Consumers’ behavior toward deceptive advertisements of
profit and nonprofit organizations.
Master thesis, Msc Marketing Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
August 31, 2012
2
ABSTRACT
This study analysed consumers‟ perception toward deception between profit- and nonprofit organizations, and the effect of this deception on subsequent consumers‟ behavior. The study presumed that nonprofit organizations are perceived as more deceptive in comparison to profit organizations, due to the fact that consumers do not expect deceptive behavior from nonprofit organizations. Moreover, this study argues that warm dimensions of organizations‟ mission are perceived as more deceptive as compared to competent dimensions. Since profit organizations are perceived as more competent and nonprofits are perceived as more warm organizations, this study determines whether organization type or mission has more influence on consumers‟ perception. The present study indicates that there are no significant effects that the consumers perceive advertisements‟ deception as more deceptive when a company is described as nonprofit as compared to a profit organization. The results signify that the type of organization has more influence on consumers‟ perception than the mission. This study indicated that consumers felt more disappointed and angry when a company‟s mission was described as a warm mission, as compared to a competent mission of an organization. Furthermore, this study found evidence concerning why people think this contrast of stereotypes‟ antisocial behavior occurs. This contrast of stereotypes´ antisocial behavior mainly occurs due to the fact that consumers think that profit organizations are “just deceptive”. In addition, typical deceptive organizations and nonprofits organizations‟ deceptive behavior was seen as by accidental behavior. Therefore, one can conclude that nonprofit organizations and warmth judgments are perceived as more reliable, and profit organizations are perceived as more deceptive.
3
Introduction
Imagine yourself an advertisement of a commercial coffee brand, which promotes a new coffee flavour. The advertisement offers a one-plus-one-free promotion deal on their coffee. Therefore, you decide to buy two packs of their new coffee flavour. However, after checking the receipt, it turns out that the promotion deal is not applicable for the new coffee flavour, but only for the coffee flavours that already were on the market. How deceived would you feel? Does this deception affect your future buying behavior? Do you want to get even? And now imagine yourself in the same situation with the same advertisement but this time the advertisement is from a fair trade coffee brand. Fairtrade organizations use their turnover to contribute to both the development of the farmers as well as their families. Do you have the same opinion toward the behavior of this organization compared to the commercial organization? And does it affect your future behavior in comparison to deceptive profit organizations?
The purpose of this research paper is to give an answer to the previous discussed subjects. This paper outlines the consumers‟ perception with respect to deception of both profit- as well as nonprofit organizations. In addition, what the consequences of this perception regarding subsequent consumers‟ behavior are analysed. Based on the above lines of reasoning, the following research question can be derived: ‘How do consumers perceive deceptive advertising of profit- and nonprofit organizations and what are the consequences of this perception on subsequent consumers’ behavior?’
Deception
Advertisements are embedded into consumers‟ life. However, consumers‟ attitudes toward advertising are becoming increasingly more negative over the years (Pollay and Mittal, 1993). Nowadays, many consumers simply do not believe advertising claims anymore and become skeptical toward advertising (Obermiller et al., 2005). According to the study of Pollay (1986) advertisement relies on a basic norm of honesty, just like other forms of communication. When this norm is exceeded, consumers can make the generalization that no advertisement should be trusted at all. This is mainly caused by the personal nature of the distrust that the advertising deception generates (Darke and Ritchie, 2007).
4 impression that the advertisement generated and the performance of the product to know they have been deceived.
According to Gardner (1975), the discrepancy between the impression generated by the advertisement and the reality is part of the definition of deception. He argued that deception occurs if an advertisement (or advertising campaign) leaves the consumer with an impression(s) and/or belief(s) different from what would normally be expected (if the consumer had reasonable knowledge), and that impression(s) and/or belief(s) is factually untrue or potentially misleading. This is in line with the
definition of the American Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC defines deception “an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement – or omits information – that: (1) is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and (2) is “material” – that is, important to a consumer‟s decision to buy or use the product” (Website Bureau of Consumer Protection). Both definitions stated that deception is about the likelihood to mislead. This study focuses on this likelihood and its effects, in other words: consumers‟ potential perception of deception in advertising and subsequent effect on consumer behavior. Hence, one can argue that there is a gap between the advertisements‟ deception and the consumers‟ potential perception of being deceived; this study examines this gap.
Stereotypes
As mentioned before, consumers become more and more sceptical and distrusted toward advertising. This behavior is mainly the result of the distrust that the advertising deception generates (Darke and Ritchie, 2007; Obermiller et al., 2005; Pollay, 1986). Deception undermines the credibility of advertising as a whole by making consumers broadly defensive toward future advertising (Darke & Ritchie, 2007). Moreover, it produces effects that are especially long lasting and damaging for the advertisers that are directly responsible for making the deceptive claims in the first place, according to Darke & Ritchie (2007). Hence, consumers generalize advertisements and create stereotypes around these advertisements. These stereotypes are defined as the beliefs about the characteristics, attributes, and behaviors of members of a certain organization and its advertisement (Hilton and Hippel, 1996). One of these characteristics of a certain organization is the mission of the company, which is can be part of organizations‟ stereotype.
First, this study examines whether or not consumers, after being deceived, perceive deception differently based on organizations type, i.e. nonprofit versus profit. Moreover, I also expect an important role of organizations‟ stereotype, whereby the deception of organizations with warm dimensions is perceived as more deceptive in comparison with the deception of organizations with competent dimensions.
Type of organization
5 deception after being deceived by profit- and nonprofit organizations. Consumers do not expect to be perceived by nonprofits, since nonprofits are not founded to be profitable. If these nonprofits are deceptive, in contrast to consumers‟ expectations, this deception results in more negative outcomes, according to Zebrowitz and Lee (1999). This theory is based on prior research regarding the so-called antisocial stereotype effect (Zebrowitz, 1991). Several experiments have demonstrated this antisocial behavior stereotype effect. Prior research showed that the contrast of antisocial behavior stereotype may make crimes seem even worse than it would if performed by a more mature faces individual (Zebrowitz and Lee, 1999). For instance, Berry and Zebrowitz-McArthur (1988) found that baby faced defendants who admitted intentional misconduct in a simulated trial received more severe punishment for their offenses than did equally attractive mature faced men. This is in line with the research of Zebrowitz et al. (1991), who found that parents recommended more severe punishment for baby faced 11-year-olds than for their equally attractive mature faced equals when the children allegedly had committed a crimethat was severe and unexpected for children of that age.
When I apply this reasoning to the situation of deceptive advertisements, I could argue in a similar vein that, after being caught by consumers, nonprofit organizations are perceived as more deceptive due to the fact that consumers do not expect nonprofit deception. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that nonprofit organizations are perceived as more deceptive than profit organization.
Stereotype dimensions
6 Match of organization type and its stereotype dimensions
Aaker et al. (2010) stated that nonprofits are perceived as more warm while for-profits are perceived as more competent. The study demonstrates that judgments of warmth (based on warm, kind, generous) and competence (based on competent, effective, efficient) indeed play an important role in consumers‟ perception of companies. In line with those findings, this research presumes that consumers‟ perceive the deception of profit organizations with warm dimensions as less severe than consumers‟ perception of deceptive nonprofit organizations with competent dimensions.
Misperception of stereotypes
Although organization type and stereotype are often congruent, based on the previous discussed arguments, I suggest that if the warm/competent dimensions are incongruent with the non-profit/profit organization type, deception will be perceived as more deceptive than when these characteristics are congruent.
As mentioned before, prior research has shown that when people do not expect a certain behavior of a stereotype, this may make it even worse than when people expected stereotype‟s congruent behavior. Therefore this study examines why people think that the contrast of stereotypes‟ antisocial behavior occurs. These behaviors are incongruent with perceivers‟ prior expectations. A reason for this behavior could be that when behaviors are open to alternative explanations, people make very different types of inferences from stereotype-congruent versus stereotype-incongruent information (Hilton and Hippel, 1996). Jackson et al. (1993) found that if target‟s behavior is inconsistent with the group stereotype, this can be the result of both external causes as well as internal causes. In order to provide a better explanation of the contrast of stereotypes‟ antisocial behavior, this survey takes these internal and external causes into account.
The consequences of perceptive deception
Prior research showed that the consequences of deception toward consumers‟ behavior can be seen in various ways. Deception influences behavior toward the company, e.g. buying behavior and trust (Darke and Ritchie, 2007; Obermiller et al. 2005). Moreover, deception influences behavior toward another target than the company, e.g. unfairly treated persons are more likely to behave unethical themselves (Gino et al., 2009; Schweitzer and Gibson, 2008). Therefore, this study investigates these consequences of consumers‟ behavior of deception.
7 advertising. Ad deception tends to bias consumers against the implications of advertising from second-party sources by raising negative stereotypes of advertisements, thus reducing the persuasive impact of future advertisements (Darke and Ritchie, 2007). Deceptive advertisements have the potential to be damaging to advertising in general and, by extension, to firms that rely heavily on advertising in order to sell their products (Darke and Ritchie, 2007). Thus the first consequence of deception in advertising can lead to more negative consumer‟ thoughts and attitudes toward organizations/stereotypes and a lower consumer‟ repurchase as well (Darke and Ritchie, 2007). However, what is still unknown is whether these consequences of deception differ between profit- and nonprofit organizations. Therefore, this study analyses the differences in consumers‟ behavior, after being deceived by a profit- and nonprofit organization, e.g. consumers‟ buying behavior and trust. In addition, the study of Aaker et al. (2010) stated that competent dimensions increase consumers‟ willingness to buy a product from the organization. Therefore, I argue that there is more consumers‟ buying behavior and trust when consumers are deceived by a profit organization as compared to a nonprofit organization. Moreover I argue that there is more consumers‟ buying behaviour and trust is when consumers are deceived by a profit organization with competent dimensions as compared to nonprofit organizations with warm dimensions. In addition, I argue that when the organization type is incongruent with the stereotypes, this will strengthen the effects of consumers‟ buying behaviour and trust.
8 higher compared to a deceptive organization with competent dimensions. In addition, I argue that when the organization type is incongruent with the stereotypes, this will strengthen the effects of consumers‟ willingness to behave unethically.
Method
Design and participants
A 2 (organization type: for-profit versus nonprofit) x 2 (mission type: warmth versus competence) between-subjects design was used to investigate the hypotheses. The organization types are described as commercial and fairtrade organizations and the mission types are described in terms of warmth and competence in this survey. This design is used to determine whether the organization type (nonprofit versus for-profit) or the mission type (warmth versus competence) has more influence on deception toward consumers‟ perception.
In total, 117 respondents participated the survey. Those respondents existed out of 69 males and 48 females, with a mean age of 32,54 years (SD = 13,03). The respondents were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. In addition, the participants were gathered through email and social media websites, with a request to fill out the survey voluntarily.
Procedure
Before the participants started the survey, they were told that they would participate in a study on consumers‟ deception. The participants were also informed that the survey existed of thirteen question, lasted about ten minutes, and that participants remained completely anonymous. The survey consisted of two parts. The first part started with demographic questions (e.g. age and gender) and 12 statements regarding participants‟ perception toward advertisements in general (e.g. „I believe that advertisements are to inform consumers‟ and „Advertisements are in general based on the truth‟; α = ,74). Those items were adapted from the “Scepticism toward advertising” scale of Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998) and adapted from “The index of consumer sentiment toward marketing” scale of Gaski and Etzel (1996). Moreover, respondents were asked to fill out 15 items for the questions about attitude toward advertisements (e.g. „not trustworthy versus trustworthy‟ and „dishonest versus honest‟; α = ,84) and about advertisements in general. These questions were based on the scales “Expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness of celebrity endorsers” scale of Ohanian (1990), “Affective response to the ad” scale of Bhat et al. (1998) and “Attitude toward the ad” scale of Beltrami (1982). Except for the „gender‟ and „age‟ questions, all the questions in this research are based on a 5point-Likert Scale (1 = totally not agree, 5 = totally agree).
9 between-subjects design. This design is based on the theory designed by Pollay (1986) and Aaker et al. (2010), whereby the organization types are described as commercial and fairtrade organizations and stereotypes are described into warm and competent organizations‟ mission type in this survey. Therefore, this survey manipulated deception in four different situations. An example of the situations is described below:
„You look at an advertisement of the commercial [fairtrade] coffee brand CFF. The mission statement of this commercial [fairtrade] coffee brand is: ‘CFF aims to generate a, as high as possible, turnover and to become market leader, by means of offering worldwide a broad assortment of the best qualitative and innovative coffee.[‘CFF aims to invest at least 80% of its turnover into farmers and their families for a better development and fair trade of coffee in Third World countries to promote the combat of poverty in these countries, by means of offering the most natural and fair trade coffee’] The advertisement promotes a new coffee flavour of the commercial coffee brand CFF. The advertisement offers a one-plus-one-free promotion on their CFF coffee. Therefore, you decide to buy two packs of their new CFF coffee flavour. However, after checking the receipt, you asked at the service desk how this could be possible. It turns out that the promotion does not hold for the new coffee flavour shown on the ad, but only for the coffee flavours that already were on the market.‟ See appendix A for the complete survey with all the different situations.
After the manipulation of organization type and mission type, the dependent measures were collected. The respondents had to answer several questions. First they were asked what they thought about the mission of the commercial [fairtrade] CFF coffee brand (e.g. „I think the mission is in line with the commercial [fair-trade] coffee brand‟). In addition, the questions about the mission included the warmth index (warm, kind, generous; α = 0,91) and the competence index (competent, effective, efficient; α = 0,75) defined by Aaker et al. (2010). Additionally, the survey included questions (partly adapted from Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998) concerning the deception e.g. “What do you think of the way of advertising of this CFF coffee brand?” (α = 0,85) and about the deception advertisement (e.g. „unbelievable versus believable‟ and „unfair versus fair‟; α = 0,89), partly adapted from Feltham, 1994 and Ohanian, 1990.
In order to determine especially why people think that the organizations behave deceptive, the survey had statements regarding internal and external causes, e.g. “I think that this deception is an accident” and “I think this is typical for such an organization”. Another question was how the respondents feel after being deceived (α = 0,83) which is adapted from Burke and Edell (1986).
10 However, the lady at the service desk gave too much change. The survey questioned e.g. “How justified is it for you to keep all the change?” and “What are the odds that you will keep all the change?” The results of this part of the survey give insight in consumers‟ behavior to get even.
Results
Unless stated otherwise, all analyses used a 2 (organization type: for-profit versus nonprofit) x 2 (mission type: warmth versus competence) ANOVA to test the hypotheses. In addition, the results only show significant results; insignificant results are not mentioned (see appendix B).
Before I describe the significant effects, I will give an overview of consumers‟ perception toward advertisements in general. This provides a clear understanding of the sample population. Only the most outstanding descriptive statistics are visualized. The descriptives indicate that the respondents thought that they were able to estimate the truth of an advertisement (M = 3,81, SD = 0,81). Respondents think that ads are intended to persuade consumers to buy products they do not need (M = 3,75, SD = 0,78) and that advertisements are not a reliable source of products‟ quality (M = 2,16, SD = 0,81). In addition, respondents do not have the feeling (M = 2,24, SD = 0,82) that they are informed precisely by advertisements. However, they do not agree that consumers are better off when ads are forbidden (M = 1,97, SD = 0,88).
Manipulation check
There are no significant results found that respondents perceived deceptive advertisement as deceptive. There is a significant effect of the mission (F(1,113) = 43,33, p < 0.001) showed that respondents perceived the scale warm (warmth, kind, generous) more at the warm mission (M = 3,32, SD = 0,81) than at the competent mission (M = 2,34, SD = 0,85).
11 Fig 1. Results of the item ‘mission is typical for the type of organization’
Perception of mission
There is a significant effect of the mission (F(1,113) = 4,84, p < 0.05), which showed that the warm mission (M = 3,18, SD = 1,15) is perceived as a mission that is more typical for an organization, as compared to a competent mission (M = 2,65, SD = 1,27).
Another significant result is the interaction effect of the mission and organization (F(1,113) = 9,22, p < 0.01), which showed that a profit organization with a competent mission (M = 2,71 , SD = 1,04) is perceived as an organization with a mission that is a more excessively commercial mission (for the organization) than with a warm mission (M = 2,66, SD = 1,23). Moreover, the results showed that a nonprofit organization with a competent mission (M = 3,77, SD = 0,96) is perceived as an organization with a mission that is a more excessively commercial mission (for the organization) than with a warm mission (M = 2,53, SD =0,94 ). The results are shown in Fig. 2.
The significant effect of organization type showed the same results (F(1,113) = 5,8, p < 0.05), both (warm and competent) missions along with a profit organization are perceived as an organization with a mission that is a more excessively commercial mission (for the organization) (M = 2,68, SD = 1,15) than at a nonprofit organization (M = 3,16, SD = 1,13).
Fig 2. Results of the item ‘mission is excessive commercial for the organization
1 2 3 4 5 Competence Warmth T y pica l m is sio n
Mission is 'typical' for the type of
organization
Profit Nonprofit 1 2 3 4 5 Competence Warmth E x ess iv e co m m er cia lThe degree whether the mission is
excessive commercial
12 A significant effect of the mission of organization (F(1,113) = 10,91, p < 0.01) showed that the competent mission (M = 3,31, SD = 1,12) is perceived as a more excessive commercial for an organization as compared to a warm mission (M = 2,60, SD = 1,09). These results are also in line with the effect shown in Figure 2.
Another result showed a significant effect of the mission (F(1,113) =22,81, p < 0.001). The result showed that a warm mission (M = 2,89, SD = 0,96) is perceived as a more excessively fairtrade organization compared to a competent mission (M = 2,04, SD = 0,96).
Deceptive advertising
Results showed several significant effects toward consumers‟ perception on deceptive advertisements. A significant effect of the type of organization (F(1,113) = 5,26, p < 0.05) was found, which showed that deceptive advertising is perceived as worse for nonprofit organizations (M = 4,13, SD = 0,76) as compared to profit organizations (M = 3,77, SD = 0,91).
Another significant result of the interaction effect of the mission and type of organization (F(1,113) = 6,33, p < 0.05) was found, which showed that deceptive advertisements of profit organizations with a competent mission (M = 2,33, SD = 0,70) are perceived as more unquestionable, as compared to profit organizations with a warm mission (M = 1,94, SD = 0,84). The effect also showed that nonprofit organization with a warm mission (M = 2,23, SD = 0,97) are perceived as more unquestionable as compared to nonprofits with a competent mission (M = 1,87, SD = 0,67). However, it is important to note that these results showed that the respondents do not perceived the advertisement as unquestionable. The results are shown in Fig. 3.
Fig 3. Results of the item ‘the advertisement is unquestionable’
Deceptive perceptions
There were no significant results found at consumers‟ feelings as a scale(F(1,113) < 1, ns; α = 0,83). However, after analysing the items individually, some items revealed significant effects.
1 2 3 4 5 Competence Warmth Unqu estio na ble
The degree of respondents' unquestionable
toward deceptive advertisements
13 An ANOVA found a significant effect of the mission F(1,113) = 4,30, p < 0.05), which showed that respondents felt more disappointed when a company was described as an organization with a warm mission (M = 4,19, SD = 0,62) as compared to an organization with a competent mission (M = 3,91, SD = 0,82).
Another significant result of respondents‟ feeling is found at the interaction effect of the mission and type of organization F(1,113) = 8,34, p < 0.01), which showed that respondents felt angrier when a company was described as a profit organization with a warm mission (M = 4,09, SD = 0,69) as compared to an organization with a competent mission (M = 3,29 , SD = 0,75) . Despite the small difference, respondents felt angrier when a company was described as a nonprofit organization with a competent mission (M = 3,68, SD = 0,95), as compared to a warm mission (M = 3,60 , SD = 0,86). The results are shown in Fig. 4.
Fig 4. Results of the item ‘feeling angry’
The results found a significant effect of the mission of an organization F(1,113) = 5,66, p < 0.05), which showed that respondents felt angrier when company‟s mission was described as a warm mission (M = 3,85, SD = 0,81) as compared to a competent mission (M = 3,51, SD = 0,88).
A significant effect showed an interaction effect (between the means) of the mission and type of organization F(1,113) = 7,20, p < 0.01), which found that respondents felt more distrust when the company was described as a profit organization with a warm mission (M = 4,16, SD = 0,77) as compared to a profit organization with a competent mission (M = 3,75, SD = 0,85). In addition, respondents felt more distrust when the company was described as a nonprofit organization with a competent mission (M = 4,06 , SD = 0,77) as compared to an nonprofit organization with a warm mission (M = 3,67 , SD = 0,84). The results are shown in Fig. 5.
1 2 3 4 5 Competence Warmth Ang er
Respondents' anger after being deceived
14 Fig 5. Results of the item ‘feeling distrust’
Causes of deceptive behavior
An ANOVA showed a significant effect of the type of organization (F(1,113) = 11,67, p < 0.005) which found that respondents perceived the cause of organizations‟ deceptive behavior as normal for-profit organizations because these companies are “just deceptive” (M = 3,32, SD = 0,92), as compared to nonprofit organizations (M = 2,75, SD = 0,94).
A significant effect of the type of organization F(1,113) = 4,18, p < 0.05) showed that respondents perceived the cause of organizations‟ deceptive behavior as by accident when the company was described as a nonprofit organization (M = 2,36 , SD = 1,02) as compared to a profit organization (M = 2,00, SD = 0,93). However, it is important to note that these results showed that the respondents did not perceive that the cause of organizations‟ deceptive behavior was by accident.
An ANOVA showed a significant effect of the type of organization F(1,113) = 18,95, p < 0.001), which found that respondents judged that the cause of organizations‟ deceptive behavior was more typical for profit organizations (M = 3,30, SD = 1,14) than for as nonprofit organizations (M = 2,41, SD = 1,07).
