Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 931–938

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Cross-cultural advertising communication: Visual imagery, brand familiarity,

and brand recall
Andrey Mikhailitchenko a,⁎, Rajshekhar (Raj) G. Javalgi b,1, Galina Mikhailitchenko c,2, Michel Laroche d,3
a
College of Business Administration, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J St., Sacramento, CA 95819-6088, USA
b
Nance College of Business Administration, Cleveland State University, 1860 East 18th St., Cleveland, OH 44114, USA
c
Psychological Institute of Russian Education Academy, 9(4) Mokhovaya St., Moscow, 125009, Russia
d
John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The focus of this paper is to address the issue of visual imagery in cross-cultural consumer research. The
Received 1 May 2007 authors investigate the relationship between visual imagery, brand familiarity, and brand claim recall in two
Received in revised form 1 October 2007 distinct cultural environments — the U.S. and Russia. The paper consists of two studies that explored imagery
Accepted 1 November 2007
potency from the point of view of memory-evoking effects. The results suggest that image-intensive tools
generate different returns depending on the level of brand familiarity and cultural media. The research
Keywords:
Advertising
findings may be of interest to marketing scholars studying cross-cultural consumer behavior as well as to
Cross-cultural practitioners operating in international advertising and global brand building.
Imagery © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Brand familiarity
Brand recall

1. Introduction Imagery has been studied extensively in the cognitive psychology

With the dynamic growth of cross-cultural marketing commu-
nications, marketers give more consideration to the selection of visual
imagery communication tools. They believe that visual imagery-
intensive carriers such as TV, magazines, and product packages are
also the most powerful ones in terms of influencing brand recall.
However, the efficiency of this, as well as other visual imagery-
evoking tools, differs depending on consumer memory-related
factors, such as brand familiarity, product category experience, and
degree of consumer involvement.
Richardson (1969) defines imagery as quasi-sensory or quasi-
perceptual experiences that we are self-consciously aware of and that
exist in the absence of stimulus conditions, producing their genuine
sensory or perceptual counterparts. According to Lutz and Lutz (1977),
imagery is a mental event involving visualization of a concept or
relationship. MacInnis and Price define imagery as a process… “by
which sensory information is represented in working memory (1987,
p. 473).” Hence, imagery can be multisensory processing, which may
lead to better recall of information (Babin and Burns 1997).
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 916 278 6578; fax: +1 916 278 4233.
E-mail addresses: mikhaili@saclink.csus.edu (A. Mikhailitchenko),
r.javalgi@csuohio.edu (R.(R.)G. Javalgi), galina.mikh@gmail.com (G. Mikhailitchenko),
laroche@jmsb.concordia.ca (M. Laroche).
1
Tel.: +1 216 216 687 4789; fax: +1 216 687 9354.
2
Tel.: +7 495 202 9363.
3
Tel.: +1 514 848 2424x2942; fax: +1 514 848 4576.
field and has drawn increased interest among consumer researchers
(Babin and Burns, 1997; Andrews et al., 1994). The reliance on imagery
has grown sharply over the recent decades for a number of reasons,
including the drive for global marketing and development of
international brands, such as Coca-Cola, Nike, Pizza Hut, Pepsi, and
Mercedes (Branthwaite, 2002). Therefore an investigation of the role
of imagery in cross-cultural format is important as more and more U.S.
and foreign multinationals are reaching consumers in foreign markets,
especially in transition economies (e.g., Russia).
Researchers (e.g., Cleveland and Laroche, 2007) note that interna-
tional consumer research primarily focuses on one of two areas: the
search for common groups of consumers with similar tastes and
preferences across countries; and understanding consumer differ-
ences from the perspective of cultural, social, economic, and market-
ing programs. While the first area emphasizes the importance of the
emergence of global consumers, the second area suggests that
successful marketing and communications strategies begin with
cultural sensitivity — being tuned to the nuances of behavior of
consumers in foreign markets. Competition for world markets and the
increasing sophistication of foreign consumers have led to an
increasing need for sophisticated advertising and communication
strategies. The effects of the imagery in cross-cultural context are of
practical relevance, especially countries such as Russia, which are
embracing a market based economy. Russian consumers may hold
entirely different views toward advertising than those held in the U.S.,
even though U.S.-based advertisers and brands are predominantly

