Does Traditional Advertising Theory Apply to the Digital World? A Replication Analysis Questions the Relevance Of the Elaboration Likelihood Model

The article questions the relevance of traditional advertising theories in the digital world and explores the idea by replicating the most-cited study in advertising research, the elaboration likelihood model, of which just three of 27 findings were replicated. The study advocates further replication of historical studies to verify their current value for ongoing scholarship.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289993214
Does Traditional Advertising Theory Apply to the Digital World? A Replication
Analysis Questions the Relevance Of the Elaboration Likelihood Model
Article in Journal of Advertising Research · December 2015
DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2015-001
CITATIONS
13
READS
1,738
5 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Brickbats and bouquets for marketing. View project
From transactional to relationalView project
Gayle Kerr
Queensland University of Technology
51PUBLICATIONS668CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Philip J. Kitchen
ESC Rennes School of Business
189PUBLICATIONS3,288CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Frank Mulhern
Northwestern University
22PUBLICATIONS174CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Gayle Kerr on 14 September 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Source: Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 55, No. 4, December 2015
Downloaded from warc.com
Does Traditional Advertising Theory Apply to the Digital Wo
A Replication Analysis Questions the Relevance of the
Elaboration Likelihood Model
All theory is based on a set of seminal concepts and empirical research that are assumed to be replicable and inviolate
time. Recent changes in technology, consumer habits, demographics, and marketplaces, however, have raised question
about the applicability of advertising theory developed in a mass-media environment to today's interactive marketplace.
current study explores this idea by replicating the most-cited study in advertising research, the elaboration likelihood mo
which just three of 27 findings were replicated. The current results advocate further replication of historical studies to ver
current value for ongoing scholarship.
Gayle Kerr
Queensland University of Technology
Don E. Schultz
Northwestern University
Philip J. Kitchen
ESC Rennes School of Business
Frank J. Mulhern
Northwestern University
Park Beede
Higher Colleges of Technology
MANAGEMENT SLANT
To be truly a science–and of value to practitioners–seminal advertising theory, such as the elaboration likelihood mo
(ELM), must be replicable across different cultures and periods.
In addition to replication, advertising theory also should be validated through the documentation and scrutiny of its pr
by marketers.
Practitioners should question planning frameworks that use traditional advertising models such as the ELM, as they l
not reflect how consumers think in a digital world.
Advertising is not always a rational or controllable process, and practitioners should embrace new systems of consum
thinking in driving advertising strategy, tactics, and investment.
INTRODUCTION
Advertising researchers owe much to the halcyon days of mass media. That includes the entertainment of television serie
Lucy,” the information-gathering machine of the BBC, and the power of television to build emotional brand connections. In
cultures, the mass-media period—roughly from 1950 to 1980—particularly was fruitful, encouraging a new wave of advert
research. As one scholar noted, “Some of the best research ever done on advertising was done during the early days of
television” (Bogart, 1986, p. 13). Almost all of advertising’s premier academic journals were established after television (o
the first being theJournal of Advertising Researchin 1960).
The world has changed radically since those days of mass-media dominance. And, advertising has changed as well. A sim

way to measure this change is through advertising expenditures. Between 2013 and 2014, advertising expenditure
grew in North America (+5.4 percent) and the United Kingdom (+7.2 percent);
was flat in continental Europe, notably Germany (+1.5 percent) and France (–2.1 percent); and
soared in the emerging markets of China (+12.5 percent), India (+14.2 percent), and Brazil (+14.7 percent).1
Digital and Demographic Shifts
Another way to look at advertising change is by the diversion of that expenditure from traditional mass media to online and
channels.
In Australia, online advertising expenditure grew by 190 percent in the year June 2012 to June 2013, exceeding free-
television expenditures for the very first time.2
By the end of 2014, in 11 other countries (including China, marketers spent more on digital advertising than on televi3
Internet advertising spending has the highest growth rate of any medium globally (up 18.5 percent in 2014)1 and increasing
30.3 percent annually in the Middle East and Africa and 20.6 percent in Latin America.4
Consumer media habits, like purchasing behaviors, also have changed since the last half of the twentieth century. The
combination of an abundance of consumer choice and consumers’ increasing access to information has created a cornuc
alternatives.
