Advertising and consumer behaviour - Explanations of advertising gain

If the advertiser is to ever receive coherent explanations on the relation between his advertising
and subsequent consumer behavior, then a few fundamental principles of science must be
observed in the performance of research in this area. Explanations about the advertising-
consumer behavior relation are significant to the extent that they yield the power to predict.
Prediction is based on generalized causality relations, not statistical correlations. Coherent
advertising research begins with hypotheses (definitions) of key psychological phenomena that
have not been equivocated into physical phenomena either within the definition or the
experimental design constructed for their isolation and identification

Advertising and consumer behaviour

Explanations about advertising gain their significance in terms of causality statements that
possess a high degree of confirmation in physical reality. Such statements are known as scientific
laws. In a rigorous sense, because advertising is communication, we note that all of these laws
would pertain to specific ideas and their units of meaning. Other psychological phenomena
would, of course, subsequently be included within such explanations. Thus, explanations about
advertising are, strictly speaking, explanations about psychological phenomena, and as such, are
explanations about nonphysical phenomena. But the methodological problem consists in
determining the validation of the experimental design employed for measuring these phenomena.
And, in the absence of predicting specific physical facts or events, the validity of the
experimental design is never really determined, and indeed, allegations to the contrary would
necessarily involve a circular argument regarding the nature of the phenomenon the experimental
design purported to measure. The same argument would hold, of course, for scientific
explanations about consumer behaviour. Since the basic assumption is that the consumer is a
human being, i.e., not merely a biological organism, he possesses a mind whose contents (units
of meaning, attitudes, etc.) exist as the causative agents of his behaviour. Thus, it is this common
interest in psychological phenomena that brings advertising and consumer behaviour together as
natural partners for joint scientific investigation. From a scientific point of view, it is the basic
reason why their individual explanations are mutually implicative. Advertising evaluation
consists in measuring for the existence of specific psychological phenomena. But, the validation
of the test instrument for measuring these psychological phenomena is best established by
predicting specific physical behaviour.

A critical problem: Validation of the experimental design

It is quite necessary to note that the validation of a given test instrument through prediction is
preceded by the determinate isolation and identification of these specific psychological
phenomena. This means that the validity of a test instrument also requires coherent hypotheses
(definitions) about the phenomena that the test instrument purports to measure. And the reason
why this is necessary is as follows.

Everyone understands that validity is an index of a test's ability to measure what it purports to
measure. But this property of the experimental design must necessarily entail the isolation and
identification of that thing the test purports to measure, e.g., a specific unit of meaning or
attitude. In other words, the validity of an experimental design exists - if it exists at all because of
the actual property of the experimental design to isolate and identify the specific psychological
phenomenon for which it was constructed. Thus, any failure to produce a coherent hypothesis
(definition) of a specific unit of meaning or attitude prevents the subsequent construction of a
test instrument that must necessarily be specifically designed to isolate and identify the specific
unit of meaning or attitude which is sought after. Therefore, as researchers, and unless we are to
degenerate in science to the circularity of anthropomorphic psychology, it is quite necessary to
recognize that the validity of a test instrument for use in the measurement of an experimental
unknown, requires, absolutely, a coherent hypothesis (definition) regarding the nature of that
unknown. The point is that we cannot expect to construct an experimental design that will isolate
and identify something for which we have not yet discriminated from a plurality of n-possible
phenomena. By failing to discriminate by hypotheses amongst a plurality of n-possible
phenomena, the scope of intention of the data generated by experimental designs void of
hypotheses would actually be inclusive of the undiscriminated plurality of n-possible
phenomena. Specifically, therefore, any allegation made from such data regarding the isolation
and identification of a given unit of meaning or attitude would be question begging. Thus, it is a
necessary condition for the validation of any test instrument that it be able to isolate and identify
the specific unit of meaning or attitude it purports to measure. In this regard, it is noted that so-
called statistical "laws" fail to satisfy this condition, and therefore, from a scientific point of
view, it is question begging to talk about prediction in conjunction with such "laws."
Psychological causes and their physical effects

In order to coherently explain consumer behaviour, it is a necessary condition that the causal
agents (i.e., causal
determinants) of behaviour
be isolated and
identified. Thus, Cohen
remarks ' . . . where we do
not isolate a single
determinant we cannot
expect to find a determinate
relation" (1). Assuming
that the consumer
possesses a mind, that he
is able to think, make choices between competing products, etc., it follows that these causal
agents are all in his mind. In other words, the consumer makes his purchases on the basis of the
information (units of meaning) he possesses in his mind at a given time about a given product or
service. In advertising, these causal agents are currently called ''psychographics." Units of
meaning (information) is one of them; attitudes, beliefs, etc., are others.

It is important to note that it is by means of advertising that a company can exercise some type of
control over the kind of information (units of meaning) that a potential customer might
ultimately possess. This implies that the most reliable way the advertiser can provide information
about his products or services is by means of advertising. Hence, the most reliable way an
advertiser can explain consumer behaviour would be in relation to his advertising. In other
words, since advertising is communication, a true understanding of the nature of communication
would constitute a sufficient antecedent condition for a coherent explanation of consumer
behaviour.

In relationship to the figure, the following implications are given below:

1. The consumer possesses information (units of meaning) about new product X through
advertising (and possibly other sources, too),
2. This information exists as various psychological phenomena,

3. The only possibility for a true explanation of consumer behaviour is to possess a true
explanation of these psychological phenomena,

4. Client organizations have been doing motivation, attitude, preference studies, etc., at least
since the early 1 930's without establishing causality relations,

5. It is necessary to obtain demographic data for the construction of advertisements and

commercials,

6. These demographic data per se cannot possibly provide direct information on the
psychological phenomena of the consumer about new product X. Note also, in the absence of
advertising,

7. The consumer possesses no information about new product X, or if he has heard about it, it
had to be by some kind of word of mouth vehicle or seen at the point of sale. In either case,
predicted sales cannot be reliably made, and, consumer behaviour, if any, cannot be reliably
explained.

8. Demographic information about the potential consumer does not provide any information
about what he thinks about new product X. Therefore, predicted sales cannot be reliably made,
and, consumer behaviour, if any, cannot be reliably explained,

9. The economic risks involved are extremely high.

We also notice that when a product is marketed in two different areas - one with advertising and
the other without advertising - that the area with advertising generally has the greater sales. In
other words, it pays to advertise. But the point is that if this is the extent of our interest in
advertising, then the issue is begged as to what it was about the advertising that caused the
increase in sales. In terms of gaining predictive knowledge about given advertisements and
commercials we are effectively restricted operationally to the level of trial and error. And, among
other things, this intellectual level of operation is extremely expensive.
The point is that even though we know we can get increased sales by advertising, this fact does
not tell us anything about the psychological consequences of the advertising that presumably
caused the increase in sales. The fact is we still have not explained why the consumer purchased
new product X, and, therefore, we have not explained consumer behaviour.

The fact that a certain per cent of the target population purchased new product X is merely an
economic statistic. Moreover, it is a detail given after the fact. Therefore, any explanation as to
why the product was purchased has all the significance of 20-20 vision given in hindsight. Thus,
while we know that advertising will result in increased sales, we do not know why.

In other words, at this point the advertiser is at that crossroad where he has to make a
fundamental corporate decision. If he continues to take the "practical" position that he does not
care why consumers at time t2 purchased his products-just so long as they did! (i.e., so long as
the advertising "produced results"), then at time t2 he cannot ask for coherent advertising
evaluation research for the campaign involved at t1. At that point, the only explanation possible
is an after the fact explanation - which is absolutely worthless from a scientific point of view,
and, from an economic

Point of view

Moreover, to talk about pre-testing of campaigns, in the absence of a coherent analysis of the
experimental designs employed, is simply question begging. It is almost platitudinous to say that
consumer behaviour can be reliably investigated in conjunction with advertising. But, it is a point
of scientific methodology to say that it is a necessary condition that the causal determinants of
consumer behaviour be isolated and identified. And, unless the consumer is to be defined,
implicitly or explicitly, as nothing more than a biological organism, then these causal
determinants are all in his mind - a mind that has not been redefined in terms of Neuro-
physiological phenomena. It is not possible - scientifically - to explain consumer behaviour in
hindsight. It is not possible - scientifically - to explain consumer behaviour in foresight when the
test instruments employed possess theoretical presuppositions based in anthropomorphic
empiricism.

We need to know a great deal more about the psychological phenomena that exist in the minds of
potential customers. The rise of consumerism and the attacks against the communication arm of
free enterprise (advertising) have served only to dramatize the paucity of true knowledge about
these phenomena. In this regard, government lawyers or politicians making allegations about
agencies' abilities to measure the meanings of advertisements should be required to produce
scientific substantiation of their claims in public - inclusive of' research methodology,
experimental design, data, and a critique of the experiment by a researcher who knows the
difference between a unit of meaning and its physical representation. In most cases, however,
completely ignoring the scientific revolution now occurring in psychology, and completely
ignoring the critical problems being mentioned by advertising and marketing researchers, such
kinds of allegations are being permitted to go unsubstantiated -even in our own advertising and
marketing media (3).

The psychological theories and research techniques that we have been using for well over 40
years have simply not helped us in developing coherent marketing strategy and before the fact
explanations of consumer behaviour. The fact is that corporate decisions on next year's
advertising budget are largely based on percentages of last year's sales coupled with anticipated
forecasts of next year's sales - a purely economic decision that leaves begging any coherent
explanation of the causative role of advertising in the marketing operation. Budget time for next
year s advertising expenditures is the moment of truth for the actual significance of last year's
advertising research.

Apparently to correct this situation, some advertisers have become more involved in the study of
communication and the human sciences. They are changing agencies more frequently, they are
increasingly buying advertising services 6 la carte, they are pondering the feasibility of "house"
agencies.

The point is that advertisers have been reaching out for something better. By the early 1960's,
advertisers had apparently learned that if they were ever to know something about consumer
behaviour - on a predictable basis, i.e., possess before the fact explanations - then they first had
to know something about psychological phenomena. And before they could learn something
about psychological phenomena, they would first have to learn something about that
communication process which gives rise to these phenomena, namely, advertising.

On my view, this is the fundamental reason why the advertiser is currently becoming more
directly involved in the promotional aspects of his marketing operation. Advertising is
communication. It is communication about products and services. However, absorption of the
advertising management function into the advertiser's own corporate structure will not
necessarily solve basic psychological research problems that are entailed in the measurement of
human communication. In fact, if we look at actual case histories where the advertiser performs
advertising-consumer behaviour research himself, he generally uses the same anthropomorphic
research test instruments employed elsewhere. And it must be noted, of course, that the
sponsorship of this type of "research" by corporate managements who are otherwise intensely
tough minded and practical carries some rather serious implications regarding the social,
political, and educational areas of our society.

The general structure of advertising communication

While the
advertising business
involves many
different areas-in
fact, it is hard to
imagine a more

interdisciplinary subject matter - with direct respect to its communicative function, it is basically
concerned with three things:

1. Certain ideas and units of meaning existent in the mind of some creative artist,

2. Advertisements and commercials employed to physically represent these ideas and units
of meaning,

3. The mind of some consumer.

In the figure, we note that Ra and Rb are sources of error. We note also that consumer behavior,
e.g., purchase behavior, lies in consequence of a specific consumer's system of thought regarding
a specific product or service. This is extremely important because it spells out the economically
significant sequence of events involving purchase behavior. Moreover, it spells out the sequence
of priorities in knowledge to be acquired in explaining consumer behavior. And that sequence is
this:

Advertising communication ---> Purchase Behavior ----> Profits

The variable degrees of success of each of these three factors - measured in isolation - should not
be confused with the causative nature of the sequence as a whole. In other words, profits do not
precede purchase behavior, nor does high level purchase behavior precede successful
advertising.

Needed: A more adequate theory of psychology

At this point we should begin to see that in order to explain consumer behavior, it is quite
desirable to first understand the process of human communication. It is because of this that
advertising can be described as the unifying factor in consumer decision models. It is only
through his advertising that the advertiser has any controlled input on the consumer's
psychological disposition regarding his products or services.

Demographic information about a potential customer does not provide any direct information
about what that potential customer thinks about any given product or service. Because of this,
predicted sales cannot be reliably made, and therefore, consumer behavior cannot be reliably
explained.

Demographics are not the causal agents of consumer behavior. Their significance to marketing
consists in their affect upon the consumer's psychological disposition - his state of mind.
Moreover, the advertiser has very little influence over the consumer's demographics, but may
indeed have a direct and important influence upon the consumer's psychological disposition. This
suggests, therefore, that the psychological phenomena involved in communication are the most
important variables that a company must learn to manage effectively in its marketing effort.

The only possibility for a true explanation of consumer behavior is to possess a true explanation
of the psychological properties of specific consumers. Attempts by the advertiser to explain
consumer behavior has been, and is today, largely a matter of guesswork. However, in order for
the advertiser to progress beyond guessing what his potential customers are going to do, we will
need to develop a more adequate theory of psychology for explaining psychological phenomena.

The nature of the relation between advertising and consumer behavior

The basic problem of being able to explain consumer behavior, and therefore, being able to
predict corporate profits, consists in not having a coherent explanation of a specific consumer's
psychological disposition.

The relation between advertising and consumer behavior has been known for centuries as the
mind-body problem. Unfortunately for the business community, psychology has not even
investigated the human consciousness for many decades. In fact, a perusal of some current
psychological journals and some slick magazines will even show crude attempts to redefine
genuine psychological phenomena in terms of Neuro-physiological phenomena.

It is this particular situation in current psychology that is causing all kinds of problems in the
business community. And as we move into a consumer orientation in marketing, these problems,
as even now, will be greatly magnified. Unfortunately, it is especially from psychology that we
have inherited our current anthropomorphic research techniques and philosophy. Political and
other social problems aside, the broad over-all research problem for the advertiser is being able
to explain the diagram given in figure.
Since the turn of this century, in
terms of genuine scientific
research, we generally have been
ignoring all three of these broad
relations given in figure . But,
since the 1950's we have at least
started to talk about such things as
"cognitive factors," and, currently,
"psychographic factors." And these are encouraging signs. But the fact is that much of our
advertising research today is simply not valid for these "cognitive" or "psychographic" factors
we purport to be measuring. Our test instruments have not been validated by implied physical
behavior from the data they generate. The search for and testing of inductively derived
generalizations is normally not even considered.

For example, we talk about the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, but one of its experimental
designs is some variant of the semantic differential - which is an anthropomorphic test
instrument. Thus, while the terms "cognitive" and "semantic" are employed, what is actually
involved is merely a nominal definition redefining these psychological phenomena in terms of
physical phenomena. Thus, while the appearance of the consumer's humanness is maintained, the
nature of his consciousness has been surreptitiously redefined.

Any coherent investigation of the relation between advertising and consumer behavior begins
with coherent definitions of the psychological phenomena purported to be the object of
investigation. And, when a definition is offered, it is critical that no equivocation occurs within
the definition between mental and neuro-physiological phenomena. And, subsequently, assuming
that a psychological phenomenon has actually been defined coherently, it is equally critical that
it has not been equivocated into physical phenomena within the experimental design.

Finally, in scientific research we search to discover causality relations - not statistical

correlations between unidentified, undiscriminated, grouped phenomena. It is the case that the
isolation and identification of discrete psychological phenomena is a necessary condition for any
coherent explanation of the advertising-consumer behavior relation.

References

1. Journal of advertising, vol.3, no.3 ( summer 1974) pp 16-20. Published by: M.E
Sharpe.Inc.
2. Cohen, M. R. A Preface to Logic. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1944; Meridian
Paperback, M-32, p. 164.
3. McGuire, Joseph W. "The Collegiate Business School Today," Collegiate News and
Views, 1972, 25(3), Cf. p. 5
4. (a) Washington Report, American Advertising Federation, 1974, March 28. (b)
Marketing News, 1974, 7(19), April 1, page 7.