Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
143 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Consumer Responses
|
*Affective (Feelings)
Positive or Negative Feelings (e.g., happy, sad) *Cognitive (Thoughts) Beliefs, opinions, attitudes, and intentions *Conative (Behaviors) Purchase decisions and Consumptionrelated practices |
|
Personal Variables
|
(Individual Differences)
– Internal to specific individuals – Intelligence, interests, preferences, etc. – e.g., One person shops more carefully than another |
|
Situational Variables
|
– External: in the environment
– Include 4 Ps: Product, Price, Place, and Promotion – e.g., Buying a house can be more serious than buying a computer. |
|
Correlational Relationships
|
Positive Ad/Sales Correlation
Increase in Advertising leads to... Increase in Sales or: Increase in sales leads to... Increase in Advertising _____________________________ Confounding variable: (ex: population ->churches ->crime) |
|
Causal Relationships
|
Cause
(Independent variable) leads to... Effect (Dependent variable) _____________________________ Causation Requires That: 1. Two variables are correlated 2. Cause (Independent Variable/IV) Precedes Effect (Dependent Variable/DV) 3. Control for effects of other variables |
|
Confounding Variable
|
Ex: As the number of churches increased in a city, so did the number of crimes. This doesn't necessarily mean the number of churches cause the increase in crime. *Population* is the confounding variable because it is actually the increase of population that causes the increase of churches and crime.
|
|
Independent Variable
|
Cause in a Causal Relationship
Experimentation: * Manipulate IV to assess effect on DV |
|
Dependent Variable
|
Effect in a Causal Relationship
Experimentation: * Manipulate IV to assess effect on DV |
|
Random Assignment
|
Participants grouped by chance
Controls for Individual Differences among participants e.g., If those who saw the ad have more money or are more compulsive, that could explain our results. With random assignment, those with money or compulsiveness are just as likely as not to see the ad. Participant backgrounds cancel out |
|
Limits of Attention
|
Limited Cognitive Capacity
Miller’s (1956) Magic Number 7: 7 + or - 2 units of info at a time |
|
Attention Intensity
|
Amount of attention we can pay to an ad
Also limited by cognitive capacity ______________________________ Attention Factors 1. Prior Knowledge/Expertise: More and larger “chunks” of info. 2. Arousal (How awake or alert we are): What kind of relationship? |
|
Arousal
|
How awake or alert we are
*Attention vs. Intensity: “Inverted U” pattern on graph |
|
Selective Attention
|
Allocation of effort.
It’s “where we put our attention, and where our attention goes” ----------------------------- 1. Voluntary attention currently relevant information Momentary Predispositions (e.g., in the market for a cell phone) 2. Involuntary attention a. Salience (Context Dependent): difference from surroundings. |
|
Vividness
|
2. Involuntary attention
(Continued) Enduring Predispositions (e.g., chronic back pain) b. Vividness (Person Dependent): • personally or emotionally interesting • concrete or imagery provoking • sensory, spatial, and temporal proximity |
|
Salience
|
*Salient stimuli
capture the attention of all people some of the time. (Vivid stimuli get the attention of some people all of the time.) |
|
Comprehension
|
Relating new info to info
stored in memory, or “meaning making” |
|
Cognitive Capacity
|
With limited cognitive
capacity, we aren’t always able to “un-believe.” e.g., Info Overload (Distraction) and Time pressure |
|
Miller’s Magic Number
|
7 +/- 2
|
|
Comprehension & Belief
|
Comprehension and belief are
inseparable, at least initially. Rejecting a false claim requires a second step! |
|
Repetition & Belief
|
*If we can’t remember whether a claim
is true, we’ll assume it is. *Increases our tendency to believe by increasing familiarity. Otherwise, why remember it? |
|
Pragmatic Inferences
|
everyday
assumptions about claims that are literally true but figuratively false. e.g., using the word “may”, as in “Brand X may help relieve pain.” |
|
Comparison Omission
|
leave out object
of comparison so consumers fill in the blank with a competing product. e.g. “Brand X gives you greater mileage” (than other kinds of gasoline). |
|
Piecemeal Data
|
Compare specific
attributes of one product to several different products so people infer your product is better than all others. *“More head room than Mercedes, more leg room than Cadillac, and more trunk space than a BMW…” |
|
Juxtaposition of Imperatives
|
place
two statements together so that people infer one leads to the other *“Be popular! Brush with Ultra Brite!” |
|
Affirmation of the Consequent
|
common logical fallacy that
“If p, then q” means “if q, then p.” *If I look younger, then I use Oil of Olay. If I use Oil of Olay, then I look younger. |
|
Deceptive Advertising
|
Advertising can be:
*Deceptive and false *Deceptive and true *Nondeceptive and true *Nondeceptive and false |
|
Short-Term Memory
|
(Conscious Awareness/
Attention -- Thinking) ------------------------------- 1. Encoding: placing STM info into LTM. Works through two sub-operations: a. Rehearsal: repeating in your head. b. Coding: relating new info to old info. 2. Retrieval: bringing LTM info into STM. Two major types: a. Recognition: noticing present info as familiar. b. Recall: naming info when not present. Can be aided (cues) or unaided (none). |
|
Long-Term Memory
|
(Encoded info storage)
------------------------------- 1. Encoding: placing STM info into LTM. Works through two sub-operations: a. Rehearsal: repeating in your head. b. Coding: relating new info to old info. 2. Retrieval: bringing LTM info into STM. Two major types: a. Recognition: noticing present info as familiar. b. Recall: naming info when not present. Can be aided (cues) or unaided (none). |
|
Organization Principle
|
Memory performance is better when
individual pieces of info are grouped together. |
|
Encoding-Specificity Principle
|
Memory better when contextual cues
during both encoding and retrieval are the same. |
|
Encoding Processes
|
Works through two sub-operations:
a. Rehearsal: repeating in your head. b. Coding: relating new info to old info. |
|
Retrieval Processes
|
bringing LTM info into STM.
Two major types: a. Recognition: noticing present info as familiar. b. Recall: naming info when not present. Can be aided (cues) or unaided (none). |
|
(Un)aided Recall
|
Ex: What are the names of
the Seven Dwarfs? |
|
Recognition
|
Ex: What are the names of the Seven Dwarfs?
Itchy Longful Sneezy Teach Grumpy Cheery Wheezy Stupid Stubby Junkie Happy Doc Slimy Nifty Shorty Bashful Wimpy Lumpy Sleepy Prof Hopeful Chumpy Dopey Scratchy |
|
Node
|
Organization Principle:
Memory performance is better when individual pieces of info are grouped together (in nodes). |
|
Association
|
Describes the interrelated nature of
information stored in memory: Association: connects two nodes in memory Node: concept, idea, or piece of info AdPsych Class AdPsych Class = Boring |
|
Associative Network
|
combination
of all nodes that are interrelated with all other nodes via associations. ----------------------------- When a specific node is activated, or retrieved from memory, closely associated nodes also become activated. |
|
Priming Effects (2 types)
|
Two different types:
1. Activated concepts can lead us to exaggerate their prevalence. How much Violence? -> Some Violent TV Show -> How much Violence? -> A lot (PRIME) 1. Availability Priming: Prime -> Spreading Activation We estimate prevalence by available examples 2. Concept Priming: Accessible concepts influence the interpretation of incoming information. “Ocean Spray has more food energy” food energy = power Sunday Night Football food energy = calories Rush Limbaugh Commentary |
|
Associative Interference
|
Complex associative networks:
Spreading activation in many directions. Simple associative networks: Spreading activation in only a few directions. So... The bigger the network, the less likely a specific node will be activated. |
|
Negative Brand Associations
& Rumor Control |
McDonald's example:
Rumor Alone Rumor Plus Refutation Rumor Plus Associative- best Interference No Rumor Control- second best |
|
Media Clutter
|
exposure to large
amounts of advertising When many similar ads are shown before of after ours, category networks grow. So... e.g., Car Ads ... media clutter can make our product less likely to be activated. With simple category networks, ad repetition sufficient With complex, differentiate our product using salient ads and products strengthens the association and can cause “subcategory” creation e.g., SUV’s, Chevy SSR |
|
Implicit & Explicit Memory
|
Explicit Memory: Conscious/concerted
Memory = object. Implicit Memory: Unconscious/automatic Memory = tool. Aware of memory use and can control for memory influences on our thinking. Unaware, so we can’t. |
|
Source Amnesia
|
Unaware of where a
feeling or idea comes from. |
|
Evaluative Judgments
|
Consumer attitudes about
products and issues Attitudes: ”global” ideas about products or issues. Also measured on a continuum. Valenced “Very Bad Product to Very Good Product” |
|
Nonevaluative Judgments
|
Beliefs: ideas about attributes and benefits.
