The Impact of Noise on Recall of Advertisements
Author(s): Bob T. Wu and Stephen J. Newell
Source: Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Spring, 2003), pp. 56-65
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40470111
Accessed: 30-11-2015 10:58 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40470111?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 27.251.83.10 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:58:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE IMPACT OF NOISE ON RECALL OF
ADVERTISEMENTS

Bob T. Wu
BowlingGreenStateUniversity

J.
Stephen Newell
Western
MichiganUniversity

that referred inmarketing to to and is a literature, hasbeenthe
Noise,a barrier learning communication, concept is widely yet, in and of research.In this the focusofvery little business background noiseis explored pastpsychological paper, theoretical is u a o
A measureo fnoise i s d eveloped ndi tsi mpact n recall o fa dvertisementsi nvestigatedsinga literature. marketing
In
and noisedimensions. that are The results indicate there external internal students. convenience of sample 306 university and Future research affects recallof advertisements. noise significantly of thedata revealsthatinternal addition, analysis are managerial implications discussed.

INTRODUCTION as Effective communication long been prescribed the has from elected forsuccessin many things, being magicpotion It to a then, president saving marriage. is notsurprising, tosee the numerous studies investigating factorsthat lead to
"effective"
communication.
One well- knownmodel of communication consists fiveelements: of source; message; and 1955; channel; receiver; feedback
(Lasswell1948;Schräm
and
Jakobson
1960; Schiffman Kanuk 2000, p.228). An the amount research studied processitself, of has impressive as wellas theindividual of elements themodelandhowthey contribute effective to communication Belchetal.1987;
(e.g.,
Maclnnis and Jaworski
1989; Maclnnis, Moormanand
Jaworski
and
1991; Ratneshwar Chaiken1991; Pham1996;
Howardand Gengler
2001; Newell and Goldsmith
2001;).
One of thebarriers communication noise. Noise is a to is
56

and in of widely recognized incorporated a variety concept and models ( Schiffman and psychological communication in little attention Kanuk2000), yet, has received it empirical no measurement the business literature. Specifically, of that instrument beendeveloped captures elements has key to Thispapertries fillthisvoidby thisimportant construct. research the of existing discussing concept noise,reviewing the of relevant theconcept, to describing development a noise of on results its impact ad scale, and presenting empirical recallin a realworld application. THE CONCEPT OF NOISE
New World College Dictionary
Accordingto Webster's electrical 1997, p.920), noise is "anyunwanted
(Neufeldt,
within communication a that with signal system interferes the soundor imagebeingcommunicated."Loudonand Delia

Journal Marketing
THEORY AND PRACTICE of This content downloaded from 27.251.83.10 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:58:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

is defined "goal-directed as arousal," opportunity"theextent to which distractions limited exposure time affect or attention brandinformation the ad," and to in consumer's in is skillsor proficiencies interpreting ability "consumers' in brand information an ad" (Maclnnis, Moormanand
Jaworski
communication
1991,p.34). Whilethetraditional modelfocuseson theprocessitself, MOA modellinks the to processing of information the concepts of needs, skills and potential motivation, involvement, knowledge, in environment. The opportunities present thecommunication notionof opportunity the MOA model is particularly in The concept noise,as it interferes performance of with and relevant thecurrent to becauseit explicitly study recognizes information is in situational factors tasks, rooted thepsychological that processing (distractions) impedecommunication "
In
literature. these the of from one stimulus another (p.34). to studies, impact noiseis studied using and draw"attention a variety applications of white machine the how noise, noise, Though modeldoes a nicejob ofbroadly including explaining and backward and Holding information of ads is affected consumers' regular speech, speech(Baker processing by 1993). Though results beenmixed, general, have in the studies desire, focus, and competence,the authors did not as far backas the1950'sindicate noisedistractions be that the can of and operationalize concept opportunity, thediscussion detrimental tosuch activities auditory as detection lacksdetails about external environmental stimuli that perceptions, specific of grammatical focused tasks, and errors, creativity may account for these distractions. In addition,both information and et the
1959; Finkelman Glass
Maclnnis, al.,(1991) andWebb(1979) didnotexamine
(Jerison
processing of distractions how and 1970;Kaltsounis
1973;Nober1973;Mándese1993).
potentially important concept internal information they mayalso affect processing. notthefocus a significant of number research of Noise,though articles die marketing in has to Therealso existsan alternative of related line research that literature, been referred in numerous textbooks a number articles.Webb(1979) and focuses howmoodaffects on of information Mood processing. touches of of is defined a general, as acuteandtemporary reactive, upontheconcept noise in his discussion how feeling "environmental characteristics" influence processing the of state that subjectively is perceived individuals
(Holbrook
by in ads. The environmental informationtelevision influences and O'Shaughnessy
1984; Gardner1985). This research in that largely he focuseson, however, relateto clutter the suggests thatmood affects beliefs(Axelrod1963), product mediaenvironment and length ad, ad position advertisement of evaluations
1
and
(position
(Goldberg Gorn 987),adrecall within and etc). (Mundorf,Zillman and Drew 1991; Meyers-Levy program, non-program interruptions, competition, discussestheconceptofd istractions Sternthal
Webb briefly of of
Though
1993),andperception a variety experimental within physical the environment mentions, doesn't stimuli but 1974; Bower 1981;
(he
(Gounaux 1971; Schiffenbauer how the numberof viewersin the immediate Aylesworth MacKenzie1998). and measure, audience the did mayaffect processing), research notdefine of In addition, intensity direction moodseemtohave the environmental in terms theviewer'sphysicaland noise and of socialenvironment. different on effects processing
In
mood efficiency. intense and states,in particular negativeones such as annoyance
Woodside and Glenesk (1984) tested how consumer anger,people oftenfocus on the circumstances the of information of emotional affected Thispreoccupation absorbs attention by processing ads was negatively experience. increased
"noise." The level of noise was defined the andblocks as other from stimuli an on receiver having impact the numberof ads that the participants were exposed to. of themessage(Mundorf, and Zillmann, Drew 1991). This to five ads was considered "low a seemsto be related a "lackof opportunity" theMOA to in
Specifically,
exposure noise"environment, exposure tenads was thought while to to model (Maclnnis and Jaworski this 1989). Specifically, be a "high noise"situation. Their oftheterm use moodserves a distraction reduces subject's
"noise"may negative as that a havebeenbetter defined "clutter."Clutter as to according capacityto process a varietyof incominginformation.
Tellis(1998) "refers theproliferation ads that to of compete However, positivemood statesseem to have the opposite for audience's an attention within particular periodor a time effect. Positive moodsenhance, rather reduce than (distract), seemstobe theability processinformation. to hand, printed space"(p. 354). Noise,ontheother a broader muchmorethanhow conceptthatencompasses
"crowded" mediaenvironment a is. noisemayhave effects similar that negative to of
Although
mood states, noiseandmoodare conceptually thesame. not In an attempt incorporate significant to other and In fact Mowen (1995) argues thatnoise has a role in concepts to communication mood." However, noise doesn'thave to be model,Maclnnisand expandthetraditional
"influencing
Jaworski and elaborated (Maclnnis, moodrelated.Forexample, on someone be (1989) proposed later may preoccupied by Moorman and Jaworski1991) the MOA (Motivation, internal that the
(the
thoughts project is dueatwork, kidsneed and Model. In themodel, motivation is to be pickedup, lawn needs to be mowed,etc),but these
Opportunity, Ability)
Bitta
refer noisebroadly "a type to as of (1988,p.537) simply in and declarethat disruption thecommunication process," to
"eachstateof thecommunication processis susceptible an (this)messagedistortion."In essence,noise represents obstruction communication. to More specifically, noise is
"various environmental stimuli (that) may inhibitthe communications consumers"
(Mowen
processby distracting thisinterference affect
1995,p. 378). Overall, may message and effectiveness and (Schiffman reception communication
Kanuk2000,p.236).

57

Journal Marketing
THEORY AND PRACTICE of This content downloaded from 27.251.83.10 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:58:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2003
Spring

57

internal deliberations notbe positiveor negative
(i.e.,
may not Thus,moodshould be usedas a measure mood-related). ofnoise.
Externaland InternalNoise
Thephilosophical known empiricism view as assumes all that is derived of sensations that perception out and a knowledge of process is the passive recipient sensoryinformation etc. environmental
(Gleitman 1999,p.170-1). Accordingly, stimuli What are root human of (distal stimuli) the perception. is perceived anygivencommunication in situation should be affected whatis present theenvironment that in at time. by noisethat affects communication the will
Therefore,
process stem from external the environmental stimuli. to
According
this tomeasure onemust focus factors on view, noise, present in the external environment the timeof communication at (Webb 1979;Hopen1991).

items therefore that designed important a noisescaleincludes to measureboth external well as internal as factors. In a noisemust reflect theexternal both general, scaletomeasure environmental stimuli and distractions an present theinternal in individual situation. experiences a particular
NOISE AND RECALL

