Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - May-August, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2020

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business
Vol. 22, No. 2 (May-August 2020): 118-136

Assessing the Imagination Scale’s Nomological Validity: Effect of Hedonic versus Utilitarian Product Types and Abstract versus Concrete
Advertising Execution
Ike Janita Dewi*a, Swee Hoon Angb
aUniversitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta, Indonesia
bNational University of Singapore, Singapore
Abstract: This research builds on the study of an advertisement-evoked imagination scale
de-veloped by Dewi and Ang (2015). The imagination scale contains four types of imagination,
that is, bene it-anticipatory imagination, emotional-bonding imagination, symbolic imagination,
and mind-wandering imagination. In this paper, the proposed constructs of the imagination
types are related to other relevant constructs that already exist in the marketing literature.
The pur-pose of this research is twofold. First, it establishes the nomological validity of the
imagination measures by placing it in the context of hedonic-utilitarian concepts proposed by
Holbrook and Hirschman (1983). Second, the research empirically studies the effect of a
situational factor, which is concrete versus abstract advertisement execution, on imagination
elicitation. The study is an experiment which employs a mixed factor design involving eight subgroups of participants. The results of the research demonstrate the nomological validity of the
imagination scale where the four types of imagination were elicited in response to a hedonic/
utilitarian product depicted in the advertisement and situational factors (which are abstract
versus concrete advertisements).
Keywords: imagination, hedonic, utilitarian, abstract advertisement execution.
JEL Classi ication: M3

118

*Corresponding author’s e-mail: ikejanitadewi@yahoo.com
ISSN: PRINT 1411-1128 | ONLINE 2338-7238
http://journal.ugm.ac.id/gamaijb

Dewi and Ang

Introduction
The marketing field’s interests in the
measurement of subjective experiences (e.g.,
Unger and Kernan, 1983) in particular, as
well as the complex responses of consumers
toward advertising or other marketing stimuli (e.g., Edell and Burke, 1987; Hirschman
and Holbrook, 1982) have been lacking in
their conceptualization and the measurement
of imagination. Imagination has oftentimes
been interpreted interchangibly with imagery
and discussed in the domain of cognitive or
even clinical pyschology (Leopod and Mayer,
2014; Peason et al., 2015). While scholars have
attempted to also conceptualize imagination
(Abraham, 2016; Phillips, 2017, Rebecca and
Molesworth, 2017; Thomas, 2014), the measurement of imagination, as a response to
marketing stimuli and its one empirical validation, have posed a challenge to marketing
scholars. With much advertising expenditure
being wasted on ineffective campaigns (Abraham and Lodish, 1990), advertisers should
be concerned with the complex relationships which exist between consumers and
advertisements or other marketing stimuli.
A study by Dewi and Ang (2015) proposed the concept of imagination, identified
the four components of imagination, and
developed the communication-evoked imagination scale. Imagination was proposed as
an absorptive, transcendental, and future-oriented subjective experience. Their study also
offered empirical findings which supported
the existence of the four types of imagination derived from the various components of
imaginative experience. Benefit-anticipatory
imagination, emotional-bonding imagination,
symbolic imagination, and mind-wandering
imagination were present as responses to a
variety of advertisements depicting various
products. The invariant factorial structur-

al analysis and the multitrait-multimethod
procedure demonstrated that such a categorization of imagination qualifies as more
than tentative, in which there was no systematic bias caused by different product types.
Those proposed constructs of four
imagination types, and the developed imagination scale by Dewi and Ang (2015), need
to be assessed in terms of their nomological validity. Therefore, this present research
related imagination to other relevant constructs in the marketing literature. In doing so, this present research reviewed and
adopted the literature surrounding hedonic-utilitarian concepts (Babin, Darden, and
Griffin, 1994; Batra and Ahtola, 1990; Chandon, Wansink, and Laurent, 1998; Hirschman
and Hoolbrook, 1982; Holbrookand
Hirschman, 1982; Kempf, 1999; Mano and
Oliver, 1993; Spangenberg, Voss, and Crowley, 1997), imagination (Lindaeur, 1983; Giorgi, 1987) and affect versus cognition in
the structure of attitudes (Breckler, 1984;
Breckler and Wiggins, 1989; Zajonc, 1989).
Hoolbrook and Hirschman’s (1982) hedonic-utilitarian concept suggested a meaningful relationship between hedonic products
and imagination. They contend that evaluating a hedonic product involves feeling, fun,
and fantasy.1 This present study elaborates
such concepts and identifies the role of
imagination in evaluating a product’s hedonic
dimension. Such an evaluation goes beyond
its functional benefits. For instance, imagination’s transcendental quality facilitates the
The term “fantasy” has a somewhat negative connotation. In differentiating and contrasting the concept of fantasy with that of
imagination, Lynch (1974, cited in Giorgi, 1987) states that fantasy
is a failure of imagination. Freud (1907, cited in Singer, 1975) states
that “happy people do not make fantasies, only unsatisfied do.” Fantasy is
often used in associations with speculation about unconscious or
subconscious processes (Sutherland, 1974). Even though frequently
“fantasy” is used interchangeably with “imagination”, this present
study prefers not to confuse these two terms and therefore to use
“imagination” in the whole study.
1

119

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - May-August, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2020

construction of a symbolic meaning for a
product. However, the role of imagination
decreases in the more-cognitive-involving
utilitarian information processing. This study
compares imagination elicitation in hedonic
vis-à-vis utilitarian information processing
to empirically assess the relationship between imagination and hedonic concepts.
The present research takes the views
that imagination is a conscious processing
(Giorgi, 1987; Singer, 1975) and that an individual can be induced to engage in processing certain information (Alesandriniand
Sheikh, 1983). Therefore, an attempt is made
to identify the type of stimuli which induce
imagination elicitation. On such a stimulus
type, this present study argues that imagination is induced and facilitated when external
stimuli are reduced (Antrobus, Singer, and
Greenberg, 1966) as well as when freedom
to interpret the stimuli is given (Lindaeur,
1983). In other words, “incomplete information” is conducive for imagination elicitation.
This present study proposes abstract vs concrete advertising execution as another means
to examine the imagination scale’s construct
validity and nomological validity. This is
based on Lindaeur’s (1983) study of imagination in the context of abstract vs concrete
paintings. While more concrete advertising
will elicit more imagination (Alesandrini and
Sheikh, 1983), the effects of abstract vs concrete advertising execution on imagination
will provide insights to compare imagination
vis-à-vis imagery. As argued by Dewi and
Ang (2015), conceptually imagination differs
from imagery and the difference should be
implied in one important aspect pertaining
to the nature of the stimuli (abstract or concrete) which is conducive for their elicitation.
Therefore, the purpose of this study
is twofold. First, it establishes the nomo120

logical validity of the imagination measures
developed by Dewi and Ang (2015) by placing it in the context of the hedonic-utilitarian concepts proposed by Holbrook and
Hirschman (1982). It would also extend
the studies surrounding hedonic-utilitarian concepts. This present research builds
on Kempf ’s (1999) and Mano and Oliver’s
(1993) studies into the relationships between hedonic (utilitarian) product evaluations and affective (cognitive) responses by
empirically examining imagination’s role in
hedonic vs utilitarian product evaluations.
Second, this research studies the effect of
a situational factor, which is concrete vs abstract execution, on imagination’s elicitation.

