Puffery in Advertisements: The Effects of Media Context, Communication Norms, and Consumer Knowledge

Ads often contain puffery—product descriptions that purport to be important but actually provide little if any meaningful information. Consumers’ reactions to these descriptions depend on whether they perceive themselves to be more or less knowledgeable about the product than others whom the ad is specifically intended to influence. When an ad appears in a professional magazine that is read primarily by experts in the product domain, puffery generally increases the ad’s effectiveness. This is also true when the ad appears in a popular magazine but readers perceive themselves to know less about the product than consumers at large. If readers believe they know as much as or more than general consumers, however, puffery decreases the ad’s effectiveness. In addition, the media context in which an ad is encountered has a direct effect on judgments by consumers who perceive themselves to have little knowledge about the type of product being advertised.

[1]  Deborah H. Gruenfeld,et al.  Semantics and pragmatics of social influence: how affirmations and denials affect beliefs in referent propositions. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Ignoring Irrelevant Information: Situational Determinants of Consumer Learning , 1991 .

[3]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  The dilution effect: judgmental bias, conversational convention, or a bit of both? , 1996 .

[4]  Siobhan Chapman.  Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[5]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  P. Rabbitt.  IGNORING IRRELEVANT INFORMATION. , 1964, British journal of psychology.

[7]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[8]  A. Todorov,et al.  The illusion of knowledge: When more information reduces accuracy and increases confidence , 2007 .

[9]  Maria L. Cronley,et al.  Consumer Inference: A Review of Processes, Bases, and Judgment Contexts , 2004 .

[10]  Amna Kirmani,et al.  Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent , 2000 .

[11]  Robert S. Wyer,et al.  Social Comprehension and Judgment: The Role of Situation Models, Narratives, and Implicit Theories , 2003 .

[12]  Gregory S. Carpenter,et al.  Meaningful Brands from Meaningless Differentiation: The Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes , 1994 .

[13]  R. E. Burnkrant,et al.  Answering Questions about Questions: A Persuasion Knowledge Perspective for Understanding the Effects of Rhetorical Questions , 2004 .

[14]  Peter Wright,et al.  Persuasion Knowledge: Lay People's and Researchers' Beliefs about the Psychology of Advertising , 1995 .

[15]  J. Brehm.  A theory of psychological reactance. , 1981 .

[16]  Amna Kirmani,et al.  I Know What You’re Doing and Why You’re Doing It , 2008 .

[17]  Blair T. Johnson,et al.  Communication and Attitude Change: Causes, Processes, and Effects , 2005 .

[18]  D. Sperber,et al.  Relevance: Communication and Cognition , 1989 .

[19]  Brad J. Sagarin,et al.  Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: the motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  I. Simonson,et al.  Experimental Evidence on the Negative Effect of Product Features and Sales Promotions on Brand Choice , 1994 .

[21]  Peter Wright,et al.  Persuasion Knowledge , 2022 .

[22]  Deborah H. Gruenfeld,et al.  InfOrmation Processing In Social Contexts: Implications For Social Memory and Judgment , 1995 .

[23]  T. Meyvis,et al.  Consumers' Beliefs about Product Benefits: The Effect of Obviously Irrelevant Product Information , 2002 .

[24]  S. Chaiken.  The heuristic model of persuasion. , 1987 .

[25]  Mary D. Zalesny.  Rater confidence and social influence in performance appraisals , 1990 .

[26]  Robert S. Wyer,et al.  The impact of implicit theories on responses to problem-solving print advertisements , 2008 .

[27]  Andrew D. Gershoff,et al.  The Reciprocal Effects of Brand Equity and Trivial Attributes , 2003 .

[28]  Gita Venkataramani Johar,et al.  Consumer Involvement and Deception from Implied Advertising Claims , 1995 .

[29]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  Effects of Forwarning of Persuasive Intent and Involvement on Cognitive Responses and Persuasion , 1979 .

[30]  Ivan L. Preston,et al.  Deceptive and Nondeceptive Consequences of Evaluative Advertising , 1981 .

[31]  Robert S. Wyer,et al.  Category ratings as "subjective expected values": Implications for attitude formation and change. , 1973 .

[32]  Jeen-Su Lim,et al.  Moderating effects of prior knowledge on the perceived diagnosticity of beliefs derived from implicit versus explicit product claims , 1994 .

[33]  D. Papageorgis,et al.  Warning and persuasion. , 1968, Psychological bulletin.

[34]  Aradhna Krishna,et al.  The Skeptical Shopper: A Metacognitive Account for the Effects of Default Options on Choice , 2004 .

[35]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  Judgment in a Social Context: Biases, Shortcomings, and the Logic of Conversation , 1994 .

[36]  Gregory S. Carpenter,et al.  Why Is the Trivial Important? A Reasons-Based Account for the Effects of Trivial Attributes on Choice , 2000 .