Journalism & Mass

Communication Quarterly
http://jmq.sagepub.com/

Searching for Our ''Own Theory'' in Advertising: An Update of Research

Networks
Yorgo Pasadeos, Joseph Phelps and Aimee Edison
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 2008 85: 785
DOI: 10.1177/107769900808500405

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/85/4/785

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication

Additional services and information for Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly can be found
at:

Email Alerts: http://jmq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jmq.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Dec 1, 2008

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by kang arul on October 16, 2013
What is This?
SEARCHING FOR O U R ” O W THEORY”
IN ADVERTISING:AN UPDATE
OF RESEARCH NETWORKS
By Yorgo Pasadeos, Joseph Phelps, and Aimee Edison

Extending previous research, this work examines the advertising litera-

ture published in 2002-05, identifies research streams among most-cited
works, and presents a co-citation network. Beyond what the citation
analysis suggests about advertising research today, comparing the find-
ings to earlier results provides insight into the intellectual development
of thefield, including shifts in scholarly orientations. Although advertis-
ing scholarship is historically sound, dynamic, increasingly diverse, and
largely self-sufficient, the field has yet to move to a level of maturity
where it can work off its ”own,” rather than “borrowed,” theory.

Advertising researchers have relied on various theoretical frame-

works, concepts, and approaches to ask questions, state hypotheses,
advance propositions, and construct and test models. Still, some
”advertisingresearchers complain that there are no genuine advertising
theories.”’ Much theorizing in advertising can be viewed either as bor-
rowed from or as an extension of other disciplines. Indeed, there are as
many ways to look at advertising as there are disciplines within the
social /behavioral and administrative sciences. From a purely market-
ing perspective, advertising consists of persuasive messages in paid
media with an identified sponsor. Viewed through a basic communica-
tion model: much advertising research focuses on communicator per-
ceptions and audience effects, with a theoretical foundation from psy-
chology. Sociology offers bases for investigating social effects.
The quest for theory is part of the overall quest for structure in
science. Kuhn, who in his work on paradigms implies the dynamic
nature of such structure, saw citation linking-the bibliometric method
of studying citations-as one way of possibly identifying paradigm
change^.^ Information scientist Small explained why citations are so
powerful: ”[Slcience is a collective and collaborative process: a lot of
independent and creative people ... sharing their work through open
publication ... The lowly citation facilitates this by allowing one scho-
lar to embed another’s work in his or her own, creating an extended, col-
lective argument ... Since citations are in many cases appeals to sup-
Yorgo Pasadeos is a professor of advertising and mass communication and Joseph Phelps J&MC ~ ~ ~ , t ~ 1
is the Reese Phifer Professor of Advertising in the College of Communication &’ Vol.85,No.4
Information Sciences, University of Alabama; and Aimee Edison is a visiting assistant winter^^^
785-806
professor of psychology at Indiana University Southeast. 02009 AEJMC

SEARCHING FOR O U R ”OWN THEORY”

IN ADVERTISING 785
 porting evidence, science evolves tree-like with roots deep into the
past."4
"The lowly citation," then, may be both a basic building block in
the super-structure of scientific knowledge and a cobblestone on the path
to theory. "Invisible college^"^ of scholars who tread such paths become
partly visible through the aggregation of many citations. Thus, disciplines
can be mapped, dominant research areas identified, and a sociology of
science can be advanced. "Sociology of science deals with the social con-
ditions and effects of science, and with the social structures and process-
es of scientific activity."6 It is with those social structures and process that
the current study is concerned. Replicating a citation study has helped
to address the taxonomy of most-cited works of advertising scholarship
and to provide insight into the structure of the field by identifying domi-
nant works and research areas. The current study allows researchers to
explore how that taxonomy has changed over time and provides insight
into how advertising scholarship is evolving. Finally, the combined find-
ings reveal insights concerning the state of the discipline.
Sociologists of knowledge7are interested in the social organization
of knowledge. The particular concern here is in the production, accumu-
lation, and transmission of scientific knowledge within advertising, a
young discipline that necessarily draws much of its conceptual frame-
work from older, more established disciplines. Paisley* distinguished
between "level fields," which are interested in units of analysis (i.e., psy-
chology studies individuals; sociology studies groups; anthropology
studies cultures), and "variable fields," such as communication (and its
subfield, advertising), which are interested in topics or variables. Nan
and Faber suggested that theories tend to originate in level fields and then
move to variable field^.^ Variable fields, as they mature, can then devel-
op theories unique to their topical interests. Nan and Faber noted that an
essential step toward developing unique theories in advertising is to
focus more on the key elements that make advertising unique.1° They
provided four examples of possible elements: skepticism, repetition, mes-
sage coordination, and clutter. An additional concern, then, is to explore the
extent to which those elements are evident among the most cited and
most influential works in advertising today and to consider what this sug-
gests about the development of advertising theory and the maturation of
the field.

Bibliometric Citation analysis, a bibliometric technique, focuses on the informa-

Study tion listed in footnotes and/or references of scholarly works as its unit of
o ~ ~ c ~ o analysis."
~ a v ~ Assuming
y that an oft-cited article or book is deemed important
by many scholars,12citation analysis can reveal which publications and
Disciplines authors cite which other publications and/ or authors. Citation analysis
borrows much from approaches developed by sociologists of science who
study interactions among sch01ars.l~Resulting data sets can be used to
identify "research fronts" among scholar^'^ as well as to establish the
structure and boundaries of a discipline. While citation counts say noth-
ing of the quality of a cited work or of an author's citing intention,15they

786 QUARTERLY
COMMUNICATION
JOURNALISM& MASS
have been found to correlate with scientific productivity and other
measures of quality.16
Co-Citation Networks. After all citations in a given document
have been recorded, a list of all possible pairs of works cited by that doc-
ument can be obtained. Repeating this procedure for a large number of
documents allows researchers to obtain co-citation frequencies and co-
citation netw01ks.l~Co-citation networks reveal linkages that can be
used to assess a field's cumulative tradition and reference disciplines at
the level of the individual author or published paper instead of the more
macro level of journal title.ls They are visual representations of schools
of thought and "invisible colleges ... informal communication relations
among scientists or other scholars who share a specific common interest
or Co-citation networks reveal "paradigms" as well as shifts in
paradigms over time. Changes in co-citation networks are less common
than changes in simple citation counts, and represent shifts in research
activity and scholarly orientation within a

The study of scholarly publishing has been prevalent in the two Research
disciplines with which advertising is most closely associated: communi- into the
cationz1and business.z2A seminal citation study in mass communication Adveeising
was conducted by Tankard, Chang, and Tsang, and replicated later by ~i~~~~~~~
Chang and Tai.' Given the broad range of research areas and theoreti-
cal approaches within the broad umbrella of "mass communication," it
is not surprising that what those two studies have identified as most-
cited works are not as heavily represented in specific functional areas of
mass communication such as public relations and advertising."
The advertising literature has its own history of investigations into
which authors and/or publications most influence the discipline. For
example, Yale and Gilly examined articles in advertising and marketing
journals and identified prevalent topics and research methods.= Russell
and and later Pasade0s,2~determined which journals were
most-cited by advertising scholars. Scholars have investigated the pub-
lication productivity of individual authors and institutions: Ford
and and Soley and Reidmexamined journal-article author-
ship; and Edwards and LaFerle31examined authorship of articles in con-
ference proceedings. Such works are indirect measures of the influence
of various authors, institutions, publications, or topics on advertising
research.
A more direct measure determines the frequency with which
authors are cited by other scholars. For example, found that few
most-published advertising scholars identified in Barry's% study had
been quoted frequently by trade and popular publications. Recently,
Cho and Khang" reviewed Internet-related research in communications,
marketing, and advertising, focusing on topics, conceptual frameworks,
and methods of investigation.
Pasadeos, Phelps, and Kim examined citations in advertising
research articles and revealed the most-cited works of 1982-85 and 1992-
95;35their co-citation analysis determined prevalent research networks

SEARCHING FOR O U R "OWN THEORY"

IN ADVERTISING 787
 in each period. They reported a pendulum swing from a dominant role
for ”cognitive processing” works in 1982-85 to works exploring ”affective
responses” in 1992-95. Other changes included the decline of “informa-
tion” and “regulatory issues” and the rise of the Elaboration Likelihood
Model (ELM) in 1992-95. In addition, they found that advertising
researchers, through their works, “were more tightly interconnected in
1992-95 than they had been in 1982-85 suggesting greater paradigmatic
rigor in 1992-1995, with a network of scholars aggressively building on
each other’s efforts.”%
More recently, Beard obtained academicians’ and practitioners’
evaluations of the impact of advertising works thought to be influential,
as well as their readership of those His list of highly rated works
correlates well with Pasadeos, Phelps, and Kim’s lists of most-cited
works. The fact that the two studies, using different methods, obtained
similar findings adds credence to the proposition that those works have,
indeed, had a significant impact. Note, however, that significant shifts
in the most-cited works and networks were found to have occurred
from 1982-85 to 1992-95 and, indeed, Beard confirmed this through corre-
lation analysis?* In light of the dynamic nature of the literature, the pas-
sage of a decade since the last advertising co-citation study justifies an
extension.
In extending the work of Pasadeos, Phelps, and Kim, one would
expect to find shifts in the patterns of most-cited works and research net-
works, particularly since new technologies have brought about research
streams barely beginning to be noticed in 1992-95. In short, the current
work studies citations and co-citation networks to map prevalent research
streams. Those works disproportionately represent the scholarly struc-
ture of the field. Additionally, as suggested by K ~ h n : ~the current work
explores changes in citation counts and in co-citation networks to identi-
fy evolutionary changes in the field, and to determine whether such
changes reveal progress in the development of advertising theory.

Method To compare the results of the current study with Pasadeos, Phelps,
and Kim’s findings, the same journals were used, as well as a time period
(2002-2005) that is equivalent and therefore directly comparable to theirs
(1982-1985; 1992-1995).Thus, the data were obtained from the citations in
articles appearing in seven journals: Journal of Advertising, Journal of
Advertising Research, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Journal of Marketing, Journal of
Marketing Research, and Journal of Consumer Research. Advertising articles
in issues of those journals published in 2002-05 were content-analyzed.40
Citations to books, book chapters, monographs, journal articles, and pub-
lished proceedings were recordedjl Data collection included (1)title of
cited work; (2) year of cited work; (3) authods): names of all authors of the
cited work were recorded (the order of multiple authors was also record-
ed); and (4)self-cites: cited works by at least one author of the citing work.
A total of 13,126 citations were recorded in Microsoft Excel files (25,512
lines, including multiple authors) and analyzed using the data-sorting
function of the software.

788 JOURNALISM b MASS

COMMUNICATION
QU~RTERLY
 The data collection involves the direct recording of published
information and did not require judgment coding. Therefore, a coeffi-
cient of reliability was not appropriate. However, given the enormity of
the data (more than 13,000 citations), accuracy was a concern, so the
data were double-checked for errors. Further, self-citations (6% of cita-
tions) were deleted. The remaining 12,323 citations were analyzed to
determine the most-cited works and the co-citation network of 2002-05.

Most-Cited Advertising Works. Table 1 shows the 50 most-cited Findings

works in the advertising literature in 2002-05.“ Identifying the relative
influence of individual works is interesting, but the primary use of this
list is in looking for patterns in an effort to identify major themes.
Grouping these works in thematic categories provides the snapshot of a
structural map of the field. Comparing the present works and research
categories to those found in 1982-85 and 1992-95 begins to provide
insight into the field and this is facilitated by using, where appropriate,
the dominant thematic categories identified by Pasadeos, Phelps, and

Thematic Categories. Attitudes and persuasion claim four of the top

10 slots. The Elaboration Likelihood Model is well represented with
Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann being the most-cited workMwhile Petty
and Cacioppo’s Communication and Persuasion45 is fifth. Several other
works, for example, Eagly and Chaiken‘s% The Psychology of Attitudes,
and Fishbein and Aj~en’s*~ classic book on attitude and behavior, also fit
here, as does Friestad and Wright’s@Persuasion Knowledge Model
(PKM), which explores how people react to persuasion attempts. This
category also played an important role in advertising research in earlier
periods. Fishbein and and A j z e n ’ ~work~ ~ was also among the most-
cited in 1992-95 and 1982-85;%Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann’s51work
on the ELM was also the most-cited in 1992-95. The present list is the
first to include Friestad and Wright,” and given the PKM’s focus on con-
sumer reactions to persuasive efforts, it may very well become the next
overall leader to emerge from this category.
Research examining how advertising works continues to be an
important research stream. Krugman’s challenge53to the hierarchy
model under low-involvement conditions perhaps best illustrates the
continued influence of this category. Krugman’s- was the most-cited
work in 1982-85 and among the top 10 in 1992-95. MacInnis and
J a ~ o r s kprovided
i~~ a framework for understanding the processing of
advertising information. Their work was also on the most-cited list in
1992-95. Other worksx appear here for the first time. Vaughn57consid-
ered variations in involvement as well as in cognitive and affective
responses, providing what is known as the FCB Grid. Vakratsas and
AmbleP reviewed over 250 works and synthesized what is known
about how advertising works. Their insights complement Friestad and
Wright’s PKM, and suggest avenues for future research.
Information Processing. These works include MacInnis, Moorman,
and Jawor~ki?~ who examined the processing of information about

SEARCHING FOR O U R “OWN THEORY”

IN ADVERTISING 789
 TABLE 1
Most-cited Works in Advertising Research
Cites Cited Work
29 Richard E. Petty, John T. Cacioppo, and David
T. Schumann, ”Central and Peripheral Routes
to Advertising Effectiveness:The Moderating 17 Richard E. Petty and John T. Caaoppo,Atti-
Effect of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer
Research 10 (September 1983): 13546.
27 Ruben M. Baron and David A. Kenny, ”The
Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in
Social Psychological Research Conceptual
Strategic and Statistical Considerations,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
51 (6,1986): 1173-82.
24 Scott B. MacKenzie, Richard J. Lutz, and
George E. Belch, ”The Role of Attitude
Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising
Effectiveness:a Test of Competing Expla-
nations,” Journal of Marketing Research 23
(May 1986): 13043.
24 Scott 8. MacKenzie and Richard J. Lutz, “An
Empirical Examination of the Structural
Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an 15 Kevin L. Keller, Strategic Brand Management
Advertising Pretesting Context,” Journal of
Marketing 53 (April 1989):48-65.
23 Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo, Com-
munication and Persuasion: Central and Periphe-
ral Routes to Attitude Change (New York
Springer, 1986).
22 Andrew A. Mitchell and Jerry C. Olson, ”Are
Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator
of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?”
Journal of Marketing Research 18 (August 1981):
318-32.
21 Qimei Chen and William D. Wells, ”Attitude
Toward the Site,“ Journal of Advertising
Research 39 (5,1999): 27-38.
20 Marian Friestad and Peter Wright, ”The
Persuasion Knowledge Model How People
Cope with Persuasive Attempts,” Journal of
Consumer Research 21 (June 1994): 1-31.
20 Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen, Bel@, Attitude
Intention, and Behavior: A n Introduction to The-
ory and Research (Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley, 1975).
19 Donna L. Hoffmann and Thomas P. Novak,
”Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-
Mediated Environments: Conceptual Founda-
tions,“ Journal of Marketing 60 (3,1996): 50-68. 14 Dimitrios Vakratsas and l i m Ambler, ”How
19 Joseph F. Hair, Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald
Tatham, and William C. Black, Multivariate
Data Analysis, 4th ed./5th ed. (Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998/ 1995).
18 Joseph Alba and J. Lesley Hutchinson, “Di-
mensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of
Consumer Research 13 (March 1987):411-54.
790
17 Julie A. Edell and Marian C. Burke, “The
Power of Feelings in Understanding Adver-
tising Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research
14 (December 1987): 421-33.
tudesand Persunsion: Clussic and Contonporary Ap
proaches (Boulder, C O Westview Press, 1981).
16 George E. Belch and Michael A. Belch, Ad-
vertising and Promotion: A n Integrated Market-
ing Communications Perspective (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1998/2001).
16 Morris B. Holbrook and Rajeev Batra,”Asses-
sing the Role of Emotions as Mediators of
Consumer Responses to Advertising,” Journ-
al of Consumer Research 14 (3,1987) 404-20.
15 Alice Eagly and Shelly Chaiken, Psychology of
Attitudes (Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jova-
novich, 1993).
16 Kevin L. Keller, “Conceptualizing,and Ma-
naging Customer-Based Brand Equity,”
Journal of Marketing 57 (1,1993): 1-22.
(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1998/2OO3).
15 Jum C. Nunnally and Ira H. Bernstein, Psy-
chometric Theory, 3d ed. (NY McGraw-Hill,
1994).
14 Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences:
International Diflerences in Work-Related Values
(Newberry Park, C A Sage, 1980/ 1984).
14 William D. Perreault and Laurence E. Leigh,
“Reliability of Nominal Data Based on
Qualitative Judgments,” Iournal of
Marketing Research 26 (May 1989) 135-48.
14 Everett M. Rogers and F. Floyd Shoemaker,
Communications of Innovations: A Cross-Cult-
ural Approach (New York: Free Press, 1971).
14 Terrance A. Shimp, Advertising Promotion:
Supplemental Aspects of Integrated Marketing
Communications (Orlando, FL: Harcourt,
1997/2000). Terrance A. Shimp, Advertising
Promotion: Supplemental Aspects of Integrated
Marketing Communications (Mason, Ohio:
southwestern, 2003).
14 David W. Stewart and David H. Furse, Tele-
vision Advertising: A Study of 1000 Commercials
(Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1986).
Advertising Works: What Do We Really Know?”
Journulof Murketing 63 (January1999):26-43.
13 David A. Aaker, Building Strong Brands (New
York: Free Press, 1996).
13 Richard J. Lutz, “Affective and Cognitive
Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad: A
Tuble cont. next vape
IOURNALISM b MASSCOMMUNICATION QUARTERLY
Table cont. . 11
Conceptual Framework," in Psychological
Processes and Advertising Effects, ed. Linda
Alwitt and Andrew Mitchell (Hillsdale, NJ:
Earlbaum, 1985), 45-63. 11
13 Deborah J. MacInnis and Bernard J. Jaworski,
"Information Processing from Advertise-
ments: Toward an Integrative Framework,"
Journal of Marketing 53 (October 1989):1-23. 11
13 J o ~ t h a Steuer,
n "Defining Virtual Reality:
Dimensions, Determining Telepresence,"
Journal of Communication 42 (4,1992): 75-93.
13 Richard Vaughan, "How Advertising Works:
A Planning Model," Journal of Advertising 11
Research 20 (5, 1980):27-33.
12 James Anderson and David Gerbing, "Struc-
tural Equation Modeling and Practice: A Re-
view and Recommended Tw~StepApproaQ" 11
Psychological Bulletin 103 (1988):411-23.
12 Richard Bagozzi and Youjae Yi, "On the Eval-
uation of Structural Equation Models," Jour-
nu1 of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1, 11
1988): 74-94.
12 Russel I. Haley and Allan L. Baldinger, "The
ARF Copy Research Validity Project," Journal
of Advertising Research 31 (April/May 1991): 11
11-31.
12 Herbert E. Krugman, "The Impact of Televi-
sion Advertising: Learning Without Involve- 11
ment," Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (fall 1965):
349-56.
12 Joan Meyers-Levy and Alice Tybout, "Schema
Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluations," 11
Journal o f h u m e r Research 16 (June 1989):39-
54.
12 Barbara Mueller, "Reflections of Culture: An
Analysis of Japanese and American Adver- 11
tising Appeals," Journal of Advertising
Research 27 (3,1987): 51-59.
12 Robert Smith and William Swinyard, "Infor-
mation Response Models: An Integrated 11
Approach," Journal of Marketing 46 (winter
1982):81-93.
12 Judith Lynn ZaichkowsQ, "Measuring the In- 11
volvement Construct," Journal of Consumer
Research 12 (3,1985):341-52.
12 Robert 8. Zajonc, "Feeling and Thinking: Re-
knees Need No Inferences," American Psy-
chologist 35 (2,1980):151-75. 11
11 Rajeev Batra and Michael L. Ray "Affective Re-
sponses Mediatug Acceptance of Advertising,"
Journal of Consumer Research 13 (September 1986): 11
234-42.
11 Raymond Burke and Thomas S d , "Compe-
titive Interfemce and Consumer Memory for 11
Advertising," Journalof Consumer Research 15
(June 1988):55-68.
SEARCHINGFOR OUR"OWNTHEORY"
I N ADVERTISING
Gilbert A. ChurchillIr.. "A Paradiem for De-
velopingBetter Me& of M a r k g Con-
structs," Journal of Murketing Resew& 16
(February 1979):64-73.
JamesR Coyle and Esther Thorson, "The Effects
of Propssive Levels of Interactivity and Vivid-
ness in Web Marketing Sites," Journal of Adver-
tising 30 (3,2001):65-77.
Anthony G. Greenwald, "Cognitive Leaming,
Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude
Change," in Psycholo@ Foundation ofAttitudes,
ed. A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Bro& and T. M.
Ostrom (Ny: Academic Press,1968), 147-70.
Anthony Greenwald and Clark Leavitt, "Aud-
ience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels,"
Journal o f h u m e r Research 11 (June 1984):581-
92.
Louisa Ha and E. Lincoln James, "Interactivity
Reexamind A BaselineAnalysis of Early
Business Web Sites," Journal of Broadcasting 6
Electronic Media 42 (fall 1998):67-74.
Michael Kamins, "An Investigation into the
Match-Up Hypothesisin Celebrity Advertising:
When Beauty May be Only Skin Deep," Journal
of A d d i n g 19 (1,1990):413.
Harold H. Kassarjian, "Content Analysis in Con-
sumer Research,"Journal of Consumer Research 4
(June1977):8-17.
Kevin L. Keller, "Memory Factors in Adver-
tising: The Effect of Retrieval Cues on Brand
Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Reseurch 14
(December 1987):316-33.
Robert J. Kent and Chris T. Allen,"Competitive
Interfemce Effects in ConsumerMemory for
Advertising: The Role of Brand Familiarity,"
Journal of Marketing 58 (July 1994):97-105.
Thomas L. Novak, Donna L. Hoffmann, and Yiu-
Fai Yung, "Measuring the Customer Experience
in Online Envimnments: A StructuralModeling
Approa&" Murketing Science 19 (1, 2000): 22-44.
Alan Resnik and Bruce Stern,"An Analysis of
Information Content in TelevisionAdvertising,"
Journal of Marketing 41 (1,1977):50-53.
Deborah J. Madnnis, Christine Moorman, and
B e m d J. Jaworski, "Enhancing and Measuring
Consumers' Motivation, Opportunity and
Ability to FrocessBrand Information from Ads,"
Journal of Marketing 55 (October 1991): 32-53.
Richard Vaughan, "How AdvertisingWorks: A
Planning Model Revisited," Journal of
Advertising Research 26 (1, 1986): 57-66.
L. Wright, "The Cognitive Processes Mediat-
ing Acceptance of Advertising," Journal of
Marketing Research 10 (February 1973): 53-62.
Youjae Yi "Cognitive and Affective Priming
Effects of the Context for Print Advertise-
ments," Journal of Advertising 19 (2,1990):40-49.
791
 brands. Greenwald and Leavitt,@Iwho suggest that a receiver’s attention-
a1 capacity varies according to the level of involvement, was also among
the most cited in 1992-95. Keller,6l also among the most-cited in 1992-95,
is part of an interesting subgroup of four works, three of whichg focus on
the role of competitive interference effects on consumer memory. The
fourth examines how congruity between a product and the more general
product category schemas resulting from prior experience influence
product evaluation.m
Executional Elements. These works focus on elements of the
advertising message and represent an important niche in advertis-
ing research. Haley and Baldingel44 examined issues relating to copy
research validity; Stewart and Furseffiidentified specific executional ele-
ments within television commercials, and attempted to identify their
impact on consumer responses. Both were also most-cited works in 1992-
95.
Cross-cultural Studies. At least two works fit into this category.
Hofstede’P work is often consulted by researchers of cross-cultural
advertising, as it provides a typology by which “traditional” vs. “mod-
em” societies can be investigated. Specifically,Hofstede offered cultural
dimensions along which societies can be placed and which can be opera-
tionalized as independent variables in cross-national studies. Mueller’s
research67examined the use of particular advertising appeals across cul-
tures. Although these works were not listed in earlier most-cited lists, a
cross-cultural category was identified among the most-cited in 1992-95
but was not included in 1982-85. This helps identify the timeframe in
which cross-cultural research emerged and took a place in mainstream
advertising scholarship.
Measurement lssues have always been investigated in advertising
research. This is reflected in the publication dates across three periods for
the works in this category,@and in the presence of several of these arti-
cles in the earlier lists of most-cited works. Nunnally and his colleaguese
provided a guide for statistical analysis; Kassarjian’O introduced content
analysis to advertising; and Resnik and Stem’sn scheme for assessing
information content has been used by generations of scholars.
Measurement issues are playing an even more important role, as indicat-
ed by the larger number of measurement and method works among the
most-cited works in 2002-05. This is also reflected in the nature of the
works. It is telling that Baron and Kenny’sn work on moderation and
mediation is the second most-cited work, suggesting that advertising
researchers are becoming more sophisticated in their data analysis.
Zaichkowsky’sn work on developing and refining the personal involve-
ment inventory is also included here.
Interactive Advertising. These works are too recent to have shown
up on earlier lists and this category represents perhaps the most dramat-
ic change. The oldest work in this category is S t e ~ e r ’ spiece
~ ~ on virtual
reality, while the most recent is Coyle and T h o r s o n ’ examination
~~~ of the
effects of interactivity and vividness. Considering that the citations came
from articles in 2002-05, it is surprising that a work published in 2001
appears on the most-cited list. Still, it seems appropriate for this to hap-

792 JOURNALISM b MASSCOMMUNICATION

QUARTERLY
pen within the interactive grouping, which represents an area where
change comes quickly.
Research examining attitude toward the ad (Aad) and affective
responses were again well represented in the most-cited works in 2002-
2005. Indeed, all of the Aad articles-Lutz; MacKenzie and Lutz;
MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch; and Mitchell and O l ~ o n ~ ~ - calso a n be
found near the top of the most-cited list of 1992-95. It is apparent that
Aad remains the focus of much advertising research. The works in the
current affective responses category were also included on the 1992-95
list. The research by Batra and Ray, Edell and Burke, and by Holbrook
and Batran all examined the impact of affective reactions on attitude
toward the ad, brand attitude, and other consumer responses. Zajonc,78
who argued that affective responses can precede cognitive responses, is
also among the 1982-85 most-cited works.
Cognitive Responses. In the advertising literature, the research
focus on cognitive responses preceded interest in emotional responses.
The 1982-85 works were dominated by research using a cognitive per-
spective but in 1992-95, affective responses had overshadowed cogni-
tive responses. The current findings suggest more of a balance between
the two. Included in this category is Greenwald’smwork on cognitive
learning. Interestingly, Greenwald was one of the most-cited in 1982-85,
dropped off the list in the 1992-95, and has reappeared. Wright’ssowork
is on all three lists. The final work in this category is new to the most-
cited list. Alba and Hutchinsons’ examined five dimensions of consumer
expertise including: cognitive effort, cognitive structure, analysis, elab-
oration, and memory.
Textbooks. The final category includes Building Strong Brands,
Advertising and Promotion: A n lntegrated Marketing Communications
Perspective, Strategic Brand Management, and Advertising Promotion:
Supplemental Aspects of lntegrated Marketing Communications,8z written
for professionals and students.
Classics. A comparison of current most-cited works to those of
1982-85 and 1992-95 shows seven works that were among the most-
cited in all three periods.83 Some special characteristics set these works
apart, earning them the distinction of ”enduring classic.” As Pasadeos,
Phelps, and Kimwnoted a decade ago, several were among the first to
examine a specific research area or method. For example, Mitchell and
Olsonffiwere among the first to study Aad, and Wright? was a pioneer
in applying a cognitive response approach to advertising. Resnik and
Sterns7 developed a measurement scheme for assessing information
content; KassarjiansSintroduced content analysis to students of advertis-
ing; and Nunnally and his colleagues89set standards for statistical
analysis. Fishbein and AjzenWplayed an essential role in examining
effects on attitudes and behavioral intentions. Finally, Krugman’sgl
insight was that the processing and effects of advertising depended
upon consumers’ level of involvement. A caveat: If a classic work is
largely cited because it is a seminal work, it may continue to be cited by
inertia, ”just because everyone else cites it,” and not necessarily because
it is most germane to the topic being

SEARCHINGFOR OUR“OWNTHEORY”
I N ADVERTISING 793
 Co-citation Network. Figure 1 depicts the co-citation network for
2002-05. The thicker the lines between any two works, the more frequent-
ly they have been cited together. That many of the most-cited works on
Table 1 do not appear in Figure 1 does not mean that these works have
had less of an impact than those appearing in Figure 1. The threshold for
inclusion was set at 6 co-citations so as to obtain distinct research clusters.
The resulting 25 most-cited works reveal a co-citation network of four dis-
tinct clusters, two of which are relatively small: In the top right-hand cor-
ner of Figure 1 is the cross-cultural cluster. Both H ~ f s t e d and
e ~ ~M ~ e l l e r ~ ~
are important authors of cross-cultural research. At lower-right is the cog-
nitive response cluster of research by G r e e n ~ a l dand
~ ~Wright.%
The interactive cluster at lower left has strong intra-cluster connec-
tions. Over a short period interactive issues have become a major area of
study within advertising and the works in this cluster are the foundation
upon which this research stream is building. The interactive cluster
includes more than any other research stream in the co-citation
network.
As in 1992-95, there are three main research streams interconnected
in the largest cluster of research works in Figure 1: Aad, affective respons-
es, and attitudes and persuasion. Near the center of the figure, MacKenzie,
Lutz, and hold the distinction of having the most (7) connections
with other works and being the central connector for those three areas.
Mitchell and Olson99hold the distinction of being the only work from the
Aad cluster to also be on the most-cited list in 1982-85 and 1992-95. Those
two articles are also linked to works in the affective responses cluster. Their
connections to works by Holbrook and Batralooand Edell and Burke'O'
illustrate the tight bonds between these research areas. Interestingly, the
work of Baron and Kenny,lo2which helped to clarify moderator and medi-
ator effects, is also linked to all three of the main research areas in this
cluster, indicating great impact across research foci.
At the heart of the affective responses grouping are strong linkages
among works by Holbrook and Batra,lo3Batra and Ray,lMand Edell and
Burke.lo5Those three works are strongly interconnected because they
share a common focus: examination of emotional responses to advertis-
ing. Zajonc,'" which is also connected to this group, provided evidence
that affective responses can precede cognitive responses.
Numerous links connect works regarding Aad and attitudes and per-
suasion. Within this group, there are also linkages that one might expect to
find among the ELM-related The focus on attitudes and persua-
sion is apparent in the co-citations between the ELM work by Petty and
his colleagues,'" the attitude-behavior models of Fishbein and Ajzen,'Og
and work on the Heuristic-Systematic Model.llo

Discussion The current investigation finds that advertising scholarship is his-

torically sound. There has been a great deal of "carry-over" of research
streams over the three periods as illustrated in the continued presence of
many of the major works and research streams in the most-cited works
list and co-citation networks. The clearest examples of works with con-

794 JOURNAUSM & MASSCOMMUNICATION

QUARTERLY
 FIGURE 2
Co-citation Network of Most-cited Works

6 w-cites

tinuing impact over time are identified as classics. Still, it is notable that
the largest cluster in Figure 1contains only two works published as late
as in the early 1990s. In fact, being historically sound may be working
against advertising’s chances for developing unique theories, if doctor-
al programs are producing researchers who are comfortable with ex-
tending those entrenched and largely borrowed theoretical frameworks.
To paraphrase Small,”’ the field is evolving treelike with deep
roots into the past. This is a living tree and the current research finds
advertising scholarship to be dynamic, with older streams continually
developing. Although practical considerations have been high on the
research agenda of advertising scholars, there is some indication of a
shift from the practical to the conceptual, and the cross-cultural area
offers a good example of this: Whereas in 1992-95 the most-cited cross-
cultural works were specific comparisons of advertising in two or more
countries, the cross-culturalworks on the present study’s most-cited list

SEARCHINGFOROUR“OWNTHEORY”
I N ADVERTISING 795
 are broad, conceptual, and even interdisciplinary, works that offer bases
for formulating testable, and widely applicable, hypotheses. The most
influential work in this research stream is Hofstede's seminal work into
cultural factors thought to determine the differential success of advertis-
ing messages form one country to the next."* Note, however, that
Hofstede is a management scholar and his work's initial applications
were in the area of organizational studies. Thus, cross-cultural advertis-
ing scholars are still working off borrowed concepts. The challenge to
them is to discover in what ways, if any, advertising variables might inter-
act with cultural variables in unique ways. They are more likely to do so
than scholars working on one of the research streams that have been more
entrenched in the field, such as cognitive responses, affective responses, and
Aad.
Fortunately, the current study also finds the field to be increasingly
diverse. Perhaps the most dramatic example of new research streams is
interactive research. This research is well represented among most-cited
works, and the strong interconnections within the co-citation network
indicate a network of scholars building upon each other's work. There is
rapid growth in this new research area. Indeed, Cho and Khang113showed
that since the mid-l990s, there has been an ever-increasing number of
Internet-related investigations. Given the necessary reexamination of cur-
rent theoretical assumptions when researching advertising in an electron-
ic environment, Internet advertising research could become the hot spot
for advertising theory development. Also, the possibility that interactivi-
ty further adds to clutter may hold some promise in this regard.
The current study also finds the field to be increasingly self-suffi-
cient with most-cited works coming from advertising and marketing.
Examining the types of publications on the most-cited works list provides
insight. Of the 57 most-cited works, 15 were books or book chapters. Of
the 42 journal articles, 39 were published in advertising, marketing, con-
sumer behavior, and communication journals. The other three were in
psychology journals. It is important to note that the selection of journals
from which the initial advertising articles were drawn likely influenced
the source of articles cited. One would expect authors to cite relevant pre-
vious work published in the journal to which they will submit their own
work. Still, the numbers strongly suggest that advertising scholars are
building from a base within the advertising and marketing literature. In
other words, the current patterns suggest the field is maturing and
becoming increasingly self-reliant. However, this increasing self-reliance
has not yet become obvious with regard to the development of advertis-
ing theory. Although the current research indicates that advertising is
maturing as a scholarly field, the dominant theoretical approach (the
ELM) comes from outside the field. Further maturation will require the
development of unique theoretical approaches.
As noted earlier, an essential step toward developing unique theo-
ries in advertising is to focus more on key elements that make advertising
unique. Nan and Faber provided four examples: skepticism, repetition, mes-
sage coordination, and clutter.114They counted the number of recent empir-
ical advertising-effects article^"^ that had addressed those four elements.

796 IOURNAUSM b MASS ~OMMUNICATIONQUARTERLY

None had addressed message coordination; 7.1% had addressed clutter;
6.5% had focused on repetition; and 2.2% dealt with skepticism.
One might hope that the presence of studies addressing those ele-
ments would be greater among the most-cited works but that is not the
case. For instance, there was a textbook but there were no research
works among the most-cited with a focus on Integrated Marketing
Communication (IMC). This is unfortunate as there is ample reason to
expect IMC to be a research area that will produce a successful concep-
tualization of message coordination. However, IMC is not yet accorded
the level of scholarly attention paid to the other elements and its absence
among the most-cited works indicates that it has not yet joined the dom-
inant advertising research streams. This is surprising. Given the atten-
tion that IMC receives by advertising practitioners, one might expect the
academic research on IMC to comprise a major stream that is well inte-
grated within the advertising literature. The elusive element of message
coordination could also be tackled by cross-cultural researchers. After
all, lurking in the background of much cross-cultural advertising
research is the standardization-versus-localization issue in multi-nation-
a1 advertising message coordination.
The other elements can be found among the most-cited works to a
minor extent; for example, research on advertising clutter, especially
when conceptualized as competitive interference.l16Burke and Srull'~"~
work demonstrated that advertising for other brands or products
offered by the same manufacturer can inhibit recall of brand informa-
tion. Kent and Allen's"* work suggested that this interference is less
severe when the advertised brand is well established and familiar to the
consumer. Research on repetition was reviewed by Vakratsas and
Ambler,l19 who developed a conceptual framework for studying how
advertising works, including message content, media scheduling, and
repetition as key inputs. They reviewed research examining, among
other repetition-related variables, the relationships between media
expenditures, exposure frequency, and advertising carry-over effects.
Although consumer skepticism garners relatively little attention here, the
works addressing it make an important contribution. Batra and Ray12o
examined skepticism as one of the categories in their affective respons-
es typology. More important, the PKM by Friestad and WrightlZ1pro-
vided "the most comprehensive account of the way that skepticism
toward advertising influences consumer processing of persuasive com-
munication."lZ
In short, three of the four unique elements identified by Nan and
Faber are addressed in the most-cited works, but not to an extent
suggesting that advertising theory development is imminent. Still,
Vakratas and Ambler'sIz3model and synthesis of the advertising litera-
ture offered advertising researchers a conceptual underpinning that
could prove fruitful for developing theory. That, in conjunction with
Friestad and Wright's PKM,'" offers hope that advertising scholars may
yet meet the challenge posed by Nan and Faber.'=
The current investigation highlights research that has shaped the
field and reveals a snapshot of the current structure of advertising schol-

SEARCHING FOR O U R "OW THEORY"

IN ADVERTISING 797
 arship; comparisons to such work from previous periods provide insight
into the evolution of the field. The scholarly advertising research commu-
nity is evidently hard at work, with a strong foundation and fresh blood
entering the “invisible college.” Still, the current findings support con-
cerns over the lack of “unique” advertising theory. Clearly the next major
stage in the evolution of advertising scholarship will only occur in con-
junction with the development of advertising’s “own theory.” That is a
challenge both for doctoral programs in advertising and for the young
academics they produce. Both the doctoral training process and the aca-
demic tenure process may be prone to inertia if young researchers opt to
follow ”safe” (and mostly ”borrowed) theories. Many of the theories on
which advertising researchers base experimental studies (with the indi-
vidual as unit of analysis) originate in psychology, and cross-cultural
studies (with societies as units of analysis) have origins in sociology.
Perhaps if messages are the units of analysis and are explored in conjunc-
tion with some of the aforementioned variables, a possibility of advertis-
ing having its “own theory” may arise.
To revisit Paisley’slZ6sociology-of-knowledge perspective, advertis-
ing, as a ”variable field,” tends to study specific topics or variables. The
current study finds that the conceptualization of relationships among
those variables still comes largely from the “level fields.” Working with
“borrowed theory can certainly help in integrating or applying current
knowledge. However, scholarly research is supposed to lead to new dis-
c~veries,~ and
* ~ a discipline can do that better once it develops its own
unique theories. Advertising has some distance yet to cover before that
can be said to be true about the field.

NOTES

1. Xiaoli Nan and Ronald J. Faber, “Advertising Theory: Reconcept-

ualizing the Building Blocks,” Marketing Theory 4 (1 12,2004) 7-30.
2. Sender-> message 1channel-> receiver.
3. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed.
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 178.
4. Henry Small, “On the Shoulders of Giants,” acceptance speech,
ASIS Award of Merit, ASIS annual meeting, 1998.
5. See Leah A. Lievrouw, “The Invisible College Reconsidered:Biblio-
metrics and the Development of Scientific Communication Theory,”
Communication Research 16 (October 1989) 615-28.
6. Joseph Ben-David and Teresa A. Sullivan, ”Sociology of Science,”
Annual Review of Sociology 1 (1975), 203.
7. For seminal works on the sociology of knowledge, see, for exam-
ple, Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of
Knowledge (San Diego: Harcourt Brace and Co., 1936); and Robert K.
Merton, ”The Sociology of Knowledge,” lsis 27 (Nov. 3, 1937), 493-503.
8. W. Paisley, Communication Research as a Behavioral Discipline (Palo
Alto, C A Stanford University Institute for Communication Research,
1972).

798 lOURh’ALISM 6 MASSCOMMUNICATION OUARTERLY

 9. Nan and Faber, "Advertising Theory," 9.
10. Nan and Faber, "Advertising Theory."
11. Yorgo Pasadeos, Joseph Phelps, and Bong-Hyun Kim, "Disci-
plinary Impact of Advertising Scholars: Temporal Comparisons of
Influential Authors, Works, and Research Networks," Journal of
Advertising 27 (4, 1998):53-70.
12. That assumption has not been without challenges. Citations can
be made for a number of reasons (self-citation; unfavorable citations,
etc.) and simple counts are not necessarily measures of quality. A care-
ful reading of cited works can determine the reasons (positive or nega-
tive--or self-serving) for citing them.
13. J. D. De Solla Price, "Networks of Scientific Papers," Science 149
(1965): 510-15; J. D. De Solla Price, "Citation Measures of Hard Science,
Soft Science, Technology and Nonscience," in Communication Among
Scientists and Engineers, ed. C. E. Nelson and D. K. Pollock (Lexington,
MA: Heath Lexington, 1970); Diana Crane, Invisible Colleges:Difision of
Information in Scientific Communities (Chicago:The University of Chicago
Press, 1972).
14. James W. Tankard, Tsan-Kuo Chang, and Kuo-Jen Tsang, "Cita-
tion Networks as Indicators of Journalism Research Activity," Journalism
Quarterly 61 (spring 1984): 89-96, 124.
15. Clement Y. K. So, "Citation Patterns of Core Communication
Journals: An Assessment of the Developmental Status of Communica-
tion," Human Communication Research 15 (winter 1988): 236-55.
16. Jonathan R. Cole and Stephen Cole, Social Stratzjication in Science
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973); Michael D. Gordon,
"Citation Ranking versus Subjective Evaluation in the Determination of
Journal Hierarchies in the Social Sciences," Journal of the American Society
for Information Science 33 (January 1982): 55-57; Michael E. D. Koenig,
"Bibliometric Indicators versus Expert Opinion in Assessing Research
Performance," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 34
(March 1983): 136-45; Edward G. Summers, "A Review and Application
of Citation Analysis Methodology to Reading Research Journal
Literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 3
(November 1984) 332-43.
17. Pasadeos, Phelps, and Kim, "Disciplinary Impact of Advertising
Scholars: Temporal Comparisons of Influential Authors, Works and
Research Networks."
18. Mary Culnan, "The Intellectual Development of Management
Information Systems, 1972-1982: A Co-Citation Analysis," Management
Science 32 (February 1986): 56-172.
19. Lievrouw, "The Invisible College Reconsidered," 623.
20. Katherine W. McCain, "Mapping Authors in Intellectual Space:
Population Genetics in the 1980s," Communication Research 16 (October
1989) 667-81; Behlul Usdiken and Yorgo Pasadeos, "Organizational
Analysis in North America and Europe: A Comparison of Co-Citation
Networks," Organization Studies 16 (3, 1995): 503-26.
21. Tsan-Kuo Chang and Zixue Tai, "Mass Communication Research
and the Invisible College Revisited: The Changing Landscape and

SEARCHINGFOR OUR"OWNTHEORY"I N ADVERTISING 799

 Emerging Fronts in Journalism-Related Studies,” Journalism G. Mass
Communication Quarterly 82 (autumn 2005): 672-94; Bradley S. Greenberg
and John C. Schweitzer, “’Mass Communication Scholars’ Revisited and
Revised,” Journalism Quarterly 66 (summer 1989):473-75; Yorgo Pasadeos,
Bruce Renfro, and Mary Lynn Hanily, ”Influential Authors and Works of
the Public Relations Scholarly Literature,” Journal of Public Relations
Research 11 (11, 1999): 29-52; Ronald E. Rice, Christine L. Borgman, and
Byron Reeves, ”Citation Networks of Communication Journals, 1977-
1985: Cliques and Positions, Citation Made and Citations Received,”
Human Communication Research 15 (winter 1988): 256-83; John C.
Schweitzer, ”Research Article Productivity by Mass Communication
Scholars,” Journalism Quarterly 65 (summer 1988): 479-84; So, “Citation
Patterns of Core Communication Journals”; Tankard, Chang, and Tsang,
”Citation Networks as Indicators of Journalism Research Activity”;
Richard C. Vincent, ”Telecommunication Research Productivity of U.S.
Communication Programs: 1984-89,“ Journalism Quarterly 68 (winter
1991):840-51.
22. Joseph A. Cote, Siew Meng Leong, and Jane Cote, ”Assessing the
Influence of Journal of Consumer Research A Citation Analysis,” Journal
of Consumer Research 18 (3, 1991): 402-10; Joseph A. Cote, Siew Meng
Leong, and Jane Cote, “Assessing the Influence of Marketing Research on
the Social Science Literature,” Marketing Letters 3 (July 1992):251-58; Arieh
Goldman, “Publishing Activity in Marketing as an Indicator of its
Structure and Disciplinary Boundaries,” Journal of Marketing Research 16
(November 1979): 485-94; Paul W. Hamelman and Edward W. Mazze,
“Onthe Impact of Management Science,” Interfaces 3 (November 1972):8-
17; Paul W. Hamelman and Edward W. Mazze, “Cross-Referencing
between AMA Journals and Other Publications,” Journal of Marketing
Research 10 (May 1973): 215-18; Donna L. Hoffmann and Morris B.
Holbrook, ”The Intellectual Structure of Consumer Research: A
Bibliometric Study of Author Cocitations in the First 15 Years of the
Journal of Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research 19 (March
1993): 505-17; Siew Meng Leong, “A Citation Analysis of the Journal of
Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research 15 (March 1989): 492-97.
23. Tankard, Chang, and Tsang, “Citation Networks as Indicators of
Journalism Research Activity”; Chang and Tai, ”Mass Communication
Research and the Invisible College Revisited.”
24. See Pasadeos, Renfro, and Hanily, ”Influential Authors and Works
of the Public Relations Scholarly Literature.”
