<%BANNER%>

Information-Processing Strategies in Travel and Tourism Contexts

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024990/00001

Material Information

Title: Information-Processing Strategies in Travel and Tourism Contexts The Moderating of Involvement and the Offsetting Roles of Textual and Pictorial Information
Physical Description: 1 online resource (156 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Jun, Soo
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: advertising, bandb, dualmode, elaboration, experiment, hospitality, information, picture, processing, tourism
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy INFORMATION-PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY CONTEXTS: THE MODERATING ROLE OF INVOLVEMENT AND THE OFFSETTING ROLES OF TEXTUAL AND PICTORIAL INFORMATION By Soo Hyun Jun August 2009 Chair: Stephen Holland Major: Health and Human Performance The goal of this study was to investigate the information-processing strategies travelers utilized in their judgment and decision making. The traditional dual-process model based on the dichotomous approach was disconfirmed and the modified dual-process model based on a mutually interactive approach was proposed as the theoretical framework to examine individual s information-processing strategies. Two experiments were conducted to examine the key assumption of the modified dual-process model that individuals utilized effortful and effortless modes independently or interdependently based on their decision-involvement situations. Involvement was operationalized as a product decision-making involvement; the effortful mode was operationlized as text argument quality; and the effortless mode was operationlized as picture presence in experiment one and as picture attractiveness in experiment two. The first experiment tested whether involvement moderated the text-argument effects in the no-picture condition; whether picture information was more persuasive in the low-involvement condition than in the high-involvement condition; and whether the picture effect was interactive with the text-argument effect in the high-involvement condition. The second experiment tested the same hypotheses and additionally tested the co-acting effects of the textual and pictorial information, especially when the picture manipulation was differentiated between attractive and unattractive. The study findings support the modified dual-process model and suggest that (1) involvement moderated the effortful-mode effects when the effortless mode was not provided; (2) the effortless mode had more significant effects than the effortful mode in the low-involvement situation when strong arguments were provided; and (3) individuals focused on both effortful and effortless modes in the high-involvement situation to compensate for insufficient information from one or the other; accordingly, the effortful mode or the effortless mode offset negative effects from the other mode in the high-involvement situation. As shown in this study, individuals utilize different information-processing strategies in different decision-involvement situations. These findings on how individuals utilize certain features of information in different decision-involvement situations will help advertisers in tourism and hospitality to develop effective and efficient advertising strategies. The study results suggest how to provide customized information to targeted groups by understanding what type of information and what attributes of information travelers seek in different decision-involvement situations.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Soo Jun.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Holland, Stephen.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024990:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024990/00001

Material Information

Title: Information-Processing Strategies in Travel and Tourism Contexts The Moderating of Involvement and the Offsetting Roles of Textual and Pictorial Information
Physical Description: 1 online resource (156 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Jun, Soo
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: advertising, bandb, dualmode, elaboration, experiment, hospitality, information, picture, processing, tourism
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy INFORMATION-PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY CONTEXTS: THE MODERATING ROLE OF INVOLVEMENT AND THE OFFSETTING ROLES OF TEXTUAL AND PICTORIAL INFORMATION By Soo Hyun Jun August 2009 Chair: Stephen Holland Major: Health and Human Performance The goal of this study was to investigate the information-processing strategies travelers utilized in their judgment and decision making. The traditional dual-process model based on the dichotomous approach was disconfirmed and the modified dual-process model based on a mutually interactive approach was proposed as the theoretical framework to examine individual s information-processing strategies. Two experiments were conducted to examine the key assumption of the modified dual-process model that individuals utilized effortful and effortless modes independently or interdependently based on their decision-involvement situations. Involvement was operationalized as a product decision-making involvement; the effortful mode was operationlized as text argument quality; and the effortless mode was operationlized as picture presence in experiment one and as picture attractiveness in experiment two. The first experiment tested whether involvement moderated the text-argument effects in the no-picture condition; whether picture information was more persuasive in the low-involvement condition than in the high-involvement condition; and whether the picture effect was interactive with the text-argument effect in the high-involvement condition. The second experiment tested the same hypotheses and additionally tested the co-acting effects of the textual and pictorial information, especially when the picture manipulation was differentiated between attractive and unattractive. The study findings support the modified dual-process model and suggest that (1) involvement moderated the effortful-mode effects when the effortless mode was not provided; (2) the effortless mode had more significant effects than the effortful mode in the low-involvement situation when strong arguments were provided; and (3) individuals focused on both effortful and effortless modes in the high-involvement situation to compensate for insufficient information from one or the other; accordingly, the effortful mode or the effortless mode offset negative effects from the other mode in the high-involvement situation. As shown in this study, individuals utilize different information-processing strategies in different decision-involvement situations. These findings on how individuals utilize certain features of information in different decision-involvement situations will help advertisers in tourism and hospitality to develop effective and efficient advertising strategies. The study results suggest how to provide customized information to targeted groups by understanding what type of information and what attributes of information travelers seek in different decision-involvement situations.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Soo Jun.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Holland, Stephen.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024990:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

INFORMATION-PROCESSING STRATEGI ES IN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY CONTEXTS: THE MODERATING ROLE OF INVOLVEMENT AND THE OFFSETTING ROLES OF TEXTUAL AND PICTORIAL INFORMATION By SOO HYUN JUN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Soo Hyun Jun

PAGE 3

3 To my parents

PAGE 4

4ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation and my doctoral program c ould not have been finished without the encouragement and support from many people and I would like to express my deepest appreciation to them. I would like to give very special thanks to my advisor, Stephen Holland, who always stood up for me and gave me wise advice. When others doubted me during the dissertation process, he showed faith in me a nd remained to support me. Without his thoughtful support and encouragement, I would not be able to finish the doctoral program. When I had difficult moments and lost confidence in my life, he also made me cheerful and laugh through his humor and friendly bantering. He taught me ho w to be a good mentor by demonstrating his genuine caring and concern, flexib ility, patience and sacrifice for his students including me. I will never forget what he provided me as a mentor, advisor and committee chair. My gratitude is also extended to my committee member, Chris Janiszewski, who broadened my mind in consumer research, inspir ed me to use experimental designs for my dissertation, and spent countless hou rs to teach me the basics of experimental research. He always encouraged me to engage in critical thinki ng and trained me to be an independent learner. I sincerely appreciate all his pati ence during the learning process and his quick responses to my last minute questions. Without his help, guidance and support, I would not be able to conduct experiment research for my dissertation. Christine Vogt, my masters program adviso r in Michigan State University, always inspired me to have a dream to fulfill myself in academia and to work hard for it. I am deeply grateful to her for all her support and guidance. Although we did not have many chances to meet after my masters program, I fe lt her support all the time. At conferences, her friends took care of me like a family member because of her and I had never felt that I was alone. Without her continuing support and encouragement, I would not be able to continue my studies.

PAGE 5

5I am also grateful to my other committee members, James Zhang and Yong Jae Ko, for providing numerous hours of advice and critiques. I was very lucky to have them as my committee members because of all their acad emic support and personal cheering. Lori Pennington-Gray and Heather Gibson also deserv e my sincere thanks for providing me academic research opportunities. I must thank Hyunjoo Oh who shared a mu tual interest in experiential products marketing and gave me much valuable advice. I would also like to thank Michael Sagas for his generous support. I wish to thank the faculty members in the department for their help in recruiting the study participants. I also thank the students who took time to participate in the study. I owe Nancy Gullic and Donna Walker my heartfelt appreciation. Their kindness and assistance will always be remembered. I would also like to thank my friends for all their help. Kiki Kaplanidou and Ariel Rodriguez were always supportive and caring like my big sister and brother at MSU and UF. Sung-Jin Kang and Dae-Hyun Kim listened to me a nd gave me good advice for my school life at UF. They indeed fed me with Korean foods fo r years. Without them, I would not have been able to survive in this new environment. Su -Jin Halm and Wook-Jae Lee are my best friends who often sent me encouraging words from Korea. Whenever I felt lost, their emails made me smile and eventually helped me have positive mind. I am also grateful to Ki-Hyun Jeon. His persistent support and caring gave me courage to keep up with my studies. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, my aunt, my sisters and my brother for their continuing support throughout this long journey. Whenever I needed help, my oldest sister was there for me. Without her help, I would not be in the United States. I, especially, owe an immense debt of gratitude to my mother. She always prayed for me and supported me at the sacrifice of her life. I w ould like to acknowledge my moth er with deep thanks.

PAGE 6

6TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........9 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......11 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................14 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....17 Justification for the Study.................................................................................................... ...17 Delimitations.................................................................................................................. .........18 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........19 Organization of the Dissertation.............................................................................................20 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................22 Constructive Consumer Choice Process.................................................................................22 Information-Processing Models..............................................................................................25 Dual-Process Models.......................................................................................................27 The moderating role of involvement........................................................................27 Mode of process: Effortful and effortless modes.....................................................29 Co-occurrence of dual modes...................................................................................32 Multiple Roles of Visual Information.....................................................................................36 Travel and Tourism Contexts.................................................................................................41 Final Assumptions.............................................................................................................. ....43 3 EXPERIMENT 1................................................................................................................... .47 Hypotheses..................................................................................................................... .........47 Hypothesis 1 (H1)............................................................................................................47 Hypothesis 2 (H2)............................................................................................................48 Methods........................................................................................................................ ..........49 Design......................................................................................................................... .....49 Procedure...................................................................................................................... ...49 Stimuli Development.......................................................................................................51 Involvement..............................................................................................................52 Text argument quality..............................................................................................53 Picture presence........................................................................................................54 Measures....................................................................................................................... ...55 Dependent variables.................................................................................................55

PAGE 7

7Manipulation checks................................................................................................56 Results........................................................................................................................ .............57 Data Cleaning and Study Participants.............................................................................57 Manipulation Checks.......................................................................................................57 Involvement manipulation........................................................................................58 Text argument quality manipulation........................................................................58 Attitudes toward Avalon House (H1)..............................................................................59 Purchase Intention (H1)...................................................................................................61 Information Focus (H2)...................................................................................................62 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........63 4 EXPERIMENT 2................................................................................................................... .76 Hypotheses..................................................................................................................... .........76 Hypothesis 1 (H1)............................................................................................................76 Hypothesis 2 (H2)............................................................................................................77 Methods........................................................................................................................ ..........78 Design......................................................................................................................... .....78 Procedure...................................................................................................................... ...79 Stimuli Development.......................................................................................................79 Measures....................................................................................................................... ...81 Dependent variables.................................................................................................81 Manipulation checks................................................................................................81 Results........................................................................................................................ .............82 Data Cleaning and Study Participants.............................................................................82 Manipulation Checks.......................................................................................................83 Involvement manipulation........................................................................................83 Text argument quality manipulation........................................................................83 Picture attractiveness manipulation..........................................................................84 Information processing between te xt and picture information.................................86 Attitude toward Adria House (H1)..................................................................................86 Purchase Intention (H1)...................................................................................................89 Information Focus (H2)...................................................................................................91 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........93 5 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................116 Moderating Role of Involvement..........................................................................................117 Offsetting Role of the Effortful or Effortless Mode.............................................................118 Effortless-Mode Effect.........................................................................................................120 Implications................................................................................................................... .......123 Theoretical Implications................................................................................................123 Managerial Implications................................................................................................125 Explaining Model Discrepanc ies and Future Research........................................................128 Final Comments................................................................................................................. ...131

PAGE 8

8APPENDIX A MANIPULATION................................................................................................................133 Involvement Manipulation....................................................................................................133 High-Involvement Condition.........................................................................................133 Low-Involvement Condition.........................................................................................134 Manipulation of Text Argument Quality a nd Picture Presence for Experiment 1...............135 Manipulation of Text Argument Quality and Picture Attractiveness for Experiment 2.......136 B QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EXPERIMENT 2........................................................................137 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................148 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................156

PAGE 9

9LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Dual-Process Theories...................................................................................................... .45 3-1 Assumptions and Hypotheses for Experiment 1................................................................66 3-2 Eight Websites for Differe nt Manipulation Conditions.....................................................67 3-3 Measurement for Experiment 1.........................................................................................68 3-4 Duration of Study Participation by Group.........................................................................69 3-5 Number of Study Participants by Group............................................................................69 3-6 Descriptive Statistics of Study Participants.......................................................................69 3-7 Means and ANOVA Statistics for Manipul ation Checks of Involvement and Text Argument Quality..............................................................................................................70 3-8 Means of Attitude toward the Avalon House....................................................................71 3-9 Three-Way ANOVA Statistics on Attitude toward the Avalon House.............................71 3-10 Means of Intention to Stay at the Avalon House...............................................................72 3-11 Three-Way ANOVA Statistics on Intent ion to Stay at the Avalon House........................72 3-12 Means of Information Focus: Text-F ocused and Picture-Focused Processing..................73 3-13 Two-Way ANOVA Statistics of Informa tion Focus: Text-Focused Processing...............73 3-14 Two-Way ANOVA Statistics of Informa tion Focus: Picture-Focused Processing...........73 4-1 Assumptions and Hypotheses for Experiment 2................................................................95 4-2 Twelve Websites for Different Manipulation Conditions.................................................97 4-3 Measurement for Experiment 2.........................................................................................98 4-4 Picture Attractivene ss Means for Pretest 1......................................................................100 4-5 Duration of Study Participation by Group.......................................................................101 4-6 Number of Study Participants by Group..........................................................................101 4-7 Descriptive Statistics of Study Participants.....................................................................101

PAGE 10

104-8 Means and ANOVA Statistics for Manipul ation Checks of Involvement and Text Argument Quality............................................................................................................102 4-9 Means and ANOVA Statistics fo r Picture Manipulation Check.....................................103 4-10 Mental Effort Spent Processi ng Text and Picture Information........................................104 4-11 Easiness of Information Processing.................................................................................104 4-12 Means of Attitude toward the Adria House.....................................................................104 4-13 Three-Way ANOVA Statistics on Atti tude toward the Adria House..............................105 4-14 Means of Intention to Stay at the Adria House................................................................106 4-15 Three-Way ANOVA Statistics on Intent ion to Stay at the Adria House.........................107 4-16 Means of Information Focus: Text-F ocused and Picture-Focused Processing................108 4-17 Three-Way ANOVA Statistics of Informa tion Focus: Text-Focused Processing...........109 4-18 Three-Way ANOVA Statistics of Informa tion Focus: Picture-Focused Processing.......110

PAGE 11

11LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Information-Processing Models.........................................................................................46 3-1 Attitude toward Avalon House..........................................................................................74 3-2 Picture Effect on Attitude toward Avalon House..............................................................74 3-3 Intention to Stay at Avalon House.....................................................................................75 3-4 Picture Effect on Intention to Stay at Avalon House.........................................................75 4-1 Attitude toward Adria House under the No-Picture Condition.......................................111 4-2 Attitude toward Adria House under the Attractive-Picture Condition............................111 4-3 Attitude toward Adria House under the Unattractive-Picture Condition.........................111 4-4 Attitude toward Adria House under the Low-Involvement Condition............................112 4-5 Attitude toward Adria House under the High-Involvement Condition...........................112 4-6 Picture Effect on Attitude toward Adria House...............................................................112 4-7 Intention to Stay at Adria House under the No-Picture Condition..................................113 4-8 Intention to Stay at Adria Hous e under the Attractive-Picture Condition.......................113 4-9 Intention to Stay at Adria House under the Unattractive-Picture Condition...................113 4-10 Intention to Stay at Adria Hous e under the Low-Involvement Condition.......................114 4-11 Intention to Stay at Adria Hous e under the High-Involvement Condition......................114 4-12 Picture Effect on Intention to Stay at Adria House..........................................................114 4-13 Text-Focused Information Processing.............................................................................115 4-14 Picture-Focused Information Processing.........................................................................115

PAGE 12

12Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy INFORMATION-PROCESSING STRATEGI ES IN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY CONTEXTS: THE MODERATING ROLE OF INVOLVEMENT AND THE OFFSETTING ROLES OF TEXTUAL AND PICTORIAL INFORMATION By Soo Hyun Jun August 2009 Chair: Stephen Holland Major: Health and Human Performance The goal of this study was to investigate the information-processing strategies travelers utilized in their judgment and decision making. The traditiona l dual-process model based on the dichotomous approach was disconfirmed and the modified dual-process model based on a mutually interactive approach was proposed as the theoretical framework to examine individuals informati on-processing strategies. Two experiments were conducted to examine the key assumption of the modified dualprocess model that individuals utilized effo rtful and effortless modes independently or interdependently based on th eir decision-involvement situations. Involvement was operationalized as a product decision-making invol vement; the effortful mode was operationlized as text argument quality; and the effortless mode was operationlized as picture presence in experiment one and as picture at tractiveness in experiment two. The first experiment tested whether involvement moderated the text-argumen t effects in the no-picture condition; whether picture information was more persuasive in the low-involvement condition than in the highinvolvement condition; and whether the picture ef fect was interactive w ith the text-argument effect in the high-involvement condition. The se cond experiment tested the same hypotheses and

PAGE 13

13additionally tested the co-acting effects of the textual and pictor ial information, especially when the picture manipulation was differentiated between attractive and unattractive. The study findings support the modified dua l-process model and suggest that (1) involvement moderated the effortful-mode effect s when the effortless mode was not provided; (2) the effortless mode had more significant e ffects than the effortful mode in the lowinvolvement situation when strong arguments were provided; and (3) individuals focused on both effortful and effortless modes in the high-involvement situation to compensate for insufficient information from one or the other; accordingly, th e effortful mode or the effortless mode offset negative effects from the other mode in the high-involvement situation. As shown in this study, individuals utilize diffe rent information-processing strategies in different decision-involvement s ituations. These findings on how individuals utilize certain features of information in diffe rent decision-involvement situa tions will help advertisers in tourism and hospitality to develop effective and e fficient advertising strate gies. The study results suggest how to provide customized information to targeted groups by understanding what type of information and what attributes of information travelers seek in different decision-involvement situations.

PAGE 14

14CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Imagine the following situation: One of your fr iends has just returned from Italy. After you hear about how wonderful Italy is from your friend, you become curious and begin to surf various travel websites to find out more about the country. The beautiful pictures of charming towns in the Tuscan countryside, rolling hills co vered with vineyards and smiling people at rustic restaurants intrigue you and insp ire you to visit Italy. Imagin e another situation: You are planning a business trip that wi ll take place in the next month. This time, you seek detailed information such as flight schedules, accommoda tion options and safety and security issues. You prefer factual information presented in a st raightforward manner because it reduces search costs (i.e., your time and energy) in making your travel decisions. These two situations demons trate that individuals some how know what information features to use in different situ ations depending on what they are trying to achieve. It is evident that individuals use informati on-processing strategies for deci sion making. Information-search and decision-making behaviors have been studied as a significant topic for more than 30 years in travel and tourism research. However, individuals information-processing strategies, a part of the mental processes, have been little st udied in travel and tourism contexts. Travel and tourism studies have focused rather on traveler-related factors that correlate with information search and d ecision making, such as travel er profiles (e.g., demographic characteristics, lifestyles), travel motivations and trip features (e .g., trip duration, trip cost/value, party size; Fodness and Murray 1999; Webe r and Roehl 1999; Vogt 1993; Woodside and Lysonski 1989). In developing theoretical mode ls to explain and predict travel informationsearch and decision-making behavi ors, researchers attempt to include all of these factors (Mathieson and Wall 1982; Mountinho 1987; Sc hmoll 1977; Woodside and MacDonald 1994).

PAGE 15

15As a result, the models are very complex and detailed (Decrop 1999). However, these studies still have limitations in discovering the substan tive rules that travelers use for trip decisionmaking because the studies have examined correlations of varying traveler-related variables instead of examining information attributes that affect judgment and deci sion-making behaviors. A few researchers have sought information attr ibutes that influence decision making rather than travel profiles and trip features. They f ound that the type of information sources selected, the amount of information searched for, and th e type of information used for decision making, vary by stage (i.e. pre-, dur ingand post-trip; Jun, Vogt, and MacKay 2007; Jun, Vogt, and MacKay in preparation; Stewar t and Vogt 1999). These studies described different phenomena by stage but were still limited in their ability to explain which information attributes caused behavioral differences. The au thors suggested that future st udies should focus on identifying information attributes which could predict in formation-search and decision-making behaviors and demonstrate consistent causal relationships. Consumer-decision research has identified si gnificant aspects of information-processing strategies that individuals use, such as the total amount of information processed, information processing selectivity, the pattern of processing (whether by alternative or by attribute), and compensatory/noncompensatory strategies (Be ttman, Johnson, and Payne 1991; Bettman, Luce, and Payne 1998). Some researchers have reveal ed information-processing strategies by employing dual-process models (e .g., Elaboration Likelihood Mode l (ELM) of persuasion; Petty and Cacioppo 1981). For example, when indivi duals are highly involved with a product purchase decision, they focus on the argument quality (i.e., effortful mode) of text information; and when individuals have low involvement to ward a product-purchase decision, they focus on an attractive product endorser (i .e., effortless mode) of pictoria l information (Petty and Cacioppo

PAGE 16

161981, 1984; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983; Petty, Schumann, Richman, and Strathman 1993). Whereas dual-process models have been widely used for more than 20 years in consumer research, those models are rarely investigated and tested in travel and tourism research for several reasons. First, measuri ng direct effects of certain info rmation attributes (e.g., central/ peripheral routes) on produc t attitudes and the involvement mode rating effects is difficult with correlational methods (e.g., survey research) which have been domina ntly utilized in travel and tourism research. In addition, survey methods depend on measuri ng individuals memories from their past experiences wh ich are often distorted by other co ntextual factors; and the methods often confound involvement effects with other exis ting differences, such as attitude extremity and amount of prior information (Petty, C acioppo, and Schumann 1983). This dissertation utilizes an experimental design to measure the direct effects of cer tain information attributes and the moderating effects of involvement while cont rolling for other potential confounding effects. Second, involvement studies in leisure, trav el and tourism have focused on physical and social aspects of the immediate environment (e.g. social support, social norms, structural constraints) and intrinsic characte ristics of individuals (e.g., values attitudes, motivations, needs; Havitz and Dimanche 1997; Kyle 2000) rather than s ituational involvements such as purchasedecision involvement. Travelers constantly make and change decisions by situation. Travelers accept that decision changes are natural because situational changes constantly occur by goal interactions, environment changes and so on (J un, Vogt, and MacKay 2007; Stewart and Vogt 1999). This dissertation focuses on situationaldecision involvement to examine the different rules that an individual uses in decision making by situation.

PAGE 17

17Third, it has been suggested that the dichot omous approach of traditional dual-process models (e.g., cognitive and verbal processing is central; and affective and nonverbal processing is peripheral in decision making) may not be applicable to studies with intangible and experiential products (e.g., travel products) because these kinds of products value nonverbal and hedonic cues of information as central travel product merits (Oh and Jasper 2006). This dissertation redefines the concepts of effortful and effortless modes. This research also modifies the traditional dual-process models with an assu mption that the effortless mode (e.g., pictorial information processing) provides pr oduct merits in certain situa tions, and for th at reason it cooccurs with the effortful mode (e.g., verbal information processing) in high-involvement situations. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this research was to investig ate the information-processing strategies travelers use in their judgment and decision ma king. A modified dual-process model (i.e., cooccurrence of dual modes, effortful and effor tless modes) was proposed as the theoretical framework to examine individuals information-pro cessing strategies. As distinguished from the traditional dual-process model based on the dich otomous approach, the modified dual-process model posits that individuals utilize effortful and effor tless cues independently or interdependently based on their decision-involvement situations. In particular, independent processing in the low-involvement situation and interdependent processing in the highinvolvement situation were examined by analyz ing the moderating effects of involvement and the offsetting effects of effortful and effortless modes. Justification for the Study This study attempted to disconfirm the tr aditional dual-process model based on a dichotomous approach and pr opose a modified dual-process model based on a mutually

PAGE 18

18interactive approach. To valid ate the modified dual-process m odel, this study examined how involvement moderated the effects of information at tributes (i.e., effortful and effortless modes), and how these effortful and effortless modes co mpensated for insufficient information from one or the other in certain situati ons. If the modified dual-pro cess model is supported by the study results, it suggests a conceptual shift from the dichotomous approach to the mutual interactive approach in dual-process models. A full factorial experimental design was used in this study to investigate direct causal relationships between three inde pendent factors and a single depe ndent variable (e.g., attitude toward a product, purchase intention) and to eliminate possible confounding effects. This study establishes more powerful results in theory (or m odel) development than su rvey research because experimental research examines the direct cause -and-effect relationships while survey research examines correlations between independent and dependent variables. This study sought to provide a better understand ing of information-processing strategies developed and utilized by travelers. The knowledge of how individuals util ize certain features of information in different decision-involvement situa tions will help advertisers to develop effective and efficient advertising strategi es. Advertisers often focus on pr oviding travel information as much as available space allows. However, high doses of information from many sources decrease the efficiency of finding information wh ich would be of the most use (Bettman, Luce, and Payne 1998; Lurie 2004). It would be more effective if advertisers provide customized information to specific traveler groups. This study suggests ideas on how to provide customized information to targeted groups by understanding what type of info rmation and what attributes of information travelers seek in differe nt decision-involvement situations. Delimitations The study is delimited by the following:

PAGE 19

191. The study participants were underg raduate students at the Univ ersity of Florida (UF) or Arizona State University (ASU), primarily t hose who studied tourism, recreation or sport management. 2. Information is generally categorized into tw o components: information available in the consumers memory (i.e., internal source) a nd information found in external environments (i.e., external source) (Bettman, Johnson, a nd Payne 1991). This research focused on information from external sources. To ex clude potential confoundi ng effects caused from information from internal sources (i.e., previous product experiences, prior knowledge, familiarity, preferences), experi mental conditions were controlled by utilizing a destination (e.g., Edinburgh) that was probably unfamiliar to the selected sample, college students. 3. The travel product utilized in this research was Bed and Brea kfasts (B&Bs). While hotels and motels provide standardized services B&Bs are mostly managed by independent small businesses and provide heterogeneous (non-standardized) services. B&B utilization excludes unexpected effects from study particip ants prior knowledge or familiarity with previously formed hotel brand images. 4. The travel products (B&Bs) used for this re search are located in a culturally similar country (e.g., Scotland) to exclude unnece ssary confounding effects caused by concerns with safety/security issues, unfamiliar foods and language barriers. Limitations The study was limited by the following: 1. Study participant demographics are not repres entative of the genera l population. This study did not attempt to measure effects based on personal differences (e.g., socioeconomic features) but rather to measure in formation attribute effects on judgment and decision making. Replication adjusts for this limitation. If two expe riments in this study have consistent results despite different samp le groups and/or if this study results are consistent with diverse sample groups fr om previously published studies by other researchers, it implies that the theoretical fr amework is supported by similar results with diverse population groups. 2. The advertisements utilized in this dissertation do not represent real advertisements. 3. Since involvement was manipulated by role playing which asked study participants to imagine as if they were in that situation, th e results showed potentia l effects rather than typical effects as observed in the real worl d (Manicas and Secord 1983; Miao and Mattila 2007). 4. The experiments were not conducted in a com puter laboratory. R ecruited students were invited to participate in the study by an email with a study website link. Since study participants used his/her own or public computers to participate in this study, some internal validity issues (Campbell and Stanley 1963; Cook and Campbell 1979) might have influenced responses. Participants might have grown tired or bored during study

PAGE 20

20participation (Babbie 2004), so they might have been involved with other activities in the middle of participation. To reduce this mu lti-treatment interference internal invalidity, responses from those who spent more than 30 minutes on the study were excluded from the data analysis. Due to the recruitment of multiple courses, a number of students were invited to participate in both experiment one and two. Since students must have been provided an equal opportunity to get extra cr edit by participating in these studies, the repeated invitations were necessary. To re duce testing and instrumentation internal invalidity, each participant wa s asked to provide his/her UF or ASU email address, and each participants Internet Protocol (IP) a ddress and participation time and date were automatically recorded. Based on email ma tching results, responses from those who participated in a previous study were excluded for data analysis. In addition, only the first response from the same IP addresses was u tilized in the data analysis. To reduce diffusion treatments internal invalidity, the experiments were held in a limited duration (e.g., a week), and the study participants were asked not to discuss the study with their classmates after their completion. Organization of the Dissertation The dissertation is divided into five chapte rs including this introduc tion chapter. This chapter introduces the information-processing st rategies travelers utilize in their decision making. As an attempt to investigate the inform ation-processing strategi es, dual-process models are suggested as a theoretical framework. Th is chapter first discu sses limitations of the traditional dual-process models and proposes a m odified dual-process model to be applied in tourism and hospitality contexts. It also provides an overview of the importance of the modified dual-process model and experimental designs in travel and touris m research. In the end, this chapter discusses delimitations and limitations of this research. Chapter 2 contains the literature review. Th e constructive consumer choice process theory is described to explain consumer information-pr ocessing strategies. Next, key concepts of the traditional dual-process models (i.e., moderating role of involvement, effortful and effortless modes) are explained, and limitati ons of the traditional model are discussed in detail. A modified dual-process model is proposed by prov iding new conceptualizations of the effortful and effortless modes. The multiple roles of vi sual information are discussed to support the new effortless-mode conceptualization. In additi on, this chapter discusse s how these two modes

PAGE 21

21should be operationalized in travel and tourism c ontexts. In conclusion, th e final assumptions of the modified dual-process model are suggested. Chapter 3 presents hypotheses, study designs and procedures, stimuli development, measures, results and discussion for Experiment 1. Chapter 4 presents the same contents related to hypotheses, methods, results a nd discussion for Experiment 2. Chapter 5 provides general discussion and c onclusions. Based on th e hypothesis testing results and findings from experiments one a nd two, key assumptions of the modified dualprocess model are discussed. In particular, the moderating role of involvement, offsetting roles of the effortful and effortless modes and the effo rtless-cue effects are discussed. Theoretical and managerial implications are also discussed. In the end, model discrepancies are discussed and recommendations are made for futu re research.

PAGE 22

22CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Information-search and decisionmaking behaviors have been vi ewed as central in travel and tourism research for over three decades. While researchers have focused on developing theories to explain and predict travelers pla nning behaviors (i.e., info rmation search, decision making), the topic of information-processing strate gies has not been well studied in travel and tourism research. It is appare nt that when we make decisi ons, we usually do not conduct a thorough search of every option and it is not possibl e to assimilate all information available. Instead, we use perceptual strate gies and shortcuts that make th e decision easier, allowing us to get on with our lives without turning every de cision into a major rese arch project (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert 2005). Information processing is a part of the me ntal processes involved with information acquisition, selection, utilization, storage, retrieval and re-ut ilization for decision making (Jun, Vogt, and MacKay 2007; Stewart and Vogt 1999; Vogt 1993). Decisions are made with information acquired from internal sources (i .e., memory) and/or external sources (i.e., marketing communications, friends and relatives, and neutral or ed itorial sources; Assael 1984; Bettman, Johnson, and Payne 1991; Lynch and Sru ll 1982; Vogt 1993). Given that information is present in memory and/or in external environments, individu als must somehow integrate the information and use specific strategies for combining information to make decisions (Bettman, Johnson, and Payne 1991). Constructive Consumer Choice Process The reason why individuals develop and use in formation-processing strategies in decision making is explained by the constructive consum er choice process (CCCP) theory (Bettman, Johnson, and Payne 1991; Bettman, Luce, and Payne 1998). The theory suggests that

PAGE 23

23individuals decision-making processes are he uristic and contingent because of complex information-processing environments and indivi duals limited information-processing capacity. Individuals make decisions under an environment in which they have to d eal with a large number of alternatives and abundant information available from ma ny sources (e.g., advertisements, packages, brochures, salespeople, friends and so on; Bettman, Johnson, and Payne 1991). Although researchers have expect ed that recent technological developments (e.g., Internet) would enhance the convenience and cost effec tiveness of individuals information searches, some suggest that the myriad of informa tion provided by new technology actually increases uncertainties in choice and decreases the effec tiveness of information searches (Bettman, Luce, and Payne 1998; Lurie 2004). Traditionally, classical economic theory sugge sts that individuals are rational beings; hence, an individual obtains complete informa tion on the alternatives, makes trade-offs which allow him/her to compute utilities for every a lternative, and selects the alternative that maximizes utility (Bettman, Johson, and Payne 1991) By contrast, the CCCP theory assumes that individuals are not perfec tly rational in information pro cessing and decision making. The CCCP theory argues that individuals have limited working memory and computational capabilities for information pr ocessing (Bettman, Johson, and Payne 1991; Payne, Bettman, and Johnson 1992). For example, researchers have studied how many items of information individuals can consider at one time in the working memory stag e, and the standard answer is four to five items of information (e.g., please try to memorize these two versions of items: T-WA-I-B versus B-W-A-M-I-C-S-I-A-C-B-T; Be ttman, Johnson, and Payne 1991; Simon 1974; Solso, MacLin, and MacLin 2005).

PAGE 24

24Because of complex information environments and limitations in information-processing abilities, individuals develop and modify various information-processing strategies to make timeor effort-effective decisions in different situ ations (Bettman, Johnson, and Payne 1991; Huffman and Houston 1993; Jun, Vogt, and MacKay in pr eparation; Lurie 2004; Pastore 1999). A key motive for using information-processing strategies is to enhance efficiency. Heuristics refer to mental shortcuts or simple ru les that individuals use to pr ocess information quickly and efficiently (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert 2005). For example, in message judgment, an individual focuses on the information source or the length of the message based on his/her heuristics, such as Experts ar e always right or Length equals strength (i.e., long messages are more persuasive than short ones; Aronson, Wilson, and Akert 2005; Chaiken and Maheswaran 1994). These rules help individu als not spend a lot of time an alyzing every little detailed attribute of the message (Bettman, Johnson, a nd Payne 1991). There ar e possibilities that heuristic strategies lead individu als to make mistakes; however, mo st of the time, the strategies are highly functional and serve effectively (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert 2005; Bettman, Johnson, and Payne 1991). Case-based vacation planning theory (Jun, Vogt, and MacKay 2007; Stewart and Vogt 1999), which supports the CCCP theory, suggests that travel planning is c ontingent on evolving factors. During vacation planning and actual trip phases, problems constantly arise from goal interactions, sequencing and environmental ch anges (Jun, Vogt, and MacKay 2007; Stewart and Vogt 1999). For example, an individual misses his/her flight because of a car accident on a highway to the airport, his/her airplane is delayed because of bad weather, the museum he/she wants to visit is closed because of a fire, he/s he decides not to visit the zoo where she/he has planned to visit because of stormy weather, a nd so on. Because of these unexpected events

PAGE 25

25during a trip, new information processing and d ecision making (i.e., plan changes) constantly occur until the trip ends. In trav el contexts, it is natural that individuals continuously redevelop and modify their plans in the pre-trip stage and the duri ng-trip stage. When an individual is faced with repeated purchase decisions, information processing is simpler because he/she utilizes existing strategies for making repeated choices. If an individual faces a new product purchase or making decisions in unfamiliar situations, he/she needs to construct new strategies by expl oiting whatever structure characterizes the existing information (Bettman, Johson, and Payne 1991). Because there are no similar cases stored in memory to construct new information-processi ng strategies, individuals focus on utilizing attributes of cases stored in memory, such as information characte ristics (e.g., degree of di fficulty in understanding content, time and effort required to process the content) and/or situat ional and environmental factors (e.g., temporal perspective, task definition; Vogt 1993). Information-Processing Models Cognitive and social psychologists have developed information-processing models to understand how individuals process information a nd store it in memory. Sequential-processing models are developed based on assumptions th at cognition can be understood by segmenting it into a series of sequential stages such that each stage receives information from preceding stages and then performs its unique function (Solso, Ma cLin, and MacLin 2005; Figure 1). The world is made up of many more sensations than can be handled by the per ceptual and cognitive capabilities of human obse rvers (Broadbent 1958). The limited ability of cognitive systems to process information, within a context where an astronomical amount of sensory information continuously excites humans nervous systems, makes individuals select only appropriate information for further processing and reject in appropriate information (Greenwarld and Leavitt 1984; Solso, MacLin, and MacLin 2005). At lower mental processing levels, individuals

PAGE 26

26respond to sensory or affect-evoking stimuli. If lower level analysis detects sufficiently important content, the processing moves to the next stage. At higher levels, semantic orienting tasks occur. If information, mostly sensory respon ses, is rejected at lo wer levels, it immediately gets cleared (i.e., forgotten) from the brai n to open capacity for processing new incoming information. Accordingly, sensory and affectiv e-evoking responses at the lower levels of information processing have been treated as subordinate in persuading messages and believed inert in changing attitude (Cohen and Areni 1991). Another common assumption is that involvement plays a m oderating role in sequential processing behaviors (Greenwarld an d Leavitt 1984). Decisions to select or reject information for further processing are based on perceived pers onal relevance (i.e., involvement). When the personal-relevance level increase s, information processing moves to higher stages starting with shallow sensory analysis and proceeding to deeper more complex and semantic analyses (Solso, MacLin, and MacLin 2005; Greenwarld and Leavitt 1984). Based on this assumption, it is believed that information processing at higher leve ls influences attitude change as a consequence of semantic or cognition analyses. Sequential-processing models, however, have ov erlooked dual processe s. According to sequential models, a message analyzed at a high leve l must also have been analyzed at all lower levels; and information processing only at high levels affects at titude changes (Greenwald and Leavitt 1984). However, many researchers have found that there are parallel persuasion processes using two different modes of inform ation processing (e.g., central and peripheral routes); and information processi ng in both low and high-involvemen t situations affects attitude changes in different ways (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert 2005; Oh and Jasper 2006; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983).

PAGE 27

27Dual-Process Models The most recognized dual-proce ss theory is the elaborati on likelihood model (ELM; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983) for persuasion. A nother critical dual -process model, the heuristic-systematic model (HSM ; Chaiken 1980), closely resembles the ELM. These theories emphasize that attitudes can be based on both ef fortful (i.e., central route in the ELM and systematic processing in the HSM) and effortless (i.e., peripheral route in the ELM and heuristic processing in the HSM) responses, and that any one of these responses can have an impact on persuasion by invoking different pr ocesses based on personal releva nce or involvement (Chaiken 1980; Chaiken and Maheswaran 1994; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983; Petty, Unnava, and Strathman 1991; Reinhard and Sporer 2008). According to the HSM, individuals use and ad apt information-processing strategies using certain attributes of information (e.g., systematic and heuristic cues) a nd environmental factors (e.g., different involvement levels toward a product decision-mak ing). The basic tenet of dualprocess theories is that di fferent methods of inducing pe rsuasion (e.g., focusing on central route/systematic processing or peripheral route/heur istic processing) may work best depending on whether the elaboration likelihood of the co mmunication situation (i.e ., the probability of messageor issue-relevant thought occurring) is high or low (Chaiken 1980; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983). The moderating role of involvement A significant finding of dual-pr ocess studies is the modera ting role of involvement on persuasion, which means that involvement moderates the effects of certain information attributes on persuasion. Involvement refers to the amount of attention an indi vidual directs to product information while evaluating a product for his/ her decision making (Oh and Jasper 2006). An

PAGE 28

28individuals level of involvemen t with a product is determined by the degree to which he/she perceives the concept to be personall y relevant (Celsi and Olson 1988). High-involvement situations have greater pers onal relevance and c onsequences or elicit more personal connections than low-involvement situations (Chaiken 1980; Engel and Blackwell 1982; Krugman 1965; Petty and Cacioppo 1979; Pe tty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983; Sherif and Hovland 1961). When personal relevance is high, individuals pay more attention to information because they feel that their inform ation judgments have important consequences for themselves. High personal importance induces th inking and makes individuals put more effort into information processing. Under high-invo lvement conditions, individuals typically know what they want and they evaluate the merits of arguments presente d in advertisements; accordingly, the extent of attitude change is often dependent upon the quality of the claims (Burnkrant and Unnava 1989; Petty, Unnava, a nd Strathman 1991; Petty and Wegener 1999). When personal relevance is low, individuals f eel that their judgment about information is inconsequential; ther efore, their motivation to process information is attenuated (Chaiken 1980; Petty, Unnava, and Strathman 1991). It is possible that as an information-processing strategy, human brains purposefully neglect or reduce fo cus on insignificant info rmation processing in order to shift processing capaci ty to more significant inform ation. Under low-involvement conditions, individuals are looking for a simple, qui ck, and easy way to judge information, rather than examining all of the information carefully (Petty and Wegener 1999). They either know what they do not want or do not even consid er exerting efforts to process messages (Petty, Unnava, and Strathman 1991). They reduce scruti ny on some message arguments or they use a simple rule (i.e., a heuristic such as a dentists opinion is credible in toothpaste advertising) for information-processing efficiency (Chaiken 1980; Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy 1990; Petty

PAGE 29

29and Cacioppo 1981). In low-involvement conditions attitudes are often affected by variables like status of product endorsers or attractiveness of pictures in advertisem ents (Miniard, Bhatla, and Rose 1990; Oh and Jasper 2006; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983). Mode of process: Effortful and effortless modes Another significant contribution of dual-process theories is that they divide the theoretical processes responsible for attitude change into tw o modes of information processing: effortful and effortless modes for persuasion (Chaiken and Ma heswaran 1994; Chen and Chaiken 1999; Petty, Unnava, and Strathman 1991; Reinhard and Sporer 2008). The effortful mode refers to a central route in ELM and systematic processing in the HSM. The central route in the ELM focuses on the information that an individual feels is cen tral to the true mer its of the object under consideration (Petty, Cacioppo, a nd Schumann 1983). In the system atic processing of the HSM, individuals exert considerable cognitive effort to perform a ta sk and attempt to evaluate a messages arguments (Chaiken 1980). The effortful mode generates thinking which ha s a tendency towards rationality and logic. Individuals in the effortful mode seek to answ er specific questions for their decision making and to reduce purchase associated risks (Hirschman 1986; Nova k, Hoffman, and Duhachek 2003; Vogt 1993; Vogt and Fesenmaier 1998). Accordingl y, individuals in the effortful mode focus on cogent and compelling messages and they take substantial effort a nd time in processing (Chaiken 1980; Petty and Wegener 1999; Trope and Liberman 2003). Effortful cues have been mostly manipulated for the argument aspects of verbal messages (e.g., whether pr oduct claims are strong or weak) to measure the effects of persuasion. The effortless mode (i.e., peripheral route in the ELM and heuristic processing in the HSM) focuses on simple information cues in a persuasion environment (Chaiken 1980; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983). A peripheral cue in the ELM is defined as an element in

PAGE 30

30messages that is not central to the products meri ts and typically requires less cognitive effort in processing (Oh and Jasper 2006; Petty and Cacioppo 1986; Petty and Wegener 1999). A heuristic cue in the HSM is defined as a simple or general rule to use for quicker and easier information processing developed by individuals through their past experiences and observations (Chaiken 1980). For example, individuals may like a product recommended by attractive communicators based on the genera l rule that people generally agree with people they like (Chaiken 1980). Effortless processing has b een often manipulated with nonverbal messages (e.g., picture attractiveness) since nonverbal messa ges demand less processing effort than verbal messages. In most ELM studies, central and periphera l routes are classified based on whether information content represents the true merits of products or not. The central route is manipulated with verbal cues and the periphera l route is manipulated with nonverbal cues (or combination of nonverbal and verbal cues). The classification of central/p eripheral routes based on product merits, as well as manipulation base d on the assumption that nonverbal cues are peripheral, is a utilitarian consum ption-oriented approach. This approach is not applicable for information-processing studies with certain types of products such as hedonic, expressive and/or experiential products. Petty and Cacioppo (1980 ) found that, for certain types of product (e.g., beauty products such as shampoos), an endorser s attractiveness in pictures, which was mostly treated as a peripheral cue, was equally im portant under both high and low-involvement conditions. They argue the source attractiveness in a picture serves as a peripheral cue under low-involvement conditions, but it also serves as a central product mer it under high-involvement conditions. The picture play s a significant role as visu al testimony for the products

PAGE 31

31effectiveness (e.g., the shampoo will make your hair look like that of the endorsers) (Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983; Petty, Unnava, and Strathman 1991). For classification of effortful and effortless m odes, we focus on the amount of effort spent in processing and ease of processing, rather th an presentation of product merits, based on the definitions of systematic and heuristic processing in the HSM. The effortful mode emphasizes detailed processing and it induces message-based cognitions. The effortless mode refers to simple rules or simple cues in mediating pers uasion (Chaiken 1980). In this study, we specify that effortful cues demand a greater amount of effort in processing than effortless cues; and effortless cues are easier and quicker to proces s than effortful cues (Chaiken 1980; Petty and Cacioppo 1981). In terms of conceptualization and operationali zation of the effortful mode, text argument quality has been the most utili zed tool in ELM studies. However, some researchers have criticized this conceptualizati on of the argument quality because of conceptual obscurity. The ELM adopted an empirical defini tion of argument quality as an argument qualified as strong (versus weak) when it elicited predominantly fa vorable (versus unfavorab le) cognitive responses (Areni 2002). Strong arguments are expected to yield favorable cognitive and affective responses to the message, while weak arguments lead to counterargumentation and generally negative reactions to the messa ge (Areni and Lutz 1988). This conceptualization includes two constr ucts embedded within the argument quality: argument strength (strong versus weak) and argument valence (favorable/positive versus unfavorable/negative) (Areni and Lutz 1988). Areni and Lutz (1988) found that there was distinction between these two c onstructs and only argument vale nce, not argument strength, had significant effects on persuasion. They also found that previous ELM studies manipulated

PAGE 32

32argument valence rather than argument strength for the argument quality but measured argument strength (i.e., whether the argument quality wa s strong or weak) in manipulation checks. The authors argue this mis-manipulation stems from method-related issues such that researchers pretest several arguments in pilo t experiments and label those that elicit consistently favorable cognitive responses as strong arguments, and those that evoke consistently unfavorable cognitive responses as weak arguments. Argument streng th was presumed to be less effective than argument valence in pretests; therefore, resear chers have continued to employ argument valence as the argument quality manipulation. These methodological issues bring a concer n that negatively framed messages are unrealistic in real advertising. Al though there is potential risk that there may be similar results to Areni and Lutzs (1988) study, th is dissertation focuses on argu ment strength rather than argument valence in operationalizing the effort mode to create a more realis tic research situation. In both strong and weak conditions, argument quality avoids negatively framed messages. These two conditions are distinguished by whether verbal messages are mo re informative, believable, plausible, likely and possible. Co-occurrence of dual modes Most dual-process theories sugge st that when involvement leve ls are high, effortful cues are more persuasive; but when involvement levels are low, effortless cues are more persuasive (Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983). They assume that effortful and effortless processes are dichotomous, so individuals use either an effort ful or effortless mode in information processing depending on their involvement levels. However, there is an emerging theme that effortless modes can co-occur with effortful modes (Chaik en and Maheswaran 1994; Reinhard and Sporer 2008). The co-occurrence of dual modes is conc eptually distinct from the ELM. The HSM suggests that two processing modes can exert independent or interdependent effects on

PAGE 33

33judgments depending on involvement situations (Chaiken and Maheswaran 1994). Reinhard and Sporer (2008) found that individuals used only effortless cues under low-involvement conditions; however, individuals used all available informa tion, both effortful cues (e.g., argument quality of verbal messages) and effo rtless cues (e.g., attr activeness of nonverbal messages), to form their judgments when th ey were under high-involvement conditions. According to Chaiken and Maheswaran (1994), effortless processing serves as the sole determinant of attitudes under low task importance; if message content is unambiguous, effortful processing alone determines attitudes under high task importance; however, if the message is ambiguous, both effortless and effortful proce ssing influences attit udes under high task importance. The dichotomous approach has been prevalent in other research as well (Table 2-1). However, there is also an emerging assumption in other research that a dual process can be mutually interactive instead of being exclusivel y dichotomous. Two theo ries (i.e., split-brain procedure theory, cognitively a nd affectively based attitude) ar e discussed below because these theories correspond with dual-pro cess models. These theories ha ve been studied in overlapping ways with the dual-process models (e.g., ELM, HSM) ; therefore, it is difficult to stipulate distinct theoretical boundaries between them (Scott 1994). According to split-brain procedure theory (M yers and Sperry 1953) in neuroscience and cognitive psychology, there are two brain functions: left hemisphere and right hemisphere. The left hemisphere is associated with verbal me mory and special functions such as language, conceptualization, analysis and classification; and the right he misphere is associated with nonverbal memory and integration of information over time in art and music, spatial processing, and recognition of faces and shapes (Sols o, MacLin, and MacLin 2005). Recent studies

PAGE 34

34challenge the split-brain procedur e and argue that this dichotom ous concept is invalid. They found that the right hemisphere was capable of more linguistic processi ng, especially written language, than was initially be lieved; intentionally manipul ated nonverbal messages were processed even by the left hemisphere; and you nger patients who had brain surgery exhibited well-developed capacities in both hemisphe res (Buck and VanLear 2002; Gazzaniga 1983; Solso, MacLin, and MacLin 2005). In attitude studies, cognitive and affective responses have been considered as two independently functioning systems (Zajonc 1980). Cognitively-based attitudes are formed (or changed) based on individuals beliefs about the objective merits of a pr oduct; and affectivelybased attitudes are formed based on emo tions (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert 2005). The dichotomous approach distinguishes affectivelybased attitudes from cognitively-based attitudes based on assumptions that affectiv ely-based attitudes do not result from a rational examination of the issues and are not govern ed by logic (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert 2005). However, researchers have found that res ponses to affect-evoking stimuli al so have significant influence on individuals cognitive processes such as evaluative judgments, deci sion rules in choice tasks, and negotiation rules in bargaining tasks (Cohen and Areni 1991). Similar to the co-occurrence of dual modes (effortful and effortless modes), affective responses can co-occur interdependently with cognitive responses depending on situations. According to Cohen and Areni (1991), affective responses have several patterns and they are mainly categorized into two modes: the automati c and immediate (or rapid) responses which are not accompanied by conscious awareness; and th e affective responses which are sharpened by cognitive activity. In the latt er case, the affective responses result from an elaborative interpretation as individuals deliberately investigate or generate (or infer) associations between

PAGE 35

35stimuli and other concepts in memory as part of a process for assigning further meanings to them (Cohen and Areni 1991). Forgas (1995) also sugges ts that affect has two functions. Individuals use their affect as a simple rule to infer their evaluative reactions to th e target (i.e., heuristic processing); and they also use affect for judgm ents through its selectiv e influence on attention, encoding, retrieval, and associative pro cesses (i.e., substantive processing). Attitude researchers have also utilized the split-brain procedure theory to explain the dichotomy of cognitive and affective processes in consumer research. Some studies, however, suggest that the right/left hemis pheric distinctions may be far more complex than some have considered. While many studies implicate the ri ght hemisphere as the primary processing center for affective processes, several re searchers suggest that affect is processed in both right and left hemispheres depending on situations. For example, positive affect is pr ocessed in the right hemisphere and negative affect is processed in the left hemisphere (Harmon and Ray 1977; Tucker 1981). Cohen and Areni (1991) argue th at positive affect is often associated with pleasant experiences that may not demand a type of critical analysis and elaboration (primarily a left-hemisphere function); but negative affect ma y need to be carefully analyzed to solve problems which cause the negative states (C ohen and Areni 1991). Although these studies did not directly measure the interdependent res ponses between affective and cognitive processing, these results imply that negative-affect processing may interact with cognitive processing or play a role in cognitive processing. ELM studies often assume that the central route involves cognitive and verbal processing and the peripheral route involve s affective and nonverbal pro cessing. This assumption is a mixture of misleading conceptua lization and operationalization. In terms of conceptualization, as we discussed, affective processing can be a form of central processing when affective cues

PAGE 36

36present product merits. Verbal-nonverbal symmetrical conceptualization stems from operationalization of central-periph eral routes. Early researchers have used these two types of information for manipulation of central-periphe ral cues. Since this manipulation dominated methodologial testing for over 20 years, some res earchers automatically mi sinterpret the verbalnonverbal symmetrical appro ach as their theoretical conceptualization. The co-occurrence of dual modes is considered in this dissertation instead of considering the dichotomous approach of ELM. The effortfu l mode requires cognitive effort; and for this reason, it is appropriate to use cogent verbal messages in testing manipulations. Nonverbal messages, specifically visual messages, are easier to process, require less effort and time in processing, and bring more sensor y responses than verbal cues (Reinhard and Sporer 2008). For these reasons, visual messages have been us ed for effortless cue manipulations; but the assumption that visual messages can simultaneously display the true merits of a product is also made for this study. It is also assumed that th e effortless mode can use cognitive and/or affective processes and in some cases the effortless mode is interdependent with th e effortful mode. As the effortless mode with visual messages is be ing considered, visual information characteristics and the multiple roles of visual component s are reviewed in the following section. Multiple Roles of Visual Information Several dual process theories (i.e., th e ELM, cognitive/affective responses, brain localization) have been adapted to theorize the way visual components affect consumer responses (Scott 1994). Scott (1994) grouped visu al processes into two categories: classical conditioning and information processes. The co -occurrence of dual modes integrates these two approaches. We assume that th e effortless mode manipulated by visual information occurs in both high and low-involvement situations; and individuals have different mechanisms in effortless-cue processing through involvement.

