The Effect of Advertisement Type, Brand Typicality and Need for Cognition on Attitude toward Advertisement Intention - Focused on Outdoor Apparel Brands -

광고유형, 브랜드 전형성, 인지욕구가 광고태도에 미치는 영향 - 아웃도어 의류 브랜드를 중심으로 -

  • 정미연 (성균관대학교 대학원 의상학과) ;
  • 황선진 (성균관대학교 의상학과)
  • Received : 2016.08.08
  • Accepted : 2016.12.11
  • Published : 2016.12.31


The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of comparative advertisement brand typicality and need for recognition in outdoor apparel market. This study was created with a mixed factorial design of 2 (Advertisement types: Comparative advertisement vs. General advertisement) X 2(Brand Typicality: High Brand vs. Low Brand) X 2 (Need for Cognition: High vs. Low). The results of this study are as follows: First, it was shown that comparative advertisement had a greater positive influence on attitudes toward advertising intentions in comparison to general advertisements. Second, while comparative advertisement was more effective than general advertisement for outdoor apparel brands with low typicality. Third, consumers with higher need for cognition showed a preferred attitude toward advertising intention when met with comparative advertising in contrast to general advertisement. Fourth, when consumers with higher needs for cognition were exposed to advertisement for brands of lower typicality, there was higher positive influence on the attitudes toward advertisement intention with comparative advertisement in comparison to general advertisement. This means the comparative advertisement may be effective for the new garment brand or the garment brands having low typicality to secure the cognition quickly from the consumers having high need for cognition.


  1. An, G. H., Han, S. M., & Jun, S. Y. (2009). Strategic brand management (the third edition). Gyeonggido: Hakhyunsa.
  2. Baik, J. E., Hwang, S. J., & Chun, H. K. (2014). The Effects of Sports Brand Advertising Model, Brand Recognition, and Consumer Subjectivity on Consumers Preference. Journal of the Korean Society of Costume, 64(1), 18-30.
  3. Barbara, L., Huffman, C. D., & James, W. (1990). Knowledge and Context Effects on Typicality and Attitude Judgements. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 257-265.
  4. Brennan, I. & Bahn, K. D. (2006). Literal versus extended symbolic messages and advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of need for cognition. Psychology & marketing, 23(4), 273-295.
  5. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, P. C., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: An Individual Difference Perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1032-1043.
  6. Chang, C. T. & Yen, C. T. (2013). Missing Ingredients in Metaphor Advertising: The Right Formula of Metaphor Type, Product Type, and Need for Cognition. Journal of advertising, 42(1), 80-94.
  7. Financial news. (2016. 9. 25). The city is popular for out door fitting anywhere in the design .... Aimed at women, white color slim. Financial news. Retrieved from
  8. Gim, W. S. (2007). The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition: K-NFC-S. Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Psychology, 8(1), 127-133.
  9. Haugtvedt, C. P., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(3), 239-260.
  10. Je, E. S. (2012). Study on the Clothing Selection Criteria and Purchasing Satisfaction according to the Outdoor Wear Benefit. Journal of Fashion Business, 16(4), 1-12.
  11. Jeon, H. S. (2005). The Research on the Moderating Role of Ad Type and Need for Cognition in the Causal Relation Model Context : Focused on Aad and Ab. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 16(2), 205-232.
  12. Jeon, K. H. (2008). Effects of Need for Cognition and Ad Type on Effectiveness of Ad. Journal of Product Research, 26(2), 153-159.
  13. Jin, H. J. & Rhee, E. Y. (2007). Product Evaluations toward Apparel Brand and Ingredient Brand Related to Outdoor Sportswear Consumers' Leisure Involvement and Product Knowledge. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 1333-1341.
  14. Jun, S. Y. & Huh, J. H. (2006). Influence of the Dominant Compeitive Brand in the Extension Product Category on Consumer's Brand Extension Evaluations. Korea Marketing Association, 21(4), 1-22.
  15. Jung, S. Y. & Hwang, S. J. (2015). The Effect of Self-Monitoring, Pioneer Brand Awareness, Types of Endorsers on Quality Perception of Me-Too Brands-Focused on Outdoor Brand-. Journal of the Korean Society of Costume, 65(8), 22-34.
  16. Kang, H. M. & Kim, J. K. (2016). The Effect of Social Values of Outdoor Clothing Customer on Outdoor Clothing Benefits Sought and Consumption Behavior. Journal of Sport and Leisure Studies, 64(-), 157-168.
  17. Kim, C. S. & Lee, H. S. (2012). A study on the effects of comparative advertising: Focusing on the effects of advertising endorser and competitive brand interference. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 7-32.
  18. Kim, S. Y. (2015). A Study on the Development Process and Changes of the Outdoor Clothing Advertising Market. Journal of Korea Digital Design Council, 15(1), 753-762.
  19. Kuo, J. C., Horng, D. J., Lin, C. L., & Lee, S. H. (2012). The causal relationship between need for cognition and advertising recall. Social behavior and personality, 40(6), 1025-1032.
  20. Kwak, J. H. & Hwang, S. J. (2011). The Influences of Dominant Brand in the Extension Product Category on Consumer Attitude About Fashion Brand Extension. Journal of the Korean Society of Costume, 61(10), 89-103.
  21. Kwak, J. S., Moon, J. Y., & Lee, W. H. (2009). The attraction effect of comparative advertising on the evaluation of advertising and purchase intention of late entrant. Journal of Undustrial Economics and Business, 22(4), 1535-1555.
  22. Lee, B. K. (2011). The Effects of Mental Simulation and Temporal Distance on Product Attitude and Behavioral Intention in Comparative Advertising. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 22(2), 129-151.
  23. Lee, C. S. & Yu, S. Y. (2004). A study on the effects of brand typicality and innovation in comparative advertising: Focus on comparative object and comjparative method. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 227-260.
  24. Lee, I. R. (2016. 9. 26). Changed out the door ... Life style floats. Apparel news. Retrieved from
  25. Lee, M. K., Kim, D. H., Kwon, H. S., Kim, J. Y., & Park, S. Y. (2002). Comparative appeals and message sidedness: Moderating roles of product characteristics. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 13(2), 113-145.
  26. Lee, M. Y. (2004). The effect of comparative advertising : Moderating roles of typicality of the attribute. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 151-176.
  27. Mackenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the Ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanation. Journal of Marketing Research, 2 (May), 130-143.
  28. Martin, B. A. S., Lang, B., & Wong, S. (2004). Conclusion Explicitness in Advertising : The Moderating Role of Need for Cognition (NFC) and Argument Quality(AQ) on Persuasion. Journal of advertising, 32(4), 57-66.
  29. Mun, M. S. (2012 september). 2015 Fashion market size, 45 trillion 4000 hundred million, Fashionbiz. Retrieved from
  30. Na, J. H. (2002). The Corporation's Adding Attribute Strategy Considering Brand Typicality. Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Psychology, 3(2), 55-73.
  31. Na, J. H., Park, S. Y., & Hong, S. J. (2008). The Impact of Information Presentation Type on Comparison Advertising: Moderating Effect of Attribute Typicality. Korea Journal of Business Administration, 21(4), 1443-1462.
  32. Nam, S. (2015). A Study on the Effect of Uncertainty Avoidance Propensity, Comparative Advertising Message, and Fashion Product Type on Advertisement Attitude(Unpublished master's thesis). SungKyunKwan University, Seoul, Korea.
  33. Perkins, W. S. & Reyna, V. F. (1990). The effects of expertise on preference and typicality in investment decision making. Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 1-19.
  34. Petty, R, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135-146.
  35. Pierro, A., Giacomantonio, M., Pica, G., Mannetti, L., Kruglanski, A. W., & Tory Higgins, E. (2013). When comparative ads are more effective: Fit with audience's regulatory mode. Journal of Economic Psychology, 38(-), 1-14.
  36. Pillai, K. G. & Goldsmith, R. E. (2008). How brand attribute typicality and consumer commitment moderate the influence of comparative advertising. Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 933-941.
  37. Priester, J. G., Joseph, R., Nayakuppum, D. J., & Park, K. W. (2004). Brand congruity and comparative advertising: When and Why comparative advertisements ead to greater elaboration. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 115-123.
  38. Reinhard, M. A. & Messner, M.(2009). The effects of source likeability and need for cognition on advertising effectiveness under explicit persuasion. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8(4), 179-191.
  39. Rhee, Y. J. & Lee, E. O. (2011). The Qualitative Study on Outdoor Sportswear Purchase Behavior-Focusing on Functional Fabric Awareness Level and Benefits Sought-. The Costume Culture Association, 19(5), 1088-1101.
  40. Song, J. Y. (2015). Plateau right out the door ... "change lives", turning the business strategy. Money today. Retrieved from
  41. Sung, H. W. (2011). Merchandising Process Analysis of Outdoor Sportswear Brands. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 35(3), 243-253.
  42. Thompson, D. V. & Hamilton, R. W. (2006). The effect of information processing mode on consumer's responses to comparative advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 530-541.
  43. Thompson, M. M. & Zanna, M. P. (1995). The conflicted individual-personality-base-d and domain-specific antecedents of ambivalent social attitudes. Journal of Personality, 63, 259-288.
  44. Veryzer, R. W. & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of Unity and prototypicality on aesthetic response to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), 374-394.
  45. Wilkie, W. L. & Parris, P. (1975). Comparison advertising: problems and potential. Journal of Marketing, 24(1), 3-6.
  46. Yagci, M. I., Biswas, A., & Dutta, S. (2009). Effects of comparative advertising format on consumer responses: The moderating effects of brand Image and attribute relecance. Journal of Business Research, 62, 768-774.
  47. Yeo, J. S. (2007). Moderating Role of Self Regulatory Focus in Effect of Comparison Type on Brand Attitude. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 18 (5), 339-349.
  48. Yi, Y. J. & Han, D. H. (2009). The Relative Influence of Ad Attitude and Brand Cognition on Brand Attitude in Comparative Advertising : Functional Products vs. Hedonic Products. Advertising Research, -(83), 128-153.