Impact of type of product and past experience on a consumer’s perceived deceptiveness of advertisements

(1)

University of Groningen

Master Thesis

Impact of type of product and past

experience on a consumer’s perceived

deceptiveness of advertisements

17 januari 2014

Author:

Lieke de Ridder

Studentnumber:

1904760

University:

University of Groningen

Study:

Marketing

1

st

Supervisor:

Dr. M.C. Leliveld

(2)

Impact of type of product and past

experience on a consumer’s perceived

deceptiveness of advertisements

Abstract

This study investigated the influence of type of product on a consumer’s perceived deceptiveness of advertisements. For this study two types of products were used: hedonic and utilitarian. The

Elaboration Likelihood Model shows that consumers of both products track different routes of persuasion. Based on this model and other literature the deceptiveness of consumers of utilitarian products is expected to be higher than the deceptiveness of consumers of hedonic products. Besides, this study attempts to address the moderating role of past experience (positive vs. negative). The results show no direct significant effect of type of product on the perceived

deceptiveness of consumers. However, a moderating role of past experience exists. The results show strong evidence for the hypothesis that a negative past experience strengthen the relation between type of product and a consumer’s perceived deceptiveness. The moderating role of negative past experience is stronger for utilitarian products than for hedonic products. Moreover, an interaction effect between type of product and past experience on perceived deceptiveness of consumers exists. In the end, the influence of consumer’s perceived deceptiveness on a consumer’s attitude towards a brand. Results show a strong relation between a consumer’s perceived deceptiveness and a consumer’s attitude towards a brand, whereby the attitude towards a brand deteriorates if the perceived deceptiveness increases. Unexpectedly, this study also found results showing that

(3)

University of Groningen | Lieke de Ridder 3

Content

INTRODUCTION ...4 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...4 RESEARCH QUESTION ...6 THEORETICAL PART ...7 PERCEIVED DECEPTIVENESS...7

MODERATING ROLE OF PAST PURCHASE EXPERIENCE ...9

ATTITUDE TOWARDS A BRAND ... 10

METHOD ... 12

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS... 12

PROCEDURE ... 12

TYPE OF PRODUCT ... 12

PAST EXPERIENCE ... 13

PERCEIVED DECEPTIVENESS... 14

ATTITUDE TOWARDS BRAND ... 14

MANIPULATION CHECK ... 15 CONTROL VARIABLE ... 15 RESULTS ... 16 MANIPULATION CHECKS ... 16 CONTROL VARIABLE ... 16 PERCEIVED DECEPTIVENESS ... 17 ... 19

ATTITUDE TOWARDS A BRAND ... 20

DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS ... 21

CONCLUSION ... 24

REFERENCES ... 25

(4)

Introduction

Problem Statement

“Any seeming deception is costly. Not only in the expense of the advertising, but in the detrimental effect upon the customer who believes he/she has been misled”, John Wanamaker, quoted in Mayer (1991)

Today’s economy is more customer-oriented (Schwepker and Schultz, 2013). So, marketing plays a more and more important role for companies nowadays, as marketing is about building a

relationship with your customer (Kenton, 2009). One marketing tool is advertising, through which companies try to convince consumers about the good qualities of their product. To persuade consumers to buy their products, some firms provide information within these advertising which in essence is false. Indeed, Shimp (2003, p.605-606) summarizes some of the key criticisms levied against advertising as “untruthful and deceptive, manipulative, often offensive and in bad taste, which often creates and perpetuates stereotypes, causes people to buy things they do not really need”. Knauer (1988, p.8) stated that “consumers need to learn that too-good-to-be-true offers are just that - not true”. But when should an offer been seen as ‘too-good-to-be-true’? In other words, when will the consumers recognize the deception? And what will be the result for the effectiveness of advertisements if consumers recognize the deception?

This current research focuses on deception of advertisements. Past research defines deception in many different ways. Olson and Dover (1978, p. 30) define deception as follows: “deception is considered to occur when consumers acquire demonstrably false beliefs as a function of exposure to an advertisement”. According to the Federal Trade Commission three elements are necessary to show that an advertisement is unfair or false. Firstly, advertisements are defined as unfair or false if it offends the government policies. Secondly, if the advertisement is unethical, oppressive, or immoral than it is defined as unfair and false as well. In the end, unfair and false advertisements are those that significantly harm consumers. In the end, Gardner (1975, p. 41) defines deceptive

(5)

University of Groningen | Lieke de Ridder 5 Interestingly, Gardner (1975) mentions the term ‘reasonable knowledge’ in his definition for deception. Customers might differ in the extent to which they process information when forming their belief. An often applied model that clarifies the different ways of processing information by customer is the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). According to this model, one of the factors influencing processing information is the type of product (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). The ELM model clarifies that for some products consumers process information more carefully and attentively than for other products for which the information is less important and decision is based on some simple thoughts. For that reason the ELM shows two routes of persuasion.

