Deceptive claims masked by humor
A study on the effect of deceptive claims masked by humor on ad attitude mediated byattitude towards deception
Sophie Simone Elizabeth Reitsma UvA net-ID: 6048528
Master's Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master's program Communication Science
Supervisor: Dr. A. Velthuijsen Date of completion: 27-06-2014 Word count: 5297
2
Abstract
This study investigates whether the presence of deceptive claims and humor in an advertisement affects the consumers’ attitude towards the advertisement. Subsequently, the mediating role of the attitude towards the deception was analyzed. We tested our expectations by conducting a two (non-deceptive vs deceptive claim) x two (non-humor vs humor) in between subjects factorial design. The data was gathered through an offline survey which was conducted amongst 140 high school pupils in The Hague, The Netherlands. There were four conditions to which the students were randomly assigned (non-humor deceptive, humor-deceptive, non-humor-non-deceptive and humor-non-deceptive).
The results show that there are no significant main effects found on the attitude towards the advertisement. Against expectations, it showed that ads with non-deceptive claims showed a more negative attitude towards the advertisement. In contrast, the advertisements with deceptive claims showed a more positive attitude towards the advertisement. Subsequently, the direction in which the presence of humor affects the attitude towards the advertisement was also different than expected. Furthermore, no interaction effects of deceptive claims and humor were found. Moreover, the mediating role of the attitude towards the deception was not supported by the proposed model. The
consequences of these findings will be discussed in the conclusion and discussion. Since no experimental research about this subject was ever done before, this study functions as a small first step within the research field of advertising and deceptive claims.
3
Introduction
“Use this shampoo and you will be the center of attention wherever you go!”. “This body crème will help you lose weight while you are a sleep!”, “Sophie, sign up! Old
classmates are waiting for you online!”.
Advertisements that promise you the world, but in the end, nothing could be further from the truth. Nowadays, advertisers seem to overpower themselves and their products to make sure that they grab consumers' attention over other competitors. These so-called deceptive claims seem to be an effective advertising strategy to attract consumers' attention (Gardner, 1975).
Nevertheless, advertisers try their best to hide these false statements by masking it with humor. Recent research showed that 73,5 percent of the humorous advertisements contain deceptive claims and 74,5 percent of these were so called "masked" by humor, meaning that the processing of the deceptive claims was interrupted by the subsequent immediate presentation of a joke. According to previous studies and existing knowledge on these deceptive claims, the use of humor in advertisements with deceptive claims would interrupt viewers' processing of information, and therefore distract people to look critically at the false given statements (Shabbir & Thwaites, 2007). This would lead to a more positive evaluation of the ad.
Besides the distraction that humor causes, the framing of deceptive claims by humor can also be seen as a mechanism that causes an association between the appeal form, humor, and the message, the deceptive claim (Tanaka, 1994; Philips, 1997). Humor, that mostly causes well-being feelings could transfer this to the deceptive claim. Even if consumers acknowledge the deceptiveness in an advertisement, it is expected that he or she would be
4
less critical, given the ''feeling of well-being'' generated by the humor.
Nevertheless, there is little to no research done on the exact effect of the use of deceptive claims and humor on the consumers' response, specifically when it comes to the attitude towards the advertisement. The same could be said about the possible mediating effect of the attitude towards the deception. The fact that consumers perceive the deception, does not necessarily indicate that they all react the same towards it (Chaouchi, Rached & Said, 2012). One might find the deception completely unacceptable, while another person could not care less. Therefore, it is important to take the mediating role of the attitude towards the perception into account in this research.
This study will try to provide an answer to the question to what extent the masking of deceptive claims by humor affects the attitude towards the advertisement and what the mediating effect of the attitude towards deception is in this relationship (see figure 1). The following research question will be investigated:
RQ: To what extent does the masking of deceptive claims by humor affects consumers' attitude towards the advertisement? And what is the mediated effect of the attitude towards deception?
Figure.1 Conceptual model
Main effects of deceptive claims and humor on the attitude towards the advertisement, and mediating effect of the attitude towards the deception
5
Theoretical framework Deceptive claims
In order to execute a study about deceptive claims in advertising, it is important to know how to identify deception. Prior studies show multiple perspectives to define the concept. One of these perspectives is that of marketing research in which the focus lies in providing consumers with incomplete or incorrect information about the product (Xie & Bousch, 2011). Other researchers like Gardner (1975) focus more on a societal marketing oriented definition. According to Gardner (1975), deception occurs when an advertisement leaves the consumers with a belief or impression that is factually untrue or potentially misleading. Aditya (2000) adds to this definition that deception is mainly a message that (a) causes at least some consumers reasonably to make decisions which they would otherwise not make; (b) leads to that consumers will actually start to believe something about the product, brand or manufacturer that is not factually true; or (c) has the potential to foster distrust of any kind, general or specific, or in other ways cause an erosion of ethical values deemed desirable in society. It also can be defined as “message distortion resulting from deliberate falsification or omission of information by a communicator with the intent of stimulating in another, or others, a belief that the communicator himself or herself does not believe” (Miller & Stiff, 1993).
