Episodic and Semantic Memory: Implications for the Role of Emotion in Advertising

The distinction between episodic and semantic memory is elaborated and applied to consumer processing of advertising messages. It is argued that epi sodic memory, the storage of information about speelic events, probably plays a more significant role in adiertising's effects than has been attributed to it. Episodic memory is then applied to questions concerning the role that emotional appeals play in influencing memory, choice, and purchase. It is concluded that conceptualizing emotional effects in terms of an episodic memory model is consistent with the psychological literature on memory, and adds to our understanding of how emotion operates in the persuasive process. Episodic and Semantic Memory: F. ions for the Role of Emotion in ';1. ng This paper is a critique of the way in which we been thinking about how people store and retrieve information from advertising. It will suggest that while much of our theorizing about advertising assumet what psychologists have termed semantic memory structure, most of our reseat. is designed to index episodic memory structure. The distinctions between episodic and semantic memory will be elaborated, and then applied to a matter of considerable current interest to advertising researchers--the role of emotion in persuasive messages. Episodic and Semantic Memory Processes A memory researcher named Endel Tulving (1972) first argued that a distinction should be made between memory that stores information about specific events experienced by a person, and memory that stores general knowledge about the world. The first kind of memory he termed episodic, and the second, semantic. Since then, considerable controversy has deVeloped about whether the two kinds of memory are actually separate (Atkinson, Herrmann, & Wescourt, 1974; Crowder, 1976; Herrmann & McLaughlin, 1973; ShOben, Wescourt, & Smith, 1978), or whether the distinction is really just a useful way to classify different kinds of knowledge (Anderson & Bower, 1973; McKoon & Ratcliff, 1979; McCloskey & Santee, 1981). Under either interpretation, the distinction has proved to bean important one to psychologists studying memory (Lachman, Lachman, & Butterfield, 1979; Rintsch, 1977; Klatzky, 1980; Seamon, 1980). Actually, the classification "semantic" memory may not be sufficiently detailed. As Rabinowitz & Mandler (1983) have pointed out, even within semantic memory there seem to be variations in the kind of organization used. The two