Total number of words: 1,937
Introduction
Back in the first century AD, Stoic philosopher Epictetus observed that people become disturbed “not so much by events as by the views which they take of them” (Scott and Dryden, 2003). With this observation, Epictetus seemed to point out that, in viewing all the objects found in the visual world, situations are viewed from some distinctive angles than from others, and humans have the freedom to choose their orientation. This personal orientation, on the other hand, is influenced by a person’s beliefs and how they see themselves in relation to the world. How people view certain situations is based on how they see themselves in relation to the situation being witnessed. Thus, a person who believes himself to be a basketball coach will watch a basketball game from a different approach or angle, than one who believes himself to be merely a basketball spectator. This is the cognitive-behavioral paradigm, which centers on people’s beliefs and principles, which relate and counteract with their behaviors that, all in all, create human experience.
Part 1: Literature review on cognitive paradigm
The cognitive-behavioral perspective of human experience, is being viewed as a product of four vital elements: (1) physiology; (2) cognition; (3) behavior; and (4) emotion (Scott and Dryden, 2003, p.156). Thus, as an example, if a person is tense (physiology) at the time that he is about to write an essay, this may lead him to think that he is not going to write a good essay (cognition), which may make him feel anxious (emotion) and would therefore make him put his pen down and listen to music (behavior). The effect of listening to music may be to reduce his tension (back to physiology), and he may be more inclined to think that in reality, he actually do well on essays (cognition), and this may make him feel more relaxed (emotion). Thus, a behavior (listening to music) has broken down the chain of negative reaction, as an effect of the general knowledge (cognition) that listening to music can life up a person’s mood. It is therefore evident that, in a cognitive-behavioral paradigm, the emphasis is centered on “breaking out of negative chains via the cognitive and behavioral ports of entry” (Scott and Dryden, 2003, p.156). This cognitive-behavioral approach is said to have the capacity to change cognitions and behaviors, as the emotion becomes a port of entry for the treatment of personality disorders like anxiety or other psychological disorders.
Personality is said to be “an abstraction used to explain consistency and coherency in an individual’s pattern of affects, cognitions, desires, and behaviors” (Revelle, Wilt and Rosenthal, 2010, p.27). Based on the statement of Revelle, Wilt and Rosenthal (2010),
What one feels, thinks, wants, and does changes from moment to moment and from situation to situation but shows a patterning across situations and over time that may be used to recognize, describe, and even to understand a person. (Revelle, Wilt and Rosenthal, 2010, p.27)
With this, understanding a personality only means identifying the differences and consistencies between people, which is differentiated by the activities of the heart, the liver, and the brain. This is according to the presentation of the early Greek philosophers, which presented the triology of mind presenting what people feel (emotion), what people think (cognition), and what people want (motivation). They would only have to determine and administer what the person feels (affects), thinks (cognition), wants (desires), and does (behavior) from one moment to another, and from one situation to another. This was exactly what Scott and Dryden (2003) mentioned earlier about the cognitive-behavioral perspective of human experience, in which behavior is able to break down the chain of negative reaction.
For the past decades, the study of attitudes and persuasion has been an integral part of social psychology (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986, p.124). It has become a flourishing topic from the 1930s to the 1960s, although after which it started to wane because of the questions set against the utility of attitude construct, as well as the conflicting views of the theories (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986, p.124). By the late 1970s however, there was considerable progress on the consistency between attitudes and behaviors. Researchers began to explore the processes essential to the attitude-behavioral correspondence (Herr, Sherman and Fazio, 1983). By the mid-‘80s, Petty and Cacioppo (1986) concluded that
the major problem facing persuasion researchers was that after accumulating a vast quantity of data and an impressive number of theories there was surprisingly little agreement concerning if, when, and how the traditional source, message, recipient, and channel variables affected attitude change. (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986, pp.124-125)
With these changes come a general theory of attitude change, labeled as the Elaboration Likelihood Model or ELM, first defined by Petty and Cacioppo (1981), which attempts to integrate the seemingly conflicting research findings and theoretical orientations. Before all these however, it is important to define attitude as “general evaluations people hold in regard to themselves, other people, objects, and issues” (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986, p.127). It is attitude that makes it possible for people to hold general evaluations regarding themselves, or other people, objects, or situations. Attitudes are based on the affective, behavioral, emotional, and cognitive experiences, and can therefore guide the processes that take place as an effect of these experiences. For this, a person may come to like a political candidate (behavior) because of what he thinks (cognition), what he feels (affects), what he wants (desires), or what he does (behavior); in other words, because of his attitude.
The Elaboration Likelihood Model or ELM is one of the two dual-process theories of change arguing and attitude formation, which act through a central, peripheral route in which personal attributes point out the relative effectiveness of the processes. In ELM, persuasion can act through the central, peripheral route simultaneously (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993), although attitude is viewed in both theories as being formed and modified. In ELM, what is more distinctive is the amount of influence accepted by the recipients who are exposed to the new information. As Angst and Agarwal (2009) stated, “when a message is presented to individuals in different contexts, the recipients will vary in how much cognitive energy they devote to the message” (p.341). By then, these variations in the cognitive elaboration will tend to affect the success of influence brought by the message or the new information. With the formation of new cognition comes the influence by which it begins to modify prior beliefs and attitudes of the individual by generating the thoughts in response to the new information.
Part 2: Application of cognitive paradigm to a print advertisement
The cognitive paradigm was applied in the print advertisement of Heinz tomato ketchup, wherein it shows sliced tomatoes in the form of a bottled tomato ketchup, with the label in front the way a bottled Heinz tomato ketchup is being labeled. Below the image is the statement: “No one grows ketchup like Heinz.” This print advertisement applies the cognitive paradigm through the Elaboration Likelihood Model, which uses the power of persuasion as the central, peripheral route. It uses symbolism to persuade the viewers and motivate them to engage in an issue-relevant thinking concerning the message. For this, the elaboration likelihood tends to be high in which there is greater tendency for the viewers to: first, attend to the image’s central argument; second, attempt to access relevant associations and experiences from memory; third, elaborate and scrutinize upon the message arguments being provided in the message in light of what is available from memory; fourth, draw inferences about the merits of the arguments based on the analysis of the data being extracted from memory; and finally, derive an overall evaluation of the object or issue recommended in the appeal (Petty and Cacioppo, 1984, p.673). It is in this light that the viewer of the message will follow this central route to persuasion, in which there is attitude change from conscientious effort to reevaluate again the merits of the position.
On the other hand, people are not motivated whenever the acceptance or rejection is not based on conscientious consideration of the message argument. This is according to the statement of Dotson and Hyatt (2000), who insisted that there is rejection whenever the attitude is based on the association of “positive or negative cues that have no intrinsic link to the product” (Dotson and Hyatt, 2000, p.64). For persuasion to be effective in a print advertisement, there should be positive cues that draw simple inferences in the persuasion context of the image, which can affect the viewer’s judgments regarding the issue. As seen in the print advertisement of Heinz ketchup, it uses the image of actual tomatoes to symbolize the bottle of ketchup that is being produced by Heinz. It gives the impression that the bottle of ketchup that Heinz produces is one that is as natural and as fresh as real red tomatoes. Therefore, it forms positive cues, and the promotional appeal forms a positive attitude of supporting and purchasing the products of Heinz, as they are as fresh as real red tomatoes.
Meanwhile, it is evident that there is positive attitude in the print advertisement of Heinz tomato ketchup. An attitude is defined as “a predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable manner to a particular advertising stimulus during a particular exposure occasion” (Solomon, 1992, p.139). With a positive attitude, there is the creation of a positive feeling on the side of the consumer or the viewer of the ad. It reveals two dimensions. First is the cognitive dimension, in which the consumer forms an attitude toward the ad by “conscientiously processing executional elements of the ad, such as copy and layout” (Dotson and Hyatt, 2000, p.64). Second is the emotional dimension, in which the consumer forms an attitude toward the ad through an effective response evoked by the ad, even without conscious processing of executional elements. In the Heinz ketchup print advertisement, the cognitive dimension is thinking that this brand of ketchup is the best because it is as fresh and natural as real red tomatoes; while the emotional dimension is the tendency to experience what it feels like to use ketchup that is as fresh and natural as real red tomatoes. These two dimensions have large impact on a consumer’s brand choice, as it allows them to retrieve an evaluation of the effect of the purchase, as the consumer engages in minimal processing.
Conclusion
According to Mick (1986), “The consumer world is a web of meanings among consumers and marketers woven from signs and symbols ensconced in their cultural space and time” (p.196). This is proven in the print advertisement of Heinz ketchup, in which symbolism has become the edge factor for consumer persuasion and the formation of positive attitude via positive cues. Products represent many things to many consumers, and they all have their functional uses, which may be effective in persuading them to support and purchase the products being advertised. As proven in the print advertisement of Heinz tomato ketchup, it is seen that any material commodity can assume many meanings or cues by taking into consideration the use that the object in the ad is used within the society. It can represent its support to nature, its freshness and taste, or its purity in terms of the elements being put in the product. Through symbolic meaning, consumers are able to form an attitude that engages them to fully support the ad by responding positively to central, peripheral cues. From this comes an emotional commitment to purchase the product at all means.
Reference List:
Angst, C.M., and Agarwal, R. 2009. Adoption of electronic health records in the presence of privacy concerns: The Elaboration Likelihood Model and individual persuasion. MIS Quarterly Volume, 33(2), pp.339-370.
Chaiken, S. 1980. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), pp.752-766.
Chaiken, S., and Eagly, A.H. 1976. Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(1), pp.605-614.
Dainton, M. 2010. Applying communication theory for professional life: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dotson, M.J., and Hyatt, E.M. 2000. Religious symbols as peripheral cues in advertising: A replication of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Journal of Business Research, 48(1), pp.63-68.
Eagly, A.H., and Chaiken, S. 1993. The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Javanovich, Inc.
Herr, P.M., Sherman, S.J., and Fazio, R.H. 1983. On the consequences of priming: assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(1), pp.323-340.
Mick, D.G. 2001. Consumer research and semiotics: Exploring the morphology of signs, symbols, and significance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), pp.196-213.
O’Shaugnessy, J., and O’Shaughnessy, N. 2004. Persuasion in advertising. New York, NY: Routledge.
Petty, R.E., and Cacioppo, J.T. 1981. Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1), pp.20-24.
Petty, R.E., and Cacioppo, J.T. 1984. Source factors and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), pp.668-672.
Petty, R.E., and Cacioppo, J.T., 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19(1), pp.123-193.
Revelle, W., Wilt, J., and Rosenthal, A., year. Individual differences in cognition: New methods for examining the personality-cognition link. In: A. Gruszka, G. Matthews, and G. Szymura, eds. 2010. Handbook of individual differences in cognition: attention, memory, and executive control. London: Springer. Ch. 2.
Scott, M.J., and Dryden, W. The cognitive-behavioural paradigm. In: R. Woolf, W. Dryden and S. Strawbridge, eds. 2003. Handbook of counselling psychology (2nd ed.). London: Sage, Ch.7.
Solomon, M.R. 1992. Consumer behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Wachtel, P.L. 2011. Therapeutic communication: knowing what to say when (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
