COGNITION AND MARKETING: ADS AS INFORMATION TO BE PROCESSED

COGNITION AND MARKETING: ADS AS INFORMATION TO BE PROCESSED

The cognitive approach to advertising considers an ad as information to be processed (Shimp & Gresham, 1983; Thorson, 1990). A broadcast

109 A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication

commercial or print ad is a complex stimulus, involving language (presented orally or in writing) and, for print and TV, pictorial stimuli as well. Television is a particularly complex medium, because it contains both the visual and auditory modalities. Typically, there is a close relationship between the audio and video portion of a TV commercial, but this is not always the case, such as when a disclaimer is presented only in writing across the bottom of the screen (Kolbe & Muehling, 1992). The question of how the consumer processes and integrates information from the verbal and visual components of TV commercials is a complex and important issue in itself (G.Cook, 1992; M.P.Gardner & Houston, 1986; Percy & Rossiter, 1983; Shanteau, 1988).

Stages of Processing

When we perceive and comprehend an ad, there are eight stages of processing involved in understanding and acting upon it (Shimp & Gresham, 1983). First of all, we must be exposed to the ad. Second, we choose to attend to it, perhaps selectively perceiving some parts more than others. Third, we comprehend the message. Fourth, we evaluate the message in some way (e.g., agree or disagree with it). Fifth, we try to encode the information into our long-term memory for future use. Sixth, some time later we try to retrieve that information. Seventh, we try to decide among available options, such as which brand to purchase. Finally, we take action based on that decision (e.g., buying the product). If any one or more of the stages is disrupted in some way, overall comprehension or impact of the ad may suffer.

These eight stages are involved in our processing of every aspect of the

ad. Even something as simple as the choice of a name or slogan for a product can have important ramifications for processing, depending on the nature of that name or slogan. For example, the memorability of a name may vary depending on various characteristics. A name that lends itself to an interactive logo or mental image may be remembered due to its amenability to organizational working memory strategies called chunking, which leads to

a greater number of possible avenues of retrieval from long-term memory (Alesandrini, 1983). For example, a basement waterproofing sealant named Water Seal once used a logo of a seal (animal) splashing in water in the middle of a seal (emblem). This choice of a name allowed information about the product name (Water Seal), its use (sealing), and its sound (/sil/) to be unified into one visual image that is easy to remember.

Characteristics of the ad may affect how much attentional resources are allocated to processing the ad. A major challenge to advertisers, especially in the age of VCRs, channel-surfing, and pop-up Internet ads, is to grab the attention of viewers. For example, Bolls and Lang (2003) found that highly

Advertising and Marketing 110

imageable radio ads draw more attention than less imageable ones, perhaps because of the extra cognitive effort expended in comprehending them.

The context in which an ad appears also will affect how well it is processed and remembered. For example, Furnham, Bergland, and Gunter (2002) tested students’ memory for a beer commercial embedded in a popular prime-time British drama segment Coronation Street. The target ad was remembered better if it appeared as the first ad in the commercial cluster than if it had been later. They also found that similar program content (characters drinking in a pub) which appeared just after the break led to improved recall of the beer ad compared to a control group, but that the same content before the ad led to poorer recall of the ad. This may have been due to cognitive interference of the program content with the ad, although recall was also good when the program had characters drinking both before and after the commercial break.

One of the most common types of entertainment programming on television involves high levels of violence (see chapter 9). Perhaps surprisingly, however, Bushman (1998) found that violent programming actually reduces memory for the commercials in those shows. (See Bushman & Phillips, 2001, for a meta-analysis in this topic.) In attempting to explain this finding, Bushman suggests one reason may be that watching violence raises one’s physiological arousal by making people angry and putting them in a bad mood. An angry mood can prime aggressive thoughts, which in turn may interfere with retrieval of the ad content. Negative moods are known to interfere with the brain’s encoding of information. Also, the effort taken to try to repair the bad mood may distract from attending to and processing the

ad. Thus it may be that advertisers are not getting as much “bang for their buck” with violent programming as with nonviolent programming. This also suggests that other material being processed during violent entertainment might not be retained as well. Also, the use of such a context runs greater risks of substantial portions of the audience being offended by the material (see Box. 4.3), Thus, perhaps students shouldn’t study while they watch violent entertainment.

Sometimes the stimulus may be altered in ways that do not substantially affect its processing. One interesting phenomenon called time compression involves compressing a 36-second ad into 30 seconds by playing the ad at 120% of normal speed, an acceleration small enough that it is not readily detected and does not produce a higher pitch or other noticeable distortion. Studies of the reactions to such ads (e.g., Hausknecht & Moore, 1986; D.L.Moore, Hausknecht, & Thamodaran, 1986) show different effects at different stages of processing (e.g., reduced attention and evaluation, two processes that ultimately influence persuasion).

111 A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication

A Constructionist Framework for Understanding

Advertising

The cognitive principle known as construction argues that people do not literally store and retrieve information they read or hear, but rather modify it in accordance with their beliefs and the environment in which it is perceived. The encoding and later retrieval of information about the product is guided by knowledge structures called schemas (see chapter 2). A schema is a knowledge structure or framework that organizes an individual’s memory of information about people and events. It accepts all forms of information, irrespective of the mode—visual or auditory, linguistic or nonlinguistic. The individual is likely to go beyond the information available to draw inferences about people or events that are congruent with previously formed schemas (Graesser & Bower, 1990; Harris, 1981; Harris, Sturm, Klassen, & Bechtold, 1986; Kardes, 1992; Stayman & Kardes, 1992).

For example, a commercial for Lucky Soda might depict a group of dripping, smiling young adults running on a beach and opening a cooler filled with pop. In bold letters at the bottom of the screen are the words Get Lucky. The slogan, along with the picture, evokes a schema from memory, a schema containing information about such events, based on the viewer’s experience. This schema helps the viewer draw inferences to fill in information about the scene, as well as ascribe meaning beyond what is specified directly in the ad. In this example, the readers’ beach party schema lends a sense of coherence and meaning to a scene that is otherwise incomplete in letting them know exactly what is happening, has happened, or is about to happen. The viewer uses the schema to infer information not specifically stated in the ad, such as (a) the people have been swimming, (b) the temperature is hot, (c) the people are thirsty, and, most importantly, (d) drinking Lucky makes the people happy and playful.

Deceptive Advertising

One issue of great concern to the general public is the issue of deceptive, or misleading, advertising. This relates directly to the theme of perceived reality of media and is at heart a cognitive question. The comprehension of an ad may be tested to determine whether the consumer constructs a meaning at variance with the facts, that is, is deceived (Burke, DeSarbo, Oliver, & Robertson, 1988; Harris, Dubitsky, & Bruno, 1983; Richards, 1990). Ads may deceive either by increasing a false belief held by a consumer or by exploiting a true belief in ways designed to sell the product (J.E.Russo, Metcalf, & Stevens, 1981). This issue is examined in some depth in the following section as an example of an advertising issue eminently amenable to a cognitive analysis.

Advertising and Marketing 112

Miscomprehension Versus Deceptiveness

From a cognitive perspective, the question is much more complex than merely determining the literal truth or falsity of the ad itself. I.L.Preston and Richards (1986; see also Preston, 1994) made a helpful distinction between miscomprehension and deceptiveness. Miscomprehension occurs when the meaning conveyed to the hearer (perceived reality) is different from the literal content of the message. Deceptiveness, on the other hand, occurs if the conveyed meaning is inconsistent with the facts about the product, regardless of what the ad states. Studies examining comprehension and miscomprehension of ads and other information from media have shown high rates of miscomprehension, typically 20% to 30% of the material misunderstood in some way (Jacoby & Hoyer, 1987).

If both the literal and conveyed messages are true, then there is neither miscomprehension nor deceptiveness. If the literal message is false but is conveyed to the consumer as true, there is deceptiveness but no miscomprehension. For example, if an ad states an incorrect price for a product and we believe it, we have been deceived but have not miscomprehended the ad. The hearer constructs a meaning not consistent with reality, but not because he or she misunderstands the ad. Such advertising is clearly both illegal and bad business and is thus fairly unusual, with the possible exception of ads for weight-loss products and diets. An FTC study of weight-loss advertising (Sommerfeld, 2002) found that nearly 40% of the ads contained claims that were almost surely false, such as “You will lose 30 pounds of fat the first week.” Although there is no scientific evidence supporting over-the-counter supplements as leading to sustained weight loss, Americans spend over $33 billion each year on these products and services. People are so eager for a quick fix for losing weight that does not require them to decrease calorie intake or increase exercise that such outrageous claims continue to sell products.

It is also possible to miscomprehend without being deceived. An ad may state a claim that is literally false, but we comprehend it in some nonliteral way that is consistent with reality, and thus we are not deceived. For example, claims like “Our cookies are made by elves in a tree,” “A green giant packs every can of our vegetables” or “At this price these cars will fly out the door” are unlikely to be comprehended literally; thus a miscomprehension leads to not being deceived. Generally, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the courts have allowed advertisers to assume some degree of intelligence in the consumer. This issue involves an inter- esting psychological, and occasionally legal, question of how much intel- ligence may reasonably be assumed; according to a 1983 policy statement interpreting earlier legislation, advertisers may assume that the consumer is acting reasonably (Ford & Calfee, 1986). See Box 4.5 for a discussion of

113 A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication

Assuming that an ad does contain factual, rather than purely evaluative, information, determining whether an ad is either deceptive or miscomprehended is not the same as assessing its literal truth value. Truth may be considered a legal or linguistic question, which may be resolved by examining external reality. Miscomprehension, however, is a function of the understanding of the consumer and is thus basically a question of information processing. As such, it is covert and unobservable and must be inferred from an assessment of someone’s understanding of an ad. One may

be deceived by an ad that is either true or false in some objective sense; the deception may or may not result from miscomprehension.