1

Protecting Consumers from Harmful Advertising: The Role Counter Claim Alignment in Creating Resistance to Persuasion

Petia K. Petrova

Robert B. Cialdini Noah J. Goldstein

Vladas Griskevicius

working paper, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth

in preparation for 2nd round review Journal of Consumer Research

Each year consumers spend more than $17 billion on a variety of health and dietary

supplements, such as CortiStress, TrimSpa, One-A-Day WeightSmart, many of which claim to either facilitate weight loss (e.g. Xenadrine EFX is clinically proven to cause rapid and substantial weight loss, Consumer Affairs 2007) or decrease the risk of various diseases such as osteoporosis, Alzheimer's, or cancer (FDA 2002). Concerns, however, have been raised about the effectiveness and safety of such supplements, and consumers have been warned that the ingredients of some of these remedies can lead to gastrointestinal side effects, headaches, and sleep disturbances (County of San Bernardino, Department of Public Health 2006; “Does Trimspa Really Work?” 2004). As a result, the Federal Trade Commission fined several companies, including the manufacturer of Xenadrine EFX, $25 million for deceptive advertising. Yet, an important question remains. Given the health, financial, and psychological risks that such advertising poses to consumers, what are the most effective strategies to protect consumers and generate resistance toward harmful persuasive attempts? More generally, how can we counteract ad claims that are misleading to consumers?

Although the consumer behavior literature provides considerable insight for marketers in designing persuasive communications to increase consumers’ intentions to purchase a product, little knowledge exists on how to create resistance to misleading advertising and prevent consumption of harmful products. This imbalance seems unfortunate, given the efforts of various organizations to combat the influence of different persuasive messages to which consumers are exposed. Such efforts are often motivated by the general goal of protecting consumers from massive advertising that is likely to increase risky behaviors such as smoking (Pechmann and Shih 1999, Pechmann and Knight 2002; Pechmann et al. 2003), alcohol abuse (Casswell and Zhang 1998; Grube and Wallack 1994; Wyllie, Zhang, and Caswell 1998), unhealthy food consumption (Brownell and Horgen, 2004; Halford et al., 2004, 2007, 2008; Harris, Bargh, and Brownell 2009; Hastings et al., 2003; Murray, 2001), gambling, and drug misuse or abuse (Volkow 2006). Unfortunately, research provides evidence that these efforts are often unsuccessful. For example, antismoking advertising campaigns are often found to be ineffective (Chassin, Presson and Sherman 1990; Pechmann and Reibling 2000), disclaimers, disclosures, and product warnings have not been proven effective (Andrews 1995; Argo and Main 2004; Hankin, Sloan, and Sokol 1998; Johar and

2

Simmons 2000), and even corrective advertising may not reduce false beliefs (Dyer and Kuehl 1974; Jacoby, Nelson, and Hoyer 1982; Johar 1996).

Spurred by this imbalance in the consumer research literature, the present investigation examines the effectiveness of various types of counter claims in creating resistance to misleading advertising and undermining consumption of products with possible harmful effects. We focused on one particular dimension: whether the counter claim undermines the original claim made by the ad or presents negative information without refuting the ad claims. For example, tobacco products are commonly advertised using images of attractiveness and fun, creating a positive stereotype of smokers (Mazis , Ringold, Perry, and Denman 1992; Pechmann and Knight 2002; Pechmann and Shih 1999). At the same time, anti smoking campaigns often provide information about the negative health consequences of smoking without undermining its positive stereotype. Indeed, research shows that these messages have increased perceptions of risk. However, they had little impact on the favorable image of smoking promoted in tobacco advertising (Romer and Jamieson 2001). Thus, it has been suggested that a more efficient way to reduce tobacco consumption might be to attack the positive image of smokers and associate smoking with negative stereotypes (Blum 1994; Pechmann and Knight 2002).

If one wishes to create maximal resistance to a message, should one design counter claims that attack the specific claims in that message or is it more effective to provide competing information that reveals another side of the issue? Although both strategies can be seen in existing campaigns, the current literature does not tell us which of the two approaches is likely to be more effective. To answer this question we draw on structural alignment theory and biased assimilation research to predict that whether one or the other approaches will be more effective will depend on the credibility of the source of the counter message. That is, we propose that counter claims that attack the specific ad claims are more effective than competing information that reveals another side of the issue when the source of the counter message is perceived as credible. However, when the source of the counter message is not perceived as credible, negative information that does not undermine the specific ad claims is likely to be more effective.

This research offers three important contributions. First, it represents an initial step toward reducing an unfortunate gap in the consumer behavior literature regarding effective strategies for creating resistance to persuasion. Second, it provides insight into the effects of different types of negative information by proposing a novel distinction between information that directly refutes the claims of an ad and information that presents competing evidence unrelated to the ad claims. Third, this research reveals insight into how the credibility of the source of the negative information determines what type of information is most likely harm the brand.

Along with their theoretical implications, the findings from this research have importance for policy makers, consumer advocacy organizations, and marketing practitioners by providing practical advice on how to best counter misleading advertising and prevent consumption of products with potential harmful consequences.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND Research into the process of persuasion reveals that the impact of a persuasive

communication depends to a large extent on the personal reactions of the audience to the

3

message (Greenwald 1968). As a central assertion of the cognitive response model of persuasion (Greenwald 1968), this idea has spurred a number of studies demonstrating the negative effect of counter argumentation on message acceptance (Brock 1967; Eagly and Chaiken 1993; Osterhouse and Brock 1970; Petty and Wegner 1998; Killeya and Johnson 1998; McGuire and Papageorgis 1962; Petty and Cacioppo 1977; Romero, Agnew, and Insko 1996). The impact of a persuasive communication can also be undermined by directly providing individuals with ready counter arguments, which results in levels of resistance similar to those created by forewarning them of a future persuasive attempt (Romeo et al. 1996). Despite the extensive literature on the role of counter argumentation in persuasion, there is little research into the content of the type of counter information that is most likely to create resistance to a message.

What Constitutes an Effective Counter Claim?

We focus on a crucial dimension of differentiating between various counter claims: whether the counter claim undermines the ad claims or contains negative information about other unrelated attributes. Commonly, public health campaigns inform consumers of the health risks associated with various products without undermining the claims with which such products are promoted. However, little empirical research has examined the effectiveness of these strategies in comparison to a strategy in which the counter claims refute the message claims.

The structural alignment theory (Gentner & Markman, 1994, 1997; Markman and Medin, 1995; Medin, Goldstone, & Markman, 1995) classifies attributes into three groups: commonalities, alignable differences, and nonalignable differences. The structural alignment theory further suggests that in choosing among alternatives individuals primarily rely on alignable differences rather than nonalignable differences. For example, when consumers learn about new brands, they tend to compare their attributes to the attributes of familiar brands. Consequently, they are likely to prefer the new brand over a familiar brand only if the new brand is superior on the attributes with which the familiar brand is promoted (Zhang and Markman 2001; Zhang, Kardes, and Cronley 2002; Zhang and Markman 1998).

Research in several domains provide further evidence for the effects of information alignment. For example, early inoculation research suggests that refuting the specific claims in a forthcoming attack is likely to result in stronger resistance to the attack than considering unrelated information in support of the initial belief (McGuire 1964; McGuire and Papageorgis 1962). In another domain, persuasive appeals tend to be more effective when the nature of the appeal matches rather than mismatches the basis of the attitude. For example, attitudes based on affect are easier to change with an affect-based appeal, while cognition-based attitudes are more susceptible to cognitive appeals (Edwards 1990; Edwards and von Hippel 1995; Fabrigar and Petty 1999). Research also demonstrates that when a brand is positioned in an abstract way (e.g., “The best pen money can buy”), general counter claims (“There is nothing special about this pen”) are likely to cause greater judgment revision than counter claims about specific attributes (“The package was too difficult to open”). When a brand is positioned in a specific way (e.g., “Omega 3 provides sloped design and optimal balancing”), counter claims about specific attributes are likely to be more damaging (Pham and Muthukrishnan 2002).

4

Despite the existing research on information alignment, the relative effectiveness of undermining the message claims vs. providing negative information unrelated to the message claim has not been examined before. Yet, applying previous research on information alignment to resistance processes, it seems that an effective way to undermine the impact of an ad would be to provide counter claims that are aligned with the claims of the ad rather than provide negative information unrelated to the ad claims. The present research tests this question and examines variables that may moderate the effects of information alignment in creating resistance.

The role of source credibility Starting with the Yale approach to attitude change (Hovland and Weiss, 1951;

Hovland et al., 1953), the role of source credibility in persuasion has been subject to extensive research (Eagly et al., 1978; Fein et al., 1997; Mills and Jellison, 1967; Priester and Petty, 1995). Yet previous research has not examined the role of the credibility of the source of a counter message in the process of resistance to persuasion. How source credibility influences the effects of information alignment has not been examined either. Moreover, in previous research examining the effects of information alignment (Fabrigar and Petty 1999; McGuire 1964; McGuire and Papageorgis 1962; Pham and Muthukrishnan 2002), the counter message typically came from a trusted source. Thus, it is not clear what would be the relative effectiveness of aligned and nonaligned counter claims when the source of these counter claims is not perceived as credible.

Research on biased assimilation (Lord, Ross, and Lepper 1979) suggests that consumers are likely to be more biased and more critical toward information that is inconsistent with existing expectations. According to the biased assimilation theory (Lord, Ross, and Lepper 1979; Edwars and Smith 1996), when people are presented with an argument, information relevant to the argument is automatically activated. If this activated information is inconsistent with the argument, people are more likely to scrutinize the argument and search for information that undermines its validity. The output of this search is then integrated with other (less biased) considerations to form a judgment.

Applying the conclusions of the biased assimilation research, we can expect that consumers will be more biased and critical when presented with aligned counter claims (and thus forced to reconcile between two opposing views) than when presented with nonaligned counter claims. Accordingly, when the counter claim comes from a distrusted source, aligned information will be evaluated more negatively and will be less effective than nonaligned information.

STUDY 1

In recent years, advertising of health care products has rapidly increased. The

aggressive marketing by the pharmaceutical industry has been cited as one of the leading causes for the recent increase of misuse and abuse of prescription drugs (Volkow 2006; United States General Accounting Office 2003). This explosion in health products advertising is accompanied by an increase in the technical difficulty of the information with which health products are promoted. Both drug and supplement advertisements rely

5

on scientific jargon to persuade consumers (Haard, Slater, and Long 2004) and claim to promote health or prevent disease in ways that may confuse the consumer (Vladeck 2000). Furthermore, companies are eager to bring the results of medical studies to potential consumers, often before the results have been subject to replication or to the scrutiny of the larger scientific community. For example, in 2007, the Federal Trade Commission investigated claims made by the manufacturers of Airborne that its product cures and prevents colds. Investigations revealed that the clinical trials used to support Airborne’s claims about its effectiveness were actually conducted without any doctors or scientists (ABC 2008). Furthermore, experts cautioned against the safety of the product warning that Airborne may provide too much vitamin A. While the package directs customers to take three pills of Airborne per day, just two pills provide 10,000 IU, the maximum safe level of vitamin A for a day (Airborne Settlement 2008).

Study 1 implemented a similar context by examining the effectiveness of aligned and non-aligned claims promoting a new allergy drug. We created an ad for a new brand of allergy medication called Levatin. One of the versions of the ad promoted the product as highly safe. Another version promoted the product as highly effective. We then experimentally crossed the specific content of the aligned and the nonaligned claims. That is, for each of the two versions of the Levatin ad, we tested the effects of a Consumer Reports message which presented counter claims undermining either the effectiveness or the safety of Levatin. This allowed us to test whether we were able to successfully calibrate the strength of the aligned and nonaligned counterarguments for each of the ads. Moreover, the crossed design of the study allowed us to ensure that any differences in the effects of the two types of counter claims could not be attributed to the specific information in the two counter claims.

Consistently with our conceptual analysis, we expected that when participants are presented with a counter message from a highly credible source such as Consumer Reports, the aligned counter claims would be more effective regardless of the specific information in the ad. However, although we expected that the majority of our participants would perceive a message from the Consumer Reports as credible, we also expected individual differences in participants’ perceptions of the credibility of the Consumer Reports message to moderate the effects of counter claim alignment.

Our goal was to test this prediction in a context that maximally captures the reality in which consumers encounter negative brand information. Accordingly, we incorporated several features in the design. First, because typically there is a delay between exposure to an ad and exposure to negative brand information, we conducted study 1 in two sessions one week apart. During the first session, participants saw the Levatin ad. During the second session, one week later, participants saw the Consumer Reports counter message. Second, consumers typically encounter brand information along with information about various other brands. Thus, during each of the two sessions, participants saw and evaluated the Levatin ad and the Consumer Reports message along with several other unrelated messages. Third, to recreate the natural circumstances in which consumers encounter brand information, all of the study materials were presented on a website specifically designed for the purpose of the study.

Method

6

Stimuli. Study 1 focused on two attributes frequently promoted in ads for health products – effectiveness and safety. To examine the relative importance of these two attributes, we asked 263 undergraduate students: 1) When choosing a medication (e.g. allergy medication), how important is it for you that it is proven effective? and 2) When choosing a medication (e.g. allergy medication), how important is it for you that it is proven safe? Both attributes were rated as highly important and no significant differences between the two attributes were observed, F(1,263) = 1.16, n.s., Msafety = 6.93 (scale: 0 to 8, SD = 1.62), Meffectiveness = 6.83 (SD = 1.56).

In order to control for differences in the information provided by the aligned and non-aligned counter claims we created two versions of an ad for Levatin which either promoted the product as highly effective or highly safe.

The ad promoting Levatin as highly effective reported results of studies revealing that Levatin was effective for 93% of the patients. It contained the headline: “Levatin for allergy symptoms. Clinically proven effectiveness.” Below the headline was a picture and the following message: “To ensure the effectiveness of our product, we put Levatin to a stringent clinical trial. The results were incredible. 93% of the participants taking Levatin experienced significantly reduced allergy symptoms.” Along with this text was a chart indicating the percentage of cases with improved symptoms.

The second version of the ad promoted Levatin as a safe way to relieve allergy symptoms; it reported results of studies demonstrating that 99% of the participants taking the drug did not experience any side effects. The text of the ad was “Levatin for allergy symptoms. Clinically proven safety. To ensure the safety of our product, we put Levatin to a stringent clinical trial. The results were incredible. 99% of the participants taking Levatin experienced no significant side effects.”

For each of the two Levatin ads we created two versions of a message from Consumer Reports Healthwatch. We modeled the message after a section of the Consumer Reports magazine in which the magazine reproduces ads and other brand information and points to misleading or omitted information. Accordingly, we created a message that reproduced the Levatin ad and then presented information that corrected the ad claims (Appendix A).

The specific content of the Consumer Reports message varied depending on condition. For participants who saw the ad positioning the product as highly safe, the aligned counter claim reported results from larger and better-controlled studies demonstrating that 30% of the patients taking Levatin experienced significant side effects. The non-aligned counter claim reported studies showing that 35% of the patients continued to experience the symptoms they had prior to taking Levatin. The reverse was the case for participants who saw the effectiveness ad. The aligned counter message claimed that 35% of the patients continued to experience the symptoms they had had prior to taking Levatin, and the non-aligned version reported studies demonstrating that 30% of the patients taking Levatin experienced significant side effects. This 2 (ad claim) by 2 (counter claim alignment) between-subjects design allowed us to control for the specific information provided by the aligned and non-aligned counter claims.

To ensure equal strength of the claims in the two aligned counter messages we conducted a second pretest. Fifty four participants viewed one of the two versions of the aligned counter message and responded to questions. We assessed participants’ evaluations of Levatin by asking them to rate 1) their overall impression of Levatin (from

7

negative to positive), 2) how they would evaluate Levatin, overall (from unfavorable to favorable), 3) how likely they would be to consider taking Levatin if at some point they experience allergy symptoms, 4) how likely they would be to buy Levatin if they found themselves shopping for an allergy medication, 5) how likely they would be to recommend Levatin to a friend who is deciding on which allergy product to take, and 6) how much they like Levatin (from not at all to very much). These items fit well in a single scale (Cronbach’s Reliability α = .86). Perceptions of the credibility of the Consumer Reports article were then assessed with the following questions: 1) How honest is the Consumer Reports message? 2) “To what extent do you feel you can trust the information presented in the Consumer Reports message? 3) To what extent do you feel that you can believe the information presented in the Consumer Reports message? and 4) To what extent do you feel that the Consumer Reports message accurately portrays Levatin? (α = .91). Finally, we asked participants: To what extent do you think the Consumer Reports message disproved the original claim of the ad? All of the responses were provided on a scale from 0 to 8.

The pretest did not reveal any significant differences in the effects of the two aligned counter claims on brand evaluations (Meffectiveness = 2.38, Msafety = 2.36, F < 1), perceived credibility of the Consumer Reports message (Meffectiveness = 5.00, Msafety = 5.27; F < 1) and the extent to which the counter message disproved the original claims of the ad (Meffectiveness = 5.20, Msafety = 5.15, F < 1). These results provided confidence that the two counterclaims provided comparable information. Procedure. During two consecutive sessions, one week apart, 45 male and 77 female undergraduate students evaluated a series of messages presented on a website designed for the purpose of the study. Most of the messages were filler ads unrelated to the study with the exception of the Levatin ad that was presented during the first session and the Consumer Reports counter message that was presented in the second session one week later. To reduce demand characteristics, one of the filler messages also came from a consumer protection organization and contained information about call phones. Participants were able to access the experimental web site from their home or other locations with internet access. This allowed us to simulate the natural circumstances under which consumers encounter information about health products. To further reduce demand characteristics we informed participants that during the two experimental sessions they would view various messages and advertisements that appeared in a one-week period in various media (e.g. magazines, web-pages, or newspapers). We further told participants that we were interested in their reactions to the messages that had appeared that week, so after each message they would be asked some questions. During the first session of the study, participants saw a set of three messages. The second message in the session was the Levatin ad, which was presented for 30 seconds. After examining each message, participants responded to a series of questions. This allowed us to obtain a baseline measure of the evaluations of the Levatin and test the effects of the different counter messages while controlling for the initial evaluations of the advertised brand. One week later, participants completed the second session of the study, and reviewed a set of two filler ads and the Consumer Reports counter message, which appeared second in the session and was presented for 75 seconds. Again, after examining each message, participants responded to a series of questions.

8

After completing the study, participants were eligible for a drawing to win $50 if at the end of the study they responded correctly to a set of questions related to the information in the ads.

Dependent Variables After presenting the Levatin ad at session 1, we assessed message beliefs by

asking participants 1) To what extent do you think Levatin can effectively reduce allergy symptoms? and 2) To what extent do you think Levatin has significant side effects. Then, we assessed participants’ evaluations of Levatin with the items used in the pretest (Cronbach’s Reliability α = .95).

One week later, during the second session of the study, participants saw the Consumer Reports message (along with several filler ads) and responded to a set of questions. We assessed message beliefs again using the items from session 1. Then, as a manipulation check, we asked participants to rate the extent to which they thought the Consumer Reports message disproved the original claim of the ad. We also assessed evaluations of Levatin with the same items used in session 1 (Cronbach’s Reliability α = .94). Participants then rated their perceptions of the credibility of the Consumer Reports article by responding to the following questions: 1) How honest is the Consumer Reports message?, 2) To what extent do you feel you can trust the information presented in the Consumer Reports message?, 3) To what extent do you feel that you can believe the information presented in the Consumer Reports message?, and 4) To what extent do you feel that the Consumer Reports message accurately portrays Levatin? (α = .95). The dependent variables were measured in the order they were described above. All of the responses were provided on a scale from 0 to 8.

At the end of the study participants indicated their gender and whether they have used allergy medication in the past. Then they responded to the questions related to the drawing of the $50 prize (e.g. What was the dominant color in the Levatin ad?, Which of the following brands was not advertised in the set of ads that you saw during the experiment?). At the end we included a set of questions intended to address participants’ awareness of the purpose of the study (e.g. Do you have any questions about this study?, What do you think the purpose of the study was?, Did you find any aspect of the study odd, confusing, or disturbing?, Do you think that there might have been more to the study than the stated purpose?). Most of the participants indicated that the study examined responses to advertising. However, none of the participants guessed the hypothesis of the study. The post-experimental questionnaire also revealed that none of the participants found any aspect of the study confusing or disturbing.

Results

Preliminary analysis. Analysis of participants’ initial brand evaluations during session 1 revealed no significant effects of claim of the ad (safety vs. effectiveness, F(1,118) = 2.35, n.s.). Analyses of participants’ initial beliefs in the ad claims revealed that participants who saw the effectiveness ad perceived Levatin as significantly more effective in relieving allergy symptoms than participants who saw the safety ad, F(1, 120) = 8.75, p = .01, Meffectiveness = 5.57, Msafety = 4.58. Similarly, participants who saw the safety ad believed that Levatin has less side effects than participants who saw the effectiveness ad, F(1, 120) = 18.30, p < .01, Meffectiveness = 4.14, Msafety = 2.68. There were

9

no significant differences in the extent to which participants believed the claims of the two ads, as measured by ratings of Levatin’s safety (among participants who viewed the safety ad) or effectiveness (among participants who viewed the effectiveness ad), F < 1.

Consistent with the purpose of our manipulations, participants perceived the two aligned messages as disproving the claims of the ad to a greater extent than the two non-aligned messages (F(1, 118) = 38.70, p < .01; Maligned= 6.25; Mnonaligned = 3.56). Furthermore, as indicated by the nonsignificant effect of ad claim (safety vs. effectiveness), F < 1, and the nonsignificant interaction between ad claim and counter claim alignment, F(1, 118) = 1.44, p = .22, participants rated the two aligned counter messages corresponding to the two Levatin ads as equally disproving the claims of the ad.

Brand Evaluations. Our main hypothesis predicted that across the two Levatin ads, the aligned counter claims would result in greater change in participants’ evaluations of the brand than the nonaligned counter claims. To test this hypothesis we conducted analysis of covariance with participants’ evaluations of Levatin during the second session as a dependent variable and Levatin evaluations measured at session 1 as a covariate. The analysis revealed a significant main effect of counter claim alignment, F(1, 117) = 6.44, p = .01. The main effect of ad claim (safety vs. effectiveness, F(1, 117) = 1.55, p = .22) and the interaction between ad claim and counter claim type were not significant (F(1, 117) = 1.02, p = .32). According to these results, the aligned counter claims resulted in a greater decrease in the evaluations of Levatin regardless of their specific content. When the product was advertised as highly effective, a counter claim about the ineffectiveness of the product lowered participants’ evaluations of Levatin to a greater extent than a counter claim about possible side effects, Mnonaligned adj. = 2.59, Maligned adj. = 1.77. At the same time, when Levatin was advertised as a safe way to relieve allergy symptoms, the same information about low effectiveness was less detrimental than information about possible side effects, Mnonaligned adj. = 2.07, Maligned adj. = 1.71, Figure 1. To examine whether changes in ad claim beliefs mediated the effects of counter claim alignment on brand evaluations, we calculated ad claim beliefs based on participants’ ratings of Levatin’s safety (for participants who viewed the safety ad) or effectiveness (for participants who viewed the effectiveness ad). First, we tested the effects of counter claim alignment on ad claim beliefs at Session 2 including initial ad claim beliefs as a covariate. The results revealed a significant main effect of counter claim alignment on ad claim beliefs, F(1,117) = 80.52, p = .001. The aligned counter claim resulted in lower beliefs in the ad claims than the nonaligned counter claim. A marginally significant interaction between counter claim alignment and ad claim, F(1,117) = 3.55, p = .06 revealed that this effect was stronger when the ad claimed that Levatin was safe. However, the effect of counter claim alignment on ad claim beliefs was highly significant for both participants who saw the effectiveness ad (Mnonaligned adj. = 4.96, Maligned adj. = 2.85, F(1,48) = 22.42, p < .001) and the safety ad (Mnonaligned adj. = 5.70, Maligned adj. = 2.33, F(1,68) = 70.09, p < .001). To test the mediating role of message beliefs, we conducted an Analysis of Covariance with the evaluations of Levatin after seeing the counter message as a dependent variable. Counter claim alignment and belief in the ad claim after viewing the counter message were included as predictors. To control for differences in the initial evaluations of Levatin, we included Levatin evaluations at session 1 and belief in the ad

10

claim at session 1 as covariates. The results revealed that once controlling for changes in ad claim beliefs, the effect of counter claim alignment was no longer significant, F(1, 117) = .92, p = .76. Instead, it was replaced by a significant effect of ad claim beliefs on brand evaluations, F(1, 117) = 12.00, p < .001. According to this analysis, the effects of counter claim alignment on Levatin evaluations were mediated by changes in participants’ beliefs in the ad claims. Moderating Role of Counter Message Credibility. We first compared participants’ evaluations of the four versions of the Consumer Reports message during the second session. Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences in the perceived credibility of the aligned and non-aligned counter messages, F(1,120) = 1.33, n.s. The main effect of type of ad and the interaction between the two factors was not significant either (F’s < 1). This allowed us to include in the analysis as a continuous variable participants’ perceptions of the credibility of the Consumer Report message along with counter claim alignment, type of ad, and the covariate ratings from session 1. The results revealed a significant positive effect of counter message credibility on participants’ evaluations of Levatin, F(1, 117) = 5.53, p = .02. This effect, was further moderated by a significant interaction between counter claim alignment and credibility of the counter message, F(1, 117) = 5.17, p = .03. The main effect of ad claim and the interaction between ad claim and counter claim alignment were not significant, Fs < 1. As the regression lines depicted on Figure 2 demonstrate, among participants who perceived the Consumer Reports message as credible, the aligned counter claims resulted in more negative evaluations of Levatin than the nonaligned counter claims. However, among participants who did not trust the Consumer Reports message, the nonaligned counter claims resulted in lower evaluations of Levatin than the aligned counter claims.

We further tested whether changes in participants’ beliefs in the ad claims mediated the interaction effects between counter claim alignment and perceived credibility of the counter message. Thus, we first examined the effects of counter claim alignment and counter message credibility on ad claim beliefs at Session 2. Initial beliefs in the ad claim were included as a covariate. The results revealed a significant interaction between counter claim alignment and counter message credibility, F(1,117) = 9.20, p < .01. These effects were not moderated by type of ad, F’s < 1. Second, we examined the effects of counter claim alignment and perceived credibility of the counter message on brand evaluations by also including in the model ad claim beliefs at session 2. Again, initial brand evaluations and initial ad claim beliefs were included in the analysis as covariates. The results revealed that once we included ad claim beliefs in the equation, the interaction between counter claim alignment and counter message credibility was no longer significant, F(1,117) = .006, p = .94. Instead, it was replaced by a significant effect of ad claim beliefs on brand evaluations, F(1,117) = 14.11, p < .001. According to this analysis, changes in participants’ beliefs in the claims of the ad mediated the interaction effect of counter claim alignment and counter message credibility on brand evaluations.

Additional Analyses. To examine the role of product involvement in the effects of the two types of counter claims, we tested if previous use of allergy medication moderated the observed differences between the effects of aligned and non-aligned counter claims. Thus we conducted an Analysis of Covariance with Levatin evaluations after seeing the Consumer Reports message as a dependent variable, previous use of

11

allergy medication, counter claim alignment, and ad claim included as predictors. Initial evaluations of Levatin were included as a covariate. The results revealed that after seeing the Consumer Reports message, participants who had previously used allergy medication evaluated Levatin more negatively (Madj.. = 1.85) than participants who had not used allergy medication in the past (Madj. = 2.50). However, past use of allergy medication did not moderate the effect of counter claim alignment on Levatin evaluations, F(1, 113) = .92, n.s. Discussion

The results of study 1 revealed that for an ad that positioned the product as effective, counter claims about low effectiveness resulted in greater resistance than counter claims about low safety. However, the opposite was the case for an ad that positioned the product as safe. Because the specific information about safety and effectiveness was the same across conditions, these results show that the differences in the effects of aligned and non-aligned counter claims were not driven by the differential strength of their specific content.

Study 1 further demonstrated that although the aligned counter claims had an overall stronger negative effect on the evaluations of Levatin than the non-aligned counter claims, this difference was significant only when the counter message was perceived as highly credible. However, it should be noted, that in Study 1 we measured, rather than manipulated, participants ratings of Consumer Reports message. Thus, further evidence should be obtained by manipulating the credibility of the source of the message.

STUDY 2

In study 2, we experimentally manipulated the credibility of the source of the

counter message. We expected that aligned counter claims would result in greater change in the evaluations of the brand when they came from a credible source. However, when the source of the counter message is not credible, nonaligned counter claims would lead to greater resistance.

In study 2 we also aimed to provide stronger support for our conclusions and extend the generalizability of the findings by testing the hypotheses in a different context and a different product - an energy drink called Delight that was produced by a local company – Cornucopia Beverages. We chose the context of energy drinks because consumption of such drinks is prevalent among the college population from which our sample was drawn. Moreover, energy drinks are frequently advertised with misleading claims about their effects on performance and endurance while failing to inform consumers of the negative health effects that such products can have (Pierre 2000).

In addition, we aimed to increase the validity of our conclusions by incorporating several elements in the design of study 2. First, to reduce demand characteristics, we did not ask participants to evaluate the target brand immediately after seeing the counter message. Instead, after seeing the counter message participants saw and evaluated an unrelated ad. Then, they saw the Delight ad again and evaluated the brand in response to the ad.

Second, in contrast to study 1, the ad did not provide any specific evidence in support of its claims. Instead, it simply stated that the product contains special ingredients

12

that either help maintain a healthy lifestyle (in one version of the ad) or provide energy (in the other version).

Third, to extend the generalizability of the findings from study 1, we did not reproduce the original ad in the counter message nor we repeated the claims of the ad in the counter message. Instead, we created a general counter messages about energy drinks consumption without even mentioning the target brand.

Method Study 2 employed a 2 (ad claim) X 2 (counter claim alignment) X 2 (counter

message source) between subjects design. Four hundred and sixty three college students participated in the study (206 male; 257 female). We told participants that the study examined how consumers form preferences about different products and provided them with the following instructions: “In order to recreate the natural environment in which consumers learn about products, you may see some of the ads multiple times. Furthermore, since consumers typically encounter product information from various sources, you may see messages from public organizations, consumer advocate agencies, or different competitors. Because the purpose of the study is to recreate the natural experience of evaluating products, please respond to the questions about each of the advertised products according to your first impressions”.

The study was conducted in a laboratory using MediaLab software. During the experimental session participants saw a set of messages. The second and the seventh message in the set was the Delight target ad which was presented for 30 seconds. The fifth message in the set was the counter message, which was presented for 45 seconds. The rest of the messages were unrelated filler ads. After examining each message, participants responded to a series of questions.

Stimuli. In order to control for differences in the information provided by the aligned and non-aligned counter claims, we created two versions of an ad promoting a beverage called Delight Energy in one of the versions and Delight Vitamin in the other version of the ad. The first version of the ad promoted Delight Energy as an excellent source of energy with the following message: “Special formula enhanced with potent ingredients to give you the energy you need. “ The ad also displayed the name of the manufacturer of Delight Energy – a local company called Cornucopia Beverages” (Appendix B). The second version of the ad promoted Delight Vitamin with the following message: “Special formula enhanced with B-vitamins to help you maintain a healthy lifestyle.” The two ads were equivalent in all regards except for the text in the copy and the name of the product depicted on the bottle.

We created two versions of the counter message both of which had the headline: “Think natural before consuming another beverage.” One of the versions of the counter message claimed that energy drinks do not provide long-lasting energy. It included the following text “Manufacturers of energy drinks are eager to tell you how good their products are. What they don’t tell you is that the energy from these beverages is likely to last only a few hours and then you may feel even more tired. After only a few hours these drinks will make you feel exhausted and unmotivated to remain active. For high energy throughout the day drink natural fruit and vegetable juices.” (Appendix B). The second version of the counter message claimed that energy drinks are not healthy. It had the

13

following text: “Manufacturers of energy drinks are eager to tell you how good their products are. What they don’t tell you is that these beverages contain artificial ingredients that are harmful for your body. These ingredients can accelerate heart rate, increase blood pressure, and cause severe dehydration. To keep your body healthy, drink natural fruit and vegetable juices.” Importantly, none of the counter messages contained specific information about the advertised product Delight.

To manipulate the credibility of source of the counter message, below the copy of the counter message we included either “Brought to you by your friends at V8” along with the V8 brand logo or “U.S. Department of Health and Human Services” along with the logo of the organization (Appendix B).

Dependent Variables. To assess participants’ evaluations of Delight after the first exposure to the ad we asked them to 1) rate their impression of Delight Vitamin / Delight Energy and 2) indicate if they would consider buying Delight Vitamin / Delight Energy. The two items were highly correlated, r = .572, p < .001. To assess initial beliefs in the claims of the ad, participants who saw the Delight Energy ad rated the extent to which they believed Delight Energy can give them the energy they need. Participants who saw the Delight Vitamin rated the extent to which they believed Delight Vitamin can help them maintain a healthy lifestyle.

After evaluating several filler ads participants saw one of the four versions of the counter message. We assessed their perceptions of the credibility of the source of the counter message by asking them whether they thought the Manufacturer of V8 / U.S. Department of Health & Human Services is a trustworthy source of information. Participants then viewed another set of filler ads and saw the Delight ad for a second time. They evaluated the brand again by responding to the following questions: 1) How would you evaluate Delight Vitamin / Delight Energy, overall? and 2) How likely would you be to consider buying Delight Vitamin / Delight Energy (r =.71, p < .001). All responses were provided on a scale from 1 to 9.

At the end of the experiment we assessed involvement with the product category by asking participants to indicate how often they consume energy drinks on average (e.g., one beverage per day, a few beverages per week, one beverage per week, a few beverages per month, less than one beverage per month). Participants also indicated their gender and responded to a post-experimental questionnaire which included suspicion check questions. None of the participants guessed the hypothesis of the study or found any aspect of the study confusing or disturbing.

Results

Preliminary analysis. Examination of participants’ initial ratings of the two Delight ads revealed a significant difference in the initial evaluations of Delight, MDeight

Vitamin = 5.66, MDelight Energy = 5.49, F(1,459) = 4.95, p = .03. We controled for this difference in subsequent analyses by including this variable as a covariate. We also examined participants’ evaluations of the four versions of the counter message. Analysis of variance revealed that participants rated V8 as significantly more credible than the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, MV8 = 3.6, MDHHS = 2.2, F(1,461) = 73.96, p < .001. No significant differences were observed in the credibility of the source of the aligned and the non-aligned counter messages, F(1,455) = 1.05, p = .40. The

14

interaction effect between counter claim alignment and counter message source on the perceived credibility of the source of the counter message was not significant either, F < 1.

Brand Evaluations. We predicted that when the counter message came from a credible source, aligned counter claims would be more effective in reducing brand evaluations than competing information about another attribute. However, when the source of the counter message was not credible, nonaligned counter claims would have stronger effect on brand evaluations than aligned counter claims. To test this hypothesis, we conducted an Analysis of Covariance with evaluations of Delight at the second viewing of the ad as a dependent variable and initial evaluations as a covariate. The analysis revealed a significant interaction between counter claim alignment and counter message source, F(1,458) = 6.56, p = .01. This effect was not moderated by ad type (Delight Energy vs. Delight Vitamin), F(1,445) = .48, p = .45 or participants’ scores on the social desirability scale, F < 1.

As the means displayed on Figure 3 demonstrate, when the counter message came from V8, the aligned counter claim had a stronger undermining effect than the non-aligned counter claim, F(1,269) = 4.33, p = .04. When the message came from the less trusted source US DHHS, the non-aligned counter claims resulted in marginally significant greater change in participants evaluations of Delight, F(1,186) = 2.84, p = .09. Furthermore, consistent with the biased assimilation hypothesis, credibility of the source of the counter message had a significant effect on brand evaluations when the message contained aligned counter claims, F(1,236) = 4.36, p = .04. However, when the counter message contained nonaligned counter claims, source credibility did not influenced the effectiveness of the counter messages, F(1,223) = 2.27, n.s.

Ad Claim Beliefs. Analysis of covariance with ad claim beliefs after the second exposure to the ad as a dependent variable and a covariate initial beliefs, revealed a significant effect of type of counter claim, F(1, 381) = 4.09, p = .04. The aligned counter claims resulted in greater decrease in participants beliefs in the claims of the ad than the nonaligned counter claim, Madj. aligned = 5.51, Madj. nonaligned = 5.93. This main effect was qualified by a marginally significant interaction between type of counter claims and countermessage source, F(1,385)=3.29, p= .07. The interaction between type of ad, type of counterclaim, and counter message source was not significant, F < 1.

When the message came from the more trusted source V8, the aligned and nonaligned counter claims had similar effects on participants’ beliefs in the ad claims, F < 1, M adj. aligned =5.53, M adj. nonaligned = 5.58. When the message came from the less trusted source US DHHS the aligned counter claims had a greater impact on participants beliefs in the specific ad claims than the nonaligned counter claims, F(1,114) = 5.81, Madj. aligned = 5.59, Madj. nonaligned = 6.38. This pattern suggest that the superior effect of nonaligned counter claim in reducing brand evaluations in the low credibility source condition was not driven by changes in participants beliefs in the specific ad claims.

Cognitive Responses. Analysis of participants’ cognitive responses did not indicate significant differences in the valence of participants’ thoughts about the brand, F’s < 1. We further examined differences in participants’ thoughts indicating deceptiveness of the Delight ad. The results revealed significant interaction between type of counter claim and source of the counter message, F(1,455)=3,628, p = .057. When the message came from V8, the aligned counter claim resulted in a greater number of

15

thoughts about the deceptiveness of the Delight ad than the nonaligned counter claim (Maligned = .27, Mnonaligned = .21). The opposite pattern occurred when the countermessage came from the U.S DHHS. When the source of the message was not perceived as credible, the nonaligned counter claim resulted in greater perceptions of deceptiveness of the advertiser than the aligned counter claim (Maligned = .34, Mnonaligned = .). The interaction between type of counter claim and message source was not moderated by ad type (energy vs. vitamin), F(1,451) = 1.09, p = .30, or order of the thought listing task, F (1, 451) = .09, p = .76. Additional analyses. Product involvement measured by participants’ history of energy drinks consumption did not moderate the effects of counter claim alignment and source credibility on the evaluations of Delight, F(1,454) = 1.39, p = .24, company credibility, F(1,454) = .26, p = .61, and beliefs in the ad claims, F(1,454) = .07, p = .79.

Discussion

Study 2 replicated and extended the results of Study 1 with a higher-involvement product. Study 2 examined the effect of aligned messages that did not mention the particular brand and did not explicitly undermine the specific claims with which the specific brand was advertised. Yet, even when the aligned counter claims did not have a stronger effect on participants’ beliefs in the specific ad claims than the non-aligned counter claims, the aligned counter claims had a stronger effect on the evaluations of the brand. This finding suggests that when the countermessage comes form a credible source, aligned counter claim will result in greater resistance even when they do not undermine consumers’ beliefs in the specific claims of the ad. Indeed, participants in the aligned counter claim condition reported more thoughts about the deceptiveness of Delight than participants in the nonaligned counter claims condition.

When the message came from the more trusted source, the aligned counter claims were more effective than the non-aligned counter claims. These results were consistent with the findings from the previous studies where the source of the message was Consumer Reports. However, when the counter message came from the less trusted sources we found that the non aligned counter claims were more effective. These findings suggest that organizations that are not perceived as credible would be more effective in creating resistance by providing information that is not aligned with the target message.

We manipulated the credibility of the source of the counter message by having the message come either from the government institution U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or “your friends at V8”, a manufacturer of vegetable juices that was heavily advertised during the time we conducted the study. Our data suggest that on particular topics, government institutions can be perceived as less credible sources of information than popular commercial companies. Perhaps such a result may be expected given the recent decline among consumers in deference to government institutions (Flatters and Willmott 2009). As government agencies are been politicized to the point of being characterized by many as no longer impartial, as it has been the case with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), consumers are likely to become increasingly distrustful of government organizations.

At the same time, our findings also suggest that just because a message comes from a commercial company, doesn’t mean that it will be perceived as less credible. Indeed, when we asked three hundred and five participants from the same subject pool as

16

the participants in study 2 to evaluate the trustworthiness of various organizations, the ratings of V8 were as high as the ratings of Consumer Reports, MV8 = 5.9, MCR = 6.2, F(1, 305) = 1.84, p = .18.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Consumers are increasingly exposed to messages promoting products with

possible harmful effects. Thus, organizations concerned with consumer welfare are increasingly more involved in providing consumers with counter persuasive communications designed to prevent consumption of such products among vulnerable populations. Yet, little scientific knowledge is available to advise such organizations on what type of counter claims would be most likely to make these efforts successful. Spurred by this gap in the consumer research literature, the present investigation examined the relative effects of (1) counter information that undermined the specific claims of the ad promoting the product and (2) equally negative information about product attributes not mentioned in the ad.

The results revealed that when the source of the counter message is perceived as credible, counter claims that are aligned with the ad claims will be more effective in creating resistance than equally negative information that does not specifically address the ad claims. Such a conclusion is consistent with research demonstrating that anti-smoking advertisements reinforcing negative smoking stereotypes (e.g., “smoking stinks”, “how to spot a nerd”) can offset the effects of common tobacco ads depicting images of young, attractive, glamorous, and sexy people who are having fun (Pechmann and Knight 2002). Our findings are also consistent with examinations of various antismoking campaigns suggesting that whereas messages depicting the negative health effects of smoking have been generally ineffective, one of the most successful ways to decrease tobacco consumption was to provide evidence for the deceptiveness of tobacco advertising (Goldman and Glantz 1998).

The results of this investigation, however, have a broader set of implications for preventing consumption of a variety of harmful products. Skin cancer, for example, is the most common form of cancer (Glanz, Saraiya, & Wechsler, 2002). Yet, despite relatively easy prevention, skin cancer rates are on the rise, which is due in part to increased exposure through the use of tanning beds. Indeed, tanning bed use is a major risk factor for both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (Geller et al., 2002; National Cancer Institute, 2005). Regular users of indoor tanning are eight times more likely to have melanomas as compared to never users (Westerdahl, Ingvar, Masback, Jonsson, & Olsson, 2000, Glanz, Saraiya, & Wechsler, 2002). At the same time, to speed the tanning process, suntan bed manufacturers have developed tanning beds that produce higher levels of UVB rays and thus increase the risk of skin cancer to users by (World Health Organization, 2003). To protect consumers, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned that there are adverse health effects associated with tanning bed use and suggested that no person under 18 should use a tanning bed (World Health Organization, 2003, 2005). Our findings, however, suggest that a different approach should be considered. To counter the appeals of youth and beauty used by the tanning industry, messages designed to reduce tanning should make consumers aware that tanning can

17

prematurely age and wrinkle skin. When they come from a credible source, such aligned counterclaims may be more effective than the messages currently available.

In other domains, our findings suggest that messages promoting nutritious eating should undermine the appeals of fun, happiness and being “cool” with which unhealthy food products are advertised (Folta, Goldberg, Economos, Bell, & Meltzer, 2006; Harrison & Marske, 2005). Messages promoting safe driving should undermine the commercial depictions of joy and excitement of high speed. Finally, anti-debt campaigns should attack the specific appeals of luxurious lifestyle and freedom used by credit lenders. Yet, these strategies are likely to be effective only when utilized by organizations with high credibility.

In addition to providing evidence for the effectiveness of directly undermining the specific claims with which a product is promoted, the present research also revealed that such strategy has a particular advantage when provided by a trustworthy source. That is, the aligned counter claims had an overall stronger negative effect only when the source of counter message was perceived as highly credible. This finding is particularly important for the goals of the present research, as it suggests that the use of aligned information is particularly suitable for organizations recognized as concerned with consumer welfare. Having the trust of the consumer as an important asset, such organizations can effectively employ aligned counter claims and be successful in reducing consumption of harmful products.

Along with these practical implications, the present research advances the consumer behavior literature regarding (1) the study of resistance to persuasion and (2) the role of information alignment on judgment revision. Previous research has examined different forms of information alignment. For example, studies demonstrate that alignment of affect-based or cognition-based information plays an important role in judgment revision (Edwards 1990; Fabrigar and Petty 1999). Other studies have examined the effects of alignment of general versus specific brand positioning and the type of negative information (Pham and Muthukrishnan 2002). The present investigation advances these findings by examining the effects of alignment between the specific content of the original claim and the new information.

The present investigation also contribute to the structural alignment literature by revealing conditions under which information alignment influence judgments. The structural alignment research has suggested several variables that are likely to increase focus on alignable differences. For example, disproportionate focus on alignable attributes is reduced with increased involvement (Zhang and Markman 2001). Furthermore, because the comparability of options increases when their attributes are thought about abstractly (Johnson, 1984), decisions that have distant future consequences (relative to near future consequences) involve an increased consideration of nonalignable attributes (Malkoc, Zauberman, and Ulu 2005). We advance these findings by demonstrating that the credibility of the source of a message may be an important variable moderating the structural alignment effect.

One important feature of the present research is that although the aligned counter claims refuted the specific claims of the ad, they did not contain direct evidence for manipulative intent. Yet, the aligned information resulted in a greater decline in the participants’ ratings of the company credibility which mediated the differential effect of aligned and non-aligned counter claims on brand evaluations. This finding is consistent

18

with previous research suggesting that morally relevant facts about actions’ outcomes (e.g. effects on other people) are particularly likely to prompt spontaneous inferences about the actor’s beliefs and intentions (Leslie, Knobe, and Cohen, 2006; Knobe 2005; Young and Saxe 2009). Future research should examine the effects of information alignment in the presence or absence of direct claims for the deceptiveness of the ad, as such additional information may amplify the effect of directly undermining message claims. Alternatively, directly claiming that an ad is dishonest may have a backfiring effect. As the present studies do not address these possibilities, further research is needed to examine the role of implied and directly claimed deceptiveness on brand evaluations revision.

We examined the effects of aligned and non-aligned counter claims both immediately after presenting the counter message and at subsequent presentation of the ad at a later point. Future research can examine the effects on aligned and non-aligned counter claims on subsequent presentations of the ad. Because the effectiveness of the aligned counter claims was driven by changes in the credibility of the sponsor of the ad, subsequent presentations of the ad claims may further decrease participants’ evaluations of the brand (Petrova et al., 2010). Changes in the perceived credibility of the company can also influence evaluations of subsequent advertising from the same company. This prediction is consistent with results from the inoculation studies (McGuire 1961) in which the refutational defense created resistance not only to a subsequent exposure to the same arguments, but also to a subsequent exposure to different arguments. Furthermore, research shows that the effects of revealing the deceptiveness of a message can transfer to other messages by the same or different sources (Darke and Ritche 2007; Darke, Ashworth, and Ritchie 2008). A possible direction for future research is to examine if similar effects would be observed when the counter information refutes the claims in an ad without providing evidence for its deceptiveness.

Across studies, we tested our hypotheses with both high and low involvement products. We also specifically tested the role of product involvement as measured by participant use of the product category. Across studies, product involvement did not moderate the effects of counter claim alignment. Yet, research can further examine the role of product involvement in the effects of different types of counter claims. To the extent that counter arguing a message requires cognitive resources, we can expect the observed effects to be more likely among consumers who are involved with the product category and thus have the motivation and ability to process the message systematically (Romero et. at., 1996). Furthermore, under distraction or cognitive load individuals are less likely to engage in systematic processing of persuasive messages (e.g., Petty, Wells, & Brock, 1976; Osterhouse and Brock, 1970). Thus, messages presented in fast pace or when individuals are overloaded with information are particularly difficult to counter argue. In the present research we used print ads presented on a screen for a certain time. Since consumers typically have less time to generate counterarguments with TV ads, it is possible to observe different effects with different presentation formats.

As a final note, although this research was motivated by the goal of helping public organizations in protecting consumers from products with harmful effects, it provides an insight regarding the design of successful marketing communications. Previous research has suggested that it is more profitable for a company to provide information that its brand is superior on attributes advertised by the competitor than to provide information

19

about unique attributes (Zhang and Markman 2001; Zhang, Kardes, and Cronley 2002; Zhang and Markman 1998). We advance these findings by demonstrating that the credibility of the company may be an important variable moderating this effect. We also provide insight about the harmful effects that negative information can have on brand evaluations. In today’s environment, negative information is easy to distribute, whether by news reports, internet chat rooms, blogs, brand communities, consumer protection organizations, or competitors. It is becoming increasingly important for companies to ensure that their marketing communications can sustain negative brand information from such sources. It is also becoming increasingly important for managers to be aware of the ways in which consumers revise their evaluations when information undermining the brand position becomes available. By promoting their products with information that is truthful, credible, and not likely to be refuted in future challenges, marketers can ensure the long-term success of their brands.

20

REFERENCES

ABC (2008), Airborne Settlement, Wednesday, March 05, 2008, 7:37 AM, http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/consumer&id=5996792#bodyText

Airbone Settlement (2008), http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/settlements/11041/airborne-settlement.html

Andrews, J. Craig (1995), “The Effectiveness of Alcohol Warning Labels: A Review and Extension,” American Behavioral Scientist, 38, 622-632.

Argo, Jennifer J. and Kelley J. Main (2004), "Meta-Analyses of the Effectiveness of Warning Labels," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 23 (2), 193-208.

Bacon, Frederick T. (1979), "Credibility of Repeated Testimonials: Memory for Trivia," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5 (3), 241-52.

Begg, Ian M., Ann Anas, and Suzanne Farinacci (1992), “Dissociation of Process in Belief: Source Recollection, Statement Familiarity and the Illusion of Truth,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121 (December), 446-58.

Begg, Ian M. and Victoria Armour (1991), "Repetition and the Ring of Truth: Biasing Comments," Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 23 (2), 195-213.

