Effects of Outdoor Advertising:

Does Location Matter?

Rick T. Wilson
Hofstra University

Brian D. Till
Saint Louis University

ABSTRACT

The growth and success of outdoor advertising is in large part due to

the medium’s ability to reach an increasingly elusive and mobile con-
sumer. However, this success has come with a price. Public pressure
and regulation have begun to eliminate or curtail many outdoor
advertising locations, leading practitioners to question the effective-
ness of the remaining outdoor advertising sites. Using associative
learning techniques, these studies investigate what effect, if any, the
environment in which outdoor advertising appears has on the atti-
tudes, beliefs, and purchase intent of the advertised brand. The results
of four experiments presented here suggest that the background envi-
ronment does not impact advertising effectiveness, and practitioner
concern of such may be unfounded. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

In today’s world of fragmented media and advertising-avoidance technology,

outdoor advertising plays an important role in allowing advertisers to reach
the increasingly elusive and mobile consumer. In fact, outdoor advertising was
up 7% in 2007 and is growing faster than most traditional media (OAAA, 2008).
Fueling the growth are the likes of city planners who hope to reenergize and
make trendy portions of their downtowns, similar to what has been accom-
plished in New York City’s Times Square and London’s Piccadilly Circus
(McBride, 2004; Williamson, 2004). Advertisers, too, are using specific outdoor
advertising locations to associate their brand with the image of an area.

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 28(9): 909–933 (September 2011)

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20418
909
For example, L’Oreal Paris acquired a long-term contract for an outdoor ad in
Toronto’s premier shopping district to reinforce the brand’s high-quality and
chic image with the consumer (Wood, 2003). In these cases, outdoor advertising
is seen as a beacon of hope for crumbling city centers or as a method to reinforce
a product’s image. While placing outdoor advertising in an upscale area may be
appropriate given a brand’s target audience, does the simple association of the
brand with the outdoor location enhance perceptions of the brand?
Yet for all the apparent success outdoor advertising is having, the medium
is under increasing pressure from regulators and the public to limit or cur-
tail the presence of advertising in urban centers and around scenic vistas
(McBride, 2007). Indeed, many of the outdoor advertising locations remain-
ing in most cities and rural areas have been relegated to commercial or indus-
trial zoned areas (Taylor & Taylor, 1994), which can often be aesthetically
displeasing, prone to graffiti, or overgrown with weeds and/or debris. With
increasing regulatory and public pressure to limit the growth and spread of
outdoor advertising, many advertisers, agencies, and outdoor plant owners
have questioned whether the remaining outdoor advertising sites are as effec-
tive as the ones that regulators are trying to eliminate (Hendery, 2007). Is
brand image at risk from outdoor placements in these somewhat gritty and
grimy venues?
So it appears that outdoor advertising is seen as a savior by some and a blight
on the rural and urban landscape by others. Therefore, this research considers
what effect, planned or inadvertent, the associations of these less than ideal
locations (e.g., due to regulatory and public pressure) or highly desirable loca-
tions (e.g., due to image-enhancing benefits) might have on brand attitude,
brand beliefs, or purchase intent. The four studies here are designed to under-
stand the impact that the environment in which outdoor advertising appears has
on the purchase intent, attitudes, and beliefs about the brand. Does location
matter? Does the environment the outdoor ad appears in affect responses to
the brand?
This research is grounded in the theoretical frameworks of associative learn-
ing and classical conditioning; of specific interest is the extent to which feelings
(positive or negative) about the background context and environment in which
outdoor advertising appears affect feelings and evaluations of the advertised
brand. Associative learning is a vibrant framework that has often been used to
understand how stimuli in a marketing or advertising context impacts brand atti-
tudes, beliefs, and purchase intent (Kim, Lim, & Bhargava, 1998; Mitchell, 1986;
Priluck & Till, 1998; Shimp, Stuart, & Engle, 1991). However, with the excep-
tion of a few studies concerning music (Bierley, McSweeney, & Vannieuwkerk,
1985; Blair & Shimp, 1992; Gorn, 1982), none appear to have a broader context
in which brands may be featured. Thus the contribution of this research is
twofold. First, this research will provide some insight into the practical ques-
tion of industry concern regarding the impact of placing outdoor advertising in
specific locations. Second, these studies extend previous associative learning
research by using stimuli external to the boundaries of the advertising itself in
order to assess the extent to which positive or negative stimuli affect brand
evaluations. Presented here are four studies collectively designed to examine the
extent to which the background location in which an outdoor ad appears may
affect how people respond to the brand.

910 WILSON AND TILL

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

Outdoor Advertising
Despite its smaller contribution to the overall spending within the advertising
industry, outdoor advertising is becoming of greater importance to practitioners
due to its ability to reach consumers who are very mobile and exposed less fre-
quently to traditional forms of media (Francese, 2003). Within academia, how-
ever, outdoor advertising has not received as much attention as more “mainstream”
media such as TV. Those studies that have focused on outdoor advertising tend
to use measures of advertising effectiveness such as recall and recognition (Donthu,
Cherian, & Bhargava, 1993; Fitts & Hewett, 1977; King & Tinkham, 1989;
Wilson & Till, 2008), attitudes (Shavitt, Vargas, & Lowrey, 2004), prevalence of alco-
hol and tobacco (Lee & Callcott, 1994), and audience measurement (Bloom, 2000).
As a growing medium, outdoor advertising has faced considerable public
scrutiny. The major issues surrounding outdoor advertising are that it is said to
be aesthetically displeasing, that it acts as an unsafe distraction for motorists,
and that it displays objectionable products (Taylor & Taylor, 1994). As a result
of these criticisms, laws such as the 1965 Highway Beautification Act and the
Bonus Act—part of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1958—have attempted to
address the issue of roadside clutter, while the industry has pursued self-
regulation to curb the prevalence of advertising harmful products such as alco-
hol and tobacco (Taylor & Chang, 1995). Regarding safety, however, there has not
been any credible research linking outdoor advertising to traffic accidents
(Taylor, 1997).

Associative Learning
Associative learning, and more specifically classical conditioning, is a potentially
useful theoretical platform for understanding how the environment in which
outdoor advertising appears may influence consumer attitudes. Classical condi-
tioning involves the association between a conditioned stimulus (CS; i.e., brands)
and an unconditioned stimulus (US; i.e., celebrity endorsers), and, through their
association, the CS will bring about a conditioned response (CR) that is typi-
cally, but not necessarily, similar to the unconditioned response (UR) stemming
from the US itself (Shimp, 1991). While initially used in a non-advertising con-
text (e.g., Staats & Staats, 1958), classical conditioning has been successfully
used within the realm of advertising covering such topics as cognition or beliefs
toward the brand (Kim, Allen, & Kardes, 1996), affect toward the ad and/or brand
(Gresham & Shimp, 1985; Mitchell, 1986), attention to the brand (Janiszewski & War-
lop, 1993), purchase intent (Allen & Madden, 1985; Gorn, 1982), private label effects
(Till & Priluck, 2000), brand gender perceptions (Till & Priluck, 2001), celebrity
endorsers (Till, Stanley, & Priluck, 2008), and the effectiveness of product place-
ments (Schemer et al., 2008). Within these advertising studies, a variety of uncon-
ditioned stimuli have been used to elicit a conditioned response, including music
(Gorn, 1982), humor (Allen & Madden, 1985), pictures of scenic vistas (Priluck &
Till, 1998; Shimp, Stuart, & Engle, 1991), pictures of kittens (Kim, Lim, &
Bhargava, 1998), scenes of people having fun (Janiszewski & Warlop, 1993),
celebrities (Till, Stanley, & Priluck, 2008), affectively valenced advertising (Gre-
sham & Shimp, 1985), and rap music artists (Schemer et al., 2008).

EFFECTS OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: DOES LOCATION MATTER? 911

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
STUDY 1

To investigate potential deleterious effects that undesirable locations may have

on attitudes toward brands, this research employs associative learning proto-
cols by exposing subjects to outdoor advertising (brand featured on billboard) with
positively and negatively valenced environment backgrounds. Associative learn-
ing is a perspective that has been successfully employed in a number of adver-
tising and consumer behavior contexts (Mitchell, 1986; Mitchell & Olson, 1981;
Priluck & Till, 1998; Shimp, Stuart, & Engle, 1991; Stuart, Shimp, & Engle,
1987; Till & Priluck, 2000).
For example, Mitchell’s 1986 study used positively, negatively, and neutrally
valenced pictures consisting of a sunrise, a wildcat, and an aerial view of farm-
land, respectively, to test effects on brand attitude and attitude toward the ad.
Mitchell found that the use of the negatively valenced picture resulted in less
favorable attitudes toward the brand than did the use of positively or neutrally
valenced pictures. Further, Mitchell found that the positively valenced picture
did act favorably to influence attitudes toward the ad but that attitudes toward
the ad were also influenced by the entire ad itself. The importance of this study
is that Mitchell presented the ad and the picture at the same time, which is
more in step with the real-world occurrence of advertising, for example, a bill-
board in front of a scenic lake.
Another study, while using only positively valenced stimuli, did find that
highly favorable scenes (e.g., a snow-covered mountain) generated favorable
attitudes toward the brand (Grossman & Till, 1998). Furthermore, this study
and others (e.g., Till, Stanley, & Priluck, 2008) have demonstrated that such
effects can persist over time.
As the previous studies attest, positively and negatively valenced stimuli
have been found to influence brand attitude. Due to governmental regulation
and the ubiquitous nature of outdoor advertising, billboards can often be found
in environments that are viewed as either particularly attractive or particu-
larly unattractive. Consequently, the first set of hypotheses state simply that atti-
tude toward the brand and purchase intent are positively (negatively) affected
by the positively valenced (negatively valenced) background environment in
which outdoor advertising appears.

H1a: Subjects who are exposed to outdoor advertising that is embedded within
positively valenced (negatively valenced) environments will have more
(less) favorable attitudes toward the advertised brand.

H1b: Subjects who are exposed to outdoor advertising that is embedded within
positively valenced (negatively valenced) environments will have higher
(lower) levels of purchase intent toward the advertised brand.

Method

Experimental Design. For the main experiment, billboard images were

created by digitally inserting brands onto a traditional billboard space (tall pole,
large area for brand and message), as would be typically seen along a highway
or in a city. The created billboard images were then digitally inserted into slide

912 WILSON AND TILL

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
images featuring different backgrounds (depending on the manipulation) that
represented either more positive or more negative environments. The end result
was a series of slide images in which the brand and message presentation on
the billboard were held constant, while varying only the background in which the
billboard appeared. Each billboard was a simple advertisement of a fictitious
brand. The use of a fictitious brand is preferred over a familiar brand so that
associative learning is not inhibited by blocking and pre-exposure effects
(McSweeney & Bierley, 1984). In addition to the target brand, we created sev-
eral similar slide images featuring filler brands to mitigate hypothesis guess-
ing. Filler brands have been successfully used in past associative learning studies
(Stuart, Shimp, & Engle, 1987; Till & Priluck, 2001).
The design of the experiment consisted of two treatment groups and one con-
trol group. In each of the three groups, subjects saw three billboards—one for
the target brand and two for filler brands—each shown for 30 seconds. The bill-
board displaying the target brand in the first treatment group was embedded
in a positively valenced background and the billboard displaying the target
brand in the second treatment group was embedded in a negatively valenced
background. The filler brands in both treatment groups were embedded in rel-
atively neutral backgrounds. In the control group, the billboards for both the tar-
get and filler brands were simply presented against a white background. The
order in which the slides were shown to subjects was the same for the treatment
groups and the control group: (1) filler brand #1; (2) target brand with posi-
tively valenced (negatively valenced) background; and (3) filler brand #2.
The product categories chosen for the brands in this study were those that
are readily purchased and consumed by the subjects participating in the research
(college students) as well as categories advertised via the outdoor medium. The
three product categories were bottled water, athletic shoes, and shampoo.

