 5.02 1.47 Important/not important 217 4.34 1.26 Involving/not involving 217 4.63 1.28 Relevant/not relevant 217 4.56 1.31 Cronbachs = 0.84

PAGE 32

23 4-2. Comparison (high vs. low involveme nt group) of involvement scales Group N Mean (Std. dev.) t-value Interesting/boring High Low 110 107 5.27 (1.45) 4.76 (1.47) 2.61* Important/not important High Low 110 107 4.55 (1.30) 4.13 (1.20) 2.45* Involving/not involving High Low 110 107 4.82 (1.27) 4.43 (1.27) 2.25* Relevant/not relevant High Low 110 107 4.85 (1.26) 4.27 (1.30) 3.30* *P 0.05 Next, the relatedness between the primary positive attribute and other attributes was checked. In this study, the quality of food was selected as the primary positive attribute when people choose an Italian rest aurant. Price was selected as a correlated attribute with the quality of food, and cozy at mosphere selected as an unrelated attribute with the quality of food. 4-3. Relatedness between primary positive attribute and other attributes N Mean Std. Deviation Quality of food Price 217 4.94 1.39 Quality of food Proximity 217 3.53 1.57 Quality of food Parking availability 217 2.93 1.65 Quality of food The number of selection of dishes 217 3.79 1.62 Quality of food The quality of service 217 5.38 1.43 Quality of food Cozy atmosphere 217 4.34 1.51 The relatedness between quality of food and price was stat istically more significant than the relatedness between quality of food and cozy atmosphere (scale: 0 to 7, M = 4.94 vs. 4.34, t = 4.51, p < 0.05). Participants thought th at the price related to the quality of food more than the cozy atmosphere did.

PAGE 33

24 Demographics A total of 217 undergraduate students from the large Southeastern university participated in this study. The sample included 70 males and 147 females. 4-4. Demographics statistics N % Gender Female 147 67.7 Male 70 32.3 Academic Classification Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student 12 95 82 28 0 5.5 43.8 37.8 12.9 0.0 Age Marital Status Race 18-21 22-24 25-29 30 or older Single (not divorced or separated) Married Divorced Widowed Caucasian/White African American/Black Hispanic/Latino Asian/Asian American Native American Other 189 25 3 0 217 0 0 0 159 7 38 9 2 2 87.1 11.5 1.4 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.3 3.2 17.5 4.1 0.9 0.9 Of the 217 students, most students were ages 18-21 (87.1%), followed by ages 2224 (11.5%). Approximately 43.8% of the part icipants were college sophomores and 37.8% were juniors, followe d by seniors with 12.9% and freshman with 5.5%.

PAGE 34

25 All participants were single (not divor ced or separated). Reportedly, 73.3% were Caucasian/White; 17.5% Hispanic/Latino; 4.1 % were Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander and 3.2% were Af rican American/Black. Test of Hypotheses H1: For people in high-involvement situations only, a two-sided advertisement leads to more favorable attitudes than a one-sided advertisement does. Attitude toward the Brand (Fresco Francesco) The attitude toward the brand questio n items consisted of three semantic differential scales: favorable/unfavorable (1 = very unfavorable, 7 = very favorable), good/bad (1 = very bad, 7 = very good), attractive/unattractive (1 = very unattractive, 7 = very attractive). These three scales we re internally consistent (Cronbachs = 0.70). 4-5. Attitude mean and sta ndard deviation of each group Type of Advertisement One-Sided Two-Sided, Unre lated Two-Sided, Related High involvement 5.45 (1.06), N=38 5.11 (1.14), N=36 4.94 (1.31), N=36 Low involvement 5.17 (1.15), N=35 4.97 (1.21), N=36 4.78 (1.33), N=36 Mean (Std. dev.) In a high involvement situation, two-sided advertisements (wheth er it is unrelated or related) did not lead to mo re favorable attitudes than a one-sided advertisement did. In this study, the one-sided advertisement led to more favorable att itude than two-sided advertisements did (M = 5.45 vs. 5.11, t = 1.32, p > 0.05; M = 5.45 vs. 4.94, t = 1.82, p > 0.05). Therefore, hypothesis 1 was not supported. Also in a low involvement situation, tw o-sided advertisements (whether it is unrelated or related) did not lead to more favorable attitudes than a one-sided

PAGE 35

26 advertisement did (M = 5.17 vs. 4.97, t = 0.71, p > 0.1; M = 5.17 vs. 4.78, t = 1.33, p > 0.05). H2: For people in high-involvement situations only, a two-sided related advertisement leads to more favorable evaluations of its primary positive attribute than either a two-sided unrelated advertisement or a one-sided advertisement does. Evaluations of Primar y Positive Attribute In this study, the quality of food (taste and freshness) is the primary positive attribute. Participants repor ted their evaluation of positive product attributes on two items that read: I believe the ingredients used at Fresco Francesco are on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all fresh) to 7 (very fresh) ; I believe the dishes at Fresco Francesco taste on a scale ranging from 1 (not good) to 7 (very good). 4-6. Evaluation of positive pr oduct attribute (freshness) Type of Advertisement One-Sided Two-Sided, Unre lated Two-Sided, Related High involvement 5.45 (1.20), N=38 5.31 (1.17), N=36 5.42 (1.23), N=36 Low involvement 5.31 (1.28), N=35 5.67 (0.93), N=36 5.44 (1.05), N=36 Mean (Std. dev.) In the high involvement situation, particip ants who were exposed to the two-sided related ad did not judge the food to be more fresh (M = 5.42) than did participants who were exposed to either the tw o-sided unrelated ad (M = 5.31) or one-sided ad (M = 5.45). (M = 5.45 vs. 5.31 vs. 5.42, F = 0.14, p > 0.1). Likewise, in the low involvement situation, participants who were exposed to the two-sided related ad did not judge the food to be more fresh (M = 5.44) than did participants who were exposed to either the two-si ded unrelated ad (M = 5.67) or the onesided ad (M = 5.31). (M = 5.31 vs. 5.67 vs. 5.44, F = 0.94, p > 0.1).

PAGE 36

27 4-7. Evaluation of positive product attribute (taste) Type of Advertisement One-Sided Two-Sided, Unre lated Two-Sided, Related High involvement 5.37 (0.94), N=38 5.17 (1.08), N=36 5.08 (1.20), N=36 Low involvement 4.97 (1.15), N=35 5.53 (0.91), N=36 5.17 (1.13), N=36 Mean (Std. dev.) When it comes to the taste, in the high involvement situation, participants who were exposed to the two-sided related ad di d not judge the food to be more tasty (M = 5.08) than did participants who were exposed to either two-sided unrelated ad (M = 5.17) or the one-sided ad (M = 5.37). (M = 5.37 vs. 5.17 vs. 5.08, F = 0.69, p > 0.1). Also in the low involvement situation, pa rticipants who were exposed to the twosided related ad did not judge the food to be more tasty (M = 5.17) than did participants who were exposed to either th e two-sided unrelated ad (M = 5.53) or the one-sided ad (M = 4.97). (M = 4.97 vs. 5.53 vs. 5.17, F = 2.48, p > 0.05). Overall, a two-sided rela ted advertisement did not lead to more favorable evaluations of its primary positive attribute than either a two-sided unrelated advertisement or a one-sided advertisemen t did regardless of involvement condition. Therefore, hypothesis 2 was not supported. H3: For people in high-involvement situations only, a two-sided advertisement leads to higher source credibility than a one-sided advertisement does. Source Credibility Four semantic differential items were us ed to assess perceived source credibility: The people running the restaurant Fresco Fr ancesco seem to be on a scale ranging from 1 (unbelievable/dishonest/untrustwort hy/not credible) to 7 (believable/honest/

PAGE 37

28 trustworthy/credible), respect ively. These four scales were internally consistent (Cronbachs = 0.77). 4-8. Source credibility mean and standard deviation of each group Type of Advertisement One-Sided Two-Sided, Unre lated Two-Sided, Related High involvement 5.11 (0.89), N=38 4.75 (1.05), N=36 4.92 (1.08), N=36 Low involvement 4.74 (0.82), N=35 5.22 (0.80), N=36 4.72 (1.03), N=36 Mean (Std. dev.) In the high involvement situation, particip ants who were exposed to the two-sided ads (unrelated, related) did not judge the advertiser to be more honest (unrelated M = 4.75, related M = 4.92) than did participants who were exposed to one-sided ad (M = 5.11). (M = 5.11 vs. 4.75 vs. 4.92, F = 1.15, p > 0.1). On the other hand, in the low involvement situation, participants who were exposed to the two-sided unrelated ad (M = 5.22) judge d the advertiser to be more honest than did participants who were exposed to either the one-sided ad (M = 4.74) or the two-sided related ad (M = 4.72). (M = 4.74 vs. 5.22 vs. 4.72, F = 3.63, p < 0.05). These results do not support hypothesis 3. Ther efore, the hypothesis 3 was rejected. Other Findings All participants (217) reported their de gree of liking for Ital ian food: Do you like Italian food on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Most students liked Italian food very much (M = 6.43, SD = 1.01). The gene ral liking for Italian food might lead to a more favorable evaluati on on the Italian restau rant regardless of involvement manipulation. In f act, even in the low involveme nt situation, the attitude toward the brand (Fresco Francesco) was so mewhat favorable (scale: 0 to 7, M = 4.97,

PAGE 38

29 SD = 1.23) and so was the belief on taste (scale: 0 to 7, M = 5.22, SD = 1.08). Other food restaurants such as Chinese or Japa nese may generate different results. In the group of high involvement particip ants (N=110), 58 students (53%) recalled that they would get a 40% di scount if they bring their Ga tor 1 card to the restaurant (noted on the first page of the questionna ire; section for free recall seeing in the advertisement). Actually that section asked students to list anything they recalled seeing in the advertisement. A 40% discount offer was not mentioned in the advertisement, but in the instruction page. It seems that a considerable number of high involvement participants were stimul ated by that condition.

