Download pinar aytekin

PERSUASION KNOWLEDGE AND AD SKEPTICISM
PINAR AYTEKIN
Asst. Prof. Dr., Turgutlu Occupational College, Celal Bayar University, Turkey
E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Persuasion knowledge refers to consumers’ recognizing and evaluating marketers’ persuasion goals,
attempts, and tactics and also the efficiency and appropriateness of these tactics. Consumers decide how to
execute coping tactics by using this knowledge. Ad skepticism is also an important skill and a critical
approach for consumers to evaluate and cope with an advertisement in the marketplace. It means
someone’s having a tendency of doubting and disbelieving the claims of every advertisement. A review
of past studies indicates that having higher levels of persuasion knowledge is positively related to being
more skeptical of advertising.
Keywords: Persuasion, persuasion knowledge, advertising, skepticism, ad skepticism
influence the opposite side by using different
methods and motivate him/her in the desired
direction.
1. INTRODUCTION
Persuasion, which is an indispensable and integral
part of communication, has an important role in
marketing communication. Marketers make an
intensive effort to encourage consumers to
purchase. They aim to convince consumers
especially
with
advertising
messages
communicating that the product or service
mentioned in the ad is most suitable for them.
Ehrenberg (2000) suggests that “if it is an ad, it
must be trying to sell.” In this case, persuasion is
needed.
When marketers use persuasion in their advertising
and sales presentations, they look for ways of
influencing consumers. At the same time,
consumers try to interpret and cope with marketers’
tactics used in these attempts and develop personal
knowledge about persuasion. This knowledge helps
them identify how marketers try to persuade them.
People learn about persuasion from social
interactions with friends, family, etc., from
conversations about influencing people’s thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors, from observing marketers
and from news commentaries about advertising and
marketing tactics. Over time, the effects of
persuasion attempts by advertisers or salespeople
on people’s attitudes, thoughts, and behavior will
also change, because people respond to these
attempts by their persuasion knowledge (Friestad
and Wright, 1994). Being aware of marketers’
persuasion efforts and evaluating messages by
using persuasion knowledge will help consumers to
decide more consciously.
Information about one or more product attributes is
communicated in a persuasive way in advertising.
If the communication is persuasive enough to
improve consumers’ attitudes about that attribute,
their attitudes towards the overall brand will also
improve (Leighton, 2009:2).
Persuasion means, “attitude change resulting from
exposure to written or spoken messages delivered
by a source to a recipient” (Olson and Zanna,
1993:135). O’Keefe (2002) describes persuasion as
a deliberate attempt to influence the mind of the
opposite side through communication where he/she
is free to a certain extent. According to Uztuğ
(2003), any communication even without intent to
persuade is a persuasive communication if it causes
a change in the receiver’s attitudes, beliefs, or
actions. Briefly stated, the aim of persuasion is to
2. Persuasion Knowledge
Persuasion knowledge enables people to
“recognize, analyze, interpret, evaluate, and
remember persuasion attempts and select and
1
execute coping tactics believed to be effective and
appropriate” (Friestad and Wright, 1994:3). It refers
to consumers’ knowledge and beliefs about
marketers’ persuasion goals and attempts (e.g., in
advertising), marketers’ tactics, the effectiveness
and appropriateness of these tactics, and also
beliefs about one’s own coping tactics (Hibbert et
al., 2007). Consumer’s awareness of persuasion
attempts and thoughts about marketers’ goals,
intents, and tactics constitutes his/her persuasion
knowledge and this knowledge helps him/her to
cope with these attempts (Aytekin and Ay,
2014:353).
People’s experiences in persuasion episodes ensure
them to understand persuasion process. However, it
is not necessary to rely solely on what they figure
out from their own private perceptions. Some of
these perceptions are confirmed when they describe
their perceptions to others and hear or read what
others say about persuasion. Persuasion is also
conceptualized socially out of these personal
perceptions and interpersonal communications.
Over time, people augment and modify what they
learned from this social information. This expertise
can be obtained from many sources. Consumers can
learn from third party observations of everyday
persuasion attempts and regularly comment among
themselves on advertising, store atmosphere,
package design, and sales tactics. They also have to
take part in persuasion episode by experiencing a
range of situations, such as recognizing marketer’s
persuasion tactics, analyzing in which case this
tactic is motivating, evaluating its efficiency and
deciding how to cope with this persuasion attempt
so as to have expertise in persuasion. Cognitive
effort (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987), which is one of
the required dimensions to have expertise, will
decrease when experience of coping with
persuasion is enhanced. However, less experienced
consumers cope with persuasion in different ways
(Friestad and Wright, 1994:6-7, 12):
 Rigid and absolute convictions (e.g., “all TV
ads are misleading”),
 Total inattention to an attempt by an advertiser
or a salesperson,
 Strong internal denial of information in a
persuasion attempt by a trusted advisor or a
friend who is trying to sell. (The consumer does
not want to think that he/she is a persuasion
source.)
 Total dismissal of all ads or sales presentations
that use particular tactics in any situation,
 Dependence on friends’ interpretations about a
sales presentation or an ad message rather than
on his/her own responses.
People draw on their beliefs about persuasion to
cope with other people’s attempts, because
persuasion-related tasks are so important in
everyday life. The acquiring and sharing of
persuasion expertise is an ongoing sociocultural
process. For example, distinguishing between
program material and advertising material on TV
may require using one’s persuasion knowledge
(Friestad and Wright, 1999:186-187) and acquiring
of persuasion expertise will help him/her in this
effort.
Persuasion knowledge has different dimensions
depending on whether it applies to the persuasion
process itself, to the messages about product or
service, and/or to the source of persuasion, such as
advertiser, salesperson (Hove et al., 2011:527).
According to Artz and Tybout’s (1999) intuition,
increasing the credibility of the source will increase
persuasion. However, their research reveals that
this proposition does not always hold. They suggest
that it does not always mean that enhancing source
credibility will also enhance the persuasion.
Characteristics of the message can influence
whether source credibility enhances, undermines, or
has no effect on persuasion. Yalch and ElmoreYalch (1984) examined the effects of source
expertise and whether message claims were
quantified (e.g. “many people do 95% of their
banking using automatic teller machines” versus
“many people do virtually all their banking using
automatic teller machines”). They found that
greater expertise led to greater persuasion when the
message included quantitative information. They
also suggested that expertise had no effect when the
message was non-quantitative. According to this
result, we can say that consumer must consider not
only the source’s persuasion behavior but also
message content to cope with persuasion.
Petty and Cacioppo (1979) state that “increased
involvement should be associated with increased
persuasion.” Increased involvement enhances the
importance and processing of message content in
producing persuasion. In another study of Petty and
Cacioppo’s (1984), the results show that increasing
the number of arguments in a message can affect
persuasion whether or not the consumer scrutinizes
the actual content of the arguments. Tormala and
Petty (2005) also examined whether more
persuasive information in a message can influence
persuasion even when the actual amount of
information does not vary. The results indicate that
the perceived amount of persuasive information
about a target stimulus can be manipulated to
increase persuasion, even when the actual amount
of information is constant.
In short, we can say that persuasion knowledge is
an essential resource which helps one to realize and
evaluate dangers and threats both as a consumer
and as a person who lives with others in society.
This knowledge will help him/her to make the right
decision.
3. Skepticism toward Advertising
Skepticism is associated with doubt in philosophy.
According to Sextus Empiricus, “everything is
elusive, nothing is certain and everything can be
queried.” A skeptical mind generally doubts “that
which is not proven in an obvious way”
(Pechpeyrou and Odou, 2012:47). If someone is
skeptical, he/she may doubt almost everything.
Skepticism toward advertising (also referred to as
ad skepticism) in general is “the tendency toward
disbelief of advertising claims” (Obermiller and
Spangenberg, 1998:160). Ad skepticism is only
about advertising and is conceptualized as a
marketplace belief. Consumers may believe that
advertising can be trusted to some degree in terms
of socialization and their experiences. The highly
skeptical consumer should be more likely to
disbelieve every ad claim and the less skeptical
consumer more likely to believe every ad claim.
Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998) also examined
the skepticism toward different sources of product
information. The results indicated that advertising
was the least believable of the five sources
(advertising, salespeople, friends, Consumer
Reports and government agency) of product
information (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 2000).
Ad skepticism is a critical approach to evaluate and
cope with an advertisement. It seems to be an
important skill for consumers in the marketplace. If
a consumer is skeptical, he/she is more likely to
examine the ad claims in a critical way and not
accept them at face value. Such critical evaluations
may help him/her to give the right purchase
decisions. Ad skepticism may evolve as a defensive
coping with advertising (Özdoğan and Altıntaş,
2010; Koslow, 2000). Skeptical consumers may be
more defensive to persuasion.
One of the most noteworthy dimensions of
resistance is a general distrust of proposals.
Consumers are likely to become guarded and wary
when faced with a proposal, offer, or message
because they are aware of the persuasive intent of
the marketer. It is also expected that consumers
who are high in ad skepticism have a tendency to
avoid even personalized advertising, which include
using their names and other personal information
(Knowles and Linn, 2004; Baek and Morimoto,
2012).
Chan et al. (2013) argue that even though
consumers’ attitudes toward advertising by medical
professionals are in general favorable, they are
worried about misleading information in these
advertisements. In their study, they found that
younger respondents and respondents with higher
education were more skeptical toward advertising
by medical professionals. However, older
respondents and respondents of a lower educational
level were less skeptical. According to Chan et al.
(2013), the reason of this may be that older people
and people with lower education may have a higher
need for medical services. In this study they also
found that respondents with a higher level of
knowledge of the regulation about advertising
media were less skeptical toward advertising. They
suggest that ad skepticism may be due to lack of
knowledge of advertising practices.
In Freeman and Shapiro’s (2014) study, children
between the ages of 8 and 12 (preteen-age group)
were surveyed and the results indicated that this
group’s skepticism about the truthfulness of
promotional messages was negatively related to
their liking of promotional tactics (e.g., advertising
on mobile phones, product placements in video
games). They argue that as preteen-age group
becomes more skeptical, they are more likely to
avoid the message or transfer their dislike onto the
brand. Also in Tutaj and Reijmersdal’s (2012)
study about online advertising, the results showed
that a negative perceived advertising value is
strongly associated with advertising skepticism.
Amos and Grau (2011) suggest that “skeptics
should have lower buying impulses and should
focus more on the ad in aggregate.” In their study,
they found that consumers who had higher ad
skepticism did lower impulse buying. Because they
prefer long time evaluation and do not decide
immediately.
There are also studies about skepticism in terms of
cultural and subcultural differences. Huh et al.
(2012) examined and compared direct-to-consumer
advertising (DTCA) skepticism between Korean
and Caucasian Americans by undertaking
consumers’ cultural values (collectivism vs.
individualism). They found that Korean and
Caucasian Americans are more similar than
different regarding DTCA skepticism. The results
also indicated that more collectivistic respondents
were less skeptical about DTCA than their more
individualistic counterparts.
4. The Relationship Between
Knowledge and Ad Skepticism
Persuasion
Acceptance of ad claims as true is a function of
persuasion in many situations, a close relation
between ad skepticism and the persuasive effect of
ads should be expected. If consumers have a
tendency to disbelieve ad claims, one of the ways
of persuasion is closed. Consumers’ increasing
marketplace experiences result in increased
awareness of exaggeration and the selling motive of
advertising. This awareness increases skepticism.
However, further improvements in persuasion
knowledge should result in decreases in ad
skepticism, because consumers learn when and how
to use and trust ad claims (Obermiller and
Spangenberg, 1998).
Boush et al. (1994) tried to learn whether
consumers approach advertising with a wellinformed mind or have a tendency to reject or to
believe every claim in advertising. The results
indicated that having higher levels of knowledge
about advertiser tactics was positively related to
being more skeptical of advertising.
Mangleburg and Bristol (1998) mention about the
crucial role of marketplace knowledge in adolescent
skepticism toward advertising. They found that
marketplace knowledge was related positively to
skepticism. They suggest that greater knowledge of
the marketplace may give teens a basis to evaluate
ads. Thus, they are more likely to recognize
advertisers’ persuasion attempts and also are better
able to tell whether the ads are truthful or
misleading. This suggestion overlaps with both
Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998) and Boush et
al. (1994).
John (1999) focuses on what children know or
believe about advertising and how they respond.
She suggests that advertising knowledge is acquired
for children to use it as a cognitive filter or defense
when they are exposed to persuasive message. For
example, around the age of 7 or 8, children begin to
see the persuasive intent and understand that
advertisers are “trying to get people to buy
something.” By the time children reach the age of
8, they not only understand the persuasive intent in
advertising but also recognize the deceptive
advertising. McAlister and Cornwell (2009) suggest
that “to understand persuasion in advertising fully,
a person must have the capacity to distinguish his
or her own wants and needs from the desires of
advertisers.” We can say that children who reach
the age of 8 have the capacity for this
differentiation.
Coulter et al. (1999) suggest that consumers are
active readers of advertising, so they may or may
not respond as the advertiser expected. They may or
may not feel guilty when they see a guilt appeal in
an ad. Coulter et al. (1999) argue that three factors
seem to be important: “persuasion knowledge, ad
credibility and inferences of manipulative intent”.
Accordingly, when consumers see guilt appeals in
an advertisement, they refer to their persuasion
knowledge and make cognitive evaluations, assess
ad credibility and advertiser motivations.
Persuasion knowledge and consumers’ experiences
with particular guilt appeals are likely to influence
their reactions to ads, and also when consumers
perceive that ad is credible, they are more likely to
have a positive attitude to the advertisement and
feel guilty. But if consumers perceive that an ad is
unreliable, they are likely to have a negative
attitude to the ad and become annoyed, and not feel
guilty.
Thompson and Malaviya’s (2013) study about
persuasion and consumer-generated ads indicates
that consumers do not necessarily perceive
consumer-generated ads as more trustworthy than
ads created by professional firms. Consumers seem
to realize that an advertisement needs to be
persuasive and evaluate the effectiveness of the
message by using their perceptions of the ad
creator’s competence. They find that attributing an
advertising message to a consumer can prevent
persuasion. Also the results show that disclosing a
consumer source triggers skepticism about the
competence of the ad creator and identification with
the ad creator.
Deighton et al. (1989) mention about using drama
in advertising. While an argument in advertising
appeals its claims objectively and is processed
evaluatively, a drama in advertising is more
subjective and is processed empathically. Viewers
respond to dramatized advertising emotionally. For
Deighton et al. (1989), despite the absence of
propositions, evidence, reasons, claims, and other
traps, drama is persuasive. They argue that drama is
more persuasive than argument even though it is
less likely to elicit persuasion. Consumers use their
persuasion knowledge even if they respond
emotionally.
Kirmani and Zhu (2007) investigated the impact of
being promotion-focused or prevention-focused on
persuasion knowledge. Acording to Higgins (1997),
promotion-focused people perceive their goals as
hopes, wishes and aspirations, but preventionfocused people perceive the same goals as duties,
obligations and responsibilities. Kirmani and Zhu
(2007) propose that a prevention focus person
increases
sensitivity
to
the
advertiser’s
manipulative intent when compared with a
promotion-focused person. They are more likely to
focus on negative information and use avoidance
strategies when they are watching an ad. They may
think in terms of how to avoid being unduly
persuaded, because they want to make a good
decision. Thus, they may be vigilant against
manipulation, activate their negative persuasion
knowledge and have greater skepticism about ad
claims even in the presence of ambiguous cues. In
contrast, promotion-focused people are likely to
have skepticism only when advertising message
make manipulative intent highly salient. The
researchers argue that motivational factors impact
the use of persuasion knowledge and being vigilant
against persuasion.
Obermiller et al. (2005) suggest that more skeptical
consumers like advertising less and rely on it less.
In addition, they respond more positively to
emotional appeals than to informational appeals. In
response to informational appeals in advertising,
the more skeptical consumers have more negative
attitudes toward the advertised products, but in
response to emotional appeals, they have more
positive attitudes. LaTour and LaTour (2009)
found that consumers who were skeptical about the
claims in advertising and noticed the falsity at
exposure were still positively influenced by the ad
message. Despite skepticism, emotional appeals
might positively influence the consumers.
Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998) argue that
consumers who have high persuasion knowledge
are not impossible to persuade, it may be difficult
to persuade them because they are more in control
of their responses to persuasion attempts of
marketers. In contrast, consumers with very high
skepticism toward advertising may be impossible to
persuade, because they would not believe any ad
claims.
5. CONCLUSION
Persuasion has an important role in both in the
marketplace and social life, because someone
generally tries to persuade the opposite side by
using different methods and tactics and wants to
motivate him/her in the desired direction. It is a
deliberate attempt to influence someone’s mind and
the purpose of persuasive communication is to
cause a change in the receiver’s attitudes, beliefs or
actions.
Marketers use persuasion tactics in their advertising
and sales presentations to influence the consumers,
because their aim is to encourage them to purchase.
They communicate in a persuasive way to convince
them that their products or services are the most
suitable for everybody especially with advertising
claims. However, consumers try to clarify the
marketers’ goals and attempts. They need to cope
with their persuasion tactics, so they develop
persuasion knowledge. This knowledge helps them
identify how marketers try to persuade them.
Persuasion knowledge enables consumers to
recognize, interpret, and evaluate marketers’
persuasion attempts and to cope with the persuasive
tactics in a proper way.
Ad skepticism, which is the tendency toward
disbelief of advertising claims, is an important
approach for consumers to cope with advertising.
Skeptical consumers are more likely to examine the
ad messages in a critical way and they doubt every
claim in advertising so that they can improve
defense against tactics of marketers’. If a consumer
is high skeptical about ad claims, it may be
impossible to persuade him/her, because he/she
would not believe any of them. Consumers’
increasing marketplace experiences and persuasion
knowledge result in increases in awareness of
persuasive intent of advertising. This awareness
also increases skepticism. As a result, it may be
impossible for marketers to convince a consumer
with high skepticism and persuasion knowledge.
REFRENCES
1. Alba, Joseph W. and Hutchinson, J. Wesley,
(1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise”,
Journal of Consumer Research, 13, March, pp. 411454.
2. Amos, Clinton and Grau, Stacy Landreth, (2011),
“Does Consumer Scepticism Negate the Effects of
Visceral Cues in Weight Loss Advertising?”,
International Journal of Advertising: The Review of
Marketing Communications, 30(4), pp. 693-719.
3. Artz, N. and Tybout A. M., (1999), “The
Moderating Impact of Quantitative Information on
the Relationship Between Source Credibility and
Persuasion: A Persuasion Knowledge Model
Interpretation”, Marketing Letters 10(1), pp. 51-62.
4. Aytekin, P. and Ay, C., (2014), Pazarlama
Teorileri, (Eds. M. I. Yağcı and S. Çabuk),
Istanbul: MediaCat.
5. Baek, Tae Hyun and Morimoto, Mariko, (2012),
“Stay
Away
From
Me: Examining
the
Determinants of Consumer Avoidance of
Personalized Advertising”, Journal of Advertising,
41(1), Spring, pp. 59-76.
6. Boush, David M., Friestad, Marian and Rose,
Gregory M., (1994), “Adolescent Skepticism
toward TV Advertising and Knowledge of
Advertiser Tactics”, 21(1), pp. 165-175.
7. Boush, David M., Friestad, Marian and Rose,
Gregory M., (1994), “Adolescent Skepticism
toward TV Advertising and Knowledge of
Advertiser Tactics”, 21(1), pp. 165-175.
8. Chan, Kara, Tsang, Lennon and Leung,
Vivienne, (2013), “Consumers’ attitudes toward
advertising by medical professionals”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 30(4), pp. 328-334.
9. Coulter, R. H., Cotte, J. and Moore, M. L.,
(1999), “Believe It or Not: Persuasion,
Manipulation and Credibility of Guilt Appeals”,
Advances in Consumer Research, 26, pp. 288-294.
10. de Pechpeyrou, Pauline and Odou, Philippe,
(2012), “Consumer Skepticism and Promotion
Effectiveness”, Recherche et Applications en
Marketing (English Edition), 27(2), pp. 45-69.
11. Deighton, John, Romer, Daniel and McQueen,
Josh, (1989), “Using Drama to Persuade”, Journal
of Consumer Research, 16, December, pp. 335-343.
12. Ehrenberg, A., (2000), “Persuasion: Tacit
Suggestion Versus Full-Frontal Advocacy”,
International Journal of Advertising, 19(3), pp. 417421.
13. Freeman, Dan and Shapiro, Stewart, (2014),
“Tweens’ Knowledge of Marketing Tactics:
Skeptical Beyond Their Years”, Journal of
Advertising Research, 54(1), pp. 44-55.
14. Friestad, M. and Wright, P., (1994), “The
Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope
with Persuasion Attempts”, Journal of Consumer
Research, 21, June, pp. 1-31.
15. Friestad, Marian and Wright, Peter, (1995),
“Persuasion Knowledge: Lay People’s and
Researchers’ Beliefs about the Psychology of
Advertising”, Journal of Consumer Research, 22,
June, pp. 62-74.
16. Friestad, Marian and Wright, Peter, (1999),
“Everyday Persuasion Knowledge”, Psychology &
Marketing, 16(2), March, pp. 185–194.
17. Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A. and Ireland
F., (2007), “Guilt Appeals: Persuasion Knowledge
and Charitable Giving”, Psychology & Marketing,
Vol. 24 (8), pp. 723–742.
18. Higgins, E. Tory, (1997), “Beyond Pleasure and
Pain”, American Psychologist, 52, December, pp.
1280-1300.
19. Hove Thomas, Paek, Hye-Jin and Isaacson,
Thomas, (2001), “Using Adolescent eHealth
Literacy To Weigh Trust in Commercial Web Sites:
The More Children Know, the Tougher They are to
Persuade”, Journal of Advertising Research, 51(3),
September, pp.524-537.
20. Huh, Jisu, Delorme, Denise E. and Reid,
Leonard N., (2012), “Scepticism Towards DTC
Advertising: A Comparative Study of Korean and
Caucasian Americans”, International Journal of
Advertising, 31(1), pp. 147-168
21. John, Deborah Roedder, (1999), “Consumer
Socialization of Children: A Retrospective Look at
Twenty-Five Years of Research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, 26(3), pp. 183-213.
22. Kirmani, Amna and Zhu, Rui (Juliet), (2007),
“Vigilant Against Manipulation: The Effect of
Regulatory Focus on the Use of Persuasion
Knowledge”, Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4),
pp. 688-701.
23. Knowles, Eric S. and Linn, Jay A., (2004), “The
Importance of Resistance to Persuasion,” in
Resistance and Persuasion, (eds., Eric S. Knowles
and Jay A. Linn), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 3-9.
24. Koslow, S. (2000), “Can the Truth Hurt? How
Honesty and Persuasive Advertising can
Unintentionally Lead to Increased Consumer
Skepticism”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 34(2),
pp. 245-68.
25. LaTour, K.A. and LaTour, M.S., (2009),
“Positive Mood and Susceptibility to False
Advertising”, Journal of Advertising, 38(Fall), pp.
127-142.
26. Leighton, J., (2009), “Ads Must be Memorable,
not Persuasive, to Influence Choice”, ADMAP,
502, February, pp. 2-10.
27. Mangleburg Tamara F. and Bristol, Terry,
(1998), “Socialization and Adolescents’ Skepticism
toward Advertising”, Journal of Advertising, 27(3),
Fall, pp. 11-21
28. McAlister, Anna R. and Cornwell, T. Bettina,
(2009),
“Preschool
Children’s
Persuasion
Knowledge: The Contribution of Theory of Mind”,
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(2), Fall,
pp. 175-185.
29. O’Keefe, D. J., (2002), Persuasion: Theory and
Research, Second Edition, California: Sage
Publications, Inc.
30. Obermiller, Carl and Spangenberg, Eric R.,
(1998), “Development of a Scale to Measure
Consumer Skepticism toward Advertising”, Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), pp. 159-186.
Analizi”, İstanbul Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 17, pp. 263-295
31. Obermiller, Carl and Spangenberg, Eric R.,
(2000), “On The Origin and Distinctness of
Skepticism toward Advertising”, Marketing Letters,
11(4), pp. 311-322.
41. Yalch, R. F. and Elmore-Yalch, R., (1984),
“The Effect of Numbers on the Route to
Persuasion”, Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1),
June, pp. 522-527.
32. Obermiller, Carl, Spangenberg, Eric and
MacLachlan, Douglas L. (2005), “Ad Skepticism:
The Consequences of Disbelief”, Journal of
Advertising, 34(3), Fall, pp. 7-17.
33. Olson, J.M. and Zanna, M. P., (1993),
“Attitudes and Attitude Change”, Annual Review
of Psychology, 44, pp. 117-154.
34. Ozdogan F. Bahar and Altıntaş, M. Hakan,
(2010), “Parent‐Adolescent Interaction and The
Family’s Effect on Adolescent TV Skepticism: An
Empirical Analysis with Turkish Consumers”,
Young Consumers, 11(1), pp. 24-35.
35. Petty, Richard E. and Cacioppo, J. T., (1984),
“The Efects of Involvement on Response to
Argument Quantity and Quality: Central and
Peripheral Routes to Persuasion”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, pp.69-81.
36. Petty, Richard E. and Cacioppo, John T.,
(1979), “Issue Involvement Can Increase or
Decrease Persuasion by Enhancing MessageRelevant Cognitive Responses”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10),
October, pp. 1915-1926.
37. Thompson, Debora V. and Malaviya, Prashant,
(2013),
“Consumer-Generated
Ads:
Does
Awareness of Advertising Co-Creation Help or
Hurt Persuasion?”, Journal of Marketing, 77(3), pp.
33-47.
38. Tormala, Zakary, L. and Petty, Richard E.
(2007), “Contextual Contrast and Perceived
Knowledge: Exploring the Implications for
Persuasion” Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 43, pp. 17-30.
39. Tutaj, Karolina and Reijmersdal, Eva A. van,
(2012), “Effects of Online Advertising Format and
Persuasion Knowledge on Audience Reactions”,
Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(1),
February pp. 5-18.
40. Uztug, F., (2003), “İkna Edici İletişim
Kampanyalarında
İletişim
Hedefleri:
IAA
Üniversitelerarası Reklam Yarışması İş Özetleri