What question did this study set out to answer?

To trace the historical evolution of hierarchy of effects models in advertising and critically assess the empirical evidence and ongoing controversies regarding their theoretical validity.

January 1, 1990International Journal of Advertising

A Review and Critique of the Hierarchy of Effects in Advertising

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

TBThomas E. BarrySouthern Methodist University DHDaniel J. HowardWellcome/MRC Cambridge Stem Cell Institute

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Literature review examines the validity of hierarchy of effects models in advertising, suggesting consumers do not always follow rigid cognitive stages.

Key Points

To trace the historical evolution of hierarchy of effects models in advertising and critically assess the empirical evidence and ongoing controversies regarding their theoretical validity.
Reviewed conceptual frameworks spanning nearly a century of literature on consumer responses to persuasive marketing messages.
Critically analyzed empirical studies evaluating sequential progression across cognitive, affective, and conative domains.
Traced the standard advertising response paradigm as a sequential movement through cognitive (thinking), affective (feeling), and conative (acting) stages.
Identified persistent conceptual controversies and weak empirical support for an invariant, linear progression through these stages.

Cite This Study

Barry et al. (1990) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a016641831589f3542e1baf https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.1990.11107138

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

Literature review examines the validity of hierarchy of effects models in advertising, suggesting consumers do not always follow rigid cognitive stages.

A Review and Critique of the Hierarchy of Effects in Advertising

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

A Review and Critique of the Hierarchy of Effects in Advertising

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider