Differential effects of comparative advertising for an unfamiliar brand : the moderating role of audience elaboration

292 Pages·1991·9.6 MB·English

by  Areni, Charles Scott, 1963-

DIFFERENTIALEFFECTSOFCOMPARATIVE
ADVERTISINGFORANUNFAMILIARBRAND:
THEMODERATINGROLEOFAUDIENCEELABORATION
By
CHARLESSCOTTARENI
ADISSERTATIONPRESENTEDTOTHEGRADUATESCHOOL
OFTHEUNIVERSITYOFFLORIDAINPARTIALFULFILLMENT
OFTHEREQUIREMENTSFORTHEDEGREEOF
DOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITYOFFLORIDA
1991
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
AsIwascompletingthe"finishingtouches"onthisdissertationIrealizedhow
unfitting it was that I would be the only one to receive recognition for having
completedsomethingworthyofnote. Perhapsforsomestudentsthecompletionof
adissertationistheresultofanindividualeffort,butinmycaseitwastrulyagroup
enterprise.
First, thefacultyofthe marketingdepartmentattheUniversityofFlorida
have provided the background and training to allow me to pursue scholarly
endeavors. Iamgratefultoallofyou. ImustspecificallythankChrisJaniszewski,
RattiRatneshwar,andAlanSawyerfortheirinvaluableinsightsandencouragement.
Theystuckwithmeevenwhen,onseveraloccasions,itappearedthatIhadpainted
myselfinto acorner. Also,given the time constraints imposed upon him, Iwas
amazed at how much thought and effort Martin Heesacker devoted to the
dissertation. Ifitwerenotforthe effortoftheseindividuals, Imightstillbe on
squareone.
Second,IwouldberemissifIdidnotacknowledgethespecialrolethatRich
Lutzhasplayedinmycareer. Hehasbeensomuchmorethansimplythechairman
ofmydissertation. Hewaslargelyresponsibleformyacceptanceintothedoctoral
program, hewas the coauthorofmyfirstpublication, and ata timewhen many
otherswerereadytodismissmeasaPh.D.candidate,hestoodbymeandgaveme
ii
reassuranceandguidance. But,wellbeyondhisprofessionalcapacity,RichLutzis
myfriend. ItisafriendshipIvaluegreatly.
Finally, I would like to thank my mother and father. Throughout my
developmentinthedoctoralprogramIoftenwonderedwhatitwasthatgavemethe
innerstrengthandmotivationtomasterthechallengesplacedbeforeme. Whatwas
thesourceoftheenergythatallowedmetopersevereandeventuallyprevail? I
neverfailedtoreachthesameconclusion.
WhenIaminthepresenceofmotherswhoanswertheirchildren’sinquiries
withbrief,inadvertentresponses,Iknowthesourceoftheinnerstrength. Mymother
constantlysharedherthoughtsandfeelingswithmewhenIwasayoungchild,and
nomattermuchitinterferedwithherdailytasksandactivities,shealwaysoffered
completeandthoughtfulresponsestomyqueries. (Thiswasnosmallsacrifice,asI
wasone ofthosechildrenwhorespondedtoaninitialanswerwithanadditional
question:why?).
Myfathercouldhave,asIsupposemanyfathersdo,comehomefromwork
andsettledinfrontofthetelevisionsetwithanewspaper. Butmyfatherdidnot.
On that chalkboard in the comer ofthe dining room on 10 Davis Avenue we
practicedspelling,andthengrammar.Wereviewedaddition,andthenmultiplication,
and then algebra. We read Dr. Suess, and then the greatfairy tales, and then
Homer. Thiswasthefoundation.
iii
AllIhaveaccomplishedandallIwilleveraccomplishwillbeduetothelove
andsupportofmymotherandfather. Icannotpossiblylovethemorthankthem
enough.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
£age
ACKNOWEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTERS
1 THE DOMa|n OF COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING 1
Introduction 1
Defining Comparative Advertising 2
Some Current Issues 9
Problem Definition 13
2 THE LITERATURE ON COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING.. 21
Product Factors 22
Advertisement Factors 34
Audience Factors 49
Consistency in the Literature 55
3 THE DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF COMPARATIVE
ADVERTISING FOR AN UNFAMILIAR BRAND 58
The Elaboration Likelikhood Model of Persuasion 58
Comparative Advertising and Audience Elaboration 70
The Role of Additional Advertising Factors 75
Research Hypotheses 81
v
4 METHODOLOGICALISSUESINTESTINGTHEDIFFERENTIAL
EFFECTSOFCOMPARATIVEADVERTISING 85
PreviousOperationalizationsofMessageProcessingInvolvement... 86
PretestOne 89
PretestTwo 97
PretestThree 109
PretestFour 114
PretestFive 121
PreviousOperationalizationsofMessageResponseOpportunity....127