The two routes of persuasion differ for the type of product. That is, in a study on hedonic versus utilitarian products are linked with the ELM model (Dhar et al. 2000). Dhar et al. (2000) tested different products and came up with a glue stick to be a typical utilitarian product and M&M’s to be a hedonic product. So, as the two routes of persuasion are different for utilitarian and hedonic products, the expectation is that customers who consider buying a glue stick will process

advertisement information different from customers who consider buying M&M’s. In favor of the study by Dhar et al. (2000), the study by Anderson (1973) argues that customer’s willingness to process information without boredom and misperception usually varies among different products. Based on this research showing differences in information processing for different product types, the current research will study the influence of product type on recognized deception in

advertisements.

(6)

Research Question

For this research I will study the influence of different product types on a consumer’s perceived deceptiveness of advertisements. Besides, I will try to explore the moderating role of a consumer’s past experience on the relation between a different type of product and a consumer’s perceived deceptiveness. In the end, this paper studies the relation between a consumer’s perceived deceptiveness and a consumer’s attitude towards the brand.

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

(7)

Theoretical Part

Perceived Deceptiveness

Dhar et al. (2000) argue that consumer choices are driven by hedonic and utilitarian considerations. Besides, Batra and Ahtola (1990, p.159) state, “consumers purchase goods and services and perform consumption behaviors for two basic reasons: (1) consummatory affective (hedonic) gratification (from sensory attributes), and (2) instrumental, utilitarian reasons.” So, Dhar et al. (2000) and Batra and Ahtola (1990) both made a distinction between the hedonic and utilitarian considerations of consumers. Therefore, for this study two types of products are used: hedonic and utilitarian

products. The study by Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) defines hedonic goods as goods of which the consumption is mainly based on an emotional and sensual experience, imagination and fun.

Contrary, utilitarian goods are defined as goods of which consumption is more helpful, goal oriented and based on cognitive reasons; it realizes a practical or useful task (Strahilcvitz and Myers, 1998). Based on these definitions I expect that consumers have different motivations for the consumption of either hedonic or utilitarian products. Consumption of hedonic products will be more incentive based, while the consumption of utilitarian products will be more based on reasons as the consumption is mostly goal-oriented. For this study, consumer’s choice between two goods are examined (Dhar et al. 2000), one is seen as high ranked on a hedonic dimension (M&M’s) and the other is high ranked on a utilitarian dimension (Pritt glue stick).

As a result of the differences in reasons for consumption, consumers will process advertisement information different for both types of products. For the distinction between the way of processing information of hedonic and utilitarian products the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) is used. The ELM suggests two different routes through which persuasion occurs; the central and peripheral route to persuasion (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). The model shows an explanation for the differences in the amount of consumer effort evaluating new information. Johar and Sirgy (1991) argue that the audience for a utilitarian product is persuaded through the central route, while audience of hedonic products follows the peripheral route of persuasion. The central route suggests that consumers are involved in the message of the advertisement and process the information complete and rational. This route is only tracked if consumers have both the ability and the motivation to process the information given. Numerous factors can be a stimulus for a consumer's ability to process a message, such as his or her level of actual or perceived knowledge (Wood et al. 1995).

(8)

University of Groningen | Lieke de Ridder 8 The peripheral route, on the other hand, suggests that consumers process the advertisement message on simple cues instead of focusing on the argumentation and idea of the message. This route occurs when consumers are incapable or unwilling to process the message. The above clarifications of the routes of persuasion of the ELM suggest that hedonic and utilitarian products both follow a different route of persuasion. Consumers for utilitarian goods advertisements follow the central route to persuasion, as this consumption of utilitarian goods is goal oriented and cognitively driven. On the other hand, advertisements for hedonic goods will lead consumers to track the peripheral route of persuasion.

As the persuasion routes of hedonic and utilitarian products clearly differ, I argue that this also influences how people perceive the advertisements in terms of deceptiveness. In this study,

deception is defined as “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 the impression(s) and/or belief(s) is factually untrue or potentially misleading, then deception is said to exist“ (Gardner, 1975, p. 41). As each consumer will process the information of advertisements differently, each consumer will differ in the perceived deceptiveness of advertisements. Consumers who are really involved in an advertising message will process advertisement information through the central route of the ELM, while other consumers might process advertising information on track of the peripheral route. In addition, Rucker and Petty (2006) argue that consumers following the central route to persuasion might be more convinced by an advertisement for a longer time. While, the consumers following the peripheral route will not think future wise, resulting in a convincement just for this specific moment. So, consumers following the central route of persuasion will probably more deceptive if an advertisement is misleading, while consumers tracking the peripheral route might be less deceptiveness as the consumption was for one-time only.

