Page 191 - Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research

180 PETTY, PRIESTER, BRIÑOL

One study examined multiple roles for message factors at three distinct
levels of recipient elaboration. In this research, a regular advertisement
for an unknown product was contrasted with an “upward comparison”
ad that compared the new product to a well-established one (Pechmann &
Estaban, 1993). Unlike a regular message that simply provides support for
its position (e.g., You should vote for Candidate X because...), an
upward comparison message suggests that the critical issue, product, or
person is similar to one that is already seen as desirable (e.g., You should
vote for Candidate X, who like Person Y, favors tax cuts). In order to
examine the multiple roles for this message variable, regular and upward
comparison ads containing either strong or weak arguments were pre-
sented following instructions and procedures designed to elicit either a
relatively low, moderate, or high motivation to think about the critical ad.
Effectiveness of the ads was assessed by asking recipients to rate their
intentions to purchase the product advertised. When the low-motivation
instructions were used, the upward comparison ad produced more favor-
able intentions than the regular ad, but strong arguments did not produce
more favorable intentions than weak ones. That is, under the low-
elaboration likelihood conditions, the comparison with the well-known
and liked product served as a simple peripheral cue, and argument pro-
cessing was minimal. When the high-motivation conditions were exam-
ined, the opposite resulted. That is, under the high-elaboration instruc-
tions, the strong arguments produced more favorable intentions than the
weak ones, but the upward comparison was completely ineffective as a
cue for producing more favorable intentions. Finally, when the moderate
motivation conditions were analyzed, the use of an upward comparison
ad was found to enhance processing of the message arguments. Specifi-
cally, when the upward comparison ad used strong arguments, it led to
more persuasion than the direct ad, but when the upward comparison ad
used weak arguments, it produced less persuasion than the regular ad.
The mere number of arguments and the use of upward comparison are
only some of the message factors that can influence persuasion by serving
in different roles in different situations. To take one more example, con-
sider the complexity of the message (e.g., difficult vocabulary, sentence
structure). Such complexity could serve as a simple cue when the elabora-
tion likelihood is low. For example, a person might use the heuristic, “the
person doesn’t seem to know what he is talking about, therefore I can’t
agree.” Alternatively, the person might reason that “the person seems to
know a lot about this, therefore the position is good.” Whether one infer-
ence or the other is reached might depend on factors such as the person’s
self-esteem or perceived knowledge on the issue.
When the elaboration likelihood is not constrained to be high or low,
complexity might affect the amount of thinking that occurs. That is, some
people (e.g., those high in need for cognition; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982),