BUSI 332 Week 3 Discussion Board Forum 2 Thread and Replies Example

Discussion Board Forum 2: Attitudes and Attitude Change

BUSI 332 Consumer Behavior, Discussion Board Forum 2 Thread and Replies

Thread by [Student Name]

The prompt, the examples and the classmates are composites; the textbook and research cited are real.

Thread

Babin and Harris (2016) describe attitudes as relatively enduring evaluations of people, objects or ideas, and they present attitude change as a central task of marketing communication. Two theories explain how that change happens and why it sometimes fails to produce a purchase.

The elaboration likelihood model explains how attitudes change. Petty et al. (1983) showed participants an advertisement for a disposable razor under conditions of high or low involvement. Highly involved participants were persuaded mainly by the strength of the ad's arguments, while less involved participants were influenced more by whether the endorsers were celebrities. The authors called these the central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Attitudes formed through the central route tended to be more lasting.

Consider a company launching an electric lawn mower. For homeowners actively shopping for a mower, the central route matters: clear evidence about run time, cutting power and lower maintenance than gas. For homeowners not yet in the market, peripheral cues such as an attractive demonstration or a respected landscaper's endorsement may create a favorable first impression.

A favorable attitude, though, is not a purchase. Ajzen (1991) proposed in the theory of planned behavior that intentions depend on attitudes, on subjective norms, what important others expect, and on perceived behavioral control, whether people believe they can carry out the behavior. A homeowner can like the electric mower and still buy gas if the neighbors scoff and the battery seems too short for a large lawn. The marketer must therefore also address social approval, perhaps by featuring satisfied neighbors, and control, perhaps by offering a second battery or a trial period.

Together, the two theories suggest a sequence: change attitudes through the route that fits the customer's involvement, then remove the social and practical barriers between liking and buying.

The sequence also helps a marketer diagnose why a campaign is not working. If surveys show that homeowners rate the electric mower favorably but sales lag, the problem is probably not the message but the barriers the theory of planned behavior describes, perhaps worries about battery life on large lawns or a sense that serious yard work requires gas. Spending more on advertising would not solve that problem; a longer-lasting battery, a trade-in offer or testimonials from respected neighbors might. Babin and Harris (2016) note that attitude change is only valuable to a marketer when it leads to behavior, and these two models together show where that link can break.

Reply to Kendra

Kendra, your thread argued that consumers choose brands that match how they see themselves, and your example of outdoor apparel buyers was well chosen. Babin and Harris (2016) describe this as self-congruency, the fit between a brand's image and a consumer's self-concept.

Escalas and Bettman (2005) added an important detail. In their studies, consumers formed stronger connections with brands used by groups they belonged to or wanted to belong to, and weaker connections with brands associated with groups they wanted to avoid. Brands help people express not only who they are but also which groups they identify with. The effect differed with how people saw themselves, as more independent or more connected to others.

For the apparel brand, this suggests that showing the kinds of people who wear it matters as much as describing the product. It also suggests that a brand can lose customers by association: if a group that core customers want to distance themselves from adopts the brand visibly, some of those customers may drift away even though the product has not changed. Marketers therefore need to watch who is seen using the brand, not only who buys it. If the brand's imagery shows serious climbers, it may attract aspiring climbers but repel casual hikers who do not identify with that group.

Which group do you think the brand's ideal customers most want to belong to, and does its advertising show that group? I ask because the answer could change not only the advertising but also where the brand sponsors events and which athletes or customers it features, all of which signal which group the brand belongs to.

Reply to Darius

Darius, your thread argued that emotional advertising builds stronger brand attitudes than factual advertising, using the example of a holiday campaign from a retailer. Babin and Harris (2016) note that emotions shape how consumers process and remember marketing messages.

Pham et al. (2013) tested this with consumer responses to more than 1,000 television commercials across many product categories. The feelings an ad evoked had a substantial influence on how viewers evaluated the advertised brand, and positive feelings generally helped. The effects were broad, appearing across product types, though their strength varied.

The study supports your argument while suggesting a caution: feelings help most when they attach to the brand rather than only to the story. The finding that effects appeared across many product categories is also useful for your retailer, because it suggests emotional appeals are not limited to products people buy for pleasure. Even a retailer known for low prices might benefit from ads that leave viewers feeling warmly toward the store, as long as the feeling is linked clearly to the brand. A moving holiday ad that viewers cannot connect to the retailer may produce warm feelings without improving the brand.

How could the retailer make sure viewers remember the brand, not just the emotional story? Perhaps the brand could appear early and naturally in the story, rather than only at the end, so the warm feelings attach to it while viewers are still engaged.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Babin, B. J., & Harris, E. G. (2016). CB7 (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-389. https://doi.org/10.1086/497549

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954

Pham, M. T., Geuens, M., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2013). The influence of ad-evoked feelings on brand evaluations: Empirical generalizations from consumer responses to more than 1000 TV commercials. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(4), 383-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.04.004