Literature Review and Hypotheses
Hedonic Dimension and Utilitarian
Dimension
The categorization of product attributes
into hedonic and utilitarian is insightful as it
captures the cognitive-affective and thinking-feeling of the information. Holbrook
and Hirschman (1982) proposed the hedonic
dimension of consumption as “experiential”
consumption. It enlarges the concept of affect
which captures only valenced feeling states
of like or dislike for a product (Babin et al.,
1994; Batra and Ahtola, 1990; Hirschman and
Holbrook, 1982; Spangenberg et al., 1997).
Affect plays an important role in evaluating a product’s hedonic dimension. Involving feelings, fun, and fantasy (Hirschman and
Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook and Hirschman,
1982), hedonic information processing
deals with emotive responses and pursues
the fulfillment of desires (Holbrook and

Dewi and Ang

Hirschman, 1982). It involves the basic motivation of a human being to have pleasure,
fun, amusement, and enjoyment (Orbach,
1995) which become the criteria for the evaluation of a product. Therefore, in an overall
evaluation, hedonic information processing requires sensation, fantasy, imagination,
emotional arousal, pleasure, and symbolic
meanings (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982).
These are likely to be found in the intrinsic
values or intangible attributes of a product.
The utilitarian dimension is evaluated
based on a rational consideration. It pertains
to the functional or instrumental benefits of
the product (Babin et al., 1994; Batra and
Ahtola, 1990; Hirschman and Holbrook,
1992; Spangenberg et al., 1997). Utilitarian
processing corresponds to secondary process thinking which reflects the way mental
processes function as a result of taking into
account “the consequences of action” (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). With normal
shopping behavior, the utilitarian shopping
experience is illustrated as task-related and
rational. A product is purchased in a deliberate and efficient manner (Babin et al., 1994),
and valued for its utility-maximizing function. Product evaluation tends to be based
on the product’s tangible benefits and its
objective features, such as calories (in food),
fluoride (in toothpaste), and miles per gallon (in gasoline; Holbrook and Hirschman,
1982). Thus, a product’s tangible benefits
serve as the primary determinants of product quality (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982).
In contrast to the hedonic dimension which
deals with product symbolism, the utilitarian dimension views products as objective
entities. It is inferred therefore that utilitarian information processing requires cognitive efforts involving rational considerations
of a product’s functional performance.

A product carries both hedonic and utilitarian dimensions in varying degrees. Consumer choices can be based more dominantly on one dimension over another (Dharand
Wertenbroch, 2000). In evaluating a product,
consumers can take either the hedonic dimension or utilitarian dimension as the main
criterion. For example, in evaluating sport
shoes, a consumer can take the hedonic dimension as his/her main consideration. In
which case, s/he sees the shoes as fulfilling his/her inner desire to be an athlete. If
the utilitarian dimension is more dominant,
then s/he will consider the shoes’ durability.
Such a scenario depicts a product’s hedonic and utilitarian dimensions in relation
to the way a consumer evaluates a product.
When the hedonic (utilitarian) dimension becomes the dominant criterion, a consumer is
engaged in hedonic (utilitarian) information
processing. The use of the terms “hedonic
and utilitarian information” processing refers
to the product evaluation process where a
consumer chooses product features that become their primary basis in making a purchase
decision and then he/she evaluates them.
When a product’s hedonic dimension
is dominant, a consumer turns inward and
seeks “information” sourced from his/her
inner desires and imagination. S/he also responds to imagination-eliciting stimuli and
evokes affective reactions and imagination.
In contrast, when the utilitarian dimension
dominates a consumer’s information processing, s/he will “logically” seek out information about the product’s performance.
In doing so, s/he elicits cognitive “efforts.”

In this study, we examine the apparatuses – cognition, affect, and/or imagination – how they function under hedonic and
utilitarian information processing. We are
interested in the outcomes of hedonic/util121

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - May-August, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2020

itarian information processing, but not the
processes or staff involved in information
processing. This study pertains to the antecedents and consequences of information
processing. The processing of the stimuli itself is therefore implicitly inferred. The antecedents of the information processing are
the product type and advertising execution
that induce consumers to engage in more hedonic or utilitarian information processing.

Imagination in Hedonic Information
Processing
Another distinctive characteristic of
hedonic information processing vis-à-vis
utilitarian information processing is the involvement of imagination. The degree of
imagination involved in the information processing depends, to a large extent, on the
nature of the product dimension (hedonic
or utilitarian) being evaluated. Evaluating a
utilitarian dimension requires cognitive effort pertaining to the objective performance
of a product, therefore utilitarian information processing contains little imagination.
When evaluating the hedonic dimension,
the hedonic processing elicits information
which affects cognition as well as the imagination. Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) ascribed the meaning of hedonic consumption
as being beyond an affect, by encompassing a steady flow of fantasies, feelings, and
fun. This proposition indicates that there is
more than an affect involved. Additional resources, such as imagination, are required.

Spangenberg et al., (1997) suggested
the importance of imagination in hedonic
information processing. They contend that
“it is, therefore, possible that successful measurement
of hedonic consumption may also help to gauge the
extent to which such images are adopted by con122

sumers.” It implies that imagination serves
to facilitate hedonic consumption, but it is
considered a latent construct. If a hedonic
evaluation is made, imagination is activated.
A product’s hedonic dimension deals
with symbolic meaning and an imaginative construction of reality (Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). These are beyond the tangible attributes of a product. Both tangible
and intangible attributes serve as stimuli
evoking cognitive and affective responses,
upon which the perceptions of a product
are formed. Yet, the perception remains
as an impression if there is no “bridge” to
transform it into an abstract idea connected to the product. Although in affective
reactions, stimuli are evaluated holistically,
they cannot create abstract ideas to “see”
beyond a product’s tangible attributes. In
other words, affect is merely a passive “response” such as liking or disliking an object. Imagination is needed to “interpret”
and “synthesize” the stimuli. In the words
of Singer (1975), imagination functions to
“reproduce faces of persons, snatches of dialogue,
or objects no longer immediately available to the
primary senses and to reshape further the memories
of these experiences into new and complex forms.”
To illustrate, when a consumer looks
at a pair of Nike shoes, such an exposure
leaves perceptions and impressions about
the shoes’ features – the color, sole thickness,
style, and price. The exposure can also elicit
feelings – happy, warmhearted, etc. – about
the product. The processing of the objective
and functional benefits involves cognitive
functioning; while the elicited feelings are affective reactions. To engage in imagination,
a consumer detaches himself/herself and
assumes a distance from the object. Then

Dewi and Ang

imagination calls upon his/her experience
as a local athlete who aspires to become a
national athlete. In his/her imagination s/
he can “see” himself/herself wearing sport
shoes in an international basketball match.
A pair of sport shoes then carries a subjective meaning and symbolizes one’s wishes
and desires. Therefore, imagination accompanies hedonic information processing. It
serves as the resource utilized in evaluating
a product. Therefore, hedonic information
processing compared to utilitarian information processing involves greater imagination.

Affect and Cognition in Hedonic-Utilitarian Information Processing
The process of evaluating hedonic and
utilitarian dimensions generates reactions
which in turn influence people’s attitudes toward a product. The present study argues that
the affect and cognition exist in hedonic and
utilitarian information processing, but there
is a dominance of one over the other in one
particular form of information processing.
It has been argued that the traditional
view of purchase decision-making emphasizes rational behavior while overlooking the immediate affective responses that consumers
may have toward a product (Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982). This view of immediate
affective responses corresponds to Zajonc’s
(1980) proposition of the primacy of affect
in which consumers form attitudes without
any awareness of the product’s attributes. Affective reactions are crude responses which
involve feelings and emotions, rather than
thinking, and tend to be holistic – that is,
they are not concerned about the functional attributes of the products (Zajonc, 1980).
Affective reactions are also spontaneous.
Therefore, affect comes into play when there

is hedonic information processing. Also,
affect signifies the occurrence of hedonic information processing (Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982). Attitude toward a product, as a result of hedonic information processing, will therefore be more affect-based.
In contrast, utilitarian information processing deals with an evaluation on the functional benefits of a product (Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982). Such processing requires
consumers to make conscious judgments
when evaluating a product’s attributes. It
generates cognitive reactions (Mano and
Oliver, 1993) such as the evaluation of the
attributes (Fishbein and Azjen, 1975; Smith
and Swinyard, 1982), like the price. These
cognitive reactions signify utilitarian information processing. Such information processing is more cognitive-based and therefore
produces a more cognition-based attitude.
Relationships between hedonic information processing and affect-based attitude, and
between utilitarian information processing
and cognition-based attitude have received
empirical support. Mano and Oliver (1993)
found that hedonic evaluation correlates with
the affect. They also suggested that utilitarian information processing works along with
the cognitive dimension of attitudes. In the
context of a product’s trial, Kempf (1999)
argued that there is a relationship between affective/cognitive reactions and hedonic/utilitarian product evaluations. The evaluation
of a hedonic product requires more affective
resources, while the evaluation of a utilitarian
product requires more cognitive resources.
She found that arousal was an important determinant in trial evaluations of hedonic products, but not for utilitarian products. Further,
cognition – compared to affect – was more
dominant in trial evaluations for utilitarian
than hedonic products (Dewi and Ang, 2001).
123

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - May-August, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2020

Effects of Product Type and Ad’s Execution on the Elicitation of Different
Types of Imagination
Based on the contention that imagination is a conscious processing (Giorgi, 1987;
Singer, 1966) and that one can be induced to
elicit certain kinds of responses (Edell and
Staelin, 1983; Smith, 1993), we examine how
advertising stimuli can influence the elicitation of the different types of imagination. As
ads depict different types of products (that
is, hedonic or utilitarian) and/or different
types of executions (that is, abstract or concrete pictures), we argue that these different
stimuli will have different implications on the
elicitation of different types of imagination.
These two elements are chosen to address two issues. As elaborated earlier, products can naturally possess more hedonic or
utilitarian attributes, where the former evokes
more imagination. Hence, this serves as a nomological validity test for imagination’s scale
(Dewi and Ang, 2015). Second, since situational factors (that is, elements of ads) can also
influence imagination elicitation, we examine
the different effects of concrete vs abstract ad
execution on the elicitation of the four types
of imagination and the formation of attitudes.

Effects of Hedonic vs Utilitarian
Product Type
One of the factors influencing imagination elicitation is the product type. This can
induce consumers to engage in a particular
type of processing because consumers have
a relatively established schema about how
each product should be evaluated (Edell and
Staelin, 1983; Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989).
In other words, consumers will have their set
of criteria for a product which they expect the

124

product to have and upon which they will base
their evaluation of the product. Meyers-Levy
and Tybout (1989) suggested that product
type is the basic category for the consumers’
processing of a product. That is, in a product’s evaluation, consumers will first consider
the product type and then look for the product’s attributes to confirm their expectations.
The two types of products – hedonic
and utilitarian – examined in this study have
characteristics which will induce the elicitation
of different types of imagination. Hedonic
products have a hedonic personality – they
are more emotionally involving, inspired by
more imagination, and strong in their symbolic values rather than by their tangible features
(Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook
and Hirschman, 1982; Kempf, 1999). Hence,
such a product evokes processes which are
more imagination and affect-based. On the
other hand, a utilitarian product will “lead”
consumers to spend more effort to evaluate
the functional benefits of the product and
therefore, induces a cognition-based process.
For example, a product that sells its image
more than its core or functional benefits,
such as cosmetics or fragrances, is naturally
more hedonic. Products whose functional
benefits are not apparent, such as paintings
or antiques, also possess hedonic properties.

A hedonic product, when compared to a
utilitarian product, can elicit more benefit-anticipatory imagination. There are two aspects
involved in this imagination type, that is, asif activities and utilitarian-like imagination.
One may argue that the minimum content
of cognition involved in hedonic information processing will not lead to imagining
the “consequences” in consuming the product. It is due to the motive for consuming
the product – for fun and enjoyment (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). On the other

Dewi and Ang

hand, a utilitarian product, which delivers
more cognition-oriented benefits (Kempf,
1999) provides a sounder basis for the elicitation of benefit-anticipatory imagination,
one should at first engage in an imaginative
experience. As a utilitarian product by its nature induces an analytical mindset, an evaluation of the product’s functional benefits
will inhibit a consumer in eliciting imagination. Consequently, utilitarian products will
lead to a straight evaluation of the products,
which does not involve make-believe activities. It is less likely that one will engage
in as-if activities by using the products or
a future projection of them if one were to
use the products. Hence, a hedonic product vis-à-vis a utilitarian product will generate more benefit-anticipatory imagination.
The effect of product type on emotional-bonding imagination is similar. Emotional-bonding imagination concerns the
emotional content of a product. Therefore, as a hedonic product evokes an affect
and emotions (Holbrookand Hirschman,
1982; Kempf, 1999), it is suggested that a
hedonic product will evoke the elicitation
of such emotional-bonding imagination.
In contrast, a utilitarian product evokes
more cognition rather than affect; it will
elicit less emotional-bonding imagination.
Besides containing emotions, a hedonic product “needs” consumers to imagine,
in order to “appreciate” the product (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Spangenberg,
Voss, and Crowley, 1997). Imagination’s capacity to transcend immediate stimulus objects and construct a meaning to a product
suggests that a hedonic product can be enjoyed, particularly since a hedonic product’s
values lie mostly beyond the product’s objective and functional performance. Therefore, a hedonic imagination will induce the

elicitation of symbolic imagination. In contrast a utilitarian product “conditions’ consumers to focus on its functional benefits,
because its value lies in its functional benefits” (Kempf, 1999). There is minimal incentive to “see” what lies beyond its functional or objective performance. Therefore,
compared to a hedonic product, a utilitarian
product elicits less symbolic imagination.
Yet the transcending ability of imagination can generate stimulus-independent
thoughts (Singer, 1966). That is, one can
drift away from the object and one’s mind
wanders around. As a hedonic product suggests that you to look beyond its functional and objective performance, it induces
mind-wandering imagination. Whereas, as a
utilitarian product’s evaluation is based more
on its tangible attributes (Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982; Kempf, 1999), its evaluation will induce an analytical mind-set which
is more occupying, which therefore reduces
the tendency to let one’s mind wander-off.
The aforementioned reasoning that the
product type can influence the elicitation of
various types of imagination also applies to
the product type’s influence on attitude formation. As a hedonic product elicits more affect (Kempf, 1999; Mano and Oliver, 1993)
and imagination – which also contains emotion – in its evaluation, both imply that attitude towards a hedonic product will be more
affect-based rather than cognition-based. On
the other hand, a utilitarian product which
elicits more cognitive responses (Kempf,
1999; Mano and Oliver, 1993) and less imagination will lead to a cognition-based attitude rather than an affect-based attitude.
Therefore, the effect of the product’s
type on the elicitation of the various types
of imagination, as well as the formation of
attitude, is formally stated in Hypothesis 1.
125

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - May-August, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2020

Hypothesis 1: compared to ads for utilitarian products, those for hedonic products will
generate:
a. more benefit-anticipatory imagination
b. more emotional-bonding imagination
c. more symbolic imagination
d. more mind-wandering imagination
e. less cognition-based attitude, and
f. a greater affect-based attitude.

Effects of Advertising Executions:
The Use of Abstract/Concrete Stimuli
The type of stimuli used in an ad can
also influence the consumers’ processing
of the ad. In particular, the use of pictures
can influence the consumers’ processing of
the advertising, in that they can influence
the consumers’ inferences of the product
(Smith, 1993) and alter the consumer’s activity and structure while viewing the ads (Edell
and Staelin, 1983; Janiszweski, 1990). This research proposes two types of stimuli – abstract
and concrete pictures – that can have differential influences on imagination elicitation.
Compared to concrete stimuli, abstract
stimuli tend to be more open to interpretation (Lindaeur, 1983). Such a condition
induces consumers to generate more imagination, for example, by creating as-if situations. However, these as-if thoughts can also
distract consumers from imagining, in particular, the “costs and benefits” of using the
product which requires more cognitive effort. If a stimulus tends to distract consumers from focusing on the product depicted by
the ad, then consumers’ cognition plays a less
important role. Such reasoning is based on
Edell and Staelin’s (1983) contention that if
a consumer is distracted by an ad’s stimulus,
126

s/he will activate from memory less stored
information about the product being advertised. This results in a smaller allocation of
cognitive resources. Although the use of abstract stimuli induces imagination, the content
of imagination will not pertain to a consideration of the product’s “costs and benefits.”
Therefore, the use of abstract stimuli does not
guarantee a significant difference in the elicitation of benefit-anticipatory imagination.
Yet, abstract stimuli in ads can serve as
“cues” for consumers by inducing them to
engage in emotional-bonding imagination.
This is based on the reasoning that abstract
stimuli give more “freedom” to consumers
to generate their own interpretations, where
consumers can include their personally relevant information as well as create whatever
they desire. This makes their emotional-bonding imagination more pronounced. Concrete
stimuli, however, depict ready-made stimuli.
These induce an analytical mind-set (Lindaeur, 1983) and provide less “room” for consumers to generate their own interpretations
(Valkenburg and van der Voort, 1994). Both
factors reduce the elicitation of emotional-bonding imagination in concrete stimuli.
A similar reasoning applies for the use of
abstract or concrete stimuli in the elicitation of
symbolic imagination. Compared to concrete
stimuli, abstract stimuli induce more symbolic imagination based on two reasons. First, as
it is more open for alternative interpretations
(Lindaeur, 1983), consumers are not bound to
the stimuli depicted by the ad. Rather, they can
develop their own interpretations depending
on how they would like to see the stimuli. Second, an abstract stimulus induces some sense
of distance and dissociative feelings (Lindaeur, 1983) because it does not quite represent
an object as it is seen in the real world. Some
distance and dissociative feelings provide a

Dewi and Ang

condition conducive for symbolic imagination elicitation, where one needs to transcend
the objective stimuli and create one’s own interpretations of the product (Sartre, 1972).
Therefore, the use of abstract stimuli in ads
will generate more symbolic imagination.
Abstract and concrete stimuli incur
different implications for the elicitation
of mind-wandering imagination. Abstract
stimuli – which depict less realistic images – provide a lack-of-concrete-focus condition (Algom and Lewin, 1981; Lindaeur,
1983) inducing consumers to drift away from
the actual stimuli. In contrast, as a concrete
product depicts realistic images, they induce an analytical mind-set (Lindaeur, 1983)
directing consumers to engage in a more
concrete product evaluation. This activity is
more occupying and therefore will reduce
the tendency to wander-off (Singer, 1966).
The use of abstract stimuli will also affect attitude formation, that is, to be more
affect-based or cognition-based. As argued
earlier, abstract stimuli are more open to interpretation and give consumers the freedom to see the stimuli as they like. This
will make the consumers’ attitude more affect-based. On the other hand, concrete
stimuli induce an analytical mind-set which
in turn makes the consumers’ attitude more
cognition-based. Based on the above lines
of reasoning, we formulate Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 2: compared to the use of
concrete stimuli in ads, the use of abstract stimuli in them will generate:
a. a similar level of benefit-anticipatory
imagination
b. more emotional-bonding imagination
c. more symbolic imagination
d. more mind-wandering imagination
e. less cognition-based attitude, and
f. a greater affect-based attitude.

Research Method
Design of the Study
This study employed a 2 (hedonic vs
utilitarian product) x 2 (abstract vs concrete
advertising execution) mixed-factor design.
The two levels of the product’s type factor
were designed as a within-subjects factor.
Meanwhile, the two levels of the advertising execution factor were designed as a
between-subjects factor. Each participant
evaluated one set of products consisting
of one hedonic product and one utilitarian
product. There were two hedonic products
(a chocolate bar and sparkling wine) and two
utilitarian products (instant coffee mix and
a ballpoint pen) included in the study. The
2-between-subjects factors were the abstract
or concrete ads execution. Since there were
two product sets evaluated, there were eight
groups involved in the study. The subjects
were 120 undergraduate students. The participants were randomly assigned to each
of the eight between-group conditions.
Stimulus Materials
A booklet of ads was presented to each
participant. Following the experimental design, there were eight types of booklets containing two ads for a set of two products.
The order of presentation of the ads in the
booklet was randomized. These sixteen ads,
which acted as stimulus material, were generated from three pretests that were conducted. The pretests included tests of products
which had hedonic/utilitarian properties,
advertising messages/copies which served
as hedonic/utilitarian, and pictures in the
ads which were concrete/abstract. Two aspects of the ads were manipulated, which
were the product type (within subject) and
the advertisings’ execution (between sub127

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - May-August, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2020

jects). While the brand name was specific
for each product, the other aspects of the
ads, such as the position of the pictures and
the font sizes, were kept constant across the
ads. Each ad was printed in full color on
A4-size paper. The two ads in each group
were compiled and presented in a booklet.

Dependent Variables and Covariates
For testing the hypotheses, the dependent variables were: benefit-anticipatory
imagination, emotional-bonding imagination, symbolic imagination, mind-wandering imagination, the affective properties of
attitude, the cognitive properties of attitude,
and the purchase intention. There were also
covariates included, which were the overall
product attitude (in the measurement of
the affective and cognitive properties of attitude) and the tendency to imagination (in
the measurement of imagination elicitation).
Measures of the four types of imagination were based on the imagination scale developed by Dewi and Ang (2015). Participants
were asked to respond to statements measuring the four types of imagination. Possible responses ranged from 1 (disagree) to 7 (agree).
Measures of benefit-anticipatory imagination included three items which were: 1)
The ad induces me to imagine how I would
think about myself if I were using the product. 2) Looking at the ad, I can imagine how
the product would fit my lifestyle. 3) The ad
makes me imagine the things I can achieve
if I use the product. Measures of emotional-bonding imagination consisted of three
statements which were: 1) The ad reminds
me of experiences or feelings I’ve had in my
own life. 2) I think the ad somehow inspires
me to try out alternative ways to express myself with the product. 3) It is hard to give
128

the specific reason but I think the product is
for me. Symbolic imagination was measured
using a scale consisting of three items as follows: 1) I feel the ad conveys that the product
has benefits other than those I usually think
of. 2) The ad suggests that the product symbolizes alternative ways of seeing and behaving. 3) The ad induces me to think that there
is an underlying value to the product which
cannot be judged based only on its functional benefits. Measures of mind-wandering
imagination consisted of three statements as
follows: 1) When I look at the ad, I can dissociate myself and think of meanings for the
product other than those stated in the ad. 2)
The ad does not seem to be speaking to me
directly. 3) When I look at the ad, thoughts
unrelated to the product can easily creep in.
Measures of the cognitive properties
of attitude, affective properties of attitude,
and overall product attitude used a semantic
differential scale (1 to 7) with endpoints of
cognitive adjectives, affective adjectives, and
general evaluative terms for the cognitive
scale, the affective scale, and the product attitude scale respectively. Since the structural
characteristics of the measures (for example,
the response format of the measures) can be
confounded with the construct being measured, similar response formats were preferred to tease out the affective and cognitive
properties constituting the overall product attitudes (Crites, Jr., Fabrigar, and Petty, 1984).
Operationalization of these variables
followed Crites, Jr., Fabrigrar, and Petty’s
(1984), Edelland Burke’s (1987) and Trafimow and Sheeran’s (1998) work as follows.
The cognitive scale word pairs were: ineffective/effective, unbelievable/believable,
and useless/useful. The affective properties of attitude used were: not excited/excited, not inspired/inspired, not enjoyable/

Dewi and Ang

enjoyable. The affective scales required the
subject to: “attend to the feelings that you
have towards the product and indicate how
the product makes you feel.” Whereas for
measuring the overall product attitude, the
assessment used three pairs of very general
evaluative terms that do not describe affective states or traits of the object’s attitude.
The participants were presented with the
stem “Having considered your thoughts and
feelings toward the product, what is your
overall rating for the product?” They responded by circling one of the 1 to 7 numbers with endpoints labeled bad/good, dislikeable/likeable, and pleasant/unpleasant.
Although this study proposes that the
nature of the product (hedonic or utilitarian)
and situational factors (that is, the ad execution) can influence imagination elicitation, we
recognize that the tendency to imagine varies
amongst individuals. Although such a difference is not an innate characteristic, Swanson
(1978) contended that corresponding with
the environment/education in which an individual in nurtured, some individuals are
more open to imagining experiences. Therefore, this study held the tendency to imagine
as a covariate when measuring the elicitation
of the four imagination types. Tendency to
imagine was measured by adopting Swanson’s (1978) absorbing experience scale.

Control Variables
The control variables were measured
to rule out other explanations, besides the
manipulated variables, accounting for the
subjects’ responses toward the stimulus materials. This study identified two variables
– that is, ad attitude and product involvement, which can confound the dependent
variables’ measures. Past research indicates

that ad attitude influences product attitude
(Mitchell and Olson, 1981). Therefore, this
study checked the ads’ equality in favorability. Measures for the ad attitude were adopted from those of Edell and Burke (1987). As
well, given that past research suggests that
product involvement influences the types of
information processing (Petty and Cacioppo,
1986), this confound check was to ensure
that differences in product involvement level
were not the factor which explained the subjects’ affective and cognitive properties of
attitude. Measures for product involvement
were adopted from the Personal Involvement
Inventory (PII) scale (Zaichkowsky, 1985).

Manipulation Check
To verify that significant differences in
the perceptions of the ads’ abstractness existed, this study included three measures of
ads’ abstractness. These measures stem from
the abstract/concrete picture characteristics implied in Lindaeur’s research (1983).
As part of the overall evaluation of the ads,
the participants rated the ad’s abstractness
on a 1 to 7 scale anchored by concrete/abstract (reverse coded), difficult to visualize/
easy to visualize, and not lifelike/lifelike.

Results and Discussion
Control and Manipulation Check
Items
The ANOVA results (see Table 1)
showed that hedonic products’ advertising
vs utilitarian products’ advertising were perceived equal in advertisement attitude and involvement. As well, the subjects’ perceptions
of the abstract vs concrete ads were equal in
terms of the ad attitude and involvement.
129

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - May-August, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2020

As a manipulation check, the subjects’ perceptions of the ads’ concreteness
were measured. Results verified that the abstract vs concrete ads were perceived as intended. As shown in Table 1, the concrete
ads’ concreteness score was significantly different from that of the abstract ads.

Dependent Variables
The two hypotheses proposed are about
the main effect of hedonic vs utilitarian product types and the main effect of abstract vs
concrete advertising execution. The hypotheses were tested using a 2x2 analysis of covariance with the tendency to imagine as a
covariate for measuring the elicitation of the
four imagination types, and product attitude
as a covariate for measuring the affect-based
and cognition-based attitudes. Tendency to
imagine was held as a covariate to ascertain
that individuals’ differences were not the
source of different levels of imagination elicitation. The researcher also treated product
attitude as a covariate since the present study
examines the cognitive and affective component of attitude. While product attitude may
involve cognitive and affective components
in a variety of combination (Edwards, 1990;

Ad Attitude
Involvement
Ad Concreteness

Hypotheses 1a to 1f examined the effects of hedonic vs utilitarian products on
imagination elicitation. These hypotheses
also served as an assessment for the imagination scale’s (Dewi and Ang, 2015) nomological validity, where hedonic products, compared to utilitarian products, are expected to
generally generate more imagination since
an evaluation of hedonic products involves
imagination and affect (Babin et al., 1994; Batra and Ahtola, 1990; Chandon et al., 1998;
Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook
and Hirschman, 1982; Kempf, 1999; Mano
and Oliver, 1993; Spangenberg et al., 1997).
Hypotheses 2a to 2f pertain to the examination of the effects of concrete vs abstract
ad execution, where the latter ad execution
was predicted to generally elicit more imagination. Stemming from Lindaeur’s (1983)
contention that abstract stimuli will elicit
more imagination, these hypotheses serve as
a nomological validity check for the imagination scale as well as an attempt to examine
the distinction of imagination from imagery.

Effects of Product Type
Hypotheses 1a and 1b proposed the
main effect of hedonic vs utilitarian prod-

Table 1. Manipulation Check Items: Cell Means and ANOVA Results
Cell Means
ANOVA Results
Product Type
Ad Execution
Hedonic ProdUtilitarian
Abstract
Concrete
Product
Ad
uct Ads
Product Ads
Ads
Ads
Type
Execution
Fscore
Fscore
4.31
4.36
4.37
4.33
0.087
0.133
4.33
4.38
4.30
4.43
0.113
0.616
2.55
4.58
193.44***

Note: *** = significant at the 0.01 level

Zajonc, 1980), the present study is interested
in measuring the cognitive vis-à-vis the affective basis of attitude, but not the overall attitude (which may vary between individuals).

130

ucts, where hedonic products were hypothesized to evoke more benefit-anticipatory
imagination, more emotional-bonding imagi-

Dewi and Ang

nation, more symbolic imagination, and more
mind-wandering imagination. People’s attitudes towards hedonic products, compared
with utilitarian products, were also predicted
to be less cognitive but more affect-based.
As shown in Table 2, measures of the
dependent variables showed a significant
main effect for different product types. Hedonic products vs utilitarian products generated significant differences in terms of
benefit-anticipatory imagination, emotional-bonding imagination, symbolic imagination, and mind-wandering imagination.
Significant differences were also found in
terms of the cognition-based attitude and affect-based attitude. Accordingly, the empirical findings supported Hypotheses 1a to 1f.

Effects of Advertising Execution
The nature of stimuli is argued as one
aspect to distinguish imagination vis-à-vis

and elicitation of the four types of imagination. Based on the contention that less concreteness (or more abstractness) provides
more “freedom” to interpret, we expected that the four types of imagination and
the concreteness of stimuli would demonstrate a negative relationship. That is, less
concrete stimuli elicit more imagination.
Secondly, we tested Hypotheses 2a to
2f which were based on the prediction that
concrete ads vs abstract ads generate more
emotional-bonding imagination, symbolic
imagination, mind-wandering imagination,
less cognition but more affect-based attitude.
However, we proposed that the effect of concrete vs ad execution on benefit-anticipatory
imagination would be different. That is, both
elicit a similar level of this imagination type.
For testing the first contention on the
negative relation between concreteness of
ad execution and imagination elicitation, we
constructed a path model testing the rela-

Table 2. Product Type Effects: Cell Means and ANCOVA Results
Cell Means
ANCOVA Results
Product Type
Hedonic
Utilitarian
Product
Covariates
Product
Product
Type
Product AttiTendency to
Ads
Ads
Fscore
tude
Imagine
Benefit-anticipatory Imagination
4.21
3.77
6.65**
0.079
Emotional-bonding Imagination
4.36
3.99
5.98**
0.008
Symbolic Imagination
5.00
3.41
126.17***
4.64
Mind-wandering Imagination
4.60
3.89
58.61***
5.65
Cognition
3.50
4.40
47.59***
0.064
Affect
4.58
4.14
9.80***
0.380
Note: ** = significant at the 0.05 level; ***= significant at the 0.01 level

imagery. That is, while concrete stimuli are
conducive for imagery elicitation (Alesandrini and Sheikh, 1983), the researcher proposes that less concrete stimuli facilitate
imagination elicitation (Lindaeur, 1983).
Therefore, we first examined the relationship between abstract and concrete ads

tionship between the variables (see Figure
1). Such a model showed an adequate model
fit of 0.941 (GFI), 0.963 (NFI), 0.965 (CFI),
chi-square value = 114.042, and p = 0.007.

Table 3a depicts the results of the test
suggesting the negative significant relationships between the four types of imagina131

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - May-August, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2020

Figure 1. Imagination types and concreteness of stimuli

tion and the concreteness of stimulus. This
confirms the hypothesis that imagination is
elicited in a situation, or by stimuli which induce freedom to interpret, but does not induce an analytical mind-set (Hamlyn, 1994;
Lindaeur, 1983). Further, we provide more

nation, less cognition-based attitude, and
more affect-based attitude. Table 3b depicts the results of such hypotheses testing.
The results showed that the entire Hypotheses 2 on the effects of abstract ads vs
concrete ads was supported. Hypothesis 2a

Table 3a. Covariances Between Imagination Types and Concreteness of Stimuli

Pairs of Variables
Benefit-anticipatory Imagination
Emotional-bonding Imagination
Symbolic Imagination
Mind-wandering Imagination

Covariances
-0.338***
-0.267***
-0.511***
-0.250***

Note: ** = significant at the 0.05 level; ***= significant at the 0.01 level

evidence that imagination differs from imagery, in that the latter requires concrete
stimuli for its elicitation (Alesandrini and
Sheikh, 1983), whereas the later does not.
Meanwhile, comparing the effects
of abstract advertising vis-à-vis concrete
ads, we predicted that abstract ads would
elicit a similar level of benefit-anticipatory imagination to concrete ads, but more
emotional-bonding imagination, symbolic imagination, mind-wandering imagi132

which predicted an insignificant difference in
the elicitation of benefit-anticipatory imagination was supported by the data. Table 3b
also shows that abstract ads versus concrete
ads generated significant differences in the
elicitation of emotional-bonding imagination, symbolic imagination, mind-wandering
imagination, cognition-based attitude, and affect-based attitude. Accordingly, Hypotheses
2a to 2f were supported.

Dewi and Ang
Table 3b. Ad Execution Effects: Cell Means and ANCOVA Results
Cell Means
Ad Execution
Abstract Utilitarian
Ads
Ads
Benefit-anticipatory Imagination
Emotional-bonding Imagination
Symbolic Imagination
Mind-wandering Imagination
Cognition
Affect

4.05
4.36
4.50
4.26
3.77
4.89

3.93
3.98
3.91
3.83
4.12
3.82

ANCOVA Results
Ad Execution
Fscore
0.446
5.82**
17.68***
8.55***
6.97***
59.52***

Covariates
Product Attitude
Tendency to
Imagine
0.064
0.380

0.079
0.008
4.64**
5.65**
-

Note: ** = significant at the 0.05 level; ***= significant at the 0.01 level

Conclusion and Limitation
This study provided empirical evidence
for the imagination scale developed by Dewi
and Ang (2015). In the context of hedonic
and utilitarian products, the scale behaved
as expected in which hedonic vis-à-vis utilitarian products evoke more imagination
(Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook
and Hirschman, 1982; Spangenberg et al.,
1997). Empirical evidence also accounts for
the hedonic vs utilitarian product evaluation, which causes attitude formation to be
more affect-based or more cognition-based.
This study also provides empirical support for the contention that imagination is
facilitated by limiting the stimuli and less concrete stimuli, which induce more freedom for
interpretation (Lindaeur, 1983). Negative relationships were found between the concreteness of stimuli and the four imagination types.
However, the hypotheses formulated
in this study do not deal with the combined
effects of product type and advertising execution. Further study into the interaction effects of these two factors on the elicitation
of the four types of imagination will provide
evidence of the more salient factor influencing consumers’ processing. Consumers have

a relatively definite schema pertaining to how
a product is evaluated (Edell and Staelin,
1983; Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989). Holbrook and Moore (1981) argued that verbal
stimuli (and also visual appeals) will be processed depending on the consumers’ evaluative judgments about the product. That is,
consumers’ existing schema about a certain
product will firstly determine their product
perception. Then consumers will process advertising stimuli to come up with a product
evaluation. As a product can be more hedonic or utilitarian in nature, the consumers’ evaluative judgement depends primarily on the
product’s hedonic or utilitarian values. Each
will evoke different information processing
strategies, where the first involves a highly
subjective evaluation (for example, pertaining to the symbolic values of the product)
and the latter involves objective criteria. Although the use of abstract or concrete advertising stimuli will serve as cues for the consumers to respond to the stimuli in certain
ways (Burton and Lichtenstein, 1988; Edell
and Staelin, 1983), it is a less salient factor
compared to the product type. Still, the interaction effects of these two factors in eliciting each of the imagination types would
be an intriguing future research agenda.
133

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - May-August, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2020

Further, this study has not tested a link
between imagination elicitation and purchase intention. Such a link is worth noting
since purchase intention can be the proxy
to a real purchase (Hoch and Ha, 1986).
Research into the relationship between
purchase intention and imagination would
also provide further nomological validity
for the imagination scale since imagination
is defined as make-believe activity which
is future-oriented (Dewi and Ang, 2015).

References

Last but not least, there should be further nomological testing as well as application
studies undertaken to examine various advertising execution strategies and their comparative effectiveness at eliciting imagination.
The potential advertising execution strategies
to be studied are the transformational versus
informational, conclusion versus non-conclusion, and expected versus unexpected ads.

