Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Winter 1977, Vol. 5, No.

1, 48-56

A CommunicationsModel For Marketino Decisions

C.A. Maile, Ph.D. and A.H. Kizilbash, Ph.D.
Northern Ilfinois University

Marketers have often relied on communications theory to explain the role of persuasion in determining buyer behavior. The persuasibility of the receiver of a communication is said to be affected by several types of factors, including characteristics of the sender, receiver, message, and media. One type of receiver characteristic influencing persuasibility is self-esteem. Various types of relationships between self-esteem and persuasibility have appeared in the results of separate studies. Reported relationships include negative linear, inverted Ushaped, and positive linear forms.' Continually decreasing persuasibility associated with increasing self-esteem results in a negative linear relationship. An inverted U-shaped relationship is produced by a respective rise and fall in persuasibility associated with increasing self-esteem. The validity of these relationships has been widely debated in the literature. These relationships are denied by Shuchman and Perry (1969, p. 154), questioned by Kassarjian (1971, p. 415), and accepted by Bauer (1970, p. 258). This suggests that further research is needed to resolve discrepancies among previous findings. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to present a communications model for explaining the compatibility of previously reported relationships between self-esteem and persuasibility. Some concepts underlying the development of this model are best understood through a brief review of the literature.

48

A C O M M U N I C A T I O N S MODEL FOR MARKETING DECISIONS

49

Self-esteem, source credibility, threshold of credibility of source, and communication discrepancy are four major factors affecting persuasibility. It is, therefore, important to review definitions and major research findings regarding these variables as a background for understanding the proposed model. One popular definition of persuasibility is offered by McGuire: it "refers to situations in which a source gives his position on an issue and presents various arguments, based on emotional or rational considerations, why this position is correct (1968, p. 1133). He indicates that the degree of persuasibility is equated to the degree of attitude change occurring between pre-and post-communication measurements, Self-esteem can be defined as "an individual's customary sense of worthiness as expressed in terms of his attitudes toward his actual self (Maile 1975, p. 16)." Credibility of a source (source credibility) is defined as "the image held of a communicator at a given time by a receiver... (Andersen and Clevenger 1963, p. 59)." Threshold of credibility of a source (source credibility threshold) is the minimum level of credibility of a source at which an individual's attitude begins to move toward that advocated by a communication
source. 2

Self-esteem and persuasibility relationships appearing in the model have been reported separately in previous studies. Five basic types of findings have been reported. First, Janis and Field (1959, p. 61) reported a study producing a negative linear relationship in which increases in self-esteem correspond to decreases in persuasibility. Second, Cox and Bauer (1964) reported a study producing a curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) relation, in which rising self-esteem corresponded to respectively increasing and decreasing persuasibility. Third, a positive linear relationship was found by Nisbett and Gordon (1957), in which increases in self-esteem were associated with corresponding increases in persuasibility. A fourth U-shaped curvilinear relationship was found by Silverman (1964). Under certain conditions other researchers have achieved a fifth result interpreted to indicate no significant correlation between self-esteem and persuasibility. Various theories have been advanced to explain these five relationships regarding self-esteem and persuasibility. For example, negative linear relationships have been explained in terms of differential need for social approval and differential ego defense mechanisms (Cox and Bauer 1964; Silverman et al, 1966, p. 555). As self-esteem increases, the need for social approval is said to decline, therefore producing lower levels of persuasibility. Inverted U-shaped relationships have been explained by noting a counter-persuasibility effect on the part of low self-esteem receivers, wherein their attitudes change in a direction opposite to that advocated by the message source (Cox and Bauer 1964; Bauer 1970). In other words, persons at low self-esteem levels tend to change

50

MAILE AND KIZILBASH

their attitudes in a direction opposite to that advocated by the communicator. Positive linear relationships have been explained by differences in message complexity (McGuire 1968). Persons at different levels of self-esteem (and intelligence) are considered to have differing capacities for understanding complex messages and, therefore, will exhibit varying degrees of persuasibility. Silverman is the only researcher to report a U-shaped relationship between self-esteem and persuasibility. Silverman interprets his data to indicate that, beyond a relatively high level of self-esteem, his scale was actually measuring social desirability instead of self-esteem (1966). Therefore, those subjects originally thought to be at higher self-esteem levels were actually those having the greatest desire to be liked and to comply with the wishes of others. These people were persuaded to a greater degree, as indicated by an upturn in the curve at what were originally thought to be higher self-esteem levels. The first three types of findings (negative linear, inverted U-shaped, and positive linear) have been simultaneously explained by some researchers. Each of these relationships is said to be associated with various components of source credibility (Maile 1975, p. 51). Source credibility can be defined as an individual's impression (or attitude toward) a communication source as expressed in terms of authoritativeness and character (Maile 1975, p. 19). This observation points toward source credibility as the variable underlying the three primary self-esteem and persuasibility relations. There is evidence that source credibility also underlies similar relationships between communication discrepancy and persuasibility. Communication discrepancy can be defined as the difference between an individual's pre-communication attitude and that advocated by a communication source (Maile 1975, p. 20). Negative linear, inverted U-shaped, and positive linear curves represent the three primary types of communication discrepancy and persuasibility relationships empirically associated with different levels of source credibility (Bergin 1962; Aronson et al, 1963). These curves are similar to the three primary self-esteem/persuasibility relations. Negative linear relationships are produced at low source credibility levels, where the preferred mode of dissonance (anxiety) reduction changes from yielding to source derogation as communication discrepancy increases. 3 Inverted U-shaped relationships.occur at moderate levels of source credibility, where persons at both low and medium communication discrepancy levels prefer yielding as a dissonance reducing mechanism. However, medium communication discrepancy persons yield more because they are experiencing more dissonance. High communication discrepancy persons still reduce dissonance by derogating the message source.' Positive linear relationships are associated with high source credibility levels, where all persons receiving discrepant messages prefer yielding. However, pro-

A COMMUNICATIONS MODEL FOR MARKETING DECISIONS

51

gressively higher communication discrepancy individuals experience more dissonance and exhibit more yielding. In summary, persuasibility is a basic type of attitude change affected by selfesteem, source credibility, and communication discrepancy variables. The following communications model is an attempt to explain relationships between these variables. This model is designed to provide a framework for making better decisions regarding the selection of products, target markets, trade channel members, and promotional media.

MODEL Reviewing previous theory and research regarding self-esteem/persuasibility (SE-P) and communication discrepancy/persuasibi/ity (CD-P) relationships, gives rise to a communications model based on four propositions: 1. SE-P and CD-P relationships will be similar in form. 2. Greater persuasibility will be associated with higher levels of source credibility (SC). 3. After receiving an attitude discrepant communication (one expressing an attitude different from his own), a receiver experiences dissonance. 4. Each receiver invokes a minimum threshold requirement for source credibility. The magnitude of this source credibility threshold (SCT) is directly related to two factors: a. the receiver's self-esteem level b. the degree of communication discrepancy to which the receiver is subjected These four propositions are embodied in the model shown in Figure 1. The proposed model shows relationships between persuasibility, source credibility, and self-esteem or communication discrepancy. Curve ABC represents a negative linear relationship, associated with low source credibility, in which persuasibility declines with increasing self-esteem or communication discrepancy. Curve DEF represents an inverted U-shaped relationship, associated with medium source credibility, in which persuasibility rises and then declines with increasing self-esteem or communication discrepancy. Curve GHI represents a positive linear relationship associated with high source credibility wherein persuasibility continually increases with increasing self-esteem or communication discrepancy. Note that the series o f points ADG, BEH, and CFI also represent positive relationships between source credibility and persuasibility. The height of each point on the curves represented reflects communication receivers preferred, mode of dissonance reduction as expressed in terms of at-

52

MAILE AND KIZILBASH

Figure i Proposed Communications Mode].* a. Three Dimensional Fo~n

Source M ~ Credibility (SC) v

n ~ ~

Self-Esteem (SE) or Cor~nunication Discrepancy (CD)

" "

b.

Two Dimensional Form

Hif~ SC

X
cd

F
Ow

Median SC Low SC

Self-Esteem (SE) or Conmmmlcation Discrepancy (CD) *The proposed model can be viewed as consisting of two parts, one superimposed over the other. The source credibility, communication discrepancy, persuasibility (SC-CD-P) portion is superimposed over a source credibility, self-esteem, persuasibility (SC-SE-P) counterpart.

A COMMUNICATIONS MODEL FOR MARKETING DECISIONS

53

attitude change. If the preferred mode of dissonance reduction is yielding, persuasibility (attitude change) is high. If source derogation is the preferred means of dissonance reduction, persuasibility is low. The preferred mode of dissonance reduction is, in turn, determined by comparing the credibility of the message source with the receiver's personal threshold for source credibility. 5

IMPLICATIONS FOR MARKETING PRACTICE

The model should be more useful as a general framework for analyzing marketing problems than as a formula for yielding precise results. In this context, many practical applications can be devised. SC-SE-P and SC-CD-P parts of the model can be applied separately or together. Before examining specific applications, it is useful to show how the proposed model accommodates major components of a marketing situation2 Marketing is considered to be, in part, the process of changing buyer attitudes. Buyers and suppliers are respectively communication receivers with various levels of self-esteem, and communication sources with various degrees of credibility. Comparatively unknown and long-established suppliers' are associated respectively with low and high credibility levels. Suppliers' attempts to influence buyer activities are persuasive communications with various degrees of communication discrepancy. Changes in buyer attitudes are indicated by corresponding changes in sales volume.7 The SC-SE-P portion of the model indicates that different suppliers should emphasize different target markets in order to maximize sales. Low and high credibility suppliers will be at their least disadvantage and greatest advantage respectively selling to low and high self-esteem markets because these are the market segments which they can persuade most effectively. Maximum persuasibility should then be reflected in maximum sales per unit of marketing effort. The SC-SE-P part of the communications model could also be used in selecting advertising media. Little-known media and well-recognized message channels would be associated respectively with low and high credibility levels. Correspondingly, according to the model, they can best be used for reaching low and high self-esteem markets. The other part of the model, the SC-CD-P portion, could be useful for making decisions about all elements of the marketing mix. For example, suppliers could use it in choosing the most profitable products. Little-known items and those easily associated with need satisfaction would be the objects of communications with respectively high and low discrepancy levels. 8 According

54

MAILE AND KIZ1LBASH

to the model, an established high credibility supplier would realize his greatest advantage in selling new or highly discrepant items. However, an obscure low credibility supplier would realize his greatest advantage in selling time-tried and minimally discrepant products. Manufacturers can also use the SC-CD-P aspect of the model for selecting middlemen. As message sources, manufacturers would try to convince prospective buyers to make their purchases from certain retailers. Traditional and unique channel members would be the objects of communications associated respectively with low and high discrepancy levels. Little-known or low credibility manufacturers could best sell through traditional middlemen, whereas established high credibility manufacturers could realize their greatest advantage in selling through new or novel types of channel members. The model can also be used to determine which suppliers can best introduce new price levels. Because new (usually higher than normal) price levels are associated with higher communication discrepancy levels, they can be introduced most profitably by established high credibility suppliers. Similar reasoning can be used to determine what types of advertising formats are best for various suppliers. Newly established or low credibility suppliers should use traditional formats; whereas, well respected, high credibility sellers may be most effective with non-traditional or highly discrepant layouts (e.g. formats involving clever comparisons and derogations of competitive offerings). In addition to being individually appled, SC-CD-P and SC-SE-P portions of the model can also be used in tandem. For example, a low credibility retailer may use the SC-SE-P portion in choosing low self-esteem markets and then use the SC-CD-P portion for selecting traditional price levels.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The proposed communications model is based on relationships between selfesteem, source credibility, communication discrepancy, and persuasibility. Relationships appearing the findings of separate studies have been assembled into this model in order to provide a framework for making marketing decisions. Selected parts of the model have been empirically tested (Maile 1975). Although the model includes three types of relationships between self-esteem and persuasibility, more precise determination of the shapes of these relationships must await further research.

A COMMUNICATIONS MODEL FOR MARKETING DECISIONS FOOTNOTES

55

'Examples of negative linear, inverted U-shaped, and positive linear relationships appear in Cohen (1959), Cox and Bauer (1964), and Nisbett and Gordon (1967). 2This concept was formulated for use in the proposed model. For background considerations, see Maile (1975, p. 22). 3The term "yielding" is synonymous with attitude change. 4For the purposes of this study, source derogation is defined as the difference between source credibility threshold and post-communication source credibility. For further explanation, see Maile (1975). 5For a more comprehensive explanation of the derivation procedures and underlying dissonance theory associated with the proposed model, see Maile (1975, pp. 54-68). ~There is no attempt to include all elements of the marketing situation in the proposed model, nor is there any claim that is should be used alone as the marketing manager's only decision-making tool. Throughout this discussion, it is anticipated that, in addition to the proposed model, other decision tools and surrounding circumstances will be considered in shaping the final marketing decisions. 7The relationship between attitude change and sales volume is oversimplified here for the sake of brevity. 8New or unfamiliar products are considered to be the objects of highly discrepant communications because their potential capacity for need satisfaction differs from the known capacity for need satisfaction associated with traditional products.

REFERENCES Andersen, Kenneth and Clevenger, Theodore, Jr, 1963. " A Summary of Experimental Research in Ethos." Speech Monographs 30 (June) 5%77. Aronson, Elliot; Turner, Judith A., and Carlsmith, J. Merrill. 1963. "Communicator Credibility and Communication Discrepancy as Determinants of Oninion Change." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67 (January) 31-6. Bauer, Raymond A. 1970. "Self-Confidence and Persuasibility: One More Time." Journal of Marketing Research 7 (May) 256-8. Bergin, Allen E. 1962. "The Effect of Dissonant Persuasive Communications Upon Changes in Self-Referring Attitude." Journal of Personality 30 (March-December) 424-38. Cohen, Arthur R. 1959. "Some Impliction of Self-Esteem for Social Influence." Personality and Persuasibility. Edited by Carl I. Hovland and Irving L. Janis. New Haven: Yale University Press. Cox, Donald F. and Bauer, Raymond A. 1964. "Self-Confidence and Persuasibility in Women." Public Opinion Quarterly 28,453-66. Janis, Irving L. and Field, Peter B. 1959. "Sex Differences and Personality Factors Related to Persuasibility." Personality and Persuasibility. Edited By Carl I. Hovland and Irving L. Janis. New Haven: Yale Unversity Press. Kassarjian, Harold H. 1971. "Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review." Journal of Marketing Research 8 (November) 409-18. Maile, Carlton, A. 1975. "Self-Esteem and Source Credibility as Determinants of Attitude Change." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia.

56

MAILE AND KIZILBASH

McGuire, William J. 1968. "Personality and Susceptibility to Social Influence." Handbook of Personality Theory and Research. Edited by Edgar F. Borgatta and William W. Lambert. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co. Nisbett, Richard E. and Gordon, Andrew. 1967. "Self-Esteem and Susceptibilityto Social Influence." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology V (March) 268-76. Shuchman, Abe and Perry, Michael. 1969. "Self-Confidence and Persuasibility in Marketing: A Reappraisal." Journal of Marketing Research VI (May) 146-54. Silverman, Irwin. 1964. "Differential Effects of Ego Threat Upon Persuasibility for High and Low Self-Esteem Subjects." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 69 (November) 567-72. Silverman, Irwin; Ford, Leroy H. and Morganti, John B. 1966. "Inter-Related Effects of Social Desirability, Persuasibility, Sex, Self-Esteem, and Complexity of Argument on Persuasibility." Journal of Personality 34 (March-December) 555-68.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

DR. C. A. MAILE is currently on the Marketing faculty at Northern Illinois University. Before coming to his present position, he had taught at the University of Georgia, Appalachian State University, and The Defiance College. He is author of numerous articles about bank marketing, exporting, and marketing theory. DR. A.H. KIZILBASH is a member of the Marketing faculty at Northern Illinois University. He received a Ph.D. in Marketing from the University of Nebraska. Dr. Kizilbash has published articles in numerous journals, including the journal of Marketing, Journal of Retailing, Akron Business and Economic Review, Marketing News, and others. He has had business experience with J.C. Penney Company, Coleman Company, Maytag Company, Allied Stores and others