25. Laura Yale and Mary C. Gilly, ”Trends in Advertising Research. a
Look at the Content of Marketing-oriented Journals from 1976 to 1985,”
Journal of Advertising 17 (1, 1988):12-22.
26. J. Thomas Russell and Charles H. Martin, “Sources of Scholarly
Publications in Marketing, Advertising and Public Relations,” Journal of
Advertising 5 (3, 1976): 29-34.
27. Yorgo Pasadeos, “A Bibliometric Study of Advertising Citations,”
Journal ofAdvertising 14 (4,1985): 52-59.
28. Thomas E. Barry, “Publication Productivity in the Three Leading
U.S. Advertising Journals: Inaugural Issues through 1988,” Journal of

800 JOURNALISM & MASSCOMUNICATION

QUARTERLY
Advertising 19 (1, 1990): 52-60.
29. John B. Ford and Altaf Merchant, “A Ten-Year Retrospective of
Advertising Research Productivity,” Journal of Advertising 37 (3,2008), 69-
94.
30. Lawrence C. Soley and Leonard B. Reid, “Advertising Article
Productivity of the U.S. Academic Community,” Journalism Quarterly 60
(autumn 1983): 464-69, 542; Lawrence C. Soley and Leonard B. Reid,
“Advertising Article Productivity Updated,” Journalism Quarterly 65
(spring 1988):157-64.
31. Steven M. Edwards and Carrie La Ferle, ”Trends of the American
Academy of Advertising Conference Proceedings: 1983-2002,” in
Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising,
ed. Les Carlson (Clemson, SC, 2003), 210-20.
32. Lawrence C. Soley ”Advertising Research: Is it Socially Super-
fluous?” in Proceedings of the 1994 Conference of the American Academy of
Advertising, ed. K. W. King, 45-49.
33. Barry, ”Publication Productivity in the Three Leading U.S. Adver-
tising Journals: Inaugural Issues through 1988.”
34. Chang-Hoan Cho and Hyoung Koo Khang, ”The State of Internet-
Related Research in Communications, Marketing, and Advertising: 1994-
2003,“ Journal of Advertising 35 (13, 2006): 143-63.
35. Pasadeos, Phelps, and Kim, “Disciplinary Impact of Advertising
Scholars: Temporal Comparisons of Influential Authors, Works and
Research Networks.”
36. Pasadeos, Phelps, and Kim, “Disciplinary Impact of Advertising
Scholars: Temporal Comparisons of Influential Authors, Works and
Research Networks.”
37. Fred K. Beard, “Peer Evaluation and Relationship of Influential
Contributions to the Advertising Literature,” Journal of Advertising 31 (4,
2002): 65-76.
38. Beard, ”Peer Evaluation and Relationship of Influential Contri-
butions to the Advertising Literature.”
39. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
40. Research notes, responses, rejoinders, and commentaries were
included. Book reviews and editors’ notes were excluded.
41. Citations to working papers, unpublished presentations, maga-
zines, newspapers, theses, dissertations, government documents, consul-
tancy reports, and personal communications were excluded.
42. Because of ties, the list actually contains 57 works.
43. Pasadeos, Phelps, and Kim, “Disciplinary Impact of Advertising
Scholars: Temporal Comparisons of Influential Authors, Works, and
Research Networks.” Subsequent references to most-cited lists of 1982-85
and 1992-95 refer to this article.
44.Richard E. Petty, John T. Cacioppo, and David T. Schumann,
”Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The
Moderating Effect of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research 10
(September 1983): 135-46.
45. Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo, Communication and Per-
suasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change (New York

SEARCHING FOR O U R “OWN THEORY”

IN ADVERTISING 801
 Springer, 1986).
46.Alice Eagly and Shelly Chaiken, Psychology ofAttitudes (Fort Worth:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1993).
47. Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention, and
Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research (Reading, M A Addison-
Wesley, 1975).
48. Marian Friestad and Peter Wright, ”The Persuasion Knowledge
Model: How People Cope with Persuasive Attempts,“ Journal of Con-
sumer Research 21 (June 1994):1-31.
49. Fishbein and Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: A n
Introduction to Theory and Research.
50. Pasadeos, Phelps, and Kim, ”Disciplinary Impact of Advertising
Scholars: Temporal Comparisons of Influential Authors, Works and
Research Networks.”
51. Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann, ”Central and Peripheral Routes to
Advertising Effectiveness.”
52. Friestad and Wright, “The Persuasion Knowledge Model.”
53. Herbert E. Krugman, ”The Impact of Television Advertising:
Learning Without Involvement,” Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (fall 1965):
349-56.
54. Krugman, “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning
Without Involvement.”
55. Deborah J. MacInnis and Bernard J. Jaworski, ”Information
Processing from Advertisements: Toward an Integrative Framework,”
Journal of Marketing 53 (October 1989): 1-23.
56. Robert Smith and William Swinyard, “Information Response
Models: An Integrated Approach,” Journal of Marketing 46 (winter 1982):
81-93; Dimitrios Vakratsas and Tim Ambler, ”How Advertising Works:
What Do We Really Know?” Journal ofMarketing 63 (January 1999): 26-43;
Richard Vaughan, “How Advertising Works: A Planning Model,” Journal
of Advertising Research 20 (5, 1980): 27-33; Richard Vaughan, ”How
Advertising Works: A Planning Model Revisited,” Journal of Advertising
Research 26 (1,1986): 57-66.
57. Vaughn, “How Advertising Works: A Planning Model”; Vaughn,
”How Advertising Works: A Planning Model Revisited.”
58. Vakratsas and Ambler, “How Advertising Works.”
59. Deborah J. MacInnis, Christine Moorman, and Bernard J. Jaworski,
“Enhancing and Measuring Consumers‘ Motivation, Opportunity, and
Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads,” Journal of Marketing 55
(4) (October 1991):32-53.
60. Anthony G. Greenwald and Clark Leavitt, “Audience Involvement
in Advertising: Four Levels,” Journal of Consumer Research 11 (June 1984)
581-92.
61. Kevin L. Keller, ”Memory Factors in Advertising: The Effect of
Retrieval Cues on Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research 14
(December 1987):316-33.
62. Raymond Burke and Thomas Srull, “Competitive Interference and
Consumer Memory for Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research 15
(June 1988): 55-68; Keller, ”Memory Factors in Advertising”; Robert J.

802 JOURNALISM 6’MASSCOMUNICATION QUARTERLY

Kent and Chris T. Allen, ”Competitive Interference Effects in Consumer
Memory for Advertising: The Role of Brand Familiarity,” Journal of
Marketing 58 (July1994):97-105.
63. Joan Meyers-Levy and Alice Tybout, “Schema Congruity as a Basis
for Product Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research 16 (June 1989):39-
54.
64. Russel I. Haley and Allan L. Baldinger, “The ARF Copy Research
Validity Project,” Journal of Advertising Research 31 (2, 1991): 11-31.
65. David W. Stewart and David H. Furse, Effective Television
Advertising: A Study of 1000 Commercials (Lexington, MA. Lexington
Books, 1986).
66. Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: lnternational Differences in
Work-Related Values (Newberry Park, CA: Sage, 1980/ 1984).
67. Barbara Mueller, ”Reflections of Culture: An Analysis of Japanese
and American Advertising Appeals,” Journal of Advertising Research 27 (3,
1987) 51-59.
68. Richard Bagozzi and Youjae Yi, “On the Evaluation of Structural
Equation Models,“ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1,1988),
74-94; Gilbert A. Churchill Jr., “A Paradigm for Developing Better Mea-
sures of Marketing Constructs,”Journal of Marketing Research 16 (February
1979): 64-73; Joseph F. Hair, Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald Tatham, and
William C. Black, Multivariate Data Analysis, 4th ed./5th ed. (Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998/ 1995); Harold H. Kassarjian,
”Content Analysis in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research 4
(June 1977): 8-17; Jum C. Nunnally and Ira H. Bemstein, Psychometric
Theory, 3d ed. (New York McGraw-Hill, 1994); William D. Perreault and
Laurence E. Leigh, ”Reliability of Nominal Data Based on Qualitative
Judgments,“ Journal of Marketing Research 26 (May 1989) 135-48; Alan
Resnik and Bruce Stem, “An Analysis of Information Content in
Television Advertising,” Journal of Marketing 41 (1, 1977): 50-53; Judith
Lynne Zaichkowsky, “Measuring the Involvement Construct,” Journal of
Consumer Research 12 (December 1985): 341-52; Ruben M. Baron and
David A. Kenny, ”The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social
PsychologicalResearch: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Con-sidera-
tions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6, 1986):1173-82.
69. Jum C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory, 2d ed. (New York McGraw-
Hill, 1978); Nunnally and Bemstein, Psychometric Theory.
70. Kassarjian, ”Content Analysis in Consumer Research.”
71. Resnik and Stern, “An Analysis of Information Content in
Television Advertising.”
72. Baron and Kenny, ”The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction
in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical
Considerations.”
73. Judith Lynn Zaichkowsky, ”Measuring the Involvement
Construct,” Iournal of Consumer Research 12 (3, 1985):341-52.
74. Jonathan Steuer, “Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions,
Determining Telepresence,” Journal of Communication 42 (4, 1992):75-93.
75. James R. Coyle and Esther Thorson, ”The Effects of Progressive
Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites,” Journal of

SEARCHING FOR OUR” O w THEORY”

I N ADVERTISING 803
 Advertising 30 (3, 2001):65-77.
76. Richard J. Lutz, “Affective and Cognitive Antecedents of Attitude
Toward the Ad: A Conceptual Framework,” in Psychological Processes and
Advertising Efects, ed. Linda Alwitt and Andrew Mitchell (Hillsdale, NJ:
Earlbaum, 1985), 45-63; Scott B. MacKenzie and Richard J. Lutz, ”An
Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward
the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context,“ Journal of Marketing 53
(April 1989): 48-65; Scott B. MacKenzie, Richard J. Lutz, and George E.
Belch, “The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising
Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations,” Journal of Marketing
Research 23 (May 1986): 130-43; Andrew A. Mitchell and Jerry C. Olson,
”Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects
on Brand Attitude?” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (August 1981):318-
32.
77. Rajeev Batra and Michael L. Ray, “Affective Responses Mediating
Acceptance of Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research 13 (September
1986):234-42; Julie A. Edell and Marian C. Burke, ”The Power of Feelings
in Understanding Advertising Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research 14
(December 1987): 421-33; Morris B. Holbrook and Rajeev Batra,
“Assessing the Role of Emotions as Mediators of Consumer Responses to
Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research 14 (3, 1987): 404-20.
78. Robert B. Zajonc, “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No
Inferences,” American Psychologist 35 (2,1980): 151-75.
79. Anthony G. Greenwald, ”Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response
to Persuasion, and Attitude Change,” in Psychological Foundation of
Attitudes, ed. A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, and T. M. Ostrom (New York
Academic Press, 1968), 147-70.
80. L. Wright, “The Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of
Advertising,” Journal of Marketing Research 10 (February 1973): 53-62.
81. Joseph Alba and J. Lesley Hutchinson, “Dimensions of Consumer
Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research 13 (March 1987): 411-54.
82. David A. Aaker, Building Strong Brands (New York Free Press,
1996); George Belch and Michael A. Belch, Advertising and Promotion: A n
Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective (New York McGraw-Hill,
1998/2001); Kevin L. Keller, Strategic Brand Management (Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998/2003); Terrance A. Shimp, Advertising
Promotion: Supplemental Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications
(Orlando, FL: Harcourt, 1997/2000).
83. Mitchell and Olson, “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only
Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?”; Wright, ”The
Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of Advertising”; Resnik and
Stern, “An Analysis of Information Content in Television Advertising”;
Kassarjian, “Content Analysis in Consumer Research”; Fishbein and
Ajzen, Belief,Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: A n Introduction to Theory and
Research; Krugman, ”The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning
Without Involvement”; Nunnally, Psychometric Theory; Nunnally and
Bernstein, Psychometric Theory.
84. Pasadeos, Phelps, and Kim, “Disciplinary Impact of Advertising
Scholars: Temporal Comparisons of Influential Authors, Works, and

804 JOURNALISM b MASSCOMMUNKATION

QUARTERLY
Research Networks.”
85. Mitchell and Olson, “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only
Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?“
86. Wright, ”The Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of Adver-
tising.”
87. Resnik and Stern, “An Analysis of Information Content in
Television Advertising.”
88. Kassajian, “Content Analysis in Consumer Research.”
89. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory; Nunnally and Bernstein, Psycho-
metric Theory.
90. Fishbein and Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: A n
lntroduction to Theory and Research.
91. Krugman, “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning
Without Involvement.”
92. Chang and Tai, “Mass Communication Research and the Invisible
College Revisited.”
93. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences.
94. Mueller, ”Reflections of Culture: An Analysis of Japanese and
American Advertising Appeals.”
95. Greenwald, ”Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Per-
suasion, and Attitude Change.”
96. Wright, ”The Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of Adver-
tising.”
97. Qimei Chen and William D. Wells, ”Attitude Toward the Site,”
Journal @Advertising Research 39 (5,1999): 27-38; Coyle and Thorson, ”The
Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web
Marketing Sites”; Louisa Ha and E. Lincoln James, ”Interactivity
Reexamined: A Baseline Analysis of Early Business Web Sites,” Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media 42 (fall 1998):457-74; Donna L. Hoffmann
and Thomas P. Novak, “Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated
Environments: Conceptual Foundations,” Journal ofMarketing 60 (3,1996):
50-68; Thomas L. Novak, Donna L. Hoffmann, and Yiu-Fai Yung,
”Measuring the Customer Experience in Online Environments: A
Structural Modeling Approach,” Marketing Science 19 (1,2000): 22-44; Ste-
uer, “Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions, Determining Telepresence.”
98. MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch, “The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad
as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Expla-
nations.”
99. Mitchell and Olson, ”Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only
Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?”
100. Holbrook and Batra, “Assessingthe Role of Emotions as Mediators
of Consumer Responses to Advertising.”
101. Edell and Burke, ”The Power of Feelings in Understanding Adver-
tising Effects.”
102. Baron and Kenny, “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction
in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical
Considerations.”
103. Holbrook and Batra, “Assessing the Role of Emotions as Mediators
of Consumer Responses to Advertising.”

SEARCHING FOR OUR “OWN THEORY”

IN ADVERTISING 805
 104. Batra and Ray, ”Affective Responses Mediating Acceptance of
Advertising.“
105. Edell and Burke, ”The Power of Feelings in Understanding Adver-
tising Effects.”
106. Zajonc, “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences.”
107. Petty and Cacioppo, Communication and Persuasion; Petty, Caciop-
PO, and Schumann, “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effec-
tiveness.”
108. Petty and Cacioppo, Communication and Persuasion; Petty, Caciop-
PO, and Schumann, “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising
Effectiveness.”
109. Fishbein and Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research.
110. Eagly and Chaiken, Psychology of Attitudes.
111. Small, “On the Shoulders of Giants.”
112. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequence.
113. Cho and Khang, “The State of Internet-Related Research in
Communications, Marketing, and Advertising: 1994-2003.”
114. Nan and Faber, ”Advertising Theory.”
115. Articles published in 1993-2002 in all journals in our study except
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly.
116. Burke and Srull, ”Competitive Interference and Consumer
Memory for Advertising”; Keller, Strategic Brand Management; Kent and
Allen, ”Competitive Interference Effects in Consumer Memory for
Advertising: The Role of Brand Familiarity.”
117. Burke and Srull, “Competitive Interference and Consumer Me-
mory for Advertising.”
118. Kent and Allen, ”Competitive Interference Effects in Consumer
Memory for Advertising.”
119. Vakratsas and Ambler, “How Advertising Works.”
120. Batra and Ray, ”Affective Responses Mediating Acceptance of
Advertising.”
121. Friestad and Wright, “The Persuasion Knowledge Model.”
122. Nan and Faber, ”Advertising Theory.”
123. Vakratsas and Ambler, ”How Advertising Works.”
124. Friestad and Wright, “The Persuasion Knowledge Model.”
125. Nan and Faber, “Advertising Theory.”
126. Paisley, Communication Research as a Behavioral Discipline.
127. Deborah L. Rhode, In Pursuit of Knowledge: Scholars, Status, and
Academic Culture (Stanford, C A Stanford University Press, 2006), 31.

806 lOURNAL1SM b MASSCOhtMUNlCATlON OUARTERLY