Pretesting. Prior to conducting the main experiment, two pretests were per-
formed. First, the names of the fictitious brands—both target and filler—were
selected such that they did not evoke any unusual associations and were relatively
neutral. Similar to Stuart, Shimp, and Engle (1987), attitudes toward the ficti-
tious brands were measured by a convenience sample of upper-level business
students using a seven-item, seven-point semantic differential scale (good/bad,
high quality/poor quality, like very much/dislike very much, superior/inferior,
attractive/unattractive, pleasant/unpleasant, and interesting/boring). Potential
backgrounds were also pretested. Attitudes toward the positive and negative back-
grounds were measured in the same manner using a five-item, seven-point seman-
tic differential scale (good/bad, like very much/dislike very much, attractive/
unattractive, pleasant/unpleasant, and interesting/boring).
The results of the pretest indicated that the best names for the fictitious
brands were Grumet, Fique, and Degrau. The target brand for the study was
selected as Fique casual footwear, while the filler brands were Grumet bottled
water and Degrau shampoo. Pretesting also indicated that the best background
for the positively valenced background was a rural setting of gently rolling hills
with a small white farmhouse in the distance, while the negatively valenced
background was a rusted train car in front of a dilapidated warehouse.

Dependent Variables. As with the pretest, attitude toward the brand was
measured by a seven-item, seven-point semantic differential scale. Purchase

EFFECTS OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: DOES LOCATION MATTER? 913

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
intent was measured on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 representing a strong desire
to purchase the advertised product. Other questions related to advertising effec-
tiveness, product attributes, and purchase intentions were included in the ques-
tionnaire to disguise the true nature of the study.

Subjects. The subjects were upper-level business students at a large private

university. The use of college students as subjects in theory falsification finds
support in consumer behavior research (Calder, Phillips, & Tybout, 1981). In out-
lining the purpose of the study, the subjects were told that a large national
advertising firm was interested in gauging the consumer’s reaction to several
outdoor advertising campaigns recently launched for several new products.
Total Study 1 sample was 128 subjects, with 58 in the positive-valence condi-
tion, 47 in the negative-valence condition, and 23 in the control condition.

Results and Discussion

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and ANOVA results for each
of the three conditions. The data were checked for normality using skewness and
kurtosis statistics. Outliers in the data were removed using box plots and nor-
mal Q-Q plots. There were no statistically significant differences between out-
door advertisements embedded within the positively valenced background (4.06),
the negatively valenced background (3.86), and the control condition (3.88).
Similarly, there was not a statistically significant difference on purchase intent
between subjects exposed to the positively valenced background (3.83) and the
negatively valenced background (3.09).
Contrary to initial expectations, there was not a strong difference between the
positively valenced and negatively valenced background conditions. There are
several possible reasons for this. First, the backgrounds in which the fictitious
outdoor advertisements were superimposed may not have been extreme enough
in their valence (though backgrounds were chosen that pretested strongly as
either positive or negative). Second, the study was conducted in a laboratory-
like setting, potentially inhibiting subjects in developing affect with the brand
through a two-dimensional background (though this can be a limitation for
many of these types of studies). Finally, it certainly could be that the back-
ground context the outdoor advertising appears in naturally does not have a
significant impact on purchase intent and attitude toward the brand. That is,
people are able to sufficiently compartmentalize the ad from its environment such
that the impact of the environment on the brand is minimal.

STUDY 2

Associative learning has been shown to affect product attributes and beliefs
about products based on the visual elements found within an ad (Mitchell &
Olson, 1981). However, a common concern with outdoor advertisers is not sim-
ply what elements within the ad affect product beliefs but also what factors
external to the ad (e.g., the location of the ad) might impact advertising effec-
tiveness. The purpose of Study 2 is to understand how the location of outdoor
ads may affect consumers’ beliefs about the product.

914 WILSON AND TILL

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations by Condition (Study 1): Brand Attitude and Purchase Intent for Valenced Backgrounds
(Casual Footwear).

Control Positive Valence Negative Valence

n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD df F

Abrand 23 3.88 1.28 58 4.06 1.22 47 3.86 0.91 2, 125 0.475

Purchase intent 22 2.64 1.65 58 3.83 2.44 47 3.09 2.06 2, 124 2.899
 An early and important associative learning study is by Mitchell and Olson
(1981). These authors found that some pictures within an ad caused subjects in
their study to infer product attributes that were not specifically stated in the ad
copy. For example, subjects inferred softness of facial tissue from a picture of a
kitten and that the facial tissue came in many colors from a picture of a color-
ful sunset. Another study used images of a race car to successfully associate
fast delivery with a pizza house (Kim, Allen, & Kardes, 1996). And Till and
Priluck (2001) used feminine and masculine images to successfully associate
gender with various brands. Priluck and Till (2004) also found that elaboration
on a visual image led study participants to infer beliefs about brand attributes
that were not explicitly stated in the experiment.
Smith (1991) demonstrated that consumers infer product attributes from ads
for which no explicit claims are made. The author showed variations of six ads to
college students in which the copy and picture were manipulated such that some
ads contained only a picture, only copy, both picture and copy making the same
claim, and picture and copy making inconsistent claims about product attributes.
Results from the study indicate that both picture and copy influence consumers
in their inferences about product attributes not specifically made in the ad. While
results for the picture are weaker than those for copy, this does imply that visual
components of an ad do have an impact on product attribute inference.
Finally, a study by Washburn, Till, and Priluck (2004) paired two brands
together in a brand alliance to evaluate how consumers use perception of brand
equity to evaluate product attributes for brands that are packaged together.
The authors found that consumers do in fact confer product attributes of one
brand onto the other even when such attributes are not directly observable.
Based on the above prior studies, the physical environment surrounding an
outdoor ad might also serve a similar function in influencing consumer beliefs.
For example, a billboard located in a hip, cosmopolitan, urban neighborhood
may denote trendiness or fashion. Likewise, a billboard located adjacent to a
mountain lake may denote cleanliness or all-natural ingredients. Therefore,
this study will assess the extent to which certain brand beliefs can be altered
based on the physical environment in which the outdoor advertising appears.

H2a: Subjects who are exposed to outdoor advertising that is embedded within
environments that project an image similar (dissimilar) to the salient
product attributes of an advertised brand will express stronger (weaker)
beliefs about those salient product attributes.

H2b: Subjects who are exposed to outdoor advertising that is embedded within
environments that project an image similar (dissimilar) to the salient
product attributes of an advertised brand will express higher (lower) lev-
els of purchase intent for that brand.

Method

Experimental Design. Study 2 is similar to the first study in many respects.