PAGE 37

37The classical-conditioning approach refers to the effortless mode under low-involvement conditions which is elicited for efficient and qu ick judgments. According to Scott (1994), there are three assumptions underlying this approach: 1) the image is understood to have a simple positive or negative value; 2) pictures simply poi nt to objects or experiences and no metaphorical presentation is incorporated; and 3) the impact s of the picture are passively absorbed. The classical conditioning approach treats visual inform ation as visceral with simple cues to process because visual components are easier and requir e less cognitive effort to process than do equivalent verbal stimuli. The effortless cues under low-involvement conditions are generally perceived as more familiar and easier to rememb er than their verbal counterparts (Hirschman 1986). The information-process approach is similar to the effortless mode under high-involvement conditions. In the information-processing framew ork, visual information has the potential for cognitive impact, directly or by providing elabor ation because of its symbolic form (Scott 1994). This approach is supported by visu al rhetoric theory (Scott 19 94) which suggests that visual components are a convention-based symbolic system ra ther than reflections of reality; therefore, pictures must be processed cognitively by means of complex combinations of learned pictorial schemata. According to that theory, visual elements are capable of representing concepts, abstractions, actions, metaphors, and modifiers, such that they can be used in the invention of a complex argument. Whereas the information-pro cess approach eliminates the visual role as reflecting objects in the real worl d, this study includes this role as part of the effortless mode under high-involvement conditions. Visual information often plays a major role in persuasive messages especially for experiential and intang ible products (Miniard, Bhatla, Lord, Dickson, and Unnava 1991). In this form of inform ation processing, productrelevant pictorial

PAGE 38

38information serves as a significant component since the picture provides factual information through the display of real produc t images. Individuals are more likely to trust information transmitted by pictures than words in experiential and expressive product consumption (Miniard et al. 1991; Oh and Jasper 2006). Different processing mechanisms with the same picture occur because multiple cues are present in the picture. Through text-interpretive analysis, McQu arrie and Mick (1999) found that pictorial elements comprised a variety of rhet orical forms (e.g., rhyme, antithesis, metaphor, pun) and different types of signs (e.g., iconic, inde xical, symbolic); acco rdingly, these various elements in a single picture evoke a diverse set of meanings about the pr oduct and/or user (e.g., sophistication, beauty, safety, fun). While the mu ltiple meanings of visual information has been used for advertising in the real world, the multiple roles of visual information and their effects on attitude have been little studi ed because of the difficulty of assessing interactivity among the various roles. Another difficulty in assessing the effects of visual-information processing is due to interdependent processing of verbal informati on. When involvement levels are high, visual information (as effortless cues) is processed and co-processed with verbal information (the effortful cues) for comprehensive evaluation. In these cases, visual and verbal information are treated as equally capable of conveying crucial meanings and as equally worthy of analysis (McQuarrie and Mick 1999). Because of the dichotomous approach, many ELM studies have disregarded measuring the importance of the coactive effects. They manipulate verbal and nonverbal information independently to test the assumption that only high motivation leads to effortful processing of verbal information or vice versa. In ELM research, the direct manipulation of content quality (i.e., argumen t) and peripheral information is a common

PAGE 39

39procedure used to test whether individuals ar e engaged in central or peripheral processing (Reinhard and Sporer 2008). However, some studies have found that an individuals impressions are often based on both verbal and visual information and the effect s of these types of information are frequently interdependent (Adaval, Isbell, and Wyer 2006; Miniard et al. 1991). Wh en the same product is depicted in all-visual or all-verbal presentati ons, all-verbal contents are perceived as more functional than all-visual contents (Hirschman 1986); however, individuals recognition of visual contents are superior to recogni tion of verbal contents (Shepard 1967). The superior recognition of pictorial information is cau sed by pictorial characteristics which lead to greater message processing and affect message learning by enhanc ing the memorability of related semantic information. Despite this characteristic, indivi duals (or researchers) often underestimate these enhanced picture roles because of a common socialized response tendency that pictorial processing is peripheral, which has been genera lly assumed in U.S. culture (Hirschman 1986; Miniard et al. 1991). Several researchers (Miniard et al. 1991; Mitchell and Olson 1981; Taylor and Thompson 1982) have examined the interactive processing of verbal and pictorial information. According to their studies, individuals under lower involvem ent conditions reduce thei r product evaluations when the advertisement contains an unattractiv e visual element, and increase their product evaluations when the advertisement contains an at tractive picture that elicits positive imagery. In addition, pictorial information redundant to verb al information does not result in significantly different persuasive effects th an verbal information presente d alone; however, when a picture conveys product information, which is not provid ed by verbal messages, the picture influences

PAGE 40

40beliefs about the products attributes and ove rall product attitudes, especially under highinvolvement conditions. Miniard and his colleagues (1991) examined the effects of picture at tractiveness. They manipulated picture attractiveness with two unrel ated-product photos. They used a picture of a tropical beach scene with a rising sun as an attr active condition and a picture of four iguanas as an unattractive condition for Sunburst soft dri nk. The unattractive pict ure condition included a callout symbol to display an introduction se ntence. Their manipulati ons may confound with picture-relevance effects, especially when i ndividuals need to elicit thorough information processing (i.e., high-involvement situations). According to rhetoric theory (Scott 1994), although a picture is not relevant to a product, individuals still attempt to interpret pictures as figurative statements. For example, individuals persuade that an adve rtised facial tissue is as soft as a kitten displayed in the a dvertisement (Scott 1994). In Mi niard and his colleagues (1991) study, respondents may have believed that Sunburst so ft drinks taste is as exotic as the tropical beach displayed in the advert isement; and the introduction inside callout symbol lead respondents to assume that the four igua nas were used as product endorsers. While Miniard and his colleagues (1991) focu sed on examining impacts of affect-laden (i.e., positive versus negative) pictures devoid of product-relevant inform ation, this dissertation controls product releva nce in manipulations and focuses on examining the impacts of affectladen pictures with product-relevant informa tion. We assume productrelated attractive (or unattractive) pictures evoke positive (or negati ve) affects; and the affective responses have greater impacts on attitude cha nges, especially when individu als are involved with purchase decisions. In addition, based on valence theory (Kisielius and Sterntha l 1986; Shen and Wyer 2008), it is assumed that negatively valenced pictor ial information (an unattr active picture) has a

PAGE 41

41greater impact on judgment than po sitively valenced pictorial info rmation (an attractive picture), especially when individuals are highly invol ved in decision making. Individuals under highinvolvement situations expect the pictorial information to be attractive. Because of the divergence from their expectations, unattractive pictorial information becomes more attentiongetting or more diagnostic, and eventually wo rks against persuasion (Fiske 1980; Skowronski and Carlston 1989). Travel and Tourism Contexts Traditional dual-process theories have usually been studied w ith tangible/functional goods. A possible reason researchers focus on tangible/func tional goods is that study results have been inconsistent with intangible/he donic products. Study respondents often consider effortful (or verbal) cues and effortless (or nonverbal) cu es equally significant in decision making for intangible/hedonic pr oducts such as travel products (e.g., ho tel rooms, Disney World). The coactive influences of effortful and effortless m odes in persuasion potentially would not produce statistically significant differences between th ese two modes effects; consequently, the study results would likely be disregarded instead of being published. In this circumstance, understanding the unique characteri stics of travel products is important to integrating dualprocess theories into travel research and ultim ately to better understand information-processing strategies in travel and tourism contexts. There are three unique characte ristics of travel products: in tangibility, inseparability between production and consumption, and hete rogeneity (Edgett and Parkinson 1993; Flipo 1988; Mattila 2001; Tarn 2005; Zeithaml, Para suraman, and Berry 1985). Zeithaml and her colleagues (1985) have made si gnificant contributions to unde rstanding and defining unique characteristics of services and travel products. A single travel product is comprised of sets of performances. Travel product purchases mean e xperiencing sets of perf ormances instead of

PAGE 42

42owning a tangible object. Intangibility implies that the sets of performances individuals experience cannot be seen or touched in the same manner in which goods can be sensed. Inseparability involves simultaneous production and consumption. Whereas goods are first produced, then sold, and then consumed, travel products are first sold, then produced (i.e., performed) and consumed (i.e ., experienced) simultaneously. Heterogeneity means that there is no same product (i.e., experience) perceived wher eas many identical goods can be produced at a factory. Heterogeneity portends the potential fo r high variability in the performance of travel products. The quality and essence of a travel pr oduct can vary from producer to producer, from customer to customer, from destination to destin ation, from day to day, and from hour to hour. Travel-product characteristics (i.e., intangib ility, inseparability, heterogeneity) imply that individuals perceive greater risk s in making decisions and are le ss trustful of suppliers (Tarn 2005). To reduce potential risks a nd to make sure that they can trust product providers, they spend more time and effort on information s earch than for tangible goods decision-making situations. Research in services and hosp itality has focused on studying enhancements of communication for tangibilization. Services a nd hospitality marketers also focus on the assumption that a primary objective of an advert ising strategy is to tangibilize their offering (Cutler and Javalgi 1993 ; Mattila 1999, 2001; Stafford and Day 1995). Tarn (2005) proposes four stra tegies to raise an indivi duals sense of tangibility: quantitation, information frequency, factualization, and word-of-mouth effects. According to his typology (Darley and Robert 1993; Ghobadia n, Speller, and Jones 1994; Tarn 2005), quantitation refers to the techniques that represent trav el products with quanti tative cues, such as numbers, statistics, measures and other numerical data. Quantitation cu es (e.g., price, provider history, customer satisfaction indi ces) are often used in travel advertising because these cues

PAGE 43

43make it easier for individuals to perceive exact conditions of services an d perceive the travel product as tangible. Information frequency refers to the amount and density of service information delivered to consumers, including frequency of advertisi ng, activities of sales promotion, number of visits by the sales force, and frequency of provi der-client encounters. Information frequency is more essential for trav el products as consumer s require greater amounts of information in their decision making to reduce perceived risks. Factualization is the technique of product illustration a nd representation with a literal proclaimed statement, figures, pictures and images demonstrating services Factualization cues positively influence individuals sense of objectivity toward the ads and lower the se nse of risk. In travel and tourism, word-of-mouth (WOM) is one of the most e ffective communication tools since individuals trust information from interpersona l sources, especially from their friends and relatives. WOM is helpful in lowering indivi duals perceptions of risk, reducing suspicion toward the products, and stimulating them to switch brands. Because of the importance of WOM, travel advertising focuses on displaying tr avel experiences by ordinary persons who look like friends and relatives in stead of celebrities. The goal of the tangibilizing strategies is to enhance individuals sens e of tangibilization of intangible products through providi ng more tangible and factual info rmation. It is apparent that communication mechanisms for travel products are different from tangible goods since both verbal and nonverbal messages are treated as ta ngible and factual information. For example, pictures and images, staff appearances, and ordina riness of information sources are considered as tangible and factual message cues for travel products. Final Assumptions Based on the literature review, traditional dual-process models are modified and a new theoretical framework, exhibiting a co-occurrence of dual modes, is proposed (Figure 2-1:

PAGE 44

44Modified Dual-Process Model: Co-Occurrence of Dual Modes). The modified dual-process model suggests that 1) dual modes (i.e., effortfu l and effortless modes) are defined based on the effort required and ease of processing informati on instead of product merits; 2) effortless modes have two different functions by situation: indepe ndent processing in low-involvement situations and interdependent processing in high-involvement situations; and 3) because of these multiple functions, effortless modes can co-occur with effortful modes when individuals decisionmaking consequences are significant to themselves (i.e., a high decision-i nvolvement situation). Based on these suggestions, three assump tions are proposed to be tested: 1. Involvement moderates the effortful-mode effect s when the effortless cue is not provided. When the effortless cue is provided, the effort ful and effortless modes co-occur in highinvolvement situations; therefore, the invol vement-moderating effect is not present. 2. The effortless mode has more significant eff ects than the effortful mode under the lowinvolvement condition because individuals fo cus on the effortless mode in information processing instead of the effortful mode when their perceived releva nce toward decision making is low. 3. Individuals focus on both effortful and e ffortless modes under the high-involvement condition to compensate for insufficient inform ation from one or the other. Accordingly, the effortful mode or the effortless mode offs ets the negative effect from the other mode under the high-involvement condition.

PAGE 45

45Table 2-1. Dual-Process Theories Dual Modes Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) HeuristicSystematic Model (HSM) Split-Brain Procedure Theory CognitivelyAffectively Based Attitude Effortful mode Central route Systematic processing Left hemisphere function Cognitively-based attitude Effortless mode Peripheral route Heuristic processing Right hemisphere function Affectively-based attitude

PAGE 46

46 Figure 2-1. Information-Processing Models Effortful (Central) Cues Effortless (Peripheral) Cues Central/ Cognitive Processing Responses Traditional Dual-Process Model: Dichotomous Approach Peripheral Processing Responses Effortful Mode ( Central Route ) Effortless Mode ( Peri p heralRoute ) Modified Dual-Process Model: Co-Occurrence of Dual Modes Sequential-Processing Model Sensoryevoking Stimuli Affectiveevoking Stimuli Semantic/ Cognitive Processing Responses Effortful Cues Effortless Cues Effortful Processing Responses Effortless Processing Responses Effortful Mode Co-occurrence (Interdependent processing in high involvement situations) (Independent processing in low involvement situations) Effortless Mode Low involvement situations High involvement situations Responses that Affect Attitude Changes

PAGE 47

47CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENT 1 The goal of experiment one was to examine the effects of effortful and effortless modes; the moderating role of involvement in these effe cts; and the effortless modes offsetting role on the effortful modes probable negative effect under a high-involvement condition. Involvement was operationalized as product decision-making i nvolvement (high versus low); the effortful mode was operartionalized as text argument qua lity (strong versus weak); and the effortless mode was operationlized as pi cture presence (no picture ve rsus with a picture). Hypotheses Hypotheses were developed based on three assu mptions supported by the literature review. The hypotheses comprised two parts. The first part (H1) was tested by measuring attitudes toward a product and purchase intention as depe ndent variables. The second part (H2) was tested by measuring information foci (text-focuse d processing and picture-focused processing) as dependent variables. The three assumptions and two sets of hypotheses are as follow (Table 31): Hypothesis 1 (H1) Assumption 1: Involvement moderates the effo rtful-mode effects when the effortless cue was not provided. H1a: The strength of the text argument qua lity will have a greater impact on product attitudes under the high-involvement condi tion compared to the low-involvement condition when there is no picture provided. Assumption 2: The effortless mode has more significant effects than the effortful mode under the low-involvement condition because people focus on the effortless mode in information

PAGE 48

48processing instead of the effortful mode when th eir perceived relevance toward decision making is low. H1b: Pictorial information will have a grea ter impact on product attitudes under the lowinvolvement condition compared to the high-involvement condition. Assumption 3: People focus on both effort ful and effortless modes under the highinvolvement condition to compensate for insuffi cient information of the effortful mode. Accordingly, the effortless mode offsets the ne gative effect of effo rtful mode under the highinvolvement condition. H1c: There will be no significant attitude di fference between strong and weak arguments under the high-involvement and with-picture condition. Hypothesis 2 (H2) Assumption 2: The effortless mode will have more significant effects than the effortful mode under the low-involvement condition because people focus on the effortless mode in information processing instead of the effortful mode when their percei ved relevance toward decision making is low. H2a: Low-involvement participants will be more likely to focus on the pictorial information than the text information. Assumption 3: People focus on both effort ful and effortless modes under the highinvolvement condition to compensate for insuffi cient information of the effortful mode. Accordingly, the effortless mode offsets the ne gative effect of effo rtful mode under the highinvolvement condition. H2b: High-involvement participants will focu s on both text and pictorial information.

PAGE 49

49Methods Design A factorial 2 (involvement: high or low) x 2 (text argument quality: strong or weak) x 2 (picture presence: with a picture or no pi cture) between-subject e xperimental design was employed. Eight websites with different manipula tion conditions (Table 3-2) and dependent and manipulation check measures were developed (T able 3-3). Undergraduate students in the Department of Tourism, Recreati on and Sport Management at University of Florida (UF) were asked to volunteer to particip ate in the study thro ugh an email from the researcher with permission from course instructors. The ema il included a study introdu ction and one of eight website links. Students UF email user names pr ovided by the course inst ructors were arranged in alphabetical order and grouped into eight subsamples for quota assignment to one of eight treatment groups. Participants earned extra credit for their cl ass based on each instructors decision. Procedure Each website was comprised of five sections: 1) an informed consent form approved by the institutional review board (IRB) and instructions; 2) a written role-playing scenario for the involvement manipulation and advertisements for the text-argument and picture-presence manipulations; 3) dependent and manipulation ch eck measures; 4) respondent characteristics questions; and 5) debriefing. The first webpage explained that the study aimed to understand information roles on the images people hold of a product or destination. In the instruction section, study participants were asked to read a scenario on the following page carefully and imagine that they were in the situation. Role pl aying, which asks particip ants to imagine events based on written scenarios, is a widely used met hod in experiments. This method is known as an effective way to change beliefs, even though belie fs are usually impervious to change (Petty,

PAGE 50

50Unnava, and Strathman 1991). Participants were al so informed that once they moved to the next page; they could not go b ack to the previous pa ges throughout the study. The next pages presented a role-playing scenar io with two versions (i.e., highor lowinvolvement situations) (Appendix A). The highinvolvement situation was displayed on four websites and the low-involvement s ituation was displayed on four other websites. After reading each role-playing scenario, participants were aske d to look at three advertisements provided on the following page. One was the target advertisement and two were filler advertisements used to disguise the true purpose of the study (Oh and Jasper 2006; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983). The target advertisement shown as the second advertisement had two versions of textual messages (i.e., strong or weak arguments). Th e strong-argument version was displayed on four websites and the weak-argument version was disp layed on four other websites. The target advertisement was fictitious with a fictiona l intangible product (Avalon House, Edinburgh, Scotland). The first advertisement was about a tangible product (SanDisk Cruzer USB Flash Drives). This product and its brand are familia r to college students in the US. The third advertisement was about a bogus intangible product (Ts Restaurant, British Columbia, Canada). The actual Ts Restaurant is located in Port To wnsend, Washington, US. This restaurant is likely unknown to college students in Florida. The text information for these two filler advertisements was originated and modified from real advertisements. The same content for the two filler products was displayed on all eight websites. When participants completed perusing the advertisements, they were asked to answer the dependent variable and manipulation check questi ons (Appendix B). Afterw ard, they were also asked to answer personal descript ive questions such as gender, th e classes they took, and their

PAGE 51

51UF email address. The last two questions were used only to provide the study participants extra credit for their class. The responses from thes e two questions were deleted after providing the information to the corresponding inst ructor. At the close of the experiment, participants were asked not to discuss this study with their classmates, debriefed, and thanked for their participation. The online study was open for one week after the email invitation was delivered. The duration of each participation session was auto matically recorded. If a participation session lasted longer than 30 minutes, that persons resu lts were not included in the final data set. Stimuli Development In Experiment 1, a Bed and Breakfast was used as a target product. Bed and Breakfasts are mostly family owned and managed independent sm all businesses. Hotels and motels, generally owned and managed by large global hotel chains, pr ovide standardized serv ices around the world and it is difficult to differentia te offerings between service provi ders (Kinard and Capella 2006). In information search and processing, accord ingly, individuals focus on a few information attributes (e.g., brand name, price savings) in de cision making. Individuals often use previously formed brand images and/or their previous expe riences with similar prod ucts in their decision making. With hotel and motel products, it is no t easy to exclude the c onfounding effects of prior knowledge or familiarity in an experimental stu dy. Compared to hotels and motels, services at Bed and Breakfasts are highly heterogeneous. In other words, each Bed and Breakfast provides more unique customized services and the se rvices differ by service providers. These unstandardized and heterogeneous characteristics of Bed and Break fasts increase perceived risks in purchase decisions and lead in dividuals to search for more information and pay more attention to various service attributes in processing. In addition, Bed and Breakfasts are not familiar to most college students, the proposed study par ticipants. This helps to exclude confounding effects of prior knowledge and familiarity. Edin burgh, the capital city of Scotland, was selected

PAGE 52

52as the location of the target product. To redu ce the confounding effects of possible previous visit experiences, locations in America (i.e., US and Ca nada) were not considered in developing target advertisements. Edinburgh was selected becaus e it reduced unnecessary effects stemming from safety/security issues, unfamiliar foods and language barriers. Involvement Involvement levels vary by the level of persona l relevance, perceived importance, the level of attention to information, and motivations to put effort into information processing (Celsi and Olson 1988; Chaiken 1980; Oh and Jasper 2006; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983). Based on these criteria, involvement was operationalized as two le vels and developed into two scenarios. In the high-involveme nt situation, participants were l ead to feel that their judgment about the target product (Avalon House, Edinburgh, Scotland) was significant Accordingly, it is believed they paid more attention and put more effort into the target product information processing than other products. The scenario was created as follows: Your term paper is awarded the Unde rgraduate Best Paper for the annual International Social Science Association (ISSA) conference to be held May 15 17, 2009, in Edinburgh, the capital city of Scotland. You w ill receive a plaque, round-trip air tickets to Edinburgh, a $500 travel allowance and complim entary registration to the conference, which lasts several days. The a ssociation suggests you to stay at Avalon House because it is a 3-minute walk from the conference hall. You decide to search for information about Avalon House. First of all, you look at the c onference sponsors advertising flyer received from ISSA with the conference registration packet. In the low-involvement situati on, participants were lead to feel that the target product information (Avalon House, Edinburgh, Scotland) in the advertisement was not relevant to them. In addition, participants attention was distracted from the ta rget product as they were lead to focus on another product (Ts Rest aurant, British Columbia, Canada). That scenario was created as follows: An attractive-looking envelope is delivered to you. You open the envelope and see some ads inside the envelope. One of the ads is from Ts Restaurant in British Columbia,

PAGE 53

53Canada. You remember that one of your friends has just returned from British Columbia, Canada. As you heard about how wonderful British Columbia was from your friend, you became curious about Ts Restaurant. Instructions in this involveme nt manipulation stage were al so differentiated between two involvement levels in order to encourage the high-involvement participants to make greater efforts at information processing than the lowinvolvement participants The high-involvement participants were asked to read the scenario three times and t ake a few minutes to look at the advertisement whereas the low-involvement particip ants are just asked to read the scenario and look at the advertisement. Text argument quality The effortful mode was operationalized with a textual message argum ent quality with two levels. The strong argument was manipulated with factual information which stimulated thinking using rational and logical judgments. Generally used criteria for the accommodation service assessment are customer satisfaction rating, price, sales promotions, room amenities, and location. In this study, these criteria were used in the strong-argument statements as follows: 5% off your stay of 3 or more nights with this coupon Price range: GBP 40 85 (USD 60 127) TripAdvisor Rating: 4.6 of 5 stars (based on 75 votes) Clean and spacious rooms with comforta ble beds and plenty of storage Cable TV/DVD, radio/alarm, free high speed wireless Internet access, hair dryer and ironing facilities On the bus route to Edinburgh Airport which is 20 minutes away by bus, with Waverly train station 5 minutes away on foot The same number of statements (i.e., six st atements) was created for the weak argument. In consumer research, weak argument statements are often manipulated with information which has been perceived as insignificant and/or dubious. With tangibl e products, the product

PAGE 54

54appearance-related a ttributes (e.g., color, desi gn for beauty) are treated as less significant than price or functions of the product. However, with intangible produc ts, appearance-related attributes are inappropriate in experimental st udies because an intangible product cannot be described with a single or a fixed number of colo rs and designs. Some research manipulates the weak argument through ne gatively framed messages. However, negatively framed messages are unrealistic because marketers do not publicize ne gatively framed advertisements for their products. In this research, weak argument statements were originat ed and slightly modified from real accommodation advertisements in magazines a nd websites, but they were not relative to the criteria used by the strong argument. The statements were as follows: A warm welcome from the owners dog Charming owners with a friendly smile A little gem of a place Breakfast served by a cheerful breakfast server Absolutely wonderful! Just beyond your imagination Picture presence In the field of attitude research, the direct manipulation of the quality of verbal content (i.e., text arguments) and nonverbal content is commonly used to test whether individuals are engaged in effortful or effortless processing (Rei nhard and Sporer 2008). In consumer research, an effortless cue is manipulated by communicat or attractiveness, communicator status, or communicator likability using nonverb al content. Most studies developed the manipulation into two levels (e.g., famous communicators versus ordinary communicators). However, with hedonic and intangible products, th ese criteria for effortless mani pulation are not applicable. Attractiveness is often treated as a significant product merit for hedonic products and it is often considered as effortful modes. Information from ordinary people is perceived as more credible for intangible and experiential travel products. To assess credibility qualities of intangible

