The Development of the Hierarchy of Effects:An Historical PerspectiveThomas E. BarryJust what constitutes advertising effectiveness is often a topic of heateddebate. “Bottom-liners” contend that advertising is effective only when it sells.Communication advocates, however, suggest that there is a series of stagesbetween the point of unawareness of a product and/or brand and the ultimatepurchase/sale of a particular brand. Proponents in each of these two campsrarely agree on a middle road. The body of work in the marketing and advertis-ing literature that relates to this advertising effectiveness controversy is calledthe hierarchy of effects and has been accorded theoretical status by manyadvertising and marketing practitioners and academics. However, as Tauber[1982--83] noted, there are several different classes of advertising them-y and, in ““light of this fact, researchers really must,. . .take a step back to review theories about how advertising works. If wehad a thorough review, we might see that the appropriate research meas-ures flowed from the objectives of each advertising situation (p. 7).On the other hand, Ramond [1976] has argued that advertising has no generaltheory that is widely accepted but rather the field is a collection of“pseudo-theories” whose genesis is introspection. He argues that the moremysterious and complex the field, the more systematic must be the approach tounderstanding that body of work. The purpose of this article is to provide thereader with a clear perspective of how the hierarchy of effects literature hasdeveloped over time. This historical perspective will provide researchers andpractitioners with a thorough glimpse of this most important body of work andThe author appreciates and wishes to acknowledge the financial support of the Research andDevelopment Council and the Center for Marketing Management Studies of th(> Edwin L. CoxSchool of Business at SM U as well as the constructive comments of Bonnie Blytilc and ProfessorsMary GilIv, Bill Havlena, and Dan Eloward.251-1922Edward K. Strong, Jr., ThePsychology of Selling LifeInsurance1923Daniel Starch, Principles ofAdvertising1925Edward K. Strong, Jr.,“Theories of Selling, ” TheJournal of Applied Psychology1938Edward K. Strong, Jr.,Psychological Aspect ofBusiness1940Clyde Bedell, How To WriteAdvertising That Sells1956Merrill, DeVoe, EffectiveAdvertising CopyReferred to the popularity of Sheldon’s AIDAS but suggestedoutline was faulty; aim of advertising tcrget immediateaction all the timeSRBRA-Seen, Remembered, Believed, Read, Acted LTponReviewed the theories to date; 3 main theories: AIDAS,Situation-Response, and Appeal-Response (for the adver-tising, not selling, world)Refers to N. Hawkins’ three different stages of attentionand interest; a sales prospect must be taken through thesesix stages (3 each) before desire can occur; Synthesizes thethree theories of selling discussed in 1925 piece; one ofthose is AID(W) C(S) PS—Attention, Interest, Desire (Want),Conviction (Solution), Purchase, SatisfactionRefers to “Proved Selling Stratagems, ” of AIDCA—Attention, Interest, Desire, Conviction, ActionRefers to different sequences in constructing ads; thepsychological sequence is popular and has been around for a longtime, e.g., AIDCA—Attention, Interest, Desire, Convictionand Action; and AIDMA—Attention, Interest, Desire,Memory, Action; no references to these modelsNwIL,. ..,., ,,$$YEAR19611961196119621962196219641967hlODERN DEVELOP\lENT PHASEAUTHOR(S)FORhl/DESCRIPTION OF N1ODELRobert J. Lavidge and GaryA. Steiner, “A i’vlodel forPredictive Measurements ofAdvertising Effectiveness, ”Journal of MarketingRussell H. Coney, DAGhlAR—Defining Advertising Goalsfor Measured AdvertisingResultsAdvertising ResearchFoundationHarry D. \Volfe, James K.Bro\vn and G. Clark Thompson?vIeasuring Advertising ResultsEverett M. Rogers, Diffusionof InnovationHarold Menclelsohn, “Measuringthe Process of CommunicationsERect, ” Public OpinionQuarterlyLeo V. Aspinwall, “ConsunlerAcceptance Theory”Sanclage and FryburgerHIERARCHY OF EFFECTS—Awareness, Knowledge, Liking,Preference, Conviction, PurchaseACCA—.Awareness, Comprehension, Conviction, ActionEPC(K)C(A)A—Exposure, Perception, Colnmunication(Knowledge), Communication (Attitude), ActionAAPIS—Awareness, Acceptance, Preference, Intention,Provocation of SaleAIETA—Awareness, Interest, Evaluation, Trial, Adoption;relates to new product adoption processLooks at three types of responses: rudimentary response(feeling), and active response (learning to aicl decisionmaking); developed an Active Response Scale similar toCuttnl& Sc:de -API—.Acceptance,EPIA—Exposure,Preference, Insistenceperception, Integration, Action.-.-.1969David A. Schwartz,“MeasuringEARACP-Exposure, Attention, Retentionithe Effectiveness of YourAttitude Change, PurchaseCompany’s Advertising, ”Journal of Advertising1969 John Howard and jagdish Sheth,AC.41P—Attention, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention,The Theory of Buyer BehaviorPurchase1969William J. McGuire, “AnPACYRB—Preselltatioll, Attention, Comprehension, YieldingInformation -ProcessingRetention, Behaviorhfodel of AdvertisingEffectiveness”19’71Thomas S. Robertson,ACALTA—Awarelless, Comprehension, Attitude, Legitimation,Innovative Behavior andTrial, AdoptionCommunication1971Kenneth A. Longman,EAPCBMA-Ex~30sure, Attention, Perception, Comprehension,AdvertisingBelief, Motivation, Action1974Andrew S. C. Ehrenberg,ATR—.Aw~arel~ess, Trial, Reinforcelllent hlodel; hierarchy“Repetitive Advertising ant]models don’t tell LIS enough; advertising’s role is tothe Consumer, ” Journal offacilitate trial purchase among the consumer’s repertoire ofAdvertising Researchbrands1975hlorris B. Holbrook, “AAPMAI-Attel~tiol~, Perception, hlemory, Attitude, IntentionReview of AdvertisingResearch”. YEAR19731979198019811992CHALLENGES AND DEFENSESAUTHOR(S)FORN1/DESCRIPTIONMichael L. Ray, et al.Marketing Communications and theHierarchy of Effects”Robert L. Anderson and Thomas E.Barry, Advertising Management:Text and CasesRichard Vaughn, “HowAdvertising Works: APlanning Model,” Journal ofAdvertising ResearchNlichael L. Rothschild andWilliam C. Gaidis, “BehavioralLearning Theory: Its Relevanceto Marketing and Promotions, ”Journal of hlarketingRobert E. Smith and William R.Slvinyard “Infornlation ResponseModels An Integrated Approacl~, ”Journal of NfarketingThere may be