Consequences
Two results of the consequences toward the deception are found. A significant effect of the type of organization F(1,113) = 4,54, p < 0.05) showed that there is less trust after being deceived by the profit CFF coffee (M = 3,93, SD = 0,71) compared to the nonprofit CFF coffee (M = 3,61, SD = 0,97). The second effect showed a significant effect of the mission F(1,113) = 4,45, p < 0.05), which found that there is less trust by the CFF brand with a competent mission (M = 3,93, SD = 0,77) compared to a warm mission (M = 3,61, SD = 0,93).
1 2 3 4 5 Competence Warmth Dis trus t
Respondents' distrust after being deceived
15 Keeping the extra change
A significant effect is found of the interaction effect of the mission and type of organization F(1,113) = 7,55, p < 0.01), which showed that respondents felt more justified to keep the extra change by a profit organization with a competent mission (M = 1,87, SD = 0,99) compared to a warm mission (M = 1,44, SD = 0,76). The results also showed that respondents perception of keeping the extra change felt more justified by a nonprofit organization with a warm mission (M = 1,77 , SD = 1,194) compared to a competent mission (M = 1,29 , SD = 0,53). However, it is important to note that these results showed that respondents‟ perception of keeping the extra change does not felt justified. The results are shown in Fig. 6
Fig 6. Results of the item ‘justification to keep the too much change’
Discussion
Present study investigated consumers‟ perception, after being deceived, toward deception of profit- and nonprofit organizations, and the consequences on consumers‟ behavior in response to this. This study presumed that nonprofit organizations are perceived as more deceptive because consumers do not expect nonprofit deception. Moreover, this study presumed that organizations with warm dimensions are perceived as more deceptive as compared to competent dimensions. Since nonprofits are perceived as warm and profit organization as competent, this research analyzed the interaction between the organization type and its stereotypes. However, what if there is a mismatch between organization type and its stereotypes (e.g. a nonprofit organization with competent judgments or a profit organization with warm judgments)? Is it the organization type that has a stronger effect than the stereotypes or vice versa? This study presumed that the mismatch of the organization type and stereotype lead to a stronger deceptive perception.
Perception of mission
Respondents perceived the scale warmth (warm, kind, generous) more when a company was described with a warm mission as compared to a competent mission. This is as expected, because the
1 2 3 4 5 Competence Warmth J us tif ica tio n
Justificiation to keep the too much change
after deception
16 warm judgments are in line with the warm mission. This study also found that profit organizations are more in line with a competent mission and nonprofit organizations are more in line with a warm mission, which is not remarkable. A warm mission is more perceived as a mission that is in line with the organization. A profit organization with a competent mission is more perceived as an organization with an excessively commercial mission. In line with those findings, profit organizations with a warm or competent mission are more perceived as an excessively commercial mission. These results signify that the type of organization has more influence on consumers‟ perception than the type of mission.
Deceptive advertising
The results showed that respondents thought that other consumers perceive the deception of advertising worse when the company was described as nonprofit as compared to profit. However, there was no significant effect that respondents perceived deceptive advertising worse when a company was described as a nonprofit organization as compared to a profit organization.
Respondents perceived deceptive advertisement of profit organizations with a competent mission more unquestionable. Moreover, respondents perceived deceptive advertisement as more unquestionable when the company was described as a nonprofit organization with a warm mission as compared to a non-profit organization with a competent mission. Thus, the match between mission and organization type ensures clarity, which is an expected result. However, it must be noted that these results showed that the respondents did not perceive the deceptive advertisement as unquestionable at all, since the means are below 2,34 The mean stated that respondents did not agree that the deceptive advertisements are unquestionable.
Deceptive perceptions
In line with the contrast theory of antisocial behavior stereotype of Zebrowitz and Lee (1999), the results indicated that the respondents felt more disappointed when the mission of the organization is described as warm. Moreover, an interaction effect showed that respondents felt angrier when organizations showed a misfit between organization type and mission (e.g. nonprofit organization with competent mission and profit organization with warm mission). Additionally, in line with the contrast theory of Zebrowitz and Lee (1999), the results indicated that there is also a mission effect that showed that respondents felt angrier when organizations have a warm mission, as compared to a competent mission.
17 Causes of deceptive behavior
In order to better understand the mismatch of consumers‟ perception and stereotypes, this study took internal and external causes of deceptive behavior into account. Respondents perceived the cause of organizations‟ deceptive behavior as normal for profit organization because these companies are “just deceptive”. Moreover, respondents perceived the cause of organizations‟ deceptive behavior as more typical for the profit organization. Both causes are internal causes of deception. Thus respondents perceived profit organizations as “just deceptive” and as typical deceptive organizations. Contrary to this finding, the results also indicate that respondents perceived the cause of organizations‟ deceptive behavior as more by accident of the nonprofit organization, which is an external cause. However, it must be noted that these results showed that the respondents did not perceive the cause of organizations‟ deceptive behavior as by accident, since respondents disagreed that the cause of deception was by accident both in the case of nonprofit organizations as well of profit organizations.
Consequences
This study predict that consumers‟ buying behavior and their trust are more when consumers are deceived by profit organizations as compared to nonprofit organizations. This is in line with Darke and Ritchie (2007), which stated that deception in advertising can lead to more negative consumer‟ thoughts and attitudes and a lower consumer‟ repurchase as well. Moreover, this prediction is in line to Aaker et al. (2010), which stated that competent dimensions critically increase consumers‟ willingness to buy a product from the organization. This study found that respondents had more trust after being deceived by the nonprofit CFF coffee and by the CFF brand with a warm mission. Thus nonprofit organizations and warm dimensions are perceived as more reliable. Additionally, this study did not find significant effects on the consumers‟ willingness to buy after being deceived.
Keeping the extra change
18 The results of the interaction effects showed misfits between organization type and mission type. Especially the results of respondents‟ feelings toward organizations‟ deception consisted of misfits. Prior research found that the perception of unusual misfit may be especially damaging (i.e., decrease the option‟s perceived attractiveness) when it is construed as intentional rather than incidental (Kivetz and Simonson, 2003). Thus respondents became skeptical while filling in the survey because it was peculiar that nonprofit organizations have a warm mission and vice versa. This could be a possible explanation for the effects of the misfit organizations.
Limitations
This study has several limitations that need to be considered. First of all, this study is conducted in the Netherlands, by applying non-probability sampling. The sample consist out of volunteers which are willingly recruited as research subjects and who are self- selected. Although this was the only practical alternative, one must acknowledge that their adequacy as a basis for generalization is always in question (Thomas, 2004). Additionally, non-probability sampling does not involve random selection and so may produce biased results (Thomas, 2004).
Secondly, with respect to the questionnaire, one can argue that it might have caused some confusion toward its respondents. Mainly due to the contradictory conditions in the survey (e.g. a „profit organization with a warm mission‟ and „nonprofit organization with a competent mission‟). The survey could create respondents‟ perceived misfit of what kind of stereotype organization the questions were about, which is especially notable at the items of respondents‟ feeling. The reason why this research made use of a 2 (organization type: for-profit versus nonprofit) x 2 (mission type: warmth versus competence) between-subjects design, was to find out whether organization type or mission has more influence on consumers‟ perception. Therefore I suggest to only compare the organization types with the matching missions in further research.
Since the results showed that respondents thought that other consumers perceived the deception of advertising worse when the deceived company was described as a nonprofit organization as compared to a profit organization, further research is needed to explain this result. Especially because there was no significant effect that respondents find the deception of nonprofit organizations‟ advertising more a wrong way compared to profit organizations‟ advertising.
Although the results of this study signify that the type of organization has more influence on consumers‟ perception than the mission type, the study did not investigate why the organization type has more influence. Further research could address this question.
19
Conclusion
20
References
Aaker, J., Vohs K. D. & Mogilner C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37: 224-237.
Berry D. S. & Zebrowitz-McArthur L. (1988). What's in a Face? : Facial Maturity and the Attribution of Legal Responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14: 23-33
Bureau of Consumer Protection. http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus35-advertising-faqs-guide-small-business (retrieved January 28, 2012)
Burke M. C. & Edell J. A. (1986). Ad Reactions over Time: Capturing Changes in the Real World. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1): 114-118
Darke, P.R. & Ritchie, R.J.B. (2007). The Defensive Consumer: Advertising Deception, Defensive Processing, and Distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1): 114-127.
Feltham, T. S.(1994). Assessing Viewer Judgement of Advertisements and Vehicles: Scale Development and Validation. Advances in Consumer Research, 21: 531-535
Gardner, D. M. (1975).
Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach. Journal of Marketing, 39 (1): 40-46Gaski, J. F. & Etzel M. J. (1986). The Index of Consumer Sentiment toward Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 50(3): 71-81
Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior: The Effect of One Bad Apple on the Barrel. Psychological Science, 20(3): 393-398.
Hilton J. L. & Von Hippel W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 47: 237-271
21
Judd et al. (2005). Fundamental Dimensions of Social Judgment: Understanding the Relations
Between Judgments of Competence and Warmth. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89(6): 899–913
Kivetz & Simonson (2003). The Idosyncratic Fit Heuristic: Effeort Advantage as a Determinant of Consumer Response to Loyalty Programs. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4): 454-467
Obermiller, C. & Spangenberg, E. (1998). Development of a Scale to Measure Skepticism Toward Advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2): 159-186
Obermiller C., Spangenberg E. & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad Skepticism: The Consequences of Disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34(3): 7-17
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers‟ Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19: 39-52
Pollay R. W. (1986). The Distorted Mirror: Reflections on the Unintended Consequences of Advertising. Journal of Marketing, 50(2): 18-36
Pollay R. W. & Mittal B. (1993). Here's the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising. Journal of Marketing, 57(3): 99-114
Schweitzer, M. E. & Gibson, D. E. (2008). Fairness, Feelings, and Ethical Decision- Making:
Consequences of Violating Community Standards of Fairness. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(3): 287-301
Shimp T. A. (1978). Do Incomplete Comparisons Mislead? Journal of Advertising Research, 18: 21-27
Snyder R. (1989). Misleading Characteristics of Implied-Superiority Claims. Journal of Advertising, 18(4): 54-61
Thomas, A. (2004). Research Skills For Management Studies, Routledge.
Zebrowitz, L. A., Kendall-Tackett, K. & Fafel, J (1991). The Influence of Children‟s Facial Maturity on Parental Expectations and Punishments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52: 221-238
22 Zebrowitz L.& Lee S. Y. (1999) Appearance, Stereotype-Incongruent Behavior, and Social
23
Appendix A. Survey
Beste respondent,
Allereerst bedankt dat je mijn enquête wilt invullen en mij hierdoor mee helpt afstuderen! Deze enquête gaat over het misleiden van consumenten. Misleidende reclame komt steeds vaker in het nieuws. Wellicht heb jij jezelf wel eens misleid hebben gevoeld. Ik ben benieuwd hoe consumenten daarover denken. De enquête is ingedeeld in algemene vragen over advertenties en daarna wordt er situatie geschetst waarover enkele vragen worden gesteld. In totaal bestaat de enquête uit 13 vragen en kost maximaal 10 minuten tijd.
Bedankt!
Groeten,
Sander van Wieringen
NB. Deze enquete is geheel anoniem!
Q1 Wat is je geslacht?
Man (1) Vrow (2)
Q2 Wat is je leeftijd? (alleen cijfers invullen)
Q3 Wat is je beeld van advertenties in het algemeen? helemaal niet mee
eens (1)
niet mee eens (2) neutraal (3) mee eens (4) helemaal mee eens (5) Ik kan goed de waarheid van advertenties inschatten (1)
Het doel van een advertentie is consumenten informeren (2) Ik geloof dat advertenties informatief zijn (3) Advertenties zijn over het algemeen waarheidsgetrouw (4) Advertenties zijn een betrouwbare bron van informatie over de kwaliteit en prestaties van een
24
geven advertenties een echt beeld
weer van het product dat is afgebeeld (7) Ik heb meestal het
gevoel dat ik nauwkeurig ben geinformeerd na het zien van een advertentie (8) De meeste advertenties geven essentiële informatie richting consumenten (9) Advertenties halen consumenten over om producten te kopen die ze niet nodig hebben (10) De meeste advertenties zijn bedoeld om te misleiden in plaats van te informeren (11) Consumenten zijn beter af als alle
advertenties verboden zouden
worden (12)
Q4 Wat vind jij van advertenties in het algemeen?
25 Q5 Stel je de volgende situatie voor: In een reclamefolder zie je een advertentie staan van het
commercieel koffiemerk CFF. De missie van het commerciële koffiemerk CFF luidt: „CFF wil door middel van het wereldwijd aanbieden van een breed assortiment van de meest kwalitatieve en innovatieve koffie een zo hoog mogelijke omzet genereren en marktleider te worden‟. In de reclamefolder toont het commercieel koffiemerk CFF een advertentie van een nieuwe koffiesmaak. Tevens zie je in dezefde advertentie dat het commercieel koffiemerk CFF nu een 1 + 1 gratis actie heeft. Je bent geïnteresseerd geraakt en besluit de nieuwe koffiesmaak van het commercieel koffiemerk CFF te kopen in de supermarkt. Nadat je afgerekend hebt, zie je dat je geen korting hebt gekregen op de nieuwe koffiesmaak van het commercieel koffiemerk CFF. Je vraagt bij de
servicebalie van de supermarkt hoe dit kan. Het blijkt dat de 1+1 gratis actie alleen geldt op de oudere CFF koffiesmaken en niet op de nieuwste koffiesmaak van CFF.
Q6 Wat vind je van de missie van dit commerciële CFF koffiemerk? Helemaal niet
mee eens (1)
Niet mee eens (2) Neutraal (3) Mee eens (4) Helemaal mee eens (5) Ik vind de missie
26
Q7 Wat vind je van deze manier van adverteren van het commerciële koffiemerk CFF? helemaal niet mee
eens (1)
niet mee eens (2) neutraal (3) mee eens (4) helemaal mee eens (5) Ik vind dat deze
manier van adverteren misleidend is (1)
Ik vind dat deze manier van adverteren slecht
is (2)
Ik vind dat deze manier van adverteren bedrieglijk is (3) Ik vind dat de advertentie echte feiten gaf (4)
Ik vind dat het commerciële koffiemerk CFF
de waarheid verteld (5)
Ik vind dat deze manier van
adverteren ongepast is (6)
Ik vind dat deze manier van
adverteren onethischis (7)
Ik vind dat deze manier van adverteren immoreel is (8) Ik vind dat ik eerlijk ben behandeld (9)
Ik vind dat deze manier van
adverteren gerechtvaardigd is
(10)
27
Q8 Wat vind jij van deze advertentie van het commerciële koffiemerk CFF?
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) Ongeloofwaardig:Geloofwaardig (1) Onbetrouwbaar:Betrouwbaar (2) Typisch commercieel:Typisch fairtrade (3) Ongegrond:Gegrond (4) Oneerlijk:Eerlijk (5) Betwistbaar:Onbetwistbaar (6) Misleidend:Niet misleidend (7) Onwaarschijnlijk:Waarschijnlijk (8) hartelijk:stug (9) vriendelijk:onvriendelijke (10) gul:gierig (11) bekwaam:onbekwaam (12) efficient:inefficient (13) effectief:ineffectief (14)
Q9 Waarom denk je dat het bedrijf zich zo gedragen heeft, zoals in de situatie naar voren komt? Helemaal niet
mee eens (1)
Niet mee eens (2) Neutraal (3) Helemaal niet mee eens (4)
Helemaal eens (5) Ik denk dat het
bedrijf zo is (1)
Ik denk dat dit per
ongeluk is (2)
Ik denk dat dit komt door slechte verkoopcijfers (3)
Ik denk dat dit komt door de
crisis (4)
Ik denk dat dit typisch is voor het
bedrijf (5)
Ik denk dat dit komt door externe
factoren (6)
Q10 Stel dat je de nieuwe koffiesmaak koopt en uiteindelijk dus geen extra gratis pak koffie krijgt, maar voor alle twee de koffiepakken moet betalen. Hoe zou je zich dan voelen?