Measured on a continuous scale between extremes. Beliefs about product qualities e.g. Very Large to Very Small Not valenced, although it may seem so. “Building blocks for evaluative judgments” |
|
Types of Beliefs (3)
|
1) Descriptive: from direct,
firsthand experience 2) Informational: from indirect, secondhand info. Not as strong as descriptive. 3) Inferential: go beyond our knowledge. Based on correlation (price = quality), prior knowledge (cars have four wheels), or schemas (attribute/benefit links). |
|
Zanna & Rempel Model
|
Reciprocal Relationships
|
|
Representativeness Heuristic
|
If new product reminds us of old one we liked,
we’ll predict we’ll like the new one, too. Similarity-based Judgment Even if we focus on irrelevant similarity. e.g., Charlie’s Angels & Charlie’s Angels 2 e.g., package design |
|
Availability Heuristic
|
*Memory-based Judgment
Predictions based on the ease with which instances are retrieved from memory. Ex: Good Acme products come to mind easily, so we’ll think new Acme products will be good. |
|
Satisfaction Judgments
|
Satisfaction Judgments:
Attributions Causal inferences about product performance. External or Internal External: fault outside oneself Internal: fault inside oneself Poor design = Dissatisfaction Good Design = Satisfaction No effect on product satisfaction |
|
Attributions
|
Causal inferences about product performance.
External or Internal |
|
Preference Judgments
|
Attitude-based preferences: from
comparing at the global level. Involves direct comparisons among products, ideas, or behaviors. Attribute-based preferences: from comparing various attributes. “Attitude must be in memory.” |
|
Expectancy Disconfirmation
|
1) We form product expectations
before purchase. 2) If meets or exceeds expectations, we’re satisfied. If not, we’re not. Expectations as important as “reality.” |
|
Consideration Set
|
*group of products considered
when making a purchase ------------------------------ Brands available (Often 12 or more) Consideration Set 1 (Loyal) to 9 (7+2) Choice (1 Brand) |
|
Part-List Cuing
|
Present partial brand list to reduce number people
retrieve from memory. Reduce consideration set & Keep your product in: Increases likelihood of choosing your product. Ex:Piecemeal Data: “Brand X has more head room than a Mercedes, more leg room than a Cadillac, and more trunk space than a BMW.” |
|
Attraction Effect
|
Adding similar but inferior product to a
line increases attractiveness of original 1) New product highlights product line and price-quality relationship. 2) Better value product will increase in sales. ONLY TWO similar products of ONE BRAND e.g., Bread-maker in book |
|
Trade-off Contrast Effect
|
Value even clearer when greater number
of brands considered Similar to Attraction Effect, but more than two products and more than one brand. |
|
Compromise Effect
|
Middle brands/products
(among three or more) chosen more often than extremes Extremes make middle seem like a “safe bet.” |
|
Stimulus & Memory Choices
|
Stimulus-based: all brand/attribute info present.
