Does experiential advertising impact credibility?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of five dimensions of experiential advertising (cognitive, emotional, sensory, relational and behavioural) on advertising credibility in the banking sector. Design/methodology/approach A total of 277 undergraduate students were asked to complete a questionnaire after viewing two versions of a bank advertisement. Results were analysed using structural modelling equations (EQS 6.2). Findings Findings show that all dimensions of experiential advertising positively impact advertisement credibility. Cognitive/emotional/sensory advertisements exert the greatest impact, followed by relational and then behavioural advertisements which have only a marginal impact. Post hoc results show that the impact of experiential advertising on advertising credibility varies according to both actor and respondent gender. Originality/value This study enhances the literature on experiential marketing and credibility, especially banking sector advertising, and provides more in-depth insight into the role of respondent and actor gender in influencing responses. Financial services practitioners would be well advised to devote particular attention to the formulation of experiential strategies when developing advertising campaigns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".