A critique of meta-analysis on how spacing impacts verbal learning
An advert sticks into one’s memory when it focuses on the characteristic of the material being advertised, other advertisements competing for the same market niche, and the kind of people it targets (Shapiro and Shanker, 2004). Other secondary issues that have to be considered include how these ads are scheduled by the advertising media and how frequently the ad material is done. Developing an insight into how the repetition of advertising material can be learned and remembered can help in gauging their effectiveness. The interaction between repetition schedule, advertising content, and context has not been formally researched and if there are any studies into these areas it is very sparse. Those intending to study this phenomenon have to look at related studies. Much of the investigation into verbal learning has had to heavily rely on studies of learning via repetition. Attention, rehearsal, retrieval, reconstruction and encoding hypotheses, and encoding variability are very relevant if one wants to understand memory formation.
This meta-analysis relied heavily on verbal learning literature. The propositions that are fronted on human behavior and advertising research are mere speculations. The meta-analysis can however be entertained because it is based on the only available results. In this aspect, reconstruction and retrieval hypotheses come in handy in helping to generate propositions as to how repetition can be used in improving memory of advertising material. The retrieval explanation gives credence to an initial encoding of stimulus and limitation of retrieval cues. This complicates the retrieval process although it becomes successful in the long run. This is consistent with the theory that advertising derives credence from three repeated exposures. This is not true for all the advertisements. The content and context of spacing effect lack theoretical background needed for it to advance. Memory improves as an advertising material is repeated. Nevertheless, repetition of advertising material can be counterproductive. This is indeed consistent with the retrieval hypothesis. Pictures that are used in advertisements are easy to remember compared to verbal utterances but verbal advertisements are more appropriate in repetition advertisements. It is imperative to come up with brand names that are meaningful for your product. However, meaningless brand names that are overly repeated make consumers develop meaningful associations with them. Stimuli of semantically complex origin or those of structural complex origin respond differently to exposures.
A study into how memory-based measures can be used in assessing the effects of advertising
Studies that have been conducted in this area have absolutely relied on examination of contingent effects on explicit memory retrieval. The ability of the consumer to interrogate his or her memory in an attempt to remember what information the advertisement was trying to capitalize on has been so integral (Janiszewski, 2003). Divided attention, span of time between advertisement exposure and test interfere with the process of memory retrieval. This study advances that an alternative retrieval process and implicit memory can work differently. The alternative retrieval process is therefore automatic in nature as consumers do not have to interrogate their memory to ascertain what they previously viewed in an advertisement. When it is compared with explicit memory retrieval, it can be preserved even in situations where one’s attention is divided. Explicit memory is severely impacted by delay and divided attention. Process dissociation procedure helps invalidation of both explicit and implicit memory retrieval.
The hypotheses that stipulated that retrieval of explicit memory when there is the increase in time delay between exposure and test and hence decrease in attention to the ad and that there would be no effect on memory retrieval when there is increase in exposure time and test hence decrease in ad was founded on the fact that dependent variables contribute to dissociated pattern of effects. The study failed to use statistical analysis to complete implicit memory tests. Performance on implicit memory tests should tally with those of explicit memory tests. When the same retrieval processes have been used the results should be the same. To avoid contamination of performance completion of dependent variables must be done between subjects. This study had its shortcomings especially in areas about effectiveness of an advertisement which is only tied to explicit memory. Explicit memory can however be less effective in situations where there is the delay between ad exposure and choice.
A critique of study into how advertising misinformation can impact memory
When somebody watches an advert of a product he or she once consumed they tend to think that must have tasted a superior product. Consumers who are familiar with the products they once consumed are less likely to be misled by advertisements. This category of consumers is helped by misleading advertisements to clearly remember the actual brand of product they consumed (Cowley and Janus, 2004).
Bringing recognition and recall results into perspective, advertisements are less likely to alter memory for a particular product, but instead build consumers consumption vocabulary to discretely describe the taste of the product. People who are not familiar with a given product tend to ignite their memory of the product by relying on advertisement information. The description of their memory of the product is dependent on experience and advertisement. People who are familiar with a particular product are quite often misled by advertisements. Consumers who are more conscious of subcategories of different products cannot be easily misled by misleading advertisements but are instead encouraged by them to better their memory. This is true because they are capable of discerning details of the products advertised. However, this finding needs further corroboration by subsequent researches to validate its authenticity.
A critique of a study on how memory interference impacts advertisement
Memory for advertisement information can negatively be impacted by subjecting the participant to another advertisement especially where the two advertisements use similar pictures (Kumar and Krishnan, 2004). This adversely affects new brands in the market. Competitive interference has got very minimal effect on familiar brands found in the market.
Contextual information about two brands using similar pictures in advertisements can cause interference across product classes. The study concurs with the popular belief that familiar brands cannot be affected by competitive interference but slightly deviates when it reiterates that a strong representation of the brand node in one’s memory cannot provide a concrete basis for countering interference. The competition witnessed in advertising media occasioned by picture cue make the products being advertised less capable of reaching activation level for them to be sufficiently recalled by consumers. The correct retrieval of the brand name may not have much impact especially when consumers are unfamiliar with the claims. Provision of picture label cue when a product is retrieved affects claims about familiar brands because of contextual interference.
Reference List
Cowley, E. and Janus, E., (2004). Not Necessarily Better, but Certainly Different: A Limit to the Advertising Misinformation Effect on Memory, Journal Of Consumer Research, 11.
Janiszewski, C., Noel, H. and Sawyer, A.G., (2003). A Meta-analysis of the Spacing Effect in Verbal Learning: Implications for Research on Advertising Repetition and Consumer Memory, Journal of Consumer Research, 30.
Kumar, A. and Krishnan, S., (2004). Memory Interference in Advertising: A Replication and Extension, Journal of Consumer Research, 30.
Shapiro, S. and Shanker, K.H., (2001). Memory-Based Measures for Assessing Advertising Effects: A Comparison of Explicit and Implicit Memory Effects, The Journal of Advertising, 30(3).