From Exposure to Intention: How Generations Differ in Processing Television Advertising

Blog post by Lisette Kruizinga-de Vries, based on the master thesis of Rong Shen (HEC Paris - MSc Data Science & AI For Business)

The Battle For Attention

In today’s media landscape, attention is one of the hardest things to get from consumers. Younger audiences in particular dislike long ads and often skip them or do other things at the same time (Duffett, 2017). Traditional TV advertising, once seen in a passive, one-screen setting, has now become time-shifted, watched on multiple screens, and often optional (Voorveld et al., 2018). In this setting, persuasion is no longer just about exposure. Online, people often respond quickly and emotionally, especially those who are very used to media (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2010). This means ads are often processed faster and with less attention.

Older persuasion models, such as the Hierarchy of Effects (Lavidge & Steiner, 1961), the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), and the Limited Capacity Model (Lang, 2000), assume a clear step-by-step process: attention leads to thinking, which shapes attitudes and later behaviour. But recent findings show this does not always apply, especially for younger users. They can form attitudes and intentions after very little exposure, guided by emotion, identity cues, or quick pattern recognition (Calder et al., 2009). This suggests traditional models may no longer fit, and shortcut processing strategies are becoming more common.

Compressed Processing Paths

This study introduces “compressed processing paths” to describe this new way of reacting to ads. These paths don’t replace older theories but refine them, showing that younger generations use a style of persuasion that is faster, emotional, and less cognitive.

Young people, raised in a multitasking, digital world, are especially likely to follow this path. According to generational cohort theory (Strauss & Howe, 1991) and the idea of “media habitus” (Livingstone, 2002), media preferences are shaped by one’s upbringing. This explains why younger users often prefer ads that are intuitive, tied to identity, and visually engaging. Conditions that support compressed processing.

This study therefore examines whether and how generations differ in ad engagement, emotional and cognitive reactions, and behavioural intentions. The main question is whether younger generations need less exposure to ads to reach similar or stronger persuasion results, which is a clear marker of compressed processing.

The Study Set-Up And Model-Free Evidence

DVJ Insights collected data through online surveys in different countries. In total, 279,825 responses, from almost 35,000 respondents, were gathered, based on realistic TV ad exposure. The dataset includes demographics (age, gender, country, mobile use), ad exposure measures (percentage watched, retention after 10 seconds, whether the ad was fully watched), brand impact (brand recall, recognition), and emotional and cognitive reactions.

Respondents were assigned to different generational groups: Baby Boomers (1946–1965), Gen X (1966–1980), Millennials/Gen Y (1981–1996), and Gen Z (1997–2012). The data shows that younger generations watch less and skip ads more often than older ones (see Figure 1).

Beyond skipping, we looked at how generations respond emotionally, cognitively, and behaviourally. Results show a clear generational pattern. Younger generations, especially Gen Y and Gen Z, had stronger emotional reactions to ads than older ones. For instance, emotional scores rose steadily from the older generations to Gen Y. Gen Z dropped slightly but stayed above average. Behavioural intention showed a similar trend. Cognitive evaluations, however, stayed high across all generations with little difference. This means emotions and behaviours are more tied to generational traits, while cognitive assessments stay fairly stable.

Figure 1: Watch behaviour by generation

Modelling Approach And Findings

To test these patterns, we used linear mixed-effects models. We included interactions between generation and engagement metrics to see if the effect of engagement on ad response changes across age groups.

The results confirmed a clear decline in full ad viewing from older to younger generations. This hypothesis is tested by predicting the likelihood of fully watching an ad based on generational groups and cultural factors, while controlling for demographics and context.​ The results show that younger generations are significantly less likely to fully engage with ads compared to Boomers. ​ Gen Z had the largest drop in engagement (β = -0.98, p < .001), followed by Gen Y (β = -0.50, p < .001) and Gen X (β = -0.09, p < .001). ​ This indicates a clear generational decline in ad viewing, aligning with the idea that younger audiences engage less with traditional ad formats. ​

The study tested how full ad exposure (fully viewed vs. skipped) and generational differences affect affective and cognitive responses using statistical models. ​Results showed that older generations, like Boomers, rely more on full ad engagement to form emotional responses (β = 0.735), while younger generations, such as Gen Y (β = –0.203) and Gen Z (β = –0.299), can form positive emotional reactions even with limited exposure. ​This supports the idea that younger generations follow a "compressed ad reaction pathway," requiring less engagement. ​

In short, younger generations not only differ in how they view ads (i.e., skip more) but also in how they process them, compared to older generations. They rely less on full engagement, and form reactions more quickly.

Managerial Implications

A key contribution of this study is the empirical validation of a compressed processing path among younger generations, particularly Gen Z and Gen Y. These cohorts demonstrated lower levels of ad engagement but higher overall responsiveness, suggesting that traditional persuasion models may no longer hold for digital-native consumers.

Practically, the findings offer guidance for developing advertising, namely:

1. Tailor ad content, format, and delivery to match generational preferences.

2. Older generations are still attracted to traditional TV advertising, with its long-form, emotionally immersive messaging.

3. For Gen Z and Gen Y, shorter but information-rich and intriguing content, specifically designed for mobile, fast-paced media, works probably better to keep consumers engaged and evoke ad liking.

References

• Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321–331.

• Duffett, R. G. (2017). Influence of social media marketing communications on young consumers’ attitudes. Young Consumers, 18(1), 19–39.

• Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46–70.

• Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25(6), 59–62.

• Livingstone, S. (2002). Young people and new media: Childhood and the changing media environment. SAGE Publications.

• Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In: Communication and Persuasion. Springer Series in Social Psychology. Springer, New York, NY.

• Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2010). Narrative and persuasion in fashion advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 368–392.

• Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. William Morrow.

• Voorveld, H. A. M., Noort, G. V., Muntinga, D. G., & Bronner, F. (2018). Engagement with social media and social media advertising: The differentiating role of platform type. Journal of Advertising, 47(1), 38–54.