0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.11.019
932 A. Mikhailitchenko et al. / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 931–938
featured in Russia (Andrews et al., 1994). Research is needed on cross-
cultural understanding and applicability of advertising communica-
tions to countries such as Russia. Companies that compete globally
need to take cultural differences into consideration when making the
decision regarding the advertising strategies applied in each country.
The present study investigates the relationships between the
brand familiarity, visual imagery of an ad, and the brand claim recall in
two distinct cultural environments — the U.S. and Russia. These two
cultures are chosen as they are highly distinct in terms of social and
cultural values, economic and political conditions, and media habits.
The marked differences between the U.S. and Russia help marketers to
test cross-cultural impact on advertising communications. The paper
concludes with an interpretation of the findings and implications for
cross-cultural advertising research.
2. Literature overview
In the area of cognitive psychology, a great deal of research has
been devoted to imagery. Various studies make a distinction between
different types of imagery in terms of their sources, cognitive and
affective associations, bases of raw stimuli, and avenues of informa-
tion processing (Richardson, 1969; Burns et al., 1993). Though imagery
is believed to be multisensory (olfactory, auditory, tactile, taste), any
considered type of imagery is related to a human's visual sensoric
complex. Based on this categorization scheme, imagery-related
studies operationalize ‘imagery’ and ‘visual imagery’ constructs as
theoretical equivalents.
2.1. Research on imagery and advertising effectiveness relationship
Rossiter and Percy (1980), and LaBarbera et al. (1998) document
memory recall to be higher if associated with more intensive visual
imagery activity rather than under conditions that are believed to be
less imagery stimulating. Multiple code theory (Paivio, 1986) explains
this effect by the fact that visual imagery creates multiple cues in
human memory, and multiple retrieval processes associated with
these cues increase the probability of recall. Based on this theoretical
framework, some studies in marketing literature consider effect of
imagery on brand attitude and brand claim recall (Dobni and Zinkhan,
1990; Burns et al., 1993). The results of these studies demonstrate
positive relationships between various dimensions of imagery (vivid-
ness, concrete vs. abstract wording, instructions vs. no instructions to
imagine, etc.) and the subsequent advertising effects (attitude toward
the ad, attitude toward the brand, intention to buy, etc.).
2.2. Cross-cultural aspects
The role of imagery in consumer perception and elaboration of
information received in the process of international marketing
communications has been a subject of the extensive scholarly and
practical research within the last two decades. The distinctions in
information processing, including its visual component, are caused by
Fig. 1. The hypothesized model of relationship between brand familiarity, visual
imagery of an ad, and brand claim recall.
Fig. 2. The hypothesized interactions between culture and familiarity — recall and
imagery-recall relationships.
the fact that cultural environment is the complex set of beliefs, values,
norms and attitudes acquired by consumers as part of their national
heritage. Mueller (1992) and Harvey (1993) consider cultural
environment to have a significant influence on international market-
ing communications strategy and corresponding choice of brand claim
recall evoking communication tools.
Some researchers tended to cluster the countries to determine the
degree of international marketing communications standardization
(Sriram and Gopalakrishna, 1991; Katz and Lee, 1992). Sriram and
Gopalakrishna (1991) identify six groups of countries and argued that
communication strategies and imagery tactics could be attempted
within each group by employing similar but not identical messages.
The researchers figured out a number of environmental variables as
important determinants of transferability of imagery communication,
such as rate of economic growth, attitudes towards wealth and
monetary gain, development and acceptance of international trade-
marks, religious norms and beliefs, etc. (e.g. Dunn, 1976).
Scholarly studies pay a great deal of attention to the psychographic
and behavioral segmentation of image communication recipients in
cross-border settings. Pollay (1986) and Green et al. (1975) recognize
the U.S. advertising as heavily imagery-loaded, given its pervasiveness
(9 min of TV advertising per hour, one of the largest imagery
advertisers in the world). The research indicates that an American
consumer has a higher degree of predisposition to perception of visual
imagery and generates greater numbers of image-related responses
than consumers in most of the other countries in the world (Andrews
and Lysonski, 1991).
3. Hypotheses
The hypothesized link between brand familiarity, visual imagery,
and brand claim recall is shown in Fig. 1, and the hypothesized cross-
cultural differences can be represented as shown in Fig. 2.
3.1. Relationship between brand familiarity and brand claim recall
Brand familiarity reflects the ‘share of mind’ of a given consumer
attained to the particular brand and the extent of a consumer's direct
and indirect experience with a brand (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987;
Kent and Allen, 1994). Campbell and Keller (2003) argue that brand
familiarity is determined by strength of associations that the brand
name evokes in consumer memory, and in this way it captures the
consumer's brand attitude schemata. Their findings demonstrate a
main effect of brand familiarity on uncued brand recall such that
familiar brands were better recalled than were unfamiliar brands.
 A. Mikhailitchenko et al. / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 931–938
From a broader theoretic sense, not only the cited above signal
detection and information organization theories, but also the recent
research on message processing and message response (e.g., Campbell
and Keller, 2003; Kent and Kellaris, 2001) provide the evidence of
positive relationship between brand familiarity and brand claim recall.
For instance, Kent and Kellaris (2001) find that high levels of prior
experience with a brand lead to the retention of stronger advertise-
ment-brand links, making the attributes of previously familiar brands
easier to recall. They posit that new attributes are linked more
strongly to the nodes of highly familiar brands, which could ease the
