The Impact of the Daubert Decision on Survey Research Used in Litigation

The authors develop a new typology of truthful but misleading advertising and labeling claims. Although several typologies of deceptive or misleading advertising appear in the literature, the authors’ typology relies on legal cases as well as a diverse set of psychological theories to provide a richer and more comprehensive understanding of why consumers are likely to be misled by a particular type of deception. The goal is to generate a better appreciation of how consumers process various types of potentially misleading information and to explore implications for further research.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deception by Implication: A Typology of Truthful but Misleading Advertising and Labeling Claims

Hastak

Mazis

2011

“…Similarly, there should be strong reason to believe that a mandatory disclosure will meet its intended objectives. It should also be noted that in judging individual studies, policy makers would be well advised to consider additional criteria applied by the courts, such as the "red flag" criteria used to evaluate surveys and other evidence (summarized by Ford 2005; see also Andrews and Maronick 1995;Diamond 2000;Preston 1992). Moreover, evidenced-based studies, as Armstrong (2011) describes, should be viewed as especially important.…”

Section: Whether the Expert's Methods Or Technique Can Be Tested Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the courts apply the Daubert criteria in deciding whether to admit expert testimony and surveys from experts (see Ford 2005), it makes sense for policy makers to apply similar criteria in judging a body of research before making a disclosure mandatory. In examining the admissibility of scientific evidence, the Supreme Court specified that the following criteria should be applied:…”

Section: The Nlea and Nutritional Labelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sound Disclosures: Assessing when a Disclosure is Worthwhile

Kozup

Taylor

Capella

et al. 2012

In this article, the authors introduce the notion of a "sound disclosure" and define it from the perspective of academic, business, and legal/policy (expert) constituencies. The authors define sound disclosure as the direct linkage of a policy standard to a dedicated, rigorous consumer testing methodology that measures explicitly stated communication objectives put forth in the policy. Sound disclosure results when the policy is influenced by the disclosure testing. Consequences of a sound disclosure testing regime can include withdrawing the disclosure from the marketplace because of harmful, unintended consequences to the target population or, conversely, adding supplementary materials (e.g., educational primes) to maximize the disclosure's effectiveness. Drawing from previous research, the authors illustrate various standards of sound disclosure efficacy.

“…In a broader sense, and based on information processing theory, a review of FTC remedies and outcomes by Wilkie (1985) reveals choices on a continuum from more cognitive information provision (e.g., posting danger signs, educational campaigns on safety) to the more behavioral (e.g., signing a liability release; restricting access). Finally, work on FTC ad copy testing guidelines on major deception cases has appeared in JPPM over the years (Andrews and Maronick [1995] for Stouffer ; Stewart [1995] for Kraft ; for a review, see Hastak and Mazis [2014]), as well as the criteria from the Daubert Supreme Court decision used to determine the admissibility of expert survey reports as evidence in court cases (Ford 2005).…”

Section: Application Area Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Exactly Is Marketing and Public Policy? Insights for JPPM Researchers

Andrews¹,

Burton²,

Gundlach³

et al. 2021

In this JPPM article for the 40th Anniversary of the Journal of Public Policy … Marketing, the authors first share what is meant by “policy,” “public policy,” and “marketing and public policy” for researchers in our field. The authors then offer examples of JPPM research informing policy across different stages of the policy making process: problem identification, agenda setting, policy formulation, budgeting, implementation, and evaluation. They also discuss important sources of public policy (e.g., federal, state, and international agencies; self-regulation; the courts; nonprofits; society; industry standards; company policies; personal ethics) and their role in the marketing and public policy process. The authors then offer JPPM application examples (e.g., consumer protection; anti-trust/competition; vulnerability; diversity, equity, and inclusion; nutrition labeling; addiction, cannabis, and anti-drug research; tobacco warning labeling and education; and privacy and technology) and share ideas for developing research that contributes to the marketing and public policy discipline and in making a positive difference in society and people's lives.