For example, a 2012 study of shoppers ages 20 to 40 reported that 65 percent of U.K. and 55 percent of U.S. participants
searched for products online and went in-store to inspect them before going back online to make their purchases.5 Around one-
third used their smartphone to compare prices in-store with alternative outlets. This so-called “show-rooming” approach is
around the world (Earley, 2014; McCauley and Donofrio, 2014). In India, consumers used mobile phone photos to genera
agreement on planned purchases from family and friends in the United States and the United Kingdom (Jain and Pant, 20
In addition to these marketplace changes, fundamental demographic shifts have occurred as well. For example, in 2013, w
accounted for two-thirds or $12 trillion of the $18 trillion total in global consumer spending.4 Another example of demographic shift
is the growing middle class of shoppers in China. Because of their enthusiasm for online shopping and their enhanced fina
position over the past few decades, China has overtaken the United States as the world’s leader in e-commerce.6
In summary, advertising has evolved from a mass-media marketplace—dominated by the United States—to one driven by
and mobile media, buoyed by the growth of emerging markets. This is not just the result of changing consumer media hab
decision making, and purchasing power, but it also appears to be part of the rise of a transformative global society: Massi
social, marketing, and media changes clearly are reflected in advertising expenditure and allocation.
Is Traditional Advertising Theory Still Relevant?
Given all these changes, the current study questions whether the foundational advertising theories—constructed during th
mass media dominance and a United States–centric marketplace—remain relevant today.
Although there is discussion (even disquiet) about it among academics—and some empirical evidence—to support these
challenges, the current article proposes that the best way to examine the relevance, rigor, and applicability of historic adve
theory is through empirical testing. In other words, if advertising’s earlier so-called “seminal research studies” were condu
again, the authors of the current study asked, “Would the original results be confirmed?
Thus, the position of the current article is simple: If one of the most-cited advertising studies could be replicated, some of
growing concerns about the applicability of the historical advertising theory base in a changing world would be allayed. Su
differences, if found between past studies and current replications, would
lend support to the current academic debate and
provide direction for subsequent investigations of the traditional advertising frameworks that support current research
approaches and guide advertising practice.
Because citations are the accepted “currency” of advertising scholarship, the current study tested one of the most-cited st
advertising research: the lengthy, broad, and deep work conducted on the development, testing, and application of the ela
likelihood model (ELM; Petty, Cacioppo, Schumann, 1983).
Of all advertising theory pillars, the ELM is the most frequently cited source of academic literature by advertising research

(Pasadeos, Phelps, and Edison, 2008; Kitchenet al., 2014). Further, it is considered to be “the most influential theoretical
contribution” (Beard, 2002, p. 72). Thus, the authors of the current study believe, a replication of that 1983 study would do
allay the concerns of current day researchers.
Such replication also would permit the examination of the basic premises of advertising research, which clearly have chan
over time. Traditional research from the 1950s through to the 1980s was based on the premise that “advertising is someth
doesto people” (Stewart, 1992, p. 15). The latter is a holdover from the “hypodermic” (or “magic-bullet”) approach that def
behaviorism in the 1930s (Berger, 1995) and was rooted in experiences of a rapidly growing marketplace—with few media
options and limited consumer knowledge and choice.
Fast-forward to the digital age: Those concepts may no longer apply, as today’s empowered consumers have increasing c
over most aspects of the advertising process (Kerr and Schultz, 2010; Kitchen and Uzunoglu, 2015).
It is, therefore, important that advertising be explored in context—and across contexts—rather than in isolation. As one sc
noted, “A typical research paradigm within the field uses relatively naive consumers, fictitious products, forced exposure t
advertising for a single product, and measures that are designed to identify incremental changes,” (Stewart, 1992, p. 7). S
practice perhaps was an artifact of advertising research’s positivist traditions and borrowings from experimental psycholog
(Bogart, 1986; Heath and Feldwick, 2008; Heath, 2012; Kerr and Schultz, 2010).
It is also a concern, however—one that was raised at the 2013 Wharton Conference on Empirical Generalizations in Adve
At that gathering, many delegates advocated that generalizability be explored by using multiple data sets across multiple c
“Rigor comes from results that hold over and over, ideally when conducted by different researchers who use fully transpar
processes, data, analyses, and results” (Wind, Sharp, and Nelson-Field, 2013, p. 178).
Finally, the current authors contend that their study is important from the practitioners’ perspective. Many agency planning
which drive advertising strategy, tactics, and investment, are underpinned by models and theories from the 1970s and 198
(Heath and Feldwick, 2008). A prime example is the linear, one-way approach of the hierarchy of effects model, which stil
underpins most media planning today (Heath, 2012). There would appear to be substantial increases in advertising efficie
financial gain in using planning models that correctly reflect today’s consumer, media systems, and marketplace, rather th
standards of an earlier marketing ecosystem.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The ELM emerged from the maelstrom of conflicting literature, conceptual ambiguities, and methodological problems that
defined the field of persuasion and attitude change in the 1960s and 1970s (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1972; Petty and Caciopp
1983). ELM theorists provided a desperately needed, yet simple, concise framework that would include both cognitive arg
quality and heuristics (Schumann, Kotowski, Ahn, and Haugtvedt, 2012).
The resultant ELM advocates two basic routes to persuasion: the central and the peripheral, determined by the amount of
cognitive effort a person used to process a message (Schumannet al., 2012).
Central route to persuasion: When elaboration likelihood is high, information processing will occur via the central rou
Attitude change will be more persistent (Haugtvedt and Petty, 1989) and predictive of behavior (Petty and Cacioppo,
Peripheral route to persuasion: When little cognitive effort is expended and elaboration is low, processing may occur
peripheral route, relying upon cues such as source credibility and heuristics (Petty and Cacioppo, 1983) to enable th
persuasion.
Criticisms of the ELM
Despite being heralded as one of the most influential advertising-research theories (Szczepanski, 2006), the ELM also ha
one of the most criticized. This criticism includes fundamental constructs such as (Kitchenet al., 2014):
the dual-processing framework;
the idea of a continuum of elaboration;
the definition of the mediating variables and independent variables; and
the fact that the model is descriptive, not analytical.
Instead of being explored in the current study, these criticisms were acknowledged as issues that remain empirically unre
The current authors noted that these criticisms have not had an impact on the influence (or use of) the ELM by advertising
scholars.

Replication Attempts
Despite the pervasiveness—and continued criticism—of the ELM over the last three decades, very few studies have soug
replicate the original ELM experiment in its entirety. Instead, most studies have focused on trying to replicate a portion, va
construct of the ELM (Kang and Herr, 2006; Te’eni-Harari, Lampert, and Lehman-Wilzig, 2007; Trampe, Stapel, Siero, and
Mulder, 2010).
On the one hand, those who did seek to replicate the original ELM study unanimously questioned the model’s validity. For
example, scholars who closely replicated the original model—using slightly different products—found little or no support fo
ELM (Cole, Ettenson, Reinke, and Schrader 1990). In a meta-analysis, there was concern that only researchers associate
the original researchers, Petty and Cacioppo, were able to generate results consistent with the ELM’s predictions (Johnso
Eagly, 1989).
On the other hand, failure to replicate the results of the original study, most likely, was the result of modifications or exclus
critical substantive features of the ELM, the original authors of the theory argued (Petty, Kasmer, Haugtvedt, and Caciopp
RESEARCH QUESTION
The current authors chose the seminal ELM study (Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann, 1983) for replication for a number of
An initial study (Petty and Cacioppo,1981) failed to provide any evidence of a peripheral route to persuasion (Petty a
Cacioppo, 1983).
The authors of the original study described the 1983 experiment as a “more sensitive test of the two routes to persua
(Petty and Cacioppo, 1983, p. 18).
The 1983 study is the most republished of all of Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann’s work.
Guiding this replication, the research question for the current study was:
RQ1: Does the ELM explain how today’s consumers process advertising and change attitudes through the central and pe
routes to persuasion?
METHODOLOGY
The authors of the current study noted that they replicated the 1983 study faithfully, in its entirety and, for the first time, in
different countries: the United States (where the original was conducted), the United Kingdom, and Australia.
Like the original 1983 experiment, the replication used a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design, manipulating the independent variables
message processing involvement (high/low), argument strength (strong/weak) and source characteristics (high/low).
Sample
The 1983 experiment used a sample of 160 male and female undergraduate students in a major Midwestern American un
In the current replication, the samples generally were larger and represented a larger global cross-section but still focused
group of sample subjects comparable to the original group of undergraduates:
218 in Australia,
315 in the United Kingdom, and
140 in the United States.
To ensure that the different results across the three countries did not reflect cultural differences, participants in Australia, t
Kingdom and the United States studies were compared across the six dimensions of Hofstede’s cultural tool comparison.
three countries, rated from 0 to 100, scored almost identically on
power distance (36, 35, 40);
individualism (90, 89, 91);
masculinity (61, 66, 62); and
indulgence (71, 69, 68).
Australia and the United States (51, 46) were stronger on uncertainty avoidance than the United Kingdom (35), although t
Kingdom (51) was far more pragmatic compared to Australia and the United States (21, 26). Given the cultural similarities
three countries, differences were unlikely in cross-national responses to scales.

Independent Variables
The independent variables were virtually identical to those cited in the 1983 experiment:
Involvement: Participants were given two booklets containing stimulus material and a questionnaire. In the first booklet,
involvement was measured in the same two places—using the same two devices—as the original 1983 experiment.
Endorsers (peripheral cues): Like the original experiment, the test material contained both non-famous endorsers (w
unknown and average-looking male and female models) and local celebrities relevant to the market in which the
advertisements were being tested (i.e. different sports stars from Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States).
Argument strength: Like the 1983 experiment, the current study also contained different treatments using weak and s
arguments promoting disposable razors. Arguments in the original study, however, such as “floats in water with a min
of rust” or “designed with the bathroom in mind” were not considered relevant or persuasive to today’s test groups. C
points, therefore, were collected from the websites of three leading disposable razor manufacturers, Schick, Wilkinso
Sword, and Bic. They were evaluated by an expert panel and matched as closely as possible with the original advert
claims, in terms of argument valence (logical or emotional) and strength (strong or weak).
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables from the 1983 study also were used in the current experiment:
Attitudes: What the 1983 study had defined as an “attitude measure” or “attitude index” was represented in the curren
as the average of the three scores—on a per-subject basis—from the 9-point semantic differential scales that measu
overall impression, expected satisfaction, and favorableness of the Edge disposable razor.
Purchase Intentions: This variable was rated on a 4-point scale.
RESULTS PART 1
Manipulation Checks
In a manipulation check of involvement,
75 percent of U.S. participants, 70 percent of U.K. participants, and 50 percent of Australian participants in high-invo
conditions correctly recalled they were to select a brand of disposable razor.
In low-involvement conditions, 79 percent of U.S., 70 percent of U.K., and 63 percent of Australian participants corre
recalled the alternative incentive.
The foregoing results compare with 93 percent for high involvement and 78 percent for low involvement in the origina
In the endorser-manipulation check, two questions were asked, replicating the original study. The first question was about
recognition:
74 percent of U.K., 36 percent of Australian, and 36 percent of U.S. participants indicated recognition, compared to
94 percent in the original study.
The second question concerned the respondents’ liking of the people in the advertisement:
The celebrity was liked more in the United States (5.36 compared to 4.49 for an ordinary citizen) and in the original s
(6.06 compared to 3.64).
In the United Kingdom and Australia, there was no difference in terms of the likeability of celebrities and ordinary citiz
In the original study’s manipulation check for argument-persuasiveness, subjects exposed to strong arguments rated them
significantly more persuasive (M = 5.46) than those exposed to weak arguments (M = 4.03).
This also was the case in the current study where, in the United Kingdom, strong arguments led to a higher mean score. I
United States and Australia, strong arguments were considered no more persuasive than weak arguments. This is explore
further in the next section.
RESULTS PART 2
The results on the dependent variables—attitudes and purchase intentions—from the three administrations of the current
(Australia, United States, and the United Kingdom) bore little resemblance to the original results from 1983 (See Tables 1

In the replicated study, for the same dependent variables, the means typically were close to the midpoint (zero) and show
minimal differences between the high- and low-involvement conditions for endorser and argument strength (See Table 1).
Attitudes and Involvement
In the original study, the attitude index was higher for the low-involvement group (mean score = 0.99) than for the high-inv
group (mean score = 0.31).
Among the current study’s three replications in the re-test, two of them, the U.K. and Australian respondents, showed no s
difference in the mean attitude score across the involvement treatments. In the U.S. study, the difference in the attitude sc
approached significance (p = 0.064) but in the opposite direction of the 1983 study. That is, the attitude score was higher for
higher involvement group than the lower involvement group (See Table 2).
Hence, the 1983 results were not confirmed in any of the three replicated studies.
Attitudes and Endorsers
In terms of the impact of the celebrity endorser on attitudes toward the razor brand, the 1983 study claimed to find a main
indicating that advertisements featuring celebrity endorsers led to a more positive attitude score (0.86 for celebrity compa
the non-celebrity mean of 0.41). Notably, that conclusion was reached despite thep value being 0.09.

In the three-study replication, the endorser effect was significant only in the U.K. study where the citizen endorser actually
higherattitude than the celebrity—the opposite of what the 1983 study claimed.
Attitudes and Argument Strength
The third main effect tested the impact of strong versus weak arguments. The original study found a mean attitude score o
for the strong argument and a –0.35 for the weak argument. That finding was replicated in the U.K. data (0.86 versus 0.35p =
0.004).
Overall, among the nine attempts to replicate the 1983 study results for the impact of the three treatments on attitudes, thi
only one incident where the results replicated the 1983 study.
Interaction Effects
The 1983 study reported the interaction to be significant (p = 0.02), and this finding was replicated in the United Kingdom (p =
0.006) but not in the United States (p = 0.6) or Australia (p = 0.2).
In the 1983 study, the high-involvement situation featured a large difference on the impact of a strong versus weak argum
attitude score, while the low-involvement situation had no such effect (See Table 3). In the three replications, the only sign
result was in the United Kingdom, where exactly the opposite was found: The strength of argument mattered in the low-inv
condition but not the high-involvement one.
The final interaction effect considered was the endorser by argument strength interaction as it affects the attitude score. T
unable to be replicated in any of the three studies (See Table 3).
Purchase Intentions
With respect to purchase intentions, the second dependent measure, the 1983 study found that strong arguments led to a
attitude score of 2.23 compared to the mean score of 1.68 for weak arguments (p < 0.001), indicating that strong arguments led to
higher purchase intentions.
In the current study, none of the three country replications found a significant effect of argument strength on purchase inte
with the United States (p = 0.817), the United Kingdom (p = 0.255), and Australia (p = 0.97).
In addition to finding a main effect for argument strength on purchase intentions, the 1983 study found that, in high-involve
conditions, the strength of the argument was more important than in low-involvement conditions. In the current study, the
result was found in the United Kingdom., but the impact of strength of argument did not vary for the high- or low-involveme
conditions in the two other countries.
The 1983 study reported a correlation that was higher for the high-involvement condition (0.59) than for the low-involveme
condition (0.36). In the current U.K. replication, however, the correlations were about the same for both high- and low-invo
conditions while, in the U.S. and Australian replications, the low-involvement conditions exhibited a higher correlation betw
attitude and purchase likelihood (See Table 4).
Again, the authors found little evidence to confirm the findings of the 1983 paper.

DISCUSSION
The overall findings of the 1983 study—that attitudes formed via the central route are more predictive of behavior than tho
formed via the peripheral route—could not be confirmed in the current study despite implementing the same treatments an
collection process in three different countries.
One important difference between the original study and the current replication is that, although the manipulations worked
least one (and sometimes two) of the three countries, they clearly were not as strong as in 1983.
This supports the contention that consumers likely think differently in a faster, digital world.
As some of the manipulations worked quite well, however, it is further suggested that the mental processing of information
work in the way the ELM purports. In other words, the current authors believe it may be incorrect to conclude that the failu
replicate was simply a matter of the manipulations being weaker, even though they were replicated as closely as possible
Therefore, it is important to look at alternative explanations in the divergent findings.
Divergent Findings
Among the findings that opposed the original study were the following :
Involvement
In the original study, the low-involvement group had a more positive attitude toward the object. In the U.S. replication
however, people in the low-involvement group were more skeptical and had a lower attitude score than those in the h
involvement group.
This is the reverse of the ELM’s predictions, yet the findings support the social judgment theory (Sherif and Hovland,
which suggests that uninvolved people will consider a wider range of alternatives than those who are more highly inv
with the object.
It also is worthwhile to consider that the attitude toward the object may not be the only determinant. As the theory of
behavior suggests, however (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1991), attitude toward buying also could be important—a consider
that may be even more important in today’s digital environment with greater access to product information, more way
buy, and more empowered skeptics looking toward customer reviews as a more trusted source than marketing inform
(Krishnamurthy and Dou, 2008). In such instances, people may be not so much “involved” in the product as they are
“connected” to information.
Endorser
In 1983, advertisements featuring a celebrity endorser led to more positive attitude scores. In the U.K. replication, ho
the opposite effect was found. Advertisements featuring citizen endorsers had a higher attitude than celebrity
advertisements.
Again, this might be an artifact of the growing belief in citizens as more reliable sources of information and the accele

of electronic word of mouth (Krishnamurthy and Dou, 2008). Such credibility also is evident in the escalation of “reali
television shows, where the average citizen is the celebrity.
Interaction Effects
In the original study, strength of argument was important in high- but not in low-involvement conditions. In the curren
the U.K. results showed the opposite. Argument strength was significant for low, rather than high involvement.
The notion that “if you buy something you must like it,” as suggested by the self perception theory (Bern, 1972), coul
applied to the high-involvement group. This also is supported by Krugman’s (1965; 1966–1967) notion that behavior
sometimes comes before attitude.
Equally, the strength of argument being significant in low-involvement conditions is supported by social judgment the
(Sherif and Hovland, 1961), which suggests the uninvolved typically consider a wider range of alternatives. This is am
in the notion that “because I am not involved, I need to be convinced.” More than anything else, this shows that conte
rather than content manipulation—sometimes is more important for low-involvement conditions, disagreeing with the
essential premise of the ELM.
Correlations
In the original study, there was a significant positive correlation between attitude toward the product and likelihood to
purchase in both the high- and low-involvement conditions (although stronger in the high-involvement condition).
In the current study, in Australia and the United States, a more positive attitude toward the object was associated wit
greater likelihood to purchase in low-involvement conditions, with a lower correlation for high-involvement conditions.
Perhaps, the authors of the current study suggest, simply “liking” an advertisement, rather than considering the elabo
considered argument, leads to purchase in low-involvement conditions.
This result also could be explained by newer models of thinking, such as “Thinking Fast and Slow” (Kahneman, 2011
Thinking fast (or “System 1 thinking”) is typical of low-involvement conditions, where thinking is automatic, and t
emotion where “something happens to you” produces an automatic response, free from voluntary control. In the
these findings, automatic thinking generates intention to purchase.
More effortful or slow thinking—perhaps akin to high elaboration—only is activated when System 1 thinking doe
have an answer or when its model of the world is violated.
Low attention has been the focus of much scholarly work (Heath, 2012). It suggests that television advertising is not
processed systematically, but rather like System 1, it is automatically processed in response to stimuli.
Advertisements high in emotional content generally received 20 percent less attention (Heathet al., 2009). Lower attention
could reduce counter-argument and, therefore, increase likelihood of purchase.
In summary, the results of this three-study replication diverge from the premise of the ELM model. In all instances, the res
went through an evaluation process, albeit through two different pathways. However, the findings do support the contentio
recent research that there can be learning (and even persuasion) as a result of subconscious processing of advertising ex
suggesting exposure may be more important than processing (Heath, 2012; Kahneman, 2011).
IMPLICATIONS
The current authors believe that the current study has a number of implications for both academics and practitioners:
Replication should be an inherent and ongoing part of theory validation.
As an objective akin to finding a way to “world peace,” revisiting and replicating advertising theory is an overwhelming tas
likely that such efforts will upset a number of academicians who have built their entire careers on following the dictates of
literature.” The results of the current study and the directives of a number of academics, however—among them, many of
participants at Wharton Conference on Empirical Generalizations in Advertising—validate the urgent need to take on this
Journal editors and reviewers should lead the way.
As guardians of research quality, editors and reviewers have an obligation to question the rigor and the appropriate use o

in research. Hence, many academic journals and associations have championed research quality.
Kent Monroe, then editor of theJournal of Consumer Research, was a lone voice for replication in the 1990s, promoting a
clear editorial policy of encouraging and accepting replication research for publication.
TheJournal of Advertising Researchhas encouraged debate with its “New Models for a New Age of Research” issue (Vo
51, Issue 2) and “Future of Market Research” (Vol. 51, Issue 1; 2011)
Charles Taylor,International Journal of Advertisingeditor, confirmed the journal’s commitment to research involving
replication, publishing a call for stronger theory development and more relevant research for advertising professional
(Taylor, 2011).
Academic associations must work together.
The American Academy of Advertising and European Advertising Academy both have considered the topic of research qu
worthy enough to feature it in their keynote addresses. Action must follow awareness, however: If the agenda is to revisit
advertising theory—and if editors and reviewers are the guardians of research quality—academic associations should pro
necessary leadership to support that view.
Practitioners should document the practice of theory.
It is contingent upon practitioners—the implementers of advertising theory—to document conditions under which theory w
those conditions that oppose it. Their findings should be published in peer-reviewed journals, where practitioners and aca
can learn from the practice of theory.
Advertising is not always a rational process.
Practitioners should not be constrained by an organizational view that sees advertising as a manageable, informational re
for rational consumers (Heath, 2012). They should embrace new technology (such as neuroscience) and new thinking (lik
Thinking, Fast and Slow[Kahneman, 2011] or even more emotion-centric ideas (like implicit communication or low attention)
These all are concepts more challenging than a central route to persuasion but perhaps better reflective of today’s consum
today’s marketplace.
CONCLUSION
To question the relevance of advertising theory, the current study empirically tested its most cited work, the ELM (Pettyet al.,
1983).
What those scholars found in 1983 could not be replicated today in any of three countries in which the current study was
conducted. This global inability to replicate one of the most fundamental experiments from advertising’s halcyon mass-me
suggests advertising scholars need to re-think the assumptions and foundations of what they call “advertising theory.”
Just because it has been cited a number of times and “everyone” believes it to be true does not necessarily mean a theor
relevant or even empirically generalizable given the massive changes that have occurred in the marketplace.
The onus is on the marketing-research industry and academia to question advertising theory: When everything around it h
changed, why should any particular theory stay the same? And if advertising theory is not questioned, subsequent adverti
research will become increasingly irrelevant.