retrieval of advertisement claims.
Based on the above, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H1. A consumer's ability to recall brand information conveyed in an
ad is related to his/her level of brand familiarity.
3.2. Relationship between visual imagery and brand claim recall
The existing literature on cognitive psychology and consumer
behavior provide the evidence in favor of better recall of information
contained in imagery-intensive ads, in contrast to imagery non-
intensive ones (e.g., Burns et al., 1993; Unnava and Agarwal, 1996;
LaBarbera et al., 1998).
While elaborating on cognitive mechanisms leading to this effect,
Unnava and Agarwal (1996) state that when people process advertis-
ing information that is high in image-provoking ability, it is
anticipated that people will generate images prompted by that
information. They conclude that these images are processed and
integrated with the other information in the ad before being stored in
the long-term memory.
The literature studying the effect of word content of advertising on
brand recall also documents the imagery-recall relationship (Lutz and
Lutz, 1977; Unnava and Burnkart, 1991). These studies demonstrate
that high imagery words are remembered better than low imagery
words and generate results in the formation of verbal and imaginal
codes in memory. Based on this reasoning, we propose the following
hypothesis.
H2. A consumer's ability to recall brand information conveyed in an
ad is related to the level of visual imagery of an ad.
3.3. Moderating role of visual imagery
The consumer behavior and advertising communication research
studies emphasize that information elaboration resources in the
human mind are limited, and communication media are competing
for them. Based on this view, when exposed to an ad for a familiar
brand, consumers are likely to engage in relatively less extensive,
more confirmation-based processing (Keller, 1991; MacKenzie and
Spreng, 1992). Familiarity can itself use cognitive capacity such that
processing of a familiar, relative to an unfamiliar, stimulus is
diminished (Britton and Tesser, 1982). At the same time, the more
extensive processing elicited by ads for unfamiliar brands increases
the resource availability (Cacioppo and Petty, 1979). Based on these
findings, the higher effect of imagery on the brand claim recall for the
low level of brand familiarity is hypothesized:
H3. The effect of visual imagery on brand claim recall is higher for the
low level of brand familiarity, and is lower for the high level of brand
familiarity.
3.4. Cross-cultural influence
The problems associated with communicating to consumers in
diverse cultures pose the great creative challenges in devising
advertising strategies. The cross-cultural advertising research litera-
ture provides the evidence that the ad imagery efficiency should differ
933
from one cluster of countries to another (Sriram and Gopalakrishna,
1991; Katz and Lee, 1992). The U.S. and Russia belong to different
clusters that are caused by different cultural backgrounds and
information processing patterns. According to Hofstede (1980,
1983), the U.S. culture has higher scores on individualism, masculinity
and long-term orientation, while Russia has higher power distance
and uncertainty avoidance scores. Across all these dimensions, the U.S.
and Russia are located far from each. The attitude towards the
advertising in general (Lutz, 1985), the theoretical and empirical link
of which with individualism and masculinity in a culture was
documented, also significantly differs for the two countries, making
imagery advertising a more effective marketing tool in the U.S. than in
Russia (Mikhailitchenko and Whipple, 2006).
Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H4. The relationship between ad imagery rating of an ad and brand
information recall will be stronger for the U.S. than for Russia.
3.5. Interaction effects
The relationship between brand familiarity and brand information
recall may be different for the two countries as well. Laroche et al.
(2002) document that this relationship works in different ways in
mature and emerging markets. In mature, highly competitive markets,
advertising may be functioning to maintain the status quo, while in
emerging markets it is primarily a tool of creating brand value for
newly established brands (D'Souza and Rao, 1995).
Therefore, information processing mechanisms is different for
mature vs. emerging markets. In mature and highly competitive
environments, it is likely that individuals process the advertised
information based on established brand schemata, while in non-
mature markets this schemata is usually absent. Respectively, brand
familiarity in mature markets is usually associated with these
schemata, while on emerging markets brand familiarity does not
mean presence of an established network of associations with brand
image (Cacioppo and Petty, 1979). Based on this reasoning, it would be
relevant to hypothesize that relationships between brand familiarity
and brand claim recall will be stronger in mature rather than on
emerging markets.
Based on the above discussion, we propose the following
hypothesis.
H5. The relationship between brand familiarity and brand informa-
tion recall will be stronger for the U.S. than for Russia.
One of the culturally-oriented factors that contribute to the
difference of imagery ads processing between the U.S. and Russian
consumers is cross-cultural media habits. Extant literature demon-
strates that people in the U.S. watch considerably more television and
read more imagery-intensive print editions than people from Western
Europe (Green and Langeard, 1975) and Asia (Lee and Tse, 1994). The
same comparison would be relevant between the U.S. and Russia as
well. In Russia people watch less TV, read more books, and are in a less
degree exposed to ad carrying communication means than consumers
in the U.S. (Andrews et al., 1994). Recent literature on media habits in
Russia demonstrates that in spite of the increased use of imagery-
intensive carriers such as TV and Internet, especially among young
populations, the Russian media environment is still characterized by
the high role of books, newspapers and other written media (Holak
et al., 2007; Savel'eva, 2007). According to the market research
organization NOP World, while an average U.S. media consumer
spends 19 h per week on watching TV, and 5.7 h per week on reading,
in Russia these indicators are 15 and 7.1 h per week respectively
(Baker, 2005).
Based on the above, it would be logical to propose lower
propensity of Russian consumers to advertising image elaboration
934 A. Mikhailitchenko et al. / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 931–938
than of their U.S. counterparts, and state interaction-related hypoth-
esis as the following:
H6. The moderating role of visual imagery on the relationship
between brand familiarity and brand claim recall will be higher for
the U.S. than Russia.
4. Sample
Data were collected from two culturally diverse countries — the U.S.
and Russia. The samples were drawn from university students in each
country. The use of student samples for this study is justified by the fact
that students have been regarded as one of five important consumer
segments both in the U.S. and Russia (Andrews et al., 1994). In order to
address the common concern about the use of student samples in
cross-cultural studies, the homogeneity of respondents across two
cultures (the U.S. and Russia) has been given special consideration
(Douglas and Craig, 2000). Both student samples represented equally
sized and ranked business schools; they included approximately equal
number of male and female respondents with age falling within the 20
to 30 years old range.
5. Study 1 (testing Hypotheses 1–3)
5.1. Design, measurement, and procedure
For Study 1, the sample consisted of ninety six undergraduate
students from two U.S. universities. The experiment was conducted in
classroom settings in which each subject was randomly assigned to
one of the treatments in 2 × 2 factorial between-subjects experimental
design. Two conditions were manipulated — brand familiarity and
imagery content of the ad.
5.1.1. Brand familiarity condition
The two chocolate brands — American (A) and Russian (R) — both
of which operate on the U.S. and Russian markets, were chosen for the
experiment. While the Brand A one is the global brand and one of the
market leaders in the U.S., the Brand R is being sold in local stores in
some regions of the U.S. In contrast, Brand R is well-known as a market
leader in Russia (approximately 30% market share), while Brand A is
just one of the several imported brands with market share less than
1%.
5.1.2. Imagery condition
Two ads, one consisting of picture and text, and the other one
consisting of text only, were created for each brand. In order to exclude
the influence caused by the ad familiarity factor, completely new ads
were generated for each of them. Each ad, for both of the brands,
contained four attribute claims and one benefit claim. Among the four
attribute claims, two were different for brands A and R, and two were
the same. The benefit claims were different (Table 1).
5.1.3. Procedure and measurement
First, the students filled the questionnaire measuring the brand
familiarity for brands they were assigned to. For brand familiarity
measuring, Kent and Allen's (1994) scale in 7-point Likert format was
Table 1
Attribute and benefit claims for Brand A and Brand R.
Brand A
Attribute claims Roasted peanuts
Caramel
Milk
Chocolate
Benefit claim Handles the hunger
applied. After that they were offered to examine the ads for one and a
half minutes, and then rate the visual imagery level of ads by filling
another questionnaire. For visual imagery measurement, Ellen and
Bone's (1991) communications-evoked imagery processing scale was
used. The measurement was made across three dimensions of imagery
processing: vividness, quantity, and elaboration (adapted from Babin
and Burns, 1997).
After examining the ads, subjects were asked to complete a short
“Attitude towards advertising in general” questionnaire that was used
as an “attention break” between examining the ads and the next part
of the experiment. Following this interpolated task, they then were
given a surprise claim recall test on the ads. The recall period was kept
within the limit of 2 min per ad. Subjects gave their responses in
written; later these responses were coded and scored on 7-point scale,
based on the number of correctly recalled attribute and benefit claims.
5.1.4. Stimulus design
The choice of the product category (chocolate) was conditioned by
the following factors. First, it should be familiar to the students, so that
respondents would be able to form behavioral attitudes and visual
images based on product category knowledge (MacInnis and Price,
1987). Second, product category should be one where favorable
visualizing experiences and brand claim recall could result in positive
purchase intentions (Rossiter and Percy, 1980).
5.2. Statistical analysis
5.2.1. Manipulation checks
For both manipulated variables (familiar/unfamiliar brand and
high/low imagery) manipulation checks were performed. Both for
brand familiarity and imagery rating, descriptive statistics (mean
values) of the responses to the corresponding parts of the ques-
tionnaire were computed. The mean difference was significant for
treatment conditions for both for brand familiarity (F = 31.39,
p b .001) and imagery rating (F = 21.28, p b .001).
5.2.2. Convergent and discriminant validity of measurement
In order to address convergent and discriminant validity issues,
exploratory factor analysis was performed on items measuring the
two independent variables discussed above. These two constructs
were labeled respectively as FAMILIAR and IMAGE. The number of
meaningful factors and number of items per factor were assessed with
exploratory factor analysis.
The factor analysis demonstrated the satisfactory internal con-
sistency of the scale. The number of extracted factors (principal
components rotation) with eigenvalues equal or greater than 1 was
four (three dimensions of IMAGE and one for FAMILIAR). It should be
noted here that there were three correlated dimensions of the IMAGE
construct. Therefore, these three dimensions were collapsed into one
dimension and labeled as “IMAGE”. Factor loading pattern for items
included in the scale demonstrated a generally satisfactory fit to the
conceptual content of each factor.
The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedure was applied as
well. The convergent validity issue was addressed by examining the
significance of standardized factor loadings. All of them were on
satisfactory level (t-values from 8.8 to 18.9, all significant for p b .001).
The discriminant validity was checked by performing a confidence
interval test that involves calculating a confidence interval of plus or
minus 2 standard errors around the covariances between the factors,
and determining whether this interval includes 1.0 (Anderson and
Brand R Gerbing, 1988).
Raisins
Hazelnuts 5.2.3. Measurement reliability
Milk For reliability assessment, Cronbach alpha coefficients were
Chocolate
obtained. The reliability estimates were (.96 for familiarity and .77
All natural
for imagery) considered acceptable, based on Nunnally (1978) criteria.
 A. Mikhailitchenko et al. / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 931–938 935

