Unit II presents key attributes of solid and hazardous waste. There are laws that an environmental professional can use to determine if a waste is solid or hazardous. Key issues are addressed inthe re

A Replication Analysis Questions the Relevance Of the Elaboration Likelihood Model GAYLE KERR Queensland University of Technology [email protected] DON E. SCHULTZ Northwestern University dschultz@northwestern.

edu PHILIP J. KITCHEN ESC Rennes School of Business philip.kitchen@esc-rennes.

com FRANK J. MULHERN Northwestern University fjm274@ northwestern.edu PARK BEEDE Higher Colleges of Technology [email protected] theory is based on a set of seminal concepts and empirical research th a t are assumed to be replicable and inviolate overtim e. Recent changes in technology, consumer habits, demographics, and marketplaces, however, have raised questions about the applicability of advertising theory developed in a mass-media environment to today’s interactive marketplace. The current study explores this idea by replicating the most-cited study in advertising research, the elaboration likelihood model, of which ju s t three of 27 findings were replicated. The current results advocate fu rth e r replication of historical studies to verify their current value for ongoing scholarship.

INTRODUCTION A d v e rtisin g research ers ow e m u c h to th e h alcyon d a y s of m a s s m e d ia . T h a t in c lu d e s th e e n te r ­ ta in m e n t of te le v isio n series "I Love L u c y /' th e in fo rm a tio n -g a th e rin g m a c h in e of th e BBC, a n d th e p o w e r of telev isio n to b u ild em o tio n al b ra n d connections. In W estern cu ltu res, th e m ass-m ed ia p e r io d —ro u g h ly from 1950 to 1980—p a rtic u la rly w a s fru itfu l, e n c o u ra g in g a n e w w a v e of a d v e r ­ tis in g research . As on e s c h o la r n o te d , "S om e of th e b e s t re se a rc h e v e r d o n e on a d v e rtis in g w as d o n e d u r in g th e early d ay s of telev isio n " (Bogart, 1986, p. 13). A lm o st all of a d v e r tis in g 's p re m ie ra cad em ic jo u rn a ls w e re e s ta b lis h e d a fter te le v i­ sion (one of th e first b ein g th e Journal of Advertis­ ing Research in 1960).

The w o rld h a s c h a n g e d ra d ic a lly since th o se d ays of m ass-m edia dom inance. A nd, advertisin g has ch anged as well. A sim plistic w ay to m easure th is ch an g e is th ro u g h a d v e rtis in g e x p en d itu res.

Between 2013 a n d 2014, a d v ertisin g ex p en d itu re • g re w in N o rth A m erica (+5.4 percent) a n d the U nited K ingdom (+7.2 percent); • w as flat in continental E urope, no tab ly G erm any (+1.5 percent) a n d France (-2.1 percent); an d • To be truly a science—and o f value to practitioners—seminal advertising theory, such as the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), m ust be replicable across d iffe re n t cultures and periods.

• In addition to replication, advertising theory also should be validated through th e docum entation and scrutiny of its practice by marketers.

• Practitioners should question planning fram eworks th a t use trad ition al advertising models such as th e ELM, as they likely do not reflect how consumers th in k in a digital world.

• Advertising is not always a rational or controllable process, and practitioners should embrace new systems of consumer th in kin g in driving advertising strategy, tactics, and investm ent.

390 m m i D F H D U E R T I S i n G R E S E A R C H December 201 5DOI: 1 0.2 501/JA R -2015-001 Does TraDdTdoiat aDnerTdsdil TAeorv aggtv To TAe DdldTat hortDy • soared in the em erging m arkets of China (+12.5 p e rc e n t), In d ia (+14.2 percen t), a n d Brazil (+14.7 p ercent).1 D ig ita l and D em ographic S hifts A n o th er w a y to look at advertisin g change is b y th e d iv e rs io n of th a t e x p e n d itu re from tra d itio n a l m ass m ed ia to online an d d igital channels.

• In A ustralia, online a d v e rtisin g e x p e n d ­ itu r e g re w b y 190 p e r c e n t in th e y e a r Ju n e 2012 to June 2013, exceeding free- to -a ir te le v is io n e x p e n d itu r e s for th e v e ry first tim e.2 • By th e e n d of 2014, in 11 o th e r c o u n ­ tries, in c lu d in g C hina, m a rk e te rs s p e n t m o re o n d ig ita l a d v e r tis in g t h a n on telev isio n .3 • In te rn e t a d v e rtis in g s p e n d in g h a s the h ig h e s t g r o w th r a te of a n y m e d iu m globally (up 18.5 p e rc e n t in 2014)1 a n d in creasing 30.3 p e rc e n t a n n u a lly in the M id d le East a n d Africa a n d 20.6 p ercen t in L atin A m erica.4 C o n s u m e r m e d ia h a b its , like p u r c h a s ­ in g b e h a v io rs , also h a v e c h a n g e d since th e la s t h a lf of th e tw e n tie th century. The c o m b in a tio n of a n a b u n d a n c e o f c o n ­ s u m e r choice a n d c o n s u m e rs ' in creasin g access to in fo rm a tio n h as created a c o rn u ­ copia of altern ativ es.

For exam ple, a 2012 s tu d y of sh o p p e rs ages 20 to 40 re p o rte d th a t 65 p e rc e n t of U.K. a n d 55 p e rc e n t of U.S. p a rtic ip a n ts se a rc h e d fo r p r o d u c ts o n lin e a n d w e n t in-store to inspect th e m before going back 1 "Ware International A d Forecast 2014/15." Ware N ew s, December, 2014.

2 "A u stra lia n mobile spend u p ." Ware N ew s, A u g u s t 13, 2013.

3 "C hina's digital adspend to surpass T V ." Ware News, February 18, 2014.

4 N ielsen Global A d V ie w Pulse Report. Retrieved O cto­ ber 21, 2013, fr o m http://nielsen.com /us/en/reports/2013/ glo bal-adview-pulse-lite—q l-2 0 1 3 .h tm l)online to m ak e th e ir p u rc h a se s.5 A ro u n d o n e-th ird u s e d their s m a rtp h o n e to com ­ p are prices in-store w ith alternative outlets.

This so-called "s h o w -ro o m in g " ap p ro a c h is gro w in g aro u n d the w o rld (Earley, 2014; M cC auley a n d D onofrio, 2014). In India, c o n su m ers u s e d m obile p h o n e p h o to s to g enerate agreem ent on p la n n e d p u rchases from fam ily a n d frie n d s in th e U n ite d States an d the U nited K ingdom (Jain an d P ant, 2012).

In a d d i t i o n to th e s e m a r k e t p l a c e changes, fu n d a m e n ta l d em o g rap h ic shifts h a v e o c c u rre d as w ell. For e x a m p le , in 2013, w o m e n acco u n ted for tw o -th ird s or $12 trillion of the $18 trillion total in global c o n su m e r sp e n d in g .4 A n o th e r exam ple of d e m o g ra p h ic sh ift is the g ro w in g m id d le class of s h o p p e r s in C h in a . B ecause of th e ir e n th u s ia s m for o n lin e sh o p p in g an d th e ir en h a n c e d financial p o sitio n over the p a s t few d e c a d e s, C h in a h a s o v e rta k e n th e U n ite d S tates as th e w o r l d 's le a d e r in e-com m erce.6 In su m m ary , a d v e rtis in g h as ev o lv e d from a m a ss-m ed ia m a rk e tp la c e —d o m i­ n ated by the U n ited States—to one d riv en b y d ig ital a n d m obile m ed ia, b u o y e d b y the g ro w th of e m e rg in g m arkets. This is n o t ju s t th e re su lt of ch a n g in g co n su m er m e d ia hab its, decision m a k in g , a n d p u r ­ chasin g pow er, b u t it also a p p e a rs to be p a rt of the rise of a transform ative global society: M assive social, m a rk e tin g , a n d m e d ia c h a n g e s c learly are re fle c ted in a d v ertisin g ex p en d itu re a n d allocation.

Is Traditional A dvertising Theory S till Relevant?

G iven all these changes, the cu rren t stu d y questions w h eth er the fo undational a d v e r­ tis in g th e o rie s —c o n s tru c te d d u r in g the d a y s of m ass m e d ia d o m in a n c e a n d a 5 " Consum ers m ix channels in U S and U K." Ware N ew s, N ovember 20, 2012.

6 " China is biggest ecommerce m a r k e tWare N ews, A u g u s t 29, 2013.U nited States-centric m arketplace—rem ain relev an t today.

A lth o u g h there is discussion (even d is­ q u iet) a b o u t it a m o n g a c a d e m ics—a n d som e em pirical evidence to s u p p o rt these c h allen g es—t h e c u rre n t article p ro p o se s th a t the best w ay to exam ine the relevance, rigor, an d applicability of historic a d v e rtis­ ing th eory is th ro u g h em pirical testing. In o th e r w o rd s , if a d v e r tis in g 's e a rlie r so- called " s e m in a l re se a rc h s tu d ie s " w ere conducted again, the au th o rs of the current s tu d y asked, w o u ld th e original results be confirm ed?

T hus, th e p o s itio n of th e c u rre n t a r ti­ cle is sim p le : If o n e o f th e m o s t-c ite d a d v e rtis in g s tu d ie s c o u ld be re p lic a te d , som e of th e g ro w in g concerns a b o u t th e ap p licab ility of the h isto rical a d v e rtisin g th eo ry base in a c h an g in g w o rld w o u ld be allayed. S u b sta n tia l differences, if fo u n d b etw e e n p a s t s tu d ie s a n d c u rre n t rep lica­ tions, w o u ld • len d s u p p o r t to th e c u r r e n t academ ic debate, an d • p ro v id e direction for su b se q u e n t in v es­ tig a tio n s of th e tra d itio n a l a d v e r tis ­ in g fra m e w o rk s th a t s u p p o r t c u rre n t research a p p ro a c h e s a n d g u id e a d v e r­ tising practice.

B e c a u se c i t a t i o n s a r e t h e a c c e p t e d " c u r r e n c y " of a d v e r tis in g s c h o la r s h ip , th e c u r r e n t s t u d y t e s te d o n e of th e m o s t - c i t e d s t r e a m s o f a d v e r t i s i n g research : th e le n g th y , b r o a d , a n d d e e p w o r k c o n d u c te d o n th e d e v e lo p m e n t, testin g , a n d a p p lic a tio n of th e ela b o ra tio n lik elihood m o d e l (ELM; Petty, C acioppo, S ch u m an n , 1983).

O f all a d v e r tis in g th e o ry p illa rs , th e ELM is th e m o s t fre q u e n tly cited source of a c a d e m ic l i t e r a t u r e b y a d v e r t i s i n g re se a rc h e rs (P asad eo s, P h e lp s, a n d E d i­ son, 2008; K itchen el al, 2014). F urther, it is c o n sid e re d to b e " th e m o st in flu e n tia l D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 J D U R f l H L O F H D U E R T I S M G R E S E A R C H 391 Does TraDdTdoiat aDnerTdsdil TAeorv aggtv To TAe DdldTat hortDy theoretical c o n trib u tio n " (Beard, 2002, p. 72). Thus, the a u th o rs of the current stu d y believe, a replication of that 1983 stu d y w o u ld do m uch to allay the con­ cerns of current day researchers.

Such re p lication also w o u ld p erm it the examination of the basic premises of advertising research, w hich clearly have changed over time. Traditional research from the 1950s through to the 1980s was based on the premise that "advertising is som ething one does to people" (Stewart, 1992, p. 15). The latter is a holdover from the "h y p o d e rm ic " (or "m agic-bullet") approach that defined behaviorism in the 1930s (Berger, 1995) and was rooted in experiences of a rapidly growing m arket­ place—w ith few media options and lim­ ited consumer knowledge and choice.

Fast-forward to the digital age: Those concepts may no longer apply, as today's em pow ered consum ers have increasing control over m ost aspects of the ad v e r­ tising process (Kerr and Schultz, 2010; Kitchen and Uzunoglu, 2015).

It is, therefore, im portant that advertis­ ing be explored in context—and across contexts—rather than in isolation. As one scholar noted, "A typical research p a ra ­ digm w ithin the field uses relatively naive consum ers, fictitious p ro d u c ts, forced exposure to advertising for a single pro d ­ uct, an d m easures that are designed to identify increm ental changes" (Stewart, 1992, p. 7). Such practice perhaps was an artifact of advertising research's positivist traditions and borrow ings from experi­ mental psychology (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 W harton Confer­ ence on E m pirical G e n eralizations in Advertising. At that gathering, many del­ egates advocated that generalizability be explored by using multiple data sets across m u ltip le contexts. "Rigor comes fromresults th at hold over and over, ideally w hen conducted by different researchers who use fully transparent processes, data, analyses, and results" (Wind, Sharp, and Nelson-Field, 2013, p. 178).

Finally, the cu rren t au th o rs contend th at their stu d y is im p o rtan t from the practitioners' perspective. Many agency­ planning models, w hich drive ad v ertis­ ing strategy, tactics, and investment, are underpinned by models and theories from the 1970s and 1980s (Heath and Feldwick, 2008). A prime example is the linear, one­ w ay approach of the hierarchy of effects model, which still underpins most media planning today (Heath, 2012). There would appear to be substantial increases in adver­ tising efficiency and financial gain in using p lan n in g m odels th a t correctly reflect to d a y 's consumer, m edia system s, and marketplace, rather than the standards of an earlier marketing ecosystem.

LITERATURE REVIEW The ELM em erged from the maelstrom of conflicting literature, conceptual ambi­ guities, an d m ethodological problem s that had defined the field of persuasion and a ttitu d e change in the 1960s and 1970s (Fishbein an d Ajzen, 1972; Petty and Cacioppo, 1983). ELM theorists p ro ­ vided a desperately needed, yet simple, concise fram ew ork th at w o u ld include both cognitive argument quality and h eu ­ ristics (Schumann, Kotowski, Ahn, and H augtvedt, 2012).

The resultant ELM advocates two basic routes to persuasion: the central and the peripheral, determ ined by the am ount of cognitive effort a person used to process a message (Schumann et at., 2012).

• C en tral ro u te to persu asio n : W hen elaboration likelihood is high, informa­ tion processing will occur via the cen­ tral route. A ttitude change will be more persistent (H augtvedt and Petty, 1989)and predictive of behavior (Petty and Cacioppo, 1983).

• Peripheral route to persuasion: When little cognitive effort is expended and e la b o ra tio n is low, pro c essin g m ay occur via the peripheral route, relying u p o n cues such as source credibility an d heu ristics (Petty an d C acioppo, 1983) to enable the persuasion.

Criticisms of the ELM Despite being heralded as one of the most influential advertising-research theories (Szczepanski, 2006), the ELM also has been one of the m ost criticized. This criticism includes fundam ental constructs such as (Kitchen et al.r 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 criticism s w ere acknow l­ edged as issues that rem ain empirically unresolved. The current authors noted that these criticisms have not had an impact on the influence (or use of) the ELM by adver­ tising scholars.

Replication Attempts Despite the pervasiveness—and continued criticism—of the ELM over the last three decades, very few studies have sought to replicate the original ELM experiment in its entirety. Instead, most studies have focused on trying to replicate a portion, variable, or construct of the ELM (Kang and Herr, 2006; Te'eni-Harari, Lampert, and Lehman-Wilzig, 2007; Trampe, Stapel, Siero, and Mulder, 2010).

3 9 2 J O U R n R L O F H D U E R T I S M G R E S E A R C H D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 Does TraDdTdoiat aDnerTdsdil TAeorv aggtv To TAe DdldTat hortDy On the one hand, those who did seek to replicate the original ELM study u n a n i­ m ously questioned the m odel's validity.

For example, scholars who closely repli­ cated the original m odel—using slightly different products—found little or no su p ­ p ort for the ELM (Cole, Ettenson, Reinke, an d Schrader, 1990). In a m eta-analysis, there was concern th at only researchers associated w ith the original researchers, Petty and Cacioppo, were able to generate results consistent w ith the ELM's predic­ tions (Johnson and Eagly, 1989).

On the other hand, failure to replicate the re su lts of the original study, m ost likely, w as the result of modifications or exclusions of critical substantive features of the ELM, the original au th o rs of the theory argued (Petty, Kasmer, Haugtvedt, and Cacioppo, 1987).

R E S E A R C H Q UE S TIO N The cu rrent au th o rs chose the seminal ELM stu d y (Petty, Cacioppo, and Schu­ mann, 1983) for replication for a num ber of reasons:

• A n i n i t i a l s t u d y ( P e t t y a n d C acioppo,1981) failed to provide any evidence of a peripheral route to persua­ sion (Petty and Cacioppo, 1983).

• The a u th o rs of the o riginal s tu d y described the 1983 experiment as a "more sensitive test of the two routes to persua­ sion" (Petty and Cacioppo, 1983, p. 18).

• The 1983 study is the most republished of all of Petty, C acioppo, an d Schu­ m ann's work.

Guiding this replication, the research ques­ tion for the current study was:

RQ1: Does the ELM e x p lain how to d a y 's c o n s u m e r s p ro c e ss advertising and change attitudes through the central and p eriph­ eral routes to persuasion?M ETH O D O LO G Y The au th o rs of the current stu d y noted that they replicated the 1983 study faith­ fully, in its entirety and, for the first time, in three 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 x 2 x 2 factorial design, m anipulating the independent variables of message processing involvem ent (h ig h / low), argum ent strength (stro n g /w e ak ), and source characteristics (high/low).

S a m p le The 1983 experim ent used a sam ple of 160 male and female un d erg rad u a te stu­ d ents in a major M idw estern American university. In the current replication, the sam ples generally were larger an d re p ­ resented a larger global cross-section but still focused on a group of sam ple sub­ jects 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, the United Kingdom, and the United States stu d ies w ere com pared across the six dim ensions of H o fste d e's cultural tool com parison. The three countries, rated from 0 to 100, scored almost identically on • pow er 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 the United Kingdom (51) w as far morepragmatic compared to Australia and the United States (21, 26). Given the cultural sim ilarities of the three countries, d if­ ferences were unlikely in cross-national responses to scales.

I n d e p e n d e n t V a r ia b le s The in d e p e n d e n t variables w ere v ir tu ­ ally identical to those cited in the 1983 experiment:

• Involvement: Participants were given two booklets containing stimulus mate­ rial and a questionnaire. In the first book­ let, involvement w as m easured 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 con­ tained both non-famous endorsers (who were u n k n o w n an d average-looking male and female models) and local celeb­ rities relevant to the market in which the advertisem ents were being tested (i.e.

different sports stars from Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

• A rg u m e n t s tre n g th : Like th e 1983 ex p e rim en t, the c u r re n t s tu d y also contained different trea tm e n ts u sing weak and strong argum ents prom oting disposable razors. A rgum ents in the original study, however, such as "floats in w a te r w ith a m inim um of ru st" or "designed w ith the bathroom in m ind" were not considered relevant or persu a­ sive to today's test groups. Copy points, therefore, were collected from the w eb­ sites of three leading disposable razor m a n u fa c tu re r s : Schick, W ilk in so n - Sword, and Bic. They w ere evaluated by an ex p e rt p an e l an d m atched as closely as possible w ith the original a d v e rtisin g claims, in term s of arg u ­ m ent valence (logical or emotional) and strength (strong or weak).

D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 JQURI 1 RL O F RDUERTISIRG RESEARCH 3 9 3 Does TraDdTdoiat aDnerTdsdil TAeorv aggtv To TAe DdldTat hortDy D e pe n d e nt V ariables The d e p e n d e n t v a ria b le s from th e 1983 s t u d y a ls o w e re u s e d in th e c u r r e n t experim ent:

• A ttitu d e s : W h a t th e 1983 s t u d y h a d d e fin e d as a n " a t t i t u d e m e a s u r e " or " a t t i t u d e in d e x " w a s r e p r e s e n te d in th e c u rre n t s tu d y as th e averag e of the th re e sco res—o n a p e r-su b je c t b a s is — fro m th e 9 -p o in t se m a n tic d iffe re n tia l scales t h a t m e a s u r e d o v e ra ll im p r e s ­ sion, expected satisfaction, a n d fa v o ra ­ b leness of the E dge d isp o sab le razor.

• P u rch ase Intentions: This v ariab le w as ra te d on a 4 -p o in t scale.

RESULTS PART 1 M a n ip u la tio n C hecks In a m a n ip u la tio n check of in v o lv em en t, • 75 p e rc e n t of U.S. p a rtic ip a n ts, 70 p e r­ cen t of U.K. p a rtic ip a n ts , a n d 50 p e r ­ c e n t o f A u s t r a l i a n p a r t i c i p a n t s in h ig h -in v o lv e m e n t c o n d itio n s correctly recalled th ey w e re to select a b r a n d of d isp o sab le razor.

• In lo w -in v o lv e m e n t con d itio n s, 79 p e r­ c e n t of U.S., 70 p e rc e n t of U.K., a n d 63 p e rc e n t of A u s tr a lia n p a r tic ip a n ts c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d th e a l t e r n a t i v e incentive.

• T he fo re g o in g r e s u lts c o m p a re w ith 93 p e r c e n t for h ig h in v o lv e m e n t a n d 78 p e rc e n t for low in v o lv e m e n t in the o riginal study.

In th e e n d o rs e r-m a n ip u la tio n check, tw o q u e s tio n s w e re a s k e d , re p lic a tin g th e o rig in a l s tu d y . T he fir s t q u e s tio n w as a b o u t recognition:

• 74 percen t of U.K., 36 percent of A u stral­ ian, a n d 36 p e rc e n t of U.S. p a rtic ip a n tsin d ic a te d r e c o g n itio n , c o m p a r e d to 94 p ercen t in th e o riginal study.

T h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n e d th e re s p o n d e n ts ' lik in g of th e p e o p le in the ad v ertisem en t:

• T he c e le b rity w a s lik e d m o re in th e U n ited States (5.36 c o m p ared to 4.49 for an o rd in a ry citizen) a n d in th e original s tu d y (6.06 c o m p ared to 3.64).

• In th e U n ited K in g d o m a n d A u stralia, th ere w as n o difference in term s of the lik e a b ility of ce le b ritie s a n d o r d in a r y citizens.

In th e o rig in a l s t u d y 's m a n i p u l a t i o n check for a rg u m e n t-p e rsu as iv en e ss, s u b ­ jects ex p o se d to stro n g a rg u m e n ts ra te d th e m significantly m ore p e rsu a siv e (M = 5.46) th a n th o se ex p o se d to w e a k a r g u ­ m e n ts (M = 4.03).

T his also w a s th e case in th e c u r r e n t s tu d y w h e re , in th e U n ite d K in g d o m , stro n g a r g u m e n ts led to a h ig h e r m e a n score. In th e U n ite d S ta te s a n d A u s ­ tralia, stro n g a rg u m e n ts w ere c o n sid ered n o m o re p e r s u a s iv e th a n w e a k a r g u ­ m e n ts. T h is is e x p lo re d f u r th e r in th e next section.

RESULTS PART 2 The results on the d e p e n d e n t variab les— a ttitu d e s a n d p u rc h a se in te n tio n s—from th e th re e a d m in is tra tio n s of th e c u rre n t s tu d y (A ustralia, U n ite d States, a n d th e U n ited K ingdom ) bore little resem blance to the original results from 1983 (See Tables 1 a n d 2).

In th e re p lic a te d stu d y , for th e sam e d e p e n d e n t variables, the m ean s typically w e re close to th e m id p o in t (zero) a n d sh o w ed m in im al differences b e tw e e n the h ig h - a n d lo w -in v o lv e m e n t c o n d itio n s for e n d o rse r a n d a rg u m e n t s tre n g th (See Table 1).A ttitu de s and Involvem ent In th e o rig in a l stu d y , th e a ttitu d e in d e x w a s h ig h e r fo r th e l o w - in v o lv e m e n t g ro u p (m e a n score = 0.99) th a n fo r th e h ig h -in v o lv e m e n t g ro u p (m e a n score = 0.31).

A m o n g th e c u r r e n t s t u d y 's th re e r e p ­ licatio n s in th e re -te st, tw o of th e m , the U.K. a n d A u stra lia n re sp o n d e n ts, sh o w ed no significant difference in th e m e a n a tti­ tu d e score across th e in v o lv e m e n t tr e a t­ m ents. In th e U.S. study, th e difference in the a ttitu d e score a p p ro a c h e d significance (p = 0.064) b u t in th e o p p o site d ire c tio n of th e 1983 study. T h at is, th e a ttitu d e score w a s h ig h e r for th e h ig h e r in v o lv e m e n t g ro u p th a n th e lo w e r in v o lv e m e n t g ro u p (See Table 2).

H ence, th e 1983 re su lts w ere n o t con­ firm e d in a n y of th e th re e r e p lic a te d studies.

A ttitu de s and Endorsers In te rm s of th e im p a c t of th e celebrity e n d o rs e r o n a ttitu d e s to w a rd the ra z o r b r a n d , th e 1983 s tu d y claim ed to find a m ain effect, indicating th a t ad vertisem ents featu rin g celebrity en d o rsers led to a m ore p o sitiv e a ttitu d e score (0.86 for celebrity co m p a re d to th e n o n -c e le b rity m e a n of 0.41). Notably, th at conclusion w as reached d esp ite the p v a lu e b eing 0.09.

In th e th r e e - s t u d y re p lic a tio n , th e e n d o r s e r effect w a s sig n ific a n t o n ly in the U.K. s tu d y w here the citizen e n d o rser actu ally led to a h ig h e r a ttitu d e th a n the celebrity—th e o p p o site of w h a t th e 1983 s tu d y claimed.

A ttitu de s and A rg um e nt S trength The th ird m a in effect tested the im p act of strong v ersu s w eak argum ents. The origi­ n al s tu d y fo u n d a m ean a ttitu d e score of 1.65 for th e stro n g a rg u m e n t a n d a -0.35 for the w e a k arg u m en t. T hat finding w as re p lic a te d in th e U.K. d a ta (0.86 v e rsu s 0.35; p = 0.004).

3 9 4 J O U R N A L O F H D U E R T I S If l G R E S E R R C H December 2015 Does TraDdTdoiat aDnerTdsdil TAeorv aggtv To TAe DdldTat hortDy TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Each Experimental Cell on the Attitude Index Low Involvem ent High In volvem ent W e a k A rg um e ntStrong A rgum entW e a k A rgum entStrong A rgum ent AUS Citizen 1.26 (1.00)0.58 (1.24)0.99 (1.32)0.94 (1.31) Celebrity 0.87 (1.35)0.89 (1.40)0.78 (1.52)0.40 (1.79) UK Citizen 0.47 1.38 0.72 0.97 (1.42) (1.33) (1.61) (1.36) Celebrity 0.16 0.85 0.04 0.27 (1.86) (1.58) (1.86) (1.27) US Citizen 0.28 0.71 0.69 1.47 (1.94) (1.27) (1.43) (1.34) Celebrity (0.02) 0.40 1.08 0.53 (1.66) (1.75) (1.68) (1.63) PCS 1 9 8 3 Citizen -0 .1 2 0.98 -1 .1 1.98 (1.81) (1.52) (1.66) (1.25) Celebrity 1.21 1.85 -1 .3 6 1.80 (2.28) (1.59) (1.65) (1.07) Overall, among the nine attempts to rep­ licate the 1983 study results for the impact of the three treatments on attitudes, this is the only one incident where the results rep­ licated the 1983 study.

In te ra c tio n 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) b u t not in the United States (p = 0.6) or Australia (p = 0.2).

In the 1983 study, the high-involvement situ atio n featured a large difference on the im pact of a strong versus weak argu­ ment on the attitude score, while the low- involvem ent situation had no such effect(See Table 3). In the three replications, the only significant result was in the United Kingdom, where exactly the opposite was found: The strength of argument mattered in the low-involvement condition b u t not the high-involvement one.

The final interaction effect considered was the endorser b y argum ent strength interaction as it affects the attitude score.

This was 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 mean attitu d e score of 2.23 com pared to theT h e t h i r d m a i n e f f e c t t e s t e d t h e i m p a c t o f s t r o n g v e r s u s w e a k a r g u m e n t s .

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 argum ent strength on purchase intentions w ith the U nited States (p = 0.817), the United Kingdom (p = 0.255), and Australia (p = 0.97).

In addition to finding a main effect for arg u m e n t stren g th on purc h ase in te n ­ tions, the 1983 study found that, in high- involvem ent conditions, the strength of the argument was more im portant than in low-involvem ent conditions. In the cur­ rent study, the same result was found in the United Kingdom, b u t the im pact of strength of argument did not vary for the high- or low-involvement conditions in the two other countries.

The 1983 study reported a correlation that was higher for the high-involvement c o n d itio n (0.59) th a n for th e low- involvement condition (0.36). In the current U.K. replication, however, the correlations were about the same for both high- and low-involvement conditions while, in the U.S. and Australian replications, the low- involvement conditions exhibited a higher correlation between attitude and purchase likelihood (See Table 4).

A gain, the au th o rs fo u n d little e v i­ dence to confirm the findings of the 1983 paper.

DISCUSSION The overall findings of the 1983 stu d y — that attitudes formed via the central route D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 JO U H IM L OF HDUERTISinG RESERRCH 3 9 5 Does TraDdTdoiat aDnerTdsdil TAeorv aggtv To TAe DdldTat hortDy TABLE 2 Involvement, Endorser, and Argument Influence on Attitude Index AUS UK US PCS 1 9 8 3 InvolvementGroups Means:

High Involvement 0.855 0.495 0.965 0.310 Low Involvement 0.849 0.717 0.319 0.990 N =218 317 142 149 Test Statistics:

F = 0.001 P = 0.973 F= 1.553P= 0.214 F= 2.806 P = 0.064 F= 6.640 P = 0 .0 1 Endorser Groups Means:

Celebrity 0.793 0.331 0.471 0.860 Citizen 0.910 0.881 0.818 0.410 N =218 317 142 149 Test Statistics:

F= 0.386 P = 0.535F= 9.731 P = 0 .0 0 2 * F= 0.831 P = 0.438 F= 2.910 P = 0.090 ArgumentGroups Means:

Strong 0.795 0.864 0.773 1.650 Weak 0.904 0.348 0.514 -0 .3 5 0 N =218 317 142 149 Test Statistics:

F= 0.339 P = 0.561 F= 8.55P = 0 .0 0 4 * F= 0.484P= 0.617 F= 57.81 P = 0 .0 0 0 1 * TABLE 3 Involvement x Argument Interaction Impact on Attitude Index F P AUS Overall Model F( 1, 218) = 1.1140.292 Low Involvement F ( l , 86) = 1.2880.260 High Involvement F ( l , 131) = 0.5000.481 UK Overall Model F( 1, 317) = 2.5670.110 Low Involvement F ( l , 157) = 10.2870 .0 0 2 * High Involvement F ( l , 158) = 0.8720.352 US Overall Model F ( l , 142) = 0.1720.679 Low Involvement F( 1, 69) = 1.0430.311 High Involvement F ( l , 71) = 0.2650.608are more predictive of behavior than those form ed via the perip h e ral ro u te—could n o t be confirm ed in the c u rre n t s tu d y d e sp ite im p le m e n tin g the sam e tre a t­ ments and data-collection process in three different countries.

One im portant difference betw een the original study and the current replication is that, although the manipulations worked well in at least one (and sometimes two) of the three countries, they clearly were not as strong as in 1983.

This supports the contention th at con­ sumers likely think differently in a faster, digital world.

As some of the m anipulations worked quite well, however, it is further suggested that the mental processing of information did not work in the way the ELM purports.

In other words, the current authors believeTABLE 4 Correlation between Attitude Index and Purchase Likelihood C o r r e l a t i o n S ig .

A U S High Involvement 0.302 0 .0 0 0 * Low Involvement 0.452 0 .0 0 0 * UK High Involvement 0.445 0 .0 0 0 * Low Involvement 0.437 0 ,0 0 0 * US High Involvement 0.329 0 .0 0 5 * Low Involvement 0.5260 .0 0 0 * PCS 1 9 8 3 High Involvement 0.590 0 .0 0 1 * Low Involvement 0.360 0 .0 0 1 * 3 9 6 JOURIIHL OF HDUERTISIflG RESEARCH D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 Does TraDdTdoiat aDnerTdsdil TAeorv aggtv To TAe DdldTat hortDy I n 1 9 8 3 , a d v e r t i s e m e n t s f e a t u r i n g a c e l e b r i t y e n d o r s e r l e d t o m o r e p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s c o r e s .

it m ay be incorrect to conclude th at the fail­ ure to replicate w as sim ply a m atter of the m a n ip u la tio n s b eing weaker, even th o u g h th ey w ere replicated as closely as possible.

T h e re fo re, it is i m p o r t a n t to lo o k at a lte rn a tiv e e x p la n a tio n s in th e d iv e rg e n t findings.

D i v e r g e n t F i n d i n g s A m ong the findings th a t o p p o se d the orig­ inal s tu d y w ere the follow ing :

• In v o lv e m e n t In t h e o r i g i n a l s t u d y , t h e lo w - in v o lv e m e n t g ro u p h a d a m ore p o sitive a ttitu d e to w a rd th e object. In th e U.S.

rep licatio n , how ever, pe o p le in th e low- in v o lv e m e n t g ro u p w e re m o re s k e p ti­ cal a n d h a d a lo w er a ttitu d e score th a n th o se in th e h ig h -in v o lv e m e n t g roup.

This is the reverse of the ELM's predic­ tions, yet the findings su p p o rt the social ju d g m e n t th e o ry (Sherif a n d H o v lan d , 1961), w h ic h su g g ests th a t u n in v o lv e d p e o p le w ill co n sid er a w id e r ran g e of a lte rn a tiv e s th a n those w h o are m ore highly involved w ith the object.

It also is w o rth w h ile to consider th at th e a t t i t u d e t o w a r d th e o bject m a y n o t b e th e o n ly d e te rm in a n t. A s th e th e o ry of p la n n e d b e h a v io r su g g e sts, h o w e v e r (A jzen a n d F ish b e in , 1991), a ttitu d e to w a rd b u y in g also co u ld be i m p o r ta n t—a c o n s id e ra tio n th a t m ay be even m ore im p o rta n t in to d a y 's d ig i­ tal e n v iro n m e n t w ith g re a te r access to p ro d u c t inform ation, m ore w ays to buy, a n d m o re e m p o w e r e d s k e p tic s lo o k ­ ing to w a rd cu sto m er review s as a m ore tru ste d source th a n m ark etin g in form a­ tio n ( K ris h n a m u rth y a n d D ou, 2008).

In such instances, peo p le m ay be n o t som u ch "in v o lv ed " in the p ro d u c t as they are "connected" to inform ation.

• E n d o rser In 1983, a d v e r tis e m e n ts f e a tu r in g a c e le b rity e n d o r s e r led to m o re p o s i­ tive a ttitu d e scores. In the U.K. replica­ tion, h o w ever, the o p p o site effect w as found. A d v ertisem ents featuring citizen e n d o rs e rs h a d a h ig h e r a ttitu d e th a n celebrity advertisem ents.

A g a in , th is m ig h t b e a n a rtifa c t of th e g ro w in g belief in c itizen s as m ore r e lia b le s o u rc e s of in f o r m a tio n a n d th e a c c e le r a tio n of e le c tro n ic w o r d of m o u th (K r is h n a m u r th y a n d D ou, 2008). S u ch c re d ib ility also is e v id e n t in th e escalation of " re a lity " television show s, w h e re th e a v e ra g e citizen is the celebrity.

• In te ra c tio n Effects In th e o rig in al study, stre n g th of a rg u ­ m e n t w as im p o r ta n t in h ig h - b u t n o t in lo w -in v o lv e m e n t c o n d itio n s. In th e c u rre n t study, th e U.K. re su lts sh o w ed th e o p p o s ite . A rg u m e n t s tr e n g th w as s ig n ific a n t fo r low, r a th e r th a n h ig h involvem ent.

The notion th at "if y ou b u y som ething you m u st like it," as suggested by the self p erception th eo ry (Bern, 1972), could be ap plied to th e high -in v o lv em en t group.

This also is s u p p o r te d b y K ru g m a n 's (1965; 1966-1967) n o tio n th a t b e h a v io r som etim es comes before attitude.

Equally, th e s tr e n g th of a r g u m e n t b e in g sig n ific a n t in lo w -in v o lv e m e n t conditions is su p p o rte d by social ju d g ­ m en t th eo ry (Sherif a n d H o vland, 1961), w hich suggests the u n in v o lv ed typically co n sid er a w id e r ran g e of alternatives.T his is a m p lifie d in th e n o tio n th a t "b ecau se I am n o t in v o lv e d , I n e e d to be convinced." More th a n an y th in g else, th is sh o w s th a t c o n te n t—r a th e r th a n c o n te n t m a n ip u la tio n —s o m e tim e s is m o re im p o r ta n t for lo w -in v o lv e m e n t conditions, disag reein g w ith the essen ­ tial prem ise of the ELM.

• C o rrelatio n s In th e o rig in al study, th e re w a s a sig ­ n ific a n t p o s itiv e c o rre la tio n b e tw e e n a ttitu d e to w a rd th e p ro d u c t a n d likeli­ hoo d to purch ase in b o th the high- an d lo w -in v o lv e m e n t co n d itio n s (a lth o u g h s t r o n g e r in th e h i g h - i n v o l v e m e n t condition).

In the cu rren t study, in A ustralia an d th e U n ited States, a m ore po sitiv e a tti­ tu d e to w a rd the object w as associated w ith greater lik elih o o d to p u rc h a se in lo w - in v o lv e m e n t c o n d itio n s , w ith a low er correlation for h ig h -in v o lv em en t conditions. P erh ap s, th e a u th o rs of the c u rre n t s tu d y su g g est, sim p ly "lik in g " a n a d v e rtis e m e n t, r a th e r th a n c o n sid ­ e rin g th e e la b o r a tio n of c o n s id e re d a rg u m e n t, le a d s to p u rc h a s e in low - in v olvem ent conditions.

This re s u lt also co u ld b e e x p la in e d by n e w e r m o d els of th in k in g , su c h as "T h in k in g Fast a n d Slow" (K ahnem an, 2011).

-y- T hinking fast (or "System 1 thinking") is typical of lo w -in v o lv em en t c o n d i­ tio n s, w h e re th in k in g is a u to m a tic , a n d th e e m o tio n w h e re " s o m e th in g h a p p e n s to y o u " p ro d u c e s an a u to ­ m atic resp o n se, free from v o lu n ta ry control. In the case of these findings, a u to m a tic th in k in g g e n e ra te s in te n ­ tion to purchase.

M ore effortful or slow th in k in g —p e r­ h a p s akin to h ig h ela b o ra tio n —only is activ ated w h e n System 1 th in k in g D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 J D U e n B L O F H D U E R T I S i n G R E S E A R C H 3 9 7 Does T r aD dT do i a t aDnerTdsdil TAeorv aggtv To TAe DdldTat h o rtDy does not have an answer or w hen its model of the world is violated.

Low attention has been the focus of m uch scholarly w ork (Heath, 2012).

It suggests th at television a d v e rtis­ ing is n o t processed systematically, b u t ra th e r like System 1, it is a u to ­ m atically processed in response to stimuli.

Advertisements high in emotional content generally received 20 p e r­ cent less attention (Heath et a i, 2009).

Lower attention could reduce counter­ argument and, therefore, increase like­ lihood of purchase.

In sum m ary, the re su lts of this three- study replication diverge from the prem ­ ise of the ELM m odel. In all instances, the respondents w e n t through an evalu­ ation process, albeit through tw o differ­ ent pathw ays. However, the findings do s u p p o rt the contention of m ore recent research th at there can be learning (and even persuasion) as a re su lt of subcon­ scious processing of a d v e rtisin g expo­ sure, suggesting exposure m ay be more im p o rtan t than processing (Heath, 2012; Kahneman, 2011).

