Download The Effect of Tangible Product Cues on Skepticism towards

 The Effect of Tangible Product Cues on Skepticism towards Advertising:
Seeing is Believing
Autoria: Cristiano do Amaral Britto de Castro, Delane Botelho
Abstract
In 2011, US$498 billion were invested worldwide in advertising, a growth of 7.3% over 2010.
But throughout the decades a challenge has been daunting marketers: the tendency consumers
have to disbelieve advertising, known as ad skepticism. The main questions underlining this
paper are: how to make advertising claims more credible? How can marketers decrease
consumers’ levels of ad skepticism by providing them reasons to believe in such claims? Are
experience attribute claims more likely to result in disbelief than search attributes claims? We
suggest propositions that may enhance the knowledge of advertising effectiveness when
consumers tend to be skeptical.
Introduction
In 2011, US$498 billion were invested in advertising around the world, which represented a
growth of 7.3% compared to the previous year (Novas, 2012). The same trend may be seen in
Brazil, where US$46billion were invested in 2011, a 16% growth over 2010 (Henrique,
2012). Despite being highly sophisticated, applying the state-of-the-art theory of consumer
behavior, advertising faces a serious challenge in its objective of influencing people, since
consumers do not always trust in advertising. For example, in the financial crisis of 20082009 consumers’ mistrust in corporations increased, along with a drop in advertising
credibility (Kotler; Kartajaya; Setiawan, 2010).
This phenomenon is defined as ad skepticism (Obermiller; Spangenberg, 1998), and is based
on the predisposition consumers have to disbelieve the informational claims of advertising.
Although a free market provides easy access to information about goods and services, sorting
through ad claims requires consumers´ effort, and they may be not highly motivated to
process all such information (MacInnis, Moorman; Jaworski, 1991). A free market also
requires sellers to display their products as visible as possible, which may result in
overstatement on communication to persuade buyers, mainly if the country legislation is
weak. Thus, market itself stimulates consumers´ skepticism (Obermiller; Spangenberg,
1998), which can be harmful to companies investing on advertising.
However even skeptics are not immune to advertising (Obermiller, Spangenberg;
MacLachlan, 2005), assuming that consumers do not trust ad claims unless they have reasons
to trust them (Calfee; Ford, 1988). The main questions underlining this paper are: how to
make advertising claims more credible? How can marketers decrease consumers’ levels of ad
skepticism by providing them reasons to believe in such claims? Are experience attribute
claims more likely to result in disbelief than search attributes claims? We suggest
propositions that may enhance the knowledge of advertising effectiveness when consumers
tend to be skeptical.
Conceptual background and propositions
Skepticism
Central to our argument is the understanding of the concept of skepticism. Authors from
fields as diverse as accounting, philosophy, religion and marketing have been scrutinizing
skepticism for many decades. But, perhaps it has found in the field of consumer psychology
its most devoted researchers, as seen in Table 1.
Table 1: Definitions of skepticism in different fields
Construct
Skepticism
Skepticism
Skepticism
toward
advertising
Skepticism
toward
advertising
Motivated
skepticism
Author
Merriam Webster
Dictionary (2012)
Mohr, L.A.
Eroglu, D.
Ellen, P. S. (1998)
Obermiller, C.
Spangenberg, E.
(1998)
Bousch, D. M.
Friestad, M.
Rose, G. M. (1994)
Ditto, P. H.
Lopez, D. F. (1992)
Definition
An attitude of doubt or a disposition of incredulity in
general or towards a specific object.
A cognitive response that varies depending on the
context and content of communication.
Field
Linguistics
Tendency toward disbelief of advertising claims.
Psychology
A combination of disbelief in advertising claims and
mistrust of advertisement motives.
Marketing
Tendency to believe more easily in desirable than
undesirable information.
Psychology
Marketing
2
Skepticism
Forehand, M. R.
Grier, S. (2003)
Humean
skepticism
Hunt, S. D.
(2003)
Skepticism
Professional
Skepticism
Bostad, Inga (2011)
Hurtt, R. K. (2010)
Skepticism
Priest, J. (1968)
Consumer distrust or disbelief of marketer actions,
which can be induced independently of evaluator
traits.
Since all of our knowledge of the external world
comes from “sense impressions”, there is no way to
establish the necessary connections between the
phenomena.
Unbiased form of investigation.
A multi-dimensional construct that characterizes the
propensity of an individual to defer concluding until
the evidence provides sufficient support for one
alternative over others.
An intellectually articulated challenge to the ultimate
legitimations of society.
Consumer
psychology
Philosophy of
Science
Philosophy
Accounting
Religion
One area that has been drawing substantial attention from consumer psychologists is
skepticism toward advertising (ad skepticism). Most authors agree with Obermiller;
Spangenberg (1998) definition of ad skepticism as the tendency toward disbelief of
advertising claims. Therefore, ad skepticism is a stable characteristic of consumers that play a
role in responses to advertising (Obermiller; Spangenberg, 2000, p. 312). An important
observation that stems from this definition is that, although advertising claims may be found
in different media, skepticism may be generalizable across media within individuals, even
though a specific medium may exert higher skepticism than others. It means that a person
may be more skeptical to an ad aired on TV when compared to one on the Internet, but a
skeptical person will always display higher levels of skepticism, than those who are less
skeptical, regardless of the medium.
Skepticism is also impacted by the mistrust of marketer’s motives, so consumers may
evaluate firms more negatively if they perceive its practices serving firms´ interests only. In
fact, many consumers consistently assume that advertising seeks to persuade for the benefit of
sellers rather than consumers (Calfee; Ringold, 1994). So, consumers may be more skeptical
to information provided by marketers than to information provided by other people,
(Obermiller; Spangenberg, 2000), indicating that the source of information influences the
skepticism degree exhibited by consumers.
Skepticism may take two distinct forms: dispositional skepticism, which is an individual's
ongoing tendency to be suspicious of other people's motives, and situational skepticism,
which is a momentary state of distrust of an actor's motivations (Forehand; Grier, 2003). For
each of them, different sets of antecedents have been identified: i) for dispositional skepticism
they are involvement with the product category (Obermiller; Spangenberg, 2005; Hawkins;
Hoch, 1992), socialization in the family (Obermiller; Spangenberg, 2000), age (Bousch,
Friestad; Rose, 1994), education and personality traits such as self-esteem (Obermiller;
Spangeberg, 1998, 2005), and prior beliefs (Maloney, 1963); ii) for situational skepticism
they are product and medium type (Prendergast, Liu; Poon, 2009; Calfee; Ford, 1988).
Lower involvement with the product, due to the lack of familiarity with it, generates a higher
skepticism level on consumers (Obermiller; Spangenberg, 2005; Hawkins; Hoch, 1992), but
once the consumer learns about the product, the uncertainty and the skepticism may
decreases. A second dispositional antecedent is the socialization in the family, mainly across
generations. Considering that parents influence their children in many ways, it is correct to
affirm that it also happens for marketplace beliefs, including the usefulness and value of
advertising (Moore-Shay & Lutz, 1988). Thus, more skeptical parents have more skeptical
3
children, confirming that that family is an important antecedent of skepticism (Obermiller;
Spangenberg, 2000). Also, age is an important factor influencing how skeptical a person is,
due to the fact that knowledge about advertiser tactics will develop during early adolescence
towards adulthood, which then impacts skepticism due to the positive relation it has with
tactics knowledge (Bousch, Friestad, Rose, 1994). The result is that, although levels of
mistrust in advertiser motives do not change throughout adolescence, the levels of disbelief on
advertisers’ claims do. Along with age, education and self-esteem represent major influence
factors on skepticism (Obermiller; Spangenberg, 1998, 2005). The more educated a person,
the more comfortable s/he will feel when questioning and criticizing an advertising claim,
since there will be more information to support the argument. Also, the more confident a
person, the more inclined to argue against something s/he do not agree or believe. One last
dispositional factor that may affect skepticism is the prior belief the person already has about
the brand, product or category (Maloney, 1963). That means that believability may be
enhanced when advertising claim support pre-existing attitudes and beliefs. So, skepticism
tends to be greater when consumers have an opposing attitude or belief to what is being
advertised. For instance, if a person believes that smoking is not bad for her/his health, any
claims saying the opposite will raise higher levels of skepticism.
As for situational skepticism, product and medium type may influence the level of consumer
skepticism. According to Economics of Information Theory (Stigler, 1961; Nelson, 1970,
1984) there are search goods (those whose attributes can be evaluated prior to the purchase or
use), experience goods (those whose attributes cannot be evaluated by search, demanding use
and experience) and credence goods (complex products, featuring attributes that cannot be
evaluated even after use or experience). By definition, consumers are more skeptical to
experience and credence goods, since they do not allow any kind of evaluation beforehand.
Medium type is the second situational factor to impact on how skeptical consumers may be of
an advertising claim. Advertising credibility refers not only to the product being advertised,
but also to the medium through which the message is being delivered (Prendergast, Liu; Poon,
2009). Each medium has its own image and personality, so they have different levels of
credibility: Marshal; Na (2003) and Atkin; Beltramini (2007) found that internet is a less
credible medium than print media, which means that the same message will have higher
levels of credibility when presented in print than when online. The consistency of the
information with the expected conclusion may also be accounted as a situational factor. The
concept of motivated skepticism explains “the notion that people are less skeptical consumers
of desirable than undesirable information” (Ditto; Lopez, 1992, p. 568). This means that
information that is consistent with the preferred conclusion is less likely to initiate an intense
cognitive process on the person’s mind than an inconsistent one. The result is that the person
will be less critical in the first situation compared to the second (more skeptical in the second
situation). However, it does not mean that people will not ever be able to accept inconsistent
information’s validity. It means that people will require it more, or better quality information
to overcome skepticism and come to terms with the non preferred conclusion.
A controversial theory regarding skepticism is provided by Koslow; Beltramini (2002), who
say that it is more difficult to disbelieve than to believe advertising information. Based on the
Spinozan theory, which establishes that people have a tendency to first believe everything
they see and then to disbelieve whatever they consider false (Gilbert, 1991), the authors found
that consumers first believe in the ads and claims they are exposed to, and only afterwards,
depending on the information gathered and on their cognitive process, they disbelieve in the
ones they find false. Some factors may truncate this process, such as time pressure or other
distractions. As controversial as it may be, Koslow; Beltramini (2002) have confirmed the
4
notion advocated by Gilbert (1991) that consumer’s mind has different processes of
evaluating, comprehending and believing in an ad.
To better understand skepticism, we found important to understand its difference from related
constructs. First, the striking difference between persuasion knowledge and skepticism relates
to the way consumers responds to information (Obermiller; Spangenberg, 1998). Greater
persuasion knowledge implies greater control of the results of such persuasion attempt, and
not greater resistance to it. It means that those who score highly on persuasion knowledge
have better control of their responses to marketing communications, so persuasion knowledge
might take consumers to either denying or accepting claims (Friestad & Wright, 1994),
whereas high skeptical consumers may be impossible to persuade by means of information or
argument. Therefore, persuasion knowledge is not used by people only to resist a persuasion
attempt, but simply to maintain control over the outcome and be able to achieve whatever
goals they have. Second, cynicism, defined as the suspicion of other people’s motives,
faithfulness and goodwill (Obermiller; Spangenberg, 1998, p. 166), can also be confused with
skepticism. But cynics are less likely to believe information from any source, and when it
comes to advertising claims, they tend to attribute it to selling motives rather than straight up
honesty. Therefore, cynicism may be considered, at best, an antecedent of skepticism. Finally,
some people may use ad skepticism and attitude towards advertising interchangeably.
Although they are related, the scale used to measure attitude towards advertising present some
items that reflect skepticism, but there also there are items intended to measure other
dimensions of attitude, such as advertising’s effects on society. Obermiller; Spangenberg
(1998) used discriminant validity to prove that attitude towards the ad is broader than
skepticism, despite being related.
Skepticism may present several different responses to advertising claims. In a broad sense,
not only more skeptical consumers believe less in advertising, but they also like it less, and
highly skeptical consumers are less likely to purchase a product based solely on its
advertising, since they expect less informational value from any sort of advertisement. As a
result of less perceived informational value of advertisement, consumers rely less to it
(Obermiller; Spangenberg; MacLachlan, 2005). The cognitive process in which the consumer
is involved after being impacted by an ad differs from person to person, from claim to claim,
according to some variables. For example, take the example of Whirlpool’s latest Microwave
Oven launch in Brazil. The claim used to advertise the product says that it allows consumers
to “cook with only three touches”, positioning the product as very easy to use. There are two
factors that may decrease the persuasive power of such claim: (1) alternative causes and (2)
disabling conditions (Cummins, 1995). Alternative causes refer to the ability of finding
different explanations for that claim to be true. In the Microwave Oven example, it happens if
the consumer believes that frozen food companies bear the responsibility of making it easy for
the consumer to defrost and eat it. Now, what disabling condition means, is the consumer’s
ability to think of situations that somehow denies what is being claimed. A disabling
condition in this case would occur if the consumer knew other consumers who have
purchased the product and not found it that simple to use. Thus, consumer’s skepticism level,
therefore, influences and is influenced by how much they will search for alternative
explanations for that claim.
Different types of claims are responsible for triggering distinct cognitive processes within
consumers mind, and skepticism also impacts the perception these different types of claims
will have (Obermiller; Spangenberg; MacLachlan, 2005). Consumers with lower levels of
skepticism show similar responses to claims either functional or emotional, whilst those
5
presenting higher levels of skepticism respond in a more positive manner to emotional claims.
As a matter of fact, the response to emotional claims is similar for both high and low skeptical
consumers, which indicates that a high level of skepticism deteriorates responses only for
functional claims.
Whether the claim is objective or subjective also impacts on the skepticism level shown by
consumers (Ford; Smith; Swasy, 1990). An objective claim is one that describes some feature
of the product that is measured in a standard way, such as weight or height. Therefore,
subjective claims may be described as those that describe some features of the product that
are not measured in a standard way. By definition, objective claims are more easily believed,
since it is possible to generate more support arguments and fewer counterarguments than in
subjective claims.
Skeptical consumers show higher propensity to avoid advertising, since “higher skepticism
was associated with zipping, zapping, and ignoring ads” (Obermiller; Spangenberg;
MacLachlan, 2005, p. 11). However, skeptics are not immune to advertising: despite higher or
lower levels of skepticism, around 70% of consumers declare believing that advertisements
provide useful information on the products announced (Calfee; Ringold, 1994), which means
that sellers can overcome the barriers generated by skepticism to improve their performances
in the market. One of the central arguments in this paper is that tangibility reduces skepticism,
so we discuss this topic next.
Tangibility
Consumers who are still distant from the purchase moment state ethereal motives to justify
their choices, but the closer they are from the actual purchase, the more they choose based on
concrete solutions (Horsky; Nelson; Posavac, 2004). Shostack (1977) suggests a continuum
along which all offerings found in the market may be placed: intangible offerings are in the
left of the continuum tangible ones are in the right. What is meant by intangible is something
that is not physical and cannot be sensed in any way (Myers, 2011). Offers that are
predominantly tangible are known as goods, whilst those that are intangible are generally
services. The focus of this paper is on goods only.
Intangibility carries along a great deal of risk, since it makes products difficult, sometimes
impossible, to evaluate before the purchase (Rushton; Carson, 1989, p. 30). Levitt (1981) says
“when prospective customers can’t experience the product in advance, they are asked to buy
what are essentially promises – promises of satisfaction” (p. 96). Therefore, the tangibility of
an intangible factor allows an offer promise to become more real, more believable, providing
the buyer with higher confidence when purchasing that offer. Even an offer with prevailing
tangible attributes may benefit from making its intangible aspects more believable.