PAGE 39

30 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Although two-sided communications are not among the most frequently employed message strategies, it is still a topic of cons iderable importance to both practitioners and theoretical researchers. From a theoretical perspective, understand ing two-sided messages can contribute to our knowledge of central route of proce ssing (high involvement), where argument quality is important. As mentioned in the literature review, message sidedness relates to the matter of argument and an argument involves the central route of persuasion. From a practical perspective, a tw o-sided message has the potential to be an effective persuasive device in a difficult communication situation: when consumers already hold negative beliefs or attitudes about the br and. Given the tremendously competitive communication environment of toda y, it may be possible that, with better research, we can address how and under what conditions two-sided messages are effective. Most previous research on two-sided communications has involved two-sided advertising (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). While a vast amount of research exists on twosided advertising, no known research has studi ed the effect of involvement on message sidedness (one-sided ad vs. twosided ad). This study mainly investigated the effect of involvement on message sidedness. Partic ipants were randomly assigned to the conditions of a 2 x 3 (the level of involvem ent: high vs. low) x (message type: one-sided vs. two-sided, unrelated vs. two-sided, rela ted) factorial design. The fundamental proposition of this study is: message sidedne ss is the matter of argument and an argument

PAGE 40

31 involves the central route of persuasion. Based on fundamental proposition of this study and previous two-sided message research resu lts, this paper generated three hypotheses, but none were supported, perhaps because of the study limitations. Summary of Results According to H1, under the high invo lvement situation only, a two-sided advertisement leads to more favorable atti tudes than a one-sided advertisement does. Data bearing on this hypothesi s are shown in the Table 4-5. The results showed that twosided advertisements (whether it is unrelated or related) did not l ead to more favorable attitudes than a one-sided advertisement did regardless of involvement condition. Therefore H1 was rejected. Even though pr evious research (Etgar & Goodwin, 1982) showed that using the two-sided comparative ap peal is more effective than using the onesided comparison appeal in advertising a new brand, that research finding was not supported here. According to H2, under the high involv ement situation only, participants evaluations of positive attributes should be higher in the tw o-sided related ad conditions compared to both the one-sided and two-side d unrelated conditions. Data bearing on this hypothesis are shown in Tables 4-6 and 4-7. The results showed that participants who were exposed to the two-sided related ad did not judge the food to be more fresh or tasty than did participants who were exposed to ei ther the two-sided unrel ated ad or one-sided ad under the high involvement situation. Ther efore H2 was rejected. This result was inconsistent with the finding of Pechma nn (1992). Pechmann found that two-sided advertising was more effectiv e in enhancing judgments on th e primary attribute of the brand than one-sided only when negatively co rrelated attributes (e.g., price and quality, and number of calories and number of container sizes) were featured.

PAGE 41

32 According to H3, under the high involvemen t situation only, judgments of source credibility should be higher in both twosided ad conditions than in one-sided ad conditions. Data bearing on this hypothesis are shown in Tabl e 4-8. The results indicated that participants who were exposed to the tw o-sided ads (unrelated, related) did not judge the advertiser to be more honest than did pa rticipants who were exposed to one-sided ad under the high involvement situation. Ther efore H3 was rejected. This result was inconsistent with the previous two-side d message research (Golden & Alpert, 1987; Kamins et al., 1989; Settle & Golden, 1974) which showed that two-sided advertising enhanced source credibility. As mentioned earlier, the message sidedne ss is the matter of argument and an argument involves the central route of persuasi on (high involvement situation). However, the relatedness between involvement and me ssage sidedness (one-sided vs. two-sided, unrelated vs. two-sided, related) was not found in this study. Limitations This study had several limitations. First, message sidedness manipulat ion did not work very well. 5-1. The number of participants who recalled negative attribute Type of Advertisement One-Sided Two-Sided, Unrelated (atmosphere is not cozy) Two-Sided, Related (somewhat pricy) High involvement N/A 10 participants, N=36 13 participants, N=36 Low involvement N/A 8 particip ants, N=36 7 participants, N=36 In the group of two-sided ad participants (N=144), more than 70% of them recalled the headlines (The taste of Ital y!), the name of restaurant (Fresco Francesco), but only 38

PAGE 42

33 participants recalled the negative attribute. The negative attribute was introduced in the last part of the body of the paragraph. Becau se of this, the negative attribute was not salient enough to make a difference. Theref ore, in the end, the manipulation was not successful. Second, the manipulation for th e group 3 (High involvement + Two-sided related advertisement) was problematic. Because the 40 percent discount might weaken the effect of negative attribute (A lthough it is somewhat pricy) in the two-sided related ad. Third, the students might be distracted or tired. The undergraduate students had to take a course quiz before they participated in this experiment. Some students did not pay much attention when the research er explained the instructions. Finally, most students liked Italian fo od very much (M = 6.43, SD = 1.01). The general liking for Ital ian food might cause more a favor able evaluation on an Italian restaurant regardless of involvement manipulation. Future Research Although hypotheses were not supported in this study, research on the effect of involvement on the message sidedness should st ill continue, because it is an important area for marketers and advertis ers to understand. If the rese archer proves that the twosided ad is more effective than a one-side d ad under the high involvement situation, marketers and advertisers may use the tw o-sided message strategy only for highly involved consumers. In this study, the fictitious magazine advertisements were used to manipulate the message sidedness. In the case of two-sided ads, the message manipulation occurred in the body paragraph but it was not as salient as the headlines. Therefore, it is recommended to manipulate headlines along with the body copy. Other aspects of two-

PAGE 43

34 sided persuasion that require future research include repetition effects and later stages in the processing of the two-sided message. It would be beneficial for future two-sided advertising research to incl ude these aspects. Instead of using only the mag azine advertisement, it seems worthwhile to test the fictitious TV advertisements, because prev ious research on message sidedness focused on print advertisements. Future research should attempt to test TV advertisements instead.

PAGE 44

35 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORM Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to evaluate audience attitudes toward the advertisement which includes one-sided (positive attribute only) message or two-sided (both positive and negative attributes) message. What you will be asked to do in the study: If you choose to participate in this study, you will first view the introductory statement about the Italian restaurant. Then you will be exposed to an Italian restaurant advert isement. Afterwards, you will be asked to answer questions related to your attitudes about what you saw. There are no right or wrong answers. This study will take approximately 15 minutes. Risks: There are no personal discomfort, stress, or personal ri sks associated with participating in this study. Benefits: By participating in this study, you will earn extra credit from your instructor. The number of extra credit points awarded will be at the discretion of the instructor. Ther e are no direct benefits to you for participating in this study. Confidentiality: Your responses will be anonymous. Your participation is completely voluntary and you may withdraw your consent at any time during the experiment without penalty. In the event that you do withdraw consent, the results of your participation, to the extent that they can be identified as yours, will be returned to yo u, removed from the research records, or destroyed. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: If you would like to learn more about the study, you may contact Dongjin Lim by telephone at (352) 381-1941 or by email at djlim@ufl.edu or Dr. Michael Weigold in the Department of Advertising (2018 Weimer Hall) by telephone at (352) 392-8199 or by email at mweigold@jou.ufl.edu. Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Flor ida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participants Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator Signature: ___________________________________ Date: _________________

PAGE 45

36 APPENDIX B ONE-SIDED MESSAGE ADVERTISEMENT The Taste of Italy! The Taste of Authenticity! A Passion for Italy! FRESCO FRANCESCO Fresco Francesco. Our home-made pasta and other dishes are prep ared by Francesco from fresh ingredients, preserving the foods natural flavor. Therefore, our dishes are a rare treat. Our hearty salads, also made only from fresh ingredient s, are uniquely refined by Francescos special dressing. The culinary e xperience is completed by a selectio n of five Italian wines. You can enjoy all these delicacies and inco mparable taste at Fresco Francesco.

PAGE 46

37 APPENDIX C TWO-SIDED MESSAGE ADVERTISEMENT (UNRELATED) The Taste of Italy! The Taste of Authenticity! A Passion for Italy! FRESCO FRANCESCO Fresco Francesco. Our home-made pasta and other dishes are prep ared by Francesco from fresh ingredients, preserving the foods natural flavor. Therefore, our dishes are a rare treat. Our hearty salads, also made only from fresh ingredient s, are uniquely refined by Francescos special dressing. The culinary experien ce is completed by a selection of five Italian wines. Although we cant provide you cozy atmosphere you might expect at Italian restaurant, you can enjoy incomparable ta ste at Fresco Francesco.

PAGE 47

38 APPENDIX D TWO-SIDED MESSAGE ADVERTISEMENT (RELATED) The Taste of Italy! The Taste of Authenticity! A Passion for Italy! FRESCO FRANCESCO Fresco Francesco. Our home-made pasta and other dishes are prep ared by Francesco from fresh ingredients, preserving the foods natural flavor. Therefore, our dishes are a rare treat. Our hearty salads, also made only from fresh ingredient s, are uniquely refined by Francescos special dressing. The culinary experien ce is completed by a selection of five Italian wines. Although it is somewhat pricy, you can enjoy in comparable taste at Fresco Francesco.

PAGE 48

39 APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE Please do not go back to any of the previous page. Q1. Please list anything about the restau rant you recall seeing in the advertisement in the space below. PLEASE CONTINUE ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

PAGE 49

40 Q2. Please circle one number between 1 an d 7 that best des cribes how you feel. Based on my general impression, the restaurant Fresco Francesco is 1) Unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable 2) Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bad 3) Unattractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Attractive Q3. Please rate your level of agreeme nt with the following statements. 1) I believe the ingredients used at Fresco Francesco are fresh. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree 2) I believe the salads at Fresco Francesco taste good. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree 3) I believe the dishes at Fresco Francesco taste good. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree 4) I believe eating at Fresco Francesco is somewhat pricy. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree 5) I believe the atmosphere at Fresco Francesco is cozy. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree 6) I would like very much to eat at Fresco Francesco Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree Q4. Please circle one number between 1 an d 7 that best describes how you think. The people running the restaurant Fresco Francesco seem to be 1) Unbelievable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Believable 2) Honest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dishonest 3) Untrustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trustworthy 4) Credible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not credible

PAGE 50

41 Q5. Please circle one number between 1 and 7 that best describe s how you feel about Fresco Francesco. 1) Interesting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Boring 2) Not important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important 3) Involving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not involving 4) Not relevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Relevant Q6. Do you like Italian food? Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much Q7. Please rate your level of agreeme nt with the following statements. 1) High quality food correlates with high price. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree 2) High quality food correlates with the proximity of restaurant. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree 3) High quality food correlates with parking availability of restaurant. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree 4) High quality food correlates with the large number of selection of dishes. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree 5) High quality food correlates with high quality services. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree 6) High quality food correlates with cozy atmosphere of restaurant. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree Q8. Demographics 1. What is your gender? (Check one) Female _____ Male _____ 2. What is your academic classification? (Check one) Freshman _____ Sophomore_____ Junior _____ Senior _____ Graduate Student_____

PAGE 51

42 3. What is your age? (Check one) 18-21_____ 22-24 _____ 25-29_____ 30 or older _____ 4. What is your marital status? (Check one) _____ Single (not divorced or separated) _____ Married _____ Divorced or legally separated _____ Widowed 5. What is your race? (Check one) _____ Caucasian/White _____ African American/Black _____ Hispanic/Latino _____ Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander _____ Native American Other _____________________ (Please specify) Thank you very much fo r your participation!

PAGE 52

43 REFERENCES Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and pr edicting social behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Allen, M. (1991). Meta-Analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and twosided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55 (4), 390-404. Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes, in C.A. Murchison (Ed.) A handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 810-815). New York: Russell & Russell. Batra, R., Myers, J. G., & Aaker, D. A. (1996). Advertising management (pp. 316-328). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (2004). Advertising and promotion (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Buckleys Website. (2005). A history of bad taste. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from http://www.buckleys.com/about/history.htm Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Erb, H., & Siebler, F. (2003). When small means comfortable: relations between product attribut es in two-sided advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (4), 454-463. Cohen, J. B. (1983). Involvement and you: 1000 great ideas. In W. R. P. Bagozzi, & A. M. Tybout (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 10, pp. 325-328). Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research. Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framew ork for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (March), 561-574. Cushing, P. & Douglas-Tate, M. (1985). Th e effect of people/pr oduct relationship on advertising processing. In L. F. Alwitt, & A. A. Mitchell (Eds.), Psychological processes and advertising effects: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 241-259). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Janovich, Inc. Engel, J. F., & Blackwell, R. D. (1982). Consumer behavior Hinsdale: Dryden Press.

PAGE 53

44 Etgar, M., & Goodwin, S. A. (1982). One-si ded versus two-sided comparative message appeals for new brand introductions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (March), 460-465. Faison, E. W. J. (1961). Effectiveness of one-sided and two-sided mass communications in advertising. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (Fall), 468-469. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude -behavior consistency. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experime ntal social psychology 14, pp. 161-182. New York: Academic Press. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Gardner, M. P. (1985). Does attitude toward the ad affect brand attitude under a brand evaluation set? Journal of Marketing Research, 22 192-198. Golden, L. L., & Alpert, M. I. (1987). Comparative analys is of the relative effectiveness of one-and two-sided co mmunications for contrasting products. Journal of Advertising, 16 (1), 18-25. Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 29 (3), 43-54. Heath, T. B., & Gaeth, G. J. (1994). Theory thirteen attitude scales for agreement and brand discrimination. Journal of Marketing, 43 (4), 20-32. Houston, M. J., & Rothschild, M. L. (1978). Conceptual and methodological perspectives on involvement. In S. C. Jain (Ed.), 1978 Educators Proceedings (pp. 184-187). Chicago: American Marketing Association. Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experimentation on mass communication, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hoyer, W. D., & Maclnnis, D. J. (2004). Consumer behavior 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mufflin. Igou, E. R., & Bless, H. (2003). Inferring the importance of arguments: Order effects and conversational rules. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39 91-99. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From act s to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). New York: Academic.

PAGE 54

45 Kamins, M. A., & Assael, H. (1987). Two-si ded versus one-sided appeal: A cognitive perspective on argumentation, source der ogation, and the effect of disconfirming trial on belief change. Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (February), 29-39. Kamins, M. A., Brand, M. J., Hoeke, S. A., & Moe, J. C. (1989). Two-sided versus onesided celebrity endorsements: The imp act on advertising effectiveness and credibility. Journal of Advertising, 18 (2), 4-10. Kapferer, J., & Laurent, G. (1985). Consum ers involvement profile: New empirical results. In E.C. Hirschman & M.B. Holbrook (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 12, pp. 290-295). Provo: Association for Consumer Research. Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of te levision advertising: learning without involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 349-356. Lindenmann, W. K. (2002). Guidelines for measuring the effectiveness of PR programs and activities Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations. Lumsdaine, A. A., & Janis, I. L. (1953). Resistance to counterp ropaganda produced by one-sided and two-sided pr opaganda presentations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 17 311-318. MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the Ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53 48-65. MaGinnies, E., & Ward, C. D. (1980). Bette r liked than right: Trustworthiness and expertise as factor s in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology bulletin, 6 (3), 467-472. McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1961). The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defenses in producing immunity against persuasion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62 (March), 327-337. MaGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitude s and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 135-214). Cambridge: Addison-Wesley. Mitchell, A. A. (1979). Involvement: a poten tially important mediator of consumer behavior. In W.H. Wilkie (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 6, pp. 20-24). Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research. Mitchell, A. A. & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are pr oduct attribute beliefs th e only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18 318-332.

PAGE 55

46 Park, C. W., & Young, S. M. (1985). A theory of involvement in consumer behavior: problems and issues. In J. N. Sheth (Ed.), Research in Consumer Behavior (Vol. 1). Greenwich, JAI press. Pechmann, C. (1992). Predicting when two-side d ads will be more effective than onesided ads: The role of correlati onal and correspondent inferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (November), 441-453. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issu e involvement can in crease or decrease persuasion by enhancing message -relevant cognitive response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (October), 1915-1926. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issue involvement as modera tor of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. In K. B. Monroe (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 8, pp. 20-24). Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer. Rothschild, M. L. (1979). Advertising strategi es for high and low involvement situations. In J. Maloney, & B. Silverman (Eds.), Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes (pp. 74-93). Chicago: American Marketing Association. Salmon, C. T. (1986). Perspectives of i nvolvement in consumer and communication research. In B. Dervin, & M. J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 243-268). Norwood: Albex Publishing. Settle, R. B., & Golden, L. L. (1974). Attr ibution theory and advertiser credibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (2), 181-185. Severin, W. J., & Tankard, J. W. (2001). Communication theories: Origins, methods, and uses in the mass media (5th ed.). Boston: Addison Wesley Longman. Tannenbaum, P. H. (1967). The congruity prin cipal revisited: Studies in the reduction, induction, and generalization of pe rsuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 271-320). New York: Academic. Taylor, M. B., & Joseph, W. J. (1984). Meas uring consumer involvement in products. Psychology and Marketing, 1 (2), 65-77. Tyebjee, T. T. (1979). Response time, conf lict, and involvement in brand choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (3), 295-304 Wilkie, W. L. (1990). Consumer behavior 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

PAGE 56

47 Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 341-352.

PAGE 57

48 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dongjin Lim was born in Seoul, South Korea, on July 3, 1976. He lived in Seoul until July 2004. He earned a BA in advertising from Chung-Ang University, in Seoul, South Korea. He earned a Master of Advertisi ng degree from the University of Florida in August 2006. After graduation, he plans to jo in the PhD program in communication at University at Buffalo.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014520/00001

Material Information

Title: Effect of Involvement on Message Sidedness
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014520:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014520/00001

Material Information

Title: Effect of Involvement on Message Sidedness
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014520:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text















EFFECT OF INVOLVEMENT ON MESSAGE SIDEDNESS


By

DONGJIN LIM














A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ADVERTISING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Dongjin Lim

































To my parents, Eui-Sin Lim and Jung-Sook Shin.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to give special thanks to Dr. Michael Weigold for being an excellent

mentor, professor, advisor, and thesis committee chair. I appreciate all the time and

knowledge he put into helping me with my thesis, and challenging me to learn more. I

also want to thank my thesis committee members, Dr. Johanna Cleary and Dr. Jorge

Villegas, for their insights, patience and support.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES .................... ............... ......... .......... ............ vii

A B S T R A C T .......................................... .................................................. v iii

CHAPTER

1 IN TRODU CTION ................................................. ...... .................

2 L ITER A TU R E R E V IEW .................................................................. .....................3

Previous Research on Message Sidedness......................................... ............... 3
Applicable Theories on Message Sidedness Effect........................................................7
Attribution Theory ............................................. .............. .... .........7
Inoculation T heory ............................ .. .................... .. .......... .......... .. ..
O ptim al A rousal Theory (O A T) ...................................... .................................... 9
Elaboration Likelihood M odel .......................................................... ..................... 9
In v o lv e m e n t .................................................................................................... 1 0
A ttitu d e .............................................................................1 3
Source C credibility .................. ............................................................. ............... 14
M message Sidedness and Level of Involvem ent ........................................................... 16

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ................................................................... ....................18

Study D design ................................................................................ ......... 18
S u b j e c ts ................................................................................................................. 1 8
P ro d u ct ............................................................................... 19
P re te st .........................................................................................................................1 9
P ro c e d u re .......................................................................................................2 0
S tim u lu s M materials ................................................................................................ 2 0

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................2 2

M manipulation Checks ............................................................................. 22
D em graphics .................................................................................................. .......24
Test of Hypotheses ................................... ......................... ...........25
Attitude toward the Brand (Fresco Francesco) ...... ................ ...............25



v









Evaluations of Primary Positive Attribute.........................................................26
Source Credibility ........ ..... ........... .. ................... .... ...... 27
O their F findings .........................................................................28

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................. ............... 30

Sum m ary of R esults......... .................................................................. ......... .. .. 1
L im itatio n s ......... ...................................................................................... 3 2
F utu re R research ................................................................ 33

APPENDIX

A INFORM ED CON SEN T FORM .......................................... .......................... 35

B ONE-SIDED MESSAGE ADVERTISEMENT .................................................. 36

C TWO-SIDED MESSAGE ADVERTISEMENT (UNRELATED) ............................37

D TWO-SIDED MESSAGE ADVERTISEMENT (RELATED).............. .................38

E Q U E ST IO N N A IR E ......................................................................... .....................39

REFERENCES ....................... ....... .. ...... ... .................. 43

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ..................................................................... ..................48
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1. Mean and standard deviation of each attribute............... ............... ...............19

4-1. Summary of involvement scales..................... ....................................... 22

4-2. Comparison (high vs. low involvement group) of involvement scales ...................23

4-3. Relatedness between primary positive attribute and other attributes ........................23

4-4. D em graphics statistics ....................... ....................................................24

4-5. Attitude mean and standard deviation of each group ...........................................25

4-6. Evaluation of positive product attribute (freshness)............................................26

4-7. Evaluation of positive product attribute (taste) ..........................................................27

4-8. Source credibility mean and standard deviation of each group..............................28

5-1. The number of participants who recalled negative attribute ....................................32















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Advertising

EFFECT OF INVOLVEMENT ON MESSAGE SIDEDNESS

By

Dongjin Lim

August 2006

Chair: Michael Weigold
Major Department: Advertising

Both message sidedness (one vs. two-sided message) and involvement have a long

history in social psychology. While a vast amount of research exists on message

sidedness and involvement, no known research has studied the effect of involvement on

message sidedness. This study examined the moderating effect of involvement on

message sidedness.

Participants were split up into six groups: 2 (involvement: high or low) x 3

(message sidedness: one-sided or two-sided unrelated or two-sided related). A total of

217 students participated.

The researcher predicted that under a high involvement situation only, 1) two-sided

(vs. one-sided) advertisements lead to more favorable attitudes, 2) the logical relation

between negative and positive product attributes mentioned in the two-sided ad (pricy,

high quality food) facilitates favorable inferences about the positive attribute, and 3) two-

sided (vs. one-sided) advertisements increase source credibility.









However, results did not support these predictions, perhaps because of the study

limitations. Future research might yield more conclusive results.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

For a number of years, advertisers have been defying conventional wisdom by

relaxing the prohibition against saying anything "negative" about the advertised brand.

Classic examples include Avis Rent A Car "admitting" to being "Number Two" and

Volkswagen with a headline stating the car was a "Lemon" while the copy said there was

a scratch on the glove compartment chrome strip.

From the perspective of advertising, a one-sided message is defined as "a message

which presents only claims that are supportive of the product or brand" (Kamins &

Assael, 1987). A two-sided message is defined as "a message which, in addition to

presenting positive claims on important attributes, downgrades or limits product or brand

performance claims on attributes of minor significance to the consumer so as to establish

credibility without deterring purchase" (Kamins & Assael, 1987). Message sidedness

refers to whether a message contains a one-sided or a two-sided appeal.

