Marketing Communications

HIERARCHY-OF-EFFECTS MODELS 73

Introduction

Often it is hard to predict how a consumer will respond to advertising or how someone will

process a communications message. Several factors have an impact on this: consumer goals,

characteristics of the product type, the situation the consumer is in (hurried or distracted

by others, for example), involvement in the product category and social, psychological or

cultural factors. In this chapter an overview of the different ways in which a consumer might

process marketing communications is given. One type of explanatory framework that has

dominated the marketing communications literature for decades is the hierarchy-of-effects

models. Later, modifications of these models were presented, and the focus has shifted

towards attitude formation models of response to marketing communications. Consumer

involvement and cognitive, affective and behavioural aspects of message processing have

been studied intensively. One thing we have learnt so far is that no single theory can explain

it all. Some models are applicable in some situations for some kinds of people and for some

categories of products. Because of this complexity, it is not surprising that marketing com-

munications do not always work as they should. At the end of the chapter, two phenomena

an advertiser would like to avoid – irritation and brand confusion – are discussed.

Hierarchy-of-effects models

Hierarchy-of-effects models^1 are some of the oldest marketing communications models. The

first was published in 1898, and their influence on marketing thought remained important

until the 1980s. In general, a hierarchy-of-effects model assumes that things have to happen

in a certain order, implying that the earlier effects form necessary conditions in order for the

later effects to occur.^2 According to these models, consumers go through three different stages

in responding to marketing communications, namely a cognitive, an affective and a conative

stage, or a think–feel–do sequence. During the cognitive stage consumers engage in mental

(thinking) processes which lead to awareness and knowledge of the brand communicated.

In the affective stage emotional or feeling responses occur which are associated with the

advertised brand and attitudes towards the brand are formed. A difference with the previous

stage is that consumers may become aware and gather information continuously and effort-

lessly, while affective reactions may only be formed when the need for an evaluation arises.

The conative or behavioural stage refers to undertaking actions with respect to the advertised

brand, such as buying it.

Consumers are assumed to go through the three stages in a well-defined sequence. The

majority of the hierarchy models claim a cognitive–affective–conative sequence. In other

words, consumers should first learn or become aware of a brand such as Fitnesse breakfast

cereal, for instance. Afterwards they develop affective responses or form an attitude towards

Fitnesse, which might be that Fitnesse is tasty and healthy. Finally, this feeling or attitude

makes the consumers want to buy Fitnesse. The task of marketing communications is then to

lead the consumers through these successive stages. Table 3.1 gives some examples of hierarchy

models that follow this traditional sequence. The Lavidge and Steiner model is the one most

frequently referred to in the literature.

However, a lot of disagreement exists regarding the sequence of the different stages, and

several researchers have developed alternative models. An example is the low-involvement

hierarchy-of-effects model according to which consumers, after frequent exposure to marketing

messages, might buy the product, and decide afterwards how they feel about it (cognitive–

conative–affective hierarchy). Another possibility is the experiential hierarchy-of-effects model

in which consumers’ affective responses towards a product lead them to buy it and, if necessary,

they reflect on it later. This would suggest an affective–conative–cognitive sequence.

M03_PELS3221_05_SE_C03.indd 73 6/5/13 3:03 PM