Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
Does telic/paratelic user mode matter on the effectiveness of interactive internetadvertising? A reversal theory perspective
Jae Min Jung a,⁎, Hang Chu (“Michel”) Hui b,1, Kyeong Sam Min c,2, Drew Martin d,3
a College of Business Administration, California State Polytechnic University at Pomona, 3801 West Temple Boulevard, Pomona, CA 91768, United Statesb Dragon Models USA, 1315 John Reed Court, City of Industry, CA 91745, United Statesc College of Business Administration, University of New Orleans, 2000 Lakeshore Drive, New Orleans, LA 70148, United Statesd College of Business and Economics, University of Hawaii at Hilo, 200 West Kawili Street, Hilo, HI 96720, United States
Please cite this article as: Jung, J.M., et al., Doetheory perspective, Journal of Business Resea
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 1 September 2012Received in revised form 1 March 2013Accepted 1 March 2013Available online xxxx
Keywords:Interactive advertisingReversal theoryTelic/paratelic user modePersuasionOn-line advertisingArousal seeking tendency
Drawing on reversal theory (Apter, 2007), the current research proposes that internet users' metamotivationalstate (telic vs. paratelic) determines advertising interactivity's effectiveness. An online field experiment involv-ing 141 Facebook and Twitter users tests this proposition. Research findings support telic state consumers formmore positive attitudes toward a low-level interactive ad, whereas paratelic state consumers formmore positiveattitudes toward a high-level interactive ad. Further, this research shows that an arousal seeking tendencymediates the metamotivational state's impact on ad attitude.
Recent Initial Public Offerings of popular web sites providinginteractive features are skyrocketing in value (e.g., Zynga, LinkedIn).This phenomenon supports the proposition that industry recognizesadvertising interactivity's importance. Interactivity's novelty featuresrequire greater cognitive involvement to process an advertisingmessage (Liu & Shrum, 2002). Thus, understanding why an interactivead is effective offers tremendous value to digital advertisers. Previousstudies across various disciplines focus on the positive functional ben-efit of interactive technology (e.g., Kim & Forsythe, 2008; Köhler, Rohm,de Ruyter, Wetzels, 2011; Sohn, Ci, & Lee, 2007). However, somescholars still question interactive technology's value (e.g., Huang,Lurie, & Mitra, 2009). For instance, Schlosser (2003) finds that interac-tivity enhances persuasion for casual internet browsers; however,interactivity diminishes persuasion for searchers, who have a specificsearch goal in mind. Jung, Min, and Kellaris (2011) integrateSchlosser's (2003) ad interactivity to an online game's advertisingcontent and demonstrate that high-level interactivity may not affectpersuasion, even for the searchers under some conditions.
s telic/paratelic usermodemarch (2013), http://dx.doi.org/1
Although these studies help explain ad interactivity's effectivenesson persuasion for the internet user's behavior in general, previousstudies assume that consumers' states remain static. What happenswhen an internet user's metamotivational mode fluctuates betweentelic (i.e., serious-minded) and paratelic (i.e., playful-minded) states(see Apter, 2007)? The aforementioned studies simply assume thatconsumers are homeostatic and thus pursue a single goal (e.g., seekinginformation vs. seeking entertainment). Another school of thoughtsuggests that consumers are multi-static, non-rational (cf. Holbrook,1994), especially when they use technology (Mick & Fournier, 1998).Rodgers and Thorson (2000) further integrate this multi-stabilityproposition in their Interactive Advertising Model (IAM). The reversaltheory conceptualizes internet users as switchers between the twomodes as the theory emphasizes bi-stability and changeability ofhuman emotions and motivation. To illustrate, consider John, wholikes to spend time playfully browsing on the internet. While readinghis friends' postings and responding to them for half an hour, Johnlearns one of his friends bought a new tablet. This news prompts himto investigate the product seriously as he has wanted a tablet PC forsome time. Meanwhile, Chris uses the internet to plan his next vaca-tion. While investigating an island destination he has had his eyes onfor years, Chris stumbles upon an online blog site and gets sidetrackedreading an amusing story. These examples illustrate opposite switchingbehaviors. John's behavior illustrates a switch from playfulnessmode to a serious-minded mode; however, Chris's behavior demon-strates switching from a goal-oriented, serious-minded mode to
tter on the effectiveness of interactive internet advertising? A reversal0.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.002
2 J.M. Jung et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
playful mode. Taking this multi-static view, this study examinesconsumers' specific state in the telic–paratelic continuum at a specificpoint in time. Consumers likely switch between the two extreme statesin their entire cyber journey, regardless of their initial web browsinggoals.