Helemaal niet mee eens (1)
28
Q11 Stel je voor dat je in een supermarkt voor het koffieschap staat en de CFF koffiepakken ziet liggen. Wat zou er dan door je hoofd gaan?
helemaal niet mee eens (1)
niet mee eens (2) neutraal (3) helemaal niet mee eens (4)
helemaal eens (5) Ik vertrouw het
koffiemerk CFF en al haar soorten
koffie niet meer (1)
Ik vertrouw alle commerciële CFF
koffie niet meer (2) Ik koop het commerciële koffiemerk CFF en al haar soorten
koffie niet meer (3) Ik koop geen commerciële CFF koffie meer (4) Ik koop alle commerciële CFF
koffie niet meer (5)
Q12 Stel je voor dat de mevrouw achter de servicebalie zich schappelijk opstelt en jou, je geld teruggeeft. Je komt erachter dat mevrouw je te veel geld heeft teruggegeven. Hoe rechtvaardig is het voor jou om dit geld te houden?
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5)
Volledig onrechtvaardig:Volledig
rechtvaardig (1)
Q13 En hoe groot schat je de kans dat je het geld terug geeft?
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5)
Ik geef het geld sowieso niet terug:Ik geef het
geld sowieso terug (1)
29
B. General overview of all results
Scale Item M SD α OT MT OT*MT
x general ad beeld. kan de waarheid goed inschatten x general ad beeld. doel is informeren
x general ad beeld. informatief x general ad beeld. waarheidsgetrouw
x general ad beeld. betrouwbare bron kwaliteit en prestaties product
x general ad beeld. op waarheid gebaseerd
x general ad beeld. echt beeld weergegeven van het product x general ad beeld. gevoel dat ik nauwkeurig ben
geïnformeerd
x general ad beeld. geeft essentiële informatie
x general ad beeld. overhalen kopen overbodige producten x general ad beeld. misleiden in plaats van te informeren x general ad beeld. beter af als advertenties verboden worden
x general ad beeld 2,803 ,4372 0,74
x general thinking of ads. Ongeloofwaardig - Geloofwaardig x general thinking of ads.Onbetrouwbaar - Betrouwbaar x general thinking of ads. Niet overtuigend - Overtuigend x general thinking of ads. Ongegrond - Gegrond x general thinking of ads. Oneerlijk - Eerlijk x general thinking of ads. Betwistbaar - Onbetwistbaar x general thinking of ads. Onbeslissend - Beslissend x general thinking of ads. Namaak - Authentiek
x general thinking of ads. Onwaarschijnlijk - Waarschijnlijk x general thinking of ads. Informatief - Niet informatief x general thinking of ads. Interessant - Oninteressant x general thinking of ads. Irritant - Niet irritant x general thinking of ads. Waardevol - Waardeloos x general thinking of ads. Zinvol - Zinloos x general thinking of ads. Belangrijk - Onbelangrijk
x general thinking of ads 2,911 ,4748 0,84
x missie merk.past bij fairtrade/commercieel bedrijf 2,93 1,230 x x x missie merk. te commercieel 2,93 1,158 x x x x missie merk. te fairtrade 2,49 1,047 x
x missie merk. hartelijk (warmth) x missie merk. vriendelijk (warmth) x missie merk. gul (warmth)
x Warmth missie van merk 2,860 ,9622 0,91 x x missie merk. bekwaam (competence)
x missie merk. efficiënt (competence) x missie merk. effectief (competence)
x Competence missie van merk 2,983 ,7256 0,75 x manier van adverteren. misleidend
x manier van adverteren. slecht x manier van adverteren. bedrieglijk
30
Scale Item M SD α OT MT OT*MT
x manier van adverteren. de waarheid vertelt x manier van adverteren. ongepast x manier van adverteren. onethisch x manier van adverteren. immoreel
x manier van adverteren. Ik ben eerlijk behandeld x manier van adverteren. gerechtvaardigd x manier van adverteren. acceptabel
x manier van adverteren. andere consumenten vinden dit een verkeerde manier van adverteren
3,96 ,855 x
x manier van adverteren. 3,707 ,5891 0,85 x Misleidende advertentie. Ongeloofwaardig - Geloofwaardig
x Misleidende advertentie. Onbetrouwbaar - Betrouwbaar x Misleidende advertentie. Typisch commercieel - Typisch
fairtrade
x Misleidende advertentie. Ongegrond - Gegrond x Misleidende advertentie. Oneerlijk - Eerlijk
x Misleidende advertentie. Betwistbaar - Onbetwistbaar 2,08 ,822 x x Misleidende advertentie. Misleidend - Niet misleidend
x Misleidende advertentie. Onwaarschijnlijk - Waarschijnlijk
x Misleidende advertentie 2,282 ,7397 0,89 x reden misleidende gedrag. bedrijf is gewoon zo 3,03 ,969 x x reden misleidende gedrag. per ongeluk 2,19 ,991 x x reden misleidende gedrag. vanwege slechte verkoopcijfers
x reden misleidende gedrag. vanwege de crisis
x reden misleidende gedrag. typerend voor type bedrijf 2,84 1,189 x x reden misleidende gedrag. vanwege externe factoren
x gevoel na misleiding. Teleurgesteld 4,06 ,735 x
x gevoel na misleiding. Boos 3,69 ,856 x x
x gevoel na misleiding. Misleid x gevoel na misleiding. Geïrriteerd
x gevoel na misleiding. Wantrouwend 3,92 ,822 x x gevoel na misleiding. 2,282 ,7397 0,83
x heraankoop. geen vertrouwen CFF 3,76 ,868 x x heraankoop. geen vertrouwen commerciele/fairtrade koffie 2,29 ,841 x x heraankoop. geen heraankoop CFF
x heraankoop. geen heraankoop commerciele/fairtrade koffie x Consequentie geld teruggeven. Volledig onrechtvaardig -
Volledig rechtvaardig
1,57 ,913 x
x Consequentie geld teruggeven. houd geld sowieso - houd geld sowieso niet
