Download persuasion knowledge and ad skepticism

Feb. 2015. Vol. 4, No.10
ISSN 2307-227X
International Journal of Research In Social Sciences
© 2013-2015 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved
www.ijsk.org/ijrss
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 Knowledge, Ad Skepticism, Communication
1. INTRODUCTION
methods and motivate him/her in the desired
direction.
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
influence the opposite side by using different
2. Persuasion Knowledge
Persuasion knowledge enables people to
“recognize, analyze, interpret, evaluate, and
remember persuasion attempts and select and
execute coping tactics believed to be effective and
appropriate” (Friestad and Wright, 1994:3). It refers
8
Feb. 2015. Vol. 4, No.10
ISSN 2307-227X
International Journal of Research In Social Sciences
© 2013-2015 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved
www.ijsk.org/ijrss
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 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.
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):
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.
 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.
9
Feb. 2015. Vol. 4, No.10
ISSN 2307-227X
International Journal of Research In Social Sciences
© 2013-2015 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved
www.ijsk.org/ijrss
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.
(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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
10
Feb. 2015. Vol. 4, No.10
ISSN 2307-227X
International Journal of Research In Social Sciences
© 2013-2015 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved
www.ijsk.org/ijrss
4. The Relationship Between
Knowledge and Ad Skepticism
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
11
Feb. 2015. Vol. 4, No.10
ISSN 2307-227X
International Journal of Research In Social Sciences
© 2013-2015 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved
www.ijsk.org/ijrss
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.
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.
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.
REFRENCES
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.
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.
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,
12
Feb. 2015. Vol. 4, No.10
ISSN 2307-227X
International Journal of Research In Social Sciences
© 2013-2015 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved
www.ijsk.org/ijrss
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.
7.
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.
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.
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.
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.
18. Higgins, E. Tory, (1997), “Beyond
Pleasure
and
Pain”,
American
Psychologist, 52, December, pp. 12801300.
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
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.
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.
11. Deighton, John, Romer, Daniel and
McQueen, Josh, (1989), “Using Drama to
Persuade”, Journal of Consumer Research,
16, December, pp. 335-343.
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.
12. Ehrenberg, A., (2000), “Persuasion: Tacit
Suggestion
Versus
Full-Frontal
Advocacy”, International Journal of
Advertising, 19(3), pp. 417-421.
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.
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.
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.
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.
13
Feb. 2015. Vol. 4, No.10
ISSN 2307-227X
International Journal of Research In Social Sciences
© 2013-2015 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved
www.ijsk.org/ijrss
25. LaTour, K.A. and LaTour, M.S., (2009),
“Positive Mood and Susceptibility to False
Advertising”, Journal of Advertising,
38(Fall), pp. 127-142.
36. Petty, Richard E. and Cacioppo, John T.,
(1979), “Issue Involvement Can Increase
or Decrease Persuasion by Enhancing
Message-Relevant Cognitive Responses”,
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37(10), October, pp. 19151926.
26. Leighton, J., (2009), “Ads Must be
Memorable, not Persuasive, to Influence
Choice”, ADMAP, 502, February, pp. 210.
37. Thompson, Debora V. and Malaviya,
Prashant, (2013), “Consumer-Generated
Ads: Does Awareness of Advertising CoCreation Help or Hurt Persuasion?”,
Journal of Marketing, 77(3), pp. 33-47.
27. Mangleburg Tamara F. and Bristol, Terry,
(1998), “Socialization and Adolescents’
Skepticism toward Advertising”, Journal
of Advertising, 27(3), Fall, pp. 11-21
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.
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. 175185.
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.
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.
40. Uztug, F., (2003), “İkna Edici İletişim
Kampanyalarında İletişim Hedefleri: IAA
Üniversitelerarası Reklam Yarışması İş
Özetleri 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. 522527.
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.
14