This research proposes that telic/paratelic user mode explainsadvertising interactivity's effectiveness on persuasion. Users switchtheir mode back and forth on the telic/paratelic continuum whileavoiding or seeking arousal inherent in interactive advertising.Accordingly, the individual's metamotivational mode when encoun-tering an interactive ad determines the ad's effectiveness. Thus, thecurrent research aims to improve understanding about interactiveadvertising's role in two important ways. First, building on reversaltheory, this research proposes that the user mode positively or nega-tively affects interactive advertising's persuasiveness. Second, thisresearch explains how user mode drives persuasion.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1. Reversal theory
In the mid-1970s, Smith and Apter proposed reversal theory as atheory of motivation, emotion, and personality, and Apter further de-veloped the theory in 1980s (Apter, 1981, 2007). Comparing variouspersonality theories, reversal theory addresses human behavior's com-plexity based on bistable states, reversals, and hedonic tone (Cook,Gerkovich, Potocky, & O'Connell, 1993).
Unlike an optimal arousal level under a homeostatic concept,reversal theory employs a bistability concept. According to the theory,both high and low arousal levels as two opposite points can be optimalat a given time and either arousal level can be effective under certainsituations (Apter, 2007). Further, reversal theory's primary concern ishow individuals interpret experiences (e.g., arousal) rather than thespecific content (Apter, 1981). Thus, the same high arousal level canbe interpreted as anxiety or excitement, depending on the person'sbistable state or mode interpreting the motivational experience. Suchstate or mode is metamotivational. One metamotivational state thepresent research further examines is telic and paratelic endpoints(Lafreniere, 1993). Telic (from Greek telos meaning goal) andparatelic (“para” from Greek meaning alongside) states are oppositemetamotivational states representing a means-ends domain (Apter,1984). The telic state focuses on important future goals and planningahead. Thus, high telic arousal is associated with anxiety and tension,disrupting goal achievement. In contrast, the paratelic state focusesjust on the activity, rather than the goal. Thus, high paratelic arousalis associated with excitement and enhances an activity's quality andenjoyment. In sum, the telic state is goal-oriented, serious-minded,and arousal avoidance, whereas the paratelic state is spontaneous,playful, and arousal seeking (Apter, 1984).
Numerous studies have adopted reversal theory to explain individ-uals' complex and inconsistent behaviors in various contexts such asstress-moderating effects (Martin, Kuiper, Olinger, & Dobbin, 1987),sports (Sit & Lindner, 2006), behavioral counseling (Blaydon, Lindner,& Kerr, 2004), management (Carter, 2005), and consumer behavior(Davis, 2009; Rodgers & Thorson, 2000). Reversal theory explains thecomplexity and changeability of a consumer's cognitive experience atdifferent points and times.
2.2. Interactivity in online advertising
Online advertising's interactivity is “a characteristic of computer-mediated communication in the marketplace that increases with thebidirectionality, timeliness, mutual controllability, and responsive-ness of communication as perceived by consumers and firms”(Yadav & Varadarajan, 2005, p. 585). Due to innovative interactivityfeatures, online advertising allows internet users to gain more control
Please cite this article as: Jung, J.M., et al., Does telic/paratelic usermodematheory perspective, Journal of Business Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/1
over the mediated environment, to connect more conveniently to atwo-way communication in real time, and to stimulate a greaterbehavioral response rate (McMillan & Hwang, 2002; Rosenkrans,2009). While offering internet users active control, interactivity'snovelty features also induce users to pay close attention and toencourage cognitive involvement in processing the advertising (Liu& Shrum, 2002). Therefore, higher interactivity should stimulateusers' greater behavioral responses. Indeed, the literature on on-lineadvertising documents several studies examining interactivity'simpact on persuasion (e.g., Jung et al., 2011; Schlosser, 2003). Thesestudies manipulate goal types (e.g., seeking information vs. seekingentertainment) and observe interactivity's effectiveness in the ads.In this sense, these studies are rather homeostatic following tradi-tional consumer behavior models such as the integrative attitudeformation model (see MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989) to model brandattitude formation processes of traditional media.
Alternatively, consumers appear multi-static and non-rational(cf. Holbrook, 1994), especially when they use technology (Mick &Fournier, 1998). Internet users tend to be more active searching for in-formation than traditional consumers (Hoffman, Novak, & Schlosser,2000; Rosenkrans, 2009). Examining human behavior and interactivity,Rodgers and Thorson (2000) integrate the notion of multi-stability byincorporating internet functions as well as internet advertisements'unique features, specifically interactivity and virtual reality, into theInteractive Advertising Model (IAM). Building multi-stability (Apter,1984; Mick & Fournier, 1998), Davis (2009) tests reversal theory andfinds coexistence of the four reversal state pairs when consumersencounter multimedia messaging services: (1) telic and paratelic,(2) conformity and negativity, (3) autocentric and allocentric state,and (4) mastery and sympathy. Taking this multi-static perspective,this study examines consumers' specific states on the telic–parateliccontinuum. At a specific point in time, consumers likely switch be-tween these two extreme states during their internet experience,regardless of their initial goal.
2.3. Online users' motives and mode
The IAM assumes that information processing begins when usersswitch their internet use motives (e.g., research vs. entertainment)influenced by various stimuli, including advertisements encounteredduring their online experience. Here, an internet motive is definedas online users' inner drive to put efforts to carry out any online activ-ity. Based on their motives (e.g., research, shopping, entertainment,surfing, communication, or socializing), online users differentiallyattend to, comprehend, and form attitudes about interactive adver-tisement that they encounter while actively satisfying their needs togo online (Rodgers & Thorson, 2000). Further, the IAM model statesthat internet mode closely relates to user mode (i.e., serious vs. play-ful). User mode determines “the extent to which internet activitiesare goal-directed (Rodgers & Thorson, 2000, p. 46)” since internetusers' online experiences usually begin with a goal-directed agenda(Rodgers & Thorson, 2000). An internet user searching for productinformation arguably is serious-minded. In contrast, a user seekingentertainment is playful. Because the user's motive changes morefrequently while using the internet than traditional media, onlineuser mode likely changes frequently as well. Hence, IAM incorporatesreversal theory and classifies internet user mode as “telic” (highgoal-oriented, seriousness, and present-oriented) and “paratelic”(low goal-oriented, playfulness, and future-oriented) along the goal-directedness continuum.
2.4. Online users' mode and advertising interactivity
Although several studies imply that interaction exists between usermode and advertising interactivity from a reversal theory perspective,few studies test the possible link. Li and Bukovac (1999) investigate
tter on the effectiveness of interactive internet advertising? A reversal0.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.002
3J.M. Jung et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
the relationship between banner advertisement size and online usersand find that larger banner advertisements attract more click-throughrates from playful than serious mode online users. To investigate onlineadvertising's creativeness and effectiveness, Rosenkrans (2009) focuseson interactive richmedia advertising. Results show that interactive richmedia advertising engages users and captures higher levels of users'interactivity. While users exhibit more active control, they more cogni-tively process interactive online advertising. The findings demonstratethat greater interactivity generates more user involvement.
Moreover, IAM suggests that interactive advertising's featuresgreatly impact users' motives and modes (Rodgers & Thorson, 2000).IAM posits that paratelic (playful) users respond more positively tomore interactive online advertising, whereas telic (serious) usersrespond more negatively to interactive online advertising becauseinteractive features interfere with telic users' goal pursuit process. Sim-ilarly, Jung et al. (2011) investigate the impact of online advertise-ment's entertainment value, comparing banner (low entertainmentvalue) and game ads (high entertainment value). Results show thatad entertainment value positively influences attitudes and purchase in-tentions for viewers without shopping goals. When viewers have ashopping goal, ad entertainment value does not matter; even the lessentertaining banner ad is as persuasive as the more entertaininggame ad. These previous studies inform the following hypothesis.
H1. There should be a significant advertising interactivity × user modeinteraction such that (a) telic state online viewers form a more positiveattitude toward low versus high interactive ads; and that (b) paratelicstate online viewers form a more positive attitude toward high versuslow interactive ads.
2.5. User mode and arousal seeking tendency
Based on reversal theory, a different metamotivational user mode(telic vs. paratelic state) should lead to a different arousal level. Whileindividuals at a telic state prefer a low arousal level to focus on pursu-ing their goals, individuals at a paratelic state favor a high arousallevel to increase their excitement in the activities involved. Individ-uals may exhibit a tendency to prefer one state most of the time, inwhich reversal theory suggests as “dominance” (Apter, 2007). For ex-ample, a telic dominant individual performs tasks more seriouslythinking about future consequences. The telic dominant personavoids a high arousal level which creates anxiety. In contrast, aparatelic dominant individual behaves playfully thinking about thepresent and seeks instant gratification and excitement. Thus, theway internet user mode affects their attitude toward the ad with avarying level of interactivity is through their tendency to deal witharousal. In other words, an arousal seeking tendency seems to explainhow a user mode influences attitude toward the ad involvinginteractivity.
Previous studies test the relationship between telic–paratelic statesand arousal seeking tendencies in various domains (Grewal &Lafreniere, 2003; Legrand & Apter, 2004; Martin et al., 1987; Svebak& Murgatroyd, 1985). For example, Martin et al. (1987) examine thestress effect on telic and paratelic dominant individuals. Results showthat telic-dominant individuals reveal mood disturbance under evenlow stress levels whereas paratelic-dominant individuals cope wellwith a moderate stress. Accordingly, arousal-related situations frus-trate telic-dominant individuals, while same situations challengeparatelic-dominant individuals. Grewal and Lafreniere (2003) alsoshow that false failure feedback causes telic state participants to devel-op a more unpleasant mood and to engage in avoidance-oriented cop-ing styles compared to people in paratelic states. These previousstudies inform the following hypothesis.
H2. Arousal seeking tendency mediates the impact of user mode on theattitude toward the ad.
Please cite this article as: Jung, J.M., et al., Does telic/paratelic usermodematheory perspective, Journal of Business Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/1
3. Methodology
3.1. Participants
Study participation was solicited on Facebook and Twitter websites and 141 online users (44.7% female) volunteered. The averageage is 35 (SD = 9.73), ranging from 19 to 64 years old. Most respon-dents reported either Asian (56.7%) or Caucasian (40.4%) ethnicity.Respondents' average years of internet usage experience are13 years (SD = 4.07), ranging from 4 to 30 years. Most respondentshave experience purchasing online (92.2%), clicked through onlineadvertising to get more information (83.0%), and visited a websiteprompted by interactive advertising (70.9%).
3.2. Design and stimulus
This study employs a 2 (advertising interactivity: high vs. low) × 2(user mode: telic vs. paratelic) between-subjects design. Advertisinginteractivity was manipulated by a banner advertisement installed ona cell phone section of a fictitious online retailer named, “Flywier.” Toimprove realism of the study, a webpage was developed based on thedesign of a popular online store in the United States (see AppendixA), and a fictitious website name (“Flywier”) was employed to preventan effect of preconceived attitude toward an existing retailer. The cellphone category was chosen because adult consumers are familiarwith the product, regardless of their ages (e.g., Cui, Wang, & Xu,2010). Under the high interactivity condition, the banner ad had amouse-over feature, making each web banner component come tolife as the banner expands to a larger size and each component appearsone at a time when participants move the mouse over the banner.Under the low interactivity condition, the banner remained static with-out any interactive features (see Appendix B). In addition, user modewas determined based on a measure adapted from Telic/ParatelicState Instrument (T/PSI) (O'Connell & Calhoun, 2001), and the scale isexplained in the measurement section.
3.3. Procedure
Participants read the cover page describing the study's purpose.Next, participants answered a series of questions designed to mea-sure participants' user mode (telic/paratelic state). The participantswere then told that an online cell phone store is testing advertisinginterface on the company's website. Respondents were asked toimagine that they are browsing on the internet without a particularreason, and to navigate the online store as they would do normally.Once participants moved to the next page, they were assigned ran-domly to one experimental condition. After one minute of exposureor clicking on the banner, whichever came first, participants weredirected to the next pages and asked a series of questions related toperceived advertising interactivity, attitude toward the ad, arousalseeking tendency, online behaviors (e.g., online purchase experience,experience with banner advertising), and demographic profile.
3.4. Measurement
3.4.1. User modeParticipants' user mode (telic vs. paratelic) was adapted from a
seven-item, serious-mindedness/playfulness subscale of the Telic/Paratelic State Instrument (T/PSI) (O'Connell & Calhoun, 2001). Thisstudy modified the seven items into a 10-item, 7-point semanticdifferential scale: five items for serious-mindedness and five itemsfor playfulness. The serious-mindedness measure (Cronbach's α =.92) ranged from 1 (not feeling serious-minded at all, not wantingto be serious at all, not trying to accomplish anything at all, not focus-ing on the future, doing activity not because it may affect my future)to 7 (feeling serious-minded, wanting to be serious, trying to
tter on the effectiveness of interactive internet advertising? A reversal0.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.002
4 J.M. Jung et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
accomplish something, focusing on the future, doing activity becauseit may affect my future). The playfulness measure (Cronbach's α =.89) ranged from 1 (not feeling playful at all, not having fun at all,not wanting to just have fun, living for the future [reversed], doingactivity not for fun [reversed]) to 7 (feeling playful, Just having fun,wanting to just have fun, living for the moment [reversed], doing ac-tivity just for the fun of it [reversed]). These scale items were preced-ed by an instruction, “Please click on the number that best indicateshow you were feeling in the last few minutes, just before you startedthis survey.” The telic and paratelic states should be mutually exclu-sive (see Apter, 2007) and dichotomization determines these twostates (O'Connell & Calhoun, 2001). Accordingly, a measure wascreated by first dichotomizing telic and paratelic measures into highand low for each measure (serious-mindedness: high [n = 82] vs.low [n = 50]; playfulness: high [n = 53] vs. low [n = 73]) basedon the mid-point of 4 on the scale. Then, participants scoring higherthan the mid-point on serious-mindedness and lower than themid-point on playfulness simultaneously were coded as “telic users”(n = 54), while participants scoring higher than the mid-point onplayfulness and lower than the mid-point on serious-mindedness si-multaneously were coded as “paratelic users.” (n = 31). Only thesetwo participant groups were used for the analysis.