References
Azjen, I. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.”Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes80 (1991): 179–211.
Beard, F. “Peer Evaluation and Readership of Influential Contributions to the Advertising Literature.”Journal of Advertising31, 4
(2002): 65–75.
Berger, A.Essentials of Mass Communication Theory, London, UK: Sage Publications, 1995.
Bern, D. “Self-Perception Theory.” InAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 6, L. Berkowitz, ed. New York: Academic
Press, 1972.
Bogart, L. “Progress in Advertising Research?”Journal of Advertising ResearchJune/July (1986): 11–15.
Cole, C., R. Ettenson, S. Reinke, and T. Schrader. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM): Replications, Extensions, an

Conflicting Findings.”Advances in Consumer Research17 (1990): 231–236.
Earley. S. “Mobile Commerce: A Broader Perspective.”IEEE Computer Society16, May–June (2014): 61–65.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. “Attitudes and Opinions.”Annual Review of Psychology23 (1972): 487–544.
Haugtvedt, C., and R. Petty. “Need for Cognition and Attitude Persistence.”Advances in Consumer Research16 (1989): 33–36.
Heath, R.Seducing the Subconscious: The Psychology of Emotional Influence in Advertising. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell, 2012.
Heath, R., and P. Feldwick. “Fifty Years Using the Wrong Model of Advertising.”International Journal of Market Research50, 1
(2008): 29–59.
Hofstede, G. “The Hofstede Centre.” Retrieved April 14, 2014, fromhttp://geert-hofstede.com/australia.html
Jain, V., and S. Pant. “Navigating Generation Y for Effective Mobile Marketing in India: A Conceptual Framework.”International
Journal of Mobile Marketing7, 3 (2012): 17–26.
Johnson, B., and A. Eagly. “Effects of Involvement on Persuasion: A Meta-Analysis.”Psychological Bulletin106, 2 (1989): 290–
314.
Kahneman, D.Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Girous. 2011.
Kang, Y., and P. Herr. “Beauty and the Beholder: Toward an Integrative Model of Communication Source Effects.”Journal of
Consumer Research33 (2006): 123–130.
Kerr, G., and D. Schultz. “Maintenance Man or Architect? The Role of Academic Advertising Research in Building Better
Understanding.”International Journal of Advertising29, 4 (2010): 547–568.
Kitchen, P. J., and E. Uzunoglu (Eds.).Integrated Communications in the Postmodern Era. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
2015.
Kitchen, P. J., G. Kerr, D. Schultz, R. McColl, R., and H. Pals. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Review, Critique and R
Agenda.”European Journal of Marketing48, 11-12 (2014): 2033–2050.
Krugman, H.E. “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement.”Public Opinion Quarterly29 (1965): 349–
356.
Krugman, H.E. “The Measurement of Advertising Involvement.”Public Opinion Quarterly30 (1966-1967): 583–596.
Krishnamurthya, S., and W. Dou. “Advertising with User-Generated Content: A Framework and Research Agenda.”Journal of
Interactive Advertising8, 2 (2008): 1–4.
McCauley, E., and T. Donofrio. “Apparatus, System and Methods for Stimulating and Securing Retail Transactions.”Patent
Application Publication, 43, August 7 (2014): 783–791.
Monroe, K. “Editorial—On Replications in Consumer Research: Part 2,”Journal of Consumer Research, 19, September (1992):
Preface.
O’Keefe, D.Persuasion: Theory and Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.
Pasadeos, Y., J. Phelps, and A. Edison. “Searching for Our “Own Theory” in Advertising: An Update of Research Network
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly85, 4 (2008): 785–806.
Petty, R., and J. Cacioppo.Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown
Company Publishers, 1981.
Petty, R., and J. Cacioppo. “Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: Application to Advertising.” InAdvertising and
Consumer Psychology, L. Percy and A. G. Woodside, eds. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1983.
Petty, R., J. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann. “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating R
Involvement.”Journal of Consumer Research10 (1983): 135–146.

Petty, R., J. Kasmer, C. Haugtvedt, and J. Cacioppo. “Source and Message Factors in Persuasion: A Reply to Stiff’s Critiq
the Elaboration Likelihood Model.”Communication Monographs54 (1987): 233–249.
Schumann, D., M. Kotowski, H. Ahn, and C. Haugtvedt. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: A Thirty Year Review.” InAdvertising
Theory, S. Rodgers and E. Thorson, eds. New York: Routledge, 2012.
Sherif, M., and C. Hovland.Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contract Effects in Communication and Attitude Change.
Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders, 1961.
Stewart, D. “Speculations on the Future of Advertising Research.”Journal of Advertising21, 3 (1992): 1–18.
Szczepanski, C.General and Special Interest Magazine Advertising and the Elaboration Likelihood Model: A Compara
Content Analysis and Investigation of the Effects of Differential Route Processing Execution Strategies(doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ABN/INFORM Global (3203946), 2006.
Taylor, C. “Making Academic Research on Advertising More Managerially Relevant.”International Journal of Advertising30, 5
(2011): 739–740.
Te’eni-Harari, T., S. Lampert, and S. Lehman-Wilzig. “Information Processing of Advertising among Young People: The
Elaboration Likelihood Model as Applied to Youth.”Journal of Advertising Research, 47, 3 (2007): 326–340.
Trampe, D., D. Stapel, F. Siero, and H. Mulder. “Beauty as a Tool: The Effect of Model Attractiveness, Product Relevance
Elaboration Likelihood on Advertising Effectiveness.”Psychology & Marketing27, 12 (2010): 1101–1121.
Wind, Y., B. Sharp, and K. Nelson-Field. “Empirical Generalizations: New Laws for Digital Marketing. How Advertising Re
Must Change.”Journal of Advertising Research53, 2 (2013): 175–180.
About the authors
Gayle Kerr is a professor at Queensland University of Technology School of Advertising, Marketing, and Public Relations
Brisbane, Australia, where she teaches advertising and integrated-marketing communications (IMC). Her advertising rese
interests include consumer empowerment in digital and social spaces, advertising self-regulation, ethics, and managemen
IMC research has focused on integration and measurement, and her studies have been published in a number of researc
journals, including the European Journal of Marketing, International Marketing Review, International Journal of Advertising
of Advertising Research, and Journal of Marketing Communications. Email:[e-mail]
Don E. Schultz is professor (Emeritus-in-Service) of integrated marketing communications, The Medill School, Northweste
University, Evanston, IL., and president of Agora, Inc., a global marketing, communication, and branding consulting firm. H
consults, lectures, and holds seminars on integrated marketing communication, marketing, branding, advertising, sales pr
and communication management worldwide. He is the author/co-author of 28 books and more than 150 academic and
professional articles. Email:[e-mail]
Philip J. Kitchen is research professor of marketing at ESC Rennes School of Business, Rennes, France. He specializes
marketing and corporate communications and marketing theory. He has published papers on these and related topics in t
Journal of Advertising Research, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Marketing Education, Journal of Marketing
Management, Journal of Business Ethics, and European Journal of Marketing, among other journals. He has also publish
than 20 books in these areas including co-editorship of Word of Mouth and Social Media (Routledge, 2015) and Integrated
Communications in the Postmodern Era (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2015). Email:[e-mail]
Frank J. Mulhern is the Hamad bin Khalafi Al-Thani professor of integrated marketing communications and is associate de
the Medill School, Northwestern University. He specializes in technology, promotion marketing, quantitative analysis of ad
media effects, and integrating internal and external marketing communications. Mulhern’s articles have appeared in schol
journals including the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Advertising, International Journal of Research
Marketing, Journal of Interactive Marketing, and Journal of Business Research. He is co-author of the textbook Marketing
Communications: Integrated Theory, Strategy and Tactics (Pentagram Publishing, 1999). Email:[e-mail]
Park Beede is chair of graduate business programs at the Higher Colleges of Technology in the United Arab Emirates. Hi
research activities include advertising, branding, and entrepreneurial marketing. In addition to academic roles, he has held
professional positions in leading advertising agency and corporate client organizations, including Colenso/BBDO, Euro RS
and Fonterra. Email:[e-mail]

1 “Warc International Ad Forecast 2014/15.”Warc News, December, 2014.
2 “Australian mobile spend up.”Warc News, August 13, 2013.
3 “China’s digital adspend to surpass TV.”Warc News, February 18, 2014.
4 Nielsen Global AdView Pulse Report. Retrieved October 21, 2013, fromhttp://nielsen.com/us/en/reports/2013/global-
adview-pulse-lite---q1-2013.html)
5 “Consumers mix channels in US and UK.”Warc News, November 20, 2012.
6 “China is biggest ecommerce market.”Warc News, August 29, 2013.
DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2015-001
© Copyright Advertising Research Foundation 2015
Advertising Research Foundation
432 Park Avenue South, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10016
Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]
www.warc.com
All rights reserved including database rights. This electronic file is for the personal use of authorised users based at the subscribing company's office location
posted on intranets, extranets or the internet, e-mailed, archived or shared electronically either within the purchaser's organisation or externally without expre
Warc.
View publication statsView publication stats