In this study, three groups were used—two treatment groups and one control
group. Each group contained two target brands and two filler brands. The brands
were fictitious and were determined in pretesting to be neutrally valenced. The

916 WILSON AND TILL

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
target brands were a Tremo mobile phone and Vaza bottled water, while the
filler brands were Fique athletic shoes and Rocha sports center.
In treatment group 1, the target brands were paired with backgrounds that
were pretested not to project an image that matched the salient product attrib-
utes of the advertised product. The second treatment group paired the target
brands with backgrounds that were pretested to project an image that matched
the salient product attributes. For the control group, both the filler and target
brand billboards were shown against white backgrounds.

Pretesting. Prior to conducting the main experiment, two different pretests were
performed. The first test ensured that the backgrounds were neutrally valenced. This
was accomplished using a three-item, seven-point semantic differential scale
(good/bad, like very much/dislike very much, and pleasant/unpleasant).
The second test ensured that the background possessed the desirable prod-
uct attributes/beliefs that were to be tested. In order to ensure that the brand
beliefs were appropriate for the product category being advertised (i.e., bottled
water, mobile phone), it was necessary to first to develop a list of salient prod-
uct attributes and then a scale for measurement. To do this, Ahtola’s (1975) vec-
tor model is used, which is based on the Fishbein model. Ahtola’s model has
been used in prior associative learning studies and improves on the Fishbein
model in that is more detailed, allowing subtle aspects of consumer belief struc-
tures to be captured (Mitchell & Olson, 1981). The tests indicated that the most
salient product attributes for bottled water are clean, fresh, and refreshing. The
most salient product attributes for a mobile phone (that is, just the phone and
not the attached wireless service) are stylish and cutting edge.
These five attributes were then tested against two dozen backgrounds. Two
backgrounds were selected for the mobile phone—one that projected a stylish
and cutting-edge image and one that did not. The most stylish and cutting edge
visual was a highly urban New York City background, while the least stylish and
cutting edge was a rural farm scene. For bottled water, again two backgrounds
were chosen—one that projected a clean, fresh, and refreshing image and one
that did not. The background rated as most clean, fresh, and refreshing was a
scenic snow-capped mountain background, and the image that was low on these
attributes was an urban New York City background.

Dependent Variables. The dependent variables for this experiment were the
brand beliefs (i.e., clean, fresh, refreshing, stylish, and cutting edge) associated with
the outdoor advertising locations. Each attribute was measured on a disagree/agree
scale of 1 to 7. As with Study 1, purchase intent was measured on a scale of 1 to 10.

Subjects. The subjects used in this experiment were upper-level business stu-
dents (different students from those used in Study 1), and the same cover story
from Study 1 was employed. With respect to sample size, the total sample was
122, with 36 subjects in the matching-attribute condition, 31 subjects in the
non–matching-attribute condition, and 55 subjects in the control condition.

Results and Discussion

Tables 2 and 3 report the means, standard deviations, and ANOVA results for
purchase intent and the inferred product attributes for the mobile phone and

EFFECTS OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: DOES LOCATION MATTER? 917

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations by Condition (Study 2): Inferred Product Attributes and Purchase Intent from Backgrounds
(Mobile Phone).

Matched Attribute Unmatched Attribute

Control and Background and Background

n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD df F

Cutting edge 51 5.29 1.19 34 5.59 1.05 31 5.10 1.54 2, 113 1.279
Stylish 52 5.42a 1.11 31 6.06a 0.63 29 5.55 0.91 2, 109 4.603
Purchase intentb 52 0.772 0.114 30 0.836 0.095 29 0.783 0.154 2, 108 2.725
a
p ⭐ 0.05.
b
Log(10) transformation.
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations by Condition (Study 2): Inferred Product Attributes and Purchase Intent from Backgrounds
(Bottled Water).

Control Matched Background Unmatched Background

n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD df F

Refreshing 54 3.56 1.60 36 3.42 1.80 27 3.44 1.01 2, 114 0.100

Fresh 52 3.23 1.32 36 3.36 1.69 30 3.33 0.96 2, 115 0.111
Clean 54 3.37 1.48 36 3.36 1.69 31 3.42 1.06 2, 118 0.016
Purchase intent 55 3.84 2.23 36 2.92 1.98 30 3.23 1.55 2, 118 2.453
bottled water products, respectively. The data were checked for normality using
skewness and kurtosis statistics, and outliers in the data were removed using box
plots and normal Q-Q plots. Using a log transformation, only the purchase intent
variable for the mobile phone had to be transformed to make the data normally
distributed.
Results from the tests suggest that the background environment in which
outdoor advertising appears does not influence consumer purchase intent or
brand attribute beliefs. The mobile phone when paired with an urban, cosmo-
politan background had only slightly greater, albeit nonsignificant, beliefs of it
being more cutting edge (5.59 vs. 5.10) and stylish (6.06 vs. 5.55) compared to
when it was paired with a rural farmland background. Purchase intent was
slightly greater but not statistically significant. Belief ratings for bottled water
when paired with a scenic, snow-capped mountain background were essentially
the same as when the brand’s ad appeared in a highly urban background: refresh-
ing (3.42 vs. 3.44, respectively), fresh (3.36 vs. 3.33), and clean (3.36 vs. 3.42).
Purchase intent was nonsignificant as well (2.92 scenic background vs. 3.23
urban background).

STUDY 3

The rate at which associative learning occurs varies depending on the specific
CS and US used (Stuart, Shimp, & Engle, 1987). Therefore, the lack of signifi-
cance in the preceding two studies may be related to the fact that each of the
outdoor advertisements and its corresponding background were only paired
together once. While associative learning has been found to occur with as few
as one pairing (Stuart, Shimp, & Engle, 1987), other research has suggested
that multiple pairings lead to stronger associative learning effects (Herr &
Fazio, 1991; Stuart, Shimp, & Engle, 1987). However, other studies suggest
that increasing the number of pairings has no impact in developing stronger
associative learning effects (Baker, Honea, & Russell, 2004; Mitchell & Olson,
1981). Considering that consumers are often exposed multiple times to bill-
boards, we undertook a third study to test the impact of multiple brand/con-
text pairings on the attitudes, beliefs, and purchase intent associated with
outdoor advertising. The following hypotheses are proposed consistent with
Herr and Fazio (1991) and Stuart, Shimp, and Engle (1987).

H3a: Subjects who are exposed to multiple pairings of outdoor advertising that
is embedded within positively valenced (negatively valenced) environments
will associate more (less) favorable attitudes toward the advertised brand.

H3b: Subjects who are exposed to multiple pairings of outdoor advertising that
is embedded within positively valenced (negatively valenced) environ-
ments will express higher (lower) levels of purchase intent for the adver-
tised brand.

H3c: Subjects who are exposed to multiple pairings of outdoor advertising that
is embedded within environments that project an image similar (dissim-
ilar) to the salient product attributes of an advertised brand will produce
stronger (weaker) beliefs about those salient product attributes.

920 WILSON AND TILL

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 H3d: Subjects who are exposed to multiple pairings of outdoor advertising that
is embedded within environments that projects an image similar (dis-
similar) to the salient product attributes of an advertised brand will
express higher (lower) purchase intent for that brand.

Method

Experimental Design. The experimental design for the third study paral-
lels that of the first and second studies, except that subjects were exposed to mul-
tiple pairings of the outdoor advertisements and their corresponding
backgrounds. Subjects were exposed to the outdoor ads six times over the course
of eight days. Like the previous studies, this study utilized three groups—two
treatment groups and one control group. Each group contained three target
brands and two filler brands. The brands were fictitious and were determined
in pretesting to be neutrally valenced. The target brands were a Tremo mobile
phone, Vaza bottled water, and Fique athletic wear, while the filler brands were
Degrau farms and Rocha sports center.
In treatment group 1, the target brands of Vaza bottled water and Tremo
mobile phone were paired with backgrounds that were pretested to project an
image that did not match the salient product attributes of the advertised prod-
uct. Vaza was paired with a highly urban New York City background and Tremo
was paired with a rural farm scene. The first treatment group also paired the
target brand of Fique athletic wear with a background that was pretested to be
negatively valenced (a rusted train car in front of a dilapidated warehouse).
The second treatment group paired the target brands of Vaza bottled water
and Tremo mobile phone with backgrounds that were pretested to project an
image that matched the salient product attributes. Vaza was paired with a back-
ground having snow-capped mountains, and Tremo was paired with a highly
urban New York City background. The second treatment group also paired Fique
athletic wear with a background that was pretested to be positively valenced
(a rural setting of gently rolling hills with a small white farmhouse in the dis-
tance). For the control group, all branded billboards were shown against white
backgrounds.

Dependent Variables. The dependent variables for Study 3 were attitude

toward the brand, brand beliefs (i.e., clean, fresh, refreshing, stylish, and cut-
ting edge), and purchase intent.

Subjects. The subjects used in this experiment were again upper-level busi-
ness students (but different from the previous two studies) and the same cover
story was employed. Study 3 total sample size was 68, with subjects fairly evenly
divided among two treatment groups and the control group.

Results and Discussion

Tables 4, 5, and 6 report the means, standard deviations, and ANOVA results
for Study 3. Specifically, Table 4 reports the attitudes and purchase intent for
Fique athletic wear and Tables 5 and 6 report the product beliefs and purchase
intent for Vaza bottled water and the Tremo mobile phone. The data were checked

EFFECTS OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: DOES LOCATION MATTER? 921

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations by Condition (Study 3), Repeated Exposures: Brand Attitude and Purchase Intent for
Valenced Backgrounds (Casual Footwear).

Control Positive Valence Negative Valence

n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD df F

Abrand 24 4.01 1.03 22 3.46 1.39 22 3.59 1.26 2, 65 1.25

Purchase intent 24 4.50 2.11 22 3.91 1.95 22 3.91 2.22 2, 65 0.52
Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations by Condition (Study 3), Repeated Exposures: Inferred Product Attributes and Purchase
Intent from Backgrounds (Mobile Phone).

Matched Attribute Unmatched Attribute

Control and Background and Background

n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD df F

Cutting edge 23 4.26 1.48 22 4.32 1.73 22 4.36 1.50 2, 64 0.02

Stylish 24 4.79 1.62 22 4.64 1.73 22 4.32 1.73 2, 65 0.46
Purchase intent 24 4.75 2.31 22 5.45 2.56 22 5.36 1.73 2, 65 0.69
Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations by Condition (Study 3), Repeated Exposures: Inferred Product Attributes and Purchase
Intent from Backgrounds (Bottled Water).

Control Matched Background Unmatched Background

n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD df F

Refreshing 23 3.87 1.74 22 3.59 1.79 22 3.23 1.77 2, 64 0.75

Fresh 23 3.39 1.67 22 3.18 1.65 22 3.36 1.73 2, 64 0.10
Clean 24 4.17 1.49 22 3.91 1.60 22 4.00 1.77 2, 65 0.15
Purchase intent 21 3.48 2.36 22 3.41 2.18 21 3.43 2.36 2, 64 0.17
for normality using skewness and kurtosis statistics, and outliers in the data
were removed using box plots and normal Q-Q plots.
Results suggest that the background environment in which outdoor adver-
tising appears does not influence the attitudes, beliefs, and purchase intent
even with multiple pairings of the outdoor advertisement with its associated
background. With respect to attitude toward the brand, there was no statisti-
cal difference between the positively valenced background (3.46), the negatively
valenced background (3.59), and the control group (4.01). Likewise, there was
no statistical difference with respect to purchase intent (3.91, 3.91, and 4.50 for
the positively valenced, negatively valenced, and control group, respectively).
For the brand beliefs inferred from the backgrounds, there was again no sta-
tistical difference between the matched background, unmatched background, and
the control group for either the mobile phone or the bottled water. When the
mobile phone was paired with an urban, cosmopolitan background (matched),
as compared to when it was paired with a rural farmland background
(unmatched), it received a mean rating of 4.32 (vs. 4.36 unmatched) for cutting
edge and 4.64 (vs. 4.32 unmatched) for stylish. Similarly, when bottled water was
paired with a snow-capped mountain background (matched), as compared to
when it was paired with an urban background (unmatched), it received a mean
rating of 3.59 (vs. 3.23 unmatched) for refreshing, 3.18 (vs. 3.36 unmatched) for
fresh, and 3.91 (vs. 4.00 unmatched) for clean. Purchase intent was also non-
significant for the mobile phone (5.45 matched vs. 5.36 unmatched) as well as
for bottled water (3.41 matched vs. 3.43 unmatched).
Two explanations for the lack of significance in this study are possible. First,
the number of pairings (six times) may not have been sufficient to stimulate
associative learning effects. Indeed Stuart, Shimp, and Engle (1987) suggest
that different rates of conditioning are likely to vary by the brand being adver-
tised and the conditioning stimuli. Six pairings, though, is very much in the
range of other successful conditioning studies (Herr & Fazio, 1991; Stuart, Shimp,
& Engle, 1987). Second, and very importantly, it may be that, unlike magazines,
newspapers (Tipps, Berger, & Weinberg, 2006), and television (Goldberg & Gorn,
1987), consumers are not influenced by where outdoor advertising is placed,
and consumers are able to separate their attitudes, feelings, and beliefs about
a locale from the ad embedded within it. Indeed, with outdoor advertising, loca-
tion might not matter. The next study explores the role of involvement by inves-
tigating whether or not a more involved, engaged connection with the ads
facilitates billboard background effects.

