ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 29 (2008) 146150

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Virtual experience vs. brochures in the advertisement of scenic spots:

How cognitive preferences and order effects inuence advertising effects
on consumers
Wen-Bin Chioua,, Chin-Sheng Wanb, Hsin-Yi Leec
a

Center for Teacher Education Program, National Sun Yat-Sen University, 70, Lien-Hai Road, Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan, ROC
b
General Education Center, National Kaohsiung Hospitality College, 1, Sung-Ho Rd., Kaohsiung 812, Taiwan, ROC
c
Graduate School of Business Administration, National Chiayi University, Chiayi 580, Taiwan, ROC
Received 4 August 2006; received in revised form 8 March 2007; accepted 20 March 2007

Abstract
Virtual experience has begun to play a signicant role in the marketing and promotion for the tourism industry. This article
demonstrates that the advertising effects of traditional brochures vs. virtual experience would be contingent on consumers cognitive
preferences. The traditional use of brochures in advertising would be more effective for verbalizers, whereas the virtual experience mode
would be more effective for visualizers. Under a hybrid of the two advertising modes, a recency effect was found indicating that the
subsequent or more recently experienced advertising mode would generate a greater impact. Moreover, the recency effect of traditional
brochures was more apparent for verbalizers, whereas the recency effect of virtual experience was more pronounced for visualizers. The
ndings provide insights into the contingent use of traditional brochures, the use of virtual experience, and the use of hybrid advertising.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Advertising effect; Cognitive preference; Order effects; Virtual experience

1. Introduction
Traditionally, advertising has been dened as a form of
controlled communication that attempts to persuade
consumers, using strategies and appeals, to buy or use a
particular product or service (Deeur & Dennis, 1996). It is
becoming abundantly clear that the media environment
into which advertising is placed is changing, and because of
this trend, the nature of advertising is changing as well.
Many new channels of mass communication were developed during the latter part of the 20th century that exposed
the public to an ever-increasing number of mediated
messages (Fitzgerald, 1999; Lombard et al., 1997).
Tourism and leisure have become prevalent activities in
modern life. With the rapid expansion of the tourism
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 7 5252000 5884;
fax: +886 7 5255892.
E-mail addresses: wbchiou@mail.nsysu.edu.tw (W.-B. Chiou),
won@mail.nkhc.edu.tw (C.-S. Wan), jennyhylee@gmail.com (H.-Y. Lee).

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.03.016

market, people have used multiple channels to gain travel

information. People may have received tour information
from relatives, friends, brochures, or travel agents in the
past. However, through the progress of media technology
in recent years, most consumers can now view the photos
and read information about scenic spots through the
Internet in order to experience the sights in advance (Klein,
1998). Traditionally, most tourism-oriented industries
used brochures to promote travel-related products (Holloway & Plant, 1992; Yamamoto & Gill, 1999), but
brochures can only supply short and limited introductions.
Direct product experiences have consistently been shown to
lead to stronger beliefs and attitudes than advertising
(Marks & Kamins, 1988; Smith & Swinyard, 1988). More
and more industries (e.g., hotels, exhibitions and travel
destinations) now provide virtual experience, such as
panoramic views, animation, and interactive photos, so
that consumers can get a direct experience without actually
being there. Clearly, virtual experience does more for the
tourism industry than does just print information; virtual

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.-B. Chiou et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 146150

experience actually gives consumers the chance to get a feel

of their travel destinations on the Internet. Therefore, the
preferred medium for advertising scenic spots has gradually
turned from the traditional brochure to virtual experience
(Fang & Lie, 2006).
2. Review of literature and hypotheses
2.1. Cognitive preference as a moderator
Previous studies on virtual experience have focused
mostly on how virtual experience affects consumers (Li,
Daugherty, & Biocca, 2001). However, consumer researchers have been increasingly interested in how cognitive
personality factors inuence various aspects of consumer
behavior. One cognitive personality factor in particular,
cognitive preference (visualizers vs. verbalizers), has been
useful in understanding selected aspects of consumer
behavior (Paivio, 1991). Cognitive preference refers to an
individuals style of or inclination in information processing, which is closely related to personal preference but not
to intellectuality (Riding & Douglas, 1993). In principle,
cognitive personality research classies consumers into two
groups: visualizers (consumers who prefer visual information and products that stress the visual, such as membership in a videotape club) or verbalizers (consumers who
prefer written or verbal information and products, such as
membership in book clubs or audiotape clubs).
To compare the effects of visualizing and verbalizing
styles on memory, previous studies have supported the idea
that people differ in their predisposition to remember
details from verbal or visual information (Riding &
Ashmore, 1980; Riding, Burton, Rees, & Sharratt, 1995).
Some people use fewer images and rely mostly on verbal
material, whereas others remember better from visual
material (Riding & Douglas, 1993). Because of the
differences in the consumers cognitive preferences, marketers should consider how cognitive preference moderates
the effects of verbal and visual materials, so that they may
know what mode of advertising to choose in order to
achieve better advertising results. The ndings about the
moderating effect of consumers cognitive preferences on
advertising effects may provide further insights into the
interplay of cognitive preference and advertising mode
(virtual experience vs. traditional brochure). More specically, it was predicted that visualizers, when compared with
verbalizers, would be more inuenced by virtual experience
than by traditional brochures. On the other hand,
verbalizers, when compared with visualizers, would be
more affected by traditional brochures than by virtual
experience.
2.2. The order effect and hybrid advertising using both
brochures and virtual experience
Researchers in marketing, psychology, and many other
disciplines have identied two types of order effects in

147

belief updating: primacy and recency (Haugtvedt &

Wegener, 1994; Hogarth & Einhorn, 1992). Generally, an
order effect exists when an outcome, based on a xed set of
phenomena, varies with the order in which the phenomena
occur. Primacy is obtained when the relative weight
accorded to the rst piece of the evidences is the greatest.
Recency is obtained when the relative weight accorded to
the last piece of the evidences is the greatest.
Previous researchers (Haugtvedt & Wegener, 1994;
Hogarth & Einhorn, 1992) have stated that the presentation order of advertising information would affect consumers information processing. The primacy effect refers
to previous information exhibiting greater effect than
subsequent information, whereas the recency effect refers
to subsequent information generating greater effect than
earlier information (Curtis & Duane, 1994). Therefore,
when marketers in the tourism industry advertise products
by adopting both virtual experience and brochures, they
should consider message order effects. Moreover, the order
effect would be contingent on consumers cognitive
preferences, under the hypothesis that depicts the interplay
of advertising mode and cognitive preference.
The rst study generally examined whether the differential advertising effects between virtual experience and
traditional brochures would be contingent on consumers
cognitive preferences. The second study, aimed to determine whether the cognitive preferences of consumers would
inuence the order effects when virtual experience and
traditional brochures were used consecutively in advertising scenic spots.
3. Experiment 1
3.1. Participants and design
In the recruitment of participants, Singh, Lessig, Kim,
Gupta, and Hocutt (2000) suggested that the effects of
advertising on students and the common masses are
similar. Hence, it was appropriate to use college students
as participants in this research. In Study 1, the Ping-Tung
Indigenous People Cultural Park in Taiwan was used as the
advertising target. Respondents were 104 college students
who participated in a 2 (cognitive preference: verbalizers
vs. visualizers)  2 (advertising mode: traditional brochure
vs. virtual experience) between-subjects design.
3.2. Independent variables
Cognitive preference was treated as a subject variable in
this experimental study. The verbal and visual cognitive
styles scales (CSS) developed by Kirby, Moore, and
Schoeld (1988) were not employed in the present research,
because this self-report measure is relatively subjective.
Participants cognitive preference was determined by a
free recall task that was designed to differentiate their
relative advantage in information processing between
visual items and verbal items. Participants recall rate

ARTICLE IN PRESS
148

W.-B. Chiou et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 146150

regarding the visual- and verbal-item task was used to

represent their relative advantage in processing visual or
verbal information.
For the classication of consumers cognitive preferences, participants whose recall rate in the visual-item task
was higher than that in the verbal-item task by at least half
of the standard deviation of rate differences were placed in
the visualizers group, whereas participants who performed better in the verbal-item task were placed in the
verbalizers group. Those participants who did not show
a signicant rate difference between the two kinds of recall
tasks were excluded from the subject pool. Among the
participants, there were 52 verbalizers and 52 visualizers.
The contrasted-group method was used to test whether the
recall task was valid to discriminate between participants
cognitive preferences. The visualizers (M 3.46, SD
0.92) scored higher on the visual subscale of the CCS with a
ve-point scale than did the verbalizers (M 2.44,
SD 0.80), with t(102) 6.03, po0.001. In contrast, the
verbalizers (M 3.63, SD 0.82) scored higher on the
verbal subscale of the CCS than did the visualizers
(M 2.56, SD 0.85), with t(102) 6.59, po0.01. Results showed that the recall task employed in the present
research was satisfactory for measuring participants
cognitive preferences.
The advertising mode was manipulated between subjects.
Both verbalizers and visualizers were randomly assigned to
either the traditional brochure condition or the virtual
experience condition. Half of the participants received the
virtual experience advertising, whereas the other half
received the traditional brochure advertising.

seven-point scale (from totally disagree to totally agree).

The purchase intent that consisted of three items was
measured on a seven-point scale (from totally disagree to
totally agree). After viewing the ad, participants were asked
to rate the advertising effect on the three scales. High
scores represent greater advertising attitude, brand attitude, and purchase intent.
3.4. Results
To test our hypotheses, participants responses were
submitted to a 2 (cognitive preference: verbalizers vs.
visualizers)  2 (advertising mode: brochure vs. virtual
experience) between-subjects MANOVA (Table 1).
The main effect of the advertising mode was obtained,
F(3, 98) 4.18, po0.01. The advertising effect under the
virtual experience mode was signicantly greater than that
under the traditional brochure mode. More importantly,
MANOVA revealed a signicant interaction of cognitive
preference and advertising mode, F(3, 98) 22.66, po
0.001. For the participants who were visualizers, the
advertising effect of virtual experience was more prominent
than that of traditional brochure, F(3, 48) 9.17,
po0.001. On the other hand, the advertising effect of
traditional brochures was more pronounced than that of
virtual experience for those who were verbalizers,
F(3, 48) 19.93, po0.001.
4. Experiment 2
4.1. Methodology

3.3. Dependent measures

The dependent measure was the advertising effect as
determined by the advertising attitude scale developed by
Gardner (1985), the brand attitude scale developed by
Lafferty and Goldsmith (1999), and the purchase intent
scale developed by McKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986).
Both the advertising attitude scale and the brand attitude
scale that consisted of four items each were rated on a

In the second study, respondents were 136 college

students who participated in this study for course credit.
They were assigned to a 2 (cognitive preference: visualizers
vs. verbalizers)  2 (presentation order: virtual experience
followed by traditional brochure vs. traditional brochure
followed by virtual experience) between-subjects design.
Among the participants were 52 verbalizers and 84
visualizers.

Table 1
Advertising effect of cognitive preference by advertising mode
Cognitive preference by advertising mode

Advertising effect
Advertising attitude

Brand attitude

Purchase intent

SD

SD

SD

Verbalizers (n 52)
Traditional brochure
Virtual experience

5.13
3.86

0.83
0.95

4.89
4.19

1.02
0.81

5.04
4.41

1.08
1.15

Visualizers (n 52)
Traditional brochure
Virtual experience

3.81
4.95

0.70
0.84

3.84
5.22

0.68
0.78

4.00
5.64

0.96
0.93

Note: Each experimental condition consisted of 26 participants. Advertising attitude, brand attitude, and purchase intent were all rated on a seven-point
scale.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.-B. Chiou et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 146150

Participants cognitive preferences were determined by the

same method used in the rst study. The presentation order
was manipulated between subjects. Half of the participants
received the traditional brochures followed by the virtual
experience mode, whereas the other half received the two
advertising modes in the opposite order. The dependent
measures were similar to those employed in the rst study.
4.2. Results
To examine whether the advertising effect would depend
on the interaction of presentation order and cognitive
preference, participants responses were submitted to a 2
(cognitive preference: visualizers vs. verbalizers)  2 (presentation order: virtual experience followed by traditional
brochure vs. traditional brochure followed by virtual
experience) MANOVA (Table 2).
The main effect of the presentation order was signicant,
F(3, 130) 3.52, po0.05. The advertising effect under the
traditional brochure followed by virtual experience condition
was greater than that under the virtual experience followed by
traditional brochure condition. Results revealed that the
subsequent advertising mode (i.e., virtual experience) exhibited greater advertising effect than the previous advertising
mode (i.e., traditional brochure). This further indicated that,
in hybrid advertising, the recency effect might generate a
greater impact than the primacy effect. Moreover, a
signicant interaction of cognitive preference and presentation order was found, F(3, 130) 16.46, po0.001. For
participants who were verbalizers, the advertising effect under
the virtual experience followed by traditional brochure
condition was greater than that under the traditional
brochure followed by virtual experience condition, F(3, 48)
3.66, po0.05. Among visualizers, the advertising effect under
the traditional brochure followed by virtual experience
condition was greater than that under the virtual experience
followed by traditional brochure condition, F(3, 48) 20.59,
po0.001.
Table 2
Advertising effect of cognitive preference by the presentation order of
hybrid advertising
Cognitive
preference by
presentation
order

Advertising effect
Advertising
attitude

Brand attitude

Purchase intent

SD

SD

SD

Verbalizers (n 52)
TBVR
4.23
VRTB
4.77

0.64
0.82

4.21
4.76

0.67
0.84

4.45
5.08

1.05
1.07

Visualizers (n 84)
TBVR
5.31
VRTB
3.87

0.85
0.89

5.29
4.28

0.87
0.94

5.41
4.41

0.92
1.14

Note: TB, traditional brochure; VR, virtual experience. Advertising

attitude, brand attitude, and purchase intent were all measured on a
seven-point scale.

149

5. Concluding comments
In principle, verbalizers tend to use fewer images, but
rely mostly on verbal material, whereas visualizers tend to
remember better from visual material and not from verbal
material. The ndings of the rst study were in accordance
with the predictions. The results also suggest that
consumers who are verbalizers would more likely be
affected by the ads with traditional brochure, whereas
those who are visualizers would more likely be inuenced
by the ads with virtual experience.
In the second study, the results rst indicated that the
recency effect was more prominent than the primacy effect
when hybrid advertising was employed. This nding was
consistent with a classical study conducted by Insko (1964).
Thus, when receivers were asked to rate their responses
immediately after a hybrid presentation, the recency effect
was more apparent. Furthermore, the second study also
revealed that the advertising effect was greater for
verbalizers when the subsequent advertising mode was
traditional brochure, whereas the advertising effect was
greater for visualizers when the subsequent advertising
mode was virtual experience. Thus, it suggests that in
hybrid advertising, the recency effect would depend on
participants cognitive preferences. In the practice of
contemporary marketing, potential tourists are likely to
be subjected to both advertising modes. Future research
may investigate the complementarity of the different modes
of advertising.
In conclusion, the ndings showed that consumers
cognitive preferences played a critical role in determining
the advertising effect of virtual experience vs. traditional
brochures. A match hypothesis that refers to the congruence between the advertising mode and consumers
cognitive preferences was supported by the research
ndings. Furthermore, the ndings in the second study
suggest that when marketers want to employ both virtual
experience and traditional brochures in advertising their
products, the virtual experience mode should be presented
to visually oriented consumers after the traditional
brochure mode, whereas the traditional brochure mode
should be introduced after the virtual experience mode for
verbally oriented consumers.
It should be noted that there are limitations to the
present research. First, participants in the present research
were Taiwanese college students. Future research may
employ multiple samples with different demographic
backgrounds to expand the external validity of the
arguments addressed in this article. Second, the advertising
effects assessed in this article were self-report measurements that focused on attitudes and purchase intent.
However, recognition and recall, which are commonly
used as indicators of advertising effectiveness (Singh &
Churchill, 1987), may also determine the presence of the
advertising effects. Future research may examine the
advertising effects by adopting this measurement approach. Finally, only one scenic spot was employed to test

ARTICLE IN PRESS
150

W.-B. Chiou et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 146150

the hypotheses in this research. Future research may utilize

different types of scenic spots and examine whether the
advertising effects of traditional brochures vs. virtual
experience would be contingent upon the types of scenic
spots involved.
In sum, this article enhances our understanding of the
usage of virtual experience in advertising products in the
tourism industry. Consumers cognitive preferences might
interact with the advertising modes to determine the
advertising effects. Marketers may benet from the
applications of the ndings observed in the present
research, particularly when deciding on the appropriate
presentation order of hybrid advertising according to the
interplay of consumers cognitive preferences and advertising modes.
References
Curtis, P. H., & Duane, T. W. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion:
An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2),
205218.
DeFleur, M. L., & Dennis, E. E. (1996). Understanding mass communication. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifin Company.
Fang, C. L., & Lie, T. (2006). Assessment of internet marketing and
competitive strategies for leisure farming industry in Taiwan. Journal
of American Academy of Business, 8(2), 296300.
Fitzgerald, K. (1999). Picking through the clutter, MediaCom bids for
awless. Advertising Age, 70(8), 2.
Gardner, M. P. (1985). Dose attitude toward the ad affect brand attitude
under a brand evaluation set. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2),
192198.
Haugtvedt, C. P., & Wegener, D. T. (1994). Message order effects in
persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer
Research, 21(1), 205218.
Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating:
The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 155.
Holloway, J. C., & Plant, R. V. (1992). Marketing for tourism (2nd ed.).
London: Pitman.
Insko, C. H. (1964). Primacy vs. recency in persuasion as a function of the
timing of argument and measures. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 64(4), 621623.

Kirby, J. R., Moore, P. J., & Schoeld, N. J. (1988). Verbal and visual
learning styles. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 169184.
Klein, L. (1998). Evaluating the potential of interactive media through a
new lens: Search vs. experience goods. Journal of Business Research,
41(3), 195203.
Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). Corporate credibilitys role in
consumers attitude and purchase intentions when a high versus a low
credibility endorser is used in the ad. Journal of Business Research,
44(2), 109116.
Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2001). Characteristics of virtual
experience in electronic commerce: A protocol analysis. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 1330.
Lombard, M., Snyder, J., Campanella, C., Kaynak, M. S., Pemrick, J.,
Linder et al. (1997). The cluttering of television. In Paper presented at
the Mass Communication division at the Annual conference of the
international communication association, Montreal, Canada.
Marks, L., & Kamins, M. (1988). The use of product sampling and
advertising: Effects of sequence of exposure. Journal of Marketing
Research, 25, 266282.
Mckenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude
toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of
competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2),
130143.
Paivio, A. (1991). Images in mind: The evolution of a theory. New York:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Riding, R. J., & Ashmore, J. (1980). Verbaliserimager learning style and
childrens recall of information presented in pictorial versus written
form. Educational Studies, 6, 141145.
Riding, R. J., Burton, D., Rees, G., & Sharratt, M. (1995). Cognitive style
and personality in 12-year-old children. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 65, 113124.
Riding, R. J., & Douglas, G. (1993). The effect of cognitive style and mode
of presentation on learning performance. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 63, 297307.
Singh, S. N., & Churchill, G. A. (1987). Response-bias-free recognition
tests to measure advertising effects. Journal of Advertising Research,
27(3), 2336.
Singh, S. N., Lessig, V. P., Kim, D., Gupta, R., & Hocutt, M. A. (2000).
Does your ad have too many pictures? Journal of Advertising Research,
40(1), 1127.
Smith, R. E., & Swinyard, W. R. (1988). Cognitive response to advertising
and trial: Belief strength, belief condence and product curiosity.
Journal of Advertising, 17(3), 314.
Yamamoto, D., & Gill, A. M. (1999). Emerging trends in Japanese
package tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), 134143.