that to Despitethe implication noise is a barrier effective communication and
1978; Hopen 1991; Schiffinan
(Preston
Kanuk2000), fewstudies have empirically the investigated of recall. What makes topicmore this impact noiseon brand is related articles confusing thefactthatseveralmarketing havenarrowed definition noiseto meanclutter. the of
Past
literature indicates noise is a broader that than concept just clutter. The focusof clutter an ad environment in examines distractions the from viewpoint channel of rather environment, than the from vantage of a receiver's external point viewing environment internal and state.Despitethedifferent thought The humanperceptual the of effect focus, theoretical process is rarelyas passive as underpinning thenoise/clutter it asserts to be. Attention short-term is in empiricism playsa very important is that
(Miller
memory limited bothcapacity roleinperception. arebetter toperceive
We
able when are we stimuli,
1956)andduration
(Murdock
1961). Anycompeting attention. attentionhighly is selective actively suchas noise, and in or Yet, environment, paying present theinternal external controlled our existing and willreduce ability process the to information. beliefs, attitude, motivation, by incoming
We selectively more attention (Assael 1995). personality pay to stimulithat satisfyour immediate needs (perceptual Furthermore, sensation the created a stimulus on by depends atthesametime, tune stimuli out that thesensory etal. 1967). Themore intense the vigilance), deliberately intensity (Borg cause psychological anxiety (perceptual defense). stimulus, greater rateofneural die the the the firing, greater not will stimuli pass through the psychological is a relative
However,
Consequently, all external magnitude. intensity and matter. receive
To
the of has attention, intensity thestimulus gate of the senses. These internal cognitive thoughts motivations and to be strong all may preventus frompaying attention enoughto standout from other competing therefore in external an stimuli.
The stronger intensity theexternal the of stimuli, essencecreating processing competing internal barrier. stimuli it a to
(external
noise),theharder is for stimulus stand out. A number psychological of studies indicate noise that Past literature indicates noise maymanifest that itself at in affects information negatively
(BakerandHolding
processing leastthree there be "environmental" noise. When viewerswatchadvertisements, external the ways. First, may 1993).
Thisconsists sounds visualdistractions arepresent environment of and that othersin the room,etc) can create
(talking,
in theenvironment where viewing the takesplace. Muchof distractions keepv iewersfrom that information processing thepsychological literature focused thisaspectofthe contained theads. Therefore, is hypothesized has on in it that, noiseconstruct. there "clutter," is which be defined can Next, as "non-program material carried or shows Hypothesis1: Ad recall is negativelyrelated to the during between and external noiselevel. commercials, including publicserviceannouncements, program promotional spots"(RussellandLane 1996,p.220).
This channelnoise may distract viewersaway fromthe Although there noexisting is that the study investigates impact and transfer their attention other to media-related of internal noise on recall,some indirect studiesdo offer program stimuli.This subsetof noise has been thefocusof many insight this on issue. Itis a well-accepted that theory memory recent related is vulnerable interference. addition theretroactive to In to marketing/advertising studies. The last area which causea "disruption thecommunication in in with the may process" interference, which new materialinterferes is internal noise. Thesedistractions retention theexisting of there exists proactive the concerns, materials, (thoughts, etc) from on inwhich interferes current with maykeep individuals concentrating theprogram. interference, existing learning
Maclnnisand Jaworski et and
Though
(1989) and Maclnnis, al.
1957; Crowder
1976; Schiffinan
(Underwood
learning that of is it thata (1991) imply information processing advertisements Kanuk2000, p.182). Therefore, can be expected affected the internal no research person'sinternal noise, marketing by receiver's thoughts internal
(i.e.,
noise)mayinterfere has empirically this with or herability pay attention retain his to or information investigated relationship. from programs accompanying
TV
and commercials. is not
It
Thisstudy operationalize will noiseinterms distractions of in unlikedaydreaming students who do not recall material the external internal and environment participant not presented ofthe and lecture. Thus,itis hypothesized during that, theperipheral (i.e., clutter) themediachannel.It is cues in
58

Journal Marketing
THEORY AND PRACTICE of This content downloaded from 27.251.83.10 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:58:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Items. Additional
Validation
items both measuring physical andsocialsurroundings included used in a validity were and checkof thenoise measure. Specifically, were respondents
For perception takeplace, theviewer onlyhas to be to not askedto indicate location the where watched game, the they he to in how manypeople werethere thelocation, whether exposedto the stimuli, or she has to pay attention it they before further information can takeplace. Since interacted often with others whilewatching SuperBowl, the processing the is viewers choose whether consumed alcoholbefore game,during the the selective, perceptual process highly may they notto pay attention external to noise stimuli. Individuals game,how manytimesthey the and changed channel, how a In decidetotune-outparticular stimulus. that often talked others to the case, regularly they during game. Thisis consistent externalnoise will not compete with ads for further withWebb's conceptualization
(1979) thatenvironmental information On other the noise characteristics shouldincludefactors such as thelength of hand, "internal" processing. the exists and conscious attention from interruption, frequency interruption, number the of the of already internally receives the viewers,it will surelycompetewithads for further viewers, etc. information internal noise can be
Therefore,
processing. to than external environmental Dependent variables. Respondents were asked to list the expected havestronger impact stimuli. and brands describe corresponding the advertisements
Thus,itis hypothesized that, (brands and theiradvertising messages) theyremembered seeing 3: noisewillhave a stronger the were analyzedand the
Hypothesis Internal negative during game. The responses noise. correct number brands ads that of and wererecalled each impacton ad recallthanexternal by was respondent tabulated. Brandrecallwas determined by METHOD the of identified the counting number brandscorrectly by Ad the respondent. recallwas measured counting number by Measurement of accurate of advertisements shown the descriptions during
Bowl. Thenumber brands adsthat of and were recalled
Super
Noise Scale. To developa noise measurement scale, we by an individual may not necessarilybe the same. followed general the recommended Churchill if identifiedbrand a but steps by
(1979).
Specifically, therespondent correctly Six questions reflect internal external failed describe correct the and to the ad (Table 1) which accompanying (orviceversa) noisedomains wereretained from initial of possible they an list wouldhavehad different brand ad recallscores. and thoseambiguously wordedquestions questions, eliminating andthose which were directly not related thedomain the Other to of
Items. The survey also contained questions gathering noise. Furthermore, thestudy since a generalnoise information on peripheral environmental proposes distractions, scale applicableto different research itemswhich demographic attitudes towardadvertising in settings, background, measured somenoisefactors to SuperBowl viewing, general,team preferences, overall mood, and level of unique but do not adapt easily to othernoise relatedresearch involvement. were three situations, notused in thenoise scale. The first items focuson perceived noise causedby external stimuli. Sample
The nextthree items weredesigned measure internal to the mental state theviewer. of The questionnaires administered dayafter Super were the the Bowl XXXIV to 350 respondents which surveys of 306 were TABLE 1 deemed useable and within which 203 watchedall four
NoiseMeasurement
Scale Items*
The
consists students a major of at quarters. sample university locatedin Midwest. Subjectswerenot forewarned the of 1. Therewas a lot of distractions me was g oingon around whileI thegame. thus thepotential interactive effect. watching study, eliminating testing 2: related theinternal to Hypothesis Ad recallis negatively noiselevel. 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

was
Myconcentration often interruptedothers by during thegame.
There a lotofactivity was on the going as I watched Super Bowl.
I hadlotgoing inmymind on whenI watched Super Bowl. the I was preoccupied other with whileI watched SuperBowl. the thoughts
I was often aboutthings other than gamewhileI watched the the thinking SuperBowl.

*

Likert
Scale,from
7-point strongly (1 disagree ) tostrongly agree(7) Recall Measures
Brand recall was measuredby counting the numberof unaided accurate of respondent's descriptions brands.
Ad (message) recallwas measured counting number the of by unaided correct ofad messages. respondent's descriptions
59 Journal Marketing
THEORY AND PRACTICE of RESULTS
Noise Scale
To determine appropriatenesstheitems the of usedtomeasure bothinternal external and noiselevel,thesix questions were tofactor
Two factors extracted, were subjected analysis. using
AxisFactoring
method
Principal
1996,p.107(PAF) (Sharma no one
8) andEigenvalues less than criterion
(Hairetc. 1995,
p.377). Since the purposeof the studyis to obtainthe an rotation performed was constructs, oblique underlying (Hair etc.1995,p.384). Theresults wereshown Table2. All the in variables loaded highly therespective on factors.The first factor the internal noise dimension, second the represents

This content downloaded from 27.251.83.10 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:58:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2003
Spring

59

factor the noisedimension. checkthe
To
represents external scalereliability tests internal of items, consistency the separate were performed.The overall Cronbachalphas forboth scales were .90 or higher,far above the measurement than minimum suggested Nunally's1978) andgreater level ( by studiesreport the .70 to .82 range thatmost marketing are in
(Peterson
1994). The results shown Table 3.
TABLE 2
Matrix
Oblique RotatedNoiseScale Component
Item
Number*
1
2
3
4
5
6

Pattern
Loadings
2
1

Descriptions around Lotsdistraction me Concentration
Interrupted
Lotsactivity on going
Lotofthings mymind in with
Preoccupied other thoughts about other Thinking things .881
.812
.912
-.006
-.040
.060

.255

SumofSquaredLoadings

.007
.102
-.071
.920
.997
.833

2.27

Factor correlation between factor and
1
factor is .518
2
* Actual items listed Table 1 are in
TABLE 3
Reliability
Analyses
Factor1 (internalnoise):
Item
number
Scale Meanif item deleted
4
7.56
5
7.59
6
7.59

Alphaifitem deleted .916
.884
.946

Factor2 (external noise): 1
2
3

Scale Meanif item deleted
7.84
7.89
7.74

Alphaifitem deleted .858
.874
.868

Overall
Cronbach
Alpha:.907

In additionto reliability, tested the validityof the we measurement instrument. factor
Appropriate
loadings(see
Table 2) indicatethatcontent was satisfied. To validity establish construct the validity, scale underconsideration should correlated other be with related constructs.
Sincethe
external noisemeasure causedbyenvironmental is the stimuli, scale shouldbe correlated withexternal stimuli suchas the number peoplein SuperBowl viewing of the setting, number of timesthe respondents talkedwithothers, perceived the of with whileviewing gameand the degree interaction others the number alcoholic of drinks wereconsumed that the during internal viewers less game.Also,intense thoughts render may in interested thegameandpromote channel greater surfing, internal noisescale should related thenumber be to of thus, times channel changed the was thegame. Finally, both during theinternal theexternal and noisemeasures should correlate
60

The internal noise scale (ITNS) did correlate, expected, as with number times the of channel changed was (V4) (r= .14, noisemeasure doesnotcorrelate p= .013). Also,theinternal with such as number of variables, significantly unrelated of consumed peoplewatching game(VI) andnumber drinks before the
(V2) andduring game(V3), a signofdiscriminant noise scale (XTNS), also validity. Finally,the external correlated with the following environmental significantly variables: number peopleintheviewing the of place(VI) (r= of drinks consumed .29,p= .00),thenumber alcoholic during thegame(V3) (r= .15,p= .02), thenumber times one of that talked others to the during game(V5) (r= .29,p= .00),andthe with the perceived degreeof interaction others during game the (V6) (r= .54, p= .00). Moreover, measuredisplayed in discriminant it with validity that didnotcorrelate variables it was not theoretically relatedto (the number drinks of consumed before game(V2), the the number times of channels were changed(V4)). Finally,both the internal and the externalnoise measurespossessed criterion validityby with perceived attention diversion correlating significantly the the (V7) (r= .59,p= .00 andr= .84,p= .00). Overall, internal and externalnoise measures had high reliability and construct discriminant (content appropriate validity validity, and validity, criterion validity). Effects Noise on Recall of Overall
Cronbach
Alpha:.942

Item number attention diversion. To with that strongly a construct measures in testthevalidity theproposed of scale,theitems thescale and divided thenumber items of wereaddedtogether then by to derivea mean scale value (Churchill
1979, p.69). The in results presented Table 4. are To testthehypotheses, thosesubjects whowatched all only four ofgame(n=203) wereincluded theanalysis. in quarters
Brand Recall was measured tabulating number the of by identified brands shown theSuper Bowl. Ad correctly during
'
recall was (message recall) measured counting by respondents unaideddescriptions thecorresponding of messages. Since unaidedad and brand recallis a ratio-scaled and noise data measureis an interval-scaled data, a simple correlation measure between andbrand ad recallandnoisemeasures was usedto test hypotheses. the The correlation coefficients between external noiseleveland brand recallwas -.096(p= .175),between external noiselevel andmessagerecallwas -.063 (p= .375). Although recall ad was negatively relatedwiththe level of external noise as however was notsignificant thea = .05 level. it at expected, 1
Thus,Hypothesis was notsupported.
2
that related Hypothesiswhich posited ad recallis negatively with internal noiselevelwassignificantthea = .05 at subjects' for The level,providing support thehypothesis. correlation coefficients between internal noiseandbrand recall was-.206 noiselevelandmessagerecallwas -.226
(p= .003),between
(p=.001).

Journal Marketing
THEORY AND PRACTICE of This content downloaded from 27.251.83.10 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:58:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Figure 1
Add Recall vs. Noise Level
Recall
(a) Brand
# Brand of 3.08

1.88

Low

Medium

High

Level
Noise
Recall
(b)Message
# Message of 3.50
3.23^*

3.13

*»%»

2.90

^^T^^^^^-^^2.79
*^

Low

"■"■■■■■■
External
Noise
Noise
.. .. ^ m.Internal

61

Medium

Noise
Level

2.00

High

Journal Marketing
THEORY AND PRACTICE of This content downloaded from 27.251.83.10 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:58:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2003
Spring

61

TABLE 4
Matrixbetween
NoiseScale and OtherVariables
Correlation
Yi
-.08
.29**

ITNS
XTNS
*
**

V2
.10
.07

V4
.14*
-.02

V3
.07
.15*

V5
.17*
.29**

V6
.18*
.54**

V7
.59**
.84**

at significant.05 level at significant.01 level
Variables
ITNS
XTNS
VI
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
ITNS:
XTNS:
VI :
V2:
V3:
V4:
V5:
V6:
V7:

Mean
3.79
3.91
11.29
.87
1.82
2.94
4.74
4.98
3.87

Range
6
6
100
50
50
50
6
6
6

statistics
Keydescriptive
SD
1.77
1.75
15.18
3.52
4.85
6.41
1.63
1.59
1.92

Skewness
.25
.11
3.40
10.69
7.62
4.15
-.42
-.75
.17

Kurtosis
-.93
-.95
14.46
140.22
72.27
22.05
-.60
.07
-1.15

internal noisescale external noisescale location number peopleintheviewing of the number alcohol of consumed before game number alcohol of consumed the during game channel changed was number times of the of to number times talking other peopleduring game often while the interacted with others watching SuperBowl the was drawn awayfrom game
Myattention often

to
's
was
To test
3,
hypothesis Fisher z transformation applied before test applied.For the was all the coefficients correlation noise states internal that 3 recall, Hypothesis which message noise onrecallthan external levelhasgreater negative impact at levelwas significant thea = .05 level(z= -1.67;p= .048). at for
3
However, brand recall, Hypothesis wasnotsignificant the a the = .05 level(z= -1.13;p= . 13). Nevertheless, negative internal noiselevelandrecallis stronger correlation between between external noiseleveland than negative correlation the a in recallas hypothesized 3. Thus,theresults provide partial for 3. support Hypothesis of on
To further light theimpact noiselevelon ad recall, shed and noiselevelwerere-coded boththeinternal theexternal three valued into (1 equal-scaled groups to3, 3.001to5, 5.001 and to 7), labeledlow,medium, highnoise level.Figure1 recallandmessage the recall) presents meanad recall(brand noise level conditions. The results underthreedifferent ad indicated inverse an between recalland the relationship levelofnoise.

has the effectiveness.
Little
work beendonestudying roleof and noise on information processin general, on ad recallin of a measure The study develops general particular. current whether ad internal external) investigates and and noise(both the recall is affected the level of noise surrounding by that communication process.The results suggest thenumber took where TV viewing the ofpeoplewhowereatthelocation the consumed of during place, thenumber alcoholicdrinks of viewers talked eachother to the during game, number times of commercial breaks,and the number social interactions the viewershad withotherswhile watching Super Bowl level of external contributed theperceived to significantly did noise. However, theseexternal distractions notseemto havea significant effect ad processing on and
(message brand
In contrast, results internal noisehada the showthat recall). significant negative impacton ad recall (brandrecall and recall). message

distractions
The findings suggestthatexternal played an of role in viewersprocessing advertisements. insignificant This is good newsforadvertisers maybe reluctant who to advertise a program maybe attended watched that or
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS during of
On
by largenumbers people in noisysettings. theother with have sinceinternal noiseseemtohavea significant
Marketing
negative professionals longwrestled thequestion hand, of how to improve effectiveness thecommunication impacton ad recall, advertisers the of may have littlepower have to the the noisethat distract viewers. There process.During pastdecaderesearchers attempted controlling internal may how each component the communication of model are, however, few things a thatadvertisers study may wantto affects overall the of communication. has Research consider when placing advertisements programs. in quality the been centered theinvestigation theimpact sender, Specifically, of on of advertisers be well advised to limit may times when other issues the message, channel and receiver on communication advertising during maypreoccupy
62 Journal Marketing
THEORY AND PRACTICE of This content downloaded from 27.251.83.10 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:58:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the of For mayfacilitate thoughts viewers. example, holidays of and thus, the effectiveness more internalthoughts thesetimes. Also, be diminished advertising may during the news current events troubling mayalso affect or shocking and of ads. The recentterrorist bombings processing in terrorist-related mayhave resulted subsequent programs that internal that barriers affected conflicts mayhavecreated in on concentration information contained advertisements.
Theseresults
should the of emphasize importance developing all noisebarriers. advertisements canbreak that through ofthe
Ads that combine appropriate the amount attention of getting withsalientsellingpointswill be more creativity along than noisy important everinthisincreasingly environment.

in studies. should incorporatedfuture be ostentatious programs rather a laboratory than In addition, sincethisis a field study was for no experiment, attempt made to control extraneous someconfounding effects have variables, may consequently, occurred.

Futureresearch needs to further under exploreconditions which noiseaffects information For how processing. example, moderate impact noise? the doesthedegree involvement of of
Is the impact of noise minimizedor intensified when audiences are highlyinvolved with the communication process? Is the impactof noise lessenedor increased by moodstates theviewers?Does noisehaveeffects of positive that differ between those ads (emotional) peripheral targeted and thoseads thatare cognitively
LIMITATIONS AND AVENUES OF FUTURE
(central)focused? Also researchers wantto testtherelative
RESEARCH
of may impact channel internal noise on recall. In clutter, noise, and external
The studyhas a number limitations need to be of that addition,some past researchhas suggestedthat certain in addressed future research.First, composition the personality maybeaffected the of noise. types differently byexternal of of sampleneeds to be expandedto includea more diverse Overall,¿he effect noise on a variety information in seemsfertile
Also theuse of theSuperBowl as theprogram processing applications theareaofadvertising population. andimportant for future researchers. less haveaffected findings, other the vehicle thus, ground may REFERENCES
A.
For Developing
Gilbert (1979),"A Paradigm
Behaviorand Marketing Churchill,
Assael, Henry
(1995), Consumer
Better
Measuresof Marketing
Journal
SouthWestern
Cincinnati:
Action,
Constructs,"
of
CollegePublishing,
16
64-73.
6.
5thed. Chapter
Research, (February),
Marketing
Towards
MoodsandAttitudes
J.
Axelrod, N. ( 1963),"Induced
193 (June),
Products
"Journal Advertising
Research,
of
24.

and
R.
Crowder, G. (1976), Principles Learning Memory. of N. J.: LawrenceErlbaumAssociate;New
Hillsdale,
York.

Is
A.
Aylesworth, B. & S. B. MacKenzie(1998), "Context of Mood
Key:TheEffect Program-Induced onThoughts
1727
About Ad,' the 'Journal Advertising, (Summer), of 31.

of
J.M.
Finkelman, and D.C. Glass (1970), "Reappraisal the
BetweenNoise and HumanPerformance
Relationship
Task Measure,"
Journal
of
By Means of a Subsidiary
54
211-213.
Psychology, (June),
Applied

Behavior:
M.
and
Baker,
(1993), "The Effects Gardner, P. (1985),"MoodStates Consumer
MaryA. andDennisH. Holding
12
A Critical
Journal Consumer
Task Performance," ofNoise and Speechon Cognitive
Research,
Review," of 281-300.
120 (July),
339-355.
Journal General
(December),
of
Psychology,
Belch G.E., M.A. Belch andA. Villarreal
(1987), Effects of Communications:
Reviewof Researchin
Advertising
59-117.
CT;
(9).
Marketing Greenwich, JAIPress,

Gleitman,
Henry,Alan J. Daniel and Fridlund
Reisberg
New
5th
(1999), Psychology, York:W.W. Norton, ed.

M.
Goldberg, E. andG. J.Gorn(1987), "HappyandSad TV
How
Affect
Reactions Commercials," to and
C.
(1967), programs: They
Borg,G., H. Diamant, Strom, Y. Zotterman
14 (December),387Journal Consumer
"TheRelation
Between
Neural Perceptual and Research, of Intensity:
403.
A Comparative
Studyof Neural and Psychophysical
Journal Physiology to 192,
Response TasteStimuli," of 13-20.
Gounaux, C. (1971), "Induced AffectiveStates and
Journal Personality and Attractions,"
Interpersonal
of
G.
Social Psychology, (October), 43.
American
20
37Bower, (1981), "Mood andMemory,"
36
129-148.
Psychologist, (February),

63

Journal Marketing
THEORY AND PRACTICE of This content downloaded from 27.251.83.10 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:58:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2003
Spring

63

A. and RonaldL. Tatham
Seven,Plus
Miller,
Hair,Joseph RolphE. Anderson,
F.,
George (1956), "TheMagicalNumber
Data Analysis or Minus Two: Some Limitson Our CapacityFor
WilliamC. Black (1995), Multivariate
Prentice
Hall Publishing with New Jersey:
Information,"
Review, 63
Psychological
Processing
Readings,
81-97.
4thed.
(March),
Company,
C.
Behavior- 4th
M.
Mowen,John (1995), Consumer
Edition,
Holbrook, B. & J.O'Shaughnessy
(1984), "The Role of
1
New Jersey. in and
Prentice
Emotion Advertising,"
Cliffs,
Hall,Englewood
Psychology Marketing,
45(Summer), 64. and D. Drew (1991), "Effects of N.,
Hopen,Deborah(1991), "The Processof Communicating," Mundorf, D. Zillman,
24
48-50.
Televised Events on the Acquisition of Quality
Disturbing
Progress (June),
Information From Subsequently Presented
Daniel J.and CharlesGengler
Journal Advertising, (1), 46- 53.
20
Commercials,"
Howard,
(2001), "Emotional of Effects Product on Journalof
Attitudes,"
Contagion
28
189-201.
B.
Consumer of Murdock, B. (1961), "TheRetention Individual
Research, (September),
Items,"
Journal Experimental
62
of
Psychology, (6), 618-625. and Roman
Statement:
Jakobson,
(1960),"Closing
Linguistics
J.
Poetics,"in ThomasSebeok,ed., Stylein Language, Newell,Stephen and RonaldE. Goldsmith
(2001), "The
MA:
of
350-377.
Perceived
Cambridge, M.I.T. Press,
Development a Scale toMeasure
Corporate
Journal Business
Research 235-247.
52,
Credibility," of Jenson, H. J. (1959), "Effectsof Noise on Human
Journal Applied
43
Victoria (1997), Webster's World ed. New
Performance,"
Neufeldt, of Psychology, (2),
College
96-101.
New York: Simon& Schuster
Dictionary.
Publishing,
3rded.
Kaltsounis B. (1973), "Effect of Sound on Creative
L.
33
Discrimination Classroom and Performance,"
Psychological
Reports, (December), Nober, W. ( 1973),"Auditory
737-738.
288-291.
Noise," TheReadingTeacher,
December,
HaroldD. (1948), "The Structure Function and of Nunnally, C. (1978), Psychometric
Jum
Lasswell,
Theory
(New York:
CommunicationSociety," TheProcessand Effects in in
2nd
McGraw-Hill), ed.
Wilbur
Schramm Donald and ofMass Communication,
F. Roberts,
Urbana:University IllinoisPress, Peterson, of A.
Robert (1994), "A Meta-Analysis Cronbach's of ed.,
84-99.
Coefficient
Journal Consumer
Research
.21
1971,
of
Alpha,"
381-391.
(September),
J.
Loudon,David and Albert Della Bitta(1988), Consumer
Behavior:Conceptsand Applications,
MichelT. (1996), "Cue Representation Selection and McGraw-Hill, Pham,
Effects Arousal Persuasion," of on
Journal Consumer
Inc.,3rded. 537. of 22
Research (March)373-87.
Maclnnis, Deborah and Bernard J. Jaworski
FromAdvertisements: Preston, (1978),"Appreciating "Mental
Paul
the in (1989),"Information
Processing
Messages"
Toward an IntegrativeFramework,"
Journal of
Industrial Management 20
Communication,"
53
1-23.
1-6.
Marketing, (October),
(November-December),
and
J.
S. and Chaiken
, Christine
Moorman, Bernard Jaworski
Rathneshwar,
(1991),
Shelly
and MeasuringConsumers'
Role
The
Motivation,
"Enhancing
(199 l),"Comprehension's inPersuasion: Case and to of Its Moderating
Effect thePersuasive on Opportunity, Ability ProcessBrandInformation
Impactof
from
55
32-53.
Source
1
Research 8 (June),
Ads,"Journal Marketing, (October),
Cues,"Journal Consumer of of
52-62.
Ad
Mándese,Joe(1993), "Glutof Rival BrandsWorsened
64 (November 28.
J.
Clutter,"
Russell, ThomasandW. RonaldLane (1996),Advertising
Advertising
Age
22),
Procedure- 13th
Edition,Prentice
Hall, Englewood
J.
New Jersey.
Cliffs,
Meyers-Levy, & B. Sternthal
(1993), "A Two-Factor of and
Journal
Explanation Assimilation Contrast," of 30
359- 368.
A.
of
Emotional
Research, (August),
Schiffenbauer, (1974), "Effect Observer's
Marketing
Stateon Judgments theEmotional of Stateof Others,"
Journal Personality Social Psychology, and 31-35. of 64

Journal Marketing
THEORY AND PRACTICE of This content downloaded from 27.251.83.10 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:58:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Leon G. and Leslie Lazar Kanuk. (2000),
Schiffinan,
ed.
Prentice
Consumer
Behavior,
-Hall,Inc.,7th

and
B.
Underwood, J. (1957)," Interference Forgetting,"
64
49-60.
Review (January),
Psychological

Wilbur(1955), The Process and Effects Mass
Schräm,
of of Communications
Press)
University Illinois
(Urbana:

Webb, Peter (1979), "ConsumerInitial Processingin a
Journalof Consumer
Difficult
Media Environment,"
225-236.
Research (December),
6

Subhash
Sharma,
Techniques,
(1996), AppliedMultivariate
John
Woodside,ArchG. and Gail B. Glenesk(1984), "Thought
Wiley& Sons,Inc.New York. inLow versus of Processing Advertisements
HighNoise
Journal Advertising,
4-11.
and
Gerard (1998), Advertising S ales P romotion
J.
Conditions,"
Tellis,
of
13(2),
Massachusetts.
Addison
Reading,
Strategy,
Wesley,

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY of at
Green
State an is
Bob T. Wu (D.B.A., Indiana professor marketingBowling
University.
University)currently associate the &
He has published a number journalsincluding Journal theAcademy Marketing in of
Science,Psychology
of of in to conference andtheJournal HealthCare Marketing, addition numerous proceedings. Marketing, of AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY at of is J.
State
University.
Michigan
professor marketingWestern
University) an associate
Stephen Newell(Ph.D.,Florida the the suchas theJournal Advertising, Journal Consumer in of articles a number journals
He haspublished
Affairs,
of of andPractice, Journal the the
& Marketing, Journal Marketing
Journal Marketing
Education,
of
Theory
of
Psychology
of conference and
Education
Research,
Review, theJournal Business proceedings. many alongwith of
Marketing

65

Journal Marketing
THEORY AND PRACTICE of This content downloaded from 27.251.83.10 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:58:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2003
Spring

65