Persuasion knowledge model and deceptive claims
This study will mainly focus on the effect that has been caused when consumers are exposed to deceptive claims in advertising and how this affects their attitude towards the advertisement. Therefore, it is important to know how consumers react towards persuasion attempts and how they cope with it. To understand this process, we use the persuasion
6
knowledge model by Friestad and Wright (1994). In line with the model, we believe that when people are exposed to persuasion attempts, such as deceptive claims, a change of meaning occurs. When consumers begin to conceive an agent's action as a persuasion tactic, the meaning of the message will be changed. This fundamentally can alter the way in which a consumer responds towards a persuasion attempt. Since deceptive claims try to influence consumers with false information, it is expected that when people acknowledge the deception in an advertisement they will become more resistant towards the message given in the
advertisement.
Therefore, in this study we assume that the exposure to deceptive claims will activate persuasion knowledge when people perceive the deception. Since they might feel fooled or consciously persuaded by the sender, this will negatively influence the attitude towards the advertisement. The following hypothesis will be investigated:
H1: An advertisement with a non-deceptive claim will lead to a more positive attitude towards the advertisement, compared to an advertisement with a deceptive claim.
Humor in advertising
Before focusing on the masking tactic of deception by humor, it is important to get a good view of how humor in advertising affects the consumer in general.
Hardly any word in the English language would be harder to define with scientific precision than “humor”. The presence of humor in an advertising appeal might be determined on the basis whether puns, jokes, satire and irony were used. Yet it has been impossible to specify the properties that make each category humorous (Sternthal & Craig, 2002). Maybe this is one of the main reasons why humor, one of the most prevalent and studied
7
communication strategies, still remains one of the most poorly understood (Alden, Mukherjee & Holden). Nevertheless, its’ effectiveness in advertising has been proved many times. Not only did studies show that 94 percent of advertising practitioners see humor as an effective way to gain attention, humorous ads have found to outperform non-humorous ads on many attention measures (Weinberg & Gulas, 1992; Speck, 1987).
Taking the existing knowledge in to account, this study expects that the presence of humor in advertisements will positively affect the attitude towards the advertisement. Therefore, the following hypothesis has been formed:
H2: An advertisement containing humor will lead to a higher attitude towards the advertisement, compared to an advertisement without humor.
Deceptive claims masked by humor
From a theoretical point of view, it may be argued that humor could distract an audience during the presentation of a persuasive message. Distraction, in turn, inhibits those viewers who initially oppose the arguments advanced in the persuasive message from generating and rehearsing counterarguments. Minimization of counter-argumentation yields to greater message acceptance and persuasion Sternthal & Craig, 2002). Hence, people are more likely to be persuaded by a message when distraction is present that when it is absent. In terms of deceptive claims, advertisers could benefit from the distraction caused by the humor to mask the false claims.
Like Tanaka (1994) and Phillips (1997) studied previously, this study will look at the masking of deceptive claims by humor as a persuasion element that advertisers use in their advertisements. This tactic is used to conceal and operate through a process of complex
8
subliminal persuasion. Therefore, we will present the masking of the deceptiveness by humor as a possible mechanism through which an association between an appeal (humor) and the message (deceptive claim). Since previous research pointed out that humor is known to generate well-being feelings (Szabo, 2003), this association should be able to prime the subject towards desired behavioral consequences (Mathur & Chattopadhyay, 1991). The framing of humor with deceptive claims allows an association between the two such that if consumers do consciously process the deceptive claim they are more likely to prime this potential deceptiveness with the humor. This would mean that he or she is less critical, given the feeling of well-being generated by the humorous content of the ad.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is formed:
H3: Ads with deceptive claims that are masked by humorous content lead to a more favorable evaluation of the ad, compared to ads with deceptive claims without humorous content.
Mediating effect of the attitude towards the deception
Although many studies maintain different definitions of deception, there is one problem they all have in common: how does a consumer identify whether a certain belief is incorrect or false? Somebody could perceive a certain message as deceptive, while someone as the same time does not perceive the deception at all.
Therefore, one of the most important things that we will investigate in this study is the mediating role of the attitude towards the deception. We assume that having the knowledge that consumers perceive the deception in an advertisement is not enough to predict the attitude towards the advertisement. It might be that multiple people all perceive deception after seeing the same advertisement, but this does not have to mean that they all respond the
9
same to it. Prior studies about deceptive communication already showed that consumers differ in to what extent deception is an unethical act that might harm their interests and those of competitors (Chaouchi, Rached & Said, 2012). Also Scholl and O’Hair (2005) stated that the attitude towards deception represent the extent to which one believes deception in unacceptable and unethical communicative behavior.
