Does puffery deceive in Latin America?
Abstract
The studies on puffery claims have shown mixed results across countries. The examination
of puffery in Latin America has important and direct implications for foreign advertisers
interested in doing business in Latin America and vice versa. The purpose of this study is to
test the viability of puffery claims in Latin America. Data were collected via controlled
experimentation. The results support the idea that puffery claims might not be more
effective than factual claims for many marketing campaigns in Latin America. Additionally,
data do not allow the assertion that the effect of level of puffery is moderated by the
product category.
Keywords: puffery claims; level of exaggeration; credibility; advertising effectiveness.
1
1. Introduction
A firm may deliver an attractive message about its product, compare the product to a
similar item, list facts about the product, or make vague claims about the product which
cannot be proved or disproved. This last method is known as puffery - the advertiser puffs
up the product to seem like more than it is. Puffery is advertising with vague and subjective
claims that can't be proven true or false. Puffery frequently includes exaggeration and the
use of superlatives. The words better, best, greatest, ultimate, and finest are typically used
in puffery advertisements. Examples of puffery are ‘ultimate fresh breath’, ‘made from the
best stuff on earth’, ‘best tires in the world’, and ‘world's best dad’. Puffery is legal even
though a thin line often exists between puffery and deception, which is illegal.
Consequently, it is important to empirically study consumer perception and evaluation of
puffery claims, and whether this marketing method results in deception.
The studies on puffery claims have shown mixed results across countries. In the
U.S. and China, studies have demonstrated that puffery claims are not more effective than
factual claims (Rotfeld and Rotzoll, 1981; Haan and Berkey, 2002; Gao and Scorpio, 2011;
Gao et al., 2012). In contrast, studies in Australia and Mexico have demonstrated that
puffery claims are more effective than factual claims (Cowley, 2006; Jimenez et al., 2013).
According to Jimenez et al. (2013), Latin American consumers are much less familiar with
the use of puffery claims and thus may be more sensitive to it relative to factual claims.
Consumers’ knowledge of persuasion is developmentally contingent; in other words, as
people learn more about persuasion agents and their tactics, the effects of certain actions by
persuasion agents (e.g. advertisers using puffery claims) on consumers’ attitudes and
behaviors tend to change. This is to say that consumers who vary in their knowledge about
a particular persuasion tactic (e.g. consumers who have experienced puffery claims for a
2
number of years, in contrast to those for whom the practice is unfamiliar) may interpret the
same persuasion attempt differently and therefore respond to it differently (Friestad and
Wright, 1994; Manzur et al., 2012).
Does it then make sense for advertisers to target Latin American consumers by
using puffery claims in advertisements? Puffery in advertising is permitted in most Latin
American countries unless the advertised message is degradatory of the trademark, or
constitutes an attempt to benefit from the notoriety of another firm or trademark (Bellingall,
2010). Marketing is an understudied area in Latin America (Fastoso and Whitelock, 2011),
and the field of puffery in advertising is no exception. Too little is known about the
potential of puffery claims in Latin America because only one study in the region address
puffery claims (Jimenez et al., 2013). Consequently, the purpose of this study is to test the
viability of puffery claims in Latin America. This study uses a Chilean sample to address
this question. In this sense, Chile offers an ideal context in which to understand the
potential of puffery claims in Latin America because Chile has Hofstede's scores close to
the average for Latin America (Hofstede, 2001).
2. Conceptual Framework
Puffery is characterized by exaggeration. Advertisers use exaggeration to get consumer
attention and preference. Regulators (e.g., FTC) have allowed advertisers to use puffery
because regulators believe that puffery does not deceive consumers. Regulators argue that
consumers have the ability to differentiate between puffery and other types of information.
Regulators allow advertisers to use wildly exaggerated or vague claims for a product or
service because they believe that nobody could possibly treat the claims seriously or be
misled by them. Regulators have taken the position that consumers recognize that puffery
3
lacks credibility, even though very little empirical evidence has been presented to support
this assumption (Cowley, 2006). Consequently, for an advertising claim to be considered
puffery and not false advertising, the average consumer must be able to see easily that the
claim is an exaggeration.