3.4.2. Perceived advertising interactivityPerceived advertising interactivity was measured on a four-item,
5-point Likert scales modified from the Measures of Perceived Inter-activity (MPI; McMillan & Hwang, 2002). The four items were “Theadvertising enables two-way communication,” “The advertising is in-teractive,” “The advertising keeps my attention,” and “The advertisingdoes not keep my attention” [reversed] (Cronbach'sα = .91) and an-chored at 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree).
3.4.3. Attitude toward the adParticipants' attitude toward the ad was measured by a scale
adopted fromMacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986) and served as a depen-dent variable. The construct was measured using a four-item, 7-pointsemantic differential scale, ranging from 1 (unpleasant, unlikable, bor-ing, bad) to 7 (pleasant, likable, interesting, good) (Cronbach'sα= .97).
4.40
5.17
4.00
5.00
6.00
3.4.4. Arousal seeking tendencyArousal-seeking tendency was adopted from Xie and Lee's (2008)
19-item scale. Participants responded to 7-point Likert-type scalesranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Examplesof arousal-seeking tendency scale items are “I prefer an unpredictablelife full of change to a more routine one,” “I sometimes like to dothings that are a little frightening,” “I like a job that offers change, va-riety, and travel even if it involves some danger,” “I like to experiencenovelty and change in my daily routine,” and “I feel best when I amsafe and secure [reversed].” The 19 items, including six reverseditems, resulted in high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .96).
3.69
1.71
1.00
2.00
3.00
Low Interactivity High Interactivity
Telic State Paratelic State
Fig. 1. Effects of advertising interactivity × user mode on ad attitude (H1).
4. Results
4.1. Manipulation check
To check for the appropriateness of advertising interactivitymanipulation, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. As expected, theresults confirm a significant effect of advertising interactivity on per-ceived ad interactivity (F(1, 82) = 37.65, p b .001). The ad with higherinteractivity features was perceived as more interactive than the adwith lower interactive features (Mhigh = 3.45 vs. Mlow = 2.14). Thus,the advertising interactivity manipulation is deemed adequate.
Please cite this article as: Jung, J.M., et al., Does telic/paratelic usermodematheory perspective, Journal of Business Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/1
4.2. An impact of user mode on attitude toward the ad (H1)
H1 posits an interactive effect of advertising interactivity and usermode. To test H1, a 2 (advertising interactivity) × 2 (user mode)ANOVA on ad attitude was run. Results show a significant maineffect of advertising interactivity (MLow = 3.05 vs. MHigh = 4.43;F(1, 78) = 15.79, p b .001) and a marginally significant main effectof user mode (MTelic = 4.05 vs. MParatelic = 3.44; F(1, 78) = 3.02,p b .10). Most importantly, a significant interaction effect exists(F(1, 78) = 35.89, p b .001), consistent with H1. Specifically, to testH1a, a planned contrast using one-tailed test was conducted. Theresult shows that telic state individuals form a more favorableattitude toward the low interactivity ad than the high interactivityad (MLow = 4.40 vs.MHigh = 3.69; t(49) = 1.67, p b .05), supportingH1a. To test H1b, a planned contrast was conducted. The result showsthat paratelic state individuals form a more favorable attitude towardthe high interactivity ad than the low interactivity ad (M High = 5.17vs. MLow = 1.71; t(49) = 6.16, p b .001), consistent with H1b. Thesefindings support both H1a and H1b (see Fig. 1).
Additionally, simple main effect tests show that when exposed tothe low interactive ad, telic state participants form a more positive at-titude toward the ad than paratelic state participants (MTelic = 4.40vs. MParatelic = 1.71; t(40) = 6.16, p b .001). When exposed to thehigh interactive ad, paratelic state participants form a more positiveattitude than telic state participants (MParatelic = 5.17 vs. MTelic =3.69; t(38) = 2.70, p = .01).
4.3. A mediational role of arousal seeking tendency (H2)
H2 posits that arousal seeking tendency mediates the impactof user mode on ad attitude. To test this hypothesis, this studyconducted meditational analysis per Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010)who updated Baron and Kenny's (1986) approach. Thus, this researchperformsmediation analysis using bootstrapping method (Preacher &Hayes, 2008). Because the low and high interactivity conditioninduces different attitudes toward the ad, this study conducts the me-diation analysis separately for each condition. Table 1 summarizes theresults.
Under low advertising interactivity condition, a series of ordinaryleast squares regression analyses were performed. A regression ofarousal seeking tendency on the user mode (UM → AST: patha) shows that paratelic (vs. telic) user mode positively influencesarousal seeking tendency (b = 2.71; t = 6.99, p b .001), establishingsignificant path a. A multiple regression of ad attitude on the usermode and arousal seeking tendency shows that arousal seeking
tter on the effectiveness of interactive internet advertising? A reversal0.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.002
IV → DV: UM → Aad (c) Direct − .459 −1.026 .574 1.033IV → DV: UM → Aad (ć) Total −2.748 −6.241⁎⁎⁎ 1.527 2.630⁎
Bootstrap Results Effect Boot 95% CI Boot 95% CI
IV → ME → DV:UM → AST → Aad (a × b)
Indirect −2.294 −3.288 ~−1.224
.953 .270 ~1.865
Note: IV = Independent variable, DV = Dependent variable, ME = Mediator, UM = User Mode (1 = Telic state; 2 = Paratelic state); AST = Arousal Seeking Tendency; Aad =attitude toward the ad. b is a path coefficient of the mediator when the effect of an independent variable is controlled for, while c is a path coefficient of the independent variablewhen the effect of the mediator is controlled for when DV is regressed on IV and ME. ć is the path coefficient of IV when a DV is regressed on the IV, which is the same as(a × b) + c. Estimates of all path coefficients are calculated in ordinary least squares regressions and unstandardized. Boot is the mean of the indirect effect estimates calculatedacross all bootstrap samples. CI = confidence interval.
⁎ p b .05.⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
5J.M. Jung et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
tendency negatively influences the attitude toward the low interac-tivity ad (b = − .84; t = −6.87, p b .001) when the effect of theuser mode is controlled, establishing the significant effect of path b(AST → Aad). Further, the multiple regression results also revealthat when the effect of arousal seeking tendency is controlled, thedirect impact of the user model becomes insignificant (b = − .46;t = −1.03, NS), establishing insignificant direct path c (UM → Aad).Next, to test the significance of indirect effect (a × b) of the usermode on ad attitude through arousal seeking tendency (UM →AST → Aad), this research uses bootstrapping, which provides themean of the indirect effect (a × b) estimates calculated across allbootstrap samples and a confidence interval (CI) associated with themean. If the confidence interval does not include zero, the indirecteffect is significant. With bootstrap sample size set to 5000, the resultshows that consistent with H2, the indirect effect through arousalseeking tendency is significant (95% CI = −3.29 to −1.22), indicat-ing successful mediation of arousal seeking tendency when the levelof ad interactivity is low. According to Zhao et al. (2010), this isso-called ‘indirect-only mediation’ (Zhao et al., 2010) in which thereis not likely to be any other omitted mediator that explains theimpact of user mode on ad attitude.
Similarly, another mediational analysis was conducted for highadvertising interactivity condition. A regression of arousal seekingtendency on the user mode (UM → AST: path a) shows that paratelic(vs. telic) user mode positively influences arousal seeking tendency(b = 1.27; t = 3.04, p b .01), establishing significant path a. A multi-ple regression of ad attitude on the user mode and arousal seekingtendency shows that arousal seeking tendency positively influencesattitude toward the high interactivity ad (b = .75; t = −3.79,p b .001) when the effect of the user mode is controlled, establishingthe significant effect of path b (AST → Aad). Further, the multiple re-gression results also reveal that when the effect of arousal seekingtendency is controlled, the direct impact of the user mode becomesinsignificant (b = .57; t = 1.03, NS), establishing insignificant directpath c (UM → Aad). Next, this research uses bootstrapping to test thesignificance of indirect effect (a × b) of the user mode on ad attitudethrough arousal seeking tendency (UM → AST → Aad), and the resultshows that consistent with H2, the indirect effect through arousalseeking tendency is significant (95% CI = .27 to 1.87), indicatingsuccessful mediation of arousal seeking tendency when the level ofinteractivity of the ad is high. Because this mediation is ‘indirect-only’type (Zhao et al., 2010), there is not likely to be any other omittedmediator that explains the direct impact. Taken together, therefore,there is sufficient evidence to support H2.