Table 2
ANOVA results.

Dependent variable: RECALL

Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Corrected model 43.750 3 14.583 32.407 .000
Intercept 174.050 1 174.050 386.778 .000
FAMILIAR 31.250 1 31.250 69.444 .000
IMAGE 8.450 1 8.450 18.778 .001
FAMILIAR ⁎ IMAGE 4.050 1 4.050 9.000 .008
Error 7.200 92 .450
Total 225.000 96
Corrected total 50.950 95

R squared = .859 (adjusted R squared = .832). Fig. 3. Recall mean scores for combinations of treatments.

2000). Translating survey instruments helps ensure that items and

5.3. Results
A two-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc tests was used for testing
the hypothesized main and interaction effects. As it follows from Table 2,
brand familiarity (F = 69.44, p b .001) and imagery (F = 18.77, p b .001)
main effects as well as interaction effect (F = 9.00, p b .01) were found to
be significant.
Student–Newman–Keuls and Waller–Duncan post-hoc tests were
applied for evaluating the difference of RECALL means for all combina-
tions of treatments. Both tests put High Familiarity (HF)/Low Image (LI)
and HF/HI conditions in one homogeneous group, but at the same time
put LF/LI and LF/HI conditions in different groups (Table 3), supporting
the hypothesized effect of higher imagery influence in low rather than in
high familiarity conditions (Hypothesis 3).
Graphically the results of Study 1 are represented in Fig. 3. They
indicate at higher marginal influence of imagery on lower rather than
on higher level of brand familiarity.
6. Study 2 (testing Hypotheses 4–6)
6.1. Design, measurement, and procedure
For study 2, the sample included eighty three undergraduate
students from a U.S. university and one hundred nineteen students
from a Russian university. Like in Study 1, the experiment was
conducted in classroom settings in which each subject was randomly
assigned to one of the treatments (HF/HI, HF/LI, LF/LI, and LF/HI);
2 × 2 × 2 factorial between — subjects experiment was designed with
three manipulated conditions — a subject's country of domicile, brand
familiarity and imagery content of the ad. The same chocolate brands,
Brand A and Brand R, were used.
For conducting the experiment in Russia the ad for both brands
was translated into Russian with preserving exactly the same ad
design and the same information for brand attributes and benefits as
in English. To ensure the conceptual equivalence of instructions and
survey items in the two countries, a translation/back translation
process was employed (Andrews et al., 1994; Douglas and Craig,
Table 3
Results of Student–Newman–Keuls and Waller–Duncan tests.
response formats have identical meanings across cultures. Otherwise,
“cross-national differences in scale means might be due to differences
between countries on the underlying construct or due to systematic
biases in the way people from different countries respond to certain
items” (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998).
6.1.1. Brand attitude as covariate
Except country of domicile condition, another difference with
Study 1 was that Attitude towards brand score (AB) was measured as
well. The four-item seven-point differential scale was used for that
purpose (Appendix A), and the items were averaged (Cronbach's
alpha = .92). The major reason for measuring brand attitude was the
premise that the better brand attitude might predispose subjects to
more detailed recall of an ad conveyed brand information (e.g., Patzer,
1991; Coulter and Murphy, 1994). Once brand attitude was formed
before the experiment as a result of previous consumer experience, its
influence on brand recall, unless is put under control in statistical
analysis, could question the results. The inclusion of AB variable in the
model appears to be relevant for the cross culture — formatted study,
taking into account the hypothesized culture-related differences of
imagery impact on brand recall.
The procedure was the same as in Study 1, with the exception that
after filling in the brand recall related part of the questionnaire they
also answered brand attitude measuring questions.
6.2. Statistical analysis
6.2.1. Manipulation checks
Like in Study 1, manipulation checks were performed for the
independent variables (familiar/unfamiliar brand and high/low
imagery). The mean difference for IMAGE was significant for picture
vs. non-picture condition (F = 30.31, p b .001). However, the difference
for FAMILIAR variable was found to be significant for the U.S. sub-
sample (F = 25.50, p b .001), but insignificant for the Russian sample
(F = .734, p b .393). In order to create a categorical FAMILIAR variable
for subsequent ANCOVA procedure 8 observations out of the initial
127 ones were removed from the analysis, and the delineation
between HF and LF conditions became possible (F = 3.73, p b .05).
Unlike for Study 1 and the U.S. sub-sample for Study 2, sub-sample for
HF condition (as well as LF one) included both brands: Brand A and
Brand R.

Treatment N Subset 6.2.2. Validity and reliability of measurement

1 2 3 The same procedures for checking discriminant and convergent
Student–Newman–Keuls LF/LI 25 2,0241 validity and reliability of measurement as in Study 1 were applied. The
LF/HI 23 2,8511
exploratory factor analysis was performed on three instead of two
HF/LI 24 4,0682
HF/HI 24 4,3396 variables (included brand attitude- labeled as ATTITUDE). The number
Waller–Duncan LF/LI 25 2,0241 of meaningful factors with eigen values more than 1 was five (in
LF/HI 23 2,8511 compliance with 3 dimensions of IMAGE plus FAMILIAR and
HF/LI 24 4,0682 ATTITUDE). Factor loading pattern demonstrated satisfactory model
HF/HI 24 4,3396
fit (t-values from 7.4 to 19.1, significant for p b .001). The Phi-
936 A. Mikhailitchenko et al. / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 931–938

Table 4
ANCOVA results.

Source Type III sum df Mean square F Sig.

of squares
Corrected model 216.150 8 27.019 37.439 .000
Intercept 46.294 1 46.294 64.149 .000
ATTITUDE 4.054 1 4.054 5.618 .019⁎
IMAGE 6.472 1 6.472 8.969 .003⁎⁎
COUNTRY 16.989 1 16.989 23.542 .000⁎⁎
FAMILIAR 163.209 1 163.209 226.156 .000⁎⁎
IMAGE ⁎ COUNTRY 3.127 1 3.127 4.333 .039⁎
IMAGE ⁎ FAMILIAR 7.861 1 7.861 10.893 .001⁎⁎
COUNTRY ⁎ FAMILIAR .693 1 .693 .961 .328
IMAGE ⁎ COUNTRY ⁎ FAMILIAR 5.093 1 5.093 7.057 .009⁎⁎
Fig. 4. Recall mean scores for combinations of treatments (for the U.S. and Russian sub-
Error 139.281 193 .722
samples).
Total 2611.000 202
Corrected total 355.431 201

