Comparative advertising: Superiority despite interference? · Comparative Advertising: Superiority...

ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT VOL 11, NO 1:33-46

COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING: SUPERIORITY DESPITE

INTERFERENCE?

Swee-Hoon Ang and Siew-Meng Leong*

The effect of comparative versus noncomparative advertising on consumer cognitions, attitudes, and behavioural intentions toward an advertised brand with or without interference from other ads was investigated. The experimental results indicated that the superiority o f comparative over noncomparative advertising on attitudinal and behavioural intention responses observed immediately after exposure diminished following interference from subsequent exposure to other ads. However, its superiority on two cognitive dimensions -perceived brand similarity and quality - was maintained despite such interference. Implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.

1. INTRODUCTION

The impact of comparative advertising on consumer cognitions, attitudes and behav- iours has received extensive research attention (c f Turgeon and Barnaby 1988): Such studies have furnished conceptual insights on the relationship between attitudes towards the advertisement and brand evaluation (eg, Muehling, 1987), provided a contingency theory for comparative advertising (eg, Swayne et al, 1981), as well as tested the elabora- tion likelihood model (eg, Droge, 1989). Managerially, these studies have provided directions for copy development (eg, Pechmann and Stewart, 1990), and examined the relative usefulness of comparative advertising across different types of products (eg, Gorn and Weinberg, 1984).

Despite having investigated its effects on an array of consumer responses, research on comparative advertising has yet to produce consistent results concerning its effectiveness. In such areas as attitudinal responses, for instance, research has generally shown mixed results concerning the super ior i ty of compara t ive over noncompara t ive ads

Lecturer and Senior Lecturer respectively at the Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business Administration, National University of Singapore. The authors thank Joe Cote and Debbie Roedder John for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and the National University of Singapore for funding this research.

Please send correspondence to Swee-Hoon Ang, Department of Marketing, National Univer- sity of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 0511, REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE. Bitnet: FBAANGSH@NUSVM. Fax: (65) 779-5941. Telephone: (65) 772-3173.

33

Comparative Advertising: Superiority Despite Interference?

(cfRogers and Williams, 1989). Furthermore, while its effects on perceived brand similarity and purchase intention have been consistently more favourable (eg, Droge, 1989; Gorn and Weinberg, 1984), comparative advertising has been evaluated as being less believable than noncomparative advertising (Rogers and Williams, 1989).

Much prior research on comparative advertising has also measured its effects on consumer responses immediately upon exposure. However, in real-world settings, interference over time from competitive advertising can have an impact upon the consumer's response to advertising (Burke and Srull, 1988). Unfortunately, research in exploring these effects in the context of comparative advertising has been limited in number as well as in the array of dependent variables studied. For instance, although Pechmann mad Stewart (1990) investigated the brand recall influence of comparative advertising over time, no research has been undertaken to study its effects on attitudinal or behavioural intention variables. Hence, investigating such effects on a variety of consumer responses extends current theoretical understanding of its relative strengths across these responses as well as providing empirical evidence of the robustness of its superiority. In so doing, it may also augment the literature on competitive interference and its effect on consumer response towards advertising.

Research on comparative advertising has also been conducted almost exclusively in North America (cfTurgeon and Bmnaaby, 1988). Levy (1987) reported that more than 50% of the 26,402 TV spots NBC ran in 1986 were comparative. Few have been conducted in the Asian region. However, cultural differences among consumers in these two regions may dictate differences in attitudes toward comparative advertising. It has been argued that Eastern communication values are indirect whereas Western cultures prefer direct discourse (Frith and Frith, 1989). As such, Asian consumers are expected to prefer noncomparative ads (indirect discourse) compared to comparative ads (direct discourse). For instance, in the comparative Pepsi Cola commercial in which M C Hammer (a rap- music star) was used to sneer at Coca Cola, it did not raise an eyebrow in America. But in Japan, the same commercial was rejected. Instead, a new version in which the Coke can was blurred and a beep covering the narrator's voice when he said the word "Coke" was used (Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, 1991; Straits Times, 1991). Hence, investigating whether the effects of comparative advertising in an environment where cultural norms dictates less receptivity towards overt comparisons is a worthy direction.

