10.1 Behavioral Approach
Visual Persuasion
(Messaris 1997) and (Scott and Batra 2003) are two books on this subject
Prior distribution for TV advertising elasticity for consumer packaged goods can be found in (Shapiro, Hitsch, and Tuchman 2018). A substantial portion of products has statistically insignificant or negative estimates for advertising elasticity. TV ads might not be the best vehicle to reach the customer now.
(Gordon, Jerath, et al. 2019) reframe our idea of advertising effect, which should be thought of in the sense of incremental effect above the baseline of an ad on consumer behavior.
(Gordon et al. 2017) and (Lewis and Rao 2015) provided evidence that observational data can hardly detect adverting effects from noise (i.e., we could either over or under-estimate).
The goal standard to measure advertising is a random experiment, but it is not possible. An improvement is to have panel data from different regions of your market to estimate the baseline for each market. Then, you can uncover the advertising effect.
(McGuire, 1978):
Information processing model of social influence (e.g., advertising effectiveness)
Behavioral chain of information profession model. (p. 158) (Markov process) - persuasion
P(presentation of message) x P(attention to message) x P(Comprehension of Conclusion) x P(Yielding to the Conclusion) x P (retention of the new belief) x P (Behaving on the basis of belief)
Presentation of message = # of reach (advertising investment)
attention to message = # of true reach or Recognition test
comprehension = recall test or semantic differential profiles or checklist tests
yielding = attitude change
retention = attitude change after time interval
behavior = actual observation
Independent variables (components of persuasive communication): source, message, channel, receiver, and destination (Table 1, p. 167)
Matrix of persuasion
Advertising appeals:
Positive (gain): reduce anxiety
Negative (loss): increase anxiety
Development in the field: this model assume 1 hierarchy, but later developments change the idea of hierarchy model.
Court et al. (2009)
Traditional funnel:
Awareness
Familiarity
Consideration
Purchase
Loyalty
Active loyalist
Passive loyalist
Consumer decision journey McKinsey (2009):
- Initial consideration set
- Active evaluation
- Decision at moment of purchase
- Postpurchase experience
Customer Decision Journey is from the perspective of consumers
Customer Funnel is still important but it’s from the company’s perspective.
Analogy here is that you look from 3D (Customer Decision Journey) to 2D (Customer Funnel).
Hierarchy of effects model (1960s)
Multiattribute attitude model and cognitive response models (1970s)
Proposed model:
Antecedents:
Types of needs
Utilitarian needs
Expressive needs
Socially expressive needs: to express, or reflect self-image
Experiential needs: to satisfy one’s cognitive or sensory
Motivation (in CB involvement): “the desire to process brand information in the ad.” (p. 4)
situational
enduring
Processing
Attention:
higher processing motivation leads to higher attention
higher utilitarian needs, more focused on brand attributes
higher expressive needs, more focused on symbolic/ experiential value
Processing capacity:
greater processing motivation leads to greater processing capacity for analyzing the ad
greater the processing capacity results in less processing capacity for other task.
Level of brand processing matches processing operations
feature analysis: salient properties/features
basic categorization
meaning analysis: basic understanding
information integration: Is this brand association?
role-taking
constructive processes
Ability and opportunity are moderators of processing
Consequences
Cognitive responses (thoughts)
Emotional responses (feelings)
Another classifications of responses:
message-related (brand-relevant)
execution-related (brand-irreverent)
viewing-context-related (environment-related)
Advantages of the proposed model: Incorporate
Elaboration Likelihood model: (Petty and Cacioppo 1986)
Mitchell’s brand processing model
Greenwald and Leavitt’s model
Lutz’s typology
Note:
- \(A_{Ad}\) mediates \(A_B\) based on levels of processing (specifically, meaning analysis, information integration, and role taking - high levels).
- Tradeoff between brand/message-related elements and ad-execution elements
- Cohen and chestnut 1990, behavioral loyalty and attitudinal loyalty stem did not stem from the gap between attitude and actual behavioral.
Advertising input -> Filters -> Consumer (Cognition, Affect, Experience) -> Behavior
Market Response Models:
Aggregate level (Bass’ model): market data
- 3 exposures per purchase cycle is optimal (p. 29)
Individual level: individual brand choice
Cognitive Information Models (C)
- There is a differential effect between price (increase) and non-price (decrease) advertising on price sensitivity
Pure Affect Models (A)
Mere exposure theories
Response competition and Optimal arousal theories: “wear-in” effect which means it takes time to getting familiar to advertising messages to reach optimal effectiveness.
Two-factor theory: wear-out effect: after optimal exposures, the effect of advertising starts to decrease
Hence, advertising response has an inverted-U shape
Affective responses to advertising:
Attitude towards the brand
Attitude towards the ad
Persuasive Hierarchy Models (CA)
Cognition -> Affect -> behavior. (CA)
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM): (Petty and Cacioppo 1986)
Another model is (Maclnnis and Jaworski 1989)
Fishbein-Ajzen (1975) involvement model
Batra and Ray (1985): Utilitarian and hedonic effect on attitudes towards the brand
Involvement moderates the effect of ad evaluation (persuasion is found in low-involvement consumers with attitude towards the ad).
Little support for CA model, but the authors still believe in it.
Low-involvement (motivation) Hierarchy Models (CEA)
- Cognition -> Experience -> Affect
Integrative Models (CAE)
Information Integration Response Model (IIRM)
Deighton’s (1984, 1986) two-stage model:
first experience = expectations
second stage = product trail/experience
Hierarchy-Free Models (NH)
Generalizations:
Experience, affect, cognition are mediators of advertising effects.
“Short-term ad elasticities are small and decrease during the product life cycle (p. 35).
23 Empirical Generalizations
Gaps:
Boundary conditions
Advertising properties
Measurement issues
Considerations for a well-integrated marketing communications program
Consistency
Complementarity
Cross-effects
Dynamic Expanded Customer Decision Journey
traditional media
newer media
Search ads
display ads
websites
email
social media
Mobile
Interaction and Cross-effects
Traditional media synergies
sales force and personal selling interactions
Online and offline synergies
Drawbacks
Limited outcome variables
Limited longitudinal studies
Did not account for consumer decision stage
Media type
Paid (TV, print, direct)
owned (websites, blogs, apps, social media)
earned (WOM, press coverage)
Factors that affect consumer communication processing (model) (p. 130)
Communication Matching Model: “matches the expected main and interactive effects of different media options with the communications objectives for a brand”
Communications Optimization Model
Coverage
Cost
Contribution
Commonality: different communications share the same meaning
Complementarity
Cross-Effects
Conformability
IMC Conceptual Framework
10.1.1 Cognitive and Affective
Cognitive and Affective mediators of Advertising Effects
Evaluative responses = attitude
Cognitive approach -> Affective approach (not only comes from cognitive) -> Behavioral approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975 - theory of planned behavior)
System 2: is kinda of independent of Cognitive, but Affective is system 1.
Expanded model added subjective norm
Evaluation from cognitive approach is multi-attribute model
Anthony Greenwald: Cognitive Response Theory: what important is what is in the consumer mind when they see the ad.
Conditioning:
Classical (Pavlovian) conditioning: physiological automatic reaction occurred after being exposed to an unconditioned stimulus.
Evaluative conditioning: direct transfer of affect from one stimulus to another via a conditioning paradigm.
Affective route:
Moods = diffuse, hard to pin down the source, more long-lasting
Emotion = specific, discrete
Three modes of spontaneous cognitive responses to advertising stimulus:
Counterargument
Source Derogation
Support Argument
\[ Accecptance = w_{SA} \sum_{i} SA_i - w_{CA} \sum_j CA_j - w_{SD} \sum_k SD_k \]
Situational Factors
Content-processing involvement: “stemming from receiver’s perception of the relevancy”
Message Modality: audio, print
Advertising repetition increases brand attitude and purchase intention when support and counter argument production are low; while under high level of such production, brand attitude and purchase intention level off.
What happen to make the downturn of advertising repetition earlier or later?
Appropriate interval: purchase cycle (number of exposure per purchase cycle). 3 exposures per purchase cycle is the optimal number
Wear-in: how many times it takes for the ad to take effect?
Wear-out: how many times it takes for the ad to bore you?
- If you change the ad execution, the wear-out is pushed back.
Traditional thoughts advertising repetition would always wear out (inverted-U curve between repetition and impact on customer’s attitude) because of wearout and mere exposure
Ability, motivation and opportunity are antecedents of cognitive processing
Antecedents of attitude towards the ad:
Attitude toward the ad leads changes in brand attitudes (MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986; A. A. Mitchell and Olson 1981)
In low involvement context, execution cues and source likeability (message-oriented and communicator-oriented) have greater impact on persuasion
Affect typologies (p. 237)
emotional reactions mediate the effect of advertising on attitudes toward ad or brand.
Why divided two articles? the second study claimed that the last paper’s list of positive affective mediators was limited, the second one expands to range of emotions.
Is there a difference between affect and emotions?
(R. R. Burke and Srull 1988) Competitive interference and consumer memory for advertising
Experiment 1: Retroactive Interference:
Objective: Analyze the impact of subsequent ads on memory for an initial ad.
Finding: Memory for a brand’s ad was hampered by:
Later ads for other products within the same manufacturer’s line.
Ads from competing brands in the same product class.
Experiment 2: Proactive Interference:
Objective: Examine how prior ads impact memory for subsequent ads.
Finding: Analogous interference effects observed, meaning prior ads can disrupt recall of later ads.
Experiment 3: Ad Repetition & Competition’s Influence:
Objective: Study the link between ad repetition and consumer memory in the face of competition.
Finding:
Ad repetition positively affected recall when there was minimal or no advertising for analogous products.
Presence of competitive ads altered the positive memory effect of repeated advertising.
(Batra and Ahtola 1991; Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003) offer scale to measure the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude
(Gibson 2008): Affective Responses Mediating Acceptance of Advertising
Using Implicit Association Test (???)
Evaluative conditioning only influences explicit attitudes when there is no previous strong preference or priori
(Pham, Geuens, and De Pelsmacker 2013)
ad-evoked feelings positively influence brand attitudes both directly and indirectly (via changes in attitude toward the ad), regardless of involvement with the product category, products types (e.g., durables, nondurables, services, search or experience goods).
This effect is greater among hedonic products than utilitarian ones.
Momentary interruptions can promote persuasion
- higher for low need for cognitive individuals (motivation to engage in thoughtful processing) than high ones
In other words, interruptions can increase consumers’ processing of a message.
Interruption amplified arousal (need for completion/ goal pursuit and curiosity)
(Dall’Olio and Vakratsas 2022) Effect of Advertising Creative strategy on Advertising Elasticity
offer composite metrics that measure aspects of creative strategy
Content affect advertising elasticity in the following descending order
Experiential content
Cognitive content
Affective content
10.1.2 Involvement
Two overarching frameworks in this stream of research are:
- Elaboration LIkelihood Model (Petty and Cacioppo 1979)
- Heuristic-Systematic Model H(Chaiken 1980)
Involvement as a key moderator in advertising effectiveness
From the ELM by (Petty and Cacioppo 1986) by use the word “motivation” in place of involvement. And if you use the term “motivation”, reviewers are less likely to fight with you since involvement is so fragmented
For review and operationalization, check (Muehling, Laczniak, and Andrews 1993) (preferable) or (Andrews, Durvasula, and Akhter 1990) and famous scale is (Zaichkowsky 1985)
Possible manipulation of involvement:
- ego-involvement: how a product is relevant to you (e.g., pick a free product for you, or for others)
Involvement roughly means “How deeply you are as a consumer wants to think about a product,”
Motivation (2) Opportunity (kinda under ability in the original ELM, we as marketers separate this factor) (3) Ability are necessary for elaboration likelihood model (Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983)
Defensive processing is not fully captured under the ELM model: Motivation: not the desire to think, but also the desire to find out the truth, assuming that consumers want to find out the truth.
Involvement vs. Engagement:
- According to (Greenwald and Leavitt 1984) (p. 583), define audience involvement and actor involvement (should be called engagement).
derived from Sherif & Hovland (1961) Social Judgment (ego-involvement)
Enduring involvement vs. situational involvement (Houston & Rothschild, 1977) (A Paradigm for Research on Consumer Involvement)
Four levels of involvement:
Preattention: little capacity
Focal attention: modest capacity to decipher the message
Comprehension: more capacity to analyze the message
Elaboration: most capacity to integrate the message into the audience’s knowledge.
Antecedents: Situational involvement
Consequences:
Under high involvement: communication can modify beliefs
Under low involvement: communication affect perceptions, and can gradually be persuasive after repeated exposure.
Under ego-involvement: high involvement is more resistance to persuasion.
Processes of involvement:
High involvement creates link between new info to previous experience or attitude
differentiate high vs. involvement by central vs. peripheral routs to persuasion (Petty and Cacioppo 1986)
Mitchell (1979) equates high involvement to arousal/drive
Involvement stems from
Actor (participant) or audience (observer)
Distinction: Attentional capacity and attentional arousal
Arousal = “a state of wakefulness, general preparation, or excitement that facilitates the performance of well-leaned response.” (p. 583)
Capacity (also known as effort by Kahneman (1973)) = ” a limited resource that must be used to focus on a specific task and that is needed in increasing amounts as the cognitive complexity of a task increases.” (p. 583)
Levels of processing: influences long-term memories
Principles for the control of involvement:
Bottom-up (data-driven) processing
Top-down (concept-driven) processing
Competence (data) limitation
Capacity (resource) limitation
Effects of involvement
Immediate Effects: “analyze codes produced by prior processing”
Enduring Effects
Preattention: no definitive conclusion
Focal attention: (1) Familiar stimuli could be identified as separated objects and (2) Unfamiliar stimuli primes sensory memory traces
Comprehension: create traces at the propositional level of representation
Elaboration: “substantial freedom of memory and attitude from the specific details of th original message or its setting.”
Principle of higher-level dominance: the effect of the highest level of involvement is dominant in cases where the effects of different levels oppose one another.
Both routes can happen at the same time
deeper thinking, play judgment will dominate the net results (weights on whatever route is higher)
(Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983)
provides evidence for the two routes to persuasion
Central route: long-lasting and predictive of behavior
Peripheral route: associated with positive or negative cues , can be temporary and unpredictive of behavior.
Argument quality influences attitudes more under high than low involvement
Product endorsers (celebrities vs. joe) influences attitudes more under low than high involvement
Can use this as an example of (1) message content, and (2) executional cues (e.g., endorsers) can influence persuasiveness.
Mood affects cognitive elaboration, bias the argument quality, peripherally affect brand attitudes.
- Positive moods reduces elaboration
(Macinnis, Rao, and Weiss 2002)
Under ELM, for the endorsers to have an effect, customers have to have some motivation (require some levels of cognition), while affective processing does not require any motivation. Hence, for consumers have higher ability (know about products because it’s mature).
For mature brands, affectively based executional cues can induce sales
Advertisement with positive feelings induces sales
(Schivinski, Christodoulides, and Dabrowski 2016)
Propose consumers’ engagement scales (in the context of social media)
Three dimensions of consumer’s engagement based on previous research Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit (2011)
Consumption (e.g., using)
Contribution: (e.g., liking or sharing, participating)
Creation: (e.g., posting, producing contents)
McQuarrie (1998): Meta analysis
Lab experiments (in advertising context) are different from real-world phenomenon because:
Forcing exposure
Failing to measure choice
does not consider competitive ads, decay, repeated exposures or mature/familiar brands.
(Muehling, Laczniak, and Andrews 1993)
A review on involvement in advertising research
See figure 1 (p. 43) for involvement conceptualization
10.1.3 Visual Cues
X.-Y. (Marcos). Chu, Chang, and Lee (2021)
Prestigious brands whose brand image is associated with status and luxury, consumers’ attitude toward the product becomes more favorable and their willingness to pay a premium for the product grows as the distance between the visual representations of the product and the consumer increases.
Popular brands whose brand image is associated with broad appeal and social connectedness, the closer the distance, the more favorable is consumers’ attitude and the higher their willingness to pay a premium.