Rosengren, Eisend, Koslow, and Dahlén (2020) synthesize decades of advertising-creativity experiments into one effect-size map. It is the cleanest peer-reviewed answer in this index to whether “more creative” reliably moves consumer response — and through which mechanisms.

Meta-analysis of 878 effect sizes from 93 datasets in 67 papers. Creativity shows robust positive links to consumer response, strongest for ad attitude (r = .491), then brand attitude (.317), purchase/behavioral intention (.306), ad recall (.311), and ad recognition (.252). Brand recall (.129) and brand recognition (.052) are not significant. Effects are stronger for high-involvement products. Originality mainly drives affect transfer; appropriateness mainly drives signaling.

Sample

67 papers → 93 datasets → 878 effect sizes. Outcomes span ad and brand attitudes, intentions, and memory. Creativity is measured as originality alone or as multidimensional constructs that include appropriateness.

Main findings

  • Attitudes beat memory. Creativity’s strongest links are to ad and brand attitudes; brand memory effects are weak or non-significant.
  • Both originality and appropriateness. Originality alone underperforms fuller creativity measures. Originality routes through affect transfer; appropriateness routes through signaling that the advertiser invested effort.
  • Involvement and familiarity. Effects are stronger for high-involvement products. Ad (not brand) reactions are marginally stronger for unfamiliar brands.

Why this is in the Darwin index

Darwin’s field work measures element and retention outcomes in live auctions. This meta-analysis is the scholarly prior on what “creativity” as a construct does across labs. The authors explicitly call for more digital and sales-linked evidence — the gap Darwin’s repository is built to fill with primary datasets. Companion attention papers: Pieters & Wedel (2004), Pieters, Wedel & Batra (2010).

Source of record: doi:10.1177/0022242920929288.