This said, we assume that the attitude towards the deception mediates the relationship between deceptive claims masked by humor and the attitude towards the advertisement. If a consumer finds the deception in the advertisement completely unacceptable and misleading, this could possibly harm the attitude towards the advertisement. In contrast, when a consumer could not care less about the deception, it would not harm the attitude towards the
advertisement at all.
Therefore, we formed the following hypothesis:
H4: The attitude towards the deception mediates in the relationship of exposure to ads containing deceptive claims masked by humor and the attitude towards the advertisement.
Method
Design and participants
A two (deceptive claim, no deceptive claim) x two (humor, no humor) between-subjects factorial design was used to investigate the effect of humor on the perception and impact of deceptive claim compared to no deceptive claim in an experiment. All participants (N=140) were recruited at the Vrijzinnig Christelijk Lyceum, a HAVO/VWO high school in The Hague. In total, seven classes on three different levels participated within the experiment (N4havo=13, N4vwo=39, N5vwo=88). The main reason for this decision was based on the
10
achievement to construct an as homogenous group as possible. All pupils were approached with the request to voluntarily participate in an in class-experiment on advertising. Because all participant were minors, they had to sign an informed consent before filling out the questionnaire. After they finished the questionnaire, the pupils received a passive informed consent to bring home to their parents or care takers (see appendices). The mean age of the participants was 16,5 (SD=.501) and 47,5 percent of the participants were female.
Stimulus Development
The aim was to select a neutral low-involvement product that could be advertised in all conditions. Toothpaste was selected as product for this study since its fits all criteria. It is assumed that everyone uses toothpaste on daily basis and no difference in gender is present.
To ensure the effectiveness of the humor manipulation, the ads were pre-tested. Three different storyboards were provided to ten participants, followed by a questionnaire to
measure the perceived humor. These respondents did not participate in the final experiment. The perceived humor was measured by three 7-point bipolar scales consisting of funny/not funny, humorous/not humorous, and amusing/not amusing (Cho, 1995). After the pre-test, we decided that new stimuli had to be created, since the presence of the researcher in the
advertisements could influence the outcomes. New stimuli with the same elements but with another model were designed (see appendices). Due time limitations, there was no possibility to pre-test these advertisements.
To ensure that the extent of brand familiarity would not influence the results, the same fictitious brand Fluoridor was chosen in all four conditions. It is assumed that when people already know the brand of the product that is advertised, attitudes are already formed and would therefore influence the outcomes.
11
Procedure
Before the in class-experiment took place, the participants received a brief introduction about the master track Persuasive Communication at the University of
Amsterdam and were allowed to ask questions related to this study. After this, the students were asked to participate in the study. Purposely, only brief information was given to ensure no attitudes were already formed before exposure to the advertisements. Each participant was asked to pay close attention to one of the four advertisements (see figure 2). Secondly,
participants were asked to fill out a small questionnaire consisting of statements related to the advertisement. During the experiment the participants were not allowed to share any thoughts with their surrounding classmates. At the end of the experiment, the students were thanked for their participation and if they would like to stay informed about the current study, they had the possibility to hand in their e-mail address.
Non-humor Humor
Non-deceptive claim N=35 N=35
Deceptive claim N=35 N=35
Figure 2. Participants divided into 4 conditions.
Measurements Perceived humor
In order to measure the perceived humor we used the five items on seven point bipolar scale of Zhang (1996). We removed one of the items, 1) very playful to 7) not playful, since it was
12
too similar compared to the other items. After performing a reliability test, two items
remained. Response categories ranged from 1) very non-humoristic to 7) very humoristic and 1 not funny at all to 7 very funny (a=.89, M = 2.71, SD = 1.59). We decided to remain the items as consistent as possible, therefore the more positive, the higher the score.
Attitude towards the advertisement
In order to measure the attitude towards the advertisement, three items on seven point bipolar scales were used (Dahlen & Edenius, 2009). Response categories ranged from 1) very unpleasant to 7) very pleasant, 1) very bad to 7) very good and 1) very unfavorable to 7) very favorable (a=0.71, M3.78, SD = 0.98).
Attitude towards the deception
In order to measure the mediating role of the attitude towards the deception, we used a four items on seven point bipolar scales. The statements consisted out of: the consumer has been 1) completely misled to 7) not misled at all, this advertisement is compared to others 1) very unfair to 7) not unfair at all, the aim of this advertisement is to 1) mislead the consumer to 7) not to mislead the consumer at all and the advertisement is about the product 1) not honest at all to 7) very honest (a=.72, M= 4,15, SD = 1,15) (Chaouchi, Rached & Said, 2012).