(9)

University of Groningen | Lieke de Ridder 9 Consumers who are less motivated to evaluate all the information, on the other hand, characterize the peripheral route. These consumers are not evaluating all the pros and cons of the issue; they link the information to positive or negative stimulus.

Based on the literature the expectation is that consumers consuming utilitarian products, therefore tracking the central route, are more conscious of deceptive advertising, as these consumers put lots of effort in processing new information in advertisements and are future minded. On the other hand, consumers of hedonic products, therefore tracking the peripheral route, are expected to be less conscious of the deceptive advertisements, as these consumers are less motivated to process the advertisement information and not future minded.

H1: Consumer’s perceived deceptiveness of advertisements will be lower for hedonic products than

for utilitarian products.

Moderating Role of Past Purchase Experience

Besides the main relation between type of product and a consumer’s perceived deceptiveness of advertisements this study assumes a consumer’s past experience to play a moderating role on the above relation. A customer experience is defined as “the customer’s cognitive and affective

assessment of all direct and indirect encounters with the firm relating to their purchasing behavior” (Klaus and Maklan 2012, p.10). Based on Klaus and Maklan’s definition for customer experience our study defines customer’s past experience as the customer’s cognitive and affective assessment of all direct and indirect encounters with the firm relating to a consumer’s experiences in the past. For our study a consumer’s past experience can be either positive or negative. A negative past experience will have a different moderating effect than a positive past experience.

(10)

University of Groningen | Lieke de Ridder 10 The fact that consumers seeing a risk of consuming a product again raises the expectation that consumers will be more skeptical to the advertisements of that product. For this reason a negative experience is expected to strengthen the relation between product type and a consumer’s perceived deceptiveness of advertisements.

Besides, Mangleburg et al. (1998), argue that both the experience of consuming a hedonic product and a utilitarian product influences the evaluation of a product. However, Mangleburg et al. (1998) mentioned in their study that the degree of influence of the past experience differs from consuming a utilitarian and hedonic product on the evaluation of a product. They argue that the experience from consuming a utilitarian product plays a greater role in the evaluation, as the consumers basing their experience on the consumption of a hedonic product may be more likely to evaluate a brand on the basis of simple decision cues (Mangleburg et al.1998). Based on this information I expect that past experience, both positive and negative, has a greater influence on the relation between a utilitarian product and a consumer’s perceived deceptiveness of advertisements, than on the relation with a hedonic product and consumer’s perceived deceptiveness of advertisements.

H2: A consumer’s perceived deceptiveness of advertisement will be lower for hedonic products than

for utilitarian products. This effect will be stronger for consumers with a negative past experience than for consumers with a positive past experience.

Attitude towards a Brand

(11)

University of Groningen | Lieke de Ridder 11 But, what makes a consumer’s attitude towards a brand interesting? Prior research has shown that brand attitude strength predicts behaviors of interest to firms, including brand consideration, intention to purchase, purchase behavior, and brand choice (Fazio and Petty 2007). So, advertisers are constantly searching for creative strategies to which consumers respond favorably and that will generate positive attitudes toward the advertised brand. The final hypothesis of our study will focus on the relation between a consumer’s perceived deceptiveness of advertisements and a consumer’s attitude towards a brand. Heath and Heath (2008) showed that, when marketing contained

deceptive activities, consumers would have a negative attitude toward it. Also, Darke and Ritchie (2007) argue that deceptive advertising will result in a negative attitude toward the advertisement. In the end, consumers who are showed a deceptive advertisement will mostly negatively evaluate a brand. This ultimately results in a negative attitude towards the brand. Based on the above

information, this study hypothesizes that a high perceived deceptiveness of advertisements results in a negative attitude towards a brand.

H3: Consumer’s perceived deceptiveness has a negative influence on the consumer’s attitude towards

(12)

Method

Design and participants

A 2 (product type: utilitarian vs. hedonic) x 2 (past purchase experience: positive vs. negative) between subjects factorial design was used to test the hypotheses. The sample consisted of 20 (22%) men and 71 (78%) women, with a mean age of 25 years (M=25,83, SD=8,63).

Procedure

The participants were asked to complete a survey. The 91 participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. After the advertisement and scenario, the questions on perceived deceptiveness, attitude towards the brand, were asked. The study ends with some questions to check the manipulations used in the survey.