Besides the cultural difference, North American consumers are familiar with comparative advertising. It may be instructive to analyse the effectiveness of comparative advertising in a different media environment that provides "purer" subjects who have had minimal, if any, exposure to comparative advertising. Hence, it would be useful to employ a natural subject pool in a country where comparative advertising, though not prohibited, is strongly discouraged. This would alleviate the possible risk of contamination in consumer responses that may be obtained in contemporary research efforts in North American settings. It may also render tentative insights into whether consumer responses to comparative ads vary depending on the level of prior "real world" exposure to this advertising format. This research therefore investigates the general superiority of comparative advertising immediately after exposure as well as over time when interference occurs using subjects unfamil- iar with such advertising and whose culture is generally less receptive to it.

34

APJM

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

ATTITUDES

Research on the effects of comparative advertising on various attitudinal measures including attitudes towards the ad, the brand and product use, have produced mixed results. In their review, Rogers and Williams (1989) reported that generally more negative attitudes toward the ad were observed when it was comparative rather than noncomparative. Recently, Droge (1989) found noncomparative ads could produce more favourable consumer attitudes towards them than comparative ads, suggesting that because consumers view comparative ads to be unfair towards the referenced brand, their attitude towards them is less favourable than towards noncomparative ads.

Results concerning the relative effects of comparative advertising on brand attitude are also less than conclusive. Despite evidence to the contrary (Murphy and Amundsen, 1981; Ohanian and Cunningham, 1987), Gorn and Weinberg (1983) observed that at least directionally, comparative ads generated more favourable attitudes toward the brand than noncomparative ads. Iyer (1988) found comparative advertising to be superior to noncomparative advertising particularly when the advertised brand was new. Presumably, being a new brand, information in a comparative format showing its relative superiority to an existing brand puts it in a more favourable light than an ad which does not provide comparative information. Less research has been directed towards studying comparative ad effects on consumer attitude towards using the product. Directional support for comparative ad superiority on attitudes towards product use was found by Belch (1981) across various levels of ad exposures.

BEHAVIOURAL INTENTIONS

More unanimous findings were observed concerning the superiority of comparative advertising on behavioural intention responses. These include the intention to purchase, recommend and find out more about the brand. Research has shown that relative to noncomparative ads, comparative ads have resulted in higher purchase intention (Demirdjian, 1983, 1986) particularly for new or challenger brands (Droge, 1989; Pechmann and Stewart, 1990), and when the ad has contained claim substantiation concerning the new brand (Golden, 1979). In their review, Rogers and Williams (1989) found significantly more studies citing comparative ads to be more effective than noncomparative ads in increasing product trial (ie, the probability of trying the product). A possible reason is because comparative advertising allows a new brand to have a clearer positioning against an established leader and to benefit from this association (cfDroge and Darmon, 1987).

In relation to this, the product trial may be viewed as a means to search for more information concerning the brand (Droge, 1989; Smith and Swinyard, 1983). Consistent with Deighton (1984), comparative ads may be a source of hypotheses that induce consumers to seek confirmatory evidence. Such additional information about the product can be obtained from more frequent visits to stores selling the product. As observed by Taschian and Slama (1984), significantly more visits to the store were reported among consumers exposed to a comparative relative to a noncomparative ad.

35


COGNITIONS

Brands advertised in a comparative format were also perceived to be more similar to the leading brand than those advertised in a noncomparative format (Droge and Darmon, 1987; Gorn and Weinberg, 1984; Iyer, 1988). The rationale is that by positioning against the leader (the referenced brand), the advertised brand is perceived to be more like the leader. Hence, it is perceived to have a higher quality when advertised in a comparative rather than a noncomparative format.

COMPETITIVE INTERFERENCE

The above findings concerning the effects of comparative advertising were observed immediately after ad exposure. Research involving its effects over time, where competitive interference occurs, is limited to cognitive variables such as brand and claim recall, and sponsor identification. For instance, Pechmann and Stewart (1990) found that in general, comparative ads were superior to noncomparative ones in retaining brand recall even after a 24-hour delay, where interference in one form or another is likely to occur (cfJenkins and Dallenbach, 1924). Yet, consumers also tended to identify the sponsor of moderate-share brands incorrectly when there is comparative advertising. In contrast, Murphy and Amundsen (1981) observed that decays in brand and claim recall were significantly higher among consumers exposed to the comparative versus noncomparative ad after a delay of three weeks. Although these two studies used the passage of time instead of a specific form of interference, the results indicated that the superiority of comparative advertising after some interference appears to be present for selected cognitive measures.

