The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gender Differences in Information Processing Strategies: An Empirical Test of the Selectivity Model in Advertising Response
Abstract
According to the “selectivity model,” females are comprehensive information processors who consider both subjective and objective product attributes, and respond to subtle cues. Conversely, males are selective information processors who tend to use heuristics processing and miss subtle cues. These predictions are tested in an experiment where males and females listened to either objective or subjective advertising claims for either a low-risk or moderate-risk product. The results generally supported the predictions of the selectivity model with the exception that males did not respond more favorably to the objective claims. Implications for advertising theory and research are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 · Cited by 5,359
Cited by
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410412 · Cited by 15,756
Friends, Fans, and Followers: Do Ads Work on Social Networks?: How Gender and Age Shape Receptivity
Taylor, D. G., Lewin, J. E., & Strutton, D. (2011) · Journal of Advertising Research · doi:10.2501/jar-51-1-258-275 · Cited by 656
Islam, J. U., Hollebeek, L. D., Rahman, Z., Khan, I., & Rasool, A. (2019) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.018 · Cited by 406
Using an LLM to Help With Code Understanding
Nam, D., Macvean, A., Hellendoorn, V., Vasilescu, B., & Myers, B. (2024) · Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3597503.3639187 · Cited by 487
“Out of two information processing styles [8, 11, 19], people who exhibit a “selective information processor” tendency focus on the first promising option, pursuing it deeply before seeking additional information.”
BackgroundThe Role of Gender in Reactions to Service Failure and Recovery
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Daus, C. S., & Sparks, B. A. (2003) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670503254286 · Cited by 195
Metadata
- Authors
- Darley, W. K., & Smith, R. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Advertising
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1995-03
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-56
- ISSN
- 0091-3367 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7805
- OpenAlex
- W2164420168
- Cited by
- 640
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gender Differences in Information Processing Strategies: An Empirical Test of the Selectivity Model in Advertising Response. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00913367.1995.10673467
- The paper
- Darley, W. K., & Smith, R. E. (1995). Gender Differences in Information Processing Strategies: An Empirical Test of the Selectivity Model in Advertising Response. Journal of Advertising. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1995.10673467
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