Bennetts, K., R M. Borland, H Swerrison (1991), “Sun Protection Behavior of Children and their Parents at the Beach,” Psychological Health, 5, 279-287.

Blum, Alan (1994), “Paid Counter-advertising: Proven Strategy to Combat Tobacco Use and Promotion,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10, 3.

Borland Ron, D. Hill, and Noy S. Kay (1990), “Being Sunsmart - Changes in Community Awareness and Reported Behavior Following Primary Prevention for Skin Cancer Control,“ Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 7 (3), 126-35.

Brock, Timothy C. (1967), "Communication Discrepancy and Intent to Persuade as Determinants of Counterargument Production," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3 (3), 296-309.

Brownell, K.D. & Horgen, K.B. (2004). Food fight: The inside story of the food industry, America's obesity crisis, and what we can do about it. New York: McGraw-Hill. Campbell, Margaret C. (1995), "When Attention-Getting Advertising Tactics Elicit

Consumer Inferences of Manipulative Intent: The Importance of Balancing Benefits and Investments," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 225-54.

——— and Amna Kirmani (2000), “Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (June), 69–83.

Casswell, Sally, and Jiang Feng Zhang (1998), “Impact of Liking for Advertising and Brand Allegiance on Drinking and Alcohol-related Aggression: A Longitudinal Study,” Addiction 93, 1209–17.

Chassin, Laurie, Clark C. Presson, Steven J. Sherman (1990), “Social Psychological Contributors to the Understanding and Preventing of Adolescent Cigarette

21

Smoking,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 133-151. Consumer Affairs, (2007), http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/01/ftc_weight_loss.html. Cosmides, Leda and John Tooby (1992), “Cognitive Adaptations for Social Exchange,”

in The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, eds. Jerome H. Barkow, Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 163-228.

County of San Bernardino, Department of Public Health (2006), “Nutrition Program Online,” http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/eatwell/PDF%20files/TrimSpaflyer.pdf.

CROWNE, D . P. and MARLOWE, D . A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. consult. Psychol, 1960, S4, 349-354.

Darke, Peter R. and Robin J. B. Ritchie (2007), “The Defensive Consumer: Advertising Deception, Defensive Processing, and Distrust,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114-127.

Darke, P.R., Ashworth, L.T.A., & Ritchie, R.B. (2008). Damage From Corrective Advertising: Causes and Cures. Journal of Marketing.

Dyer, Robert F. and Philip G. Kuehl (1974), "The Corrective Advertising Remedy of the FTC: An Experimental Evaluation," Journal of Marketing, 48-54.

Eagly, Alice Hendrickson and Shelly Chaiken (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Edwards, Kari (1990), "The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Attitude Formation and Change," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (2), 202-16.

Ellen, Pam S., Lois A. Mohr, and Deborah J. Webb (2000), "Charitable Programs and the Retailer: Do They Mix?" Journal of Retailing, 76 (3), 393-406.

Fabrigar, Leandre R. and Richard E. Petty (1999), "The Role of the Affective and Cognitive Bases of Attitudes in Susceptibility to Affectively and Cognitively Based Persuasion," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (3), 363-81.

FDA Consumer Advisory (2002), "Kava – containing dietary supplements may be associated with severe liver injury."

FDA, (2002), http://www.fda.gov/oc/nutritioninitiative/report.html. Fein, Steven, Allison L. McCloskey, and Thomas M. Tomlinson (1997), "Can the Jury

Disregard that Information? The Use of Suspicion to Reduce the Prejudicial Effects of Pretrial Publicity and Inadmissible Testimony," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215-26.

Flatters, Paul and Michael Willmott (2009), “Understanding the Post-Recession Consumer,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 2009, 106-111.

Folta, S.C., Goldberg, J.P., Economos, C., Bell, R. & Meltzer, R. (2006) “Food advertising targeted at school-age children: A content analysis” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 38, 244-248.

Fox Ten O’clock News (2004), "Does TrimSpa Really Work?" http://www.whns.com/Global/story.asp?S=1648207.

Gilbert, Daniel T., Douglas S. Krull, and Patrick S. Malone (1990), “Unbelieving the Unbelievable: Some Problems in the Rejection of False Information,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 601-13.

Goldman, Lisa K. and Stanton A. Glantz (1998), “Evaluation of Antismoking

22

Advertising Campaigns,” Journal of American Medical Association, 279, 772 – 777.

Greenwald, Anthony G. (1968), "Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change," in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, ed. T. C. Brock, A.G. Greenwald, and T.M. Ostrom, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 147-70.

Grube, Joel W., and Laurence Wallack (1994), “Television Beer Advertising and Drinking Knowledge, Beliefs, and Intentions Among School Children,” American Journal Of Public Health, 84, 254–59.

Haard, Jennifer, Michael D. Slater, and Marilee Long (2004), "Scientese and Ambiguous Citations in the Selling of Unproven Medical Treatments," Health Communication, 16 (4), 411-26.

Halford, J.C.G., Boyland, M.J., Hughes, G., Oliveira, L.P., & Dovey, T.M. (2007). Beyond-brand effect of television (TV) food advertisements/commercials on caloric intake and food choice of 5-7-year-old children. Appetite, 49, 263-267.

Halford, J.C.G., Boyland, E.J., Hughes, G.M., Stacey, L., McKean, S, & Dovey, T.M. (2008). Beyond-brand effect of television food advertisements on food choice in children: the effects of weight status. Public Health Nutrition, 897-904.

Halford, J.C.G., Gillespie, J., Brown, V., Pontin, E.E., & Dovey, T.M. (2004). Effect of television advertisements for foods on food consumption in children. Appetite, 42, 221-225.

Hankin, Janet R., James J. Sloan, and Robert J. Sokol (1998), "The Modest Impact of the Alcohol Beverage Warning Label on Drinking During Pregnancy Among a Sample of African-American Women," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17 (1), 61-69.

Harris, Jennifer L., John A. Bargh, and Kelly D. Brownell (2009) ‘Priming Effects of Television Food Advertising on Eating Behavior’, Health Psychology, in press.

Harrison, K. & Marske, A.L. (2005). Nutritional content of foods advertised during the television programs children watch most. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 1568-1574.

Hasher, Lynn, David Goldstein, and Thomas Toppino (1977), “Frequency and the Conference of Referential Validity,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 107-12.

Hastings, G., Stead, M., McDermott, L., Forsyth, A., MacKintosh, A.M., Rayner, M., et al. (2003). Review of research on the effects of food promotion to children. Accessed at www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/foodpromotiontochildren1.pdf on 2/20/09.

Hawkins, Scott A. and Stephen J. Hoch (1992), “Low-Involvement Learning: Memory with Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 212-25.

Jacoby, Jacob, Margaret C. Nelson, and Wayne D. Hoyer (1982), "Corrective Advertising and Affirmative Disclosure Statements - Their Potential for Confusing and Misleading the Consumer," Journal of Marketing, 46 (1), 61-72.

Jain, Shailendra P. and Steven S. Posavac (2004), “Valenced Comparisons,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (February), 46–58.

Johar, Gita Venkataramani (1996), "Intended and Unintended Effects of Corrective

23

Advertising on Beliefs and Evaluations: An Exploratory Analysis," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5 (3), 209.

Johar, Gita Venkataramani and Carolyn J. Simmons (2000), "The Use of Concurrent Disclosures to Correct Invalid Inferences," Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (4), 307-22.

Killeya, Ley A. and Blair T. Johnson (1998), "Experimental Induction of Biased Systematic Processing: The Directed-thought Technique," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 (1), 17-33.

Knobe, Joshua (2005), “Theory of mind and moral cognition: Exploring the connections,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 357–359.

Leslie, Alan M., Knobe, Joshua, and Cohen, Adam (2006), “Acting intentionally and the side-effect effect: ‘‘Theory of mind’’ and moral judgment”, Psychological Science, 5, 421–427.

Lutz, Richard J. (1985), "Affective and Cognitive Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad: A Conceptual Framework," Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects, ed. L. Alwitt and A. Mitchell, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 45-65.

Main, Kelley J., Jennifer J. Argo, and Bruce A. Huhmann, (2004), “Pharmaceutical Advertising in the USA: Information or Influence?” International Journal of Advertising, 23(1), 119-142.

MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989), "An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context," Journal of Marketing, 53, 48-65.

Mazis, Michael B., Debra J. Ringold, Elgin S. Perry, and Daniel W. Denman (1992), “Perceived Attractiveness of Models in Cigarette Advertisement,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (January), 22-37.

McGuire, William J. (1961), "The Effectiveness of Supportive and Aligned Defenses in Immunizing and Restoring Beliefs against Persuasion," Sociometry, 24 (2), 184-97.

(1962), "Persistence of the Resistance to Persuasion Induced by Various Types of Prior Beliefs Defenses," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 241-48.

(1964), "Inducing Resistance to Persuasion - Some Contemporary Approaches," Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1 (1), 191-229.

McGuire, William J. and Demetrios Papageorgis (1962), "Effectiveness of Forewarning in Developing Resistance to Persuasion," Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 24-34.

Murray, Bridget (2001), “Fast-food Culture Serves up Super-size Americans,” American Psychological Association Monitor, (December), 33.

Osterhouse, Robert A. and Timothy C. Brock (1970), "Distraction Increases Yielding to Propaganda by Inhibiting Counterarguing," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15 (4), 344-58.

Pechmann, Cornelia (1992), “Predicting When Two-sided Ads will be More Effective than One-sided Ads. The Role of Correlational and Correspondent Inferences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 441-53.

Pechmann, Cornelia and Susan J. Knight (2002), “An Experimental Investigation of the

24

Joint Effects of Advertising and Peers on Adolescents’ Beliefs and Intentions about Cigarette Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June), 5- 19.

Pechmann, Cornelia and Ellen T. Reibling (2000), "Anti-smoking Advertising Campaigns Targeting Youth: Case Studies from USA and Canada," Tobacco Control, 9, 18-31.

Pechmann, Cornelia and Chuan Fong Shih (1999), “Smoking Scenes in Movies and Antismoking Advertisements Before Movies: Effects on Youth,” Journal of Marketing, 1-13.

Pechmann, Cornelia, , Guangzhi Zhao, Marvin E. Goldberg, and Ellen T. Reibling (2003), “What to Convey in Antismoking Advertisements for Adolescents: The Use of Protection Motivation Theory to Identify Effective Message Themes,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (April), 1–18.

Pierre, Nicole, S. (2000). “Red Bull’s Energy-Drink Claims May Be Hype – But Not Its Sales”, Business Week, June 30.

Petty, Richard E. and Duane T. Wegner (1998), "Attitude Change," in The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th edition), ed. S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, and G. Lindzey, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 323-90.

Petty, Robert E. and John T. Cacioppo (1977), "Forewarning, Cognitive Responding, and Resistance to Persuasion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (9), 645-55.

Petrova, P. K., Cialdini, R. B., and Goldstein, N. J. (2010), ‘Creating resistance to Persisting Persuasive Attempts’, working paper, Tuck School of Business.

Pham, Michael T. and A.V. Muthukrishnan (2002), "Search and Alignment in Judgment Revision: Implications for Brand Positioning," Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (1), 18-30.

Robinson, June K., Alfred W. Rademaker, Jo Anne Sylvester, and Brian Cook (1997), “Summer Sun Exposure: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Midwest Adolescents,” Preventive Medicine, 26, 364–72.

Romer, Daniel and Patrick Jamieson (2001), “Advertising, Smoker Imagery, and the Diffusion of Smoking Behavior,” in Smoking: Risk, Perception, & Policy, ed. Paul Slovic, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Romero, Anna A., Christopher R. Agnew, and Chester A. Insko (1996), "The Cognitive Mediation Hypothesis Revisited," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 651-65.

Skowronski, John J., Dona E. Carlson, Lynda Mae, and Matthew T. Crawford (1998), “Spontaneous Trait Transference: Communicators Take on the Qualities They Describe in Others,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (4), 673-848.

Skurnik, Ian, Carolyn Yoon, Denise C. Park, and Norbert Schwarz (2005), “How Warnings about False Claims Become Recommendations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (March), 713-24.

Robert Strahan, Kathleen Carrese Gerbasi (1972) Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, 28 (2), 191-193. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006a), “Sun Safety Action Steps,” March,

http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/actionsteps.html. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006b), “The Sun, UV, and You,” September,

25

http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/doc/sunuvu.pdf. United States General Accounting Office, (2003), “Prescription Drugs Ð Oxycontin

Abuse and Diversion and Efforts to Address the Problem,” GAO-04-110. Vladeck, David C. (2000), "Truth and Consequences," Journal of Public Policy and

Marketing, 19 (1), 132-38. Volkow, Nora D. (2006), “Efforts of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to Prevent and

Treat Prescription Drug Abuse - Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources Committee on Government Reform,” United States House of Representatives, July 23, accessed at http://www.drugabuse.gov/Testimony/7-26-06Testimony.html on February 6th, 2007.

Wilke, Michael (1997), "Alternative Remedies Enter the Mainstream," Advertising Age, 68 (8), 18.

Wright, Peter (1980), "Message-Evoked Thoughts - Persuasion Research Using Thought Verbalizations," Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (2), 151-75.

Wyllie, A., J F. Zhang, and Sally Caswell (1998), “Responses to Televised Alcohol Advertisements Associated with Drinking Behavior of 10–17-Year-Olds,” Addiction, 93, 361–71.

Young, Liane and Saxe, Rebecca (2009), “An fMRI Investigation of Spontaneous Mental State Inference for Moral judgment”, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, forthcoming.

Zhang, Shi, Frank R.Kardes and Maria L. Cronely (2002), "Comparative Advertising: Effects of Structural Alignability on Target Brand Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (4), 303-311.

Zhang, Shi and Arthur B. Markman (2001), "Processing Product Unique Features: Alignability and Involvement In Preference Construction," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11 (1) , 13-27.

Zhang, Shi and Arthur B. Markman (1998), "Overcoming the Early Entrant Advantage: The Role of Alignable and Non-Alignable Differences," Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (November), 413-426.

Glanz, K., Saraiya, M., & Wechsler, H. (2002). Guidelines for school programs to prevent skin cancer. MMWR, 51(RR04), 1-16.

Geller, A. C., Colditz, G., Oliveria, S., Emmons, K., Jorgensen, C., Gideon, N. et al. (2002). Use of sunscreen, sunburning rates, and tanning bed use among more than 10,000 US children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 109, 1009-1014.

Westerdahl, J., Ingvar, C., Masback, A., Jonsson, N., & Olsson, H. (2000). Risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in relation to use of tanning beds: Further evidence for UV-A carcinogenicity. British Journal of Cancer, 82, 1593-1599.

World Health Organization (2003). Artificial tanning sunbeds: Risks and guidance. Retrieved October 17, 2005, from http://www.who.int/uv/publications/sunbedpubl/en

World Health Organization (2005). The World Health Organization recommends that no person under 18 should use a sunbed. Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2005/np97/en/

Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5, 152–158.

26

Gentner, Dedre and Arthur B. Markman (1997). Structure Mapping in Analogy and Similarity. American Psychologyst, 52(1), 4-56.

Malkoc, Selin A., Gal Zauberman, and Canan Ulu (2005). “Consuming Now or Later? The Interactive Effect of Timing and Attribute Alignability.” Psychological Science, 16(5), 411-417

Lord, Charles G., Lee Ross, and Mark R. Lepper. 1979. “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered

Evidence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11): 2098-2109. Edwards, Kari, and Edward E. Smith. 1996. “A Disconfirmation Bias in the Evaluation of Arguments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1): 5-24. Redlawsk, David. 2002. “Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration? Testing the Effects of

Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making.” Journal of Politics, 64(4):1021-1044.

Taber, Charles S. and Milton Lodge. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science, 50(3): 755-769.

27

FIGURE 1 STUDY 1. EFFECTS OF COUNTER CLAIM ALIGNMENT

ON BRAND EVALUATIONS

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

Effectiveness Safety

Ad claim

Bra

nd e

valu

atio

nsNonalignedcounter claim

Alignedcounter claim

28

FIGURE 2 STUDY 1. EFFECTS OF COUNTER CLAIM ALIGNMENT

AND COUNTER MESSAGE CREDIBILITY ON BRAND EVALUATIONS

8.006.004.002.000.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

Bra

nd e

valu

atio

ns

R Sq Linear = 0.002

R Sq Linear = 0.131

Nonaligned counter claim

Aligned counter claim

Counter message credibility

29

FIGURE 3 STUDY 2. EFFECTS OF COUNTER CLAIM ALIGNMENT

AND CREDIBILITY OF THE COUNTER MESSAGE SOURCE ON BRAND EVALUATIONS

5

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6

Low High

Credibility of the source of the counter message

Bra

nd e

valu

atio

ns

Nonalignedcounter claim

Alignedcounter claim

30

APPENDIX A

31

APPENDIX B