PAGE 55

55products, travelers generally rely on word-of-mout h from their friends an d relatives experiences rather than advertising (Kinard and Capella 200 6). Travel advertising, therefore, focuses on showing how the ordinary people enjoy travel products instead of introducing products through famous celebrities. The effortless mode was operationalized by the presence of a pictur e. The manipulation was developed with a heuristic that pictorial info rmation was faster and easier to process. This study assumed that individuals would focus on pict orial information more than text information when their judgment and its consequences were not significant; and they would focus on both pictorial and text information when their judgment and its consequen ces were significant. In this study, whether a picture would pl ay a counteracting role was examined since effortful and effortless modes co-occurred in high-involvement conditions. For this, the effect of verbal content quality was compared between when a picture was present and when it was not. The picture displayed a simple bedroom which mos tly focused on depicting beds corresponding to pictures in two filler advertisements. For the SandDisk Cruzer USB Flash Drive advertisement, a picture of the USB flash drive was displayed, and for Ts Restaurant, a picture of food was displayed. Measures Dependent variables Attitudes toward a product and purchase intention were first measured for all three products in the same order of advertisements (T able 3-3). Attitudes were measured by the mean of three seven-point semantic differential scal es anchored by the adjectives favorable unfavorable, like very much dislike very much, and positive negative. For the purchase intention measures, participants were asked to indicate the probability th at they would purchase the SanDisk Cruzer USB Flash Drive, choose to stay at the Avalon House if they visited

PAGE 56

56Edinburgh, and have dinner at T s Restaurant if they visited British Columbia with 11-point scales anchored by 0% and 100% Participants in the with-a-p icture condition were asked to respond to extra questions related to the Avalon House to examine whether they focused more on the textual message or pictorial information. Oh and Jasper (2006) de veloped the structured elaboration scale to measure information focus. This scale includes two parts: text-focused processing and picturefocused processing. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with three similarly worded statements for the text-focused processi ng and another three statements for the picturefocused processing using a fivepoint Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree The text-focused elaboration statements were as follows: While I was looking at the Avalon House ad, a. I used the text information to evaluate the Avalon House b. I carefully considered the text information c. I gave a lot of thought to the text informati on in order to judge whether the Avalon House would be a good place to stay The picture-focused elaboration statements were as follows: While I was looking at the Avalon House ad, a. I paid a lot of attention to the picture b. I used the picture to evaluate the Avalon House c. I gave a lot of thought to the picture in orde r to judge whether the Avalon House would be a good place to stay Manipulation checks After the dependent measures, the effectiv eness of the involvement manipulation was assessed. An eight-item seven-point semantic differential scale developed by Kinard and Capella (2006) was used for each advertisement. According to Kinard and Capella (2006), the

PAGE 57

57scale was a modified version of Zaichkowskys (1985) personal i nvolvement inventory (PII). The eight items included essential non-essential, important uni mportant, matters to me does not matter, needed not needed, of con cern of no concern, r elevant irrelevant, significant insignificant, a nd valuable worthless. As a check on the text argument quality manipulation, a four-item seven-point semantic differential scale, m odified from Oh and Jaspers (2006) work, was used for each advertisement. The four items include persuasive unpersuasive, informative uninformative, strong rationale weak rationale, and believable not believable. Results Data Cleaning and Study Participants A total of 134 undergraduate students at Universi ty of Florida (UF) participated in this study to earn extra credit. It took participants an average of nine minutes and 15 seconds to finish the total procedure from manipulation to measurement ( M no picture = 8m 52s and M picture = 11m 55s; Table 3-4). Responses from those w ho spent more than 30 minutes on the study were excluded from the data analysis. Each particip ants IP address was automatically recorded and only the first response from the same IP addresses wa s utilized in the data analysis. After data cleaning and filtering out ineligibles as noted above, a total of 117 responses were usable for data analyses. Cell sizes ranged from 12 to 19 (Table 3-5). Seventy-seven perc ent of the participants were female (Table 3-6). The majority of partic ipants (94%) reported that they had no visitation experiences with Edinburgh. Manipulation Checks Manipulation check studies we re conducted before the hypot hesis tests to see whether manipulations worked as intended (Oh and Ja sper 2006). One-way ANOVA statistics were used

PAGE 58

58to test for manipulation effects in each of two factors: involv ement and text argument quality (Table 3-7). Involvement manipulation Eight items were used to measure the degree of attention each indi vidual directed at product information. Participants in the high-inv olvement condition were expected to perceive the target product (Avalon House) information as more relevant and important than those in the lowinvolvement condition. The eight-item scale was reliable. In the assessment of all three advertisements, Cronbachs Alpha scores were higher than .92 ( SanDisk = .92, Avalon House = .96 and Ts Restaurant = .94). As intended, the involvement level of the ta rget advertisement (Avalon House) was higher for participants in the high-involvement condition ( M = 5.70) than in the low-involvement condition ( M = 4.23; F (1, 97) = 37.64, p < .001). The involvement level of the filler advertisements was not significantly different ( FSanDisk (1, 115) = .97, p = .327 and FTs Restaurant (1, 115) = 1.28, p = .260). Text argument quality manipulation The effect of the text argument quality manipulation was measured using four items modified from Oh and Jaspers (2006) scale. A set of manipulation check questions were asked for each of three products advertisements; SanDisk, Avalon House and Ts Restaurant. The scale was reliable since all Cronbachs Alpha scores were higher than .71 ( SanDisk = .71, Avalon House = .84 and Ts Restaurant = .80). Participants exposed to the target advertisements strong arguments rated them as signi ficantly more persuasive ( M = 5.84) than participants exposed to the target advertisements weak arguments ( M = 4.30; F (1, 104) = 54.51, p < .001). As expected, there was no significant difference on f iller advertisements manipulation measures ( FSanDisk (1, 115) = .09, p = .762 and FTs Restaurant (1, 115) = 1.11, p = .294).

PAGE 59

59Attitudes toward A valon House (H1) Table 3-8 presents the means and standard de viations for each cell on attitudes toward the Avalon House. Attitude was measured with three items and the Cronbachs Alpha score indicated that this scale was reliable ( = .88). The results on attitudes toward two filler products also indicated that this scale was reliable ( SanDisk = .89 and Ts Restaurant = .88). Three-way ANOVA statistics we re conducted to see the thr ee factor main effects and interaction effects (Table 3-9). A significant main effect of picture presence (F (1, 109) = 7.31, p < .01) emerged. This result implied that participants exposed to th e picture were more likely to have positive attitudes to ward the target product ( M picture = 5.86) than those who were not exposed to the picture in the advertisement ( M no-picture = 5.30). There were no further statistically significant results. However, there wa s a possibility that the main effect of text argument quality (F (1, 109) = 2.81, p = .097) and the three-way inte raction effect (F (1, 109) = 2.47, p = .119) might have emerged if the sample si ze were increased. Therefore, follow-up tests (i.e., contrasts) were conducted to identify specific effects. When pictorial information was not provided in the advertisements, the low-involvement participants had no significant difference on att itude toward the target product between the strong-argument condition and the weak-argument condition ( M strong argument = 5.40 and M weak argument = 5.20; F (1, 109) = .29, p = .593); however, th e high-involvement participants had a significant difference on attitude between the strong-argument condition and the weak-argument condition ( M strong argument = 5.82 and M weak argument = 4.95; F (1, 109) = 5.66, p < .05; Figure 3-1). As expected, the strength of the text argument quality had a greater impact on attitude in the high-involvement condition than in the low-i nvolvement condition when there was no picture provided. H1a was accepted.

PAGE 60

60It was predicted that pictorial informati on would have a greater impact under the lowinvolvement condition compared to the high-invo lvement condition. The results indicated that there was no difference in picture impacts on product attitudes be tween lowand highinvolvement conditions. The lowinvolvement participants exposed to the pictorial information showed more favorable attitudes toward the target product as co mpared to the low-involvement participants who were not exposed to the pictorial information ( M picture and low involvement = 5.82 and M no-picture and low involvement = 5.30; F (1, 109) = 3.66, p = .058). The high-involvement participants exposed to the pictorial information also showed more favorable attitudes toward the target product as compared to the high-involvement partic ipants who were not ex posed to the pictorial information ( M picture and high involvement = 5.89 and M no-picture and high involvement = 5.39; F (1, 109) = 3.62, p = .060). Based on these results, H1b was not accepted. The picture impacts were further examined separately in the strong-argument condition and the weak-argument condition. Patterns in Fi gure 3-3 indicated that our H1b prediction was supported in the strong-argument condition. The lo w-involvement participants presented with a picture and strong arguments exhibited a more fa vorable attitude toward the target product ( M = 6.00) as compared to the low-i nvolvement participants presente d with no-picture and strong arguments ( M = 5.40), but it was not statistically si gnificant (F (1, 109) = 2.60, p = .110). The high-involvement participants presented with st rong arguments had no significant difference on attitude despite of the pict ure presence manipulation ( M picture = 5.81 and M no-picture = 5.82). The results in the weak-argument condition pr esented an opposite pattern from our H1b prediction. The attitude mean difference between no-picture and picture conditions were greater in the high-involvement condition ( M picture = 5.97 and M no-picture = 4.95; F (1, 109) = 7.43, p < .01) than the mean difference in the low-involvement condition ( M picture = 5.64 and M no-picture =

PAGE 61

615.20; F (1, 109) = 1.23, p = .269). These results indicated that under the high-involvement condition, participants exposed to weak text ar guments were likely to use the picture as an information source to compensate for insufficien t information from the weak arguments. These outcomes support the offsetting role of pictorial information on the text argument effects under the high-involvement condition. H1c was tested to examine the offsetting role of pictorial information. As expected, there was no significa nt attitude difference between strong and weak arguments under the picture and high-involvement condition ( M strong argument = 5.97 and M weak argument = 5.81; F (1, 109) = .17, p = .683) because the pi cture-information effect counteracted the text-information effect (Figure 3-1). This result indicated that H1c was accepted. Purchase Intention (H1) Purchase intention was measured with a sing le question which asked about the probability that participants would choose to stay at the Avalon House if th ey visited Edinburgh. Table 3-10 presents the means and standard deviations for eac h cell on intention to stay at Avalon House. Three-way ANOVA statistics were conducted to test main effects and interaction effects (Table 3-11). A significant main effect of involvement ( M high involvement = 8.00, M low involvement = 7.14; F (1, 109) = 4.60, p < .05) and a significant main e ffect of text argument quality ( M strong argument = 8.08, M weak argument = 7.07; F (1, 109) = 5.38, p < .05) emerged. Contrasts were conducted to test hypothesis one on inte ntion to stay at Avalon House. The results were similar to the attitude results. Wh en pictorial information was not provided in the advertisements, the low-involvement participan ts had no significant difference on intention between the strong-argument conditi on and the weak-argument condition ( M strong argument = 6.80 and M weak argument = 6.73; F (1, 109) = .01, p = .938); however, the high-involvement participants had a significant difference on intention between the strong-a rgument condition and the weakargument condition ( M strong argument = 8.85 and M weak argument = 7.00; F (1, 109) = 4.95, p < .05;

PAGE 62

62Figure 3-4). As expected, the strength of the text argument quality had a greater impact on intention in the high-involvement condition th an in the low-involvement condition when no picture was provided. H1a was accepted. It was predicted that pictorial informati on would have a greater impact under the lowinvolvement condition compared to the high-involv ement condition. Consistent with the attitude results, the H1b prediction was supported only in the strong-argument condition (Figure 3-5). The low-involvement participants presented wi th a picture and strong arguments exhibited a greater level of intention ( M = 7.93) as compared to the low-i nvolvement participants presented with no-picture and strong arguments ( M = 6.80), but it was not sta tistically significant ( F (1, 109) = 1.81, p = .181). As expected, the high-involveme nt participants presented with strong arguments had no difference on intention desp ite picture or no-picture manipulation ( M picture = 8.81 and M no-picture = 8.85; F (1, 109) = .002, p = .964). Based on these results, H1b was not accepted. There was no significant difference in pur chase intention between strong and weak arguments under the picture and high-involvement condition ( M strong argument = 8.81 and M weak argument = 7.58; F (1, 109) = 1.95, p = .165; Figure 3-4). Based on this result, H1c was accepted. Information Focus (H2) Table 3-12 presents the means and standard de viations of the textand picture-focused processing for each cell. The reliability scor e (Cronbachs Alpha) was .85 for text-focused processing and .90 for picture-focused processing. To test H2, a paired-samples t -test was conducted to evaluate whether the mean difference between two variables, text-focused processing and picture-focused pro cessing, was significantly different from zero (Green and Salkind 2003). A paired-samples t -test is applicable as a repeated-measures design with no intervention. For a repeated-measures design, a respondent

PAGE 63

63should be assessed on two occasions on one m easure (Green and Salkind 2003). Each respondent had scores on two vari ables, textand picture-focuse d processing. It was expected that the picture-focused mean w ould be significantly greater than the text-focused mean in the low-involvement condition; and there would be no significant mean differ ence between picturefocused and text-focused processing in the high -involvement condition. Results of the pairedsamples t -test indicated that there was no significant mean difference in both low-involvement and high-involvement conditions. H2a was not supported and H2b was accepted. Two-way ANOVA statistics were additionally conducted for the text-focused processing (Table 3-13) and the picture-focused processing (T able 3-14). There were no significant results in the ANOVA statistics. However, if the sample size was increased, the text argument quality might have had a main effect on text-focused processing ( F (1, 51) = 2.07, p = .156) and the involvement might have had a main e ffect on picture-focused processing ( F (1, 51) = 3.59, p = .064). Participants exposed to the strong argum ents were more likely to focus on text information ( M = 3.84) than participants exposed to the weak arguments ( M = 3.49). The lowinvolvement participants were more likel y to focus on the pict orial information ( M = 4.10) than the high-involvement participants ( M = 3.60). Discussion The main objectives of experiment one we re to assess (1) the moderating role of involvement in the no-picture condition; (2) the greater picture impact in the low-involvement condition compared to the high-involvement condition; and (3) the pictures offsetting role on the weak-argument effect in the high-involveme nt condition. The results suggest that the moderating role of involvement is carried out in the no-picture condition, but not in the picturepresent condition. The hypotheses te sting results showed that the strength of the text argument quality had greater impacts on produ ct attitude and purchase inten tions in the high-involvement

PAGE 64

64condition compared to the low-involvement cond ition when no picture was provided. However, as expected, this result trend wa s not consistent with the results when a picture was provided. Related to the picture effect in the low-involvement conditio n, the greater picture impact was present only in the strong-argument conditio n and was not statistically significant at p < .05. The results of picture impact in the weak-arg ument condition actually supported the offsettingrole assumption that under the high-involvement condition, participants exposed to the weak arguments were likely to use the picture as inform ation to offset a lack of useful information from the weak arguments in making their judgments. The hypothesis two results suggest that the assumption related to the pictures role in the low-involvement condition is weak. It was hypothe sized that the low-invo lvement participants were more likely to focus on picture informati on than text information. The results were consistent with that hypothesis; however, there was no statistically signi ficant difference between picture-focused processing and text-focused proc essing. The picture effect assumption in a lowinvolvement condition should be re-teste d with a larger sample. The pictures offsetting role is present in the high-involvement condition. The results showed that there was no signi ficant attitudinal and intentiona l difference between strong and weak arguments under the picture and high-invo lvement condition. In addition, there was no significant difference between text-focused a nd picture-focused processing under the highinvolvement condition. Experiment one makes two contributions rela tive to involvements moderating role and pictures offsetting role. Thes e assumptions were unique comp ared to the traditional dualprocess models based on the dichotomous appro ach. According to the dichotomous approach, involvement moderates the effortfuland effor tless-mode effects. For example, people use

PAGE 65

65effortful processing in high-invol vement situations and they us e effortless processing in lowinvolvement situations. However, it is posited here that in high-involve ment situations, people use both effortful and effortless modes in thei r decision making. Accordingly, the moderating role of involvement exists when only the effortfu l mode is provided; and picture information (the effortless mode) offsets negative effects caused by insufficient text information (the effortful mode) in high-involvement situations. Experiment one was conducted originally to check whether the thre e-factorial design was developed in an appropriate manner before conduc ting a larger study. It was planned to have a minimal sample size for each cell in order to save potential participants for experiment two. The results of experiment one suggest that the pi cture-effect assumption in the low-involvement condition needed to be re-tested with a larger sa mple. In addition, the pictures offsetting role should be further examined in attractiveand unattractive-picture condi tions. It was also assumed that the effortful mode, especially strong text arguments, also played an offsetting role in high-involvement situations wh en an unattractive picture was provided. Thus, the hypotheses would be modified and test ed in a second experiment.

PAGE 66

66Table 3-1. Assumptions and Hypotheses for Experiment 1 Hypothesis 1 Attitude Results Intention Results A1 Involvement moderates the effortfulmode effects when the effortless cue was not provided. H1a: The strength of the text argument quality will have a greater impact on product attitudes under the high-involvement condition compared to the low-involvement condition when there is no picture provided. Accepted Accepted A2 The effortless mode has more signi ficant effects than the effortful mode under the low-involvement condition because people focus on the effortless mode in information pro cessing instead of the effortful mode when their perceived relevance toward decision making is low. H1b: Pictorial information will have a greater impact on product attitudes under the low-involvement condition compared to the highinvolvement condition. Rejected Rejected A3 People focus on both effortful and effortless modes under the highinvolvement condition to compensate for insufficient information of the effortful mode. Accordingly, the effortless mode offsets the negative effect of effortful mode under the high-involvement condition. H1c: There will be no significant attitude difference between strong and weak arguments under the high-involvement and with-picture condition. Accepted Accepted Hypothesis 2 Attitude Results Intention Results A2 The effortless mode will have more significant effects than the effortful mode under the low-involvement condition because people focus on the effortless mode in information pro cessing instead of the effortful mode when their perceived relevance toward decision making is low. H2a: Low-involvement participants will be more likely to focus on the pictorial information than the text information. Rejected Rejected A3 People focus on both effortful and effortless modes under the highinvolvement condition to compensate for insufficient information of the effortful mode. Accordingly, the effortless mode offsets the negative effect of effortful mode under the high-involvement condition. H2b: High-involvement participants will focus on both text and pictorial information. Accepted Accepted

PAGE 67

67Table 3-2. Eight Websites for Di fferent Manipulation Conditions Factor Involvement Text Argument Quality for Effortful Mode Picture Presence for Effortless Mode Website 1 High Strong With a picture Website 2 Low Strong With a picture Website 3 High Weak With a picture Website 4 Low Weak With a picture Website 5 High Strong No picture Website 6 Low Strong No picture Website 7 High Weak No picture Website 8 Low Weak No picture (Format) (A written role-playing scenario) (An advertisement)

PAGE 68

68Table 3-3. Measurement for Experiment 1 Goal Variable Measures Manipulation check Involvementa The Avalon House ad (was): 1. Essential Non-essential 2. Important Unimportant 3. Matters to me Does not matter 4. Needed Not needed 5. Of concern Of no concern 6. Relevant Irrelevant 7. Significant Insignificant 8. Valuable Worthless Manipulation check Text argument qualitya The text information of the Avalon House ad (was): 1. Believable Not believable 2. Informative Uninformative 3. Persuasive Unpersuasive 4. Strong rationale Weak rationale Dependent variable Attitude toward the producta Please indicate your overall opinions about the Avalon House 1. Favorable Unfavorable 2. Like very much Dislike very much 3. Positive Negative Dependent variable Purchase intentionc The probability that you would choose to stay at Avalon House if you visit Edinburgh is: 0% 100% Information focus Text-focused processingb While I was looking at the Avalon House ad, 1. I used the text information to evaluate the Avalon House 2. I carefully considered the text information 3. I gave a lot of thoughts to the text information in order to judge whether the Avalon House would be good to stay Dependent variable Picturefocused processingb While I was looking at the Avalon House ad, 1. I used the picture to evaluate the Avalon House 2. I paid a lot of attention to the picture 3. I gave a lot of thoughts to the picture in order to judge whether the Avalon House would be good to stay a. 7-point semantic scale b. 5-point Likert scale c. 11-point scale

PAGE 69

69Table 3-4. Duration of Study Pa rticipation by Group (N=117) Low Involvement High Involvement Weak Argument Strong Argument Weak Argument Strong Argument No Picture 9m04s 9m23s 9m36s 8m34s Picture 8m46s 9m23s 9m31s 9m42s Units: m = minutes and s = seconds; The average of 8 groups = 9m15s Table 3-5. Number of Study Participants by Group (N=117) Low Involvement High Involvement Weak Argument Strong Argument Weak Argument Strong Argument No Picture 15 15 19 13 Picture 12 15 12 16 Table 3-6. Descriptive Statis tics of Study Participants Frequency Percent Gender Male 27 23.1 % Female 90 76.9 % Travel experience to Edinburgh Yes 7 6.0 % No 110 94.0 %

PAGE 70

70Table 3-7. Means and ANOVA Statistics for Mani pulation Checks of Involvement and Text Argument Quality Cronbachs Alpha F (df) p Mean Mean Involvement Low High SanDisk .92 .97 (1, 115) .327 3.75 (1.39) 3.50 (1.33) Avalon House .96 37.64 (1, 97) .000*** 4.23 (1.51) 5.70 (1.02) Ts Restaurant .94 1.28 (1, 115) .260 4.49 (1.34) 4.22 (1.28) Text Argument Quality Weak Strong SanDisk .71 .09 (1, 115) .762 5.19 (1.00) 5.25 (0.99) Avalon House .84 54.51 (1, 104) .000*** 4.30 (1.29) 5.84 (0.94) Ts Restaurant .80 1.11 (1, 115) .294 4.78 (1.11) 4.56 (1.15) p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 Note: Scores represent the average rating on nine-point scales anchored at 1 (negative meaning) and 7 (positive meaning). Standard deviations are in parentheses.

PAGE 71

71Table 3-8. Means of Attitudea toward Avalon House Low Involvement High Involvement Weak Argument Strong Argument Weak Argument Strong Argument No Picture 5.20 (1.08) 5.40 (1.02) 4.95 (1.13) 5.82 (0.63) Picture 5.64 (1.19) 6.00 (0.91) 5.97 (1.15) 5.81 (0.91) Note: Scores represent the average rating on nine-point scales anchored at 1 (negative meaning) and 7 (positive meaning). Standard deviations are in parentheses. a. Cronbachs Alpha (3 items) = .88 Table 3-9. Three-Way ANOVA Statistic s on Attitude toward Avalon House Source SS df MS F Sig. Involvement (I) .18 1 .18 .17 .681 Text argument quality (T) 2.91 1 2.91 2.81 .097 Picture presence (P) 7.56 1 7.56 7.31 .008** I x T .04 1 .04 .04 .842 I x P .00 1 .00 .00 .977 T x P 1.36 1 1.36 1.31 .254 I x T x P 2.55 1 2.55 2.47 .119 I at P no a .11 1 .11 0.10 .752 T at P no a 4.38 1 4.38 4.21 .043* I x T at P no a 1.72 1 1.72 1.66 .200 T between strong and weak at I low and P no a .30 1 .30 .29 .593 T between strong and weak at I high and P no a 5.89 1 5.89 5.66 .019* T between strong and weak at I low and P picture a .87 1 .87 .84 .363 T between strong and weak at I high and P picture a .18 1 .18 .17 .683 I at T strong a .20 1 .20 .19 .664 P at T strong a 1.29 1 1.29 1.24 .268 I x P at T strong a 1.36 1 1.36 1.30 .257 P between no and picture at I low and T strong a 2.70 1 2.70 2.60 .110 P between no and picture at I high and T strong a .00 1 .00 .00 N/A P between no and picture at I low and T weak a 1.28 1 1.28 1.23 .269 P between no and picture at I high and T weak a 7.73 1 7.73 7.43 .007** Error 112.84 109 1.04 p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 a. F score was calculated by hand using the three-way ANOVA Error term

PAGE 72

72Table 3-10. Means of Intenti on to Stay at Avalon House Low Involvement High Involvement Weak Argument Strong Argument Weak Argument Strong Argument No Picture 6.73 (2.40) 6.80 (2.15) 7.00 (2.89) 8.85 (1.21) Picture 7.08 (2.47) 7.93 (2.31) 7.58 (3.00) 8.81 (1.28) Note: Scores represent on eleven-point scales anchored at 0 (0%) and 11 (100%). Standard deviations are in parentheses. Table 3-11. Three-Way ANOVA Statistics on In tention to Stay at Avalon House Source SS df MS F Sig. Involvement (I) 24.40 1 24.40 4.60 .034* Text argument quality (T) 28.52 1 28.52 5.38 .022* Picture presence (P) 7.40 1 7.40 1.39 .240 I x T 8.34 1 8.34 1.57 .213 I x P 1.56 1 1.56 .29 .589 T x P .05 1 .05 .01 .923 I x T x P 3.51 1 3.51 .66 .418 I at P no a 20.35 1 20.35 3.83 .053 T at P no a 13.92 1 13.92 2.62 .108 I x T at P no a 12.05 1 12.05 2.27 .135 T between strong and weak at I low and P no a .03 1 .03 .01 .938 T between strong and weak at I high and P no a 26.31 1 26.31 4.95 .028* T between strong and weak at I low and P picture a 4.82 1 4.82 .91 .343 T between strong and weak at I high and P picture a 10.36 1 10.36 1.95 .165 I at T strong a 31.37 1 31.37 5.91 .017* P at T strong a 4.43 1 4.43 .84 .361 I x P at T strong a 4.99 1 4.99 .94 .334 P between no and picture at I low and T strong a 9.63 1 9.63 1.81 .181 P between no and picture at I high and Tstrong a .01 1 .01 .002 .964 P between no and picture at I low and T weak a .82 1 .82 .15 .696 P between no and picture at I high and T weak a 2.50 1 2.50 .47 .494 Error 578.23 109 5.31 p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 a. F score was calculated by hand using the three-way ANOVA Error term

PAGE 73

73Table 3-12. Means of Information Focus: Text -Focused and Picture-Focused Processing Low Involvement High Involvement Weak Argument Strong Argument Weak Argument Strong Argument Picture Presence Text-Focused a 3.56 (0.89) 3.71 (0.96) 3.42 (0.88) 3.96 (0.83) Picture-Focused b 4.22 (0.77) 3.98 (1.07) 3.36 (1.12) 3.83 (0.90) n = 12 t (11) = -1.69 n = 15 t (14) = -.60 n = 12 t (11) = .11 n = 16 t (15) = .44 Note: Scores represent the average rating on seven-point scales anchored at 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). Standard deviations are in parentheses. a. Cronbachs Alpha (3 items) = .85 b. Cronbachs Alpha (3 items) = .90 Table 3-13. Two-Way ANOVA Stat istics of Information Focus: Text-Focused Processing Source SS df MS F Sig. Involvement (I) .04 1 .04 .05 .824 Text argument quality (T) 1.64 1 1.64 2.07 .156 I x T .50 1 .50 .64 .429 Error 40.49 51 .79 p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 Table 3-14. Two-Way ANOVA Stat istics of Information Focus: Picture-Focused Processing Source SS df MS F Sig. Involvement (I) 3.42 1 3.42 3.59 .064 Text argument quality (T) .18 1 .18 .18 .669 I x T 1.74 1 1.74 1.83 .183 Error 48.50 51 0.95 p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001

PAGE 74

74 Figure 3-1. Attitude toward Avalon House. A) No picture and B) Picture Figure 3-2. Picture Effect on Att itude toward Avalon House. A) Strong argument and B) Weak argument 4.95 5.20 5.97 5.64 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 A B 5.82 5.40 5.81 6.00 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 Picture No picture Low involvement High involvement Low involvement High involvement 5.20 4.95 5.40 5.82 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 5.64 5.97 6.00 5.81 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 Strong argument Weak argument A Low involvement High involvement Low involvement High involvement B

PAGE 75

75 Figure 3-3. Intention to Stay at Avalon House. A) No picture and B) Picture Figure 3-4. Picture Effect on Intention to Stay at Avalon House. A) Strong argument and B) Weak argument 6.73 7.00 6.80 8.85 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 8.81 7.08 7.58 7.93 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 Strong argument Weak argument A Low involvement High involvement Low involvement High involvement B A B 6.80 8.85 7.93 8.81 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 6.73 7.00 7.08 7.58 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 Picture No picture Low involvement High involvement Low involvement High involvement

PAGE 76

76CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENT 2 Experiment two examined the effects of effort ful and effortless modes; the moderating role of involvement with these effects; and the offsetting role of the e ffortful and effortless modes in high-involvement situations with a larger sample. The assumptions were the same as experiment one; however, some hypotheses were modified becau se the effortless mode was examined within three levels instead of two levels. Consistent with experiment one, involvement was operationalized as a product decisionmaking involvement (i.e., high involvement or low involvement). The effortful mode was operationlized as text argument quality (i.e ., strong arguments or weak arguments). The effortless mode was operationlized as picture attrac tiveness within three levels (i.e., no picture, an attractive picture or an unattractive picture) to examine the direction of picture impacts (i.e., positive impacts or negative impacts), the attractive pictures offsetting role on the weakargument effect, and the strong arguments offse tting role on the unattr active-picture effect. Hypotheses Likewise, the hypotheses were comprised of two parts. The first part (H1) was tested by measuring attitudes toward a product and a purch ase intention as dependent variables. The second part (H2) was tested by measuring in formation focus (text-focused processing and picture-focused processing) as dependent variab les. The three assumptions and two sets of hypotheses are as follow (Table 4-1): Hypothesis 1 (H1) Assumption 1: Involvement moderates the effo rtful mode effects when the effortless cue was not provided.

PAGE 77

77H1a: The strength of the text argument qua lity will have a greater impact on product attitudes under the high-involvement condi tion compared to the low-involvement condition when there is no picture provided. Assumption 2: The effortless mode has more significant effects than the effortful mode under the low-involvement condition because people focus on the effortless mode in information processing instead of the effortful mode when th eir perceived relevance toward decision making is low. H1b: Pictorial information will have a grea ter impact on product attitudes under the lowinvolvement condition compared to the high-involvement condition. Assumption 3: People focus on both effort ful and effortless modes under the highinvolvement condition to compensate for insuffi cient information from one or the other. Accordingly, the effortful mode or the effortless mode offsets the negative effect from the other mode under the high-involvement condition. H1c: There will be no significant attitude di fference between strong and weak arguments under the high-involvement and attractive-pictur e condition because of the offsetting effect of attractive picture on weak-argument effect. H1d: There will be a signifi cant attitude difference between strong and weak arguments under the high-involvement and unattractive-picture condition because of the offsetting effect of strong arguments on unattractive-picture effect. Hypothesis 2 (H2) Assumption 2: The effortless mode will have more significant effects than the effortful mode under the low-involvement condition because people focus on the effortless mode in information processing instead of the effortful mode when their percei ved relevance toward decision making is low.

PAGE 78

78H2a: Low-involvement participants will be more likely to focus on the pictorial information (both attractive and unattractive pictures) th an the text information. Assumption 3: People focus on both effort ful and effortless modes under the highinvolvement condition to compensate for insuffi cient information from one or the other. Accordingly, the effortful mode or the effortless mode offsets the negative effect from the other mode under the high-involvement condition. H2b: High-involvement participants will focu s on both text and pictorial information. Methods Design A factorial 2 (involvement: high or low) x 2 (text argument quality: strong or weak) x 3 (picture attractiveness: no pict ure, attractive pictur e or unattractive pict ure) between-subject experimental design was employed. Twelve websites with differe nt manipulation conditions and dependent and manipulation check measures we re developed (Table 4-2 and Table 4-3). Students in eight undergraduate c ourses in the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management at University of Florida (UF) a nd students in two undergraduate courses in the School of Community Resources and Developmen t at Arizona State University (ASU) were asked to volunteer to particip ate in the study thro ugh an email from the researcher with permission from each course instructor. The email included a study introduction and one of 12 website links. Students UF or ASU email addr ess provided by the cour se instructors were combined together and arranged in alphabetical order. The list was grouped into 12 sub-samples by numbering each person from one to 12 in order. Participants earned extra credit for their class based on each instructors decision.

PAGE 79

79Procedure The procedures for experiment two were basi cally the same as experiment one. Each website was comprised of five sections: 1) an informed consent form and instructions; 2) a written role-playing scenario fo r the involvement manipulation a nd three advertisements for the text-argument quality and picture-presence mani pulations; 3) dependent and manipulation check measures; 4) respondent characteris tics questions; and 5) debriefing. There were some changes from experiment one in displaying three advertisements. While the three advertisements were provided on a si ngle webpage in experiment one, the three advertisements were provided on separate webpa ges in experiment two. The order of filler advertisements was reversed. In experiment one, the SanDisk advertisement (a filler advertisement) was first displayed, followed by th e Avalon Houses (the target advertisement) and Ts Restaurants (a filler advertisement). In experiment two, Ts Restaurant (a filler advertisement) was first displayed, followed by Adria House (the target advertisement) and SanDisk (a filler adve rtisement). Stimuli Development The same products from experiment one were used for the stimuli: a Bed and Breakfast (B&B) in Edinburgh, Scotland for th e target product; and a restaurant and a Universal Serial Bus (USB) flash drive for the filler products. The na me of the target product (a B&B) was changed to Adria House from Avalon House. The product names for filler advertisements were same as Ts Restaurant and SanDisk Cr uzer (USB flash drive). The involvement manipulation was the same as experiment one. The text argument quality manipulation was slightly modified in the weak -argument statements. A word, friendly, was excluded and a word, cheerful, was replaced by nice. The modified statements for the weakargument condition were as follows:

PAGE 80

80 Charming owners with a ( friendly was excluded ) smile A warm welcome from the owners dog A little gem of a place Breakfast served by a nice ( instead of cheerful ) breakfast server Absolutely wonderful! Just beyond your imagination The picture attractiveness manipulation was developed within thr ee levels: no-picture condition, an attractive-picture condition and an unattractive-picture condition. Attractive and unattractive pictures focused on the manner of re ndering in pictures base d on criteria such as elegance and style for the attractive picture and inelegance and cheap for the unattractive picture (Miniard et al. 1991). A pretest was conducted to select a picture fo r the attractive condition and a picture for the unattractive condition. Seven pictures (pictures A to G; Table 4-4) were copied from hotel and B&B websites based on the criteria which incl uded a bed (or two beds) and a window. Among the seven pictures, four pictures (picture A, E, F and G) additi onally depicted a chair, and two pictures (picture B and C) were depicted a desk. Each picture was measured for picture attractiveness using the mean of three seven-poin t semantic differential scales anchored by the adjectives unattractive attractive, ugly beautiful, and very unlikeable ve ry likeable. Fifty-two undergraduate students at the University of Florida part icipated in this pretest. Picture G was rated as most attractive ( M = 6.50) among the seven pict ures; therefore, it was selected as the attractive pictur e for experiment two. This pict ure illustrated a bed, a window and a chair. These three items were considered to be matched in selecting an unattractive picture. Four pictures (picture B, C, D, and F) were rated below the mean scor e of 5.00. Pictures C and D illustrated two beds in a room and picture B i llustrated a desk. Since depicting multiple beds and a desk in a room can be treated as the addi tional functional information compared to picture

PAGE 81

81G, pictures B, C and D were disregarded and picture F ( M = 4.53) was selected as the unattractive picture. Measures Dependent variables Dependent variable measures were the same as experiment one (Table 4-3). Attitudes toward a product and purchase intention were me asured to test hypothesis one. Information focus, text-focused processing and picture-focu sed processing, was meas ured to test hypothesis two. The same scale items from experiment one were used in experiment two; however, the length of the attitude scale was expanded from a seven-point to a nine-poi nt semantic scale and the length of the information-focus scale was expa nded from a five-point to a seven-point Likert scale. Manipulation checks Manipulations on involvement and text argumen t quality were measured using the same scales from experiment one, but the length of al l scales were expanded fro m seven-point to ninepoint semantic scales. Two more questions we re additionally asked in experiment two to measure the rates of mental efforts that partic ipants spent in textand picture-information processing (as the total of both processing was 10 0%) and the perceived easiness of information processing between text and picture information. Participants in the unattractiv eor attractive-picture condi tion were asked to respond to extra questions related to the pi cture attractiveness manipulation. First, a six-item nine-point semantic differential scale modified from Oh an d Jaspers (2006) scale was used to measure picture attractiveness for each of three advertisem ents. The six items were constructed into two frames: three items (attractive unattractive, beautiful ugly, and very likeable very unlikeable) for the measure of he donically attractive and three ite ms (functional not functional,

PAGE 82

82practical impractical, useful useless) for meas ure of functionally attrac tive. In addition, two questions were asked to measure picture inform ativeness and picture re levance using a ninepoint semantic differential scale. Results Data Cleaning and Study Participants A total of 340 undergraduate students at Univ ersity of Florida (UF) and Arizona State University (ASU) participated in this study to earn extra credit. It took participants an average of 11 minutes and 10 seconds to finish the total procedure from manipulation to measurement (Table 4-5). Since participants exposed to an attrac tive or unattractive pi cture were asked to respond to 13 more questions, these respondents took longer to finish the study compared to participants who were not exposed to a picture ( M no picture = 8m 55s, M attractive picture = 11m 54s and M unattractive picture = 12m 42s). Responses from those who spent more than 30 minutes on the study were excluded from the data analysis. Each participant was asked to provide their UF or ASU email address and the email addresses we re matched against previous study (i.e., experiment one) participants. Responses from thos e who also participated in the pilot study were excluded from the final study for the data anal ysis. Each participants IP address was automatically recorded and only the earlier response from the same IP addresses was utilized in the data analysis. After data cleaning and filter ing out ineligibles as noted above, a total of 284 responses were usable for data analyses. Cell sizes ranged from 20 to 26 (Table 4-6). Slightly more than half (54.6%) of the participants were female (Tab le 4-7). Eighty-one percent of participants were UF undergraduate students and nineteen percent were AS U undergraduate students. The majority of participants (95%) re ported that they had no visitation experience in Edinburgh.

PAGE 83

83Manipulation Checks One-way ANOVA statistics were used to test for manipulation effect s in each of three factors; involvement, text argument quality and pi cture attractiveness. In addition, two questions were asked to measure the mental efforts that pa rticipants spent in processing text and picture information. Involvement manipulation Eight items were used to measure the degree of attention an individua l directed at product information. Participants in the high-involvement condition were expected to perceive the target product (Adria House) information as more rele vant and important than those in the lowinvolvement condition. The eight-i tem scale was reliable. In the assessment of all three advertisements, Cronbachs Alpha scores were higher than .94 ( Adria House = .95, Ts Restaurant = .94 and SanDisk = .96; Table 4-8). As intended, the involvement level of the targ et advertisement (Adria House) was higher for participants under the high-involvement condition ( M = 6.70) than under the lowinvolvement condition ( M = 5.32; F (1, 282) = 56.49, p < .001). The involvement level of the filler advertisements was lower for particip ants in the high-involvement condition ( M Ts Restaurant = 4.88 and M SanDisk = 4.79) than the lower involvement condition ( M Ts Restaurant = 5.46 and M SanDisk = 5.75; F (1, 275) Ts Restaurant = 9.49, p < .01 and F (1, 274) SanDisk = 18.71, p < .001). These results give us increased confidence that the i nvolvement manipulation was working in a logical manner. Text argument quality manipulation The effect of the text argument quality manipulation was measured using four items modified from Oh and Jaspers (2006) scale. A set of manipulation check questions were asked for each of three products advertisements; Ts Restaurant, Adria House and SanDisk. The scale

PAGE 84

84was reliable since all Cronbachs Alpha scores were higher than .79 ( Ts Restaurant = .81, Adria House = .90 and SanDisk = .79). Participants exposed to strong arguments rated them as significantly more persuasive ( M = 7.31) than participants exposed to weak arguments ( M = 5.49; F = 103.78, p < .001). The same texts were provided in both st rongand weak-argumen t conditions on filler advertisements, Ts Restaurants and SanDisks. The Ts Restaurant advertisement, when displayed before the target advertisement (Adria House), indicated that there was no significant difference between strong and weak arguments as expected ( M weak = 6.21 and M strong = 6.05; F = .913, p = .340). However, the SanDisk advertisem ent, when displayed after the target advertisement (Adria House), indicated that there was a significant difference ( F = 6.48, p < .05). Participants who were under Adria Houses st rong-argument condition perceived the SanDisks text arguments as less persuasive ( M = 6.73) than those who were under Adria Houses weakargument condition ( M = 7.13). Picture attractiveness manipulation As a check on the picture attractiveness mani pulation, three questions were asked for each of three-product advertisements. The firs t question was developed to measure picture attractiveness. Six items were used for this measurement and this scale was reliable ( Adria House = .90, Ts Restaurant = .88 and SanDisk = .86; Table 4-9). Participan ts exposed to the attractive picture rated them as significantly more attractive and useful ( M = 7.53) than did participants exposed to the unattractive picture ( M = 5.91; F = 73.731, p < .001). The measure of picture attractiveness consis ted of two frames, hedonically attractive (e.g., attractive, beautiful, likeable) a nd functionally attractiv e (e.g., useful, functi onal, practical). Participants in the attractive-picture condition rated them as more attractive in both frames ( M hedonic = 7.71 and M functional = 7.36) than those in the una ttractive-picture condition ( M hedonic =

PAGE 85

855.31 and M functional = 6.50; F (1, 153) hedonic = 109.437, p < .001 and F (1, 187) functional = 17.744, p < .001). The picture attractiveness manipulation check resu lts showed similar patterns with the text argument quality manipulation checks on filler adve rtisements. The filler advertisements, Ts Restaurants and SanDisks, provided the same pictures in both attr activeand unattractivepicture conditions. Results of the Ts Restaurant advertisement, wh en displayed before the target advertisement, indicated that there was no significant difference between attractive and unattractive pictures as expected ( M attractive = 6.44 and M unattractive = 6.46; F = .005, p = .941). When the SanDisk advertisement was displayed after the target advertisement, the results indicated that there was a significant difference ( F = 5.671, p < .05). Participants who were in the Adria Houses attractive-pictur e condition perceived the SanDisk s picture as less attractive ( M = 6.03) than those who were in the Adri a Houses unattractive-picture condition ( M = 6.46). The second and third questions were asked to check whether the picture provided in the advertisement was informative and relevant fo r making a decision on whet her to stay at the Adria House. It was expected that the attrac tive and unattractive pictur es would play equally informative and relevant roles in decision making. The analysis of these questions indicated that participants in the attractive-picture condition perceived the picture as more informative and relevant to decision making ( M informative = 7.44 and M relevant = 7.55) than those in the unattractive-picture condition ( M informative = 6.87 and M relevant = 7.10; F informative = 6.349, p < .05 and F relevant = 4.115, p < .05). However, the mean difference scores on informativeness and relevance between the two different conditions we re much smaller than the mean difference scores on attractiveness. The mean difference score for informativeness measure was -0.57 and

PAGE 86

86the mean difference score for relevance measur e was -0.45, while the mean difference score for attractiveness measure was -1.62. Information processing between text and picture information Additionally, the assumption that text info rmation requires more mental effort in processing than picture information was tested. Participants were asked to report the mental effort spent processing text and picture informa tion. The results indicated that an average of 55.4% of mental effort was spent for text-information processing (Tab le 4-10). Participants were also asked to respond as to their perception of which type of information was easier to process. Sixty-one percent of participants reported that picture information was easier to process than text information (Table 4-11). Attitude toward Adria House (H1) Table 4-12 presents the means and standard de viations for each cell on attitudes toward the Adria House. Attitude was measured with thr ee items and the Cronbachs Alpha score indicated that this scale was reliable ( = .86). The results on attitudes toward two filler products also indicated that this scale was reliable ( Ts Restaurant = .80 and SanDisk = .87). Three-way ANOVA statistics were conducted to s ee the three factor main effect s and interaction effects. A significant main effect of text argument quality ( F (1, 272) = 4.86, p < .05) and a significant main effect of picture attractiveness ( F (2, 272) = 4.33, p < .05) emerged (Table 4-13). The presence of the text argument quality main effect implied that the two means were not the same ( M strong = 6.94 and M weak = 6.56) and the presence of the pi cture attractiveness main effect implied that the three means were not the same ( M no picture = 6.86, M attractive picture = 6.99 and M unattractive picture = 6.40) (Keppel and Wickens 2004). There was a significant threeway interaction effect ( F (2, 272) = 3.26, p < .05). Because of this three-way interaction effect, the results of the text argument quality and picture

PAGE 87

87attractiveness main effects were disregarded. Fu rther analyses were cond ucted to interpret the three-way interaction effect. According to Keppel and Wickens (2004), when a three-way interaction is present (1) the simple interactions of two variables differ with the levels of the third variable; (2) at least two of the simple interac tion effects are different; or (3) they cannot all duplicate the interaction based on the two-way marginal means. All simple interactions of two factors at each level of the th ird factor were checked (Keppel and Wickens 2004). For example, a pair of involvement (I) x text argument quality (T) studies at each level of picture attractiveness (P) was conducted. Figure 4-1 displays the simp le interaction in the no-picture condition (I x T at P no picture); Figure 4-2 displays the simple interaction in the attractive-picture condition (I x T at P attractive picture); and Figure 4-3 displays the simple interaction in the unattractive-picture condition (I x T at P unattractive picture). Since we have two more pa irs (I x P and T x P), these pairs at each level of the third fact or were also investigated. According to Table 4-13, there was a significan t simple effect of involvement in the nopicture condition ( F (1, 272) = 5.04, p < .05). High-involvement participants ( M = 7.20) were more favorable to the Adria House than low-involvement participants ( M = 6.53). However, there was no simple interaction e ffect of involvement and text ar gument quality in the no-picture condition (I x T at P no picture; F (1, 272) = .22, p = .640; Figure 4-1). Thes e results indicated that the prediction of the involvem ent moderating role in the no-picture condition (H1a) was not accepted. It was hypothesized that pictorial informati on would have a greater impact in the lowinvolvement condition compared to the high-invo lvement condition. The results indicated that there was no interaction eff ect of involvement and pict ure attractiveness (I x P; F (1, 272) = 1.94, p = .145). In addition, there was no simple picture effect on attitude at the low-involvement level

PAGE 88

88( F (1, 272) = 2.28, p = .104), but there was a significant simple picture effect at the highinvolvement level ( F (1, 272) = 3.94, p < .05). Based on these results, H1b was not accepted. The picture impacts were separately exam ined between strongand weak-argument conditions. Consistent with th e results in experiment one, th e H1b prediction was supported in the strong-argument condition. Patterns in Figure 4-6 indicated that the attractive-picture has a positive impact on attitude ( M attractive picture = 7.53 and M no picture = 6.72) under the strongargument and low-involvement condition. Al though the impact in the low-involvement condition was not statis tically significant ( F (1, 272) = 3.55, p = .061), this impact was greater than the impact in the high-involvement condition ( M attractive picture = 6.94 and M no picture = 7.26; F (1, 272) = .61, p = .436). The results in the weak-argument condition presented an opposite pattern from the H1b prediction. There was a significant negative impact of the unattract ive picture on attitude at the high-involvement level ( M unattractive picture = 5.92 and M no picture = 7.14; F (1, 272) = 8.47, p < .01) and this impact was greater than the impact at the low-involvement level ( M unattractive picture = 6.48 and M no picture = 6.33; F (1, 272) = .11, p = .740). There was no significant attitude difference between strong and weak arguments under the attractive-picture and hi gh-involvement condition ( M strong argument = 6.94 and M weak argument = 6.97; F (1, 272) = 0.01, p = .929; Figure 4-5). These result indica ted that the attractive picture offset the weak-argument effect in the high-involvement condition; therefore th ere was no significant attitude difference between strongand weak -argument conditions. However, there was a significant attitude difference between strong an d weak arguments under the unattractive-picture and high-involvement condition ( M strong argument = 6.86 and M weak argument = 5.92; F (1, 272) = 5.04, p < .05). This result indicated that the stro ng arguments offset the unattractive-picture

PAGE 89

89effect in the high-involvement condition. Because of the strong arguments, participants exposed to the unattractive picture still had a more favorable attitude toward a product compared to participants exposed to the una ttractive picture and weak argu ments in the high-involvement condition. Based on these results, H1c and H1d were accepted. Purchase Intention (H1) Purchase intention was measured with a sing le question which asked about the probability that participants would choose to stay at the Adria House if th ey visited Edinburgh. Table 4-14 presents the means and standard deviations for each cell on intention to st ay at Adria House. Three-way ANOVA statistics were conducted to test main effects and interaction effects. The mean-score patterns shown in intention figures were very similar to the mean-score patterns shown in attitude figures (please compare betwee n Figures 4-1 and Figure 4-12). The results of hypotheses tests on intention had more statistically significant cases than the results of hypotheses tests on attitude (Table 4-15). A significant main effect of involvement ( M high involvement = 7.83, M low involvement = 6.61; F (1, 272) = 21.60, p < .001), a significant main effect of text argument quality ( M strong argument = 7.57, M weak argument = 6.87; F (1, 272) = 7.13, p < .01) and a significant main effect of picture attractiveness ( M no picture = 7.35, M attractive picture = 7.62 and M unattractive picture = 6.69; F (2, 272) = 4.42, p < .05) emerged. There was a significant threeway interaction effect ( F (2, 272) = 5.67, p < .01). Because of this three-way interaction effect, the main ef fect results were disregarded. Further analyses were conducted to interpre t the three-way interacti on effect on intention. There was a significant simple effect of involvement in the no-picture condition ( F (1, 272) = 14.26, p < .001). Highinvolvement participants ( M = 7.83) were more likely to stay at the Adria House than lowinvolvement participants ( M = 6.61). However, there was no si mple interaction effect of

PAGE 90

90involvement and text argume nt quality in the no-picture condition (I x T at P no picture). Accordingly, H1a was not accepted. It was hypothesized that pictorial informati on would have a greater impact in the lowinvolvement condition compared to the high-invo lvement condition. The results indicated that there was no interaction eff ect of involvement and pict ure attractiveness (I x P; F (1, 272) = 1.16, p = .316). There was no simple picture effect on intention at the low-involvement level ( F (1, 272) = 2.08, p = .127), but there was a significant si mple interaction effect of picture attractiveness and text argument quality at the low-involvement level (P x T at I low; F (1, 272) = 3.59, p < .05). There was a significant simple pict ure effect at the high-involvement level ( F (1, 272) = 3.37, p < .05) and there was a significant simple in teraction effect of picture attractiveness and text argument quality at the high-involvement level (P x T at I high; F (1, 272) = 3.25, p < .05). Further analyses were conducted. The picture impacts were separately examined between strongand weak-argument conditio ns. Consistent with the atti tude results, the H1b prediction was supported in the strong-argument condition. Patterns in Figure 412 indicated that the attractive-picture had a positive si gnificant impact on intention ( M attractive picture = 8.17 and M no picture = 6.52) under the strong-argument and low-involvement condition ( F (1, 272) = 6.23, p < .05). This impact was greater than the im pact in the high-involvement condition ( M attractive picture = 8.19 and M no picture = 8.27; F (1, 272) = .01, p = .937). According to these results, H1b was accepted in the strong-argument condition. Therefore, it was partially accepted. The results in the weak-argument condition presented an opposite pattern from the H1b prediction. There was a significant negative impact of the unattract ive picture on attitude at the high-involvement level ( M unattractive picture = 6.08 and M no picture = 8.22; F (1, 272) = 10.09, p < .01)

PAGE 91

91and this impact was greater than the impact at the low-involvement level ( M unattractive picture = 6.39 and M no picture = 6.39; F (1, 272) = .00, p = 1.00). There was no significant difference on inten tion between strong and weak arguments under the attractive-picture and high-involvement condition ( M strong argument = 8.19 and M weak argument = 8.00; F (1, 272) = .09, p = .764; Figure 4-11). Consistent with the attitude resu lts, these results indicated that the attractive pi cture offset the weak-argument effect in the high-involvement condition; therefore, there was no significant intentional differe nce between strongand weakargument conditions. Based on these results, H1c was accepted. There was a significant differe nce on attitude between str ong and weak arguments under the unattractive-picture and high-involvement condition ( M strong argument = 8.22 and M weak argument = 6.08; F (1, 272) = 11.21, p < .01). Consistent with the attit ude results, strong arguments offset the unattractive-picture effect in the highinvolvement condition. Accordingly, H1d was accepted. Information Focus (H2) Table 4-16 presents the means and standard de viations of the textand picture-focused processing for each cell. The textand picturefocused scales developed by Oh and Jasper (2006) were used. The reliability scores (C ronbachs Alpha) were .87 for the text-focused processing and .90 for the picture-focused processing. To test H2, a paired-samples t -test was conducted to evaluate whether the mean difference between two variables, text-focused processing and picture-focused pro cessing, was significantly different from zero (Green and Salkind 2003). Th e picture-focused mean was expected to be significantly greater than the text-focused mean in the low-involvement condition; and there would be no significant mean diff erence between picture-focused a nd text-focused processing in the high-involvement condition. Results of the paired-samples t -test indicated that there was no

PAGE 92

92significant mean difference in the lowand high-involvement conditions. H2a failed to be accepted and H2b was accepted. Three-way ANOVA statistics we re additionally conducted for the text-focused processing (Table 4-17) and the picture-focused processing (T able 4-18). The analysis for text-focused processing yielded a signifi cant three-way interaction ( F (1, 181) = 5.78, p < .05). To interpret the three-way interaction effect, we further analyzed the data to check for simple effects and simple interaction effects. A ccording to Figure 4-13, a simple in teraction effect between text argument quality and picture attractiveness in the high-involvement condition (T x P at I high) was present. It was not statis tically significant, but the p level was close to .05 ( F (1, 181) = 3.83, p = .052). Another simple interaction effect between involvement and text argument quality in the unattractive-picture condition (I x T at P unattractive) was present. It was also not statistically significant, but the p level was close to .05 ( F (1, 181) = 3.70, p = .056). This simple interaction effect indicates that participants exposed to the unattractive pict ure were more likely to focus on strong arguments when they were in the high-involvement condition ( M strong argument, unattractive picture and high involvement = 5.75, M strong argument, unattractive picture, and low involvement = 5.12) while participants exposed to the attractive pictur e had no difference on text-focus processing between lowand high-involvement conditions ( M strong argument, attractive picture and high involvement = 5.10, M strong argument, attractive picture and low involvement = 5.24; F (1, 181) = 2.13, p = .146). According to Table 4-18, there was a significan t main effect of involvement in picturefocused processing ( F (1, 181) = 4.57, p < .05). Participants in the high-involvement condition were more likely to focus on the picture ( M = 5.46) than those in th e low-involvement condition ( M = 5.07). Further analyses were conducted. Th ere was a simple involvement effect in the unattractive-picture condition ( M low involvement = 4.79, M high involvement = 5.41; F (1, 181) = 5.37, p

PAGE 93

93< .05; Figure 4-12). There was a simple involve ment effect in the weak-argument condition ( M low involvement = 4.99, M high involvement = 5.51; F (1, 181) = 3.98, p < .05). These results indicate that participants exposed to an una ttractive picture or weak argum ents in the high-involvement condition were more likely to focus on the pictur e than in the low-involvement condition. There was a simple effect of picture attracti veness in the strong -argument condition ( M attractive picture = 5.55, M unattractive picture = 4.97; F (1, 181) = 4.73, p < .05). Participants ex posed to the unattractive picture in the low-involvement condition were le ss likely to focus on the picture information especially with strong arguments ( M strong argument = 4.60, M weak argument = 4.97). Discussion In experiment two, three assumptions were examined to see (1) whether involvement moderated the effortful-mode effects in the no-p icture condition; (2) whether the effortless mode had more significant effects than the effortfu l mode under the low-involvement condition; and (3) whether there was an offse tting role of effortful mode or effortless mode under the highinvolvement condition. In contrast to the resu lts of experiment one, the moderating role of involvement was not present in the no-pictu re condition. Under the no-picture condition, involvement significantly affected attitudes towa rd a product and intention despite the text argument quality manipulation. Besides, invol vement moderated the text argument quality effects in both unattractivea nd attractive-pictur e conditions. Related to the picture effect in the low-involvement conditio n, the greater picture impact was present only in the strong-argument conditio n. The results on testing hypothesis H2a were consistent with the results from experiment one. It seems that the pictur e effect assumption (i.e., assumption two) was weak. The same hypotheses we re retested to verify the weak results on experiment one; and these results suggested that the first experi ment results were not caused by the small sample size.

PAGE 94

94Consistent with the results from experiment one, the results of picture impact in the weakargument condition supported the offsetting-role assumption. The high-involvement participants exposed to the weak arguments were likely to use the attractive picture as information to offset the lack of useful information in the weak arguments. In addition, the picture-effect results in the strong-argument and high-involvement condition supported the offsetting-role assumption that the high-involvement participan ts exposed to the unattractive picture were likely to use the strong arguments as information to offset the inade quate information in the unattractive picture. Hypotheses 1Hc and 1Hd which were developed to test the offsetting role assumption were accepted in both attitude and intention results. The results showed that there was no significant difference on attitudes and intention betw een strong and weak arguments under the highinvolvement and attractive-picture condition beca use of the offsetting effect of an attractive picture on the weak-argument effect. In addi tion, there was a significan t attitude difference between strong and weak arguments under the high-involvement and unattractive-picture condition because of the offsetting effect of stro ng arguments on the unattractive-picture effect. Since hypothesis 2Hb, which was developed to exam ine the offsetting role assumption, was also accepted, we confidently conclude that offsetting ro les of effortful and effortless modes exist in the high-involvement condition.

PAGE 95

95Table 4-1. Assumptions and Hypotheses for Experiment 2 Hypotheses 1 Attitude Results Intention Results A1 Involvement moderates the effortful-mode effects when the effortless cue was not provided. H1a: The strength of the text argument quality will have a greater impact on product attitudes under the high-involvement condition compared to the lo w-involvement condition when there is no picture provided. Rejected Rejected A2 The effortless mode has more si gnificant effects than the effortful mode under the low-involvement condition because people focus on the effortless mode in information processing instead of the effortful mode when their perceived relevance toward decision making is low. H1b: Pictorial information will have a greater impact on product attitudes under the low-involvemen t condition compared to the high-involvement condition. Rejected Partially accepted A3 People focus on both effortful and effortless modes under the highinvolvement condition to compensate for insufficient information from one or the other. Accordingly, th e effortful mode or the effortless mode offsets the negative effect from the other mode under the highinvolvement condition. H1c: There will be no significant attitude difference between strong and weak arguments under the high-involvement and attractivepicture condition because of the offsetting effect of attractive picture on weak-argument effect. Accepted Accepted H1d: There will be a significant a ttitude difference between strong and weak arguments under the high-involvement and unattractivepicture condition because of the offsetting effect of strong arguments on unattractive-picture effect. Accepted Accepted

PAGE 96

96Table 4-1. Assumptions and Hypotheses for Experiment 2 (continued) Hypotheses 2 Attitude Results Intention Results A2 The effortless mode will have more significant effects than the effortful mode under the low-involvement condition because people focus on the effortless mode in info rmation processing instead of the effortful mode when their perceived relevance toward decision making is low. H2a: Low-involvement participants will be more likely to focus on the pictorial information (both attractive and unattractive pictures) than the text information. Rejected Rejected A3 People focus on both effortful and effortless modes under the highinvolvement condition to compensate for insufficient information from one or the other. Accordingly, th e effortful mode or the effortless mode offsets the negative effect from the other mode under the highinvolvement condition. H2b: High-involvement participan ts will focus on both text and pictorial information. Accepted Accepted

PAGE 97

97Table 4-2. Twelve Websites for Di fferent Manipulation Conditions Factor Involvement Text Argument Quality for Effortful Mode Picture Attractiveness for Effortless Mode Website 1 High Strong No picture Website 2 Low Strong No picture Website 3 High Weak No picture Website 4 Low Weak No picture Website 5 High Strong Attractive picture Website 6 Low Strong Attractive picture Website 7 High Weak Attractive picture Website 8 Low Weak Attractive picture Website 9 High Strong Unattractive picture Website 10 Low Strong Unattractive picture Website 11 High Weak Unattractive picture Website 12 Low Weak Unattractive picture

PAGE 98

98Table 4-3. Measurement for Experiment 2 Goal Variable Measures Manipulation check Involvementa The Avalon House ad (was): 1. Essential Non-essential 2. Important Unimportant 3. Matters to me Does not matter 4. Needed Not needed 5. Of concern Of no concern 6. Relevant Irrelevant 7. Significant Insignificant 8. Valuable Worthless Manipulation check Text argument qualitya The text information of the Avalon House ad (was): 1. Believable Not believable 2. Informative Uninformative 3. Persuasive Unpersuasive 4. Strong rationale Weak rationale Manipulation check Picture attractivenessa The picture of the Avalon House ad (was): 1. Attractive Unattractive (Hedonic) 2. Beautiful Ugly (Hedonic) 3. Functional Not functional (Functional) 4. Practical Impractical (Functional) 5. Useful Useless (Functional) 6. Very likeable Very unlikeable (Hedonic) Picture informativenessa How informative is this picture for making a decision on whether to stay in the Adria House? 1. Informative Uninformative Picture relevancea How relevant is this picture for making a decision on whether to stay in the Adria House? 1. Relevant Irrelevant Manipulation check Mental effort in processing While you were looking at the Adria House ad, how much mental effort did you spend processing text and picture information? (Please assume that the total amount of mental effort you put into processing both the text and picture information was 100%) Easiness in processinga Between the text and picture information in the Adria House ad, which one was easier to process? 1. Text information Picture information a. 9-point semantic scale b. 7-point Likert scale c. 11-point scale

PAGE 99

99Table 4-3. Measurement for Experiment 2 (Continued) Goal Variable Measures Dependent variable Attitude toward the producta Please indicate your overall opinions about the Avalon House 1. Favorable Unfavorable 2. Like very much Dislike very much 3. Positive Negative Dependent variable Purchase intentionc The probability that you would choose to stay at Avalon House if you visit Edinburgh is: 0% 100% Information focus Text-focused processingb While I was looking at the Avalon House ad, 1. I used the text information to evaluate the Avalon House 2. I carefully considered the text information 3. I gave a lot of thoughts to the text information in order to judge whether the Avalon House would be good to stay Dependent variable Picture-focused processingb While I was looking at the Avalon House ad, 1. I used the picture to evaluate the Avalon House 2. I paid a lot of attention to the picture 3. I gave a lot of thoughts to the picture in order to judge whether the Avalon House would be good to stay a. 9-point semantic scale b. 7-point Likert scale c. 11-point scale

PAGE 100

100Table 4-4. Picture Attractiveness Means for Pretest 1 (N = 52) Cronbachs Alpha Mean SD A .79 5.87 0.89 B .90 4.55 1.17 C .91 2.83 1.05 D .94 4.85 1.40 E .87 6.17 0.98 F .91 4.53 1.27 G .86 6.50 0.67 Note: Scores represent the average rating on nine-point scales anchored at 1 (negative meaning) and 7 (positive meaning).

PAGE 101

101Table 4-5. Duration of Study Pa rticipation by Group (N=284) Low Involvement High Involvement Weak Argument Strong Argument Weak Argument Strong Argument No Picture 7m22s 9m26s 8m58s 9m46s Attractive Picture 10m20s 11m38s 13m20s 12m17s Unattractive Picture 12m39s 12m50s 12m19s 13m04s Units: m = minutes and s = seconds; The average of 12 groups = 11m10s Table 4-6. Number of Study Participants by Group (N=284) Low Involvement High Involvement Weak Argument Strong Argument Weak Argument Strong Argument No Picture 23 23 23 26 Attractive Picture 24 24 24 26 Unattractive Picture 23 20 25 23 Table 4-7. Descriptive Statis tics of Study Participants Frequency Percent Gender Male 129 45.4 % Female 155 54.6 % University University of Florida 229 80.6 % Arizona State University 55 19.4 % Travel experience to Edinburgh Yes 14 4.9 % No 270 95.1 %

PAGE 102

102Table 4-8. Means and ANOVA Statistics for Mani pulation Checks of Involvement and Text Argument Quality Cronbachs Alpha F (df) p Mean Mean Involvement Low High Ts Restaurant .94 9.49 (1, 275) .002** 5.46 (1.41) 4.88 (1.79) Adria House .95 56.49 (1, 282) .000*** 5.32 (1.50) 6.70 (1.59) SanDisk .96 18.71 (1, 274) .000*** 5.75 (1.64) 4.79 (2.09) Text Argument Quality Weak Strong Ts Restaurant .81 .913 (1, 282) .340 6.21 (1.47) 6.05 (1.41) Adria House .90 103.78 (1, 247) .000*** 5.49 (1.76) 7.31 (1.19) SanDisk .79 6.48 (1, 282) .011* 7.13 (1.37) 6.73 (1.26) p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 Note: Scores represent the average rating on nine-point scales anchored at 1 (negative meaning) and 9 (positive meaning). Standard deviations are in parentheses.

PAGE 103

103Table 4-9. Means and ANOVA Statistics for Picture Manipulation Check Cronbachs Alpha F (df) p Mean Unattractive Mean Attractive Mean Difference Ts Restaurant Attractive (6 items) .88 .005 (1, 187) .941 6.46 (1.50) 6.44 (1.41) 0.02 Hedonic (3 items) .88 .002 (1, 187) .968 6.43 (1.70) 6.44 (1.70) -0.01 Functional (3 items) .79 .04 (1, 187) .851 6.48 (1.60) 6.44 (1.41) 0.04 Informative (1 item) .31 (1, 173) .581 6.42 (2.08) 6.27 (1.67) 0.15 Relevant (1 item) 1.34 (1, 187) .249 6.52 (2.09) 6.18 (1.86) 0.34 Adria House Attractive (6 items) .90 73.73 (1, 187) .000*** 5.91 (1.43) 7.53 (1.17) -1.62 Hedonic (3 items) .95 109.44 (1, 153) .000*** 5.31 (1.85) 7.71 (1.20) -2.40 Functional (3 items) .86 17.74 (1, 187) .000*** 6.50 (1.51) 7.36 (1.29) -0.86 Informative (1 item) 6.35 (1, 187) .013* 6.87 (1.61) 7.44 (1.50) -0.57 Relevant (1 item) 4.12 (1, 187) .044* 7.10 (1.48) 7.55 (1.57) -0.45 SanDisk Attractive (6 items) .86 5.67 (1, 187) .018* 6.46 (1.12) 6.03 (1.34) 0.43 Hedonic (3 items) .87 7.95 (1, 187) .005** 6.07 (1.28) 5.51 (1.43) 0.56 Functional (3 items) .82 1.97 (1, 187) .162 6.85 (1.34) 6.55 (1.57) 0.30 Informative (1 item) 1.97 (1, 187) .162 5.59 (2.27) 5.13 (2.24) 0.46 Relevant (1 item) 1.09 (1, 187) .297 5.88 (2.29) 5.52 (2.42) 0.36 p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 Note: Scores represent the average rating on nine-point scales anchored at 1 (negative meaning) and 9 (positive meaning). Standard deviations are in parentheses.

PAGE 104

104Table 4-10. Mental Effort Sp ent Processing Text and Pi cture Information (N=189) Percent Standard Deviation Text information 55.4% 22.70 Picture information 44.6% 22.70 Table 4-11. Easiness of Information Processing Frequency Percent Text information 53 28.0% (Middle point) 20 10.6% Picture information 116 61.4% Note: Scores represent on seven-point scales anchored at 1 (text information) and 7 (picture information). Table 4-12. Means of Attitudea toward Adria House Low Involvement High Involvement Weak Argument Strong Argument Weak Argument Strong Argument No Picture 6.33 (1.18) 6.72 (1.48) 7.14 (1.53) 7.26 (1.40) Attractive Picture 6.51 (1.64) 7.53 (1.29) 6.97 (1.46) 6.94 (1.20) Unattractive Picture 6.48 (1.56) 6.33 (1.21) 5.92 (1.62) 6.86 (1.62) Note: Scores represent the average rating on nine-point scales anchored at 1 (negative meaning) and 9 (positive meaning). Standard deviations are in parentheses. a. Cronbachs Alpha (3 items) = .86

PAGE 105

105Table 4-13. Three-Way ANOVA Statistics on Attitude toward Adria House Source SS df MS F Sig. Involvement (I) 2.70 1 2.70 1.30 .255 Text argument quality (T) 10.12 1 10.12 4.86 .028* Picture attractiveness (P) 18.04 2 9.02 4.33 .014* I x T .12 1 .12 .06 .808 I x P 8.09 2 4.04 1.94 .145 T x P .69 2 .34 .17 .848 I x T x P 13.58 2 6.79 3.26 .040* I at Pno a 10.68 1 10.68 5.04 .026* T at Pno a 1.50 1 1.50 .71 .401 I x T at Pno a .46 1 .46 .22 .640 I at Pattractive a .11 1 .11 .05 .821 T at Pattractive a 5.85 1 5.85 2.76 .098 I x T at Pattractive a 6.75 1 6.75 3.18 .076 I at Punattractive a .01 1 .01 .00 .953 T at Punattractive a 3.53 1 3.53 1.66 .199 I x T at Punattractive a 6.59 1 6.59 3.10 .079 I at Tstrong a 0.83 1 0.83 0.40 .528 P at Tstrong a 4.73 1 4.73 2.27 .133 I x P at Tstrong a 5.06 1 5.06 2.43 .120 I at Tweak a 2.00 1 2.00 0.96 .328 P at Tweak a 4.66 1 4.66 2.24 .136 I x P at Tweak a 5.98 1 5.98 2.87 .091 T at Ilow a 6.02 1 6.02 2.81 .095 P at Ilow a 9.80 2 4.90 2.28 .104 T x P at Ilow a 7.64 2 3.82 1.78 .171 T at Pattractive at Ilow a 12.34 1 12.34 5.93 .016* T at Punattractive at Ilow a .23 1 .23 .11 .740 Pbetween no an d attractive at Tweak and Ilow .38 1 .38 .17 .676 Pbetween no and unattractive at Tweak and Ilow .24 1 .24 .11 .740 Pbetween no an d attractive at Tstrong and Ilow 7.58 1 7.58 3.55 .061 Pbetween no and unattractive at Tstrong and Ilow 1.64 1 1.64 .77 .382 T at Ihigh a 4.16 1 4.16 1.95 .164 P at Ihigh a 16.79 2 8.40 3.94 .021* T x P at Ihigh a 6.64 2 3.32 1.56 .212 T at Pattractive at Ihigh a .02 1 .02 0.008 .929 T at Punattractive at Ihigh a 10.47 1 10.47 5.04 .026* Pbetween no an d attractive at Tweak and Ihigh .35 1 .35 .16 .685 Pbetween no and unattractive at Tweak and Ihigh 17.97 1 17.97 8.47 .004** Pbetween no an d attractive at Tstrong and Ihigh 1.34 1 1.34 .61 .436 Pbetween no and unattractive at Tstrong and Ihigh 1.97 1 1.97 .90 .344 Error 566.12 272 2.08 p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 a. F score was calculated by hand using the three-way ANOVA Error term

PAGE 106

106Table 4-14. Means of Intention to Stay at Adria House Low Involvement High Involvement Weak Argument Strong Argument Weak Argument Strong Argument No Picture 6.39 (1.44) 6.52 (2.13) 8.22 (2.15) 8.27 (2.13) Attractive Picture 6.13 (2.56) 8.17 (1.99) 8.00 (2.15) 8.19 (2.02) Unattractive Picture 6.39 (2.52) 6.05 (2.11) 6.08 (2.72) 8.22 (2.30) Note: Scores represent on eleven-point scales anchored at 0 (0%) and 11 (100%). Standard deviations are in parentheses.

PAGE 107

107Table 4-15. Three-Way ANOVA Statistics on Intention to Stay at Adria House Source SS df MS F Sig. Involvement (I) 105.50 1 105.50 21.60 .000*** Text argument quality (T) 34.84 1 34.84 7.13 .008** Picture attractiveness (P) 43.21 2 21.61 4.42 .013* I x T .60 1 .60 .12 .727 I x P 11.31 2 5.66 1.16 .316 P x T 13.92 2 6.96 1.43 .242 I x T x P 55.40 2 27.7 5.67 .004** I at Pno a 75.61 1 75.61 14.26 .000*** T at Pno a .20 1 .20 .04 .847 I x T at Pno a .04 1 .04 .01 .934 I at Pattractive a 22.10 1 22.10 4.16 .042* T at Pattractive a 30.53 1 30.53 5.74 .017* I x T at Pattractive a 20.92 1 20.92 3.94 .048* I at Punattractive a 19.47 1 19.47 3.66 .057 T at Punattractive a 18.23 1 18.23 3.43 .065 I x T at Punattractive a 34.72 1 34.72 6.53 .011* I at Tstrong a 60.76 1 60.76 12.45 .000*** P at Tstrong a 14.05 1 14.05 2.88 .091 I x P at Tstrong a 15.36 1 15.36 3.15 .077 I at Tweak a 45.28 1 45.28 9.28 .003** P at Tweak a 14.86 1 14.86 3.05 .082 I x P at Tweak a 18.56 1 18.56 3.80 .052 P at Ilow a 21.30 2 10.66 2.08 .127 T at Ilow a 12.71 1 12.71 2.48 .117 P x T at Ilow a 36.86 2 18.43 3.59 .029* T at Pattractive at Ilow a 50.02 1 50.02 10.25 .002** T at Punattractive at Ilow a 1.25 1 1.25 .26 .611 Pbetween no an d attractive at Tweak and Ilow .83 1 .83 .16 .692 Pbetween no and unattractive at Tweak and Ilow .00 1 .00 .00 1.000 Pbetween no an d attractive at Tstrong and Ilow 31.78 1 31.78 6.23 .013* Pbetween no and unattractive at Tstrong and Ilow 2.38 1 2.38 .47 .495 P at Ihigh a 34.11 2 17.06 3.37 .036* T at Ihigh a 23.10 1 23.10 4.57 .033* P x T at Ihigh a 32.85 2 16.43 3.25 .040* T at Pattractive at Ihigh a .46 1 .46 .09 .764 T at Punattractive at Ihigh a 54.73 1 54.73 11.21 .001** Pbetween no an d attractive at Tweak and Ihigh .56 1 .56 .11 .740 Pbetween no and unattractive at Tweak and Ihigh 54.73 1 54.73 10.90 .001** Pbetween no an d attractive at Tstrong and Ihigh .03 1 .03 .01 .937 Pbetween no and unattractive at Tstrong and Ihigh .08 1 .08 .01 .904 Error 1328.42 272 4.88 p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 a. F score was calculated by hand using the three-way ANOVA Error term

PAGE 108

108Table 4-16. Means of Information Focus: Te xt-Focused and Picture-Focused Processing (N=189) Low Involvement High Involvement Weak Argument Strong Argument Weak Argument Strong Argument Attractive Picture Text-Focuseda 4.92 (1.01) 5.24 (1.16) 5.42 (1.00) 5.10 ( .99) Picture-Focusedb 5.00 (1.38) 5.64 ( .98) 5.53 (1.26) 5.46 ( .99) n = 24 t (23) = -.22 n = 24 t (23) = -1.10 n = 24 t (23) = -.30 n = 26 t (25) = -1.22 Unattractive Picture Text-Focuseda 5.45 (1.04) 5.12 (1.06) 5.23 (1.06) 5.75 (1.19) Picture-Focusedb 4.97 (1.64) 4.60 (1.17) 5.49 (1.20) 5.33 (1.56) n = 23 t (22) = 1.04 n = 20 t (19) = 1.30 n = 25 t (24) = -.70 n = 23 t (22) = .92 Note: Scores represent the average rating on seven-point scales anchored at 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree). Standard deviations are in parentheses. a. Cronbachs Alpha (3 items) = .87 b. Cronbachs Alpha (3 items) = .90

PAGE 109

109Table 4-17. Three-Way ANOVA Statistics of Info rmation Focus: Text-Focused Processing a Source SS df MS F Sig. Involvement (I) 1.79 1 1.79 1.58 .210 Text message argument quality (T) .12 1 .12 .10 .748 Picture attractiveness (P) 2.25 1 2.25 1.98 .161 I x T .15 1 .15 .13 .716 I x P .01 1 .01 .01 .939 T x P .11 1 .11 .09 .761 I x T x P 6.55 1 6.55 5.78 .017* T at Ilow b .001 1 .001 .001 .976 P at Ilow b .97 1 .97 .85 .357 T x P at Ilow b 2.41 1 2.41 2.13 .146 T at Ihigh b .28 1 .28 .25 .621 P at Ihigh b 1.30 1 1.30 1.15 .285 T x P at Ihigh b 4.32 1 4.32 3.83 .052 I at Pattractive b .82 1 .82 .73 .395 T at Pattractive b .00 1 .00 N/A I x T at Pattractive b 2.46 1 2.46 2.17 .142 I at Punattractive b .97 1 .97 .86 .356 T at Punattractive b .21 1 .21 .19 .665 I x T at Punattractive b 4.18 1 4.18 3.70 .056 Error 205.02 181 1.13 p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 a. Cronbachs Alpha (3 items) = .87 b. F score was calculated by hand using the three-way ANOVA Error term

PAGE 110

110Table 4-18. Three-Way ANOVA Statistics of Info rmation Focus: Picture-Focused Processinga Source SS df MS F Sig. Involvement (I) 7.58 1 7.58 4.57 .034* Text message argument quality (T) .01 1 .01 .003 .956 Picture attractiveness (P) 4.45 1 4.45 2.68 .103 I x T .72 1 .72 .43 .512 I x P 2.41 1 2.41 1.45 .230 T x P 3.58 1 3.58 2.16 .144 I x T x P 2.47 1 2.47 1.49 .224 T at Ilow b .41 1 .41 .25 .621 P at Ilow b 6.45 1 6.45 3.89 .050 T x P at Ilow b 5.77 1 5.77 3.48 .064 T at Ihigh b .31 1 .31 .19 .664 P at Ihigh b .16 1 .16 .10 .755 T x P at Ihigh b .05 1 .05 .03 .856 I at Pattractive b .75 1 .75 .45 .502 T at Pattractive b 2.01 1 2.01 1.21 .273 I x T at Pattractive b 3.04 1 3.04 1.83 .178 I at Punattractive b 8.91 1 8.91 5.37 .022* T at Punattractive b 1.59 1 1.59 .96 .329 I x T at Punattractive b .25 1 .25 .15 .697 I at Tweak b 6.61 1 6.61 3.98 .048* P at Tweak b .03 1 .03 .01 .906 I x P at Tweak b .000 1 .000 N/A I at Tstrong b 1.78 1 1.78 1.07 .302 P at Tstrong b 7.85 1 7.85 4.73 .031* I x P at Tstrong b 4.78 1 4.78 2.88 .092 Error 300.34 181 1.66 p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 a. Cronbachs Alpha (3 items) = .90 b. F score was calculated by hand using the three-way ANOVA Error term