STUDY 4

Advertising research suggests that high levels of consumer involvement can

increase advertising message processing and subsequently produce more endur-
ing product beliefs and brand attitudes (Kim, Haley, & Koo, 2009; Laczniak &
Muehling, 1993). In classical conditioning research, consumers who are highly
involved have been found to be more likely to respond to conditioning tech-
niques and generate stronger beliefs about the brand (Priluck & Till, 2004). In
their research, Priluck and Till paired their target brand with several positively
valenced backgrounds and found that brand attitudes were significantly higher
for those subjects in the high involvement condition than for those in the low

EFFECTS OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: DOES LOCATION MATTER? 925

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
involvement condition. High involvement was manipulated by encouraging sub-
jects to pay attention to advertisements by advising them that correct responses
to survey questions would enter them into a pool to win $25. The basic proce-
dures in Studies 1, 2, and 3 were fairly low involvement. Study 4 modifies the
procedures to create a higher involvement viewing situation. Consistent with
results of Priluck and Till (2004), the hypotheses for Study 4 are:

H4a: Subjects who are more highly involved in processing outdoor advertising
that is embedded within positively valenced (negatively valenced) envi-
ronments will associate more (less) favorable attitudes toward the adver-
tised brand.

H4b: Subjects who are more highly involved in processing outdoor advertising
that is embedded within positively valenced (negatively valenced) envi-
ronments will express higher (lower) levels of purchase intent for the
advertised brand.

H4c: Subjects who are more highly involved in processing outdoor advertising
that is embedded within environments that project an image similar (dis-
similar) to the salient product attributes of an advertised brand will pro-
duce stronger (weaker) beliefs about those salient product attributes.

H4d: Subjects who are more highly involved in processing outdoor advertising
that is embedded within environments that project an image similar (dis-
similar) to the salient product attributes of an advertised brand will
express higher (lower) purchase intent for that brand.

Method

Experimental Design. Subjects in the fourth study were exposed to the

outdoor ads under a high involvement condition. To create this high involve-
ment situation, subjects were encouraged to pay very careful attention to the ads.
They were informed that advertisers were preparing to introduce these products
into the local market very shortly, and as the subjects were part of the target
market, marketers were looking for their input on advertising design. They
were also told that correct and thoughtful responses to survey questions would
enter them into a pool to win $25. This method of manipulation of involvement
is consistent with previous research studies (Johar, 1995; Priluck & Till, 2004).
This study utilized three groups—two treatment groups and one control
group. Each group contained two target brands and two filler brands. The brands
were fictitious and were determined in pretesting to be neutrally valenced. The
target brands were a Tremo mobile phone and Fique athletic wear, while the filler
brands were Degrau farms and Rocha sports center.
In treatment group 1, the Tremo mobile phone target brand was paired with
a background that was pretested to project an image that did not match the
salient product attributes of the advertised product, namely, a rural farm scene.
The first treatment group also paired the target brand of Fique athletic wear
with a background that was pretested to be negatively valenced, a rusted train
car in front of a dilapidated warehouse.

926 WILSON AND TILL

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 The second treatment group paired the target brand Tremo mobile phone
with a background that was pretested to project an image that matched the
salient product attributes, a highly urban New York City background. The sec-
ond treatment group also paired Fique athletic wear with a background that was
pretested to be positively valenced, a rural setting of gently rolling hills with a
small white farmhouse in the distance. For the control group, all branded bill-
boards were shown against white backgrounds.

Dependent Variables. The dependent variables for Study 4 were attitude

toward the brand, brand beliefs (i.e., stylish and cutting edge), and purchase intent.

Subjects. The subjects used in this experiment were again upper-level business
students (but different from the previous three studies), and the same cover story
was employed. For Study 4, the total sample size was 98, with 40 subjects in the
control group and 58 subjects divided fairly evenly across the two treatment groups.

Results and Discussion

Tables 7 and 8 report the means, standard deviations, and ANOVA results for
Study 4. Specifically, Table 7 reports the attitudes and purchase intent for Fique
athletic wear and Table 8 reports the product beliefs and purchase intent for the
Tremo mobile phone. The data were checked for normality using skewness and
kurtosis statistics.
Despite higher involvement, the results of this study suggest that the back-
ground in which outdoor advertising appears does not influence attitudes, beliefs,
or purchase intent. With respect to valence, attitudes toward the Fique athletic
wear brand for the positive condition (2.74), negative condition (3.26), and the
control (3.25) were not significantly different from one another. Similarly, pur-
chase intent for the positive condition (3.25), negative condition (3.57), and the
control (3.82) were also not significantly different from one another. It appears
that the valence of the background does not influence brand attitudes or pur-
chase intent during high involvement situations.
With respect to matched backgrounds for the Tremo mobile phone brand, dif-
ferences between matched (cutting edge, 5.04; stylish, 5.36) and unmatched
(cutting edge, 5.10; stylish, 5.19) backgrounds were not significantly different
from one another, although stylish was significantly different from the control
(4.35, p ⭐ 0.05) for both the matched and unmatched conditions and cutting
edge was significantly different from the control (4.30, p ⭐ 0.05) for only the
unmatched condition. Purchase intent scores was not significant different from
one another: matched (6.61), unmatched (6.03), and the control (5.53). Thus, it
appears that the matching or unmatching of the outdoor advertising environ-
ment to a product’s salient product attributes has no relevance to inferred prod-
uct attributes or purchase intent during high involvement situations.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The primary conclusion from these four studies is that the locations where
outdoor ads are found do not appear to affect consumer attitudes, beliefs, or

EFFECTS OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: DOES LOCATION MATTER? 927

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 7. Means and Standard Deviations by Condition (Study 4), High Involvement: Brand Attitude and Purchase Intent for
Valenced Backgrounds (Casual Footwear).

Control Positive Valence Negative Valence

n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD df F

Abrand 40 3.25 1.31 28 2.74 1.13 30 3.26 1.13 2, 95 1.86

Purchase Intent 39 3.82 1.85 28 3.25 2.03 30 3.57 1.65 2, 94 0.78
Table 8. Means and Standard Deviations by Condition (Study 4), High Involvement: Inferred Product Attributes and Purchase
Intent from Backgrounds (Mobile Phone).

Matched Attribute Unmatched Attribute

Control and Background and Background

n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD df F

a a
Cutting edge 40 4.30 1.65 28 5.04 1.77 31 5.10 1.49 2, 96 2.62
Stylish 40 4.35a 1.83 28 5.36a 1.55 31 5.19b 1.38 2, 96 3.92
Purchase intent 40 5.53 2.17 28 6.61 2.39 31 6.03 2.64 2, 96 1.70
a
p ⭐ 0.05.
purchase intent of the advertised product. Consequently, the concerns put forth
by advertisers, agencies, and outdoor billboard owners appear to be unfounded.
While increased regulation and public pressure may limit the number of prime
outdoor advertising sites in terms of consumer exposure, the locations which the
remaining outdoor advertisements are now obliged to occupy are no less effec-
tive in terms of attitudes, beliefs, and purchase intent than the ones they were
forced to abandon. This, however, is not to downplay the economic and expo-
sure costs that regulation has had on the outdoor advertising industry.
The results of this research can best be understood with a discussion of mes-
sage response involvement theory. Message response involvement is the degree
to which consumers are likely to process an advertisement due to the amount
of attention given to the task (MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989). When consumers are
unmotivated to process advertising or have scant opportunity to view it, the
amount of attention will be low and attitudes toward the ad and/or brand are
unlikely to develop or be influenced (MacInnis, Moorman, & Jaworski, 1991).
Consumers often lack motivation and opportunity to process advertising in out-
door environments because they are usually involved in another task such as
walking or driving. As a result, few cognitive resources are made available for
secondary tasks such as taking notice of advertisements (Kahneman, 1973).
This inattention toward outdoor advertising pushes these ads into the back-
ground of what the consumer sees and has been known to cause a “contempo-
rary blasé” attitude toward the medium (Cronin, 2006). This blasé effect is also
thought to increase dramatically in urban spaces and other places where out-
door advertising is at a greater density and distractions are many. Consequently,
with so little attention paid to outdoor advertising and therefore little message
processing, it is not surprising that consumers are not sufficiently engaged in
the external environment for the background context to impact their evaluation
of the advertised brand. Indeed, other studies have made similar discoveries
showing that the lack of consumer processing in outdoor advertising contexts
leads to the ineffectiveness of other marketing tactics such as creativity (Baack,
Wilson, & Till, 2008).
Outdoor advertising is very different from other media when it comes to the
transmission of the advertisement to the consumer. Exposure to outdoor adver-
tising is incidental and consumers don’t generally give their direct attention to
the medium. Outdoor advertising is, in a sense, a passive medium. However, with
other media such as television and print, consumers are generally engaged in
the medium that delivers the advertisement. While it is true that consumers can
choose not to look at an advertisement in a magazine or can walk away from the
television during a commercial break, generally speaking, consumers are actively
involved in these media. This active involvement has led researchers to find
that television programming (Goldberg & Gorn, 1987) and magazine content
(Tipps, Berger, & Weinberg, 2006) can influence attitudes toward the ad and
brand. But it appears to be the consumer’s lack of involvement with the outdoor
advertising medium that led us to find no associative learning results. Even
when involvement was manipulated with the outdoor ads, as in Study 4, sub-
jects still did not appear to combine the media with its external environment.
Thus it appears that consumers see a billboard for what it is and don’t view its
placement in the landscape as an extension of the media.
While reporting null effects is sometimes criticized on methodological grounds
(had the right methods been employed, effects would have been found), in this

930 WILSON AND TILL

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
case the findings seem fairly robust. Sample sizes and methods were very con-
sistent with similar conditioning studies in which effects have been found. Addi-
tionally, a consistent pattern of null effects held across each of the four studies
presented here. The null effects found here under fairly robust conditions do in
fact provide meaningful insight into a relevant practitioner issue. These effects
tell a consistent story that the nature of the location—be it upscale or downscale,
be it consistent or inconsistent with specific brand attributes, or be it positive
or negative—doesn’t impact consumer responses to the brand.

REFERENCES

Ahtola, O. T. (1975). The vector model of preferences: An alternative to the Fishbein

model. Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 52–59.
Allen, C. T., & Madden, T. J. (1985). A closer look at classical conditioning. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 12, 301–315.
Baack, D. W., Wilson, R. T., & Till, B. D. (2008). Creativity and memory effects: Recall,
recognition, and an exploration of non-traditional media. Journal of Advertising, 37,
87–97.
Baker, W. E., Honea, H., & Russell, C. A. (2004). Do not wait to reveal the brand name.
Journal of Advertising, 33, 77–85.
Bierley, C., McSweeney, F. K., & Vannieuwkerk, R. (1985). Classical conditioning of pref-
erences for stimuli. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 316–323.
Blair, E. M., & Shimp, T. A. (1992). Consequences of an unpleasant experience with music:
A second-order negative conditioning perspective. Journal of Advertising, 21, 35–43.
Bloom, D. (2000). Measuring the audience to poster advertising. International Journal
of Market Research, 42, 395–499.
Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for application.
Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 197–207.
Cronin, A. M. (2006). Advertising and the metabolism of the city: Urban space, com-
modity rhythms. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24, 615–632.
Donthu, N., Cherian, J., & Bhargava, M. (1993). Factors influencing recall of outdoor
advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 33, 64–72.
Fitts, R. L., & Hewett, W. C. (1977). Utilizing the before after with control group exper-
imental design to evaluate an outdoor advertising campaign. Journal of Advertising,
6, 26–39.
Francese, P. (2003). More home less. American Demographics, 25, 40–41.
Goldberg, M. E., & Gorn, G. J. (1987). Happy and sad TV programs: How they affect
reactions to commercials. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 387–403.
Gorn, G. J. (1982). The effects of music in advertising on choice behavior: A classical con-
ditioning approach. Journal of Marketing, 46, 94–101.
Gresham, L. G., & Shimp, T. A. (1985). Attitude toward the advertisement and brand atti-
tudes: A classical conditioning perspective. Journal of Advertising, 14, 10–49.
Grossman, R. P., & Till, B. D. (1998). The persistence of classically conditioned brand atti-
tudes. Journal of Advertising, 27, 23–31.
Hendery, S. (2007, May). Outdoor: Urban warfare. AdMedia, p. 36.
Herr, P. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1991). On the effectiveness of repeated positive expressions
as an advertising strategy. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 30–32.
Janiszewski, C., & Warlop, L. (1993). The influence of classical conditioning procedures
on subsequent attention to the conditioned brand. Journal of Consumer Research, 20,
171–189.
Johar, G. V. (1995). Consumer involvement and deception from implied advertising
claims. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 267–279.

