Showing papers in "ACR North American Advances in 1985"

The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Limitations and Extensions in Marketing

Abstract: The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty and Cacioppo 1981) is discussed as a framework for understanding attitude formation and change with regard to products :ind services. The model has a number of limitations, some general and some specifically relevant to applications in consumer behavior and marketing. These limitations are presented and discussed along with suggestions for research. Despite its underspecification, the tnodel is seen as a useful framework and the authors propose a number of specific marketing modiatars of elaboration Iikelihood. in marketing a great deal of attention has been focused on attitude formation, attitude change and attitude measurement with respect to products and services. Since 1970, the literature reflects strong interest in the application and development of tnultiattribute attiLude models (Wilkie and Pessemier 1973; Lutz 1981). Lndustry applications have also relied heavily on survey methodologies and multiattribute approaches to measure .ittitudes toward and preferences for products and servii:es. The multiattribute method assumes that consumers s.an and do base their choice decisions on beliefs about [iroduct/service attributes. Marketing strategies evolving out of this approach to attitude formation focus on analyzing and communicating information about important product/service attributes. At the same time there has been substantial research in marketing to suggest that there are external cues or inLernal psychological processes quite separate from careful consideration of specific product/service attributes Lhat may influence consumers' attitudes. Halo effect phenomena (Beckwith and Lehmann 1975; Mitchell and Olson 1981), attitude change via classical conditioning (Gorn 1982), behavior modification (Nord and Peter 1980), mere fxposure effects (Obermiller 1984), self-perception theory (Reingen and Kernan 1977), and the application of simple decision rules are examples of this view of attiLude formation and change. Marketing strategies evolving out of this approach focus less on specific product/ service attributes and more on understanding the effects of contextual cues and heuristics on evaluation and decision making. These two approaches to attitude formation and change can be classified under what Petty and Cacioppo (1981; 1983) refer to in their Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) as central and peripheral routes to persuasion. The model proposes that neither route alone can account for the diversity of observed attitude change phenomena, and that the important question is when each route is most likely to be followed. This paper discusses the ELM and its usefulness to the field of marketing as a framework for predicting how attitudes will be formed and changed in various situations. Limitations of the model are discussed and specific marketing mediators of elaboration likelihood are suggested. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) The ELM provides a framework for accounting for the diverse results observed in attitude change research. The model suggests that there are two routes to persuasion— the c::ntral route and the peripht:ral route—and that Lhese two categories can account for all of the various theories of attitude change. In the central route, attitudes are formed and changed by careful consideration and integration of information relevant to the attitude object or issue. In the peripheral route, on the other hand, attitudes are formed and changed without active thinking about the object and its attributes, but rather by associating the object with positive or negative cues or by using cognitive \"short cuts.\" \"The accunulated research on persuasion clearly indicates that neither the central nor the peripheral approach alone can account for the diversity of attitude-change results oberved\" (Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983, p. 136). The question thus becomes under what conditions is persuasion most likely via each of the two routes. In their model. Petty and Cacioppo suggest the persuasion will occur via the central route when elaboration likelihood is high, that is vrtien a person is both motivated and able to process informatif^n about the attitude object. Elaboration likelihood will be low if either or both of the above conditions (motivation or ability) are not met and persuasion will then be more likely via the peripheral route. Support for these hypotheses can be found in both the marketing and psychology literature. Most work -to date has addressed the role of motivation as a mediator of elaboration likelihood, and thus the route to persuasion (Chaiken 1980; Gorn L982; Johnson and Scileppi 1969; Petty and Cacioppo 1981, 1984; Petty, Cacioppo and Goldman 1981; Petty, Cacioppo and Schumann 1983). A few studies have addressed ability as a mediator of elaboration likelihood (Wood 1982; Chaiken and Eagley 1976; Regan and Cheng 1973; Cacioppo and Petty 1981; Petty, Wells and Brock 1976). In addition to ability and motivation, and individual difference variable, \"need for cognition,\" has been shown to be a mediator of elaboration likelihood (Cacioppo, Petty and Morris 1983). Petty and Cacioppo also hypothesize that there are differing consequences resulting from persuasion via the two routes. They believe that persuasion via the central route is both more enduring and more predictive of subsequent behavior than persuasion via the peripheral route. The source of these hypotheses is their analysis of past studies and there is at this point only weak support from indirect tests of hypotheses (Chaiken 1980; Petty, Cacioppo and Schumann 1983). Limitations of the Model Although we acknowledge the usefulness of ELM as a framework for conceptualizing attitude formation and change, we wish to argue for several limitations of significance in consumer research. These limitations are not intended as criticisms of the development of the ELM. Rather they indicate underspecifications of the model that leave important questions as yet unanswered. (One reviewer of this paper suggested that the FLM in its current form is an \"anatomy\" whereas we are pursuing a \"physiology\" of attitude formation and change. We presume this comment to mean that the ELM describes and categorizes, but lacks sufficient detail of the process to afford explanation. Our criticism may well be directed at the current state of understanding as a whole rather than specifically at the ELM.)