⁎Significant at p b .05. to .99 that provided the ground for concluding that the factorial
⁎⁎Significant at p b .01. structure is quite comparable in cross-cultural settings and the two
subsamples can be combined for subsequent analysis.
Correlation indexes ranged from .2401 to .7494 with standard errors
from .0611 to .2721. The inclusion of 1.0 in confidence interval took 6.3. Results
place only between factors measuring the dimensions of IMAGE
construct. Cronbach alpha coefficients were .88 for familiarity, .80 for An ANCOVA with COUNTRY, IMAGE, and FAMILIAR as independent
imagery, and .92 for brand attitude. variables, RECALL as dependent variable, and ATTITUDE as covariate
The issue of cross-cultural stability of measurement was addressed was used for testing the hypotheses. The results obtained so far are
as well. It was done by running separate exploratory factor analysis depicted in Table 4.
models for each of two countries and comparing results. The factorial The covariate (brand attitude score) was significant (F = 5.618,
similarity between the cultural groups within the sample was p b .019). The main effects of imagery rating (F = 8.969, p b .01) and
evaluated. This procedure of establishing cross-cultural (cross- brand familiarity (F = 226.16, p b .01) on brand recall were significant
sample) stability of a scale was applied in a considerable number of even after removing the covariate's effect. Not only in terms of IMAGE
studies (e.g., Ommundsen et al., 2002; Lubatkin et al., 1998). and FAMILIAR main effect, but also their interaction effect (F = 10.893,
For both countries, examination of the scree plots revealed five p b .01), the Study 2 replicated the results obtained in Study 1. The
major factors. Inspection of the items that loaded on these factors empirical finding about higher imagery effect under low rather than
revealed that the dimensional structure of constructs had been high familiarity conditions was supported in Study 2 as well.
successfully recaptured across two cultural groups. Next, the factor The significant 3-way interaction between country of domicile,
loadings of American and Russian groups on these dimensions were brand familiarity, and imagery rating (F = 7.057, p b .01) demonstrates
compared by means of Pearson product-moment correlations and different patterns of marginal influence of the imagery on brand claim
Tucker's coefficient of congruence. These coefficients ranged from .95 recall for high familiarity vs. low familiarity conditions in two cultures
(Hypothesis 6). While in the U.S. imagery has a much higher
contribution to brand recall on low levels of brand familiarity, in
Table 5 Russia the difference of this contribution for HF and LF conditions is
Means and standard deviations of brand claim recall for the combinations of treatments. much less substantial (Table 5).
Dependent variable: RECALL Graphically, the most important results of Study 2 can be
Imagery Country Brand familiarity Mean Std. deviation N represented by a graph illustrating the difference in marginal
Low USA Low 1.333 0.963 20
contribution of imagery to brand recall score on high versus low
High 4.038 1.148 20 levels of brand familiarity, compared for the U.S. and Russian sub-
Total 2.740 1.724 40 samples (Fig. 4).
RUSSIA Low 2.714 0.460 23 The culture-related differences in imagery perception (Hypothesis
High 4.444 0.616 31
4) were supported by the significance of IMAGE ⁎ COUNTRY interac-
Total 3.391 1.000 54
Total Low 2.077 1.007 43 tion effect (F = 4.333, p b .05). In contrast, the hypothesized difference
High 4.205 0.978 51 of brand familiarity influence on brand recall (Hypothesis 5) was not
Total 3.052 1.454 94 supported by the study results (F = .961. p b .328). The failure to obtain
High USA Low 2.800 1.361 22
High 4.000 0.894 21
Total 3.415 1.284 43
RUSSIA Low 2.875 0.751 27 Table 6
High 4.545 0.506 38 Results of hypotheses testing.
Total 3.723 1.053 65
Total Low 2.846 1.017 49 Hypotheses Study 1 Study 2
High 4.333 0.727 44 Main effects on H1 (brand familiarity) Supported at Supported at
Total 3.604 1.152 93 brand claim recall p b .001 p b .001
Total USA Low 2.000 1.364 42 H2 (ad imagery rating) Supported at Supported at
High 4.021 1.032 41 p b .001 p b .003
Total 3.044 1.570 83 Interaction effects H3 (familiarity ⁎ imagery) Supported at Supported at
RUSSIA Low 2.800 0.632 65 p b .008 p b .001
High 4.510 0.543 54 H4 (imagery ⁎ country) Supported at
Total 3.586 1.040 119 p b .05
Total Low 2.462 1.079 107 H5 (familiarity ⁎ country) Not supported
High 4.276 0.847 95 H6 (familiarity ⁎ country ⁎ Supported at
Total 3.342 1.330 202 imagery) p b .01
 A. Mikhailitchenko et al. / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 931–938
the support for this hypothesis may mean that, in contrast to imagery,
brand familiarity's impact on brand recall does not significantly differ
across cultures, at least within the applied sample frame (USA vs.
Russia).
To summarize, Studies 1 and 2 provided the significant support for
hypothesized brand familiarity and imagery rating effects on brand
recall (Table 6). Their interaction (higher contribution of imagery to
brand claim recall on low rather than on high levels of brand
familiarity) was supported by both studies as well. The significant
differences of imagery influence on brand recall score was revealed by
the significance of corresponding interactions in ANCOVA model
(Study 2). The difference of brand familiarity's influence on brand
recall across two cultures was not supported by the study (Table 6).
7. Discussion
This study addressed the issue of imagery potency from the point
of view of memory-evoking effects under different levels of brand
familiarity within different cultural contexts. The results document
differential impact of the imagery on brand recall: it is higher for low-
and lower for high-familiarity conditions. In cross-cultural settings, on
Russian market brand recall — evoking ability of imagery found out to
be less than in the U.S.
From a theoretical perspective, the findings of the study are
consistent with earlier research investigating the effects of brand
familiarity and imagery communication on brand recall (Babin and