EFFECTS OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: DOES LOCATION MATTER? 931

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Kim, J., Allen, C. T., & Kardes, F. R. (1996). An investigation of the mediational mecha-
nisms underlying attitudinal conditioning. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 318–328.
Kim, J., Lim, J., & Bhargava, M. (1998). The role of affect in attitude formation: A clas-
sical conditioning approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26, 143–152.
Kim, S., Haley, E., & Koo, G. (2009). Comparison of the paths from consumer involvement
types to ad response between corporate advertising and product advertising. Journal
of Advertising, 38, 67–80.
King, K. W., & Tinkham, S. F. (1989). The learning and retention of outdoor advertising.
Journal of Advertising Research, 29, 47–51.
Laczniak, R. N., & Muehling, D. D. (1993). Toward a better understanding of the role of
advertising message involvement in ad processing. Psychology & Marketing, 10,
301–319.
Lee, W., & Callcott, M. F. (1994). Billboard advertising: A comparison of vice products
across ethnic groups. Journal of Business Research, 30, 85–94.
MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements:
Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53, 1–23.
MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, C., & Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring con-
sumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads.
Journal of Marketing, 55, 32–53.
McBride, S. (2004, August 25). Signs of the times: To attract new development, cities
change laws to permit flashy outdoor advertising. Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
McBride, S. (2007, July 25). Billboards and loopholes: Demand for space is rising but so
are city restrictions: How one company copes. Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
McSweeney, F. K., & Bierley, C. (1984). Recent developments in classical conditioning.
Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 619–631.
Mitchell, A. A. (1986). The effect of verbal and visual components of advertisements on
brand attitudes and attitude toward the advertisement. Journal of Consumer Research,
13, 12–24.
Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of
advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 318–332.
Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc. (OAAA). (2008). Facts & figures. Accessed
October 16 at www.oaaa.org/outdoor/facts.
Priluck, R., & Till, B. D. (1998). The persistence of classically conditioned brand atti-
tudes. Journal of Advertising, 27, 24–31.
Priluck, R., & Till, B. D. (2004). The role of contingency awareness, involvement, and need
for cognition in attitude formation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32,
329–344.
Schemer, C., Matthes, J., Wirth, W., & Textor, S. (2008). Does “passing the Courvoisier”
always pay off? Positive and negative evaluative conditioning effects of brand place-
ments in music videos. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 923–943.
Shavitt, S., Vargas, P., & Lowrey, P. (2004). Exploring the role of memory for self-selected
ad experiences: Are some advertising media better liked than others? Psychology &
Marketing, 21, 1011–1032.
Shimp, T. A. (1991). Neo-pavlovian conditioning and its implications for consumer
research. In T. S. Robertson & H. H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of consumer behav-
ior (pp. 162–187). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Shimp, T. A., Stuart, E. W., & Engle, R. W. (1991). A program of classical conditioning
experiments testing variations in the conditioned stimulus and context. Journal of
Consumer Research, 18, 1–12.
Smith, R. A. (1991). The effects of visual and verbal advertising information on con-
sumers’ inferences. Journal of Advertising, 20, 13–24.
Staats, A. W., & Staats, C. K. (1958). Attitudes established by classical conditioning.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57, 37–40.

932 WILSON AND TILL

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Stuart, E. W., Shimp, T. A., & Engle, R. W. (1987). Classical conditioning of consumer atti-
tudes: Four experiments in an advertising context. Journal of Consumer Research, 14,
334–349.
Taylor, C. R. (1997). A technology whose time has come or the same old litter on a stick?
An analysis of changeable message billboards. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
16, 179–186.
Taylor, C. R., & Chang, W. (1995). The history of outdoor advertising regulation in the
United States. Journal of Marketing, 15, 47–59.
Taylor, C. R., & Taylor, J. C. (1994). Regulatory issues in outdoor advertising: A content
analysis of billboards. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 13, 97–107.
Till, B. D., & Priluck, R. L. (2000). Stimulus generalization in classical conditioning: An
initial investigation and extension. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 55–72.
Till, B. D., & Priluck, R. L. (2001). Conditioning of meaning in advertising: Brand gen-
der perception effects. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 23,
1–8.
Till, B. D., Stanley, S. M., & Priluck, R. (2008). Classical conditioning and celebrity
endorsers: An examination of belongingness and resistance to extinction. Psychology
& Marketing, 25, 179–196.
Tipps, S. W., Berger, P. D., & Weinberg, B. D. (2006). The effect of media involvement on
print advertising effectiveness. Journal of Promotion Management, 12, 53–75.
Washburn, J. H., Till, B. D., & Priluck, R. (2004). Brand alliance and customer-based
brand-equity effects. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 487–508.
Williamson, R. (2004, November 22). Hoping to revive downtowns, cities get in N.Y. state
of mind. Adweek, p. 10.
Wilson, R. T., and Till, B. D. (2008). Airport advertising effectiveness: An exploratory
field study. Journal of Advertising, 37, 57–70.
Wood, R. A. (2003). L’Oreal launches a signature outdoor campaign. Cosmetics, 31, 32.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Brian D. Till, Steber Professor
of Marketing, Saint Louis University, 3674 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108
(tillbd@slu.edu).

EFFECTS OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: DOES LOCATION MATTER? 933

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar