miss

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. 12: 102–111 (2013)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.1423

Message exposure with friends: The role of social context on attitudes toward prominently placed brands
KESHA K. COKER1*, SUZANNE A. ALTOBELLO2 and SIVA K. BALASUBRAMANIAN3
1
School of Business, Eastern Illinois University, 4012 Lumpkin Hall, Charleston, IL 61920, USA
2
College of Business, Southern Illinois University, 229A Rehn Hall, 1025 Lincoln Drive, Mail Code 4629, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA
3
Stuart School of Business, Illinois Institute of Technology, 565 West Adams Street (Fourth Floor), Chicago, IL 60661, USA
ABSTRACT
Consumers usually experience product placements in the presence of others, such as watching a movie or television show together. In this study, the role of social context on attitudes toward prominently placed brands is explored. Multilevel modeling was used to analyze data from 382 participants who watched a sitcom episode in dyads, with a friend or with someone they did not know. Additionally, dyads were allowed to interact during the viewing or required to remain passive. Attitudes toward product placements were more favorable when coviewing with friends than with strangers, but only toward a high intensity plot placement. No attitude differences emerged between interactive and passive viewing, suggesting that talking while viewing does not distract viewers to the extent that it impacts attitudes. No significant differences in attitudes emerged between the friend-interactive experimental condition and the other conditions. However, a significant difference in brand attitudes between friends and strangers emerged within the passive viewing context for a high intensity plot placement. Implications are such that chatting with a friend while watching product placements was no different from chatting with a stranger, but when watching silently, the presence of a friend

References: d’Astous A, Chartier F. 2000. A study of factors affecting consumer evaluations and memory of product placements in movies Balasubramanian SK, Karrh JA, Patwardhan H. 2006. Audience response to product placements: an integrative framework and Bowman ND. 2008. A PAT on the back: media flow theory revis(it) ed Brechman J. 2011. Reconceptualizing flow for application in media research: a model of narrative processing Brown JJ, Reingen PH. 1987. Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior Bruder M, Dosmukhambetova D, Nerb J. 2012. Emotional signals in nonverbal interaction: dyadic facilitation and convergence in Cowley E, Barron C. 2008. When product placement goes wrong: the effects of program liking and placement prominence J. Consumer Behav. 12: 102–111 (2013) DOI: 10.1002/cb Feuer J. 2004. Watching together might mean watching better. Finneran CM, Zhang P. 2003. A person-artefact-task (PAT) model of flow antecedents in computer-mediated environments Fisher RJ, Dubé L. 2005. Gender differences in responses to emotional advertising: a social desirability perspective. Journal of Consumer Research 31(4): 850–858. Gallo P, Peoples G. 2012. The Grammy’s as ‘social TV’. Billboard 124(7): 23–25. Granovetter MS. 1973. The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–1380. Granovetter MS. 1983. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited Gupta PB, Gould SJ. 1997. Consumers’ perceptions of the ethics and acceptability of product placements in movies: product Gupta PB, Lord KR. 1998. Product placement in movies: the effect of prominence and mode on audience recall Harris L, Dennis C. 2011. Engaging customers on Facebook: challenges for e-retailers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 10: 338–346. Hatfield E, Cacioppo JT, Rapson RL. 1993. Emotional contagion. Hocking JE. 1982. Sports and spectators: intra-audience effects. Hokyoung R, Parsons D. 2012. Risky business or sharing the load? Social flow in collaborative mobile learning Jakobs E, Manstead ASR, Fischer AH. 1999. Social motives, emotional feelings, and smiling Jakobs E, Manstead ASR, Fischer AH. 2001. Social context effects on facial activity in a negative emotional setting Kimura M, Daibo I. 2008. The study of emotional contagion from the perspective of interpersonal relationships Latané B. 1981. The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist 36(4): 343–356. Latané B, Nida S. 1981. Ten years of research on group size and helping Law S, Braun KA. 2000. I’ll have what she’s having: gauging the impact of product placements on viewers Li D, Eden L, Hitt MA, Ireland RD. 2008. Friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Partner selection in R&D alliances Lin S, McDonald DG. 2007. Effect of peer coviewing and individual differences on reactions to comedy MacKenzie SB, Lutz RJ. 1989. An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising Macy’s Online Catalog. 2010. Available at http://www.macys.com [accessed 21 May 2010]. Marsden PV, Campbell KE. 1984. Measuring tie strength. Social Forces 63(2): 482–501. Mitchell AA, Olson JC. 1981. Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Nelson MR, McLeod LE. 2015. Adolescent brand consciousness and product placements: awareness, liking and perceived