Burns, 1997; Burns et al., 1993; Branthwaite, 2002) as well as with
cross-cultural advertising and consumer behavior studies (Andrews
and Lysonski, 1991; Andrews et al., 1994; Mueller, 1992). At the same
time, it builds on the existing research by providing a more nuanced
view of when and how diminishing effects of imagery are likely to
occur.
The findings reported in this study attract attention to the issue of
information processing resources that exist in the consumer mind.
The high level of brand familiarity creates the strong brand-related
schema that can use the cognitive capacity and interfere in the
elaboration of the new image-evoked information. In contrast, the
absence (or weakness) of such a schema for unfamiliar brands
increases the availability of cognitive resources needed for image
elaborating activity. The literature both in social cognition (Carlston,
1980; Lingle and Ostrom, 1979) and consumer behavior (Kardes, 1986;
Britton and Tesser, 1982) developed this theoretical approach. The
results of this study provide additional evidence for its further
development and operationalization.
The study also demonstrates that the process of elaboration of
image-initiated information is strongly influenced by social media.
The need for image processing appears to be cultural phenomena that
are influenced by traditions of the country, its media habits, and
dominating lifestyle. The strong cultural predisposition to reading
books and newspapers create in less need for visualization, while
media habits oriented toward watching TV and reading colorful
magazines create image-based information elaboration patterns. The
associative links evoked by images (e.g., milk chocolate, peanuts,
raisins) result in higher attribute recalling abilities for consumers from
image-intensive media environments, like USA. In contrast, consu-
mers from reading-intensive environments, like Russia, have higher
predispositions to elaborate textual rather than imagery information
contained in the ad.
From a managerial point of view, the study demonstrated that
investment in image-intensive advertising will not produce the same
return for different levels of brand familiarity and different interna-
tional markets. The well established brands with higher familiarity
rating require different communication strategies aimed at facilitating
brand claim recall than low familiar ones. Image-intensive tools
generate diminishing returns with increasing brand familiarity. The
companies that are going global should also evaluate the degree of
937
image intensiveness of the environments they are going to operate
within. This is needed for assessing the “imagery advertising leverage”
those global businesses will have in the particular culture.
The findings are also applicable in the area of brand-building
strategy. One of its elements is effective communication mix (Aaker,
1991; Keller, 1991). For the brands that have already achieved high
equity, the optimal communication mix would mean higher shares of
verbal information, and communicating techniques and tools. In
contrast, marketers and advertisers of low equity and start-up brands
need to rely on imagery-intensive messages since they are more
beneficial in terms of brand recall building potential at the lower level
of brand familiarity.
8. Conclusions and directions for future research
Our research contributes to the knowledge base by demonstrating
that image-intensive tools generate different returns depending on
the level of brand familiarity and cultural media. This study, however,
is not without its limitations. It is based on only two countries and the
findings do not provide the ground for generalization to multiple
countries. Therefore, replications and/or extensions to multiple
countries with diverse cultural, political and economic backgrounds
are needed in order to develop strong strategic implications. Further,
the research should also be extended to replicate its findings with a
large group of consumers other than a small set of college students,
who no doubt represent an important class of the consumer segment.
This study operationalized brand familiarity construct. However,
the imagery impact on brand recall should be studied not only within
this framework, but also with examining other memory-related
constructs. For instance, objective and subjective knowledge could
be investigated as possible moderators of imagery impact on brand
claim recall ability. Except that, short-term versus long-term memory
dimension should be also included in the scope of further research.
The effects studied within this study relate only to short-term
memory, but for the long-term one the relationships could be
different. Future research should also validate the results of this
study by considering various imagery-induction techniques and
communication media.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the reviewers for their comments.
References
Aaker DA. Managing brand equity. New York, NY: Free Press; 1991.
Alba JW, Hutchinson JW. Dimensions of consumer expertise. J Consum Res
1987;13:411–53 [March].
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 1988;103:411–23.
Andrews J, Lysonski S. Understanding cross-cultural student perceptions of advertising
in general: implications for advertising educators and practitioners. J Advert
1991;20(2):15–29.
Andrews J, Durvasula S, Netemeyer RG. Testing the cross-national applicability of us and
russian advertising beliefs and attitude measures. J Advert 1994;23(1):71–81.
Babin LA, Burns AC. Effects of print ad pictures and copy containing instructions to
imagine on mental imagery that mediates attitudes. J Advert 1997;26(3):32–44.
Baker T. Leisure time around the world: cross-cultural CE use. First Glimpse 2005;2(8):24–5.
Branthwaite A. Investigating the power of imagery in marketing communication:
evidence-based techniques. Qual Mark Res: Int J 2002;5(3):164–71.
Britton BK, Tesser A. Effects of prior knowledge on use of cognitive capacity in three
complex cognitive tasks. J Verbal Learn Verb Behav 1982;21(4):421–36.
Burns AC, Biswas A, Babin LA. The operation of visual imagery as a mediator of
advertising effects. J Advert 1993;22(2):71–85.
Cacioppo JT, Petty RE. Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response,
recall and persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 1979;37(1):97-109.
Campbell MC, Keller KL. Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects. J Consum
Res 2003;30:292–304.
Carlston DE. The recall and the use of traits and events in social inference process. J Exp
Psychol 1980;16:303–28 [July].
Cleveland M, Laroche M. Acculturation to the global consumer culture: scale
development and research paradigm. J Bus Res 2007;60:249–59.
938 A. Mikhailitchenko et al. / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 931–938
Coulter RH, Murphy A. A test of prescriptive advice from the Rossiter-Percy Advertising
Planning Grid using radio commercials. Adv Consum Res 1994;21(1):276–82.
D'Souza, G., Rao, R.C., Can Repeating an Advertising More Frequently than the
Competition Affect Brand Preference. J Mark 1995;59(2):32–42.
Dobni D, Zinkhan GM. In: Goldberg ME, Gorn G, Pollay RW, editors. Search of brand
image: a foundation analysis. Adv Consum ResProvo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research; 1990. p. 110–9.
Douglas SP, Craig CS. International marketing research. 2nd Edition. NY: New York;
2000.
Dunn SW. Effect of national identity on multinational promotional strategy in Europe.
J Mark 1976;40(4):50–7.
Ellen P, Bone P. In: Holman RH, Solomon MR, editors. Measuring communication-
evoked imagery processing. Advances in Consumer ResearchProvo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research; 1991. p. 806–12.
Green RT, Langeard E. A cross-national comparison of consumer habits and innovation
characteristics. J Mark 1975;39:38–41 (July).
Green RT, Cunningham WH, Cunningham ICM. The effectiveness of standardized global
advertising. J Advert 1975;4(3):25–9.
Harvey MG. Point of view: a model to determine standardization of the advertising
process in international markets. J Advert Res 1993;33(4):57–64.
Holak SL, Matveev AV, Havlena WJ. Nostalgia in post-socialist Russia: exploring
applications to advertising strategy. J Bus Res 2007;60:649–55.
Hofstede G. Culture's consequences: international differences in world-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1980.
Hofstede G. National culture is four dimensions, vol. 13. International Studies of
Management and Organizations; 1983. p. 46–73.
Kardes FR. Effects of initial product judgments on subsequent memory-based
judgments. J Consum Res 1986;13:1-11 [June].
Katz H, Lee WN. Oceans apart: an initial exploration of social communication differences
in US and UK prime-time television advertising. Int J Adv 1992;2(1):69–82.
Keller KL. Cue compatibility and framing in advertising. J Mark Res 1991;28:42–57
[February].
Kent RJ, Allen CT. Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising:
the role of brand familiarity. J Mark 1994;58:97-105 [July].
Kent RJ, Kellaris JJ. Competitive interference effects in memory for advertising: are
familiar brands exempt? J Mark Commun 2001;7:159–69.
LaBarbera P, Weingard P, Yorkston EA. Matching the message to the mind: advertising
imagery and consumer processing styles. J Adv Res 1998:29–43 [September–
October].
Laroche M, Cleveland M, Maravelakis I. Attitude accessibility, certainty and the attitude
behavior relationship: an empirical study of ad repetition and competitive
inference effects. Int J Adv 2002;21(2):149–74.
View publication stats
Lee W, Tse DK. Changing media consumption in a new home: acculturation patterns
among Hong Kong immigrants to Canada. J Advert 1994;23(1):58–69.
Lingle JR, Ostrom TM. Retrieval selectivity in memory-based impression judgments.
J Pers Soc Psychol 1979;37:180–94 [February].
Lubatkin M, Calori R, Very P, Veiga JF. Managing mergers across borders: a two-nation
exploration of a nationally bound administrative. Organ Sci 1998;9(6).
Lutz KA, Lutz RJ. Effects of interactive imagery on learning: application to advertising.
J Appl Psychol 1977;62(4):493–8.
Lutz RJ. Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude towards the ad: a conceptual
framework. J Advert Res 1985:49–68.
MacInnis DJ, Price LL. The role of imagery in information processing: review and
extensions. J Consum Res 1987;13:473–91 [March].
MacKenzie SB, Spreng RA. How does motivation moderate the impact of central and
peripheral processing on brand attitudes and intentions? J Consum Res
1992;18:519–29 [March].
Mikhailitchenko A, Whipple TW. Modeling the effects of culture-related variables on
the attitude towards advertising: a USA–Russia–Iran study. J East-West Bus 2006;12
(2/3):39–59.
Mueller B. Standardization vs. specialization: an examination of westernization in
Japanese advertising. J Advert Res 1992;32(1):15–24.
Nunnally J. Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
Ommundsen R, Mörch S, Hak T, Larsen KS, van derVeer K. Attitudes toward illegal
immigration: a cross-national methodological comparison. J Psychol 2002;136(1).
Paivio A. Mental representations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1986.
Patzer GL. Multiple dimensions of performance for 30-second and 15-second
commercials. J Advert Res 1991;31(4):18–26.
Pollay R. The distorted mirror: reflections on the unintended consequences of
advertising. J Mark 1986;50:18–36.
Richardson A. Mental imagery. London: Routledge and Kegal Paul; 1969.
Rossiter JR, Percy L. Attitude change through visual imagery in advertising. J Advert
1980;9(2):10–6.
Savel'eva OO. Prospects of change in Russians' attitudes toward advertising. Sociol Res
2007;46(2):47–61.
Sriram V, Gopalakrishna P. Can advertising be standardized among similar countries? A
cluster-based analysis. Int J Advert 1991;10(2):137–49.
Steenkamp JB, Baumgartner H. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national
consumer research. J Consum Res 1998;25:78–90 [June].
Unnava HR, Agarwal S. Interactive effects of presentation modality and message-generated
imagery on recall of advertising information. J Consum Res 1996;23(1):81–91.
Unnava HR, Burnkart RE. An imagery-processing view of the role of pictures in print
advertisements. J Mark Res 1991;28(2):22–34.