Easy to access diagnostic information. e.g., in a grocery store or on the web Memory-based Choice: no product info present. Recall brands and diagnostic information. e.g., at a party, wanna go out for food ----------------------------- Mixed Choice: Stimulus and Memory Most common scenario: Some info present and some recalled. e.g. from furniture store A to B Choose stimulus over memory brand, even when memory brand is better. |
|
Attitude & Attribute Heuristics
|
Choice Heuristics
Mental shortcuts or “quick and dirty” rules for making choices 1) Attitude-based Heuristics: overall impressions 2) Attribute-based heuristics: specifics-based a) Between-alternative: Many brands, one attribute at a time b) Within-alternative: Many attributes, one brand at a time ------------------------------ The Attitude Heuristic Consumers simply choose the available brand toward which they have the most favorable attitude Frequency of Good and Bad Products with the highest ratio of good features to bad are chosen. *Doesn’t account for importance of attributes |
|
Within & Between Alternatives
|
Attribute-based heuristics: specifics-based
a) Between-alternative: Many brands, one attribute at a time b) Within-alternative: Many attributes, one brand at a time |
|
THE Attitude Heuristic
|
Attitude-based Heuristics:
The Attitude Heuristic Frequency of Good and Bad Products with the highest ratio of good features to bad are chosen. Consumers simply choose the available brand toward which they have the most favorable attitude Doesn’t account for importance of attributes |
|
Frequency of Good and Bad
|
Products with the highest ratio of
good features to bad are chosen. |
|
Lexicographic Heuristic
|
Choose a brand based on
most important attribute. (e.g., price, reliability, calories, safety, etc.). If two top brands are equal, the second most important is used… |
|
Elimination-by-Aspects
|
Choose an attribute and eliminate brands that
don’t meet a minimum cutoff point. (e.g., cars less than $20k) Process repeated until one choice remains. (e.g., using design, safety, and so on…) |
|
Majority of Confirming
|
1) Consider values of each attribute
for two brands 2) Choose brand with greater number of superior attributes. Does not consider how superior each brand is on each attribute. |
|
Dimensions
|
Between Alternative Attribute-based:
Majority of Confirming Dimensions 2) Choose brand with greater number of superior attributes. Does not consider how superior each brand is on each attribute. 1) Consider values of each attribute for two brands |
|
Conjunctive & Disjunctive
|
Conjuctive Heuristic:
1) Set a minimum acceptable standard for all attributes. 2) Choose first product that meets the standard on all. e.g., price, trip legs, special meal, aisle seat ------------------------------ Disjunctive Heuristic: 1) Set a fairly high cutoff value for each attribute. 2) Select first product that meets standard on ONE attribute. e.g., location, price, variety |
|
Choice Strategy Determinants
|
1) Motivation
2) Opportunity Both have to be HIGH to invoke effort |
|
Exposure Control
|
Avoiding Unwanted Messages:
Attention and Comprehension are factors in persuasion * Most People Don’t Want to be Exposed to Ads! ------------------------------ Overcoming Exposure Control is the first step in Message-Learning What should Advertisers do? Design Salient or Vivid Ads Use HUMOR for mood (Affect) |
|
Message-Learning Approach
|
The Message-Learning Approach: Provides a framework for more complex theories of Persuasion
-------------------------------- Yale University Psychologists (Hovland) Effective Persuasive communications: Attention-drawing (Attention) Comprehensible (Comprehension) Convincing (Yielding) Memorable (Retention) Message-Learning Approach to Persuasion |
|
Perceived Bias
|
perceived: identifies the cause
|
|
Source Importance
|
Source Credibility:
Positively related to Acceptance Negatively to Rejection -------------------------------- Refers to message originator (Who?) Many source factors affect persuasion: Expertise Credibility Attractiveness Familiarity Source Factors ------------------------------ Attractiveness Physical Appearance: Denzel Washington or Flavor Flav Presentation Style: Look to audience. Rapid/fluid speech. Avoid “hedging.” Similarity to Recipients?: Teenagers ------------------------------ Source Importance directly related to Attention: Source Noticeable = High importance Source Hidden = Low Importance e.g., source more important on TV as compared to Radio Ads Source Factors: Modifier |
|
Stages of Digital Marketing
|
...
|
|
Two-sided message & limitation
|
Increase Source
Credibility. Some info goes against the source’s vested interest |
|
Rational Appeals
|
Rational Appeals: logical arguments
|
|
Emotional Appeals
|
Emotional Appeals: “feeling-based”
|
|
Protection Motivation Theory
|
Three key variables of Fear Appeals:
Danger likelihood (%) Coping Effectiveness (lower %?) Self-efficacy (Easy or hard?) |
|
Need for Cognition
|
a recipient factor
------------------------------ Two-Sided Messages: Limitation Better if one doesn’t like or has no attitude, but worse if attitude was favorable |
|
Self-Monitoring
|
a recipient factor
|
|
Rational Appeals
|
Rational Appeals: logical arguments
|
|
Emotional Appeals
|
Emotional Appeals: “feeling-based”
|
|
Protection Motivation Theory
|
Three key variables of Fear Appeals:
Danger likelihood (%) Coping Effectiveness (lower %?) Self-efficacy (Easy or hard?) |
|
Need for Cognition
|
a recipient factor
------------------------------ Two-Sided Messages: Limitation Better if one doesn’t like or has no attitude, but worse if attitude was favorable |
|
Self-Monitoring
|
a recipient factor
|
|
Prior Knowledge
|
a recipient factor
|
|
Mediational Principle
|
Many psychological processes underlie
persuasion: Perception- reception Comprehension- reception Retention Retrieval Agreement- yielding Decision-making- yielding |
|
Combinatory Principle
|
Reception and Yielding oppose one
another given any personality factor Page 152 |
|
Situational-Weighting Principle
|
Reception and Yielding not always
equally important: Simple message: Reception easy so Yielding more important. Complex messages (complex issue): Reception difficult so more important. |
|
Message Complexity & Media
|
Simple message: Reception easy so
Yielding more important. Complex messages (complex issue): Reception difficult so more important. |
|
Comparative Judgment
|
Getting consumers to judge your
product favorably compared to others Principle of relative judgment: make inferior products the reference point |
|
Principle of Relative Judgment
|
Principle of relative judgment: make
inferior products the reference point |
|
Norm Theory
|
Norm Theory: salient/accessible
categories/stimuli |
|
Adaptation Level Theory
|
Adaptation level: average of stimuli
taken into account when judging All products can be ranked Good/Bad Large/Small Expensive/Inexpensive |
|
Social Judgment Theory
|
Contrast and assimilation
Attitudes as reference point Only if in memory Theory predicts assimilation and contrast using Method of Ordered Alternatives |
|
Method of Ordered Alternatives
|
Series of statements: very positive to
very negative Latitude of Acceptance: Circle Latitude of Rejection: Check Latitude of Noncommitment: Unmarked |
|
Self-perception Theory
|
When beliefs and attitudes inaccessible,
people infer them from behavior First make a purchase; later infer liking it e.g., compulsive and emergency purchases |
|
Kelley’s Covariation Principles
|
Causes and effects should Covary:
cause present, effect present cause absent, effect absent Purchase causes: Product Situation Consumer ------------------------------ Use three types of generalizable info: Distinctiveness: different from other products? Consistency: same exact product (and works) all the time? Consensus: does everybody or nobody buy it? ------------------------------ Kelley’s Causal Schemata Causation based on one instance Schemata: causal expectations from prior experience (knowledge structures) Kelley’s Two: Discounting and Augmentation |
|
Discounting Principle
|
As possible reasons increase,
perceived role of any one decreases Use to lower chance of product (line) failure attributions e.g., product used incorrectly or specific product had rare defect ------------------------------ Overjustification Effect Many purchase reasons undermine significance of a single reason Price promotions can undercut quality or other product attribute role. Good in short run, bad in long... |
|
Augmentation Principle
|
Strong situational constraints should
prevent event, but happens anyway: Cause must be very powerful Unexpected info is highly informative Can reduce perceived bias e.g., Two-sided Messages ------------------------------ Use Augmentation to convey high quality, for example: MasterLock™: “Works under fire” Tide™: “Gets out the toughest stains” Infomercials: Average people with no money can strike it rich! |
|
Overjustification Effect
|
Idunno...
Backward conditioning: UCS, then CS Unconditioned stimulus pre-exposure effect: Using overly familiar UCS Blocking: Using UCS previously associated with other CS Latent inhibition: A CS loses its effectiveness through repeated exposure |
|
Classical Conditioning
|
Pavlov’s (1927) experiment
*Bell- conditioned stimulus (CS) *Food- unconditioned stimulus (UCS) *Salivation- unconditioned response--> conditioned response |
|
Mere Exposure Effect
|
“Consumers’ liking for a stimulus increases
simply by being exposed to the stimulus.” ------------------------------ Limiting Conditions 1) More pronounced for “neutral” stimuli 2) Repeated exposure strengthens the pre-existing attitude Ex.) like more like, dislike more dislike 3) Wears out with too much exposure |
|
Excitation Transfer Theory
|
“Arousal (or excitation) produced by a stimulus transfers to another stimulus” ~Zillman.