Abraham, Anna. 2014. The Imaginative Mind. Human Brain Mapping, 37, 4197–4211.
Abraham, Magid M. and Leonard M. Lodish. 1990. Getting the Most Out of Advertising and
Promotions. Harvard Business Review, 3 (May/June), 50-63.
Alesandrini, K. L., and A. A Sheikh. 1983. Research on imagery: Implications for advertising. In
Anees A. Sheikh (Ed), Imagery: Current theory, research, and application (pp. 135–147). New
York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Algom, D., and I. Lewin. 1981. An experimental cross- Validation of mental imagery.Imagination,
Cognition, and Personality, 1(1), 49–65.
Antrobus, J. S., J.L. Singer, and S. Greenberg. 1966. Studies in the stream of consciousness: Experimental enhancement and suppression of spontaneous cognitive processes. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 23, 397–417.
Babin, B. J., W.R. Darden, and M. Griffin. 1994. Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.
Batra, R., and O.T. Ahtola. 1990. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer
attitude. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159–170.
Breckler, S. J. and E.C. Wiggins. 1989. Affect versus evaluation in the structure of attitude. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(3), 253–271.
Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1191–1205.
Burton, S. and D.R. Lichtenstein. 1988. The effect of ad context on attitude toward the advertisement. Journal of Advertising, 17(1), 3–11.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B., and G. Laurent. 1998. Hedonic and utilitarian consumer benefits
of sales promotion. Working Paper. London: Centre for Marketing, London Business
School.
Crites, Jr., S. L., L.R. Fabrigar, and R.E. Petty. 1994. Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitude: A conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 20(6), 619–634.
Dewi, I. J. and S.H. Ang. 2001. Between imagination and reality: A study on the comparative effectiveness of advertising and product trial. In P. M. Tidwell, and T. E. Muller (Eds.), Asia
Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 1, 74–80, Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer
134

Dewi and Ang

Research.
--------(2015). The conceptualization and development of advertisement-evoked imagination
scale. Asia Marketing Journal, 17(2), 15–37.
Dhar, R., and K. Kertenbroch. 2000. Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods.
Journal of Marketing Research, XXXVII (February), 60–71.
Edell, J. A. and M.C. Burke. 1987. The power of feelings in understanding advertising effects.
Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 421–433.
Edell, J. A., and R. Staelin. 1983. The information processing of pictures in print advertisements,
Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 45–61.
Edell, Julie A. and Marian Chapman Burke. 1987. The Power of Feelings in Understanding Advertising Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 421-433.
Edwards, K. 1990. The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 202–216.
Fishbein, Martin. and I. Azjen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to
theory and research. MA: Addison Wesley.
Giorgi, Amedeo. 1987. Phenomenology and the research tradition in the psychology of the
imagination. In Edward L. Murray (Ed), Imagination and Phenomenological Psychology (pp.
126-136). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Hamlyn, D.W. 1994. Imagination. In S. Guttenplan (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of mind (pp.
361–365).Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Hirschman, E. C., and M.B. Holbrook. 1982. Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46 (3), 92–101.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C and Morris B. Holbrook. 1982. Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46 (Summer), 92-101.
Hoch, Stephen J. and Young-Won, Han. 1986. Consumer learning: advertising and the ambiguity
of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(September), 221-233.
Holbrook, M. B. and E.C. Hirschman. 1982. The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132–140.
Holbrook, M. B., and W.L. Moore. 1981. Feature interactions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (June), 404-420.
Janiszewski, Chris. 1990. The influence of print advertisement organization on affect toward a
brand name. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(June), 53–65.
Jenkins, Rebecca and Molesworth, Mike 2017. Conceptualizing Consumption in the Imagination: Relationships and Movements between Imaginative Forms and the Marketplace,
Marketing Theory, 18(3), 327-347.
Kempf, Deanna S. 1999. Attitude formation from product trial: distinct roles of cognition and
affect for hedonic and functional products. Psychology and Marketing, 16(1), 35–51.
Leopold, Claudia and Mayer, Richard. 2014. An Imagination Effect in Learning from Scientific
Text. Journal of Educational Psychology, June, 1-17.
Lindaeur, M. 1983. Imagery and the arts. In. A. A. Sheikh (Ed), Imagery: Current theory, research, and
application. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Mano, H., and R.L. Oliver. 1993. Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption experience: Evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3),
135

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - May-August, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2020

451–466.
Meyers-Levy, J., and A.M. Tybout. 1989. Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39–54.
Mitchell, A. A. and J.C. Olson. 1981. Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318–332.
Orbach, Mikulincer M.I. (1995). Attachment styles and repressive defensiveness: the accessibility
and architecture of affective memories, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5),
917-925.
Pearson, Joel, Naselaris, Thomas, Holmes, Emily A., and Kosslyn, Stephen M. 2015. Mental
Imagery: Functional Mechanisms and Clinical Applications. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
19(10), 590-602.
Petty, Richard E. and J.T. Cacioppo. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19 (December), 123-205.
Phillips, B.J. 2017. Consumer Imagination in Marketing: ATheoretical Framework, European
Journal of Marketing, 51 (11/12), 2138-2155.
Sartre, J.-P. (1972). The psychology of imagination. London, UK: Methuen and Co. Ltd.
Singer, J. L. (1975). The inner world of daydreaming. New York, NY: Harper and Row Publishers.
Smith, R. E. (1993). Integrating information from advertising and trial: processes and effects on
consumer response to product information. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 204–219.
Smith, R.E. and W.R. Swinyard. 1982. Information response model: an integrated approach.
Journal of Marketing, 46 (Winter), 81-93.
Spangenberg, E. R., K.E. Voss and A.E. Crowley. 1997. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian
dimensions of attitude: A generally applicable scale. In M. Brucks, and D. J. MacInnis
(Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 24 (pp. 235–241). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Sutherland, M. B. 1971. Everyday imagining and education. London, UK: Routledge.
Swanson, G. E. 1978. Travels through Inner space: Family structures and openness to absorbing
experiences. American Journal of Sociology, 83(4), 890–919.
Thomas, Nigel J.T. 2014. The Multidimensional Spectrum of Imagination: Images, Dreams,
Hallucinations, and Active, Imaginative Perception. Humanities, 3, 132–184.
Trafimow, David and P. Sheeran. 1998. Some tests of the distinction between cognitive and affective beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 378-397.
Unger, Lynette S. and Jerome B. Kernan. 1983. On the Meaning of Leisure: An Investigation
of Some Determinants of the Subjective Experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 9
(March), 381- 392.
Valkenburg, P. M. and T.H.A van der Voort. 1994. Influence of tv on daydreaming and creative
imagination: A review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 316–339.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3),
341–352.
Zajonc, R. B. 1980. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist,
35 (2), 151–175.

136