Type of product

This study made a distinction between two types of products; hedonic and utilitarian. However, important is that some products might be seen as hedonic products for some respondents, while other respondents might consume that product as a utilitarian product. Therefore, the survey used two products that are tested to be either hedonic or utilitarian. The study of Dhar et al. (2000) showed that M&M’s chocolate candies can be seen as a hedonic product. Besides, a glue stick is shown to be a utilitarian product. Dhar et al. (2000) used a 2x2 between-subjects full factorial design. The first aspect manipulated the forfeiture or acquisition condition for which the respondents had to make a decision. The acquisition condition, showed the respondents two products. The respondents were asked to choose one of the products as a reward at the end of the study. Respondents in the forfeiture condition, however, were given both items at the begin of the study and were told that the products were their reward. For the second factor, respondents were asked reasons why they would like to own the products. The results show that the majority of respondents perceived M&M’s as primarily hedonic and the Glue stick as primarily utilitarian products. So, based on the results of this study, M&M’s chocolate candies and a Glue stick are used for the current study. Figure 2, on the next page, shows the advertisement for M&M’s chocolate candies which is used in the survey. The advertisement shows statements as ‘Fun you can’t resist’ and ‘Melts in your mouth, not in your hand’. Both statements are misleading. For example, the statement that these chocolates ‘do not melt in your hand’ might convince consumers through an

(13)

University of Groningen | Lieke de Ridder 13 This advertisement has statements as ‘Pritt.. makes pasting pleasant’ and ‘ Pritt..sticks once rock solid’. Also these statements are misleading. However, the statements might convince consumers to buy the Pritt Glue Stick.

Past Experience

The past experience (positive/negative) is expected to have a moderating role on the relation between the type of product and the perceived deceptiveness of consumers for advertisements. Instead of asking the participants their past experience, the past experience is manipulated by providing participants a past experience. With the use of scenarios, respondents are told a story about the goodness/badness of the brand. The respondents are told that a consumer described his/her experience about the product online. Two scenarios are made for both the Pritt and the M&M’s advertisement; one scenario with a positive past experience and the other scenario with a negative past experience. Half of the respondents who are shown the Pritt advertisement will get the scenario with a positive past experience, while the other half of the respondents will get the scenario with a negative past experience. The respondents will be divided randomly, by the use of question randomization. Two scenarios are given on the next page; these scenarios are translated from Dutch to English. The appendix shows all four scenarios in Dutch.

(14)

University of Groningen | Lieke de Ridder 14 M&M’s Chocolate Candies

• Positive Past Experience

‘M&M’s are delicious. I enjoy each single M&M. Just like I enjoy the new M&M’s Intense taste. M&M’s achieves it every single time to produce something delicious; producing something of which I relax and fully enjoy. Even though many chocolate brands exist, there is only one real chocolate brand: M&M’s.’

Pritt Glue Stick

• Negative Past Experience

‘Why does Pritt dare to claim that the glue stick sticks rock solid? I have never used such a bad glue stick, it sticks at most 2 seconds and then it stops sticking. Moreover, the glue tumbles down after the first use. Pritt should be ashamed for the quality of this glue stick.‘

Perceived deceptiveness

After showing the advertisement and scenario for past experience to the respondents, they are asked to answer questions about the perceived deceptiveness of the advertisements. Two types of questions are used to measure the perceived deceptiveness of the respondents. The first set of questions consisted of eight statements about the deceptiveness of the advertisement, for example ‘the advertisement gives unrealistic information about the product’. The respondents are asked to what extent they agreed on the statements on a five-point scale (1. totally disagree – 5. totally agree). The second set of questions were based on the study of Maddox (1982), and administered to measure deceptiveness in a second way. The questions are on a five-item, seven-point, bi-polar adjective scale. The items are honest/misleading, factual/distorted, factual/distorted, above-board/deceptive, honest/dishonest, and confidential/delusive. Higher scores indicate greater levels of perceived deceptiveness in advertisements. A 2x2 ANOVA is performed to check whether there are main effects and an interaction effect on the perceived deceptiveness of consumers.

Attitude towards brand

In the end of this study the relation between a consumer’s perceived deceptiveness and a

consumer’s attitude towards a brand is studied. Attitude towards a brand is measured with different questions where respondents are asked to answers seven-point, bi-polar adjective scale with 15 items in total (Spears and Singh, 2004). Examples of items are unattractive/attractive,

ineffective/effective, value for money/value for money. A 2x2 ANOVA is performed to check

(15)

University of Groningen | Lieke de Ridder 15 Manipulation Check

The survey ended with three questions to check the manipulations. The first question reverted to the scenario about the past experience of an unknown consumer. The question checked whether the respondents remembered if the scenario about the past experience was positive or negative. The second questions was asked to check the degree to which the respondents saw the products as either utilitarian or hedonic. Therefore, a seven-point, bi-polar scale with 1 item is used; the

respondents were asked to rate the product to be either ‘useful’ or ‘fun’. Control variable

In this research different scenarios are given to respondents with different past experiences

(16)

Results

Manipulation Checks

The manipulation of the past experience was successful. The participants were asked whether the scenario in the survey showed a positive or negative past experience. The results of the chi-square test showed a significant relation between the scenario in survey and the answer of the question, X2(1, N=90) = 48.33, p < 0.001. The question was answered correctly by 86.7% of the participants. Moreover, our manipulation of the type of product was also successful. The manipulation check showed a significant difference between the answers on the question ‘to what degree do you think the two words fit the type of product’ with ‘useful’ on the left and ‘fun’ on the right side of the 1 to 7 scale. A two-way ANOVA was conducted with product type and past experience as independent variables and manipulation question as dependent variable. The results showed a significant relation between the product type and the manipulation question F(1,86)=71.78, p<0.001. The participants who were shown the advertisement of the utilitarian product (Glue stick) rated the product to be more useful than fun (M=3.15, SD=1.54). On the other hand the participants who were shown the advertisement of hedonic product (M&M’s) rated the product to be more fun than useful (M=5.50, SD=1.11). As expected, both the main effect of past experience (F(1,86)=0.548, p=0.461) and the interaction effect of type of product and past experience (F(1,86)=0.770, p=0.383) were not significant.

Control variable

For a check-up of the influence of the own experiences of respondents another question is added. The graph on the right shows the results. The graph shows that 55 respondents have a positive own past experience. The graph clarifies that 25 of these respondents are given a negative past

experience scenario in the survey, while their own past experience was positive. Only 4 respondents, have a negative own past experience with the products shown in the advertisements. The other 31 participants had either no experience or neutral experience with the product in the past. So,

participants’ own past experience might definitely play a role in this research. Especially for those 25 respondents who are given a negative past experience scenario, while their own past experience was positive. 25 3 30 1 0 20 40 60 Positive Negative Own Experience Positive past experience scenario Negative past experience scenario

(17)

Perceived deceptiveness

To measure the perceived deceptiveness of the participants, two sets of questions with two different scales are used. A reliability test for the items of each question is performed. The first set question, consisting of 8 statements about the advertisement, showed to have a good internal consistency, α=0.807. The second question with two contrary words on each side of a 1 to 7 scale consisted of 5 items. The internal consistency of these items was good as well, α=0.928. As both questions are related to the perceived deceptiveness of the participants, the questions are

combined. But as the scales for the questions are different, the items should be standardized. After the standardization another reliability test is performed to check the internal consistency if all items are combined. The reliability shows a good internal consistency if all items are combined, α=0.916. So, the items are combined and one new variable is computed: ‘deceptiveness’ with higher absolute numbers indicating a higher deviation from the mean.

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the effect of type of product and past experience on the perceived deceptiveness of consumers. The results showed no significant effect of product type on the perceived deceptiveness (p=0.372). However, the results showed a statistically significantly interaction between the effects of type of product and past experience on the perceived

deceptiveness of consumers, F(1,87)=7.169, p=0.009. Simple main effect showed that for utilitarian products a negative past experience results in higher perceived deceptiveness (M=0.41, SD=0.70) than the perceived deceptiveness for consumers with a positive past experience (M= -0.33, SD=0.64). The difference in the deception is less for hedonic product. The perceived deceptiveness for consumers with a negative past experience is slightly higher (M= -0.05, SD=0.59) than the perceived deceptiveness for consumers with a positive past experience (M= -0.08, SD=0.68). So, contrary to the expectations, this ANOVA did not show that the perceived deceptiveness will be lower for hedonic products than for utilitarian products. However, the results showed that a positive past experience results in lower perceived deceptiveness than a negative past experience, which will be stronger for utilitarian products than for hedonic products. Figure 5 shows the graph which illustrates the results.

(18)

University of Groningen | Lieke de Ridder 18 The first two-way ANOVA for the question with the 8 statements (‘deceptiveness-scale1’) showed comparable results with the two-way ANOVA showed above. The only advantage is the

interpretability as the items are not standardized. There was a statistically significantly interaction between the effects of type of product and past experience on ‘deceptiveness-scale1’,

F(1,87)=9.353, p=0.003. Simple main effect showed that for utilitarian products a negative past experience results in higher perceived deceptiveness (M=3.35, SD=0.61) than the perceived deceptiveness for consumers with a positive past experience (M= 2.64, SD=0.51). The difference in the deception is less for hedonic product. The perceived deceptiveness for consumers with a negative past experience is slightly higher (M= 2.82, SD=0.59) than the perceived deceptiveness for consumers with a positive past experience (M= 2.84, SD=0.56). Figure 6, shown below, clarifies the results.

(19)

Figure 5: Consumer’s perceived deceptiveness as a function of product type and past experience (deceptiveness with both scales)

Figure 6: Consumer’s perceived deceptiveness as a function of product type and past experience (deceptiveness scale 1) -0,4 -0,2 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 C o n su m e r' s P e rc e iv e d D e ce p ti v e n e ss Positive Past Experience Negative Past Experience 0 1 2 3 4 Pritt M&M's C o n su m e r' s P e rc e iv e d D e ce p ti v e n e ss S ca le 1 Positive Past Experience Negative Past Experience 0 1 2 3 4 5 Pritt M&M's C o n su m e r' s P e rc e iv e d D e ce p ti v e n e ss S ca le 2 Positive Past Experience Negative Past Experience

(20)

Attitude towards a brand

The attitude towards a brand is measured by one set of 15 questions. A reliability test is performed to check the internal consistency of the items in the question. The results show a good internal consistency of the items, α=0.883. So, the items are combined and a new variable is computed: attitude towards a brand.

First, a two-way ANOVA is conducted that examined the effect of type of product and past experience on the attitude towards a brand of consumers. This two-way ANOVA showed that the relation between past experience and a consumer’s attitude toward a brand is significant (p=0.005). The results of the tests showed that a positive past experience leads to better attitude toward a brand (M=4.81, SD=0.71), than a negative past experience (M=4.37, SD=0.74). The other results of the two-way are not significant; relation of type of product on attitude toward brand (p=0.368) and interaction between type of product and past experience on the attitude toward a brand (p=0.515). Secondly, to investigate whether deception mediated the effect of type of product or past

experience on the attitude toward a brand, we conducted mediation moderation analyses with a dummy-coded independent variable, i.e. type of product and moderation, i.e. past experience. An interaction term of type of product and past experience is computed; ‘InterXMod’. Besides, the mediation variable, deception, is centralized for these analyses. An interaction term of deception and the moderation is computed; ‘InterMedMod’. The effect of type of product, past experience (the moderator) and their interaction on the attitude toward a brand was analyzed first. This analysis showed a significant main effect of past experience on the attitude towards a brand (β=0.22,

p=0.005). This effect was also shown by the two-way ANOVA that examined the effect of type of product and past experience on a consumer’s attitude towards a brand (see analysis above). Second we analyzed the effect of type of product, past experience and their interaction on the deception (mediator), which yielded a significant main effect of past experience (β= -0.20, p=0.004) and a significant interaction effect (β= -0.18, p=0.009. Third a regression with type of product, past

(21)

Discussion and limitations

This study investigated the influence of utilitarian products and hedonic products on the perceived deceptiveness of consumers and thereby the influence on the attitude towards the brand of the consumers. Besides, a moderating role of a consumer’s past experience is studied. The first regression showed no significant effect for the type of product on the perceived deceptiveness of consumers. The second test showed the significant interaction effect of type of product and past experience on the perceived deceptiveness of consumers. The interaction effect showed that consumers with a negative past experience have a higher degree of perceived deceptiveness than consumers with a positive past experience. This effect is shown to be stronger for utilitarian

products than for hedonic products. The third test showed a significant relation between consumers’ perceived deceptiveness and the attitude towards a brand, whereby high perceived deceptiveness worsens the attitude towards a brand.

Remarkable, comparing test 1 and 2, is that there is no significant relation between type of product and perceived deceptiveness (test 1), but there is a significant interaction effect between type of product and past experience on the perceived deceptiveness (test 2). However, the significant interaction effect in test 2 showed the expected effect for the type of product, whereby with a negative past experience the deceptiveness is higher for utilitarian products than for hedonic products. So, evidence is found for the theoretical reasoning that consumer’s perceived

deceptiveness of advertisements will be lower for hedonic products than for utilitarian products (hypothesis 1). But in the end, no direct effect of type of product on a consumer’s perceived deceptiveness is found.

There might be different reasons for the fact that no direct effect of type of product on a consumer’s perceived deceptiveness exists. First, an influence of the advertisements might exist, as the

(22)

University of Groningen | Lieke de Ridder 22 Another limitation of this study is the age of the respondents. The results showed a mean age of 25 years old. But, as the minimum age was set at 18, the mean of age of 25 years old is low. This number might have serious influence on our study. The number indicates that a major part of the respondents will probably be student. The look at advertising of students differs from the way older adults look at advertising. Isaacowitz et al. 2000 state that younger adults have a tendency to be involved in a more objective and factual processing for advertisements, while older adults tend to have a more subjective and evaluative (i.e., emotional) way of processing advertisement

information. The advertisements used in our study tried to convince the consumers mostly by emotional slogans, as ‘You can’t resist it’ and ‘Pritt… makes pasting pleasant’.

Another issue to consider for this study will be the types of products used. The choice for types of utilitarian products and hedonic products is based on the study of Dhar et al. (2000). This study defined a glue stick as a utilitarian product and chocolate bar as a hedonic product. Using these products for our study seemed to be perfect, but the results showed some issues. For example, our results show that almost every respondent had a positive own experience with M&M’s. However, half of the respondents were shown a negative experience scenario. The own positive experiences are less for the Pritt Glue Stick. Further research could use two types of product in the same branch, as this will lead to even better results. Besides, other researchers could base their study on

consumers’ own experiences. The accuracy of our study rises without the use of scenarios for past experience. Interestingly, however, is the fact that even though some respondents had their own experience with the product they were asked questions about, there was still a significant interaction effect of type of product and past experience on the perceived deceptiveness. So, the scenarios which were given to the respondents were probably read attentively, as more than half of the respondents who were given a negative experience scenario actually had a positive experience themselves. But in the end, the scenarios given to the respondents are expected to have a negative influence on the accuracy of our study.

(23)

University of Groningen | Lieke de Ridder 23 Moreover, the attitude of consumers with a positive past experience will be hurt more by deceptive advertising than the attitude of consumers with a negative past experience.

Besides, a direct influence of past experience on the attitude towards a brand is found. So, deceptive advertising might work to convince consumers for the first purchases, however if the purchase results in a negative experience it influences a consumer’s attitude towards a brand. So, it is important for producers and advertisers to think about future instead of just first consumption. Or they should have solution to erase the negative experience of consumers after their first purchase.

(24)

Conclusion

(25)

References

Aaker, D.A. (1974), ‘Deceptive Advertising’, Consumerism: Search for the Consumer Interest, 2nd ed., David A. Aaker and George S. Day, New York: The Free Press, pg. 137-156.

Anderson (1973), ‘Consumer Dissatisfaction: The Effect of Disconfirmed Expectancy on Perceived Product Performance’, Journal of Marketing Research 10(1), pg. 38-44

Batra, Rajeev and Olli T. Ahtola (1990), "Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes," Marketing Letters, 2 (2), 159-70.

Cacioppo, J.T. and Petty, R.E. (1979), "The Effects of Message Repetition and Position on Cognitive Responses, Recall, and Persuasion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (January), 97-109

Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Feinstein, J. and W. Blair G. Jarvis (1996), "Dispositional Differences in Cognitive Motivation: The Life and Times of Individuals Varying in Need for Cognition," Psychological Bulletin, 119 (March), 197-253.

Darke, P.R., and Ritchie, R.J.B. (2007), ‘The defensive consumer: Advertising deception, defensive processing, and distrust, Journal of Marketing Research 44(1), pg. 114-127

Decrop, A. (2007), ‘The influence of message format on the effectiveness of print advertisements for tourism destinations’, International Journal of Advertising 26(4), p.505-525.

Dhar, R. and Wertenbroch, K. (2000), ‘Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods’, Journal of Marketing Research 37(1), pg.60-71

Fazio, R.H. and Petty, R.E. (2007). Attitudes: Their Structure, Function, and Consequences. New York: Psychology Press. Ganesan, S. (1994), ‘Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer- seller relationships’, Journal of Marketing 58(1), pg.

1-19.

Gardner, D.M. (1975), ‘Deception in advertising: A conceptual approach’, Journal of Marketing 39(1), p. 40-46

Giner-Sorolla, R. (1999), ‘Affect in Attitude: Immediate and Deliberative Perspectives,’ Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, Shelley Chaiken and Yaacov Trope, eds, pp. 441-461.

Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A.L. and Tsiros, M. (2008), ‘The effect of compensation on repurchase intentions in service recovery’, Journal of Retailing 84, p.424-434.

Heath, M.T.P., and Heath, M. (2008), ‘(Mis)trust in marketing: a reflection on consumers' attitudes and perceptions’, Journal of Marketing Management 24(9-10), pg. 1025-1039.

Hetts, J.J., Boninger, D.S., Armor, D.A., Gleicher. F., Nathanson, A. (2000), ‘The Influence of Anticipated Counterfactual regret on behavior’, Psychol Mark 17(4):345 – 68

Holbrook, M. and Hirschman, E. (1982), ‘The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Customers Fantasies, Feelings and Fun’, Journal of Consumer Research 9.

Isaacowitz, D.M, Turk-Charles, S. and Carstensen, L.L. (2000), ‘Emotion and Cognition’, Handbook of Aging and Cognition, 2nd ed., ed. Fergus Craik and Timothy Salthouse, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, p. 593-631.

Johar, J.S. and Sirgy M.J. (1991), ‘Value-Expressive Versus Utilitarian Advertising Appeals: When And Why To Use Which Appeal’, Journal of Advertising 20(3), p.23.33

John Wanamaker, from an internet collection of quotations by the Department of Advertising, the University of Texas at Austin.

Kenton, C. (2009), ‘The Ultimate Purpose of Marketing. Executive Decision Magazine’, Retrieved March 2 from

http://www.chriskenton.com/marketonomy/articles/ed06April_PurposeOfMarketing.html

Klaus, P. and Maklan, S. (2012), ‘Towards a Better Measure of Customer Experience’, International Journal of Marketing Research 55(2).

(26)

University of Groningen | Lieke de Ridder 26 Mangleburg, T., Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D., Axsom, D., Hatzios, M. Claiborne, C.B., and Bogle, T. (1998), ‘The moderating effect

of prior experience in consumers' use of user-image based versus utilitarian cues in brand attitude’ , Journal Business and Psychology 13(1), pg. 101–13.

Mitchell, A.A. and Olson, J.C. (1981), ‘Are Product Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effect on Brand Attitude?’, Journal of Marketing Research 18, pg. 318-332

Olson, J.C., and Dover, P.A. (1978), ‘Cognitive effects of deceptive advertising’, Journal of Marketing Research 15(1), pg. 29-38.

Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., Rodriguez, R., Keo, C.F. (1986), ‘Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: An Individual Difference Perspective’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (5), pg. 1032-1043

Pollay, R.W. (1986), ‘The distorted mirror: Reflections on the unintended consequences of advertising’, Journal of Marketing 50(April).

Rucker, D.D. and Petty, R.E. (2006), ‘Increasing the Effectiveness of Communications to Consumers: Recommendations Based on Elaboration Likelihood and Attitude Certainty Perspectives’, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 25 (1), p. 39-52.

Schwepker, C.H. and Schultz, R.J. (2013), ‘The impact of trust in manager on unethical intention and customer-oriented selling’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 28 (4), pg. 347-356.

Shimp, Terence A. (2003), ‘Advertising, Promotion, and Supplemental Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications’, 6th ed., Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western

Spears, N., Singh, S.N. (2004), ‘Measuring Attitude Towards the Brand and Purchase Intentions’, Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 26 (2), pg. 53-66.

Strahilcvitz, M.A. and Myers, J.G. (1998), ‘Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You Are Trying to Sell’, Journal of Consumer Research 24, pg. 434-446

Wood, W., Rhodes, N. and Biek, M. (1995), "Working Knowledge and Attitude Strength: An Information-Processing Analysis," in Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, Richard E. Petty and John K. Krosnick, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 283-314.

(27)

Appendix

M&M’s Chocolate Candies • Negative Past Experience

Slogans als ‘You can’t resist ’ en ‘Smelt in je mond, niet in je hand’, M&M verzint maar wat, mijn ervaring is heel anders. Je zou tot rust moeten komen en genieten, maar geef mij maar een chocoladereep, veel lekkerder! Daarnaast betaal je de hoofdprijs voor een zak M&M’s, terwijl de verpakking maar voor de helft gevuld is. Het is een schande!’

‘M&M’s zijn heerlijk. Van elke M&M geniet ik. Net zoals van de nieuwe M&M’s Intense. M&M’s krijgt het elke keer weer voor elkaar om iets lekkers te maken; iets waar je intens van geniet en van

ontspant. Er zijn veel merken chocolade, maar voor mij is er maar één echt chocolademerk: M&M’s.’

Pritt Glue Stick

• Negative Past Experience

‘Hoe durft Pritt te beweren dat de lijmstick alles muurvast lijmt. Ik heb nog nooit zo’n slechte lijmstick gebruikt, het plakt voor maximaal 2 seconden en laat gelijk weer los. Bovendien brokkelt de lijm in stukken na eerste keer gebruik. Pritt moet zich schamen voor de kwaliteit van de lijmstick.’

‘Eindelijk een perfecte lijm: Pritt werkt en houdt bovendien alles schoon. Na de zoveelste keer dat de tafel helemaal onder de lijm zat, besloot ik over te gaan op een lijmstick. Echter, veel merken