The Cue Utilization Theory (Sullivan; Burger, 1987) establishes that all products are made of
multiples cues that may be seen as surrogates for the intangible attributes that make up, in
higher or lower degree, an offer. So, one might say that these so called cues end up allowing
for a higher tangibility of those attributes that are considered intangible in any given offer,
which is considered highly relevant by not only those dedicated to the marketing of services
(Rushton; Carson, 1989), but also by those involved with the marketing of goods (Levitt,
1981). Companies (sellers) are not the only ones who benefit from the cue utilization;
consumers themselves, whether it is conscious or not, make systematic use of them too
(Jacoby; Olson; Haddock, 1971), through a decoding behavior that is both learned and
processed throughout life by every person (Sullivan; Burger, 1987).
6
Depending on the product category, different cues may be used by the buyer to generate some
sort of perception about an intangible attribute. Intrinsic cues are those that, once altered, will
alter product characteristics as well, which means that they are physical attributes of the
product. Extrinsic cues are those that are associated with the product, but are not part of the
product itself, such as brand, price, and store image. So they carry along some degree of
intangibility, but play an important role in adding certain level of tangibility to the offering.
When forming a quality perception of any product, consumers lean mainly on price and brand
(Monroe; Grewal, 1991; Rao; Monroe, 1989), which are extrinsic cues. But intrinsic cues play
also an important role, in the case of attributes such as odor, taste and tactile sensation
(Jacoby, Olson; Haddock, 1971; Szybillo; Jacoby, 1974).
The greater importance of one kind of cues compared to the other has been largely discussed
in the literature, presenting contradictory results. Richardson; Dick; Jain (1994) found in an
experiment involving private labels that extrinsic cues have greater impact on the buyer. On
the other hand, Szybillo; Jacoby (1971) found that intrinsic cues, ceteris paribus, possess
greater impact in consumers’ minds. Intrinsic cues will be more dominant under two
circumstances: i) in the existence of intrinsic cues in abundance, and ii) more time availability
on the buyer’s side to process all cues (Miyazaki; Grewal; Goodstein, 2005). Consumers
depend and rely more on intrinsic cues when they either are i) at the moment of purchase; ii)
in a pre-purchase situation, when intrinsic attributes are search attributes, and not experience
ones; iii) or when the intrinsic attribute bears a high predictive value. On the other hand,
extrinsic cues become more relevant when consumers i) are in the initial stages of purchase
process, when intrinsic attributes are not yet available; ii) perceive the time and energy
necessary to evaluate all intrinsic cues greater than that which is seen as valid; and iii) when
quality is too difficult to evaluate.
Familiarity with the product may also be considered an important factor to influence the
importance of cues (Rao; Monroe, 1988). In a broad sense it impacts the way buyers will
utilize the product and, because of that, in situations where there is higher levels of
familiarity, consumers may rely on both intrinsic and extrinsic cues. However, in situations
where the low familiarity prevails, there is a greater chance consumers will only use extrinsic
cues as a tool to help them when forming a quality perception. At a moderate level,
consumers tend to rely on intrinsic cues only.
Relying on one, or two, even three or more cues have also got important outcomes on the
analysis of how important cues are. To illustrate this statement, lets consider price, the most
common extrinsic cue. When a consumer is shopping any given product and quality is
considered the most important attribute, most consumers choose the most expensive product
(Leavitt, 1954). So, when price is the only utilized extrinsic cue, it is positively associated
with perceived quality. However, when consumers use more cues, price has its importance
diminished (Dodds, Monroe & Grewal, 1991), which may be considered natural, since the
inclusion of different cues on the list automatically indicates that more factors have to be
considered and weighed by the consumer. The conclusion that any particular cue will have its
importance diminished in the presence of other cues is primordial, since there are evidences
that consumers use multiple cues when forming a quality perception, and not only one or two
(Jacoby; Olson, 1972).
7
Referring to the Cue Utilization Theory (Sullivan; Burger, 1987), a suggestion of an
alternative and perhaps more complex explanation about consumer’s relationship with cues
may be found. This alternative explanation actually proves to be more enlightening as to how
consumers are influenced by cues. It proposes that all cues may be described as possessing a
predictive value (PV) and a confidence value (CV). Predictive value is “defined as a measure
of a consumer’s perception that a cue is a valid indicator of one or more subjective attributes”
For instance, the size of the speakers in a stereo system may be a good indicator of how
powerful that system really is. Conversely, whether the speakers are black or white have very
little to do with measuring the power level of the stereo system as a whole. Thus, speaker size
presents a high PV, whilst speaker color have a low PV for the subjective attribute power.
Confidence value “reflects the degree of confidence that consumers have in their ability to
distinguish differences in a cue and correctly evaluate those differences” (Sullivan & Burger,
1987, p. 65). Building on the previous example, both an electric engineer and a person buying
her/his first stereo system might believe that speaker size is a good indicator of the system’s
power. However, the engineer would probably present higher confidence in judging
differences in speaker size among various systems. Therefore, speaker size would present
greater CV level for her/him than for the inexperienced buyer’s, even though both would
likely assign a high PV level to speaker size as a cue.
Predictive and confidence values constitute distinct and independent entities, each one made
of a set of information that, taken together allow the cue to have higher or lower value.
However, although independent from each other, PV and CV influence both the use and the
impact of the cue in a specific and interactive way, which means that the results obtained
from a cue with high PV and CV are better than those obtained from cues that have any of the
other three possible combinations.
There are at least three ways to operate PV and CV with the objective of improving product
and brand’s image: i) the seller may manipulate product’s intrinsic attributes, that is, alter the
product’s characteristics or develop new intrinsic qualities to create new cues or reinforce
existing ones (in this case, we may say that there is really an act of turning something into a
tangible attribute, since there is some level of change in product’s physical aspect); ii) the
seller may use communication tools to change the perception about the cues, which ends up
transferring more confidence to the consumer due to their familiarity with the media; and iii)
the seller may also combine both previous strategies, reinforcing a cue obtained through
altered/new intrinsic attributes via communication tools (Sullivan; Burger, 1987). So, it is fair
to say that cue utilization allow the seller to decrease psychological cost of the products being
sold, therefore improving its value equation.
Based on the Economic Theory of Information, discussed next, this paper proposes an
additional form of classifying the cues found in offerings. Similar to search attributes, which
can be verified prior to the product purchase, it is proposed a search cue, in which the
consumer can use prior to purchase. For example, when claiming to have a triple action effect,
the seller developed a toothpaste bearing three different colors in its composition, and made it
very apparent on package. Consumers can, therefore, verify the validity of the triple action
claim before purchasing the product. As for experience attributes, the proposition herein is
that the same goes for some cues. An example of that is Listerine, a mouthwash that for years
made its cleansing power clear to the consumer through its bursting taste. Consumer would
only be able to verify the claim after purchasing the product, which makes the bursting taste
an experience cue. Some examples of search and experience cues are displayed in Table 2.
8
Table 2: Examples of search and experience cues
Product
Category
Claim
Colgate
Tripla Ação
Toothpaste
Triple action
Listerine
Mouthwash
Laranja
Caseira
Omo
Multiação
Orange Juice
Greater
cleansing power
Being natural
Powder
detergent
Faster and
greater
cleansing power
Cue
Product displaying three
different colors, and package
showing product
Bursting taste
Orange buds present in the
juice
Extra-clean particles in the
product, and also shown on
package
Type
Search cue
Experience cue
Experience cue
Search cue
Economic Theory of Information
The Economic Theory of Information provides a good angle on the matter of skepticism. It
assumes that both buyer and seller attempt to maximize utility, subject to constraints on
resources, time, and so on (Calfee; Ford, 1988, p. 234). From this perspective, information is
nothing but a commodity that may be produced, marketed, purchased and consumed, just like
any other commodities.Whether the product presents search or experience qualities, buyers
still go through a process of information gathering before they feel it is enough for them to
make a purchase decision. During this process, information may be obtained from a number
of different sources, namely stores, friends, family and media (Nelson, 1970). Advertisement
is also considered a source of useful information for 70% of consumers (Calfee; Ringold,
1994), which then illustrates the importance of providing truthful claims about products.
Claims based on search attributes are more easily believed in, because market auto-regulation
mechanisms will not allow a seller to be dishonest about something that can be easily verified
prior to the purchase. If the advertised properties of the product differ from the actual
properties, the consumer will know about that difference prior to the purchase in the case of
search qualities (Nelson, 1974, p. 730). However, experience claims face a somewhat
different situation due to its intrinsic characteristics. Since it is not verifiable before the
purchase, claim’s authenticity falls much shorter than in the case for search attribute claims.
In the case of experience qualities, consumer's power over the advertising is much less potent
than her/his power over search qualities, so there is a tendency to gather more information for
goods with experience qualities (Nelson, 1970), and this information gathering holds higher
believability when in the form of recommendations from family and friends than in the form
of advertising. Therefore, the more consumers use friends and relatives as source of
recommendation, the less they respond to advertising (Nelson, 1974).
Another possibility for claims based on experience attributes to increase its believability is by
using signals, which can be described as information perceived as being connected to another
information (Calfee; Ford, 1988). Therefore, they may lend higher certainty to a claim based
on experience attributes, which make the similarities between signals and cues very clear.
Thus, in a general manner, the level of consumers´ skepticism towards advertisement varies
inversely to their ability to verify the truthfulness of the claim, which means that lower
skepticism is found towards search attribute claims compared to experience and credence
claims (Calfee; Ford, 1988). Based on that statement, we propose that tangibility works as a
facilitator of truthfulness verification, simply by making an intangible attribute more tangible
through the use of a search cue, which then will allow for the level of skepticism towards a
9
claim based on that attribute to be lower. For that to be true, tangibility needs to be on the
product and in its package (if it has one).
P1: Claim tangibility will allow the use of a search cue, which will in turn decrease
consumer’s skepticism towards the claim.
Ad and Claims Believability
Since the construct “skepticism” has its roots on the concept of ad believability, it is important
to define advertising believability. According to Maloney (1963), it represents the net effect
of advertising upon the mind of the reader, listener, or viewer, which means that an ad is
believed “when it leaves the consumer with that attitude, belief, or intention toward the
product which the advertiser intended that s/he should have after exposure to the
advertisement”. Like skepticism, believability is not an absolute construct, meaning that it
may be impacted by a series of different factors, being the interaction of consumers and
advertisements a major source of information that end up influencing the perceived
believability of an ad. Therefore, an ad may be believable to someone and, at the same time,
unbelievable to others. If a consumer does not believe what is being said in the ad, the
probability of getting the desired response from the consumer is lower, weakening the
advertisement’s effectiveness. Therefore, increasing ad believability is central to advertisers,
and decreasing skepticism plays an important role in this.
The ad framing theory provides a different perspective to understand ad and claim
believability. Ad framing mainly concerns the presentation of positive outcomes or negative
consequences. A positively framed message focuses on presenting positive benefits resulting
from acquiring the advertised product, whereas a negatively framed message explores the
unpleasant consequences of not purchasing that product (Chang, 2008). Affect evoked by
positive and negative ad frames encourages generation of affect-congruent cognitive
responses, which further bias how the ads and the advertised brands are evaluated, as shown
in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Proposed affect priming model for ad framing effects
Ad
Likeability
Ad
Frames
Positive or
Negative
Affect
AffectCongruent
Cognitive
Responses
Brand
Attitudes
Ad
Believability
Source: Chang (2008).
Positively framed ad messages are able to elicit higher levels of positive affect and lower
levels of negative affect than those messages negatively framed. More positive cognitive
responses are obtained through positively framed ad messages, which then allow them the
potential to generate higher levels of believability and likeability for the ads, and also more
favorable attitudes towards the brand. Also, positively framed messages draw significantly
more attention than those negatively framed, encouraging consumes to develop more
cognitive responses.
A claim that benefits from tangibility will most likely be positively framed, since
transforming some intangible attribute into a more tangible one has the only purpose of
exploring as much as possible a positive benefit consumer will get as a result of the purchase
10
of the advertised product. Therefore, the tangibility strategy will increase believability not
only by decreasing skepticism, but also by generating positive affect and cognitive responses
in the consumer. Thus,
P2: Claim tangibilization will increase ads’ perceived believability.
Purchase Intention and Likelihood of Purchase
Product information may be considered an antecedent of purchase intention (Chang; Wildt,
1994). The model proposed by the authors suggests that intrinsic attributes are directly
responsible for perceived quality, which is directly responsible for perceived value, which
then determines purchase intentions. Purchase intentions are formed under the assumption of
a pending transaction and, consequently, are often considered an important indicator of actual
purchase. In the case of a skeptical consumer, product’s perceived quality will be lower,
which will then decrease value perception and diminish purchase intention. Thus, any effort
sellers may produce to decrease skepticism to a minimum will play an important role in the
purchase intention. So:
P3: Claim tangibility will ensure higher purchase intentions by lowering skepticism.
Differently from purchase intention, purchase likelihood isn’t necessarily a part of the
transaction, being only related to the chances of the consumer actually purchasing any
specific product. It is known that both knowledge and risk perception, defined as “some
subjective assessment of the chance that there might be some undesirable consequences
associated with the purchase of a commodity have influence on purchase likelihood (Yeung;
Morris, 2006).
Risk perception is negatively associated with purchase likelihood, meaning that in general the
higher the risk perception, the smaller the likelihood of purchase. Consumers, generally, try to
reduce risks where it is perceived to be high. They can do it either by taking personal actions,
or by demanding that others, such as the sellers themselves, do that for them. Thus risk
perception may trigger risk-reducing behavior, such as the search of information (Yeung;
Morris, 2006).
In both knowledge obtaining and perceived risk diminishing processes, it is clear the impact
of skepticism in the process, since it is vital that the consumer believe the information
gathered to gain knowledge and increase purchase likelihood. But, it is possible that the
information is simply missing, and when consumers are faced with choice situations that
involve missing information, prompting inferences decreases the uncertainty of choices,
thereby reducing chances of choice postponement and increasing the probability consumers
will actually make a choice. Consumers who make inferences on their own, unpromptedly,
will also be more likely to choose one of the available purchase alternatives (Gunasti; Ross
Jr., 2009). That happens because once inference making takes place, decisions are made as if
all information were available. As a result, choice uncertainty and difficulty will diminish. We
‐ propose that claim tangibility used to diminish skepticism will operate analogously, that is, it
will increase the likelihood of purchase by diminishing uncertainty and risk perception, since
it will turn experience cues into search ones, that can be verified prior to the purchase.
P4: Claim tangibility will increase consumer’s likelihood of purchasing the advertised
product by decreasing skepticism.
11
Final Remarks
Throughout the decades a challenge has been daunting marketers: the tendency consumers
have to disbelieve advertising, known as ad skepticism. However, skepticals are not immune
to advertising, and they will trust ad claims if they have reasons to do so (Calfee; Ford, 1988).
Considering that claims can potentially be made based on product search and experience
attributes, by definition the latter suffers the most with ad skepticism. We propose that claims
based on experience attributes may benefit from allowing such attribute a more tangible
dimension, which can transform it into a search attribute, a form of attribute that presents
lower levels of skepticism. Thus, tangibility works as a facilitator of truthfulness verification.
However, for these expected results to be reached, claims need to be supported by a search
cue that must be perceived by the consumer, in the product itself and/or in its package.
Similar propositions have been made in the 'services marketing' literature, and empirical
evidence has been found supporting the positive effects of the tangibility of intangible aspects
of offerings, being the most prominent the reduction of consumer's uncertainty. Reducing the
uncertainty does, indeed, provide the service with better acceptability by the consumer, who
in turn consumes more of it. Thus, both for goods and services, consumers are craving for less
uncertainty, given they are swamped in many different offerings and are impacted by
hundreds of advertising messages daily.
Apart from the benefits related to the liking and relying on the ad, by taking this sort of
action, we propose that marketers will increase ads believability, purchase intentions and
likelihood of purchase by diminishing uncertainty and risk perception through turning
experience cues into search ones, that can be verified prior to the purchase.
The implications of this article may be understood to be both of academic and managerial
importance. From the academic perspective, a relevant contribution is given to the literature
on product development, communication creation and also consumer behavior. Feature
fatigue has been one theme covered in the literature related to product development
(Thompson; Hamilton; Rust, 2005), and the discussion proposed here offers a new
perspective on the matter in the sense that it may indicate the possibility of offering less
features in a product and yet obtaining good results. Also, concerns on the effectiveness of
communication may be related to the product itself.
From the managerial perspective, implications still exist here. Many new products are
launched every year; new media, high communication budgets, vast array of brands and
publicity messages, ease of information finding and trading, all make communicating
assertively and productively with consumer a complicated mission. Therefore, based on the
propositions of this article, the process of product specification and communication planning
might allow the company to reach a higher value perception from the consumer. The
discussion proposed here may help managers overcome the problem of feature fatigue, since
linking product features to product claim may reduce the number of offered features, which
may not only add value to consumer, but also may improve product's financial performance.
Future Research
Empirically testing of the propositions presented here is a natural way for advancing research
in this area. But, there are also different perspectives that are interestingly intriguing. Is it
possible to say that the same will happen to the amount of money consumer is willing to
spend on a product? Based on the same principle used to predict the increase in the likelihood
12
of purchase, is it possible to predict that consumers will be willing to remunerate the producer
a little more due to diminished uncertainty on the process?
Also, assuming a broader perspective, perhaps a product that skillfully matches claim and
search cues will have such an impact on consumers that the brand itself will benefit from it.
That means that it is possible that even those products not presenting search cues consistent
with the claim might be seen by consumers as offering less uncertainty as well. If the brand is
proven to benefit from the artifice proposed in this article, it is also possible to speculate
whether a carry-over effect will be another form of beneficial result to the brand. If the ability
consumers have to move forward with their perceptions formed in the past (in this case
consumers who were impacted by the product claim and visual cues consistency) is true,
consumers might carry positive perception on to the evaluation of a future launch of the
brand, even though it does not present the same attributes.
References
1. Atkin, Joann L., & Beltramini, Richard F. (2007). Exploring the Perceived Believability
of DTC Advertising in the US. Journal of Marketing Communications, 13(3), 169-180.
2. Bostad, Inga (2011). The Life and Learning of Arne Naess: Scepticism as a Survival
Strategy. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 54, 1, 42-51.
3. Bousch, David M., Friestad, Marian, & Rose, Gregory M. (1994). Adolescent Skepticism
Toward TV Advertising and Knowledge of Advertiser Tactics. Journal of Consumer
Research, 21 (1), 165-175.
4. Calfee, John E., & Ford, Gary T. (1988). “Economics, Information and Consumer
Behavior”, in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 15, Eds. Michael Houston, Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 234, 238.
5. __________, & Ringold, Debra J. (1994). The 70% Majority: Enduring Consumers
Beliefs About Advertising. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13 (2), 228-238.
6. Chang, Chingching (2008). Ad Framing Effects for Consumption Products: an Affect
Priming Process. Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 24-46.
7. Chang, Tung-Zong, & Wildt Albert R. (1994). Price, Product, and Purchase Intention: an
Empirical Study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(1), 16-27.
8. Churchill, Gilbert A., & Peter, J. Paul (2000). Marketing: Criando Valor Para o Cliente;
tradução Cecília Camargo Bartalotti e Cid Knipel Moreira. São Paulo: Saraiva.
9. Cummins, Denise D. (1995). Naive Theories and Causal Deduction. Memory &
Cognition, 23(5), 646-658.
10. Darby, Michael R., & Karni, Edi (1973). Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of
Fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16 (1), p. 67-88.
11. Ditto, Peter H., & Lopez, David F. (1992). Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential
Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63 (4), 568-584.
12. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Dhruv, G. (1991). Effects of Price, Brand, and Store
Information on Buyers Product Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307319.
13. Ford, Gary T., Smith, Darlene B., & Swasy, John L. (1990). Consumer Skepticism of
Advertising Claims: Testing Hypotheses from Economics of Information. Journal of
Consumer Research, 16 (4), p. 433-441.
14. Forehand, Mark. R., & Grier, Sonya (2003). When is Honesty the Best Policy? The Effect
of Stated Company Intent on Consumer Skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13
(3), 349-356.
13
15. Gilbert, Daniel T. (1991). How Mental Systems Believe. American Psychologist, 46(2),
107-119.
16. Gunasti, Kunter, & Ross Jr, William T. (2009). How Inferences about Missing Attributes
Decrease the Tendency to Defer Choice and Increase Purchase Probability. Journal of
Consumer Research, 35, 823-837.
17. Henrique, Pedro. Investimento em Publicidade cresce 16%. 360 Blog Brasil, Jan 20th,
2012. Available at http://360br.com.br/blog/investimento-em-publicidade-cresce-16.html,
on Apr 25th, 2012.
18. Horsky, D., Nelson, P., & Posavac, S. S. (2004). Stating Preference for the Ethereal but
Choosing the Concrete: How the Tangibility of Attributes Affects Attribute Weighting in
Value Elicitation and Choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1/2), 132-140.
19. Hunt, S. D. (2003). Controversy in Marketing Theory: For reason, realism, truth, and
objectivity. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe
20. Hurtt, R. K. (2010) Development of a Scale to Measure Professional Skepticism.
Auditing, 29(1), 149-171.
21. Jacoby, J., Olson, J., & Haddock, R. A. (1971). Price, Brand Name and Product
Composition
Characteristics as Determinants of Perceived Quality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 55(6), 570-579.
22. ____________ (1984). Perspectives on Information Overload. Journal of Consumer
Research, 10 (4), 432-435.
23. Koslow, Scott, & Beltramini, Richard F. (2002). Consumer Skepticism and the ‘Waiting
Room of the Mind’: Are Consumers More Likely to Believe Advertising Claims if They
are Merely Comprehended? Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 473-479.
24. Levitt, H. J. (1954). A Note on Some Experimental Findings About the Meaning of Price.
The Journal of Business, 27(3), 205-210.
25. Levitt, Theodore (1981). Marketing Intangible Product and Product Intangibles. Harvard
Business Review, May-June, 94-102.
26. MacInnis, Deborah J., Moorman, Christine, & Jaworski, Bernard J. (1991). Enhancing
and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand
Information from Ads. Journal of Marketing, 55, 32-53.
27. Maloney, John C. (1963). Is advertising Believability Really Important? Journal of
Marketing, 27(4), 1-8.
28. Marshall, R., Na, W. (2003). An Experimental Study of the Role of Brand Strength in the
Relationship Between the Medium of Communication and Perceived Credibility of the
Message. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17 (3), p. 75-79.
29. Miller, Darryl W., & Foust, Jacque E. (2003). Classifying Services by
Tangibility/Intangibility of Attributes and Benefits.
Services Marketing Quarterly,
24(4), 35-55.
30. Mohr, Lois M., Eroglu, Dogan, & Ellen, Pam S. (1998). The Development and Testing of
a Measure of Skepticism Toward Environmental Claim in Marketers’ Communications.
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(1), 30-55.
31. Moore-Shay, Elizabeth, & Lutz, Richard. Intergenerational Influences in the Formation of
Consumer Attitudes and Beliefs about the Marketplace: Mothers and Daughters, in
Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 15, eds. Micheal J. Houston, Provo, UT:
Association
for
Consumer
Research,
Pages:
461-467.
Available
at
th
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=6847, on April 5 , 2012.
32. Myers, M. (2011). Meeting the Challenge of Marketing Intangibles. Academy of
Marketing Studies Journal, 15(2), 145-149
33. Nelson, Phillip (1970). Information and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Political
Economy, 78 (2), p. 311-329.
14
34. _____________ (1974). Advertising as Information. Journal of Political Economy, 82, p.
729-754.
35. Novas, Karan. Investimento publicitário global de 2011 teve alta em todas as mídias.
PropMark,
São
Paulo,
Apr
11th,
2012.
Available
at
http://propmark.uol.com.br/mercado/40102:investimento-publicitario-global-de-2011teve-alta-significativa-em-todas-as-midias, on Apr. 25th, 2012.
36. Obermiller, Carl, & Spangenberg, Eric R. (1998). Development of a Scale to Measure
Consumer Skepticism Toward Advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (2), 159186
37. _____________, & _______________ (2000). On the Origins and Distinctness of
Skepticism Toward Advertising. Marketing Letters, 11 (4), 311-322.
38. _____________, _______________, & MacLachlan, Douglas M. (2005). Ad Skepticism:
The Consequences of Disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34 (3), 7-17.
39. Oehler, C. M. (1944). Measuring the Believability of Advertising Claims. Journal of
Marketing, 9(2), 127-131.
40. Olson, J. C., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Cue Utilization in the Quality Perception Process.
Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer. Available
at http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=11997, on April 21st, 2011.
41. Prendergast, Gerard, Liu, Po-Yan, & Poon, Derek T. Y. (2009). A Honk Kong study of
Advertising Credibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26 (5), 320-329.
42. Priest, John, R. (1968). Humanism, Skepticism, and Pessimism in Israel. Journal of the
American Academy of Religion, 36(4), 311-326
43. Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1988). The moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue
Utilization in Product Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 253-264.
44. ________ & ________. (1989). The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on
Buyers' Perception of Product Quality: an Integrative Review.
Journal
of
Marketing Research, 26(3), 351-357.
45. Richardson, P. S., Dick, A. S., & Jain, A. K. (1994). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Cue Effects on
Perceptions of Store Brand Quality. The Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 28-36.
46. Rushton, Angela M., & Carson, David J. (1989) The Marketing of Services: Managing the
Intangibles, European Journal of Marketing, 23 (8), 23-44.
47. Shostack, G. Lynn (1977). Breaking Free from Product Marketing. Journal of Marketing,
41 (April), 73-80.
48. Stigler, George J. (1961). The Economics of Information. Journal of Political Economy,
69 (3), p. 213-225.
49. Sullivan, Gary, L., & Burger, Kenneth J. (1989). An Investigation of the Determinants
of Cue Utilization. Psychology & Marketing, 4, 63-74.
50. Szybillo, G., & Jacoby, J. (1974). Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Cues as Determinants of
Perceived Product Quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(1), 74-78.
51. Thompson, D., Hamilton, R., & Rust, R. (2005). Feature Fatigue: When Product
Capabilities Become Too Much of a Good Thing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4),
432-442.
52. Yeun, Ruth M. W., & Morris, Joe (2006). An Empirical Study of the Impact of Consumer
Perceived Risk on Purchase Likelihood: a Modeling Approach. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 30(3), 294-305.
53. Yoon, E., & Kijewski, V. (1997). Dynamics of the Relationship between Product
Features, Quality Evaluation, and Pricing. Pricing Strategy & Practice, 5(2), 45-60.
54. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer's Perception of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End
Model and Synthesis of Evidence, Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.
15