CENTRAL VERSUS PERIPHERAL ROUTES TO PERSUASION AND THE ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL

In the preceding section on involvement, we said that considerable research has highlighted the crucial role played by involvement in determining which aspect of the ad has the biggest effect on consumer preference for the brand. One model of advertising that focuses on the role of such involvement is the elaboration likelihood model, or ELM.

According to the ELM, developed by psychologists Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo, a basic dimension of information processing and attitude change is the depth or amount of information processing. At one extreme, the consumer can consciously and diligently consider the information provided in the ad in forming attitudes toward the advertised brand. Here, attitudes are changed or formed by careful consideration, thinking, and integration of information relevant to the product or object of the advertising. Using our previous terminology, the consumer is highly involved in processing the advertisement. This type of persuasion process is termed the central route to attitude change. (There may also be different types of such central processing or cognitive elaboration, varying in whether the consumer focuses on differences between pieces of information, or the similarities among them?' but we will ignore these fine distinctions here.) In contrast to such central processing, there also exists what Petty and Cacioppo term the peripheral route to attitude change. In the peripheral route, attitudes are formed and changed without active thinking about the brand's attributes and its pros and cons. Rather, the persuasive impact occurs by associating the brand with positive or negative aspects or executional cues in the ad that really are (or should not be) central to the worth of the brand. For example, rather than expressly considering the strength of the arguments presented in an advertisement, an audience member may use cognitive "shortcuts" and accept the conclusion that the brand is superior because

·         There were numerous arguments offered, even if they were not really strong and logical.

·         The endorser seemed to be an expert, or was attractive and likable.

·         The consumer liked the way the ad was made, the music in it, and so on.

Conversely, a conclusion may be rejected not because of the logic of the argument but because of some surrounding cues. For example,

·         The position advocated may have been too extreme.

·         The endorser may have been suspect.

·         The magazine in which the ad appears was not respected.

Attitudes resulting from central processing should be relatively strong and enduring, resistant to change, and predict behavior better than attitudes framed by the peripheral route. Such an observation makes sense particularly if the extreme cases are considered. If a person reaches a conclusion after conscious thought and deliberation, that conclusion should be firmer than if he or she merely based attitudes on peripheral cues. Scott B. Mackenzie and Richard A. Spreng did find that attitudes formed centrally, because of higher motivation, predicted purchase intentions more strongly!' However, attitudes formed peripherally can still end up determining choice, especially if the "central" information available to the consumer doesn't really help in selection (e.g., when the alternative brands are highly similar, or when no brand is clearly dominant). Obviously, an advertiser setting objectives needs to predict whether, in a given context, the central route is feasible—whether audience members will actually exert the effort involved to process an advertisement with strong arguments deeply. If this is unlikely, and the consumer is more likely to form attitudes peripherally, then the advertiser is better off creating an ad with likable or credible spokespeople, rather than relying on strong, logical arguments.

Implications for Managers

From the advertising planning point of view, the key implication of this research stream is that the motivation and ability of the target audience are key criteria in objective setting. If motivation and ability are both high and central processing is most likely, it makes sense to try to focus on changing attitudes through strong "reasons why" the brand is better. Thus, an ad selling expensive office copiers might not be best served by using a celebrity endorser, which would be a peripheral cue.

But if either motivation or ability is low and peripheral processing is more likely, the objective should be to create a likable feeling for the brand through the choice of the spokesperson and/or executional elements, rather than through the strength and quality of the arguments about the brand. Thus, because consumers don't really know much about the differences between brands, it makes sense for a scotch whisky to use an endorser.

                Some of the various consumer, brand, product category, ad execution, and ad medium factors that shape the amount of motivation and ability to think deeply (i.e., more cognitive elaboration) about an ad's message content are as follows: