Student Researcher: Sriram Kalyanaraman (PhD Student). This paper was based on a graduate independent study.
Faculty Supervisor: Dr. Mary Beth Oliver
For a complete report of this research, see:
Kalyanaraman, S., & Oliver, M. B. (2001, May). Information processing of multiple peripheral cues . Paper presented to the Information Systems Division at the 51st annual conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), Washington, DC.
Introduction
While most attitude-change studies employing a dual-process approach have examined peripheral cues such as source characteristics (e.g., expertise), and message characteristics (e.g., number of arguments), little, if any, empirical attention has been devoted to examining the effect of multiple peripheral cues on attitude change. That is, while the effects of multiple messages have been explored, the additive effects of different combinations have not received much research attention. Furthermore, the Heuristic Systematic Model (HSM) maintains that heuristic (peripheral) and systematic (central) modes can co-occur. While a considerable body of accumulated evidence supports this notion, there seems to be a paucity of evidence concerning the co-occurrence of multiple (more than one) peripheral cues with, say, a central argument, and the joint effect of these on attitude change. This paper thus seeks to investigate whether multiple peripheral cues are better predictors of attitude change than a single peripheral cue. If so, do multiple cues exhibit any additive effects? Specifically, this study examines the joint effects of argument strength and animation and endorser credibility in influencing attitude change.
Hypotheses
Based on the co-occurrence of the two modes of processing, two hypotheses were generated. Based on the HSM's additivity hypothesis, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H1: Additivity effects are expected to be strongest in the presence of both peripheral cues (endorser credibility and animation) and strong arguments.
Based on the HSM's bias hypothesis, we proposed the second hypothesis as follows:
H2: The presence of either one, or both, peripheral
cues (endorser credibility and animation) will lead to more positive evaluations
when paired with strong rather than weak arguments.
Method
Seventy-nine participants in a completely balanced, 2 (Endorser Credibility) X 2 (Animation) X 2 (Argument Strength) mixed-factorial experiment were randomly assigned to two of eight experimental conditions. Each condition was manipulated to feature an online advertisement, with endorser credibility (high, low) and animation (animated, static) serving as between-participants factors, and argument strength (strong, weak) serving as the within-participants factor. After participants were exposed to each advertisement, they filled out a paper-and-pencil questionnaire eliciting their evaluation of the advertisement and the brand, and their behavioral intention.
Results
H1: Not supported. We did not observe additivity effects in the presence of both peripheral cues and strong arguments.
H2: Not supported. There were no interaction effects between either (or both) peripheral cues and argument strength, as hypothesized.
While both argument strength and endorser credibility had significant main effects on attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand, and behavioral intention, animation did not have any effect on any of the dependent measures.
Conclusion
In this study, participants were exposed to just the ads (and no other content) on the Website. Perhaps, our stimulus and the nature of our instructions could have actually led participants to elaborate closely on the ads, thereby ignoring the animation cue altogether. Moreover, although the manipulation checks for both argument strength and endorser credibility were successful, it could be argued that endorser credibility (at least the way we operationalized it) functioned as just another argument (and not a cue at all). Therefore, future research needs to examine the joint effects of these variables in the context of a more ecologically valid environment. The most important finding from this study is that when participants elaborate closely on a message, argument strength is the variable that has the most effect on attitude change and behavioral intentions.
Mary Beth Oliver
Associate Professor
210, Carnegie Building
College of Communications
Penn State University
University Park, PA 16802
Ph: (814) 863 5552
E-mail: mbo@psu.edu
Back to Research Projects Page
Media Effects Research Laboratory |
 |