Pop-ups are Peripherally Processed - Part 2

Structural features of pop-up advertisements account for the limited persuasion effects that they exert on internet users. The animation and flashing effects contained in these pop-up advertisements are often successful in capturing attention, but they often do not leave lasting impressions on the users that encounter these ads. Rather than inviting full cognitive processing of the information at hand, pop up advertisements lend themselves toward the peripheral route of processing. The strategies utilized such as animation and flashing aim to influence users via the peripheral route of persuasion, as they are mainly surface level techniques.

The goal of pop-up ads is to attract the user’s attention and then exert influence through peripheral cues such as source attractiveness and perceived credibility.
Although pop-up ads do provide a sense of immediacy for the user, these ads are not conducive to thorough cognitive processing. Consumer behavioral studies, such as the study by Stuart, Shrimp, and Engle (1987) (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=05-12-2013&FMT=7&DID=576119&RQT=309)have shown that after people are exposed to a large number of trials, their behavioral responses can become conditioned to the repeated stimulus. This type of conditioning can be applied to the context of pop-up advertising, as many consumers are repeatedly bombarded with pop-up ads when they are browsing the internet. People are often conditioned to quickly close pop up ads without seeing as much as the flashing colors or the clip of animation. In fact, this conditioned response has become so pervasive in digital culture, that a popular web based game exists mocking it. Here is the link to “Kill the Pop-Ups”, which demonstrates the conditioning that users experience when closing out pop-ups: http://www.maniacworld.com/kill-the-pop-up.htm. Because of this conditioning, users experience brief exposure to pop-up ads. Processing often takes place very quickly, and at times on a subconscious level. Therefore, the pop-up ads exert minimal influence because they invite the peripheral route of processing. As a method of advertising, pop-ups are largely ineffective in advancing consumer attitude and behavioral change.

The intrusive and irritating nature of pop-up ads also contributes to their limited influential effects. Pop-up ads often interfere with the goals of consumers and create impatience. These ads often produce irritation and ad avoidance instead of comprehension which is the desired effect. The Boomerang Effect and more specifically, Psychological Reactance Theory can explain the adverse reaction toward pop up ads. When people perceive a threat to their individual freedom, psychological reactance theory states that this threat triggers a resistance to conformity, as found by Edwards, Li, & Lee in 2002 (http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=106&sid=a6a4da59-ce84-4da8-bfe3-3b4004313d91%40sessionmgr103). Since pop-up ads effectively limit the ability of a user to control their own internet experience, the user will react in the opposite way that the pop-up ad intended.

Although pop-up blocking technology has been developed, in reality, the advertising technique was rendered obsolete by the public’s refusal to passively accept a bombardment of advertisements. Pop-up blocking software was created as the inevitable response to the public outcry of a more active generation of media consumers. These consumers, recently introduced to the freedom of choice inherent in the instant and infinite expanse of the internet, were unwilling to be affected by such an invasive marketing attempt. Rather, they adapted, and trained themselves to ignore and eradicate these unwanted distractions.