W. K. Buckley Limited has become one of the leading brands of cough syrup in

Canada by using a blunt two-sided slogan, "Buckley's Mixture. It tastes awful. And it

works" (Belch & Belch, 2004). Ads for the brand poke fun at the cough syrup's terrible

taste but also suggest that the taste is a reason why the product is effective. Buckley's

Mixture possessed two strong characteristics: bad taste and tremendous efficacy. Using

these two points of difference, Buckley's produced an award-winning advertising

campaign that made Buckley's Mixture and Frank Buckley household names in Canada

(Buckleys, 2005). Even though Buckley's Mixture achieved a big success with its two-









sided advertising, this is very rare. Traditionally, advertisements present only the positive

arguments associated with the product, even though many researchers believe that the

two-sided message can be more effective in persuading audiences and increasing

sponsors' credibility.

Two-sided messages may ultimately increase aspects of advertising effectiveness.

One- versus two-sided messages have been studied for some time in communication, but

research has not been developed extensively across a variety of advertising contexts,

products or tactical considerations.

With the message sidedness, the term "involvement" had been an important

concept in studying advertising effectiveness (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Involvement has

been defined as personal relevance (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). Although there are many

specific definitions of involvement within both social and consumer psychology, there is

considerable agreement that high involvement messages have greater personal relevance

and consequences or elicit more personal connections than low involvement messages

(Engel & Blackwell, 1982; Krugman, 1965; Petty & Cacioppo, 1979).

This study investigates the involvement influence on message sidedness. In the

advertising and marketing research area, level of involvement is very important in the

sense that marketers and advertisers need some baselines to segment markets according

to consumers' product involvement. Unfortunately, relatively little scholarship has

examined message sidedness and level of involvement. The purpose of this study is to

determine the possible role of involvement on message sidedness.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

As applied to advertising, a two-sided message involves those instances when a

communicator claims that the advertised product performs well on attributes which are

important determinants of product (Kamins et al., 1989). Product performance on less-

important characteristics might be disclaimed and/or limited in scope (Kamins et al.,

1989). Alternatively, a one-sided message only presents positive aspects of the product.

Message sidedness refers to whether a message contains a one-sided or a two-sided

appeal.

Generally, the two-sided communications are not among the most frequently

employed message strategies in advertising (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). Advertising

practitioners are concerned about the negative effects of acknowledging a weakness in

their brand or do not want to say anything positive about their competitors.

On the other hand, in the field of personal selling, the "two-sided" argument is

often regarded an effective sales approach (Faison, 1961). That is, the salesperson tends

to use the two-sided approach presenting both the positive and negative attributes of a

product. With every negative argument, the salesperson follows with a counterargument

or an offsetting positive argument.

Previous Research on Message Sidedness

The study of message sidedness has a long history in social psychology. The first

investigations of one versus two sided messages go back to the work of Carl Hovland.

Hovland, Lumsdaine, and Sheffield (1949) reported that presenting the arguments on









both sides (arguments + refutation of arguments) of an issue is more effective in changing

opinion than giving only the arguments supporting the point of view being offered when

individuals are initially opposed to the point of view being presented. Also they argued

that more highly educated men were more favorably affected by presentation of both

sides of an argument. In the Hovland et al. experiment, effects of the communication

were measured only in terms of immediate changes in opinion; they did not compare the

effects of one-sided versus two-sided communications in terms of resistance to the effect

of subsequently presented counterarguments. Lumsdaine and Janis (1953) compared the

effectiveness of the two forms of presentation after part of the audience had been exposed

to a second counterargument (counterpropaganda). They found two-sided presentations

are more effective in the long run than a one-sided argument when the audience is

exposed to subsequent counterpropaganda.

Faison (1961) found that the effectiveness of two-sided advertising communication

depends on the intelligence level of the audience and two-sided arguments are effective

in influencing attitudes for audience members who are initially opposed to the point of

view being presented.

Another study (Tannenbaum, 1967) has shown that individuals who receive a

refutational defense prior to an attack message maintain a higher belief level than those

who receive only a supportive defense before the attacking arguments.

Etgar and Goodwin (1982) evaluated the effectiveness of one-sided versus two-

sided comparative advertising appeals, in terms of impact on initial attitudes toward new-

brand introductions where prior beliefs do not exist yet. Their primary research

hypothesis was that "a two-sided comparative appeal (incorporating both positive









arguments and negative arguments) should generate significantly greater initial attitudes

toward a sponsor's new brand than a one-sided comparative appeal (incorporating

positive arguments only)"(p. 460). Etgar and Goodwin (1982) examined these two types

of comparative appeals with two commonly purchased products: beer (fixed at socially

utilitarian product) and cold remedy (functionally utilitarian product) using print

advertisements. They found that for attitudes toward the sponsoring brand, the two sided

comparison appeal received higher attitude (favoring the sponsor's brand) than the one-

sided comparison appeal. For attitude toward the advertisement, the ads for the

functionally utilitarian product (cold remedy) received higher attitudes than did the

socially utilitarian product (beer). Consequently, as hypothesized, it showed that using

the two-sided comparative appeal is more effective than using the one-sided comparison

appeal in advertising a new-brand.

Kamins, Brand, Hoeke, and Moe (1989) studied sided message effectiveness in the

context of celebrity endorsements. They examined celebrity endorsements that utilize a

two-sided format in which the celebrity spokesperson makes both positive and negative

statements regarding the advertised product. Their results show that "when compared to a

traditional one-sided celebrity endorsement, the two-sided communication elicited

significantly higher advertising credibility and effectiveness ratings, higher evaluation of

the sponsor in terms of perceived overall quality of service, as well as a significantly

great intention to use advertised service" (p. 4). These findings are encouraging that the

use of a celebrity appeal with two-sided messages might be an effective advertising

strategy.









Some findings about the effectiveness of such two-sided ads have been

inconclusive. Pechmann (1992) indicated that in earlier studies critical moderators have

been ignored. He found that two-sided advertising was more effective than one-sided

only when negatively correlated attributes (e.g., price and quality, and number of calories

and number of container sizes) were featured. For example, an ice cream's number of

calories (negative attribute) may be seen as positively related to its rich and creamy taste

(positive attribute). Accordingly, when these two attributes were both mentioned in an ad,

recipients evaluated the target ice cream more favorably compared to conditions in which

either no negative attribute or an unrelated negative attribute (small selection of container

sizes) was mentioned (Pechmann, 1992). Pechmann concluded that "the brand's

unfavorable positioning on the negatively correlated secondary attribute (i.e. "correlation

inferences"), as well as the advertiser's honesty (i.e., "correspondent inferences") jointly

enhanced judgments of the brand on the primary attribute and thus overall brand

evaluations"(p. 450).

Crowly and Hoyer (1994) developed a framework that encompasses past two-

sided persuasion research. One of their propositions is, "Two sided messages are more

effective than one-sided messages in changing negative attitudes and in creating

favorable new attitudes" (p. 566). With several propositions on two-sided message

effectiveness, they confessed that their knowledge regarding low involvement processing

of two-sided messages is limited so they suggested that more research on that should be

conducted for the future.

Igou and Bless (2003) investigated recipients' expectations about the order in

which arguments are presented. In two-sided communications (pro arguments, con









arguments), recipients expected communicators to present their supportive arguments at

the end of the message. On the other hand, in one-sided communications (strong

arguments, weak arguments), recipients expected the strong arguments at the beginning

of the communication. These findings suggest that the individual holds expectations

about the order in which communicators present their arguments. Most importantly, these

expectations differ as a function of whether the communicator presents a one- or a two-

sided communication.

Applicable Theories on Message Sidedness Effect

A two-sided appeal contains some pros and cons of the advertised brand, with the

negative information included voluntarily. In attempting to understand two-sided

advertising effects, researchers have applied various theories to their research.

Attribution Theory

Attribution theory (Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1973) is about how people make

causal explanations. It describes the process an individual goes through in assigning

causes to events (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). Attribution theory has guided some two-sided

advertising studies. The finding that two-sided advertising enhances source credibility is

the effect that has received the most consistent empirical support in several studies using

a variety of products and methodologies (Golden & Alpert, 1987; Kamins et al., 1989;

Settle & Golden, 1974). Even in cases in which significant increases in credibility for

two-sided treatments have not been found (Stayman et al., 1987), in no instance has a

significant decrease in credibility occurred.

As a part of attribution theory, the Discounting Hypothesis argues that a source

who fails to meet an expectation or exceeds an expectation produces reevaluation by an

audience (Allen, 1991). The omission of an opposing position may lead the audience to









"discount" the opinion of the communicator. Thus, the Discounting Hypothesis

recommends using a two-sided message.

The underlying assumption of the Discounting Hypothesis is that persuasion is

based on a reaction to the content being presented. The key to the effectiveness of a two-

sided message is the refutational properties of the message. Allen (1991) found that a

two-sided refutational message was the most persuasive followed by a one-sided

message. The least persuasive message was a two-sided nonrefutational message. A two-

sided refutational message mentioned the counterarguments to the advocated position and

then refuted them. A two-sided nonrefutational message merely mentioned the

counterarguments without refuting them.

While attribution theory provides a plausible explanation for the credibility

enhancement engendered by two-sided advertising, this theory provides very limited

illumination of many other aspects of two-sided advertising effectiveness such as

Attitude toward the Ad and Attitude toward the Brand effects (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994).

Inoculation Theory

The Inoculation Theory deals with making attitudes resistant to change, usually

by giving audience members small doses of opposing arguments (McGuire &

Papageorgis, 1961). This theory, developed by McGuire and Papageorgis, gets its

namesake from the analogy of inoculating a patient with a weakened form of the disease

in order to build up immunity (Severin & Tankard, 2001). In essence, applications of

inoculation theory involve strengthening cognitions by including mild attacking

arguments and then countering or refuting these negative arguments within the same

communication. Inoculation Theory is related to message sidedness because inoculation

can be looked at as a form of a two-sided appeal. Inoculation Theory generally deals with









the use of negative statements that attack well-defined prior beliefs concerning an

attitude-object or issue.

In the context of messaging, this theory involves the speaker pointing out

counterarguments and then refuting them. Thus, the receiver "obtains some 'practice' in

refuting counterclaims" (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). The Inoculation Theory is based on

the idea that a two-sided refutational message is the most effective because it inhibits

counterarguments (Allen, 1991).

Optimal Arousal Theory (OAT)

The Optimal Arousal Theory (OAT) is based on the idea that "stimuli that are

moderately novel, surprising, or complex will be preferred over stimuli that offer too

much or too little novelty" (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). Extending this theory into message

sidedness suggests that a two-sided message will have a positive affect because it is

"pleasingly novel." Conversely, one-sided messages may appear commonplace because

that is what is to be expected. The key to success in this theory is the amount of negative

information presented in the two-sided message. Large amounts of negative information

will cancel out the positive effects of novelty (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994).

Elaboration Likelihood Model

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) proposed there exists two basic routes to

persuasion. One is called the central route, and the other is called the peripheral route

(Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The central route is involved when the receiver actively

processes the information and is persuaded by the rationality of the arguments (Severin &

Tankard, 2001). An understanding of two-sided messages can contribute to our

knowledge of central route processing, where argument quality is of paramount

importance (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). The peripheral route is involved when the receiver









does not expend the cognitive energy to evaluate the arguments and process the

information in the message and is guided more by peripheral cues such as attractive

sources, music, humor and visuals (Severin & Tankard, 2001).

The ELM states that a permanent attitude change is the result of an audience's

cognitive elaborations after receiving a message (Allen, 1991). Inherently, message

sidedness is not directly linked to the ELM. However, message sidedness is connected to

the ELM when, "motivation and ability to think about the issue will determine the route

to persuasion" (Allen, 1991).

Petty and Cacioppo (1986) provide an example that illustrates message sidedness

and the ELM. A message advocating a hostile position would likely increase an

audience's desire to process and scrutinize that message. Given this situation, a two-sided

message would be more persuasive and thus more effective because "The content appears

well-informed and admits that the reason for the audience hostility is rational but not

acceptable because a superior set of reasoning exists" (Allen, 1991). Conversely, a one-

sided message would be more persuasive for a favorable audience because it only

presents arguments supporting the position. Thus, in this example, the factors relating to

motivation for processing information and the audience favorableness toward the topic,

will determine the effectiveness of message sidedness (Allen, 1991).

Involvement

In the advertising research area, involvement has a long history. Krugman

(1965), first drew the involvement issue to the forefront of advertising research. Applying

learning theory, Krugman (1965) found that people remembered better those ads which

were presented first and last. He also operationalised the involvement as the number of

"bridging experiences," (p. 355) namely connections or personal references per minute









that the viewer made between his/her own life and the advertisement. Since Krugman's

seminal argument about television advertising, the construct of involvement has emerged

as an important factor in studying advertising effectiveness. In the study of Petty and

Cacioppo (1981), involvement refers to personal relevance to the message and product.

On the other hand, Park & Mittal (1985) defined involvement as 'arousal, interest, or

drive evoked by a specific stimulus', or 'goal-directed arousal capacity'. Cohen (1983)

defined it as 'a person's activation level'.

The variables proposed as the antecedents of involvement may be divided into

three categories. The first relates to the characteristics of the person, the second relates to

the physical characteristics of the stimulus. Thus involvement will be different according

to the types of media or content of the communication. The third category relates to the

situation. For example, the person's involvement will be different if he or she watches the

advertising when planning to buy that product. These three categories are usually used for

ascertaining involvement. Among these proposed antecedents, the second and third

categories were based on the assumptions that involvement is activated by external

stimulus (Taylor & Joseph, 1984).

Although involvement has been recognized as an interaction between individual

and external stimuli, product involvement has been defined as "salience of relevance of a

product rather than an individual's interest in a product" (Salmon, 1986, p. 244). Some

researchers divided product involvement into two distinct types. The first type is

situational involvement, which reflects product involvement that occurs only in specific

situations. The second type is enduring involvement, which represents an ongoing

concern with a product that transcends situational influences (Houston & Rothschild,









1978; Rothschild, 1979). All these constructs are focused mainly on the external stimulus

rather than on an individual's general interest in a product.

'Product involvement' is often used interchangeably with 'perceived product

involvement' in the marketing literature (Kapferer & Laurent, 1985). The meaning and

definition of 'product involvement' differs across researchers. For example, Cushing and

Douglas-Tate (1985) defined 'product involvement' as 'how the product fits into that

person's life' (p. 243). To them, product involvement is a sort of degree of importance to

a person. To Zaichkowsky (1985), product involvement is referred to as the relevance

that individuals perceive in the product's values according to their own interests and

needs. Similarly, Tyebjee (1979) describes product involvement as strength of belief

about the product class, but Mitchell (1979) characterizes involvement in the product

class as the relevance or salience of a product class to receivers.

According to ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), a person's processing of information

differs by his or her level of involvement. When consumers have high MAO (Motivation,

Ability and Opportunity) to process communication, they are willing or able to exert a lot

of cognitive processing effort, which is called high-elaboration likelihood.

On the contrary, when MAO is low, consumers are neither willing nor able to exert a lot

of effort. However, a person's elaboration likelihood is also influenced by situational

variables such as product type. That is, a high-involvement product situation would

enhance a person's motivation for issue-relevant thinking and increase a person's

"elaboration likelihood", so the central route to persuasion will probably be induced. A

low-involvement product situation would probably create low consumer motivation to

process information, which leads to greater possibility of a peripheral route to persuasion.









Attitude

An attitude is an overall evaluation that expresses how much we like or dislike

an object, issue, person, or action (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Our attitudes also reflect our

overall evaluation of something based on the set of associations linked to it. This is why

we have attitude towards brands, product categories, ads, people, types of stores,

activities, and so forth (Hoyer & Maclnnis, 2004).

Attitude also has been defined as a combining belief, affect, and behavior

intervening between stimulus and response. Allport (1935) considered it as one of the

most unique and essential concepts in modern social psychology. Conceptually, an

attitude is "a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity

with some degree of favor or disfavor" (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Eagly and Chaiken

(1993) defined psychological tendency as a state that is internal to the person and

evaluating as all classes of evaluative responding, whether overt or covert, cognitive,

affective, or behavioral.

Mitchell and Olson (1981) defined attitude as "an individual's internal evaluation

of an object such as a branded product". According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), attitude

is "a function of his/her salient beliefs at a given point in time". Beliefs are the subjective

associations between any two differentiable concepts and salient beliefs are those

activated from memory and considered by the person in a given situation (Fishbein &

Ajzen, 1975).

Research shows that the correlation between attitudes and actions can be strong

under certain conditions (Fazio & Zanna, 1981). Attitudes play a key role in predicting

purchase behavior for particular brands. For this reason, much study has concentrated on

the cognitive and affective determinants of attitudes in hopes of predicting the conative









factor. The affective link has become the main player in today's marketplace (Batra,

Myers, & Aaker, 1996). Lindenmann (2002) asserted that attitude research measures not

only what people say about something, but also what they know and think (their mental

or cognitive predispositions), what they feel (their emotions), and how they are inclined

to act (their motivational or drive tendencies).

Brand attitudes are considered important phenomena in consumer behavior,

marketing, and advertising (Mitchell & Olson, 1981; Gardner, 1985). Brand attitudes are

defined in terms of consumers' overall evaluations of a brand (Wilkie, 1990). Ajzen and

Fishbein (1980) defined attitude toward the brand as a predisposition to respond in a

consistently favorable or unfavorable manner to a particular brand. Mitchell and Olson

(1981) defined attitude toward the brand as the consumers' overall evaluation of good or

bad. Such evaluations are important to researchers because they often are the basis for

consumer behaviors, such as brand choice.

Attitude toward the ad (Aad), attitude toward the brand (Ab), and purchase

intention (PI) represent the main outcome variables in many studies in advertising

effectiveness (Heath & Gaeth, 1994; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989).

While several studies on message sidedness show that two-sided messages are

more effective than one-sided messages in creating favorable new attitudes, no empirical

research has looked at the moderating role of involvement on relationship between

message sidedness and attitudes.

Source Credibility

The concept of credibility has been of interest to scholars and practitioners in

marketing and advertising (Goldsmith et al., 2000).

Credibility is the extent to which the recipient sees the source as having relevant









knowledge, skill, or experience and trusts the source to give unbiased, objective

information (Belch & Belch, 2004). There are two important dimensions to credibility:

expertise and trustworthiness (Belch & Belch, 2004). Expertise is derived from

knowledge of the subject, and trustworthiness refers to the honesty and believability of

the source (McGinnies & Word, 1980).

One of the most reliable effects found in communications research is that expert

and/or trustworthy sources are more persuasive than sources who are less expert or

trustworthy (McGuire, 1969).

The finding that two-sided messages increases source credibility has been

supported by several studies (Golden & Alpert, 1987; Kamins et al., 1989; Settle &

Golden, 1974). In advertising contexts where communicators are expected to have a

strong vested interest, encountering two-sided messages (which included negative

information about the product or brand) should result in positive inferences about

communicators' trustworthiness (Bohner et al, 2003).









Message Sidedness and Level of Involvement

While there is a vast amount of research on message sidedness and level of

involvement respectively, there is no known research that has studied the effects of

involvement on message sidedness. An understanding of this relationship can help

marketers gain a better understanding of the potential impact that message sidedness

has on consumers and their perceptions of advertised product.

Etgar and Goodwin (1982) evaluated the effectiveness of one-sided versus two-

sided comparative advertising appeals, in terms of impact on initial attitudes toward new-

brand introductions where prior beliefs do not exist yet. They found that for attitudes

toward the sponsoring brand, the two-sided comparison appeal received higher attitude

(favoring the sponsor's brand) than the one-sided comparison appeal. Consequently, as

hypothesized, it showed that using the two-sided comparative appeal is more effective

than using the one-sided comparison appeal in advertising a new brand.

This result, with notions that message sidedness is the matter of argument and an

argument involves the central route of persuasion, suggests the following hypothesis.

HI: For people in high-involvement situations only, a two-sided advertisement leads to

more favorable attitudes than a one-sided advertisement does.

Pechmann (1992) found that two-sided advertising was more effective in

enhancing judgments on the primary attribute of the brand than one-sided only when

negatively correlated attributes (e.g., price and quality, and number of calories and

number of container sizes) were featured. Pechmann (1992) argued that a critical

ingredient of effective two-sided advertisements was a connection between the negative

and positive attributes that are mentioned.

This finding, with notions that message sidedness is the matter of argument and









an argument involves the central route of persuasion, suggests the following hypothesis.

H2: For people in high-involvement situations only, a two-sided related

advertisement* leads to more favorable evaluations of its primary positive attribute

than either a two-sided unrelated advertisement** or a one-sided advertisement

does.

* message contained negative product attribute that is related to positive attribute

** message contained negative product attribute that is unrelated to positive attribute

Attribution theory has guided a majority of the existing two-sided advertising

studies. The finding that two-sided advertising enhances source credibility is the effect

that has received the most consistent empirical support in several studies using a variety

of products and methodologies (Golden & Alpert, 1987; Kamins et al., 1989; Settle &

Golden, 1974).

This finding, with notions that message sidedness is the matter of argument and

an argument involves the central route of persuasion, suggests the following hypotheses.

H3: For people in high-involvement situations only, a two-sided advertisement leads to

higher source credibility than a one-sided advertisement does.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

An experiment was conducted to investigate the level of involvement influence on

message sidedness effect.

Study Design

To test the hypotheses, 2 x 3 factorial between subject design was used with the

level of involvement (high vs. low) and message sidedness (one-sided vs. two-sided

unrelated vs. two-sided related) as independent variables. In this study, dependent

variables are attitude toward the brand, evaluation of positive attributes, and source

credibility.

Subjects

The sample consists of 217 students enrolled in an undergraduate course at a large

Southeastern university. There are six experimental groups. All participants will receive

minor extra credit in return for their collaboration.

Group 1 (38 students): High involvement + One-sided advertisement

Group 2 (36 students): High involvement + Two-sided unrelated advertisement

Group 3 (36 students): High involvement + Two-sided related advertisement

Group 4 (35 students): Low involvement + One-sided advertisement

Group 5 (36 students): Low involvement + Two-sided unrelated advertisement

Group 6 (36 students): Low involvement + Two-sided related advertisement









Product

A fictitious new restaurant named "Fresco Francesco" (Bohner et al, 2003) was

chosen because the preconceptions of established brand name could bias experimental

results.

Pretest

A pretest with a small group of subjects was conducted prior to the main

experiment to find out the level of importance on attributes when they choose the Italian

restaurant. A total of 10 undergraduate students participated. Seven attributes (quality of

food; taste and freshness, price, cozy atmosphere, proximity, parking availability,

service) were evaluated on a scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 7 (very important).

3-1. Mean and standard deviation of each attribute
N Mean Std. Deviation
Quality of food (taste, freshness) 10 6.70 .48
Quality of service 10 5.90 .99
Cozy atmosphere 10 5.80 .92
Price 10 5.60 .97
Parking availability 10 3.80 .79
The number of selection of dishes 10 3.10 1.20
Proximity 10 3.10 .88


Among seven attributes, quality of food (taste, freshness) was the primary featured

attribute because it was the most important factor the subject considered when they

choose an Italian restaurant. The quality of food was statistically more significant than

the second most important attribute; the quality of service (scale: 0 to 7, M = 6.70 vs.

5.90, t = 2.23, p < 0.05). Therefore in this study, the quality of food was selected as the

primary positive attribute when people choose an Italian restaurant. Price was selected as









a correlated attribute with the quality of food, and cozy atmosphere selected as an

unrelated attribute with the quality of food. These two attributes (price, cozy atmosphere)

were about equally important to the subjects when they evaluated the Italian restaurant

(scale: 0 to 7, M = 5.60 vs. 5.80, t = -.51, p > 0.1).

Procedure

Before the experiment began, the participants were told that the study is designed

to find out students' beliefs and thoughts on a new Italian restaurant "Fresco Francesco".

Then, their informed consent was secured. In the experiment, each participant was

randomly exposed to one of six types of manipulation (high involvement + one-sided

message, high involvement + two-sided unrelated message, high involvement + related

message, low involvement + one-sided message, low-involvement + two-sided unrelated

message, low-involvement + two-sided related message).

High involvement subjects were told that the restaurant would soon be opened in

Gainesville; low involvement subjects were told that the restaurant is going to be opened

only in New York City. High involvement subjects were led to believe that University of

Florida students would get a 40 percent discount if they bring their Gator 1 card to the

restaurant. Low involvement subjects, on the other hand, were led to believe that the

restaurant would not be available in their area in the foreseeable future.

Following the exposure, they were asked to list anything about the restaurant they

recalled seeing in the advertisement. Then they were asked to complete the questionnaire.

Upon completing the questionnaire, they were debriefed and thanked.

Stimulus Materials

Three restaurant advertisements (similar ads used in the study of Bohner et al.,

2003) were used to manipulate the message sidedness, such that one version employs a










one-sided message appeal and the other versions represent a two-sided unrelated

message, and a two-sided related message respectively. In all conditions, the ad features

the same set of positive claims, including the taste and freshness of food. For the one-

sided advertisement, the following body paragraph was used.


Fresco Francesco....
Our home-made pasta and other dishes are prepared by Francesco from fresh ingredients,
preserving the food's natural flavor. Therefore, our dishes are a rare treat. Our hearty salads,
also made only from fresh ingredients, are uniquely refined by Francesco's special dressing.
The culinary experience is completed by a selection of five Italian wines. You can enjoy all
these delicacies and incomparable taste at Fresco Francesco.


For two-sided unrelated advertisement, the following body paragraph was used.


Fresco Francesco....
Our home-made pasta and other dishes are prepared by Francesco from fresh ingredients,
preserving the food's natural flavor. Therefore, our dishes are a rare treat. Our hearty salads,
also made only from fresh ingredients, are uniquely refined by Francesco's special dressing.
The culinary experience is completed by a selection of five Italian wines. Although we
can't provide you the cozy atmosphere you might expect at Italian restaurant, you can enjoy
incomparable taste at Fresco Francesco.


For two-sided related advertisement, the following body paragraph was used.


Fresco Francesco....
Our home-made pasta and other dishes are prepared by Francesco from fresh ingredients,
preserving the food's natural flavor. Therefore, our dishes are a rare treat. Our hearty salads,
also made only from fresh ingredients, are uniquely refined by Francesco's special dressing.
The culinary experience is completed by a selection of five Italian wines. Although it is
somewhat pricy, you can enjoy incomparable taste at Fresco Francesco.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Manipulation Checks

The involvement question items consisted of four semantic differential scales:

interesting/boring (1 = very boring, 7 = very interesting), important/not important (1 =

not important at all, 7 = very important), involving/not involving (1 = not involving at all,

7 = very involving), relevant/not relevant (1 = not relevant at all, 7 = very relevant).

In this study, involvement is the most important construct. Therefore, item internal

consistency for four involvement scales (interesting/boring, important/not important,

involving/not involving, relevant/not relevant) was evaluated in a reliability test. The

reliability was satisfactory (Cronbach's a = 0.84). And the high involvement group

showed higher involvement scores than the low involvement group did.

4-1. Summary of involvement scales
N Mean Std. Deviation
Interesting/boring 217 5.02 1.47
Important/not important 217 4.34 1.26
Involving/not involving 217 4.63 1.28
Relevant/not relevant 217 4.56 1.31
Cronbach's a = 0.84









4-2. Comparison (high vs. low involvement group) of involvement scales
Group N Mean (Std. dev.) t-value

High 110 5.27 (1.45)
Interesting/boring gh 110 5.27.42.61
Low 107 4.76 (1.47)
High 110 4.55(1.30)
Important/not important High 110 4.55 (1.30) 2.45*
Low 107 4.13 (1.20)

Involving/not involving High 110 4.82 (1.272.25
Low 107 4.43 (1.27)

High 110 4.85(1.26)
Relevant/not relevant High 110 4.85(1.26) 3.30*
Low 107 4.27 (1.30)
*P< 0.05


Next, the relatedness between the primary positive attribute and other attributes

was checked. In this study, the quality of food was selected as the primary positive

attribute when people choose an Italian restaurant. Price was selected as a correlated

attribute with the quality of food, and cozy atmosphere selected as an unrelated attribute

with the quality of food.

4-3. Relatedness between primary positive attribute and other attributes
N Mean Std. Deviation
Quality of food Price 217 4.94 1.39
Quality of food Proximity 217 3.53 1.57
Quality of food Parking availability 217 2.93 1.65
Quality of food The number of selection of dishes 217 3.79 1.62
Quality of food The quality of service 217 5.38 1.43
Quality of food Cozy atmosphere 217 4.34 1.51


The relatedness between quality of food and price was statistically more significant

than the relatedness between quality of food and cozy atmosphere (scale: 0 to 7, M = 4.94

vs. 4.34, t = 4.51, p < 0.05). Participants thought that the price related to the quality of

food more than the cozy atmosphere did.









Demographics

A total of 217 undergraduate students from the large Southeastern university

participated in this study. The sample included 70 males and 147 females.

4-4. Demographics statistics


Female
Male


Academic
Classification






Age





Marital Status






Race


Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Graduate Student

18-21
22-24
25-29
30 or older

Single (not divorced or
separated)
Married
Divorced
Widowed

Caucasian/White
African American/Black
Hispanic/Latino
Asian/Asian American
Native American
Other


N
147
70


12
95
82
28
0

189
25
3
0

217

0
0
0

159
7
38
9
2
2


%
67.7
32.3


5.5
43.8
37.8
12.9
0.0

87.1
11.5
1.4
0.0

100

0.0
0.0
0.0

73.3
3.2
17.5
4.1
0.9
0.9


Of the 217 students, most students were ages 18-21 (87.1%), followed by ages 22-

24 (11.5%). Approximately 43.8% of the participants were college sophomores and

37.8% were juniors, followed by seniors with 12.9% and freshman with 5.5%.


Gender









All participants were single (not divorced or separated). Reportedly, 73.3% were

Caucasian/White; 17.5% Hispanic/Latino; 4.1% were Asian/Asian American/Pacific

Islander and 3.2% were African American/Black.

Test of Hypotheses

HI: For people in high-involvement situations only, a two-sided advertisement leads to

more favorable attitudes than a one-sided advertisement does.

Attitude toward the Brand (Fresco Francesco)

The attitude toward the brand question items consisted of three semantic

differential scales: favorable/unfavorable (1 = very unfavorable, 7 = very favorable),

good/bad (1 = very bad, 7 = very good), attractive/unattractive (1 = very unattractive, 7 =

very attractive). These three scales were internally consistent (Cronbach's a = 0.70).

4-5. Attitude mean and standard deviation of each group
Type of Advertisement
One-Sided Two-Sided, Unrelated Two-Sided, Related
High involvement 5.45 (1.06), N=38 5.11 (1.14), N=36 4.94 (1.31), N=36
Low involvement 5.17 (1.15), N=35 4.97 (1.21), N=36 4.78 (1.33), N=36
Mean (Std. dev.)

In a high involvement situation, two-sided advertisements (whether it is unrelated

or related) did not lead to more favorable attitudes than a one-sided advertisement did. In

this study, the one-sided advertisement led to more favorable attitude than two-sided

advertisements did (M = 5.45 vs. 5.11, t = 1.32, p > 0.05; M = 5.45 vs. 4.94, t = 1.82, p >

0.05). Therefore, hypothesis 1 was not supported.

Also in a low involvement situation, two-sided advertisements (whether it is

unrelated or related) did not lead to more favorable attitudes than a one-sided









advertisement did (M = 5.17 vs. 4.97, t = 0.71, p > 0.1; M = 5.17 vs. 4.78, t = 1.33, p >

0.05).

H2: For people in high-involvement situations only, a two-sided related advertisement

leads to more favorable evaluations of its primary positive attribute than either a

two-sided unrelated advertisement or a one-sided advertisement does.

Evaluations of Primary Positive Attribute

In this study, the quality of food (taste and freshness) is the primary positive

attribute. Participants reported their evaluation of positive product attributes on two items

that read: "I believe the ingredients used at 'Fresco Francesco' are..." on a scale ranging

from 1 (not at all fresh) to 7 (very fresh); "I believe the dishes at 'Fresco Francesco'

taste..." on a scale ranging from 1 (not good) to 7 (very good).

4-6. Evaluation of positive product attribute (freshness)
Type of Advertisement
One-Sided Two-Sided, Unrelated Two-Sided, Related
High involvement 5.45 (1.20), N=38 5.31 (1.17), N=36 5.42 (1.23), N=36
Low involvement 5.31 (1.28), N=35 5.67 (0.93), N=36 5.44 (1.05), N=36
Mean (Std. dev.)

In the high involvement situation, participants who were exposed to the two-sided

related ad did not judge the food to be more fresh (M = 5.42) than did participants who

were exposed to either the two-sided unrelated ad (M = 5.31) or one-sided ad (M = 5.45).

(M = 5.45 vs. 5.31 vs. 5.42, F = 0.14, p > 0.1).

Likewise, in the low involvement situation, participants who were exposed to the

two-sided related ad did not judge the food to be more fresh (M = 5.44) than did

participants who were exposed to either the two-sided unrelated ad (M = 5.67) or the one-

sided ad (M = 5.31). (M = 5.31 vs. 5.67 vs. 5.44, F = 0.94, p > 0.1).














H
L


4-7. Evaluation of positive product attribute (taste)
Type of Advertisement
One-Sided Two-Sided, Unrelated Two-Sided, Related
[igh involvement 5.37 (0.94), N=38 5.17 (1.08), N=36 5.08 (1.20), N=36
ow involvement 4.97 (1.15), N=35 5.53 (0.91), N=36 5.17 (1.13), N=36
Mean (Std. dev.)

When it comes to the taste, in the high involvement situation, participants who

were exposed to the two-sided related ad did not judge the food to be more tasty (M =

5.08) than did participants who were exposed to either two-sided unrelated ad (M = 5.17)

or the one-sided ad (M = 5.37). (M = 5.37 vs. 5.17 vs. 5.08, F = 0.69, p > 0.1).

Also in the low involvement situation, participants who were exposed to the two-

sided related ad did not judge the food to be more tasty (M = 5.17) than did participants

who were exposed to either the two-sided unrelated ad (M = 5.53) or the one-sided ad (M

= 4.97). (M = 4.97 vs. 5.53 vs. 5.17, F = 2.48, p > 0.05).

Overall, a two-sided related advertisement did not lead to more favorable

evaluations of its primary positive attribute than either a two-sided unrelated

advertisement or a one-sided advertisement did regardless of involvement condition.

Therefore, hypothesis 2 was not supported.

H3: For people in high-involvement situations only, a two-sided advertisement leads to

higher source credibility than a one-sided advertisement does.

Source Credibility

Four semantic differential items were used to assess perceived source credibility:

"The people running the restaurant 'Fresco Francesco' seem to be..." on a scale ranging

from 1 (unbelievable/dishonest/untrustworthy/not credible) to 7 (believable/honest/









trustworthy/credible), respectively. These four scales were internally consistent

(Cronbach's a= 0.77).

4-8. Source credibility mean and standard deviation of each group
Type of Advertisement


H
L


One-Sided Two-Sided, Unrelated Two-Sided, Related
[igh involvement 5.11 (0.89), N=38 4.75 (1.05), N=36 4.92 (1.08), N=36
ow involvement 4.74 (0.82), N=35 5.22 (0.80), N=36 4.72 (1.03), N=36
Mean (Std. dev.)

In the high involvement situation, participants who were exposed to the two-sided

ads (unrelated, related) did not judge the advertiser to be more honest (unrelated M =

4.75, related M = 4.92) than did participants who were exposed to one-sided ad (M =

5.11). (M = 5.11 vs. 4.75 vs. 4.92, F = 1.15, p > 0.1).

On the other hand, in the low involvement situation, participants who were exposed

to the two-sided unrelated ad (M = 5.22) judged the advertiser to be more honest than did

participants who were exposed to either the one-sided ad (M = 4.74) or the two-sided

related ad (M = 4.72). (M = 4.74 vs. 5.22 vs. 4.72, F = 3.63, p < 0.05).

These results do not support hypothesis 3. Therefore, the hypothesis 3 was rejected.

Other Findings

All participants (217) reported their degree of liking for Italian food: "Do you like

Italian food" on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Most students

liked Italian food very much (M = 6.43, SD = 1.01). The general liking for Italian food

might lead to a more favorable evaluation on the Italian restaurant regardless of

involvement manipulation. In fact, even in the low involvement situation, the attitude

toward the brand (Fresco Francesco) was somewhat favorable (scale: 0 to 7, M = 4.97,









SD = 1.23) and so was the belief on taste (scale: 0 to 7, M = 5.22, SD = 1.08). Other food

restaurants such as Chinese or Japanese may generate different results.

In the group of high involvement participants (N=110), 58 students (53%) recalled

that they would get a 40% discount if they bring their Gator 1 card to the restaurant

(noted on the first page of the questionnaire; section for free recall seeing in the

advertisement). Actually that section asked students to list anything they recalled seeing

in the advertisement. A 40% discount offer was not mentioned in the advertisement, but

in the instruction page. It seems that a considerable number of high involvement

participants were stimulated by that condition.














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Although two-sided communications are not among the most frequently employed

message strategies, it is still a topic of considerable importance to both practitioners and

theoretical researchers. From a theoretical perspective, understanding two-sided messages

can contribute to our knowledge of central route of processing (high involvement), where

argument quality is important. As mentioned in the literature review, message sidedness

relates to the matter of argument and an argument involves the central route of

persuasion. From a practical perspective, a two-sided message has the potential to be an

effective persuasive device in a difficult communication situation: when consumers

already hold negative beliefs or attitudes about the brand. Given the tremendously

competitive communication environment of today, it may be possible that, with better

research, we can address how and under what conditions two-sided messages are

effective.

Most previous research on two-sided communications has involved two-sided

advertising (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). While a vast amount of research exists on two-

sided advertising, no known research has studied the effect of involvement on message

sidedness (one-sided ad vs. two-sided ad). This study mainly investigated the effect of

involvement on message sidedness. Participants were randomly assigned to the

conditions of a 2 x 3 (the level of involvement: high vs. low) x (message type: one-sided

vs. two-sided, unrelated vs. two-sided, related) factorial design. The fundamental

proposition of this study is: message sidedness is the matter of argument and an argument









involves the central route of persuasion. Based on fundamental proposition of this study

and previous two-sided message research results, this paper generated three hypotheses,

but none were supported, perhaps because of the study limitations.

Summary of Results

According to H1, under the high involvement situation only, a two-sided

advertisement leads to more favorable attitudes than a one-sided advertisement does.

Data bearing on this hypothesis are shown in the Table 4-5. The results showed that two-

sided advertisements (whether it is unrelated or related) did not lead to more favorable

attitudes than a one-sided advertisement did regardless of involvement condition.

Therefore H1 was rejected. Even though previous research (Etgar & Goodwin, 1982)

showed that using the two-sided comparative appeal is more effective than using the one-

sided comparison appeal in advertising a new brand, that research finding was not

supported here.

According to H2, under the high involvement situation only, participants'

evaluations of positive attributes should be higher in the two-sided related ad conditions

compared to both the one-sided and two-sided unrelated conditions. Data bearing on this

hypothesis are shown in Tables 4-6 and 4-7. The results showed that participants who

were exposed to the two-sided related ad did not judge the food to be more fresh or tasty

than did participants who were exposed to either the two-sided unrelated ad or one-sided

ad under the high involvement situation. Therefore H2 was rejected. This result was

inconsistent with the finding of Pechmann (1992). Pechmann found that two-sided

advertising was more effective in enhancing judgments on the primary attribute of the

brand than one-sided only when negatively correlated attributes (e.g., price and quality,

and number of calories and number of container sizes) were featured.









According to H3, under the high involvement situation only, judgments of source

credibility should be higher in both two-sided ad conditions than in one-sided ad

conditions. Data bearing on this hypothesis are shown in Table 4-8. The results indicated

that participants who were exposed to the two-sided ads (unrelated, related) did not judge

the advertiser to be more honest than did participants who were exposed to one-sided ad

under the high involvement situation. Therefore H3 was rejected. This result was

inconsistent with the previous two-sided message research (Golden & Alpert, 1987;

Kamins et al., 1989; Settle & Golden, 1974) which showed that two-sided advertising

enhanced source credibility.

As mentioned earlier, the message sidedness is the matter of argument and an

argument involves the central route of persuasion (high involvement situation). However,

the relatedness between involvement and message sidedness (one-sided vs. two-sided,

unrelated vs. two-sided, related) was not found in this study.

Limitations

This study had several limitations.

First, message sidedness manipulation did not work very well.

5-1. The number of participants who recalled negative attribute
Type of Advertisement

Two-Sided, Unrelated Two-Sided, Related
One-S (atmosphere is not cozy) (somewhat pricy)


High involvement N/A 10 participants, N=36 13 participants, N=36
Low involvement N/A 8 participants, N=36 7 participants, N=36


In the group of two-sided ad participants (N=144), more than 70% of them recalled

the headlines (The taste of Italy!), the name of restaurant (Fresco Francesco), but only 38









participants recalled the negative attribute. The negative attribute was introduced in the

last part of the body of the paragraph. Because of this, the negative attribute was not

salient enough to make a difference. Therefore, in the end, the manipulation was not

successful.

Second, the manipulation for the group 3 (High involvement + Two-sided related

advertisement) was problematic. Because the 40 percent discount might weaken the

effect of negative attribute (Although it is somewhat pricy) in the two-sided related ad.

Third, the students might be distracted or tired. The undergraduate students had to

take a course quiz before they participated in this experiment. Some students did not pay

much attention when the researcher explained the instructions.

Finally, most students liked Italian food very much (M = 6.43, SD = 1.01). The

general liking for Italian food might cause more a favorable evaluation on an Italian

restaurant regardless of involvement manipulation.

Future Research

Although hypotheses were not supported in this study, research on the effect of

involvement on the message sidedness should still continue, because it is an important

area for marketers and advertisers to understand. If the researcher proves that the two-

sided ad is more effective than a one-sided ad under the high involvement situation,

marketers and advertisers may use the two-sided message strategy only for highly

involved consumers.

In this study, the fictitious magazine advertisements were used to manipulate the

message sidedness. In the case of two-sided ads, the message manipulation occurred in

the body paragraph but it was not as salient as the headlines. Therefore, it is

recommended to manipulate headlines along with the body copy. Other aspects of two-






34


sided persuasion that require future research include repetition effects and later stages in

the processing of the two-sided message. It would be beneficial for future two-sided

advertising research to include these aspects.

Instead of using only the magazine advertisement, it seems worthwhile to test the

fictitious TV advertisements, because previous research on message sidedness focused on

print advertisements. Future research should attempt to test TV advertisements instead.


















APPENDIX A
INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Purpose of the research study:
The purpose of this study is to evaluate audience attitudes toward the advertisement which includes one-sided (positive
attribute only) message or two-sided (both positive and negative attributes) message.


What you will be asked to do in the study:
If you choose to participate in this study, you will first view the introductory statement about the Italian restaurant.
Then you will be exposed to an Italian restaurant advertisement. Afterwards, you will be asked to answer questions
related to your attitudes about what you saw. There are no right or wrong answers. This study will take approximately
15 minutes.
Risks: There are no personal discomfort, stress, or personal risks associated with participating in this study.
Benefits: By participating in this study, you will earn extra credit from your instructor. The number of extra credit
points awarded will be at the discretion of the instructor. There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this
study.


Confidentiality:
Your responses will be anonymous. Your participation is completely voluntary and you may withdraw your consent at
any time during the experiment without penalty. In the event that you do withdraw consent, the results of your
participation, to the extent that they can be identified as yours, will be returned to you, removed from the research
records, or destroyed.


Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:
If you would like to learn more about the study, you may contact Dongjin Lim by telephone at (352) 381-1941 or by
email at djlim@ufl.edu or Dr. Michael Weigold in the Department of Advertising (2018 Weimer Hall) by telephone at
(352) 392-8199 or by email at mweigold@jou.ufl.edu.
Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study:
UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433.


Agreement:
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy
of this description.


Participants Signature: Date:


Principal Investigator Signature: Date:













APPENDIX B
ONE-SIDED MESSAGE ADVERTISEMENT

The Taste of Italy! The Taste of Authenticity! A Passion for Italy!



FRESCO FRANCESCO


I-
.e~~2
I i, v .4 M U #


Fresco Francesco....


Our home-made pasta and other dishes are prepared by Francesco from fresh ingredients,
preserving the food's natural flavor. Therefore, our dishes are a rare treat. Our hearty
salads, also made only from fresh ingredients, are uniquely refined by Francesco's special
dressing. The culinary experience is completed by a selection of five Italian wines. You
can enjoy all these delicacies and incomparable taste at Fresco Francesco.













APPENDIX C
TWO-SIDED MESSAGE ADVERTISEMENT (UNRELATED)

The Taste of Italy! The Taste of Authenticity! A Passion for Italy!



FRESCO FRANCESCO


I-
.e~~2
I i, v .4 M U #


Fresco Francesco....


Our home-made pasta and other dishes are prepared by Francesco from fresh ingredients,
preserving the food's natural flavor. Therefore, our dishes are a rare treat. Our hearty
salads, also made only from fresh ingredients, are uniquely refined by Francesco's special
dressing. The culinary experience is completed by a selection of five Italian wines.
Although we can't provide you cozy atmosphere you might expect at Italian restaurant,
you can enjoy incomparable taste at Fresco Francesco.













APPENDIX D
TWO-SIDED MESSAGE ADVERTISEMENT (RELATED)

The Taste of Italy! The Taste of Authenticity! A Passion for Italy!



FRESCO FRANCESCO


I-
.e~~2
I i, v .4 M U #


Fresco Francesco....


Our home-made pasta and other dishes are prepared by Francesco from fresh ingredients,
preserving the food's natural flavor. Therefore, our dishes are a rare treat. Our hearty
salads, also made only from fresh ingredients, are uniquely refined by Francesco's special
dressing. The culinary experience is completed by a selection of five Italian wines.
Although it is somewhat pricy, you can enjoy incomparable taste at Fresco Francesco.














APPENDIX E
QUESTIONNAIRE

*Please do not go back to any of the previous page.


Q1. Please list anything about the restaurant you recall seeing in the advertisement
in the space below.
































PLEASE CONTINUE ON TO THE NEXT PAGE










Q2. Please circle one number between 1 and 7 that best describes how you feel.

Based on my general impression, the restaurant 'Fresco Francesco' is...

1) Unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable

2) Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bad

3) Unattractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Attractive


Q3. Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements.

1) I believe the ingredients used at 'Fresco Francesco' are fresh.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

2) I believe the salads at 'Fresco Francesco' taste good.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

3) I believe the dishes at 'Fresco Francesco' taste good.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

4) I believe eating at 'Fresco Francesco' is somewhat pricy.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

5) I believe the atmosphere at 'Fresco Francesco' is cozy.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

6) I would like very much to eat at 'Fresco Francesco'

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree


Q4. Please circle one number between 1 and 7 that best describes how you think.

The people running the restaurant 'Fresco Francesco' seem to be...

1) Unbelievable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Believable

2) Honest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dishonest

3) Untrustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trustiortlh

4) Credible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not credible











Q5. Please circle one number between 1 and 7 that best describes how you feel about
Fresco Francesco.

1) Interesting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Boring

2) Not important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important

3) Involving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not involving

4) Not relevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Relevant


Q6. Do you like Italian food?

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much

Q7. Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements.

1) High quality food correlates with high price.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

2) High quality food correlates with the proximity of restaurant.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

3) High quality food correlates with parking availability of restaurant.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

4) High quality food correlates with the large number of selection of dishes.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

5) High quality food correlates with high quality services.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

6) High quality food correlates with cozy atmosphere of restaurant.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree


Q8. Demographics

1. What is your gender? (Check one) Female Male

2. What is your academic classification? (Check one)
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student











3. What is your age? (Check one)
18-21 22-24 25-29 30 or older

4. What is your marital status? (Check one)
Single (not divorced or separated)
Married
Divorced or legally separated
Widowed

5. What is your race? (Check one)
Caucasian/White
African American/Black
Hispanic/Latino
Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander
Native American
Other (Please specify)


Thank you very much for your participation!















REFERENCES


Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Allen, M. (1991). Meta-Analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-
sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55 (4), 390-404.

Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes, in C.A. Murchison (Ed.) A handbook of social
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 810-815). New York: Russell & Russell.

Batra, R., Myers, J. G., & Aaker, D. A. (1996). Advertising management (pp. 316-328).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (2004). Advertising and promotion (6th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Buckley's Website. (2005). A history of bad taste. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from
http://www.buckleys.com/about/history.htm

Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Erb, H., & Siebler, F. (2003). When small means comfortable:
relations between product attributes in two-sided advertising. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13 (4), 454-463.

Cohen, J. B. (1983). Involvement and you: 1000 great ideas. In W. R. P. Bagozzi, & A.
M. Tybout (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 10, pp. 325-328). Ann
Arbor: Association for Consumer Research.

Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding
two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (March), 561-574.

Cushing, P. & Douglas-Tate, M. (1985). The effect of people/product relationship on
advertising processing. In L. F. Alwitt, & A. A. Mitchell (Eds.), Psychological
processes and advertising effects: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 241-259).
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. San Diego, CA:
Harcourt Brace Janovich, Inc.

Engel, J. F., & Blackwell, R. D. (1982). Consumer behavior. Hinsdale: Dryden Press.









Etgar, M., & Goodwin, S. A. (1982). One-sided versus two-sided comparative message
appeals for new brand introductions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (March),
460-465.

Faison, E. W. J. (1961). Effectiveness of one-sided and two-sided mass communications
in advertising. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (Fall), 468-469.

Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency.
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology, 14, pp. 161-182.
New York: Academic Press.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction
to theory and research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Gardner, M. P. (1985). Does attitude toward the ad affect brand attitude under a brand
evaluation set? Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 192-198.

Golden, L. L., & Alpert, M. I. (1987). Comparative analysis of the relative
effectiveness of one-and two-sided communications for contrasting products.
Journal ofAdvertising, 16(1), 18-25.

Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate
credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and
brands. Journal ofAdvertising, 29 (3), 43-54.

Heath, T. B., & Gaeth, G. J. (1994). Theory thirteen attitude scales for agreement and
brand discrimination. Journal ofMarketing, 43(4), 20-32.

Houston, M. J., & Rothschild, M. L. (1978). Conceptual and methodological perspectives
on involvement. In S. C. Jain (Ed.), 1978 Educator 's Proceedings (pp. 184-187).
Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experimentation on mass
communication, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hoyer, W. D., & Maclnnis, D. J. (2004). Consumer behavior, 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton
Mufflin.

Igou, E. R., & Bless, H. (2003). Inferring the importance of arguments: Order effects and
conversational rules. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 39, 91-99.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in
person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). New York: Academic.









Kamins, M. A., & Assael, H. (1987). Two-sided versus one-sided appeal: A cognitive
perspective on argumentation, source derogation, and the effect of disconfirming
trial on belief change. Journal ofMarketing Research, 24 (February), 29-39.

Kamins, M. A., Brand, M. J., Hoeke, S. A., & Moe, J. C. (1989). Two-sided versus one-
sided celebrity endorsements: The impact on advertising effectiveness and
credibility. Journal ofAdvertising, 18 (2), 4-10.

Kapferer, J., & Laurent, G. (1985). Consumer's involvement profile: New empirical
results. In E.C. Hirschman & M.B. Holbrook (Eds.), Advances in consumer research
(Vol. 12, pp. 290-295). Provo: Association for Consumer Research.

Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: learning without
involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 349-356.

Lindenmann, W. K. (2002). Guidelines for measuring the effectiveness ofPR programs
and activities. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations.

Lumsdaine, A. A., & Janis, I. L. (1953). Resistance to counterpropaganda produced by
one-sided and two-sided propaganda presentations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 17,
311-318.

MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural
antecedents of attitude toward the Ad in an advertising protesting context. Journal of
Marketing, 53, 48-65.

MaGinnies, E., & Ward, C. D. (1980). Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and
expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology bulletin, 6 (3),
467-472.

McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1961). The relative efficacy of various types of prior
belief-defenses in producing immunity against persuasion. Journal ofAbnormal and
Social Psychology, 62 (March), 327-337.

MaGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E.
Aronson (Eds.), The handbook ofsocial psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 135-214).
Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.

Mitchell, A. A. (1979). Involvement: a potentially important mediator of consumer
behavior. In W.H. Wilkie (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 6, pp. 20-24).
Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research.

Mitchell, A. A. & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of
advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal ofMarketing Research, 18, 318-332.









Park, C. W., & Young, S. M. (1985). A theory of involvement in consumer behavior:
problems and issues. In J. N. Sheth (Ed.), Research in Consumer Behavior (Vol. 1).
Greenwich, JAI press.

Pechmann, C. (1992). Predicting when two-sided ads will be more effective than one-
sided ads: The role of correlational and correspondent inferences. Journal of
Marketing Research, 29 (November), 441-453.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease
persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive response. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (October), 1915-1926.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issue involvement as moderator of the effects on
attitude of advertising content and context. In K. B. Monroe (Ed.), Advances in
Consumer Research (Vol. 8, pp. 20-24). Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer
Research.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and
peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.

Rothschild, M. L. (1979). Advertising strategies for high and low involvement situations.
In J. Maloney, & B. Silverman (Eds.), Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes (pp.
74-93). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Salmon, C. T. (1986). Perspectives of involvement in consumer and communication
research. In B. Dervin, & M. J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences
(Vol. 7, pp. 243-268). Norwood: Albex Publishing.

Settle, R. B., & Golden, L. L. (1974). Attribution theory and advertiser credibility.
Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (2), 181-185.

Severin, W. J., & Tankard, J. W. (2001). Communication iwhe, i\, Origins, methods, and
uses in the mass media (5th ed.). Boston: Addison Wesley Longman.

Tannenbaum, P. H. (1967). The congruity principal revisited: Studies in the reduction,
induction, and generalization of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 3, pp. 271-320). New York: Academic.

Taylor, M. B., & Joseph, W. J. (1984). Measuring consumer involvement in products.
Psychology and Marketing, (2), 65-77.

Tyebjee, T. T. (1979). Response time, conflict, and involvement in brand choice. Journal
of Consumer Research, 6 (3), 295-304

Wilkie, W. L. (1990). Consumer behavior, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.






47


Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12 (December), 341-352.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Dongjin Lim was born in Seoul, South Korea, on July 3, 1976. He lived in Seoul

until July 2004. He earned a BA in advertising from Chung-Ang University, in Seoul,

South Korea. He earned a Master of Advertising degree from the University of Florida in

August 2006. After graduation, he plans to join the PhD program in communication at

University at Buffalo.