Processing exaggerated advertising claims

Cowley, Elizabeth

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.12.004

Cited by 42 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is in contrast to the extant literature that puffery affects audiences' attitudes and purchase intentions (e.g., Cowley, 2006;Gao & Scorpio, 2011;Kamins & Marks, 1987;Rotfeld & Rotzoll, 1980;Rotfeld & Rotzoll, 1981;Rotfeld & Preston, 1981;Xu & Wyer, 2010). Similar to the results in our current study, Cowley and Gao and Scorpio (2011) found puffery hurt credibility and perceived truthfulness.…”

Section: Puffery-main Effectcontrasting

confidence: 67%

“…Haan and Bravinder (2004) Use passages from the Gospels to argue that Jesus would not approve of the use of puffery. Cowley (2006) Consumers are able to identify exaggerated claims as less credible than factual claims but brand evaluations promoted with exaggerated claims receive more positive brand evaluations. Fetscherin and Toncar (2009) Visual puffery may be effective to persuade consumers in countries where verbal puffery is illegal.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Skepticism of ads is expected to negatively influence how people respond to ads. Furthermore, the use of puffery in advertising has exhibited negative effects on consumer ad and brand attitudes as well as a negative effect on attitudes about deceit and exaggeration (see: Cowley, 2006;Gao & Scorpio, 2011;Marks & Kamins, 1988;Vanden Bergh & Reid, 1980). Thus, an interaction effect of skepticism and puffery is expected.…”

Section: Puffery and Skepticism Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although college students are not representative of the general population, they have been accepted as representatives of consumers who are reasonable by courts and the FTC (Preston, 1994). Also, many studies of puffery advertising have used student samples in the past (e.g., Cowley, 2006;Kamins & Marks, 1987;McQuarrie & Mick, 1999;Vanden Bergh & Reid, 1980).…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Interaction Effect of Ad Puffery and Ad Skepticism on Consumer Persuasion

Amyx

Lumpkin

2016

Journal of Promotion Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Puffery-main Effectcontrasting

confidence: 67%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Puffery and Skepticism Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interaction Effect of Ad Puffery and Ad Skepticism on Consumer Persuasion

Amyx

Lumpkin

2016

Journal of Promotion Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Moreover, and as Haan and Berkey (2002) argue "if puffery does not work, salespeople and advertisers would not use it" (p. 245). Some researcher demonstrated that under certain conditions consumers believe exaggerated claims (Cunningham and Cunningham, 1977;Rotfeld and Rotzoll, 1980;Rotfeld and Preston, 1981;Olson and Dover, 1978;Kamins and Marks, 1987;Wyckham, 1987;Haan and Berkey, 2002;Cowley, 2006) while others show consumers are in fact able to identify an exaggerated claim, the evaluation of the brand was still more positive when puffed claims were used (Cowley, 2006). Still other research suggests exaggerated claims can produce negative effects (Vanden Bergh and Reid, 1980b).…”

Section: Puffery In Advertisingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study of visual puffery in fragrance advertising

Toncar

Fetscherin

2012

European Journal of Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -This paper aims to investigate visual exaggerations of fragrance advertisements by comparing subjects' expectations resulting from print ads to their subsequent product evaluations. It then considers whether the actual scents fall short, meet or exceed these expectations. Design/methodology/approach -By means of a semiotic analysis the authors capture the corresponding literary attributes of the ads to develop adjective pairs describing the meaning of the ads. Interviews are conducted to assess the meaning that consumers draw from the fragrance ads and the authors supplement these findings by performing a blind olfactory product evaluation of the fragrances. Paired sample t-tests are used to compare subjects' ad expectations to their subsequent product evaluation of the actual scent. Findings -These results show that the visual cues and imagery in the fragrance ads appear, under certain conditions, to result in product expectations that exceed actual product evaluations, suggesting the existence of visual puffery. The authors also found that the more abstract descriptors of the ad resulted in significantly higher expectations, while the more concrete descriptors resulted in significantly lower expectations than the actual product evaluation. Research limitations/implications -A small sample size of homogenous consumers limits the generalizability of the results. No measures of attitude effectiveness were taken. Practical implications -Visual puffery may be effective and help marketers, even in countries where verbal puffery is illegal, to use another means to reach consumers. Originality/value -This paper investigates an under-researched area in advertising. A multi-method approach and primary data are used to assess subjects' ad expectations of a fragrance and the actual product evaluation and demonstrate the existence of visual puffery.

show abstract

Claiming best or better? The effect of target brand's and competitor's puffery on holistic and analytic thinkers

Yang

Xie

2019

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous empirical studies have yielded contradictory results about how consumers react to puffed claims in advertisements. This study addresses this issue by considering how consumers' thinking style and competitors' puffery interact to influence consumers' brand attitude in terms of product puffery. Drawing upon experiments using fictitious and real brand names, three studies provide converging evidence that holistic thinkers will form a more positive brand attitude when exposed to the target brand's low‐puffery (vs. no puffery or high puffery) claims. In contrast, analytic thinkers are less sensitive to puffery, and their brand attitude will not change. Further, holistic thinkers are more sensitive to the presence of competitor's puffery. Holistic thinkers exposed to competitor's high‐puffery (vs. low) claims form a more positive brand attitude toward the target brand. For analytic thinkers, competitor's puffery level will not significantly affect their attitude toward the target brand. Our findings shed fresh light on the inconclusive results of prior studies and offer practical implications for marketing puffery.

show abstract

Processing exaggerated advertising claims

Cited by 42 publications

References 21 publications

Interaction Effect of Ad Puffery and Ad Skepticism on Consumer Persuasion

Interaction Effect of Ad Puffery and Ad Skepticism on Consumer Persuasion

A study of visual puffery in fragrance advertising

Claiming best or better? The effect of target brand's and competitor's puffery on holistic and analytic thinkers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About