An advertiser may claim that its beer is the best beer in the world. No one can prove
the beer is really the best, but no one can prove it is not. However, if the advertiser says that
its beer contains ingredients that help to prevent cancer that is something science could
prove or disprove. Trying to persuade someone that a beer brand prevents cancer would be
a false claim. Consequently, a big distinction between puffery and false advertising is that
puffery is subjective while false advertising consists of objective statements.
It is often argued that puffery by advertisers is only useful to the seller if it
successfully dupes a credulous buyer (Hoffman, 2006). Two explanations are offered for
the deception. First, consumers believe the claims (Kamins and Marks, 1987; Rotfeld and
Rotzoll, 1980; Shimp and Preston, 1981). Second, consumers process the puffery claims as
though they were fact and generate inferences on the basis of those facts (Holbrook, 1978;
Shimp and Preston, 1981; Wyckham, 1987). Consumers can be more tolerant of advertising
exaggeration and less inclined to counter argue than is the case with other message forms
(Shimp and Preston, 1981).
Additionally, puffery claims can increase personal relevance to more consumers
(e.g., users of other brands in the product category) and openly motivate them to generate
points of comparison (Walker et al., 1986; Manning et al., 2001). However, consumers may
speculate about the advertiser’s motives behind the puffery claims. The more claims the
advertiser makes about the superiority of the sponsor brand over competing brands (e.g.,
‘best tires in the world’), the more the audience thinks that the claims are attributable to
4
desperation in the face of extreme competitive pressures. This negative impact could leads
to a drop in overall consumer attitude (Chow and Luk, 2006). Consumers can identify
puffery claims as not credible. Consequently, consumers will not incorporate a puffery
claim into their evaluations or beliefs because they understand that the puffery is a ‘wild’
exaggeration.
Puffery claims could be ineffective across countries, given the underlying
assumption that puffery claims distinctively affect consumers’ cognitive and/or affective
activities. However, the studies on puffery claims have shown mixed results across
countries. In the U.S. and China, studies have demonstrated that puffery claims are not
more effective than factual claims (Rotfeld and Rotzoll, 1981; Haan and Berkey, 2002; Gao
and Scorpio, 2011; Gao et al., 2012). In the U.S., Rotfeld and Rotzoll (1981) found that
consumers are no less likely to believe puffery claims than they are claims based on
verifiable facts. In the U.S., Haan and Berkey (2002) tested consumers' perceptions of the
believability of puffery in advertising. Subjects were asked to rate how believable they
found examples of each of the six forms of puffery. The results of a one-way analysis of
variance showed little difference between consumers' levels of believability across the
levels of puffery. In the U.S., Gao and Scorpio (2011) found that fact-based claims
increased perceptions of ad truthfulness, and perceptions of ad truthfulness decreased when
the consumer was exposed to puffery in an ad and also in a competitor’s ad. Gao et al.
(2012), investigating the China-U.S. differences, found that puffery had very limited effects
on the participants' brand attitude and purchase intent, and the Chinese consistently
reported higher purchase intent than the Americans. In contrast, studies in Australia and
Mexico have demonstrated that puffery claims are more effective than factual claims
(Cowley, 2006; Jimenez et al., 2013). In Australia, Cowley (2006) shows that even though
5
consumers can identify a puffed claim as less credible, they still rated the brand more
favorably than brands associated with a factual claim. Jimenez et al. (2013) show that
Mexican consumers are more susceptible to puffery claims than factual claims.
Additionally, the influence of culture is particularly important in advertising because
communication patterns are closely linked to cultural norms (Hong et al., 1987). There may
well be cultural factors that cause puffery in advertising to be seen as less credible and
false, which therefore mitigates, rather than increases its effectiveness. For example, in his
scale of six to 91, Hofstede (2001) reported that Latin American countries are highly
collectivist cultures with low individualism scores (Argentina 46, Brazil 38, Chile 23,
Colombia 13, Costa Rica 15, Ecuador 8, El Salvador 19, Guatemala 6, Mexico 30, Panama
11, Peru 16, Uruguay 36, Venezuela 12). The individualism-collectivism dimension is
related to context. Low-context communication, which involves the use of explicit and
direct messages, is predominant in individualistic cultures (e.g., Australia, the U.S.),
whereas high-context communication, which involves the use of implicit and indirect
messages (e.g., puffery claims), is predominant in collectivist cultures (e.g., China, Latin
American countries) (Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 2001). In a high-context culture, many things
are left unsaid, letting the culture explain. Words and word choice become very important
in high-context communication, since a few words can communicate a complex message
very effectively, while in a low-context culture, the communicator needs to be much more
explicit and the value of a single word is less important (Hofstede, 2001).
In order to test the viability of puffery claims in Latin America, two hypotheses are
proposed:
6
H1. Consumers in Latin America are able to identify puffery claims as less credible than
factual claims.
H2. The level of puffery has no effect on attribute beliefs and overall evaluation in Latin
America.
Jimenez et al. (2013) only included puffery claims in the context of one particular
product category. Consumers develop different levels of involvement through product
categories. Consequently, consumers may concentrate their attention on certain product
categories (e.g., the ones they purchase more often and the ones they are more engaged to).
Specifically, in some product categories the consumers may want more information or to
involve themselves more affectively (Chandrashekaran and Grewal, 2003; Hidalgo et al.,
2008; Petty et al., 1983). Thus, it is possible that reactions to puffery claims in
advertisements will vary across product categories. Hence:
H3. In Latin America, the effect of level of puffery is moderated by the product category.
3. Research Design
Data were collected via controlled experimentation. The design of the study was 3×3. The
level of puffery was a between subject factor with three levels: a factual claim (no puffery),
a ‘the very best’ claim (low puffery), and a ‘the ultimate’ claim (high puffery). Following
Cowley (2006), the two puffery levels were taken from Preston (1996; 1998), who
identified ‘the very best’ and ‘the ultimate’ as two of six levels of puffery. Following
7
Cowley (2006), the product category was a between subject factor with three product
categories: restaurant, bar, and bus company.
3.1. Sample
429 undergraduate students at a Chilean university participated in the study. Participants’
ages ranged from 18 to 29, with an average of 21. Student samples have been widely used
in advertising research (e.g., Cowley, 2006; Choi and Miracle, 2004; Jimenez et al., 2013;
Manzur et al., 2012; Pillai and Goldsmith, 2008; White Nye et al., 2008; Yagci et al., 2009).
Previous studies have asserted that the use of homogeneous convenience samples improve
the internal validity of experimental results (Calder et al., 1981; Cook and Campbell, 1975).
Also, a student sample was appropriate for the present experiment because undergraduate
students are a major target market for a large number of product categories (e.g., audio
systems, banking, bars, bus companies, laptop computers, mobile phones, restaurants, soft
drinks). In Chile, marketers of these products have conducted promotional campaigns
aimed directly at this market segment.
3.2. Stimuli development
Following Cowley (2006), all of the advertisements presented hypothetical brands. The
advertisement for the Alternative Bar claimed the bar was ‘the ultimate club experience’,
‘the very best club in Santiago’, or the factual claim of ‘music in the city’. The
advertisement included a photo of the interior of the bar with a view of the stage with
musical equipment to ensure that the participant knew the factual claim was factual. The
advertisement for the Harbor Bistro claimed the restaurant was ‘the ultimate dining
experience’, ‘the very best restaurant in Valparaiso’, or the factual claim of ‘dining with a
8
harbor view’. The advertisement included a photo of the interior of the restaurant with a
view of the harbor; this ensured that participants could identify the factual claim as factual.
The advertisement for Sobre Ruedas claimed the bus company was ‘the ultimate travel
experience’, ‘the very best bus company in Southern Chile’, or the factual claim of ‘travel
in premium seats’. The advertisement included a photo of the interior of the bus with a
view of the premium seats.
3.3. Measures
To ensure the reliability and validity of each construct, all of the measurements were
collected from Cowley (2006). All materials were translated into Spanish using a double
translation procedure, which has been proved as one of the best ways to provide validity to
this process (McGorry, 2000). Directly after viewing the advertisements, participants were
asked to provide a credibility rating for the advertisement. Participants used a 10 point scale
anchored with ‘not at all credible’ (0) to ‘very credible’ (9). After rating the credibility of
the ad, the participants were asked to predict the probability of receiving good service, and
whether they believed the restaurant/bar/bus company would be expensive. Participants
used a 10 point scale anchored with ‘not at all likely’ (0) to ‘very likely’ (9). Price
information was not available. Participants had to infer the expense involved with each
product. Finally, participants were asked for an overall evaluation of the restaurant/bar/bus
company on a 10 point scale anchored with ‘not at all good’ (0) to ‘very good’ (9).
3.4. Procedure
Participants were directed to an online survey that randomly assigned them to view one of
nine advertisements. For each product category, one third of the participants saw a factual
9
claim (no puffery), one third saw a slightly exaggerated claim (low puffery), and one third
saw a highly exaggerated claim (high puffery). Then, participants answered the
questionnaire.
4. Results
The analysis of the means for each of the nine treatments is presented in Table 1, and the
means of the factors are presented in Table 2. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) has
previously been used by other researchers in advertising research (e.g., Cowley, 2006;
Manning et al., 2001; Manzur et al., 2012; Pillai and Goldsmith, 2008; White Nye et al.,
2008; Yagci et al., 2009). Consequently, ANOVAs were calculated for credibility, expense,
service, and evaluation. The ANOVAs for each variable are presented in Table 3. Finally,
Table 4 presents the Eta2, which reflects the percentage of dependent variable variance
explained by the independent variable in the sample data.
<< Table 1 here >>
<< Table 2 here >>
H1 is supported by verifying that the level of puffery in the advertisement
negatively influences the credibility of the advertisement (p-value < .01). Specifically, the
results suggest that the advertisement is more credible with factual claims (6.62) than with
low (5.85) or high (6.02) puffery claims. The results suggest that consumers in Latin
America are able to identify exaggerated claims as less credible than factual claims.
H2 is supported because it is not possible to show that the level of puffery in the
advertisement has an influence on expense, service, and overall evaluation (p-value > .05).
10
The attribute beliefs (good service, being expensive) did not vary with puffery level. The
null effect for the level of puffery is interesting because it indicates that an evaluation based
on a factual claim is held as confidently as an evaluation based on an exaggerated claim.
The main effect of product category was not of theoretical or practical interest, so
the focus was on the interaction, which tested the hypothesis that the effectiveness of level
of puffery varied by product category. H3 is not supported because data do not allow the
assertion that the effect of level of puffery is moderated by the product category (p-value > .
05).
<< Table 3 here >>
<< Table 4 here >>
5. Discussion
In general terms, the results of this study suggest that there are no significant differences
between the puffery and factual claims in Latin America. Additionally, data do not allow
the assertion that the effect of level of puffery is moderated by the product category. The
finding that the advertisement is less credible with puffery claims than with factual claims
is consistent with prior research carried out in the U.S. (Gao and Scorpio, 2011) and
Australia (Cowley, 2006). However, the finding that the level of puffery has no effect on
attributes beliefs and overall evaluation in Chile is not consistent with prior research carried
out in Mexico (Jimenez et al., 2013). Practitioners in several countries have preferred
puffery claims as a convenient and useful technique, but there are still decisions to be made
in regards to which type of claim might be most effective in a given country. While
experimental research is not sufficient to establish the generalized non-superiority of
11
puffery claims in Latin America, the results support that puffery claims are not more
effective than factual claims, at least for many marketing campaigns and product categories
in the region. For foreign advertisers attempting to tap the growing Latin American market,
the results suggest that caution should be exercised when considering standardizing puffery
advertisements that have been successfully developed for other markets.
In most Latin American countries, advertising is self-regulated by private
organizations: the CONARP in Argentina and Uruguay, CONAR in Brazil, Bolivia,
Argentina, Chile, and Paraguay, etc. These private organisms perform two primary
functions: they receive complaints about advertisements (corrective function) and publicize
the advertising codes of ethics and jurisprudence (orienting function) (Manzur et al., 2012).
As a consequence, this research is an important contribution for this type of organizations,
as well as for instructors and professionals. In Latin America, the use of puffery claims can
significantly increase the legal problems associated to marketing campaigns. However, the
results presented in this study suggest that puffery claims could not produce a more
favorable customer response in Latin America. Moreover, puffery claims presents lower
message credibility, which further decreases advertisers’ incentives to use this type of
claims in Latin America.
Clearly this is an exploratory study, and a number of other topics are worth
exploring in the future. First, not all individuals within a culture are identical. Indeed, there
is substantial variation within a culture as well as considerable overlap among different
cultures. Individual differences should be incorporated into future research, as should
enduring consumer involvement, need for cognition, consumer knowledge, consumer
expertise, brand loyalty, smart shopper self-perception, among others.
12
Second, although the use of a student sample was appropriate for this study, future
studies should also use samples of consumers who are in the target markets for many other
product categories. Such studies could increase the generalizability of the results as well as
its applicability to advertising public policy and advertising management in Latin America.
Third, the experiment should be replicated with other advertising media, such as
television or radio, which would help examine the extent to which the results are
generalizable to other media vehicles. Additionally, nine advertisements are certainly
insufficient to produce a definitive set of conclusions. Also, the brands used in this study
were hypothetical. The participants had no knowledge of these brands. The effect of puffery
on established brands and the process by which a claim for a well-known brand is
processed may be different than the process investigated in this study. Consequently, the
experiment should be replicated with real brand names, although the use of real brands has
some weaknesses.
Finally, possible differences between countries makes it essential to develop studies
that measure, compare, and analyze the different levels of acceptance of puffery claims
among countries and their possible causes. This article attempts to encourage similar
research in Latin America and other regions that confirms or refutes the results presented in
this work.
13
References
Alba JW, Hutchinson JW. Knowledge calibration: what consumers know and what they
think they know. Journal of Consumer Research 2000; 27 (2):123–56.
Begg IM, Anas A, Farinacci S. Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection,
statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General 1992;121(4):446–58.
Bellingall, A.J. (2010), Comparative advertising in Brazil, Intellectual Property Magazine,
October 1, 27-30.
Braun KA. Postexperience advertising effects on consumer memory. Journal ofConsumer
Research 1999;25:319–34 [March].
Bjork RA. Theoretical implications of directed forgetting. In: Melton AW, Martin E,
editors. Coding processes in human memory. New York NY: Wiley; 1972. p. 217–35.
Calder, B., Phillips, L. and Tybout, A. (1981), Designing research for application, Journal
of Consumer Research, 8(2), 197-207
Chandrashekaran, R. and Grewal, D. (2003), Assimilation of advertised reference prices:
the moderating role of involvement, Journal of Retailing, 79(1), 53-62.
14
Choi, Y.K. and Miracle, G.E. (2004), The effectiveness of comparative advertising in Korea
and the United States: a cross-cultural and individual-level analysis”, Journal of
Advertising, 33(4), 75-87.
Chow, C. and Luk, C. (2006), Effects of comparative advertising in high and low-cognitive
elaboration conditions, Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 55-67
Cook, T. and Campbell, D. (1975), The design and conduct of experiments and
quasiexperiments in field settings, in Dimmette, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and
Organisational Research, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, 223-326.
Cowley E. Recognition confidence, recognition accuracy and choice. Journal of Business
Research 2004;57:641–6 [June].
Cowley E, Janus E. Not necessarily better, but certainly different: A limit to the advertising
misinformation effect on memory. Journal of Consumer Research 2004;31:229–35 [June].
Fastoso, F. and Whitelock, J. (2011), Why is so little marketing research on Latin America
published in high quality journals and what can we do about it? Lessons from a Delphi
study of authors who have succeeded, International Marketing Review, 28(4), 435-449
Feidler K, Wlahter E, Armbruster T, Fau D, Naumann U. Do you really know what you
have seen? Intrusion errors and presuppositions effects on constructive memory. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 1996; 32:428–511.
15
Friestad, M. and Wright, P. (1994), The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope
with persuasion attempts, Journal of Consumer Research, 2(1), 1-31
Gardener MP, Mitchell AA, Russo JE. Chronometric analysis: An introduction and
application to low involvement perception of advertisement. In: Hunt HK, editor. Advances
in Consumer Research, vol. 5. Ann Arbor MI: Association for Consumer Research; 1978. p.
581–9.
Gao, Z., Li, N., Scorpio, E. (2012). Perception of puffery in advertising: investigating the
China-US differences, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(2), 179-198
Gao, Z., and Scorpio, E. (2011). Does Puffery Deceive? An Empirical Investigation,
Journal of Consumer Policy, 34(2), 249-264
Gilbert DT. How mental systems believe. American Psychologist 1991;46 (2):107–19.
Gilbert DT, Krull DS, Malone PS. Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the
rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1990;
59(4):601–13.
Gilbert DT, Tafarodi RW, Malone PS. You can't not believe everything you read. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 1993;65(2):221–33.
16
Haan, P., and Berkey, C. (2002). A study of the believability of the forms of puffery,
Journal of Marketing Communications, 8(4), 243-256
Hall, E. (1976), Beyond Culture, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Hawkins SA, Hoch SJ, Meyers-Levy J. Low-involvement learning: repetition and
coherence in familiarity and belief. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2001;11(1):1-11.
Hidalgo, P., Manzur, E., Olavarrieta, S. and Farías, P. (2008), Customer retention and price
matching: the AFPs case, Journal of Business Research, 61(6), 691-696.
Hoffman, D. A. (2006), The best puffery article ever, Iowa Law Review, 91, 101-140.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values. Behaviors Institutions
and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Holbrook MB. Beyond attitude structure: toward the informational determinants of attitude.
Journal of Marketing Research 1978;15(4):545–56.
Hong, J.W., Muderrisoglu, A. and Zinkhan, G. (1987), Cultural differences in advertising
expression: a comparative content analysis of Japanese and US magazine advertising”,
Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 55-62.
17
Jimenez, F., Hadjimarcou, J., Barua, M., and Michie, D. (2013), A cross-national and crossgenerational study of consumer acculturation to advertising appeals, International
Marketing Review, 30(5), 418-439
Kamins MA, Marks LJ. Advertising puffery: the impact of using two-sided claims on
product attitude and purchase intention. Journal of Advertising 1987;16(4):6-15.
Manning, K., Miniard, P., Barone, M. and Randall, R. (2001), Understanding the mental
representation created by comparative advertising, Journal of Advertising, 30(2), 27-39.
Manzur, E., Uribe, R., Hidalgo, P., Olavarrieta, S., and Farías, P. (2012), Comparative
Advertising Effectiveness in Latin America: Evidence from Chile, International Marketing
Review, 29(3), 277-298
Mayo R, Schul Y, Burnstein E. “I am not guilty” vs “I am innocent”: successful negation
may depend on the schema used for its encoding. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology 2004;40:433–49.
McGorry, S.Y. (2000), Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: survey translation
issues, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(2), 74-81.
Olson JC, Dover PA. Cognitive effects of deceptive advertising. Journal of Marketing
Research 1978;15(1):29–38.
18
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J. and Schumann, D. (1983), Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement”, Journal of Consumer
Research, 10(2), 135-146.
Petty RE, Tormala ZL, Rucker DD. Resisting persuasion by counterarguing: an attitude
strength perspective. In: Jost JT, Banaji MR, Prentice DA, editors. Perspectivism in social
psychology: the yin and yang of scientific progress, APA science series. APA decade of
behavior series. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2004. p. 37–
51.
Pillai, K. and Goldsmith, R. (2008), How brand attribute typicality and consumer
commitment moderate the influence of comparative advertising, Journal of Business
Research, 61(9), 933-941.
Preston IL. The great American blowup: puffery in advertising and selling. Madison WI:
The University of Wisconsin Press; 1996.
Preston IL. Puffery and other ‘loophole’ claims: how the law's ‘don't ask, don't tell’ policy
condones fraudulent falsity in advertising. Journal of Law and Commerce 1998;1:49-114.
Rotfeld HJ, Rotzoll KB. Is advertising puffery believed? Journal of Advertising
1980;9(3):16–20.
19
Rotfeld HJ, Rotzoll KB. Puffery vs. Fact Claims—Really Different? Current Issues and
Research in Advertising 1981; 4(1): 85-103
Rotfeld HJ, Preston IL. The potential impact of research on advertising law. Journal of
Advertising Research 1981;21(2):9-17.
Schul Y, Burnstein E. When discounting fails: conditions under which individuals use
discredited information in making a judgement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 1985;49:894–903.
Shimp TA. Do incomplete comparisons mislead? Journal of Advertising Research
1978;18:21–8 [December].
Shimp TA, Preston IL. Deceptive and nondeceptive consequences of evaluative advertising.
Journal of Marketing 1981;45(1):22–32.
Walker, B., Swasy, J. and Rethans, A. (1986), The impact of comparative advertising on
perception formation in new product introductions”, Advances in Consumer Research,
13(1), 121-125
White Nye, C., Roth, M. and Shimp, T. (2008), Comparative advertising in markets where
brands and comparative advertising are novel, Journal of International Business Studies,
39(5), 851-863
20
Wyckham RG. Implied superiority claims: parody parading as superiority. Proceedings of
the 12th International Research Seminar in Marketing, La Londe Les Maures 1985:360–87.
Wyckham RG. Implied superiority claims. Journal of Advertising Research 1987;27(1):54–
63.
Wyer RS, Budesheim TL. Person memory and judgments: the impact of information that
one is told to disregard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1987;53:14–29.
Yagci, M., Biswas, A. and Dutta, S. (2009), Effects of comparative advertising format on
consumer responses: the moderating effects of brand image and attribute relevance,
Journal of Business Research, 62(8), 768-774
21
Table 1. Means
Credibilit
Restaurant
No
Low High
6.40
5.57
5.89
y
Expense
Service
Evaluatio
7.47
6.26
5.81
6.94
5.60
5.89
7.36
5.96
6.00
No
7.13
Bar
Low
6.05
High
6.83
Bus company
No Low High
6.23 5.92
5.30
6.85
6.72
6.75
7.23
6.21
6.23
7.06
6.83
7.06
6.72
6.36
6.19
5.77
6.11
5.81
5.93
5.35
5.23
n
22
Table 2. Mean of factors
Level of puffery
No
Low High
Product category
Restauran Bar
Bus
t
compan
Credibilit
6.62
a
5.85
b
6.02
5.94
6.71
y
5.84b
y
Expense
Service
Evaluatio
6.99
6.46
6.29
6.59
5.97
5.97
6.83
6.06
6.12
7.25a
5.93b
5.91b
7.03a
6.60a
6.70a
6.13b
5.97b
5.76b
b
b
a
n
Notes: Comparing across columns, means with different superscript differ at p < 5%
(Tukey's HSD).
Table 3. ANOVAs (F-values)
Level of puffery
Product
Level of puffery x
23
(main effect)
category
Product category
(main
(interaction effect)
1.394
1.436
1.881
2.337
Credibility
Expense
4.993**
1.063
effect)
6.890**
10.918*
Service
Evaluation
2.432
.770
*
5.246**
10.287*
*
Notes: Design: Intercept + Level of puffery + Product category + Level of puffery x Product
category. *p-value < 5%, **p-value < 1% (all intercepts showed statistical significance)
Table 4. Eta2
Level of
Product
Level of puffery x
puffery
category
Product category
(main effect)
(main
(interaction effect)
24
Credibility
Expense
Service
Evaluation
.023
.005
.011
.004
effect)
.032
.049
.024
.047
.013
.012
.018
.022
Notes: Design: Intercept + Level of puffery + Product category + Level of puffery x Product
category. Eta2 reflects the percentage of dependent variable variance explained by the
independent variable in the sample data.
25