PretestSix 128
5 ANEMPIRICALTESTOFTHEDIFFERENTIAL
EFFECTSOFCOMPARATIVEADVERTISING 135
Method 135
Results 146
Discussion 171
6 CONCLUSIONANDDIRECTIONS
FORFUTURERESEARCH 179
ResponseOpportunityandNonmessageElaboration 179
DirectionsforFutureResearchonResponseOpportunity 186
AssessingtheRobustnessofthePerceivedSimilarityEffect 191
ReconceptualizingArgumentQuality 196
TheElaborationEffectofComparativeAdvertising 199
Conclusion 202
APPENDICES
A EXPERIMENTALSTIMULI:PRETESTS1-5 205
B INSTRUCTIONSANDDEPENDENTMEASURES:
PRETEST1 212
C INSTRUCTIONSANDDEPENDENTMEASURES:
PRETEST2 221
D INSTRUCTIONSANDDEPENDENTMEASURES:
PRETEST3 228
E INSTRUCTIONSANDDEPENDENTMEASURES:
PRETEST4 235
vi
F INSTRUCTIONSANDDEPENDENTMEASURES:
PRETEST5 242
G EXPERIMENTALSTIMULI:PRETEST6&MAINSTUDY.... 249
H INSTRUCTIONSANDDEPENDENTMEASURES:
PRETEST6 256
H INSTRUCTIONSANDDEPENDENTMEASURES:
MAINSTUDY 260
REFERENCES 266
BIOGRAPHICALSKETCH 280
vii
AbstractofDissertationPresentedtotheGraduateSchool
oftheUniversityofFloridainPartialFulfillmentofthe
RequirementsfortheDegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy
DIFFERENTIALEFFECTSOFCOMPARATIVEADVERTISING
FORANUNFAMILIARBRAND:THEMODERATINGROLEOFAUDIENCE
ELABORATION
By
CharlesScottAreni
May1991
Chairman:RichardJ.Lutz
MajorDepartment:Marketing
This dissertation borrows from Petty & Cacioppo’s (1986) Elaboration
LikelihoodModelofpersuasion(ELM),andAreni&Lutz’(1988)extensionofthe
ELM, to advance the idea that the persuasive impact comparative advertising
wherebyanunfamiliarbrandiscomparedtothemarketleadingbranddependson
theaudience’slevelofelaborationorthought. Accordingtotheproposedmodel,at
lowlevelsofelaborationcomparativeadvertisingforanunfamiliarbrandoperates
viaaperceivedsimilarityheuristicinwhichtheaudienceperceivesthesponsoringand
competitivebrandstobesimilaronthebasisoftheirassociationinacomparativead.
At moderate levels ofelaboration comparative advertising influences the
audience’s assessment ofthe desirability ofthe attribute claims; this assessment
constitutestheargument’svalence. Undertheseconditions,comparisonswiththe
vm
marketleadingbrandprovidetheunknownsponsorwithahighreferencepointfor
its attribute claims, thus producing a positive assessment of argument valence.
Finally,onlyathighlevelsofelaborationdoestheaudienceassessthevalidityor
believabilityoftheclaimsinanad;thisassessmentcomprisestheargument’sstrength.
Thecomparativeadvertisingliteraturesuggeststhat,inthesesituations,theclaimsin
acomparativeadfeaturinganunknownsponsoringbrandandthemarketleading
brandarejudgedbytheaudiencetobelowinargumentstrength.
Thus, at low and moderate levels audience elaboration, the impact of
comparativeadvertisingispositiverelativetononcomparativeadvertising,whereas
whenaudienceelaborationishigh,theimpactofcomparativeadvertisingisrelatively
negative.Thesepropositionsaretestedviaalaboratoryexperimentthatmanipulates
thecomparativeformatofaconstructedadforahypotheticalbrandofdisposable
razor,andtheaudience’sopportunitytoelaborateontheadvertisement.
IX
CHAPTER
1
THEDOMAINOFCOMPARATIVEADVERTISING
Introduction
Untilthe early 1970s comparative advertisingwasrarelyemployed inthe
United States. Part of the reason was the perception, by television networks,
magazine publishers, and even advertising agencies, that explicitly naming a
competitor’sproductinanadwasdistasteful. Butoneofthebiggestdeterrentsto
its usewasthecollectivemarketplacebeliefthatthe FederalTradeCommission
(FTC)wasnegativelypredisposedtowardsuchactivity(Muehling&Kangun,1985).
However,in1971theFederalTradeCommission,undertheassumptionthat
it would encourage more informationally oriented, product attribute based
advertising,beganadvocatingtheuseofcomparativeadvertisinginnationalprintand
broadcast media (Wilkie & Farris, 1975). The FTC’s new policy resulted in
marketersexplicitlymentioningcompetitivebrandsintheiradsforthefirsttimein
recenthistory.1 Comparativeadvertisinghascontinuedtopermeatethepromotional
strategies of marketing firms as evidenced by the increasing frequency of its
appearanceinvariousmediaoverthelasttwodecades. Forexample,Shimp(1975)
*ByerandCooke(1985)notethatcomparativeadvertisingwasquitepopularintheeighteenth
century.
1