PAGE 111

111 7.14 6.33 7.26 6.725.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Figure 4-1. Attitude toward Adria House under the No-Picture Condition 6.97 6.51 6.94 7.535.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Figure 4-2. Attitude toward Adria House under the Attractive-Picture Condition 5.92 6.86 6.48 6.335.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Figure 4-3. Attitude toward Adria House under the Unattractive-Picture Condition Strong argument Weak argument Strong argument Weak argument Strong argument Weak argument Low involvement High involvement Low involvement High involvement Low involvement High involvement

PAGE 112

112 7.53 6.48 6.51 6.33 6.33 6.725.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Figure 4-4. Attitude toward Adria House under the Low-Involvement Condition 5.92 6.86 6.97 7.14 6.94 7.265.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Figure 4-5. Attitude toward Adria House under the High-Involvement Condition Figure 4-6. Picture Effect on Att itude toward Adria House. A) Strong argument and B) Weak argument 7.26 6.72 6.94 7.53 6.33 6.86 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5.92 7.14 6.33 6.97 6.51 6.48 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 B A Low involvement High involvement Low involvement High involvement Attractive picture Unattractive picture No picture N o p icture Attractive p ictureUnattractive p icture N o p icture Attractive p ictureUnattractive p icture Strong argument Weak argument Strong argument Weak argument

PAGE 113

113 8.22 6.39 8.27 6.525.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Figure 4-7. Intention to Stay at Adri a House under the No-Picture Condition 8.19 8.00 6.13 8.175.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Figure 4-8. Intention to Stay at Adria H ouse under the Attractive-Picture Condition 6.08 8.22 6.39 6.055.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Figure 4-9. Intention to Stay at Adria H ouse under the Unattractive-Picture Condition Strong argument Weak argument Strong argument Weak argument Strong argument Weak argument Low involvement High involvement Low involvement High involvement Low involvement High involvement

PAGE 114

114 6.39 8.17 6.05 6.39 6.13 6.525.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Figure 4-10. Intention to Stay at Adria House under the Low-Involvement Condition 6.08 8.22 8.22 8.00 8.19 8.275.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Figure 4-11. Intention to Stay at Adri a House under the High-Involvement Condition Figure 4-12. Picture Effect on Intention to Stay at Adria House. A) Strong argument and B) Weak argument 6.08 8.22 6.39 8.00 6.13 6.39 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 8.27 6.52 8.19 8.17 6.05 8.22 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Low involvement High involvement Low involvement High involvement B A Attractive picture Unattractive picture No picture N o p icture Attractive p ic t ureUnattractive p icture N o p icture Attractive p ictureUnattractive p icture Strong argument Weak argument Strong argument Weak argument

PAGE 115

115 Figure 4-13. Text-Focused Information Processin g. A) Attractive pictur e and B) Unattractive picture Figure 4-14. Picture-Focused Info rmation Processing. A) Attractive picture and B) Unattractive picture B 4.92 5.42 5.24 5.10 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.23 5.75 5.45 5.12 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 A Low involvement High involvement Low involvement High involvement Strong argument Weak argument Strong argument Weak argument 5.53 5.00 5.46 5.64 4.50 4.70 4.90 5.10 5.30 5.50 5.70 5.90 B A 5.49 5.33 4.97 4.60 4.50 4.70 4.90 5.10 5.30 5.50 5.70 5.90 Low involvement High involvement Low involvement High involvement

PAGE 116

116CHAPTER 5 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The goal of this study was to investigate the in formation-processing stra tegies travelers use in their judgment and decision making about selecting a lodging accommodation. A modified dual-process model (i.e., co-o ccurrence of dual modes) was proposed as the theoretical framework to examine individuals information-pr ocessing strategies. As distinguished from traditional dual-process theories (e.g., the ela boration likelihood model), which focus on product merits to define the dual modes, the modified dual-process model defines the dual modes (i.e., effortful and effortless modes) based on the effort required and the ease of processing information. The modified dual-process model posits that individuals utilize effortful and effortless cues independently or interdependently based on their decision-invol vement situations. It was hypothesized that (1) involvement mode rated the effortful-mode effects when an effortless-mode was not provided; (2) the effortless mode had more significant effects than the effortful mode in a low-involvement situation b ecause individuals focused on the effortless mode in information processing instead of the effort ful mode when their perceived relevance toward decision making was low; and (3) individuals focu sed on both effortful and effortless modes in the high-involvement situation to compensate for insufficient info rmation from one or the other; and thus, the effortful mode or the effortless mode offset negative effect s from the other mode in the high-involvement situation. Two experiments were conducted to test th ese three assumptions. Involvement was operationalized as a product decision-making scen ario; the effortful cue was operationalized as text argument quality; and the effortless cue was operationalized as picture presence in the first experiment and as picture attractiveness in the second experiment. The first experiment tested (1) whether involvement moderated the text-argum ent effects in the no-picture condition; (2)

PAGE 117

117whether picture information was more persuasive in the low-involvement condition than in the high-involvement condition; and (3 ) whether the picture effect wa s interactive with the textargument effect in the high-involvement conditio n. The second experiment tested the same hypotheses; and it additionally test ed the co-acting eff ects of the text and picture information, especially when the picture manipulation was di fferentiated between attractive and unattractive. Moderating Role of Involvement Under the dichotomous approach, the trad itional dual-process model suggests that involvement moderates the central-route (i.e., effortful-mode) and peripheral-route (i.e., effortless-mode) effects. In this dichotomous ap proach, it is assumed th at individuals utilize central processing in the highinvolvement situation and peri pheral processing in the lowinvolvement situation. In contrast to this dichotomous approach, the modified dual-process model suggests that in the highinvolvement situation, individual s utilize not only the effortful cues but also the effortless cues to compensate fo r insufficient information from one or the other. When these two cues are utilized together in the high-involvement s ituation, their effects mitigate each other. Accordingly, the moderating role of involvement is present only when the effortful cue is provided; and the involvement m oderating role is not present when both effortful and effortless cues are present because of the offsetting effect. The involvement moderating-role assumption of the modified dual-process model was supported by the first experiment results. Th e first experiment demonstrated the simple interaction effect of involvement and text ar gument quality in the no-picture condition. As expected, the strength of the te xt argument quality had greate r impacts on product attitudes and purchase intentions in the high-involvement condition compared to the low-involvement condition when no picture was provided. The in teraction effect of involvement and text argument quality was not present when picture in formation was provided. These results were in

PAGE 118

118line with the assumption that the moderating ro le of involvement was carried out in the nopicture condition, but not in the picture condition. However, this assumption was not supported by the second experiment results. Under the no -picture condition, high-involvement participants were likely to have more positive product attitudes and purchase intentions than lowinvolvement participants regard less of the strong arguments or the weak arguments. These inconsistent results between expe riment one and experiment two ar e discussed in the last section of this chapter. Additionally, involvement performed a modera ting role under other conditions. The two experiments showed simple interaction effects of involvement and pictur e presence (or picture attractiveness) under specific c onditions. In the first experime nt, involvement moderated the picture-presence effects in the strong-argument condition. The second experiment showed that involvement moderated text-argument effects in the attractive-picture condition and in the unattractive-picture condition; and it also mode rated the picture-attractiveness effects in the strong-argument condition and in the weak-a rgument condition. Recent decision studies on dual-process models have generally neglected the role of involvement because of inconsistent results (Drolet, Luce, and Sim onson 2009). These study findings indi cate that involvement is a significant factor which modera tes the effortfulor effor tless-mode effects; and some inconsistent results are caused by the offsetting role s of the effortful and effortless modes. Offsetting Role of the Effortful or Effortless Mode The two experiments found clear support for th e co-occurrence of dual modes. The results of information focus (H2b) showed that the hi gh-involvement participants focused on both text and picture information. This study findings support published results which have found evidence that the effortful and effortless modes co -occur when individuals involvement level is high because individuals use all available info rmation in their decision making. Petty and

PAGE 119

119Cacioppo (1984) found that the effo rtless cue (i.e., endorser attract iveness) for a beauty product was treated as an argument and it had simultane ous impacts with the effortful cue (i.e., text argument quality) under the high-involvement cond ition. Similar to this dissertation, Oh and Jasper (2006) also found that for the expressive product, th e effortless cue (i.e., background picture) worked as a central argument; accordin gly, it influenced product attitudes even at a high-involvement level. Reinhard and Sporer (2008) suggested that individuals under high motivation used all available information, both e ffortful cues (e.g., argument quality of verbal messages) and effortless cues (e.g., attractiven ess of nonverbal messages) in their decision making. While previous studies focused on revealing the co-occurrence of dual modes, this dissertation further examined the interdependent effects of the effortful and effortless modes on judgments. It was assumed that when the e ffortful and effortless modes were concurrently executed in high-involvement situations, the effo rtful mode or the effortless mode offset any negative effects from the other mode. The fi rst experiment showed that high-involvement participants exposed to weak argum ents were likely to use the pictur e as information to offset the lack of useful information from the weak argum ents. The high-involvement participants exposed to strong arguments did not have an attitudinal or intentional di fference whether the picture was provided or not; but the high-invo lvement participants exposed to weak arguments had a positive attitudinal and intentional change when a pi cture was provided. According to the second experiment, when high-involvement participants were exposed to an attractive picture, the weakargument manipulation did not ha ve a significant influence on product attitude or purchase intention. When highly involved participants were exposed to strong arguments, an unattractive picture did not have significant influence on attitude or intention; but the unattractive picture

PAGE 120

120with weak arguments had a significant negative effect on the highly i nvolved participants attitude toward product a nd purchase intentions. Effortless-Mode Effect The findings of the effortless-mode effects yi elded mixed support for the hypotheses. It was hypothesized that picture pr esence would have a greater impact on product attitudes and purchase intentions in a low-involvement cond ition compared to a high-involvement condition based on the assumption that individuals focus on effortless cues in information processing instead of effortful cues when their perceived relevance toward decision making was low. These hypotheses were supported only in the strong-argum ent condition. The results of picture impact in the weak-argument condition actually supported the offsetti ng-role assumption that under a high-involvement condition, participants exposed to weak arguments were likely to consider a picture as information to offset a lack of usef ul information from weak arguments. Another hypothesis was tested to examine whether low-i nvolvement participants were more likely to focus on pictorial information than text inform ation. This hypothesis was not supported. It was concluded that the second assumption of th e modified dual-process model was weak. The results of the second experiment revealed that the less attractive picture with weak arguments had a significant impact on product at titudes and purchase in tentions in the highinvolvement situation; and the more attractive picture with strong arguments had a significant impact on product attitudes and purch ase intentions in the low-invol vement situation. This result of the unattractive-picture effect was consistent with previous st udies. Valence theory (Kisielius and Sternthal 1986; Shen and Wyer 2008) suggests th at negatively valenced pictorial information (e.g., an unattractive picture) has a greater impact on judgment than positively valenced pictorial information (e.g., an attractive picture) when indi viduals are highly involved in decision making. Individuals under high-involvement s ituations expect the pictorial information to be attractive.

PAGE 121

121Because of the divergence from their expectatio ns, unattractive pictorial information garners more attention and becomes more diagnostic, an d eventually works against persuasion (Fiske 1980; Skowronski and Carlston 1989). The result of the attractive-picture effect wa s not consistent with th is studys prediction that both attractive and unattractive pictur es would have effects on product attitudes and purchase intentions in low-involve ment situations. There are seve ral plausible explanations for this result. According to the extremeness av ersion theory (Simonson and Tversky 1992; Tversky and Kahneman 1991), losses (i.e., di sadvantages) are weighted more heavily than gains (i.e., advantages) when consumers feel that th eir information judgments have significant consequences for themselves. In informati on processing, high-involvement participants pay more attention to unattractive pi ctures since their decision making is related to risky choices (e.g., if they do not pay attenti on to negative information, they may have a less satisfactory experience because of a wrong choice). Howeve r, low-involvement participants do not commit to purchase decisions and their information proce ssing is more hedonic orie nted and exploratory. For example, they search for information for fun or curiosity without any purchase commitment. Since their judgments are related to risk-less choices (e.g., they experience a fun feeling or lose nothing while searching for information), they pa y more attention to attractive pictures which provides them fun and enjoyment. Affective response studies can also explai n the different effects of attractive and unattractive pictures by involvement Several researchers suggest th at product-related attractive (or unattractive) pictures evoke positive (or negati ve) affects; and these af fective responses have significant impacts on attitude changes (Cohen and Areni 1991; Fiske 1980; Miniard et al. 1991; Skowronski and Carlston 1989). Individuals use affects as information for automatic

PAGE 122

122(immediate) information processing or for cogniti ve (substantive) inform ation processing (Cohen and Areni 1991; Forgas 1995). Cohen and Areni (1991) found that positive affect was often associated with pleasant experiences that might not demand a type of critical analysis and elaboration. Therefore, attractiv e pictures, which evoke positive a ffects, generally gain attention in automaticand immediate-information pro cessing (i.e., low-involve ment situations). However, negative affect needs to be carefully analyzed to solve problems which cause negative states (Cohen and Areni 1991). For this reas on, unattractive pictures, which evoke negative affects, often gain attention in cognitiveand substantive-in formation processing (i.e., highinvolvement situations). Several researchers have focused on studying the effects of verbal and visual components and their interactive processi ng (Miniard et al. 1991; Mitc hell 1986; Mitchell and Olson 1981; Taylor and Thompson 1982). Consistent with results reported in the current study, these researchers found that under low-involvement cond itions, individuals form inferences about the product based on information attractiveness. Under low-involvement conditions, individuals reduce their product evaluations wh en the advertisement contains an unattractive visual element and they increase their product eval uations when the advertisement c ontains an attractive picture that elicits positive imagery (Miniard et al. 1991). By contrast, under high-involvement conditions, individuals form inferences about th e product based on product relevant information and information redundancy. Miniard and his coll eagues (1991) found that pictorial information redundant to verbal information di d not result in significantly diffe rent persuasive effects than verbal information presented alone; however, when a picture conveyed product information which was not provided by verbal messages, the picture influenced beliefs about the products attributes and overall product at titudes. In the current study, si nce the strong arguments included

PAGE 123

123only positive information about the product, stu dy participants might have considered the unattractive picture as important info rmation to utilize in decision making. Implications Theoretical Implications The two experiments replicated published litera ture in other disciplines. Dual-process models were employed to examine information-pr ocessing strategies that travelers utilize in information judgment and purchase decision-maki ng. Dual-process models have been widely used for more than 20 years in attitude research, but those models are rarely tested in tourism and hospitality research. Several reas ons were discussed in previous ch apters of this dissertation. It was mainly inferred that the dichotomous appr oach of traditional dual-process models (e.g., cognitive and verbal processing is central; and affective and nonve rbal processing is peripheral in decision making) was not applicable to studi es with intangible, experiential and/or hedonic products (e.g., travel products) because consumers valued nonverb al and/or hedonic information cues as significant product merits for these types of products. A critical aspect of this st udy was the introduction of a modi fied dual-process model (i.e., co-occurrence of dual modes). The modified dual-process mode l was proposed based on the literature review and it was test ed in two experiments. The results of the two experiments supported the modified dual-pro cess model through findings that the effortful and effortless modes performed an independent role in low-in volvement situations and they performed an interdependent role in high-involvement situat ions. This study contributes to dual-process research as it suggests a conceptual shift from the dichotomous approach to a mutual interactive approach. In addition, the modifi ed dual-process model can be ut ilized in other intangible-, experientialand/or hedonic-pr oduct research to understand ho w consumers utilize independent

PAGE 124

124or interdependent information-processing strate gies depending on differe nt decision-involvement situations. The results of these studies showed that involvement performed a moderating role in several situations. Recently, dual-process model researchers have questioned the moderating role of involvement in decision making because of inconsistent results (Drolet, Luce, and Simonson 2009; Oh and Jasper 2006 ; Reinhard and Sporer 2008). Study results reported here showed that involvements moderating role was not present in some cases because of the offsetting effects of effortful or effortless cues. These findings sugge st that involvement is still a significant factor which moderates the effortfulor effortless-mode effects, but, in some cases, sophisticated statistical methods (e.g., contrast analysis) are requi red to capture the involvement interaction effects. In this study, involvement was conceptuali zed as situational involvements, such as purchase-decision involvement di ffering by situation. This c onceptualizati on, situational decision involvement, facilitates understanding of the information-processing strategies that an individual utilizes for his/her decision-making in varying situations. Involvement studies in leisure, travel and tourism have focused more on the physical and social aspects of the immediate environment (e.g., social support, social norms, structural constraint s) and the intrinsic characteristics of individuals (e.g., values, attit udes, needs) (Havitz a nd Dimanche 1997; Kyle 2000). The conception of situational involvement has predominantly been used in consumer research, but is seldom used in tourism and hospitality research. The results of these experiments showed the significant impact of situational involvement in persuasion and decision-making. It is proposed that situational involvement should be furt her studied in tourism and hospitality research.

PAGE 125

125This study attempted to examine the informa tion-processing strategi es that individuals utilize for their decision making. The results sh owed individuals execut ed effortless processing in low-involvement situations and effortful and effortless processing in high-involvement situations. They paid more attention to the at tractive picture in low-involvement situations and the unattractive picture in high-involvement situa tions. In the low-involvement situations, they increased information evaluation with an attractiv e picture and reduced it with an unattractive picture. In the high-involvem ent situation, if the picture in formation was redundant to text information, they neglected evaluating the pict ure information, but if the picture provided different information from the text informa tion, they focused on evaluating the pictorial information. All of these findings indicate that in dividuals do not always conduct a thorough information search of every opti on in their travel decision making. To maintain efficiency and effectiveness in information processing, they use simple rules when their information judgment does not have important consequences for themselv es. This dissertation research confirms that individuals employ informationprocessing strategies. Conse quently, it supports constructive consumer choice process theory (Bettman, J ohnson, and Payne 1991; Bettman, Luce, and Payne 1998). Managerial Implications The findings of this study suggest that indivi duals focus on different types of information (e.g., verbal information, pictorial information) a nd/or different attribut es of information (e.g., argument quality, positive or nega tive affect) from an advertisement depending on their decisioninvolvement levels. These findings will help pr oduct providers develop effective and efficient advertising strategies related to what types of information and/or what attributes of information they should provide in advertisements based on their advertising goals. For example, if the

PAGE 126

126advertising goal is to persuade general consumer s to have positive images toward the product (or brand), advertisers need to focu s on providing attractive pictures which evoke positive affects. The study results showed that attractive pictur es generally gained at tention in automaticinformation processing. If the advertising goal is to lead targeted c onsumers to purchase the product, advertisers need to focus on providi ng strong text argument s and avoid providing pictures which evoke negative aff ect. The study results showed that unattractive pictures gain attention in cognitiveand substantive-information processing. Distribution of different versions of advertisements for each target group is becoming easier because of new technological developments (i.e., the Internet) and increased numbers of consumers connected to it. This suggestion can easily be applied to Internet marketing. For ex ample, on the first page of a website, marketing professionals can ask customers the purpose of their we bsite visit. Based on the response, different website versions, which emphasize picture attractiveness or text argument quality, can be provided. Cruise line corporations have used this strategy to provide customized information to targeted customers in different involvement situations (e.g., Royal Caribbean International website, http ://www.royalcaribbean.com). It was found that picture information pro cessing occurred in both highand lowinvolvement situations and indi viduals had different mechanisms in processing picture cues through involvement. Under low-involvement conditions, a picture is understood as having positive or negative values. Under high-involvement conditions, a picture is understood as a complex combination of information which repr esents concepts, abstractions, actions and metaphors (Scott 1994). The results of this study suggest that marketing communication research must focus on measuring effects from not only consumers reactions to textual descriptions but also reactions to picture in advertisements (Stewart, Hecker, and Graham 1987).

PAGE 127

127In addition, marketing professi onals should be aware of the significant impacts of pictorial elements on consumer persuasion an d purchase decision making. The study results showed how individuals inte ractive reactions towa rd text and picture information in high-involvement s ituations affect product attitude s and purchase intentions. For example, when verbal messages contain sufficient information or when the picture information is redundant to text information, individuals neglected evaluating picture information. Consequently, pictures have less persuasive power on attitudes and intentions. When individuals feel that information in text messages is not sufficient for decision maki ng, and pictures provide unique information beyond the text information, individuals seemed to focus on evaluating picture information. Therefore, pictures have more significant eff ects on attitudinal and intentional changes than the pr evious case. The study results suggest that pictures in advertisements should provide distinct addi tional information beyond text information for consumers who are highly involved in the evalua tion process. Otherwis e, picture presence in advertisements may be a waste of advertising space. The decision on whether advertisers should incl ude text messages and/or pictures is not a critical issue to consider in website, cata log and brochure advertis ing from a persuasion perspective. Advertisers value picture eff ects even though pictures do not provide unique information, in addition to verbal messages in adve rtisements because pictures still play another important role of capturing consumer attention. Subsequently, advertisers are likely to include both verbal messages and pictures in advertisemen ts as much as available space allows. With some media (e.g., websites, brochures), advertis ing has space flexibility ; however, advertising for portable mobile devices requir es consideration of space efficiency in displaying information. In mobile marketing, it is important to be minimalistic in providing only indispensable

PAGE 128

128information, not only because of the small screen sizes of portable devices but also because of the cost of mobile connections It is becoming increasingly important for mobile marketing professionals to understand how and when consumer s devote attention to certain types of stimuli in advertisements and what determines their a ttentional strategies a nd patterns (Rosbergen, Pieters, and Wedel 1997). These st udy results suggest that if information in pictures is redundant to textual information, or if pictures contain nega tive information differing from text information, it would be best not to provide pictures, if they cannot be modi fied to provide more effective cues. Explaining Model Discrepancies and Future Research There were inconsistent results in testi ng hypothesis one (H1a) between experiment one and experiment two. The first-experiment resu lts supported the hypothesis that the strength of the text argument quality had a greater impact on product attitudes and purchase intentions under the high-involvement condition compared to th e low-involvement condition when there was no picture provided. The results of experiment tw o, on the contrary, showed that there was no text argument quality effect. Involvement was the onl y factor that affected product attitudes and purchase intentions. There are two possible explanati ons as to why these inconsiste nt results occurred. First, the layout of advertisements in the display, wh ich were developed for manipulations of text argument quality and picture attractiveness, ma y have affected the study results. Several researchers found that information layout is significantly associated with consumer attention; and the level of consumer attention affects attit udinal and intentional ch anges (Janiszewski 1998; Rosbergen, Pieters, and Wedel 1997; Rossiter an d Percy 1983; Singh, Lessig, Kim, Gupta, and Hocutt 2000). In experiment one, three advertisem ents were displayed on a single webpage (i.e., a multi-item display). Study participants were ex pected to focus on evaluating one of the three

PAGE 129

129advertisements at a single site based on their manipulated involv ement situation. It is assumed that the increasing competition for attention exerted by surrounding information decreased the amount time spent looking at a target advertisem ent and decreased the am ount of memory related to information for the target advertisement (J aniszewski 1998). As a result, high-involvement participants exposed to weak arguments under a no-picture condition quickly concluded that Adria House was not attractive. In experiment two, the three advertisements were displayed on se parate webpages (i.e., three single-item displays). It had been assumed that the study participan ts did not pay attention to the filler advertisements and just skipped to the next pages ex cept in the target advertisement evaluation. However, it now seems that they invested their time or effort to review each of the three advertisements because of the layout of a dvertisements. When a target advertisement was placed in a noncompetitive environment, this display increased attention to the targetadvertisement information, viewing time and ev entually memory (Janiszewski 1998). The manipulation check results inferred that the study participants in experiment two paid attention even to the SanDisk advertisement, which was di splayed after the target advertisement (Adria House), and compared the information between Ad ria House and SanDisk USB. The results of manipulation-check measures indicated that the participants, who received different manipulations on the Adria House advertisement, perceived the text argument quality and picture attractiveness of the SanDisk USB as significantly different even though they received the same manipulation for the SanDisk USB advertisement. It is assumed that the high-involvement participants exposed to weak arguments under the no-picture condi tion in the second experiment paid more attention to the provided information and spent longer time than those in the first

PAGE 130

130experiment. Consequently, they were likely to have more positive product attitudes and purchase intentions. Replicating these two experiments over differe nt segments with larger samples will be necessary to verify whether the first assumption of the modified dual-process model was supported or not. The involvement moderating role under a no-picture condition was supported in the first experiment, but it was not supported in the second experiment. In addition, future research should incorporate the display-layout fact or in information-proce ssing research. Results of future study may provide some useful reco mmendations to mobile marketing professionals since increasing space efficiency through the disp lay-layout is a critical topic in mobile marketing management. Second, contrary to previous st udies of the traditi onal dual-process model, the weak text arguments used in this study were purposefu lly manipulated to avoid negatively framed messages. Some researchers have criticized co nceptualization of the text argument quality used in the traditional dual-process m odel studies because of confoundi ng effects of argument valence (Areni and Lutz 1988). Areni (2002) argued that th e definition of argument quality in traditional dual-process model studies was constantly qualif ied as strong (or weak), but those previous studies were actually designed to elicit predominantly favorable (or unfavorable) cognitive responses. As a result, strong ar guments yielded favorable cogniti ve and affective responses to the message, while weak arguments lead to counterargumentation and generally negative reactions to the message (Areni and Lutz 1988). Future studies in dual-process models must avoid the confounding effects of argument quality caused by employing two constructs: argument strength (i.e., strong versus weak) and ar gument valence (i.e., favorable/positive versus unfavorable/negative). This study controlled ar gument valence and tested the argument strength

PAGE 131

131effects. Future studies also need to test fo r the argument valence e ffects while controlling for argument strength. An unintended instrumentation effect is suspected in this study related to the length of text argument statements. For classification of e ffortful and effortless modes, the current study focused on the amount of effort spent in proces sing and the ease of processing while previous studies of the traditiona l dual-process model focused on presen tation of product merits. In this study, it was specified that effortfu l cues demanded a greater amount of effort in processing than effortless cues; and effortless cues were easier an d quicker to process than effortful cues. The manipulation check results indicate d that the effortful cues in th is study required more effort in processing and they were more difficult to proce ss compared to effortless cues. However, the short sentences described with bul let points in this study elicited quicker and easier processing even for the study participants in the low-invol vement condition. Future studies should use longer sentences which require more effort and a greater amount of elaboration in processing. Final Comments Understanding travelers information-processing strategies is of great important not only for academic researchers, but also for advertiser s and tourism and hospitality business owners. However, examining an individuals mental pro cess is not easy with correlational research methods. This study attempted to investigate the information-processing strategies travelers use in their judgment and decision making using an experimental research method. The modified dual-process model proposed as the theoretica l framework was supported by the study findings that individuals utilized effort ful and effortless cues independently or interdependently based on their decision-involvement situations. Thes e study results also support the constructive consumer choice process theory that travelers develop and use various information-processing strategies to make timeor e ffort-effective decisions in differe nt situations (Bettman, Johnson,

PAGE 132

132and Payne 1991; Jun, Vogt, and MacKay 2007; Stewar t and Vogt 1999). It is hoped that this study inspires other academic a nd applied researchers to be interested in new ways of conceptualizing information-processing and decision-making behaviors and to utilize experimental research methods.

PAGE 133

133APPENDIX A MANIPULATION Involvement Manipulation High-Involvement Condition Please read the following scenario three times very carefully and image that you are in this situation. Your term paper is awarded the Unde rgraduate Best Paper for the annual International Social Science Association (ISSA) conference to be held May 15 17, 2009, in Edinburgh, the capital city of Scotland. You will receive a plaque, round-trip air ticke ts to Edinburgh, a $500 travel allowance and complimentary registration to the conf erence, which lasts several days. The association suggests you to stay at Avalon House because it is a 3-minute walk from the conference hall. You decide to search for information about Avalon House. First of all, you look into the conference sponsors advertising flyer received from ISSA with the conference registration packet. The advertising flyer will be provided on the following page. Please take a few minutes to look at the advertising flyer.

PAGE 134

134Low-Involvement Condition Please read the following scenario very carefull y and imagine that you are in this situation. An attractive-looking envelope is delivered to you. You open the envelope and see some ads inside the envelope. One of the ads is from Ts Restaurant at British Columbia, Canada. You remember that one of your friends has just returned from British Columbia, Canada. Since you heard about how wonderful British Columbia was from your friend, you became curious about Ts Restaurant. The ads will be provided on the following page. Please look at the ads.

PAGE 135

135Manipulation of Text Argument Quality and Picture Presence for Experiment 1 The Strong-Arguments and Picture Condition SanDisk Cruzer USB Flash Drives 5% off with this coupon (mention code: CRUZER) 3 year Warranty High speed USB 2.0 Certified No PC install required to run the applications Security one click passwor d protected access control Crush force exceeds 2000 pounds Avalon House (Bed and Breakfast), Edinburgh, Scotland 5% off your stay of 3 or more nights with this coupon Price range: GBP 40 85 (USD 60 127) TripAdvisor Rating : 4.6 of 5 stars (based on 75 votes) Clean and spacious rooms with comfortable beds and plenty of storage Cable TV/DVD, radio/alarm, free high speed wireless Internet access, hair dryer and ironing facilities On the bus route to Edinburgh Airport which is 20 minutes away by bus, with Waverly train station 5 minutes away on foot Ts Restaurant, British Columbia, Canada A complimentary dessert with the purchase of one dinner entre with this coupon Come and enjoy a variety of da ily specials as we continue the tradition of excellent food and service A smiling waitress will take you to your table and hand you a menu Please answer the questions on the following pages.

PAGE 136

136Manipulation of Text Argument Quality an d Picture Attractiveness for Experiment 2 The Weak-Argument and Unattractive-Picture Condition Ts Restaurant, British Columbia, Canada A complimentary dessert with the purchase of one dinner entre with this coupon Come and enjoy a variety of da ily specials as we continue the tradition of excellent food and service A smiling waitress will take you to your table and hand you a menu Adria House (Bed and Breakfast), Edinburgh, Scotland Charming owners with a smile A warm welcome from the owners dog A little gem of a place Breakfast served by a nice breakfast server Absolutely wonderful! Just beyond your imagination SanDisk Cruzer USB Flash Drives 5% off with this coupon (mention code: CRUZER) 3 year Warranty High speed USB 2.0 Certified No PC install required to run the applications Security one click passwor d protected access control Crush force exceeds 2000 pounds Please answer the questions on the following pages.

PAGE 137

137APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EXPERIMENT 2 Informed Consent Protocol Title: Roles of information in purchase decision making Purpose of the research study: This project examines how cons umers will evaluate information. What you will be asked to do in this study: In this study, we will present you product information. Your task is to examine the product information accor ding to the instructions and indicate your evaluation of the product. Time required: 10 to 15 minutes Risks: We do not anticipate any discomfort arising out of this study. You are free to withdraw from further participation at any stage of the study. You may refuse to answer any question you wish. Respondents will be free to withdraw their consent to participate and may discontinue their participation in the study at any time without consequence. Benefits/Compensation: You will receive extra credit not to exceed 2% of your final grade as specified by your instructor. There are no benefits associated with participating. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number, so your na me will not be linked to your responses. Voluntary participation: Your participation in the study is comple tely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Rights to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact is you have questions about the study: Soo Hyun Jun, a Ph.D. candidate, Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management, 320 FLG PO Box 118208. Gainesville, FL 32611, P hone: (352) 392-4042 ext.1426, Email: sjun@hhp.ufl.edu Dr. Stephen Holland, Department of Tourism, R ecreation and Sport Management, 320 FLG PO Box 118208. Gainesville, FL 32611, Phone: ( 352) 392-4042 ext. 1313, Email: sholland@hhp.ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights in the study: UFIRB Office, PO Box 112250, University of Fl orida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250, Phone: (352) 3920433 The research is approved by University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB02). UFIRB # 2009-U-311 Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I vol untarily agree to participate in the procedure.

PAGE 138

138Instructions We are going to present you with a s cenario and ask you to role play. Please read the scenario very carefully a nd imagine that you are in the situation. On the following pages, you will see some adve rtisements and questions related to the advertisements. Please take time to look at the advertisements. You cannot go back to the previous p ages once you move to the next page. At the end of the study, you will be asked to pr ovide some information (e.g., UF or ASU email address) to earn the participation points that your instructor agreed to award. After the information is provided to your instructor, the email address will be pe rmanently deleted for confidentiality.

PAGE 139

1391. Please indicate your overall opinions about Ts Restaurant. Favorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unfavorable Dislike very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Like very much Positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Negative 2. The probability that you would have dinner at Ts Restaurant if you visit Seattle, WA is: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 3. Please indicate your overall opinions about the Adria House. Favorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unfavorable Dislike very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Like very much Positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Negative 4. The probability that you would choose to stay at the Adria House if you visit Edinburgh is: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 5. Please indicate your overall opinions about the SanDisk Cruzer USB Flash Drives. Favorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unfavorable Dislike very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Like very much Positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Negative 6. The probability that you would purchase the SanDisk Cruzer USB Flash Drives is: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

PAGE 140

140 The questions between 7 and 9 are about the Adria House Edinburgh, Scotland. 7. While I was looking at the Adria House ad, a. I used the text information to evaluate the Adria House Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree b. I carefully considered the text information Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree c. I gave a lot of thought to the text information in order to judge whether the Adria House would be a good place to stay Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree 8. While I was looking at the Adria House ad, a. I paid a lot of attention to the picture Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree b. I used the picture to evaluate the Adria House Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree c. I gave a lot of thought to the picture in order to judge whether the Adria House would be good to stay Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree 9. While you were looking at the Adria House ad, how much mental effort did you spend processing text and picture information? Please assume that the total amount of mental effort you put into processing both the text and picture information was 100%. [ ] % for text information [ ] % for picture information 10. Between the text and picture information in the Adria House ad, which one was easier to process ? Text information +3 +2 +1 0 +1 +2 +3 Picture information

PAGE 141

14111. The ad about Ts Restaurant (was): Essential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Non-essential Unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Important Matters to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Does not matter Not needed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Needed Of concern 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Of no concern Irrelevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Relevant Significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Insignificant Worthless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Valuable 12. The ad about the Adria House (was): Essential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Non-essential Unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Important Matters to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Does not matter Not needed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Needed Of concern 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Of no concern Irrelevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Relevant Significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Insignificant Worthless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Valuable 13. The ad about SanDisk Cruzer USB Flash Drives (was): Essential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Non-essential Unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Important Matters to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Does not matter Not needed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Needed Of concern 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Of no concern Irrelevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Relevant Significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Insignificant Worthless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Valuable

PAGE 142

142 Ts Restaurant, Seattle, WA 14. The picture of Ts Restaurant ad was: Attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unattractive Ugly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Beautiful Functional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not Functional Very unlikeable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very likeable Practical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Impractical Useless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Useful 15a. How informative is this picture for making a decision on whether to have dinner at Ts Restaurant? Informative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Uninformative 15b. How relevant is this picture for making a decision on whether to have dinner at Ts Restaurant? Relevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Irrelevant

PAGE 143

143 Adria House (Bed and Breakfast), Edinburgh, Scotland 16. The picture of the Adria House ad was: Attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unattractive Ugly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Beautiful Functional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not Functional Very unlikeable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very likeable Practical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Impractical Useless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Useful 17a. How informative is this picture for making a decision on whether to stay in the Adria House? Informative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Uninformative 17b. How relevant is this picture for making a decision on whether to stay in the Adria House? Relevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Irrelevant

PAGE 144

144 SanDisk Cruzer USB Flash Drives 18. The picture of SanDisk Cruzer USB Flash Drives ad was: Attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unattractive Ugly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Beautiful Functional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not Functional Very unlikeable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very likeable Practical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Impractical Useless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Useful 19a. How informative is this picture for making a decision on whether to buy SanDisk Cruzer USB Flash Drives? Informative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Uninformative 19b. How relevant is this picture for making a decision on whether to buy SanDisk Cruzer USB Flash Drives? Relevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Irrelevant

PAGE 145

145 Ts Restaurant, Seattle, WA A complimentary dessert with the purchase of one dinner entre with this coupon Come and enjoy a variety of daily specials as we continue the tradition of excellent food and service A smiling waitress will take you to your table and hand you a menu 20. The text information of the Ts Restaurant ad was: Believable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not believable Uninformative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Informative Persuasive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unpersuasive Weak rationale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strong rationale Adria House (Bed and Breakfast), Edinburgh, Scotland 5% off your stay of 3 or more nights with this coupon Price range: GBP 40 85 (USD 60 127) TripAdvisor Rating : 4.6 of 5 stars (based on 75 votes) Clean and spacious rooms with comfortable beds and plenty of storage Cable TV/DVD, radio/alarm, free high speed wireless Internet access, hair dryer and ironing facilities On the bus route to Edinburgh Airport which is 20 minutes away by bus, with Waverly train station 5 minutes away on foot 21. The text information of the Adria House ad was: Believable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not believable Uninformative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Informative Persuasive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unpersuasive Weak rationale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strong rationale

PAGE 146

146 SanDisk Cruzer USB Flash Drives 5% off with this coupon (mention code: CRUZER) 3 year Warranty High speed USB 2.0 Certified No PC install required to run the applications Security one click password protected access control Crush force exceeds 2000 pounds 22. The text information of the SanDisk Cruzer USB Flash Drives ad was: Believable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not believable Uninformative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Informative Persuasive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unpersuasive Weak rationale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strong rationale 23. Have you ever visited Edinburgh? Yes No 24. Are you? Male Female DEBRIEFING You have just completed a task designed to measure the effects of involvement and message content on travelers attitudes. Your responses will help tour ism researchers learn about how to select the most effective travel information for each type of traveler. Thank you very much for your participation in this research.

PAGE 147

14726. Which classes are you taking in this semester (2009 Spring)? (Please check all that apply) Classes in Arizona State University LEI 3180: Current Trends Leisure Services LEI 3320: Leadership and Social Recreation LEI 3140 (Section 3970; MWF Period 2): Philosophy and History of Recreation LEI 3832: Special Events and Meeting Planning SPM 2000C: Intro Sport Management SPM 3306: Sport Marketing SPM 4154C (Section 2814): Admin Sport and Physical Activity SPM 4154C (Section 2029): Admin Sport and Physical Activity LEI 3400: Recreation Programming Design LEI 3140 (Section 8530; MWF Period 4): Philosophy and History of Recreation LEI 2181: Leisure of Contemporary Society 27. Which classes did you take in the last semester (2008 Fall)? (Please check all that apply) LEI 3180: Current Trends Leisure Services LEI 3250: Intro Outdoor Recreation LEI 3500: Admin Leisure Services SPM 3306: Sport Marketing SPM 2000C: Intro Sport Management This section asks you to enter your UF (or ASU) em ail address. This is only to ensure you receive credit in your class. The information you provi de will be deleted when the information is delivered to your instructor. Your UF (or ASU) email address:

PAGE 148

148LIST OF REFERENCES Adaval, R., L. Isbell, and R. Wyer (2006). The impact of pictures on narrativeand list-based impression formation: A process interference model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43, 352-364. Areni, C. (2002). The proposition-probability model of argument structure and message acceptance. Journal of Consumer Research 29, 168-187. Areni, C., and R. Lutz (1988). The role of argum ent quality in the ela boration likelihood model. Advances in Consumer Research 15, 197-202. Aronson, E., T. Wilson, and R. Akert (2005). Social Psychology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Assael, H. (1984). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action Boston, MA: Kent Publishing Co. Babbie, E. (2004). The Practice of Social Research (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thomson Learning. Bettman, J., E. Johnson, and J. Payne (1991). Consumer decision making. In Robertson, T., and H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior (pp. 50-84). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bettman, J., M. Luce, and J. Payne (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research 25 (3), 187-217 Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and Communication London and New York: Pergamon Press. Buck, R., and A. VanLear (2002). Verbal a nd nonverbal communication: Distinguishing symbolic, spontaneous, and pseudospontaneous nonverbal behavior. Journal of Communication 52 (3), 522-541. Burnkrant, R., and H. Unnava (1989). Self-refe rencing: A strategy for increasing processing of message content. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 15, 628-638. Campbell, D., and J. Stanley (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Ex perimental Designs for Research Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Celsi, R., and J. Olson (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research 15, 210-224. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (5), 752-766.

PAGE 149

149Chaiken, S., and D. Maheswaran (1994). Heuristi c processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambi guity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 (3), 460-473. Chen, S., and S. Chaiken (1999). The heuristicsystematic model in its broader context. In Chaiken, S., and Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 7396). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Cohen, J., and C. Areni (1991). A ffect and consumer behavior. In Robertson, T., and H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior (pp. 188-240). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Cook, T., and D. Campbell (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Cutler, B., and R. Javalgi (1993). Analysis of print ad features: Services versus products. Journal of Advertising Research 33, 62-69. Darley, W., and S. Robert (1993). Advertisi ng claim objectivity: Antecedents and effects. Journal of Marketing 57 (4), 100-113. Decrop, A. (1999). Tourists decision -making and behavior processes. In Pizam, A., and Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism (pp. 103-133). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc. Drolet, A., M. F. Luce, and I. Simonson (2009). When does choice reveal preference? Moderators of heuristic ve rsus goal-based choice. Journal of Consumer Research 36, 137-147. Edgett, S., and S. Parkinson (1993). Mark eting for service in dustries A review. The Service Industries Journal 13 (3), 19-39. Engel, J., and R. Blackwell (1982). Consumer Behavior Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press. Fiske, S. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38 (6), 889. Flipo, J. (1988). On the in tangibility of services. The Services Industries Journal 8 (3), 286-293. Fodness, D., and B. Murray (1999). A model of tourist information search behavior. Journal of Travel Research 37 (3), 220-230. Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgmen t: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin 117, 39-66.

PAGE 150

150Gazzaniga, M. (1983). Right hemisphere languag e following commissurotomy: A twenty-year perspective. American Psychologist 38, 525-537. Ghobadian, A., S. Speller, and M. Jones ( 1994). Service quality: C oncepts and models. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 11 (9), 43-66. Green, S., and N. J. Salkind (2003). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson Education, Inc. Greenwald, A., and C. Leavitt (1984). Audience involvement in advertising: Four levels. Journal of Consumer Research 11, 581-592. Harmon, D., and W. Ray (1977). Hemispheric activ ity during affective verbal stimuli: An EEG study, Neuropsychologia 15, 457-460. Havitz, M., and F. Dimanche ( 1997). Leisure involvement revisite d: Conceptual conundrums and measurement advances. Journal of Leisure Research 29, 245-278. Hirschman, E. (1986). The effect of verbal a nd pictorial advertising stimuli on aesthetic, utilitarian and familiarity perceptions. Journal of Advertising 15 (2), 27-34. Huffman, C., and M. Houston (1993). Goal-o riented experiences and the development knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research 20, 190-207. Janiszewski, C. (1998). The infl uence of display characteristic s on visual exploratory search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 25, 290-301. Jun, S., C. Vogt, and K. MacKay (2007). Relati onships between travel information search and travel product purcahse in pretrip contexts. Journal of Travel Research 45, 266-274. Jun, S., C. Vogt, and K. MacKay (in preparation) Travel information search strategy and travel product characteristics: Comparisons be tween accommodations and flights. Keppel, G., and T. D. Wickens (2004). Design and Anlysis: A Researchers Handbook (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pears on Education, Inc. Kinard, B., and M. Capella ( 2006). Relationship marketing: The influence of consumer involvement on perceived service benefits. Journal of Service Marketing 20 (6), 359368. Kisielius, J., and B. Sternthal (1986). Examinin g the vividness controversy: An availabilityvalence interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research 12 (4), 418-431. Krugman, H. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly 29, 349-356.

PAGE 151

151Kyle, G. (2000). Towards an understanding of leisure involvement. Proceedings for the 8th Graduate Student Leisure Research Symposium 2000. Waterloo, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/~g arls/2000abstracts/gerard.htm Lurie, N. (2004). Decision making in informati on-rich environment: The role of information structure. Journal of Consumer Research 30 (4), 473-486. Lynch, J., and T. Srull (1982). Memory and attenti onal factors in consumer choice: Concepts and research methods. Journal of Consumer Research 9, 18-37. Maheswaran, D., and J. Meye rs-Levy (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research 27, 361-367. Manicas, P., and P. F. Secord (1983). Implications for psychology of the new philosophy of science. American Psychologist, 38 (4), 399-413. Mathieson, A., and G. Wall (1982). Tourism: Economic, Phys ical and Social Impacts Harlow, UK: Longman. Mattila, A. (1999). Do emotiona l appeals work for services? International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10 (3), 292-306. Mattila, A. (2001). Do emotional appeals work for hotels? An exploratory study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 25 (1), 31-45. McQuarrie, E., and D. Mick (1999). Visual rh etoric in advertising: Text-interpretive, experimental, and reader-response analyses. Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (1), 3754. Miao, L., and Mattila, A. (2007). How and how much to reveal? The effects of price transparency on consumers price perceptions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 31 (4), 530-545. Miniard, P., S. Bhatla, K. Lord, P. Dickson, a nd H. R. Unnava (1991). Picture-based persuasion processes and the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 18 (1), 92-107. Miniard, P., S. Bhatla, and R. Rose (1990). On the formation and relationship of ad and brand attitudes: An experiment al and causal Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 27 (August), 290-303. Mitchell, A. (1986). The effect of verbal and visual components of advertisements on brand attitudes and attitude to ward the advertisement. Journal of Consumer Research 13 (1), 12-24.

PAGE 152

152Mitchell, A., and J. Olson (1981) Are product attribute beliefs th e only mediators of advertising effects on brand attitudes? Journal of Marketing Research 18 (3), 318-322. Mountinho, L. (1987). Consumer behavior in tourism. European Journal of Marketing 21 (10), 1-44. Myers, R., and T. Sperry (1953). Interocular transfer of the visu al form discrimination habit in cats after section of the optic chiasm and corpus callosum. Anatomical Record 175, 351352. Novak, T., D. Hoffman, and A. Duhachek (2003). The influence of goal-directed and experiential activities on online flow experiences. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13 (1&2), 3-16. Oh, H., and C. Jasper (2006). Pr ogressing of apparel advertisemen ts: Application and extension of Elaborbation Likelihood Model. International Textile and Apparel Association 24 (1), 15-32. Pastore, M. (1999, November). Incr ease Seen in Internet Shopping. Retrieved from http://www.clickz.com/stats/big_p icture/demographics/article.php/238221 Payne, J., J. Bettman, and E. Johnson (1992). Be havioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 43, 87-131. Petty, R., D. Schumann, S. Richman, and A. St rathman (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Differenct roles for affect under highand low-elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64 (1), 5-20. Petty, R., and D. Wegener (1999). The elabor ation likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In Chaiken, S., and Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 73-96). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Petty, R., and J. Cacioppo (1979). Issue involveme nt can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 1915-1926. Petty, R., and J. Cacioppo (1980). Effects of i ssue involvement on attitudes in an advertising context. In Gon, G., and M. Goldberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the Division 23 Program (pp. 75-79). Montreal, Canada: American Psychological Association. Petty, R., and J. Cacioppo (1981). Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Company. Petty, R., and J. Cacioppo (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peri pheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.

PAGE 153

153 Petty, R., and J. Cacioppo (1986). The el aboration likelihood m odel of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19, 123-205. Petty, R., J. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann (1983). Ce ntral and Peripheral r outes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 10, 135-146. Petty, R., R. Unnava, and A. Strathman (1991). Theories of attitdue change. In Robertson, T., and Kassarjian, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior (pp. 241-280). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Reinhard, M., and S. Sporer ( 2008). Verbal and nonverbal behavi our as a basis for credibility attribution: The impact of task invovlement and cognitive capacity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44, 477-488. Rosbergen, E., R. Pieters, and M. Wedel (1997). Visual attention to advertising: A segment-level analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 24, 305-314. Rossiter, J. R., and L. Percy (1983 ) Visual imagery in advertising. In Harris, R. J. (Ed.), Information Processing Research in Advertising (chapter 4). New York, NY: Erlbaum. Schmoll, G. (1977). Tourism Promotion. London, UK: Tourism International Press. Scott, L. (1994). Images in advertising: The need for a theory of visual rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research 21 (2), 252-273. Shen, H., and R. Wyer (2008). The impact of nega tive affect on responses to affect: Regulatory experiences. Journal of Consumer Psychology 18 (1), 39. Shepard, R. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 156-163. Sherif, M., and C. Hovland (1961). Social Judgment New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Simon, H. (1974). How big is a chunk? Science 183, 482-488. Simonson, I., and A. Tversky (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (2), 281-295. Singh, S., V. P. Lessig, D. Kim, R. Gupta, a nd M. A. Hocutt (2000). Does your ad have too many pictures? Journal of Advertising Research 40 (1), 11. Skowronski, J., and D. Carlston (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin 105 (1), 131.

PAGE 154

154Solso, R., M. K. MacLin, and O. MacLin (2005). Cognitive Psychology (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson and AB. Stafford, M., and E. Day (1995). Re tail services advertising: The effects of appeal, medium and service. Journal of Advertising 24, 57-72. Stewart, D., S. Hecker, and J. Graham (1987). Its more than what you say: Assessing the influence of nonverbal co mmunication in marketing. Psychology and Marketing 4 (4), 303-322. Stewart, S., and C. Vogt (1999). A case-based approach to understanding vacation planning. Leisure Sciences, 21, 79-95. Tarn, D. (2005). Marketing-based tangibilisation for services. The Service Industries Journal 25 (6), 747-772. Taylor, S., and S. Thompson (1982). Stal king the elusive vividness effect. Psychological Review 89, 155-181. Trope, Y., and N. Liberman (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review 110 (3), 403421. Tucker, D. M. (1981). Lateral brain f unction, emotion, and conceptualization. Psychological Bulletin 89, 19-46. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman (1991). Loss aversi on in riskless choice: A reference dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (November), 1040-1061. Vogt, C. (1993). The role of touristic inform ation in the pre-trip experience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indian a University, Bloomington, IN. Vogt, C., and D. Fesenmaier (1998). Expanding the functional information search model. Annals of Tourism Research 25, 551-578. Weber, K., and W. Roehl (1999). Profiling people searching for and purchasing travel products on the World Wide Web. Journal of Travel Research 37, 291-298. Woodside, A., and R. MacDonald (1994). Genera l system framework of customer choice processes of tourism services. In Gasser R. V., and K. Weiermair (Eds.), Spoilt for Choice. Decision-Making Processes and Pref erence Change of Tourists: Intertemporal and Intercountry Perspectives (pp. 30-59). Thaur, Germany: Kulturverlag. Woodside, A., and S. Lysonski (1989). A gene ral model of traveler destination choice. Journal of Travel Research 27 (1), 8-14.

PAGE 155

155Zaichkowsky, J. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research 12, 341-352. Zajonc, R. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologists 35, 151-175. Zeithaml, V., A. Parasuraman, and L. Berry ( 1985). Problems and strategies in services marketing. Journal of Marketing 49, 33-46.

PAGE 156

156BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Soo Hyun Jun is a doctoral graduate in the De partment of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management at the University of Florida (UF) and studied with Dr. Stephen Holland. While attending UF, she received the University of Fl orida Alumni Fellow Award for four years. She also won the Best Presentation of Student Research at the Annua l Travel and Tourism Research Association (TTRA) Canada Conference in 2008. Soo earned her masters degree at Michigan St ate University (MSU) and studied with Dr. Christine Vogt. Her thesis title was Internet Uses for Travel In formation Search and Travel Product Purchase in Pretrip Contexts. She was awarded the Maste rs Student Research Merit Award for her masters thesis at the 36th Annual TTRA Conference in 2005. Based on her thesis research, she and her masters adviso r published a paper in the 2007 issue of Journal of Travel Research She was also awarded the Be st Illustrated Paper at the 35th Annual TTRA Conference in 2004. As a research assistant at MSU and UF, S oo assisted several professors in various projects related to tourism pl anning, tourism marketing, and cons umer/resident satisfaction. Her current research interests are consumer behavi or, information-processing and decision-making behaviors, information technol ogy, marketing for hospitality and tourism, marketing for nonprofit organizations, and expe rimental research methods. Before moving to the United States, Soo work ed for the Division of Corporate Strategic Planning at CJ Corporation in Seoul, Korea, which focuses on food, food services and entertainment businesses; and the Division of Marketing at CJ Ma ll (an Internet shopping mall). Soo earned her bachelors degree in Japane se Literature and Language at Dongduk Womens University, Seoul, Korea in 1999.