The literature on interference suggests that subsequent exposure to competing ads inhibits consumer recall of target brand information due to confusion, particularly when the competing ads concern brands from the same product category (Burke and Srull, 1988). To the extent that cognitions such as perceived similarity between the target and the referenced brands may be encoded with brand information in comparative ads, it is possible they may likewise decay with subsequent interference. One rationale for this effect is that since comparative ads involve two brands instead of only one for noncomparative ads, there is more information to be processed in comparative ads. Conse- quently, there is greater likelihood of interference at both the brand and attribute node levels for comparative relative to noncomparative ads.

Besides brand recall, the impact of interference on attitudinal responses has also been investigated. If consumers have lower recall of the positive attributes of the advertised brand, then evaluations are likely to be less favourable (cf Kisielius and Sternthal, 1986). Empirically, Baumgardner et al (1983) found that brand evaluations deteriorated faster when there was greater interference. In contrast, no effect of interference on brand evaluations and behavioural intentions were observed by Burke and Srull (1988). However, they attributed this to possible carry-over effects of cognitive recall because the attitudinal and behavioural intention measures were obtained after recall.

Given the above findings and the contention that cognitions may affect subsequent attitudinal and behavioural intention responses (Fishbein and Azjen, 1975; Mitchell and Olson, 1981 ), it may be that any advantage comparative advertising has over noncomparative

36

APJM

advertising witl be attenuated following interference. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are advanced for consumer attitude, behavioural intentions and cognition.

Advantages of comparative over noncomparative ads will diminish after interference from other ads in terms of:

HI. Attitudes toward the ad, the brand and product use; H2. Trial and information search intentions; H3. Perceived similarity between the advertised and the referenced brand, and perceived

quality of the advertised brand.

3. METHOD

RESEARCH DESIGN

A 2 × 2 between-subjects design was used with ad format (comparative versus noncomparative) and competitive interference (absent versus present) as the manipulating factors. The subjects were 148 business undergraduates from a university in Singapore, randomly assigned to treatment groups of sizes 35 to 39. In Singapore, strict application of advertising standards has resulted in very minimal comparative advertising. In several cases, comparative ads have been withdrawn shortly after their launch because they were deemed not to abide by the principles set.t In particular, the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice (1976) requires " . . . where items are listed and compared with those of competitor's products, the list should be complete or else the advertisement should make clear that the items are only a selection" (Section 5.1.2), and "advertisements should not unfairly attack or discredit other products, advertisers or advertisements directly or by implication" (Section 6.1). As a result, Singaporeans seldom see comparative ads, and if they do, they concern indirect comparisons.

The stimulus ad concerned an unknown brand of toothpaste called Sprint, with Colgate as the referenced brand in the comparative ad version. These brand names were used by Droge and Darmon (1987) in a previous study on comparative advertising. As Singaporean subjects were employed, confusion over Sprint being a telephone company seemed remote. Colgate was used as it shares with Darlie (another toothpaste brand) a place as the market leaders in Singapore.

EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATIONS

Act Format. Comparative advertising was operationalised in three ways. First, the headline read "Sprint is better than Colgate". Second, the copy described Sprint users as having fewer cavities than those who used Colgate. It also tasted more refreshing and whitened teeth faster than Colgate. Finally, the illustration showed a Sprint and a Colgate package together. On the other hand, the noncomparative ad made no mention of Colgate

1. A notable example involved a Pepsi commercial, a takeoff from the movie ET, showing an alien ship choosing the Pepsi vending machine over the Coke machine. It was withdrawn after one exposure.

37


in the headline or copy. The noncomparative headline read "Sprint is a good toothpaste". The noncomparative copy described Sprint as having a refreshing taste and was able to whiten teeth. Sprint users were also described as likely to have few cavities. No compari- son to any competitive brand was made. The illustration showed only the Sprint package. Therefore, both the noncomparative and comparative ads were similar in ad layout and copy length - both headlines had five words, while the copy had 57 and 65 words in the noncomparative and comparative conditions respectively.

Interference. Subjects were exposed to a total of ten ads, 2 with the Sprint ad placed in the seventh position. Hence, there were six and three filler ads prior to and after the stimulus ad exposure respectively. The filler ads before the Sprint ad served to familiarise subjects with the measuring instrument. Those after the Sprint ad exposure were necessary for interference manipulation. Subjects either evaluated the Sprint ad immediately after exposure to the stimulus ad (interference absent) or after seeing three additional filler ads (interference present). In Burke and Srull (1988), subjects saw 12 ads, with different stimulus ads appearing in positions three, five, and seven. Hence, there were nine filler ads as interference tbr their first stimulus ad; seven for the second stimulus ad; and five for the last stimulus ad. In the present study, three filler ads after exposure were chosen because, as observed by Burke and Srull (1988), interference of five ads already had an impact. By reducing the extent of interference to three filler ads from different product categories, a strong test of the impact of interference can be made. Both comparative and noncomparative filler ads were used to minimise the possibility that the comparative Sprint ad becomes outstanding by nature of its comparative ad copy. Given that in reality, there are relatively more noncomparative than comparative ads, the filler ads contained seven noncomparative ads and two comparative ones.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Subjects were told that they were involved in evaluating print ads. Subjects first saw two sets of three ads. After the first set of ads was shown, questions concerning their thoughts on the first ad and their attitude towards the third ad were recorded. This enabled subjects to gain familiarity with the measuring instrument. Exposure to the second set of ads followed. Subjects then indicated their attitudes toward the second advertised brand and toward using the third advertised brand. Varying when the evaluated ad was presented indicates to subjects that they should pay attention to all ads presented. Questions asked were similar to those subsequently asked about the stimulus ad. A third set of four ads with the stimulus Sprint ad placed first was then shown. Reactions toward the ad were assessed immediately after the stimulus ad was shown or when the entire set of ads had been shown, representing the no- and other ad-interference conditions respectively. These included subjects' attitudes, behavioural intentions, cognitions of the brand, and demographic information. Subjects were also asked to write down the thoughts they had when reading the Sprint ad. Additionally; an open-ended question at the end of the experiment asked

2. All ads measured about 10-1/2 by 8 inches. A description of the endorser was given first, with the headline set in 5/8" type in the middle of the ad, followed by a description of the product attributes.

38

APJM

subjects what they thought of the survey. These two questions served to gauge the presence of demand effects, if any.

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Four attitude, two behavioural intention, and two cognition scores were measured on seven-point scales, using items employed in prior research. Each attitudinal variable was measured separately using multiple items, with approximately half being reverse scored. In all cases, a higher score indicated a more favourable attitude. Attitude towards the ad (Aad) was measured using three specific items (anchored as offensive/not offensive; irritating/not irritating; bad/good) and one overall question concerning their liking for the ad. The three specific items were similar to those used by Droge (1989). Together, the four items had an alpha of 0.85, and thus their average score was used to determine subjects' A~a. Similarly, five items - four specific (bad/good; ineffective/effective; unsatisfactory/satisfactory; harm- ful/beneficial) and one overall (dislike a lot/like a lot) - were used to measure attitude towards the brand (Ab~d). Except for the overall item, the specific items were used by Droge (1989). Coefficient alpha for the five items was 0.93. Therefore, an average score of the items was used for Ab~nd. Four items (unpleasant/pleasant; foolish/wise; bad/good; disagreeable/agreeable) were used to assess subjects' attitudes toward product usage (Aose). Given a high alpha of 0.85, an average of the items was used to determine Ause. Two of the items (foolish/wise, bad/good) were previously used by Belch (1981) and Muehling (1987) to measure Aos ~.

Following Droge (1989), two behavioural intentions - trial and information search - were measured and analysed separately. Using her scales, the trial question asked subjects to rate whether they would buy the advertised brand Sprint once in order to try it if it were made available in the market. Scale anchors were: definitely do not intend to buy even once to try (1), and definitely intend to buy at least once to try (7). The information search question asked subjects whether they intended to obtain a copy of a free booklet containing the results of a clinical study on the effectiveness of Sprint versus other brands of toothpaste if it were made available in their supermarkets by the manufacturer. Scale anchors were: definitely do not intend to get a copy (t), and definitely intend to get a copy (7).

Using Gorn and Weinberg's (1984) scales, subjects' perceptions of how similar Sprint was to Colgate, and Sprint's quality relative to Colgate's, were also measured. One question asked them how different did they think the two brands were, even if they had not used them (scale anchored at: exactly the same (1)/completely different(7)), while the other asked them which they thought was better (scale anchored at: Sprint much better than Colgale (1)/Colgate much better than Sprint(7)).

4. RESULTS

Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics for the dependent variables by experimental condition. The three hypotheses specify two-way interactions between ad format and interference. Such effects were observed to be statistically significant for A,s~ and trial intention (F's > 4.81, p 's < .05), while marginal significance was observed for Abed and

39


TABLE 1 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (IN PARENTHESES)

FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS

Absence of Other Ad Interference Presence of Other Ad Interference Noncomparative Ad Comparative Ad Noncomparative Ad Comparative Ad

A,d 3.90 (1.13) 3.62 (1.12) 4.27 (1.24) 3.54 (1.45) Abran d 3.48 (1.16) 4.14 (1.07) 4.01 (1.15) 3.94 (1.30) Aus e 3.37 (1.16) 4.06 (0.85) 3.98 (1.04) 3.88 (1.31) Trial intention 2.39 (1.73) 3.97 (2.08) 3.74 (2.13) 3.81 (2.23) Information search

intention 4.28 (1.95) 5.19 (1.76) 5.20 (1.81) 4.95 (1.72) Brand similarity 3.51 (1.72) 4.43 (1.61) 3.23 (1.54) 3.92 (1.53) Perceived quality 2.23 (1.18) 2.87 (1.18) 2.29 (1.10) 3.38 (1.50)

information search intention (F's > 3.61, p 's < . 10). No significant interaction was found for Aad, perceived similarity, and perceived quality (F's < 1.18, p's >. 10). Thus, H1 and H2 appear partially supported, while H3 is not supported. Further analyses were then conducted to assess whether the interaction patterns obtained for the significant dependent variables corresponded to those specified by the hypotheses.

FIGURE 1A ATTITUDE TOWARDS BRAND:

NONCOMPARATIVE VS COMPARATIVE ADS

Attitude towards Brand 5

4.14 -t--

4

3.48 3

2

1

4.01

I I

Absent Present Other Ad Interference

__+_ Noncomparative Ad

Comparative Ad

40

FIGURE 1B ATTITUDE TOWARDS USE:

NONCOMPARATIVE VS COMPARATIVE ADS

A P J M

Attitude towards Use 5

4.06

~ ~ . 3.98

3.88

3.37

I I

Absent Present

Other Ad Interference

• Noncomparative Ad

Comparative Ad

Figures la and lb show the effects of comparative versus noncomparative advertising on Abra,d and Au~e with and without other-ad interference. In the no-interference condition, the comparative ad was found to elicit more favourable Abran d and Au~e than the noncomparative ad. Specifically, subjects exposed to the comparative ad had more favourable Abr=~ (X = 4.14 VS 3.48) and Au~e (x = 4.06 v s 3.37) immediately after ad exposure (t(1,74)'s = 2.58 and 2.98 respectively, p ' s < .05). In the presence of other ad-interference, the comparative ad was evaluated no differently than the noncomparative ad in terms of Abra, d (X = 3.94 and 4.01) and Aus o (x = 3.88 and 3.98, t(1,70)'s = .24 and .36 respectively, p ' s > . 10). Based on these findings, the predicted interaction pattern appears to be obtained for HI , although interestingly, attitudinal evaluations of the noncomparative ad were higher than for the comparative ad following other-ad interference.

Similar to the findings obtained for attitudinal responses, the results, as shown in Figures 2a and 2b, indicated that subjects tended to have higher trial (x = 3.97 v s 2.39) and information search intentions (x = 5.19 v s 4.28) for the comparative rather than the noncomparative advertised brand under the interference-absent condition (t(1,74)'s = 13.22 and 4.52 respectively, p ' s < .05). Also with interference from competing ads, no significant difference between comparative and noncomparative advertising was observed for trial and information search intentions (t(1,70)'s = .14 and .61 respectively, p ' s > .10). Hence, H2 was also supported. Further tests indicated that for both behavioural intentions, the diminished superiority of comparative advertising after interference was due to noncomparative advertising becoming significantly more effective (t's>2.14; p's<.05).

41


FIGURE 2A TRIAL INTENTION: NONCOMPARATIVE VS COMPARATIVE ADS

Trim Intention

5

3.97

2.39

I I

Absent Present


• Noncomparative Ad

-J[----- Comparative Ad

There was no difference in either behavioural intentions with or without interference when comparative advertising was shown (t's < .60, p 's > .10).

Finally, none of the subjects indicated in the two open-ended questions that they knew the experiment concerned the effects of comparative advertising. Those in the noncomparative ad condition, also did not express that the questions pertaining to Colgate comparisons were out of the ordinary. Informal conversations after the experiment also showed similar responses. Thus, there did not appear to be a high presence of demand effects.

5. DISCUSSION

In general, previous results concerning the effects of comparative advertising on cognitions, attitudes and behavioural intentions were replicated here when such responses were elicited immediately after ad exposure. Hence, enhanced confidence to previous work may be engendered given that the study was conducted using a pool of culturally different subjects from those studies previously employing North American populations.

More important, we extended the literature on comparative advertising by studying its effects following interference from other ads. It was hypothesized that the advantages in cognitions, attitudes, and behavioural intentions of comparative over noncomparative ads would be attenuated following such interference. Indeed this was the case for both behav-

42

FIGURE 2B INFORMATION SEARCH INTENTION: NONCOMPARATIVE VS

COMPARATIVE ADS

APJM

Information Search Intention

5.19 5.20

4.95

4.28

I f

Absent Present


• .... Noncomparat ive Ad

Comparat ive Ad

ioural intentions and two of the three attitudinal measures, although no empirical support was forthcoming from the two cognitive dependent measures. Future research can establish the reasons for other-ad interference to attenuate the effect of comparative advertising on attitudinal and behavioural intention responses, but not cognitive ones.

Although the predicted interactions were obtained for the attitudinal and behavioural intentions variables, it was found that the diminished comparative ad superiority arose from the noncomparative ad becoming more effective with interference rather than the comparative ad becoming less effective. This is counter to our expectations based on the greater information processing requirements at both brand and attribute node levels for comparative versus noncomparative ads. Clearly, process data need to be collected in future research to detail more explicitly the underlying cognitive operations in this connec- tion.

Comparative advertising can also be investigated with other factors such as ad characteristics (eg, presence/absence of direct competitor ads), and consumer characteristics (eg, involvement and processing objectives). For example, inoculation theory can be examined to investigate whether comparative advertising results in immunising consumers from the

43

Comparative Advertising: Superiority Despite Interference ?

persuasive intent of competitive ads. Consumer involvement with an ad may lead to more retrieval paths being created when the ad is processed (eg, Srull and Wyer, 1985), thus resisting the inhibiting effects of competitive interference (Burke and Srull, 1988). The present study used one-sided comparative ads. Future investigations can utilise comparative ads with two-sided claims to determine its relative effectiveness (Swinyard, 1981). Additionally, various forms (concurrent, proactive, and retroactive) and levels of interference can also be used. The temporal length of each form of interference can also be varied to determine when effectiveness of comparative versus noncomparative advertising dimin- ishes (cfPechmann and Stewart, 1990). The present study manipulated interference in the form of additional ads introduced with the passage of time. This raises the conceptual issue of whether the results obtained are due to the interference of competing ads or due to the passage of time. Hence, future research using concurrent interference can empirically explicate the effect due to interference per se versus the passage of time.

REFERENCES

1. Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, 19 August 1991, Pepsi ads return to Japan airwaves with a bit of a blur.

2. Baumgardner, M H, Leippe, M R, Ronis, D L and Greenwald, A G, (1983), In search of reliable persuasion effects: II. associative interference and persistance of persuasion in a message-dense environment, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 45, September, 524-537.

3. Belch, G E, (1981), An examination of comparative and noncomparative television commercials: The effects of claim variation and repetition on cognitive response and message acceptance, Journal of Marketing Research Vol 18, 3, 333-349.

4. Burke, R R and Srull, T K, (1988), Competitive interference and consumer memory for advertising, Journal of Consumer Research Vol 15, June, 55-68.

5. Deighton, J, (1984), The interaction of advertising and evidence, Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11, December, 763=770.

6. Demirdjian, Z S, (1983), Sales effectiveness of comparative advertising: An experimental field investigation, Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10, December, 362-364.