Please cite this article as: Jung, J.M., et al., Does telic/paratelic usermodematheory perspective, Journal of Business Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/1
5. Conclusion
Drawing on reversal theory (Apter, 2007), this current researchexamines the moderating role of telic/paratelic user mode in persua-sion. The field experiment's results show that internet users with atelic state form a more positive attitude toward the ad when the adhas a low versus a high interactivity level. Internet users with aparatelic state form a more positive attitude toward the ad whenthe ad contains a high, rather than a low, level of interactivity. Fur-ther, internet users' arousal seeking tendency mediates the telic/paratelic user mode's impact on ad attitude, supporting the proposedmechanism based on reversal theory.
An extensive literature review finds that this study is one of firstempirical marketing studies to utilize reversal theory. This researchcontributes to the online advertising literature by incorporating themetamotivational state when online users come in contact with theinteractive ad. To this end, reversal theory demonstrates bistability(rather than homeostability) and changeability of human emotionsand motivations on the telic and paratelic continuum. In addition,this research provides a novel explanation for why interactivityleads to persuasion. Schlosser (2003) shows that an interactive virtu-al experience shapes brand attitude through cognitive elaborationand influences purchase intention through mental imagery. Jung etal. (2011) show that interactivity influences both brand attitude andpurchase intentions only through affect transfer. In contrast, thecurrent research shows evidence that the users' metamotivationalstate and arousal seeking tendency affect persuasiveness.
This research's findings present managerial implications foradvertising professionals. Because online users' metamotivationalstate can change from telic to paratelic or vice versa during thecourse of their cyber journey, ads should include both high andlow interactivity features rather than making only one typeavailable.
Nevertheless, a few limitations are worth mentioning. First, thisresearch assumes user mode reverses during an online session. Thisstudy builds on previous empirical studies that demonstrate sucha reversal (e.g., Lafreniere, Cowles, & Apter, 1988). Demonstratingthis reversal effect is beyond the current research's scope.Lafreniere et al. (1988) conduct a laboratory study in which theyobserve spontaneous reversal of metamotivational mode over atwo-hour period (playing games versus learning a statistic's soft-ware program). Future consumer research likely needs to includea laboratory experiment to demonstrate reversals for different on-line activities.
tter on the effectiveness of interactive internet advertising? A reversal0.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.002
6 J.M. Jung et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Despite reversal theory's acceptance in psychology, the marketingliterature rarely investigates this interesting behavioral theory. Surpris-ingly, little empirical marketing research investigates consumer behavior
Please cite this article as: Jung, J.M., et al., Does telic/paratelic usermodematheory perspective, Journal of Business Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/1
using reversal theory (see Rodgers & Thorson, 2000). The considerablegrowth of online usage offers a compelling reason to further studyhow reversal theory explains consumer online behavior.
Appendix A. Online cell phone website
tter on the effectiveness of interactive internet advertising? A reversal0.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.002
7J.M. Jung et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Appendix B. Digital network promotion advertising
References
Apter, M. J. (1981). The possibility of a structural phenomenology: the case of reversaltheory. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 12, 173–187.
Apter, M. J. (1984). Reversal theory and personality: a review. Journal of Research inPersonality, 18(3), 265–288.
Apter, M. J. (2007). Reversal Theory: The Dynamics of Motivation, Emotion, and Personality(2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oneworld.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Blaydon, M. J., Lindner, K. J., & Kerr, J. H. (2004). Metamotivational characteristics ofexercise dependence and eating disorders in highly active amateur sport partici-pants. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1419–1432.
Carter, S. (2005). Reversal theory: changing you and your organization for the better.Training Journal, 2, 20–22.
Cook, M. R., Gerkovich, M. M., Potocky, M., & O'Connell, K. A. (1993). Instruments forthe assessment of reversal theory states. Patient Education and Counseling, 22,99–106.
Cui, N., Wang, T., & Xu, S. (2010). The influence of social presence on consumers'perceptions of the interactivity of web sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising,11(1), 36–49.