IMPLICATIONS The current authors believe that the cur­ rent study has a number of implications for both academics and practitioners:

R eplication should be an in h e re n t and ongoing p art of theory validation.

As an objective akin to finding a way to "w orld peace," revisiting and replicat­ ing advertising theory is an overw helm ­ ing task. It is likely that such efforts will upset a num ber of academicians who have built their entire careers on following the dictates of "the literature." The results of the current study and the directives of a nu m b er of academics, how ever—among them, m any of the participants at WhartonConference on Empirical Generalizations in A dvertising—validate the urgent need to take on this task.

Journal editors and reviewers should lead th e way.

As guardians of research quality, editors and reviewers have an obligation to ques­ tion the rigor and the appropriate use of theory in research. Hence, many academic journals and associations have cham pi­ oned research quality.

• Kent Monroe, then editor of the Journal of Consumer Research, was a lone voice for replication in the 1990s, prom oting a clear editorial policy of encourag­ ing and accepting replication research for publication.

• The Journal of Advertising Research has encouraged debate with its "New Mod­ els for a New Age of Research" issue (Vol. 51, Issue 2) and "Future of Market Research" (Vol. 51, Issue 1; 2011) • Charles Taylor, International Journal of Advertising editor, confirmed the jour­ nal's commitment to research involving replication, publishing a call for stronger theory development and more relevant research for advertising professionals (Taylor, 2011).

A cadem ic associations m ust w ork tog e th e r.

The A m erican A cadem y of A d v e rtis­ ing and European Advertising Academy both have considered the topic of research quality w o rth y enough to feature it in their keynote addresses. Action m ust fol­ low awareness, however: If the agenda is to revisit advertising theory—and if edi­ tors and reviewers are the guardians of research quality—academic associations should provide the necessary leadership to support that view.A c a d e m i c a s s o c i a t i o n s m u s t w o r k t o g e t h e r .

P ra c titio n e rs should doc u m e n t th e p ra c tic e of theory.

It is contingent u pon practitioners—the im plem enters of advertising theory—to document conditions u n der which theory w orks and those conditions that oppose it. Their findings should be published in peer-reviewed journals, where practition­ ers and academics can learn from the prac­ tice of theory.

Advertising is not alw ays a rational process.

Practitioners should not be constrained by an organizational view that sees advertising as a manageable, informational resource for rational consumers (Heath, 2012). They should embrace new technology (such as neuroscience) and new thinking (like 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 per­ haps better reflective of today's consumer and today's marketplace.

CONCLUSION To q u estio n the relevance of a d v e rtis ­ ing theory, the current study empirically tested its m ost cited work, the ELM (Petty e t a l , 1983).

What those scholars found in 1983 could not be replicated today in any of the three countries in w hich the current study was conducted. This global inability to replicate one of the most fundamental experiments from a d v e rtisin g 's halcyon m ass-m edia days suggests advertising scholars need to re-think the assumptions and foundations of w hat they call "advertising theory." 3 9 8 J O U R O H L O F R D U E R T I S I f l G R E S E A R C H D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 Does TraDdTdoiat aDnerTdsdil TAeorv aggtv To TAe DdldTat hortDy Just because it has been cited a number of times and "everyone" believes it to be true does not necessarily mean a theory is relevant or even empirically generaliz- able given the massive changes that have occurred in the marketplace.

The onus is on the marketing-research industry and academia to question adver­ tising theory: When everything around it has changed, why should any particular theory stay the same? And if advertis­ ing theory is not questioned, subsequent advertising research will become increas­ ingly irrelevant.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Gayle Kerr is a pro fe sso r a t Q ue ensland University o f Technology School o f Advertisin g, M a rke tin g , and Public R elatio ns in Brisban e, Australia , w here sh e tea ches a d v e rtis in g an d in te g ra te d -m a rke tin g c o m m u n ic a tio n s (IMC). H er a d v e rtis in g re search in te re s ts includ e co n s u m e r e m p o w e rm e n t in dig ita l an d social spaces, a d v e rtis in g se lf-re g u la tio n , e th ics, an d m a na g e m e n t.

H er IMC re search has fo cu se d on in te g ra tio n and m e a su re m e n t, an d h e r s tu d ie s have been pu b lish e d in a n u m b e r o f re search jo u rn a ls , in c lu d in g th e European Journal o f Marketing, In terna tiona l M arketing Review, In terna tiona l Journal o f Advertising, Journal o f A dvertisin g Research, an d Journal o f M arketing Communications.

Don E. Schultz is professor (Emeritus-in-Service) o f integrated m a rke tin g co m m unica tions, The Medill School, Northw estern University, Evanston, IL , and p re siden t o f Agora, Inc., a global marketing, co m m unica tion, and b randin g c o n su ltin g firm . He consults, lectures, and hold s s e m in a rs on integrated m a rke tin g c o m m unica tion, marketing, branding, advertising, sales prom otio n, and c o m m u n ica tio n m a n a g e m e n t worldw id e. He is th e a u th o r / co-auth or o f 2 8 books and more th a n 1 5 0 aca dem ic and professional article s.

Ph il ip J. Kitchen is re search p ro fe sso r o f m a rk e tin g a t ESC Rennes School o f B usiness, Rennes, France, He sp e cia lize s in m a rk e tin g an d co rp o ra te co m m u n ic a tio n s a n d m a rk e tin g th e ory. He has pu b lish e d p a pers onth e s e and rela ted to p ics in th e Journal o f Advertising Research, Journal o f Business Research, Journal o f M arketing Education, Journal o f Marketing Management, Journal o f Business Ethics, and European Journal o f Marketing, a m o n g o th e r jo u rn a ls .

He has also pu b lish e d m ore th a n 2 0 books in th e se a reas in c lu d in g co -e d ito rsh ip o f Word o f Mouth and Social Media (Routledge, 2 0 1 5 ) and Integrated Communications in th e Postmodern Era (Palgrave- M a cm illa n , 2 0 1 5 ).

Fr ank J. Mulhern is th e Hamad bin Khalafi Al-Thani professor o f inte grated m a rketing c o m m unica tions and is associa te dean a t th e Medill School, Northwestern University. He sp ecializes in technology, promotion marketing, q u a n tita tive analysis o f ad ve rtisin g media effects, and inte gratin g internal and external marketing co m m unica tions. M u lh e rn ’s a rticle s have appeared in schola rly jo u rn a ls in clu d in g th e Journal o f Marketing, Journal o f Retailing, Journal o f Advertising, International Journal o f Research in Marketing, Journal o f Interactive Marketing, and Journal o f Business Research. He is co-auth or o f th e te xtbook Marketing Communications:

Integrated Theory, Strategy and Tactics (Pentagram Publishing, 1 9 9 9 ).

Par k Bee de is ch a ir o f g ra d u a te b u sin ess progra m s a t th e H igher Colleges o f Technology in th e United Arab Emirates. His research a c tiv itie s in clu d e a d vertising , b randin g, an d e n tre p re n e u ria l m arketing , in a d d itio n to a c a d e m ic roles, he has held s e n io r professional p o sitio n s in le a d in g a d v e rtis in g agency an d corpora te c lie n t o rganiza tions, in c lu d in g Colenso/B BD O, Euro RSCG, an d Fonterra.

REFERENCES Azjen, I. "The Theory of Planned Behavior." Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 80 (1991): 179-211.

Beard, F. "Peer Evaluation and Readership of Influential C ontributions to the A dvertising Literature." Journal of Advertising 31, 4 (2002):

65-75.Berger, A. Essentials of Mass Communication The­ ory. London, UK: Sage Publications, 1995.

Bern, D. "Self-Perception Theory." In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 6, L. Berkowitz, ed. New York: Academic Press, 1972.

Bogart, L. "Progress in Advertising Research?" Journal of Advertising Research June/July (1986):

11-15.

Co le, C., R. Et t e n so n, S. Rein k e, and T.

Schrader. "The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM): Replications, Extensions, and Some Con­ flicting Findings." Advances in Consumer Research 17 (1990): 231-236.

Earley. S. "Mobile Commerce: A Broader Per­ spective." IEEE Computer Society 16, May-June (2014): 61-65.

Fishbein, M., and 1. Ajzen. "Attitudes and Opin­ ions." Annual Review of Psychology 23 (1972):

487-544.

Haugtvedt, C., and R. Petty. "Need for Cogni­ tion and Attitude Persistence." Advances in Con­ sumer Research 16 (1989): 33-36.

Heath, R. Seducing the Subconscious: The Psychol­ ogy 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 c f Market Research 50,1 (2008): 29-59.

Hofstede, G. "The Hofstede Centre." Retrieved April 14,2014, from h ttp://geert-hofstede.com / australia.html Ja in, V., and S. Pa n t. "Navigating Generation Y for Effective Mobile M arketing in India: A Conceptual Framework." International Journal cf Mobile Marketing 7,3 (2012): 17-26.

D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 J o i n O F H D U E R T I S I f l G R E S E A R C H 3 9 9 Does T r aD dT do i a t aDnerTdsdil TAeorv aggtv To TAe DdldTat h o r tD y Jo h n s o n, B., and A. Eagly. "Effects of Involve­ ment on Persuasion: A Meta-Analysis." Psycho­ logical Bulletin 106, 2 (1989): 290-314.

Ka h n em a n, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Girous, 2011.

Ka n g, Y., a nd P. Herr. "B eauty an d the Beholder: Toward an Integrative Model of Com­ munication Source Effects." Journal of Consumer Research 33 (2006): 123-130.

Kerr, G., and D. Schultz. "Maintenance Man or Architect? The Role of Academic Advertising Research in Building Better U nderstanding." International Journal of Advertising 29, 4 (2010):

547-568.

Kitch en, P. J., and E. Uzu noglu (Eds.). Inte­ grated Communications in the Postmodern Era.

Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2015.

Kitchen, P. J., G. Kerr, D. Schultz, R. McColl, and H. Pals. "The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Review, Critique and Research Agenda." European Journal of Marketing 48, 11-12 (2014):

2033-2050.

Krishnamurthya, S., and W. Dou. "Advertising w ith User-Generated Content: A Framework and Research A genda." Journal of Interactive Advertising 8, 2 (2008): 1-4.

Kru g m a n, H. E. "The Im pact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement." Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (1965): 349-356.

Krugman, H. E. "The Measurement of Adver­ tising Involvement." Public Opinion Quarterly 30 (1966-1967): 583-596.

McCauley, E., and T. Do n o f r io. "A p p a ra­ tus, System and Methods for Stimulating andSecuring Retail Transactions." Patent Application Publication, 43, August 7 (2014): 783-791.

Mo n ro e, K. "E ditorial—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. "Search­ ing for O ur 'Ow n Theory' in Advertising: An U pdate of Research N etw orks." Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 85, 4 (2008):

785-806.

Petty, R., and J. Ca cioppo. Attitudes and Persua­ sion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubu­ que, IA: Wm. C. Brown Com pany Publishers, 1981.

Petty, R., and J. Cacioppo. "Central and Periph­ eral Routes to Persuasion: Application to Adver­ tising." In Advertising and Consumer Psychology, L. Percy and A. G. Woodside, eds. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1983.

Petty, R., J. Ca c io p p o, and D. Sc h u m a n n.

"Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involve­ m ent." Journal of Consumer Research 10 (1983):

135-146.

Petty, R., J. Kasmer, C. Haugtvedt, and J.

Ca c io p p o. "Source and Message Factors in Persuasion: A Reply to Stiff's Critique of the Elaboration Likelihood Model." Communication Monographs 54 (1987): 233-249.

Sc h u m a n n, D ., M. Kotowski, H. Ah n, and C. Haugtvedt. "The Elaboration Likelihood Model: A Thirty Year Review." In AdvertisingTheory, S. Rodgers and E. Thorson, eds. New York: Routledge, 2012.

Sherif, M., and C. Ho vlan d. Social Judgment:

Assimilation and Contract Effects in Communica­ tion and Attitude Change. Philadelphia, PA: W. B.

Saunders, 1961.

Stewart, D. "Speculations on the Future of Advertising Research." Journal of Advertising 21, 3 (1992): 1-18.

Sz cz epa n sk i, C. General and Special Interest Magazine Advertising and the Elaboration Likeli­ hood Model: A Comparative Content Analysis and Investigation of the Effects of Differential Route Processing Execution Strategies (doctoral disser­ tation). Retrieved from ABN/INFORM Global (3203946), 2006.

Taylor, C. "M aking Academic Research on Advertising More Managerially Relevant." Inter­ national Journal of Advertising 30,5 (2011): 739-740.

Te'eni- Harari, T., S. Lampert, and S. Lehman- Wilzig. "Information Processing of Advertising among Young People: The Elaboration Likeli­ hood 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 Attrac­ tiveness, Product Relevance, and Elaboration Likelihood on Advertising Effectiveness." Psy­ chology & Marketing 27, 12 (2010): 1101-1121.

Win d, Y., B. Sh a r p, and K. Nel so n- Field.

"Em pirical Generalizations: N ew Laws for Digital Marketing. How Advertising Research Must Change." Journal of Advertising Research 53, 2 (2013): 175-180.

4 0 0 J O U R R B L OF R O U E R T IS IR G R E S E R R C H D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 Copyright ofJournal ofAdvertising Researchisthe property ofWarc LTDanditscontent may notbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without thecopyright holder's expresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles for individual use.