7. _ _ (1986), Attitudinal and behavioral response to comparative advertising: An experimental field analysis, in Developments in Marketing Science Vot 9, Naresh K Malhotra, (ed), Akron, O H: Academy of Marketing Science, 288-292.

8. Droge, C, (1989), Shaping the route to attitude change: Central versus peripheral processing through comparative versus noncomparative advertising, Journal of Con- sumer Research Vol 26, May, 193-204.

9. _ _ and Darmon, R Y, (1987), Associative positioning strategies through comparative advertising: Attribute versus overall similarity approaches, Journal of Mar- keting Research Vol 24, November, 377-388.

10. Fishbein, M A and Azjen, I, (1975), Belief Attitude, Intention, and Behavior." An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

44

APJM

11. Frith, K T and Frith, M, (1989), Western advertising and eastern culture: The confron- tation in Southeast Asia, in Current Issues & Research in Advertising, James H Leigh and Claude R Martin Jr (ed) Ann Arbor, 63-73, The University of Michigan, Illinois.

12. Golden, L L, (1979), Consumer reactions to explicit brand comparisons in advertisements, Journal of Marketing Research Vol 16, 4, 517-532.

13. Gorn, G J and Weinberg, C B, (1984), The impact of comparative advertising on perception and attitude: Some positive findings, Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11, September, 719-727.

14. Iyer, E S, (1988), The influence of verbal content and relative newness on the effectiveness of comparative advertising, Journal of Advertising Vol 17, 3, 15-21.

15. Jenkins, J G and Dallenbach, K M, (1924), Obliviscence during sleep and waking, American Journal of Psychology Vol 35, October, 605-612.

16. Levy, R, (1987), Big resurgence in comparative ads, Dun's Business Month Vol 129, 2, 56-58.

17. Mitchell, A A and Olson, J C, (1981), Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research Vol 18, August, 318-332.

18. Muehling, D D, (1987), Comparative advertising: The influence of attitude-toward- the-ad on brand evaluation, Journal of Advertising Vol 16, 4, 43-49.

19. Murphy, J H and Amundsen, M S, (1981), The communications effectiveness of comparative advertising for a new brand on users of the dominant brand, Journal of Advertising Vol 10, 1, 14-20.

20. Ohanian, R and Cunningham, I C M, (1987), Application of primacy-recency in comparative advertising, Current Issues and Research in Advertising Vol 10, 1 & 2, 99-121.

21. Pechrnann, C and Stewart, D W, (1990), The effects of comparative advertising on attention, memory, and purchase intentions, Journal of Consumer Research Vol 17, September, 180-191.

22. Rogers, J C and Williams, T G, (1989), Comparative advertising effectiveness: Prac- titioners' perceptions versus academic research findings, Journal of Advertising Re- search Vol 29, October/November, 22-37.

23. Smith, R E and Swinyard, W R, (1983), Attitude-behavior consistency: The impact of product trial versus advertising, Journal of Marketing Research Vol 20, August, 257-267.

24. Singapore Code of Advertising Practice, (1976), Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore, Singapore.

25. Srull, T K and Wyer Jr, R S, (1985), The role of chronic and temporary goals in social information processing, in Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Richard M Son'entino and E Tory Higgins (eds), Guilford, New York, 503-549.

26. Straits Times 28 May 1991, Comparative ads in for a knocking if European regulators get their way.

45

Comparative Advertising: Superiority Despite Interference ?

27. Swayne, L E, Starling, J M and Ginter, P M, (t981), Toward a contingency theory of comparative advertising: A guide for advertising strategy, Akron Business and Eco- nomic Review Vol 12, Summer, 29-34.

28. Swinyard, W R, (1981), The interaction between comparative advertising and copy claim variation, Journal of Marketing Research Vol 18, 2, 175-186.

29. Taschian, R O and Slarna, M E, (1984), Involvement and the effectiveness of comparative advertising, Current Issues and Research in Advertising Vol 1, 79-92.

30. Turgeon, N and Barnaby, D J, (1988), Comparative advertising: Two decades of practice and research, Current Issues and Research in Advertising Vol 11, 1, 41-65.

46

Comparative advertising: Superiority despite interference? · Comparative Advertising: Superiority...

Documents

Transcript of Comparative advertising: Superiority despite interference? · Comparative Advertising: Superiority...