Ex.) Rose Bowl commercials ----------------------------- Arousal is nonspecific: both positive and negative emotions are intensified ------------------------------ People are insensitive to small changes in arousal People look for a single cause for arousal ------------------------------ Two types of arousal 1) physiological: your body recognizes arousal 2) perceived: identifies the cause |
|
Mandler’s Theory of Emotion
|
Discrepancies
(Unexpected Events /Changes) “Arousal increases as the discrepancy of a stimulus from people’s general knowledge increases”. ~Mandler ------------------------------ Small discrepancies pleasant arousal ------------------------------ Large discrepancies negative arousal ------------------------------ Interruption “Interruptions also produce arousal.” *But, the valence depends on whether the arousal helps to achieve a goal. Ex.) Studying & noise vs. pleasant music |
|
Consistency Principle
|
“People like consistency and
dislike inconsistency.” Often change beliefs and attitudes to make inconsistencies seem consistent |
|
Balance Theory
|
“Explains relationships as a ‘triad.’”
P = Person (You) O = Other (Celeb) X = Stimulus (Brand) ------------------------------ “Imbalanced triads” lead us to modify relationships due to “unpleasant tension.” ------------------------------ balanced triads: All “positive.” One “positive” and two “negative.” *We need to resolve unpleasant tension, perhaps by: 1) reforming attitudes 2) Deny other’s attitudes: “He’s only in it for money” 3) Differentiate our attitudes about the other: “I like Tiger the golfer but not Tiger the salesman.” |
|
Cognitive Dissonance
|
Negative feelings arise from attitude/behavior discrepancy
Ex: “Wait a minute… I’m supposed to be an A&M fan.” ------------------------------ Postdecisional Dissonance: *Inconsistency between decision and new belief Ex: “I usually make good decisions.” ------------------------------ 1) Rate “attractiveness” of several products e.g.) stopwatch, portable radio, etc. 2) Choose one they like better *high dissonance *low dissonance *control 3) Rate “attractiveness” of the products again *High dissonance rated chosen product much Higher and rejected much lower. ------------------------------ Dissonance Does Not Occur When… We’re forced Large incentives Small consequences Arousal misattributed |
|
Attitude Functions & Appeals
|
Knowledge Function:
Summarize information *Provide more facts/beliefs 2) Value Expression Function: A way of expressing certain values *Image-oriented appeals 3) Ego-Defense Function: Protect ego and self-esteem *Fear appears or Authority Figures 4) Utilitarian Function: Response to reward or punishment *Promote reward |
|
Attitude-Behavior Relationships
|
Allport (1935):
An attitude is a “mental and neural state of readiness to respond, organized through experience exerting a directive and/or dynamic influence on behavior.” Under what conditions (?) do what types of attitudes (?) held by what types of people (?) lead to what types of behaviors? |
|
Theory of Reasoned Action
|
Idunno...
|
|
MODE Model
|
(Fazio, 1990)
Proposes two different routes by which attitudes guide behavior 1) Deliberate: effortfully consider behavior based on specific attitude contents (like TRA) 2) Spontaneous: choose a behavior without thoughtful deliberation (SOA or Context). ------------------------------ MODE: Motivation and Opportunity as DEterminants 1) Motivation: e.g., Involvement, Accountability, and Risk 2) Opportunity: Cognitive Capacity (Processing Load), and Time Deliberate route taken only when Motivation and opportunity are BOTH HIGH ------------------------------ 1) Self-report: Ask directly using Semantic Differential, Likert, or Guttman Scales,etc. -Predicts Deliberate Route well 2) Response Latency: “Prime” participants with attitude object (product or issue), then record TIME it takes to categorize positive or negative adjectives (e.g., “good” or “bad”). -Spontaneous well, but also Deliberate |
|
Strength of Association
|
Idunno...
|
|
Response Latency Measures
|
1) Measure SOA
2) Administered Unobtrusively Uncover “implicit” attitudes of which we may be unaware: Knowing or Unknowing False Representation “I’m not telling you my attitude.” “I’m not that kind of person.” |
|
Elaboration Likelihood Model
|
(Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)
Persuasion: knowledge leads to attitudes ELM: “two routes to persuasion” 1) Central - effortfully scrutinize ads 2) Peripheral - view effortlessly ------------------------------ The Central Route “Classic persuasion” (Message Learning) Assimilate agreed-upon tenets from ads into our viewpoints: *“Illegal drug users show lower academic achievement compared to nonusers” *“Doing drugs can ruin your relationships with friends and loved ones because drugs can cause you to be paranoid and anti-social” |
|
Role Playing
|
Actively presenting
persuasive arguments Compared to Receiving Arguments: Greater Attitude Change Greater Attitude Stability |
|
Mere Thought Effect
|
Four conditions watched Football:
1) High Prior Knowledge/Not Distracted 2) High Prior Knowledge/Distracted 3) Low Prior Knowledge/Not Distracted 4) Low Prior Knowledge/Distracted Which Groups attitudes polarized? 1) High Prior Knowledge/Not Distracted |
|
Indirect Persuasion
|
Purposely omit information to induce
consumers to draw inferences: less info = more inferences Explicit Conclusion: Stated in ad Implicit Conclusion: Not stated in ad ------------------------------ Intended inferences can lead to: Greater Persuasion: trust own conclusions more -- less likely to counterargue Better Memory for implicit conclusion |
|
Syllogistic Inference Rule
|
if A implies B; and
B implies C; then A implies C Ex: Burger King Ad If people prefer flame-broiled Burgers and If McDonald’s and Wendy’s Fry, but Burger King flame broils then Where should people go for burgers? |
|
Horizontal Syllogisms
|
Several Different Syllogisms support
same answer: People like flame-brolied; Burger King Flame broils People like clean restaurants; Burger King is clean People like cheap food; Burger King is cheap Where should people go for burgers? |
|
Vertical Syllogisms
|
Premise for each sequential syllogism
builds on previous: People do what they like on the weekends; People cook out on the weekends People like cooking out; Cooking out is flame-broiling People like flame-broiling; Burger King flame-broils Where should people go for burgers? |
|
Syllogism Influence Modifiers
|
Situational Modifiers
Better when people actively attend. Why? Need to follow the message to infer Better when inference is easy to make ------------------------------ Individual Modifiers Need for Cognition: High attend more actively Self-monitoring: Low use own conclusions |
|
Creative Brief
|
Duh.
|
|
Account Planning Research
(Qualitative v. Quantitative) |
Non-numbers vs. Numbers
|
|
Automaticity Principle
|
Automaticity = “Mindless” Responses
Relies on Heuristics: Mental Shortcuts When are people likely to use heuristics? Understanding which Heuristics people use leads to greater sales |
|
Persuasion Heuristics
|
Beliefs and Attitudes
“Experts are usually correct”: Mike likes Nike & Gatorade “Length implies Strength”: Here are 87 reasons why... What ELM Route? |
|
Influence Heuristics
|
Behavior
The “Because” Heuristic: Almost any reason to behave in a certain way can influence behavior e.g., Copy machine study: Good reasons and Placebic reasons increase compliance, but Bad reasons don’t Larger requests need better reasons ------------------------------ Price-Quality Heuristic: We assume higher-priced products are better quality i.e., Price implies Quality Ross vs. K-mart vs. Foleys vs. Macy’s Honda vs. Jaguar Gateway vs. Apple |
|
Because Heuristic
|
Idunno...
Prediction Heuristics: Likelihood Judgments Representativeness: a new product reminds us of an old one we liked - we predict that we’ll like the new one, too Availability: many high quality Brand X products come to mind easily - we predict new Brand X products will be high in quality, too |
|
Price-Quality Heuristic
|
Idunno...
Prediction Heuristics: Likelihood Judgments Representativeness: a new product reminds us of an old one we liked - we predict that we’ll like the new one, too Availability: many high quality Brand X products come to mind easily - we predict new Brand X products will be high in quality, too |
|
Commitment & Consistency
|
We want to display consistent beliefs,
attitudes, and behaviors e.g., Carson droning on about Apple and using Macs only ------------------------------ Foot-in-the Door Technique A small request followed by a LARGER one -- AFTER “yes” e.g., Canvassers, Telemarketers Self-perception theory most accepted explanation ------------------------------ Low-Ball Technique First make a deal; then change it Seen as ONE transaction, NOT TWO Also known as Bait-and-Switch e.g., Used Cars, Electronics ------------------------------ Foot-in-the-Door vs. Low-Ball: Three conditions for displaying poster Control: Go down, get, and display? Foot-in-the-door: Display poster? Go down and get. Low-Ball: Will you help? Then all. Most Compliance from Low-Ball ------------------------------ Commitment Theory: Explains Low-Ball Commitment Theory: imparts resistance to change “Yes” in PERCEIVED same deal makes decision less changeable We don’t often rethink new decision outside context of the old |
|
Foot-in-the-Door Technique
|
A small request followed by a LARGER
one -- AFTER “yes” e.g., Canvassers, Telemarketers Self-perception theory most accepted explanation |
|
Low-ball Technique
|
First make a deal; then change it
Seen as ONE transaction, NOT TWO Also known as Bait-and-Switch e.g., Used Cars, Electronics |
|
Reciprocity Principle
|
When someone does you a favor, you
feel obligated to return it We can be influenced into giving MORE than we get Can work simply by seeming reasonable, or giving in |
|
Door-in-the-Face Technique
|
Reciprocity Principle:
Door-in-the-face Technique Reverse of Foot-in-the-Door Follow a LARGE request with a small one -- after “no” Same individual must make both requests ------------------------------ Foot-in-the-door vs. Door-in-the-face: Three conditions for distributing fliers Control: Distribute 15? Foot-in-the-door: Answer driving safety questions? (Yes) Distribute 15? Door-in-the-Face: Keep record of traffic flow for two hours? (No) Distribute 15? |
|
That’s-not-all Technique
|
Reciprocity Principle:
That’s-not-all Technique e.g., Ginsu Knives Deal changed into an even better deal before consumer can respond Adaptation level: first deal sets the tone ------------------------------ Door-in-the-Face vs. That’s-not-all: That’s not all works better than Door-in-the-face Most likely because being reasonable without prompting |
|
Even-a-penny Technique
|
Seem reasonable by making extremely
small requests legitimizes small contributions Increases compliance with NO DECREASE in average donation |
|
Scarcity Principle
|
Valuable objects are rare, so (artificially)
rare objects seem valuable Limit Production (e.g. Mustang Cobra) Limit Distribution (e.g., Von Dutch) Collector’s/Limited Editions e.g., Yu-Gi-Oh!, Beanie Babies |
|
Social Validation Principle
|
Works by using Consensus:
“Over 1 Billion Served” “Best-selling Truck 3 Years Running” Canned Laughter Study of helping others The perceived validity of an idea increases with number of supporters ------------------------------ Social Validation: Public vs. Private Compliance: Express attitudes to get rewards, avoid punishment, or “look good” Public Only -- Not “true” feelings Internalization: actually agreeing. Usually from identification. Public AND Private |
|
Confusion Principle
|
Confuse with (irrelevant) details, then
simplify the message “Disrupt-then-reframe”: Low- to High-level Arguments Need for Closure *e.g., Electronics Salespeople & Mechanics |
|
Online Consideration Set &
Prior Knowledge |
Ex: looking up information on three specific camcorders online before buying one of them.
|
|
Cookie & Pop-up Blockers
|
Duh. Exposure Control
|
|
Cost Transparency
|
Comparison shopping made easy
• e.g., Circuit City, Best Buy, J&R, etc. • Increased Price Sensitivity • Decreased Profit margins • Increased Competition • Interactive Decision Aids, (e.g., BizRate) |
|
Self-Determination Theory
|
Intrinsic Motivation: Shopping “for the fun of it”
• Autonomy: enough information • Belongingness: feeling of “community” • Competence: Navigation should be intuitive, and proper information should be given at right time • e.g., Amazon.com |