Perceived deception
In order to execute the second manipulation check, we had to check to what extent the respondents perceived deception. Therefore, the four items on seven point bipolar scale from Chaouchi, Rached and Said (2012) was used. The statements consisted out of the following: the advertisement shows what 1 only what the consumer wants to see to 7) what the
13
consumer not only wants to see and the advertisement shows what 1) is completely not reality to 7) is completely reality (a=.31, M = 4.05).
Brand familiarity
Almost at the end of the questionnaire, respondents had to indicate if they were familiar with the advertised (fictitious) brand (1= no, 2= yes).
Demographic variables
In this study, we also controlled for a couple of demographic variables to check whether these variables did not result in any differences between the several groups. The respondents had to fill out their age, gender (1= female, 2= male) and class.
Results
Manipulation checks
In order to check the manipulations, we performed an one-way ANOVA with (non)humor and (non)deceptive claim as independent variables.
For the (non)humor manipulation we found an expected difference between the two conditions: F(1,138) = 25.377; p > .001. The respondents did indeed perceive the humor condition as more humorous than the non-humor condition: Mnonhumor = 2.10; SD = 1.06 versus Mhumor = 3.35; SD = 1.79. There was no significant effect found on perceived deception: F(1,138) = 2.163; p = .144; Mnondeceptive = 4.22; SD = 1.30 versus Mdeceptive = 3.88; SD = 1.39).
14
In order to check whether we need to control for alternative explanations we ran a bivariate correlation analysis for the control variables age, gender and class and the dependent variable attitude towards the advertisement. The bivariate correlation analysis shows that they are no significant correlations between the control variables (age, gender and class) and the attitude towards the advertisement:
age (r = -.140 , p = .098), gender (r = .064, p = .455) and class (r = -.002, p = .979). This indicates that the differences in those several groups are not caused by these control variables. Therefore there is no need to control for these variables.
We also conducted a bivariate correlation analysis to see whether brand familiarity needed to be controlled for. Also this test shows that there is no significant correlation between brand familiarity and the attitude towards the advertisement (r=.066, p=439). The results indicate it does not matter whether the respondent implied to be familiar with the advertised (fictious) brand showed in the stimuli.
All these results imply that the differences between the outcomes of the several group are not caused by differences in the background variables. Therefore we will not control for these variables.
Main effects on the attitude towards the advertisement Deceptive claims in advertisements
The first hypothesis (H1) stated that advertisements with non-deceptive claims would lead to a more positive attitude towards the advertisement than advertisements with deceptive claims. Contrary to what was expected, the condition with a deceptive claim shows a more positive attitude towards the advertisement, however this is not significant. An independent t-test showed no significant difference between the non-deceptive claims (M = 3.75; SD =
15
.982) and deceptive claim conditions (M = 3.80; SD = .980): T(138) = .33; p = 0.752). In contrast as expected, the condition with a deceptive claims shows more positive attitude towards the advertisement, however this is not significant. Therefore, we reject the first hypothesis.
Humor in advertisements
Our second hypothesis (H2) stated that advertisements containing humorous content, would lead to a more positive attitude towards the advertisement, than advertisements without humorous content. Surprisingly, the non-humor advertisements lead to a more favorable attitude towards the advertisement than does the humor advertisements. The direction in which the presence of humor effects the attitude towards the advertisement is different than expected. An independent t-test showed no significant difference between the non-humor (M = 3.92; SD = 1.02) and humor conditions (M = 3.62; SD = .92): T(138) = 1.84; p = .068). Therefore, we also have to reject this hypothesis.
Additive effect of deceptive claims with humorous content
The third hypothesis (H3) stated the presence of an additive effect between the deceptive claims and humor. Expected was that the deceptive claims with humorous content, would lead to a more favorable attitude towards the advertisement, compared to the deceptive claims without humorous content. The analysis of variance showed no significant result to support this additive effect: F(1,138) = .701; p = .404; Mdeceptive*nonhumor = 3,38 versus Mdeceptive*humor = 3,67). The expectation that the conditions whereby the deceptive claim is masked by which humor would lead to a more favorable attitude towards the advertisement is correct. However, the analysis of variance is not significant. We therefore cannot state that
16
these differences can be explained by coincidence and because of this, the third hypothesis is rejected.
Interaction effect of deceptive claims and humor
To test if there is an impact of one independent variable (deceptive claim) on the other independent variable (humor) and the other way around, we ran a two-way ANOVA. This test showed that there is no significant interaction effect present between deceptive claims and humor; F(1,136) = 0.70, p = .67. Therefore, we can conclude that the effect of deceptive claims on the attitude towards the advertisement is not attenuated, strengthened, or differ for different levels of humor.
The mediating effect of attitude towards the deception
The third and last hypothesis (H3) stated the attitude towards the deception mediates the relationship between the impact of deceptive claims masked by humor on the attitude towards the advertisement. In order to check whether a mediation effect indeed occurred, a mediation analysis is performed.
First of all, to test if a mediation effect occurs, we have to check whether the independent variables (deceptive claims and humor) significantly correlate with the
dependent variable (attitude towards the advertisement) (Frazier, Barron & Tix, 2004). In the previous chapters, we already saw that this is not the case.
Since this test already shows insignificant results, we can exclude that the attitude towards the deception is a mediator in the relationship of deceptive claims and humor on the attitude towards the advertisement.
17
dependent variable, the attitude towards the advertisement. For example, it could be case that the attitude towards deception correlates with the attitude towards the advertisement. When the attitude towards the deception increases, it could be that the attitude towards the
advertisement therefore also increases.
To check if maybe more independent variables correlate, we also included perceived deception and perceived humor, the variables we used for the manipulation checks.
The multiple regression analysis shows a significant result (R = .346, R2 = .12, p = .002). The analysis shows that not only the perceived humor (b* = 0.19, t = 2.26, p = 0.019) is a significant predictor of the attitude towards the advertisement, but also the attitude towards the deception explained a significant part of the variance in scores on the dependent variable (b* = 0.27, t = 3.25, p = 0,001). Since the beta is positive, we can state that when the perceived humor or attitude towards the deception increases in value, the attitude towards the advertisement also increases in value.
But even though the attitude towards the deception correlates with the dependent variable, we can also state that there is no mediation effect involved. Therefore, hypothesis four can also be rejected.
Conclusion and Discussion
This study investigated whether the presence of deceptive claims and humor in advertisements affects the attitude towards the advertisement and whether the attitude towards deception has a mediating effect in this relationship. A two (non-deceptive vs deceptive claim) x two (non-humor vs humor) between-subjects factorial design was
conducted. We expected that the presence of deceptive claims would lead to a less favorable attitude towards the advertisement. Also the overall presence of humor in advertisements
18
would positively affect the attitude towards the advertisement. Besides these two main effects, we expected to find an additive effect whereby advertisements with deceptive claims and humorous content would lead to a more favorable attitude towards the advertisement, compared to deceptive claims without humorous content.
This study also tested the expectation that the attitude towards the deception would mediate the effect of deceptive claims and humor on the attitude towards the advertisement. Even if people acknowledge the deception, they might react differently since the deception can be perceived as more acceptable by one person than another.
We conducted an experiment whereby 140 high school pupils filled out a
questionnaire to test these expectations. All high school pupilswere around the same age (M=16,5) and had the same education level, which led to a very homogeneous group of respondents. To make sure no control variables would cause differences in outcome, we controlled for age, gender, class and brand familiarity.
In contrast as expected, the condition with a deceptive claim shows a more positive attitude towards the advertisement, compared to the condition with a non-deceptive claim. This result can might be explained by the contradicting results we found during the
manipulation check. Here, we found that the respondents that were exposed to the
non-deceptive claim advertisement scored higher on the perceived deception, than the respondents that were provided with the deceptive claim advertisement. Due the lack of time, it was not possible to create new stimuli and collect new data whereby a new manipulation check could be executed.
The direction in which the presence of humor effects the attitude towards the
advertisement was also different than expected. The advertisements containing humor did not lead to a more favorable attitude towards the advertisement, compared to the non-humor
19
advertisements. Surprisingly, since the manipulation check did show that the advertisements with humorous content scored higher on the perceived humor.
Although the additive effect is not significant, the results did show that the deceptive claims masked by humor slightly lead to a more favorable attitude towards the advertisement. Comparing these two results, we can might state that the presence of the deceptive claims is perceived as more importantly than the presence of humor only. Future research could focus on the importance of deceptive claims and humor, to see whether the importance of both variables moderates the effect on the attitude towards the advertisement.
This study also did not find a significant effect to support the mediating effect of the attitude towards the deception. Since there were not any main effects found, this did not come as a surprise. Still, exploratory analyses discovered that the attitude towards the deception correlates with the attitude towards the advertisement. Therefore, the attitude towards the deception still remains an interesting variable where future research could focus on. For example, they could test the attitude towards deception beforehand, to see whether the
existing attitude towards deception (low vs. high) moderates the effect of deceptive claims on the attitude towards the advertisement. Next to attitude towards deception, we also found that perceived humor correlates with the attitude towards the advertisement. This said, we can state that when the perceived humor increases in value, the attitude towards the advertisement also increases.
Limitations
The following limitations should be taken into account when evaluating the results of this study.
20
homogenous target group, this sample size is still quite small to generalize the results. Next to this, the decision to use a homogeneous target group can also be questioned. The study of Moschis (1987) stated that adolescents develop greater develop greater resistance to
persuasive stimuli and develop a greater discontent with marketing practices as they get older. Within this process, also the skepticism towards advertising increases. Since all participants were minors, it would be interesting to see how older target groups respond to deceptive claims in advertising.
Secondly, due time and money limitations, the stimuli that were created the second time has not been pre-tested. This could also be the reason why the manipulation of the perceived deception did not succeed. Next to this, the stimuli were not created by a
professional advertising agency. The lack of professional skills to construct an advertisement might have influenced the way how the advertisement is perceived.
Moreover, the results are dependent on the use of only one specific product; toothpaste. Further evidence should include more or others products categories to find an possible interaction effect or support the effect of deceptive claims and humor on the attitude towards the advertisement. Toothpaste is a neutral product, but it could also have other associations for different people, which makes this product maybe less reliable for this study.
Future research
Besides the fact that the attitude towards the deception and the importance of deceptive claims versus humor needs more attention in the future, further research could investigate if brand familiarity affects the attitude towards the deception. It has been widely explained that when consumers already have a positive attitude towards the advertised brand, this instantly influences the way they look at an advertisement (Chattopadhyay and Basu,
21
1990). This said, it is possible that consumers are more tolerant while being exposed to deceptive claims of brands they already know, compared to exposure to unknown brands.
Subsequently, future research could also investigate if the strength of the deceptive claims influences the attitude towards the advertisement. For example, Darke and Ritchie (2007) assumed that the accuracy and the defensive-bias views theory predict that deception will lead to more negative attitudes for weak arguments. If deception in advertising prompts an increase in objective, accuracy-motivated processing, the result should be more positive evaluations in response to strong arguments. In contrast, if advertisement deception produces defensive processing, responses should be more negative even in the face of strong
arguments. More experimental research to investigate these assumptions has to be executed. Moreover, future research could focus on the different types of deceptive claims and humor in advertisements. For example, Shabbir and Thwaites (2007) used a content analysis to compare different types of deceptive claims like false/outright lies, vague/ambiguous and omission claims, combined with several humor types (arousal-safety- , incongruity and disparagement humor). In this study, it turned out that false/outright lie claims within arousal-safety humor in ads are more frequently used than both vague/ambiguous and omission claims combined. Next to this, arousal-safety humor seems to have more false/outright lie claims as well. Experimental studies could test if these different types of claims and humor affects the consumers' response.
Last, this study did not include the actual consumer behavior that might get influenced by the exposure to deceptive claims and humor in advertisements. It would be an interesting case to investigate whether this actual affects the consumers buying behavior. For example, this could be tested by measuring the consumers’ purchase decision.
22
functions as a small first step for future research. Looking at the unexpected results of this study, we can state that the combination of deceptive claims and humor really is a complex phenomenon that requires more experimental research. This will not only help scientists to get more understanding about this advertising tactic, but also advertisers. With more research, advertisers could more easily decide whether the usage of deceptive claims combined with humor would lead to the wanted result.
23
References
Aditya, R. N. (2001). The psychology of deception in marketing: A conceptual framework for research and practice. Psychology & Marketing, 18(7), 735. DOI: 10.1002/mar.1028
Alden, D. L., Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2000). The effects of incongruity, surprise and positive moderators on perceived humor in television advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 29(2), 1-15.
Chaouachi, S. G., Rached, K. S. B., & Saied, K. (2012). Perceived deception in advertising: Proposition of a measurement scale. Journal of Marketing Research & Case Studies, 2012. DOI: 10.5171/2012.712622
Chattopadhyay, A. & Basu, K. (1990). Humor in advertising: The moderating role of prior brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 466-476. DOI: 10.2307/3172631
Cho, J. (1995). Humor mechanisms, Perceived humor and their relationships to various executional types in advertising. Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 191-197.
Dahlén, M., & Edenius, M. (2007). When is advertising advertising? Comparing responses to non-traditional and traditional advertising media. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 29(1), 33-42. DOI:10.1080/10641734.2007.10505206
24
Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising deception, defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114-127. DOI: 10.1509/jmkr.44.1.114
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of counseling psychology, 51(1), 115. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of consumer research, 1-31.
Gardner, D. M. (1975). Deception in advertising: A conceptual approach. The Journal of Marketing, 40-46.
Gulas, C. S., & Weinberger, M. G. (2006). Humor in advertising: A comprehensive analysis. ME Sharpe.
Mathur, M., & Chattopadhyay, A. (1991). The impact of moods generated by television programs on responses to advertising. Psychology & Marketing, 8(1), 59-77. DOI: 10.1002/mar.4220080106
Moschis, G. P. (1987). Consumer Socialization: A Life Cycle Perspective, Lexington, MA.: Lexington Books. and G.A. Churchill, Jr. (1978), Consumer Socialization: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 599-609.
25
Miller,G. R. & Stiff, J. B. (1993). Series in interpersonal communication, M. L. Knapp Ed., Sage Publications, Inc.: Newbury Park, CA.
Phillips, M. J. (1997). Ethics and Manipulation in Advertising: Answering a Flawed Indictment. Westport, CT: Quorom Books.
Scholl, J. C. & O’Hair, D. (2005). Uncovering Beliefs about Deceptive Communication. Communication Quaterly, (53)3, 377-399. DOI: 10.1080/01463370500101352
Shabbir, H., & Thwaites, D. (2007). The use of humor to mask deceptive advertising: it's no laughing matter. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 75-85. DOI:10.2753/JOA0091-3367360205
Speck, P. S. (1987). On humor and humor in advertising. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University).
Sternthal, B., & Craig, C. S. (1973). Humor in Advertising. Journal of Marketing, 37(4).
Strick, M., Holland, R. W., van Baaren, R. B., & van Knippenberg, A. (2012). Those who laugh are defenseless: How humor breaks resistance to influence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(2), 213. Doi: 10.1037/a0028534
Szabo, A. (2003). The acute effects of humor and exercise on mood and anxiety. Journal of Leisure Research, 35 (2), 152-162.
26
Tanaka, K. (1994). Advertising language: A pragmatic approach to adverts in Britain and Japan, New York: Routledge.
Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising: A review. Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 35-59.
Xie, G. X., & Boush, D. M. (2011). How susceptible are consumers to deceptive advertising claims? A retrospective look at the experimental research literature. The Marketing
Review, 11(3), 293-314.
Zhang, Y. (1996). Responses to humorous advertising: The moderating role of Need for Cognition. Journal of Advertising, 25, 1, 15-32.
27
Appendices
Passive Informed Consent
Passief informed consent Onderzoek Deceptive claims & humor in advertenties
Geachte heer/mevrouw,
Hierbij willen u informeren dat uw zoon/dochter onlangs vrijwillig heeft deelgenomen aan een onderzoek ter afronding van de masteropleiding van Sophie Simone Elizabeth Reitsma, studente Persuasive Communication aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Het onderzoek, betreffend valse beweringen en humor in advertenties kent geen gevoelige content waaraan uw dochter/zoon is blootgesteld. Hierdoor verwachten uw vrijwillige stem voor de deelname van uw kind aan dit onderzoek. U behoudt daarbij natuurlijk het recht deze instemming weer in te trekken zonder dat u daarvoor een reden hoeft op te geven. Als de onderzoeksresultaten van uw kind gebruikt worden in wetenschappelijke publicaties, of op een andere manier openbaar worden gemaakt, zal dit volledig anoniem gebeuren. De persoonsgegevens van uw kind worden niet door derden ingezien zonder uw uitdrukkelijke toestemming.
Als u nog verdere informatie over het onderzoek wilt, nu of in de toekomst, kunt u zich wenden tot mw. S.S.E. Reitsma (06-40209236; sse.reitsma@gmail.com) Amsteldijk 145 HS, 1079 LE, Amsterdam). Voor eventuele klachten over dit onderzoek kunt u zich wenden tot het lid van de Commissie Ethiek namens ASCoR, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat, Commissie Ethiek, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.
28
De schoolleiding van de school van uw kind stemt in met deelname van uw kind aan dit onderzoek en verleent haar volledige medewerking. Indien u bezwaar heeft tegen deelname van uw kind aan dit onderzoek, dan kunt u dit (uiterlijk 31 mei 2014) kenbaar maken aan de schoolleiding (070-3066637, contactpersoon mw. C.M. Fuchs) of aan de onderzoeker van de Universiteit van Amsterdam (A.S. Velthuijsen (020-5253589; A.S.Velthuijsen@uva.nl). U hoeft hiervoor geen reden te geven en uw bezwaar zal zonder voorbehoud worden
ingewilligd.
Questionnaire
Beste deelnemer,
Fijn dat jullie meewerken aan mijn onderzoek. Je vindt hieronder een informed consent, waarmee je
aangeeft al dan niet mee te doen met het onderzoek. Daarna volgen enkele instructies en dan begint
de vragenlijst.
Alvast bedankt!
Sophie Reitsma
Informed Consent
Ik verklaar hierbij op voor mij duidelijke wijze te zijn ingelicht over de aard en methode van het
onderzoek, zoals uiteengezet op het informatieblad. Mijn vragen zijn naar tevredenheid
29
Ik stem geheel vrijwillig in met deelname aan dit onderzoek. Ik behoud daarbij het recht deze
instemming weer in te trekken zonder dat ik daarvoor een reden hoef op te geven. Ik besef dat ik op
elk moment mag stoppen met het experiment. Als mijn onderzoeksresultaten gebruikt worden in
wetenschappelijke publicaties, of op een andere manier openbaar worden gemaakt, dan zal dit
volledig geanonimiseerd gebeuren. Mijn persoonsgegevens worden niet door derden ingezien
zonder mijn uitdrukkelijke toestemming.
Als ik meer informatie over het onderzoek wil, nu of in de toekomst, dan kan ik me wenden tot dhr.
dr. A.S. Velthuijsen (020-5253589; A.S.Velthuijsen@uva.nl; Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX
Amsterdam). Voor eventuele klachten over dit onderzoek kan ik me wenden tot het het lid van de
Commissie Ethiek namens ASCoR, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat, Commissie Ethiek, Universiteit van
Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.
Aldus in tweevoud getekend:
……… ………
Naam proefpersoon Handtekening
Ik heb toelichting verstrekt op het onderzoek. Ik verklaar mij bereid nog opkomende vragen over het
onderzoek naar vermogen te beantwoorden.
……… ………
30
Instructies
Hoe moet je de vragenlijst invullen?
Je krijg eerst een advertentie over tandpasta te zien. Bekijk deze advertentie, wetende dat je er een
aantal vragen over zal beantwoorden. Terugbladeren naar de advertentie op een later moment is
niet mogelijk.
Daarna beantwoord je een enkele vragen over de advertentie. Ik ben benieuwd naar jouw meningen.
Denk daarom niet te lang na over elke vraag. Het beantwoorden van de vragenlijst zal hooguit 4 tot 6
minuten duren.
Wanneer je klaar bent met het beantwoorden van de vragen, kan je het formulier omgedraaid op de
hoek van de tafel leggen. Zou je stil willen zijn zodat iedereen geconcentreerd de vragenlijst kan
invullen?
Tot slot: Als je een vraag hebt, steek dan je hand op. Ik kom dan naar je toe .
Wat moet ik nu doen?
Als alle instructies duidelijk en het informed consent is ondertekend, kan je beginnen aan het
onderzoek.
31
Stel je voor dat je in een tijdschrift bladert en deze advertentie tegenkomt:
(ADVERTENTIE)
Je mag nu beginnen met de vragenlijst op de volgende bladzijde.
Vragenlijst
De eerste twee vragen gaan puur over de beleving van de advertentie. Vond je advertentie humoristisch? Dan vink je één van de hokjes meer aan de rechterkant aan. Minder
humoristisch? Dan vink je één van de hokjes aan de linkerkant aan. Vond je de advertentie niet humoristisch, maar ook niet niet humoristisch? Vink dan het middelste hokje aan.
Ik vind de advertentie
5. Slecht O O O O O O O Goed
32
7. Ongunstig O O O O O O O Gunstig
Ik vind de advertentie
1. Niet humoristisch O O O O O O O Humoristisch 2. Niet grappig O O O O O O O Grappig 3. Niet amusant O O O O O O O Amusant
4. Niet saai O O O O O O O Saai
Hieronder vind je een aantal stellingen die wat dieper op de advertentie in gaan. Ook hier worden de vragen op dezelfde manier beantwoord. Kijk goed wat er bij de linker- en
rechterkant staat, aangezien dit per vraag verscheelt. Ook vraag ik je aan het eind om aan te geven of je bekend bent met het geadverteerde merk.
8. Deze advertentie is over het product
Helemaal eerlijk O O O O O O O Helemaal niet eerlijk
9. De advertentie laat de consument alleen zien wat
33
10. De advertentie laat zien wat Helemaal niet de werkelijkheid is
O O O O O O O Helemaal de werkelijkheid is
11. De consument wordt over over het daadwerkelijke effect van het product
Helemaal misleid O O O O O O O Helemaal niet misleid
12. Deze advertentie is ten opzichte van andere tandpastamerken
Helemaal oneerlijk O O O O O O O Helemaal niet oneerlijk
13. Het doel van deze advertentie is de consument
Helemaal bedriegen O O O O O O O Helemaal niet bedriegen
34 O Ja O Nee
Tot slot wil ik graag nog wat algemene informatie over je weten
15. Klas …...
16. Geslacht O Meisje O Jongen
17. Leeftijd ….. jaar
Bedankt voor het invullen van de vragenlijst!
Leg de vragenlijst nu met de voorkant naar boven voor je op tafel.
Stimuli
35
Condition 2: Non-deceptive x humor
36