Why Business Is Bad For Consumer Research: the Three Bears Revisited

Abstract: Morry ... an old guard ... came to us in Junior Kindergarten.... 'toe is the class' leading non-conformist.... favorite class is English.... illustrious Ledger Editor who writes unprintable, flaming editorials.... often referred to as Turtle.... is looking east to Harvard (The Arrow, High School Yearbook, Milwaukee Country Day 1961). \"I'm coming at marketing problems from a slightly different direction,\" says Professor Morris B. Holbrook.... \"The consumer is neglected, relative to the manager,\" says Holbrook. \"If you accept the premise that business involves both, and 99.9 percent of the people who are studying business are studying managers, then it follows that the consumer is getting short shrift.\".... Holbrook describes his research efforts as \"trying to balance the scales a bit\" (Dean's Annual Report, Columbia Business School. 1983).

A Conceptualization of the Household/Technology Interaction

Abstract: The traditional approach of viewing household/technology relationship is limited to the nature of adoption of technologies. We believe that in order to develop a meaningful analysis of this relationship one must go beyond mere adoption and examine the entire process consisting of not only adoption but the patterns of use as well as the impact of technology on household dynamics. In this paper, we attempt to conceptualize this issue by proposing a model of household technology structure. Embedded in this structure are the household social space. The paper examines the links between the three components as a means to understanding the household/ technology relationship. There has been an increasing interest in recent years among consumer researchers in household behavior and consumption (Etgar, 1978; Firat and Dholakia, 1982; Roberts and Wortzel, forthcoming). A particular aspect of the household consumption which is the main focus of this paper is the use of technology in the household. A major rationale for studying the household-technology relationship has been clearly stated by Nicosia (1983): "Technology is usually associated with production processes and various social science disciplines have researched the effects of technology in work activities .... The effects of technology in consumption activities have been largely ignored or taken for granted .... By focusing on the family as the institutional setting for a great deal of consumer behavior, we should gain a better understanding of the interdependencies between technology and consumers ...." A surge of interest in technology and households has been triggered by a multiplicity of factors. The entry of married women into the labor force has created the possibility that households might be acquiring a greater number of time saving devices. (Strober and Weingberg, 1977, 1980; Reilly, 1982). Some time-budget research has also been reported in Europe and in the U.S. looking at related issues (Szalai, 1972; Michelson, 1980). The emergence of modern information technology such as videotex and home computers has aroused much popular interest (Time, 1983) as well as scientific interest (Moschis et al., 1983; Venkatesh and Vitalari, 1983). This paper is based on three premises. First, in understanding the household-technology relationship, the conventional approach has been to look exclusively at the household and not the technology itself. A balanced approach would require that we not only examine the nature of the household but also the characteristics of household technologies. Second, we have pursued a line of thinking in our paper which attempts to distinguish between the three processes: adoption, use, and impact of technology in the context of a micro-social system which is called the household. While adoption is an important component of the technology/consumer interface, it provides but an incomplete picture of the totality of the interface itself, only because it is limited to the initial stages of consumer contact with the technology. It is this concern that the entire process merits examination. Third, we posit that households have internal ecologies and value systems which come into play in adopting new technologies. Although a balancing of exogenous (i.e., external to the household) and endogenous (i.e., internal) forces is not unique to the household, the particular manner in which it is accomplisehd differentiates households from other social institutions. In the next section we discuss some issues from current literature. This will be followed by a presentation of a model of the household technological structure and a development of the relevant ideas. Households and Technology: A Synthesis of Traditional Concerns In the past 50 years, households have adopted several technologies. Some obvious examples are household appliances such as washers, dryers, and refrigerators; entertainment oriented products such as television and stereo; transporation and communication devices. such as automobiles and telephones. These technologies have had a variety of impacts on the household. Some of the technologies have replaced manual labor, some of them have significantly reduced it, and a few others have, transformed totally the character of the household. In reviewing the relevant interdisciplinary literature on household technologies we find three interrelated themes: the relationship between household technology and (a) time savings, (b) women's employment, and (c) sex-linked division of labor. The first and major theme relates to the potential that some household technologies represent in saving time in the performance of housework. Morgan et al. (1966) found families with more automatic home appliances estimating more hours of housework than those with fewer appliances. Robinson et al. (1972) and Vanek (1978) also reported results partially confirming this result. Obviously there are some explanations for such counter intuitive findings. Walker (1969) has suggested that over the years the product of housework has attained a better quality (e.g., cleaner clothes, clean house, kitchen, etc.) and to a large extent this has been made possible by newer technologies. Additionally, there seems to be a trade-off of more repetitive and routine housework to a more managerial type of activity. Thus there seems to be a shift in internal allocation of the housewife's time. The other theme that runs through some of the studies has to do with the relationship between modern household equipment and women's employment. Strober and Weinberg (1980), contending that employed wives utilize different methods to reduce time pressures, tested the hypothesis that they own more durable goods than nonemployed wives. It was, however, found that the wife's employment was not significant either in the purchase decision or in the amount of expenditures on durables. The study was replicated by Nichols and Fox (1983) whose findings confirmed Strober and Weinberg's study.

Ritual Costumes and Status Transition: the Female Business Suit As Totemic Emblem

Abstract: Michael R. Solomon, New York University Punam Anand, New York University ABSTRACT Modern ritual merits closer attention by consumer researchers. The widespread use of products as ritual artifacts is particularly noteworthy. The female business suit is conceptualized as an artifact which is integral to a modern rite de passage. "Magical qualities ascribed to the suit by novitiates are discussed, and ramifications for positioning strategies are considered. [ to cite ]: Michael R. Solomon and Punam Anand (1985) ,"Ritual Costumes and Status Transition: the Female Business Suit As Totemic Emblem", in NA Advances in Consumer Research Volume 12, eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Moris B. Holbrook, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 315-318.