Davis, R. (2009). Do consumers experience a reversal state when encountering mobilecommerce services? Proceedings of 2009 ANZMAC. Australia: Melbourne (RetrievedMarch 30, 2011, from www.duplication.net.au/ANZMAC09/papers/ANZMAC2009-110.pdf)
Grewal, P. K., & Lafreniere, K. D. (2003). Coping with academic failure: the effects oftelic and paratelic states. Guidance & Counseling, 18(3), 101–110.
Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Schlosser, A. E. (2000). Consumer control in onlineenvironments. Working Paper.: Vanderbilt University, Owen Graduate School ofManagement (Retrieved from www.bus.umich.edu)
Holbrook, M. B. (1994). The nature of customer value. In T. R. Roland, & L. O. Richard(Eds.), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice (pp. 21–71). ThousandOaks: Sage Publications.
Huang, P., Lurie, N. H., & Mitra, S. (2009). Searching for experience on the web: an em-pirical examination of consumer behavior for search and experience goods. Journalof Marketing, 73, 55–69.
Jung, J. M., Min, K. S., & Kellaris, J. J. (2011). The games people play: how the entertain-ment value of online ads helps or harms persuasion. Psychology and Marketing,28(7), 661–681.
Kim, J., & Forsythe, S. (2008). Adoption of virtual try-on technology for online apparelshopping. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(2), 45–59.
Köhler, C. F., Rohm, A. J., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2011). Return on interactivity:the impact of online agents on newcomer adjustment. Journal of Marketing,75(2), 93–108.
Lafreniere, K. D. (1993). Reversal theory: an introduction. Patient Education andCounseling, 22, 63–71.
Lafreniere, K. D., Cowles, M. P., & Apter, M. J. (1988). The reversal phenomenon: reflectionson a laboratory study. InM. J. Apter, J. H. Kerr, &M. P. Cowles (Eds.), Progress in ReversalTheory (pp. 247–254). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
Please cite this article as: Jung, J.M., et al., Does telic/paratelic usermodematheory perspective, Journal of Business Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/1
Legrand, F. D., & Apter, M. J. (2004). Why do people perform thrilling activities? A studybased on reversal theory. Psychological Report, 94, 307–313.
Li, H., & Bukovac, J. L. (1999). Cognitive impact of banner ad characteristics: an exper-imental study. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 341–353.
Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2002). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing?Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivityon advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 53–64.
MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements:toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 1–23.
MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as amediator of advertising effectiveness: a test of competing explanations. Journal ofMarketing Research, 23, 130–143.
Martin, R. A., Kuiper, N. A., Olinger, L. J., & Dobbin, J. (1987). Is stress always bad? Telicversus paratelic dominance as a stress-moderating variable. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 53(5), 970–982.
McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: an explorationof the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shapingperceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29–42.
Mick, D. G., & Fournier, S. (1998). Paradoxes of technology: consumer cognizance,emotions, and coping strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 123–143.
O'Connell, K. A., & Calhoun, J. E. (2001). The telic/paratelic state instrument (T/PSI):validating a reversal theory measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 30,193–204.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessingand comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior ResearchMethods, 40, 879–891.
Rodgers, S., & Thorson, E. (2000). The interactive advertising model: how usersperceive and process online ads. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1(1), 42–61.
Rosenkrans, G. (2009). The creativeness and effectiveness of online interactive richmedia advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 9(2), 18–31.
Schlosser, A. E. (2003). Experiencing products in the virtual world: the role of goal andimagery in influencing attitudes versus purchase intentions. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 30, 184–198.
Sit, C., & Lindner, K. J. (2006). Situational state balances and participation motivation inyouth sport: a reversal theory perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology,76(2), 369–384.
Sohn, D., Ci, C., & Lee, B. K. (2007). The moderating effects of expectation on the patternsof the interactivity-attitude relationship. Journal of Advertising, 36(3), 109–119.
Svebak, S., & Murgatroyd, S. (1985). Metamotivational dominance: a multimethod val-idation of reversal theory constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,48(1), 107–116.
Xie, G. X., & Lee, M. J. (2008). Anticipated violence, arousal, and enjoyment of movies:viewers' reactions to violent previews based on arousal-seeking tendency. TheJournal of Social Psychology, 148(3), 277–292.
Yadav, M. S., & Varadarajan, R. (2005). Interactivity in the electronic marketplace: anexposition of the concept and implication for research. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 33(4), 585–603.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths andtruths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.
tter on the effectiveness of interactive internet advertising? A reversal0.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.002
![CSOs Engagement for Aid Effectiveness - Don K Marut - INFID [Compatibility Mode]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/54e9df034a7959e7158b49c0/csos-engagement-for-aid-effectiveness-don-k-marut-infid-compatibility-mode.jpg)
