Consumer Behavior Final Report

“IMPACT OF DECEPTIVE ADVERTISEMENT ON CONSUMER BUYING

INTENTION”

Members:
Sandesh (21251)
Ameet kumar (21346)
Pawan kumar (19573)
Kailash kumar (22116)
 Abstract

To conduct a research and find out whether misleading advertisements have impact on consumer s’

buying intention or not and what are the changes in buying behavior due to these advertisements. For

this exploration we conducted a primary research in which 182 respondents were taken under

consideration through a survey questionnaire in which different questions were asked on the basis of

misleading advertisements to see whether there is a positive, negative or no impact on buying

behavior of the consumer. The questionnaire was floated among the residents of Karachi including

different university students, working class and homemakers with ages ranging between 18-50.

The statistical technique used here was Linear Regression, which is use to find out the relationship

between a single or multiple independent variables and a single dependent variable.

It was concluded through the research that deceptive advertisements cause companies and firms to

lose customers as their faith in the concerned company fades away.

Keywords: Deceptive Advertisements, Consumer Behavior, Impact

 1. Introduction

Background of the study

Customer Behavior is the analysis of people, gatherings, or associations and the plans they make to
select, secure, use, and discard items, administrations, encounters, or thoughts to accomplish needs
and the results that these procedures have on the buyer and community. The examination on it is
critical to those of the advertisers and financial specialist so as to figure out which right conduct is
required for doing their procedures.
Whereas, Misleading or Deceptive commercial is the use of misleading, fake, or unproven data to
advertise products to consumers, One form of fake ad is to claim that a product contains health
benefit or has vitamins or minerals that it in fact it does not. Misleading advertisements and
Consumer behavior plays side by side in many of the cases as they are affecting each other in many
of the situations.
(Vijayalakshmi, 2013)

Objective of the study

To conduct a research and find out whether deceptive advertisements have impacts on consumers
purchase intentions or not.

Statement of the problem

Marketers are using misleading or deceptive advertisement to sell their products, however it is still
unclear that this type of advertisement actually affects buying behavior or not.

Scope of the study

To see the impact of deceptive advertisements on Consumers’ buying behavior.

 2. Literature Review

Price sales:
It has been reported by the industrial survey that about 90percent of online buyer do read consumer product
profile and in that 90percent there is about 83percentage of population on which this product profile makes an
impact and that really put an effect of purchase intention and it depends on some factors like the source,
frequency of review, categories of products, brand personification.

we consider both quantitative and qualitative aspects of online reviews but more highlighted one is qualitative
it has been noted that positive reviews or positive image of a brand or its profile reduce the consumers risk and
accelerate the diffusion of a new product and also increase the product sales.
(chanson, 1995)

Celebrity Endorsement:
Use of famous people as part of marketing communications successive plans or we can say ways of reaching
goals is a justly common things for big firms in supporting in a sense related to business or brand by putting
imagination into your mind. Firms invest significant monies in putting two things next to each other brands
and organizations with support and recommended qualities such as attractiveness, likeability, and quality of
deserving trust because of honesty. They believe that these qualities handle in a move from one place to
another able way, and, will create desirable series of actions to reach a goal results. But, at times, famous
person-related qualities may be unsuitable, unrelated/unimportant, and undesirable. So, a big question is: how
can companies choose and hold the 'right' famous person between many competing other choices, and, at the
same time manage this useful thing/valuable supply, while avoiding possible disadvantages? This paper tries to
explore numbers that change that change, which may be thought believed in any famous person-related
selection process by drawing together leaves alone and helpless from different books.
(Vijayalakshmi, 2013)

As per perception, more prominent level of experienced duplicity were associated with the lesser level of
perceived believability, less good practices, less begrudging state of mind towards the brand, and diminished
buying proportion towards the item. Likewise, the examination infers that the possibility of double dealing was
sufficiently reasonable to make negative aims towards the ad, regardless of if the ad was deceptive or not.
Accordingly, showcasing and promoting controllers need to continue with thinking ahead while making
naturally ingested advertisement exercises. It is anything but difficult to demonstrate an option that is superior
to anything it really is through misleading.
(Khan, et al., 2015)

Promotion:
This investigation examines whether purchasers who are displayed to an advancement containing a deceptive
characteristic case have on a very basic level remarkable mindsets about the commercial than those customers
exhibited to a similar non-tricky advertisement. As speculated, larger amounts of saw misleading were related
with bring down levels of saw corporate believability, less great demeanors toward the promotion, less positive
states of mind toward the publicized brand, and diminished buy goals toward the item in the advertisement In
like manner, the examination found that the perspective on slyness was adequate to make negative conclusions
toward the ad, paying little respect to whether the advancement was impartially tricky or not. Therefore,
promoting and publicizing directors need to continue with alert when growing naturally centered
advertisement crusades.
(Azhar & Shah, 2015)

The authors demonstrate that beguiling promoting incites doubt, which oppositely impacts people's responses
to coming about publicizing from both a comparative source and second-party sources. This negative tendency
works through a strategy of protected stereotyping, in which the basic deluding starts negative feelings about
advancing and showing when in doubt, in like manner undermining the authenticity of further
publicizing.(Baum, 2017)

Emotional Exploitation:
Despite millions of years of evolution and the development of thought and critical thinking, humans still
depend heavily on emotions when they are making decisions, such as adding little humor in the ads rather than
just rational elements will attract more consumers in watching the ads and buying the products.
I It's been concentrated over and over; fMRI tests have demonstrated that when subjects assess items or
brands, their limbic frameworks (where our sentiments, memory, and esteem decisions begin) light up, while
the information handling and examination focuses of their cerebrums are left to a great extent unstipulated. As
such, the vast majority of the buy choices individuals make are enthusiastic, not sound

At the point when the choices people make are to a great extent dependent on how they feel, advertisers can
underwrite by imparting an inclination and expelling accentuation on the chilly hard certainties. You have to
interest the human, not the buyer/customer.
(Baum, 2017)

Misleading
Advertising could be very compulsory for a product because of the fact this is the method of providing
knowledge of the product or service to customers.
Companies normally do unethical commercials. These unethical classified ads show fake claims. Deceptive
and misleading ads make the clients to shop for the undesirable products or services. The research focus on the
impact of classified ads which are unethical that shows girls buying behavior in Pakistan. . it has a look to
disclose components concerning unethical ads with the pattern size of 100 respondents were taken.
(Azhar & Shah, 2015)

These fake and misdirecting ads unfavorably influence the customers wherever all through the world.. They
are infect with multiple kinds of sicknesses and are affected importantly by using these false items, which are
showed to be useful. Some caffeinated beverages showed to be valuable for human being and cerebrum
summed up being steroids, importantly which do no well.
(Chaudhuri & Raizadda, 2014)
Conceptual Framework:

Deceptive
Advertising

Price Sales

Misleading
Advertisements Purchase
Intension
Celebrity
Endorsement

Promotions

Emotional
Exploitation

Hypothesis

I. Null Hypothesis (HO):

• Misleading advertisements do not affect consumer’s purchase intentions

II. Alternative Hypothesis (HA):

• Misleading advertisements affect consumer’s purchase intentions

 3. Methodology

Type of Research:
Quantitative research

Sample and Sampling techniques

We will use non-probabilistic sampling technique in which convenience sampling will be used. We will collect
182 responses through the help of questionnaire from students of different universities, working class and
house makers.

Variables:

Dependent variables Independent

Purchase Intention Price Sales
Misleading Advertisements
Celebrity Endorsements
Promotions
Emotional Exploitation

Population:

The total population of Karachi is approximately 16 million, that why we took sample of 182
respondents.
https://dailytimes.com.pk/174870/real-population-karachi/

Data Collection and Tools:

The data we will be using for this research is Primary. It will be collected through a questionnaire (Google
doc) specifically designed for this research

Sample Size:
The research that was conducted, the sample size of 182 was chosen. From which 126 (69.2%) and
56 were female (30.8%). With the age from range of 18 to 50.

Research tools:
The research tools that we used includes: excel, SPSS and Google doc.
Data Analysis tests:
The data analysis tests were done on SPSS 17, and tests that were conducted given below.
1. Descriptive Test for demographics

2. Normality Test for descriptive

3. Cronbach Aplha test for Reliability.

4. Factor Analysis

5. Correlation Analysis with KMO scale

6. Regression Analysis for testing of Hypothesis

4. Results and Analysis

Table 1
Respondents’ Profile
Variable Number Percentage
Gender Male 56 30.8%
Female 126 69.2%
Age Less than 21 73 40.1%
21-30 years 100 54.9%
31-40 years 7 3.8%
41-50 years 2 1.1%
Income Upto 20K 86 47.3%
21K-30K 21 11.5%
31K-40K 16 8.8%
40K & above 59 32.4%.
The above table shows the profile of the respondents during our research, we collected the responses
from 182 persons out of which 56 were males (30.8%) and 126 were females (69.2%). The ages of
respondents ranged between less than 21years to 50 years out of which 73 respondents were the age
of less than 21 years old, 100 respondents were the age of 21-30 years old, 7 respondents were the
age of 31-40 years old and 2 respondents were the age of 41-50 years old. Income scale of the
respondents ranged from upto 20k to 40k and above, out of which 86 respondents had the income of
upto 20K, 21 respondents had the income of 21k-30k, 16 respondents had the income of 31k to 40k
and 59 had the income of 40k and above.

Table 2
Descriptive Analysis:
Variables Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Purchase Intention 3.355 0.6893 0.475 -4.71 .562
Sales Price 3.63 0.85023 0.723 -.675 .501
Misleading Advertisement 3.8201 0.82072 0.624 -.805 0.651
Celebrity Endorsement 3.089 1.01356 1.028 -1.08 -.640
Promotions 3.590 0.6374 0.406 -1.58 -.175
Emotional Exploitation 3.603 0.7028 0.494 -2.23 -2.77

The above Table showa Price intention (Mean=3.355, SD= 0.6893) has the lowest Skewness (-4.71),
and Sales price (Mean =3.63 SD=0.85023) has the highest Skewness (-.675), The all values are
negatively skewed. The Kurtosis for 3 variables is negative while all the other variables have a positive
 kurtosis, the highest for Misleading Advertisment (Mean=3.8201, SD= 0.82072) is 0.651 and the
lowest kurtosis is for Emotional Exploitation (Mean= 3.603, SD= 0.7028) which is -2.77. Since all the
construct are within the range. So it can be said that the data has a normal tendency (George & Mallery,
2010).

Table 3
Reliability of the Construct
Variable Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Number
Alpha Alpha on of Items
standardized
item
Purchase Intention 0.595 .605 5
Sales Price 0.744 0.746 4
Misleading 0.749 0.748 4
Advertisement
Celebrity Endorsement 0.712 0.715 3
Promotions 0.615 0.617 5
Emotional Exploitation 0.645 0.645 5

The above table shows that the reliability of Misleading Advertisement is the highest
(α=0.749) while the reliability for Promotion is the lowest (α=0.615) Reliabilities of the all the
variables except promotion and emotional exploitation were greater than 0.7, that lies within range
which is acceptable showing that the respective variables have normal internal Consistency and
reliability, furthermore the rest two variables are also acceptable because they are close to 0.7 range.

Table 4
Correlation:
Variable Purchase Sales Misleading Celebrity Promotions Emotional
Intention Price Advertiseme Endorsemen Exploitation
nt t
Purchase 1 0.275** 0.390** 0.481** 0.552**
Intention 0.307**
Sales Price 0.307** 1 0.609** 0.239** 0.400** 0.406**
Misleading 0.275** 0.609** 1 0.156* 0.478** 0.355**
Advertisemen
t
Celebrity 0.390** 0.239** 0.156* 1 0.406** 0.350**
Endorsement
Promotions 0.481** 0.400** 0.478** 0.406** 1 0.545**
Emotional 0.552** 0.406** 0.355** 0.350** 0.545** 1
Exploitation
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is used to describe the effectiveness and tendency of the linear relationship between two

variables, Pearson Correlation or “r” ranges from -1 to 1, the sign shows the direction of the

relationship that whether there is a positive relationship or negative relationship.

The above Table 04 shows all the relationship were significant at a level of 0.01, The relation of

purchase Intention with Misleading advertisement is the weakest with r=0.275 where as relation of

Emotional exploitation with purchase intention is the strongest with r=0.552 followed by Promotion

with r=0.481, Celebrity endorsement with r= 0.390 and Sales Price with r=0.307.

The relationship of Sales price with Celebrity endorsement is the weakest with r=0.239 where as

Sales price has strongest relationship with misleading advertisement with r=0.609 followed by

Emotional Exploitation with R=0.406 and Promotion with r=0.400.

The relationship of misleading advertisement with Celebrity endorsement is weakest with R=0.156

and has strongest relationship with promotion r=0.478 followed by Emotional Exploitation with

R=0.355.

The relationship of celebrity endorsement with promotion and emotional exploitation with r=0.406

and r=0.350 respectively

Table 5
Factor Analysis of the Constructs
Variable No: of Kaiser- Bartlett's Test of
Items Meyer-Olkin Sphericity
(P<0.05)
Purchase Intention 5 0.655 100.543
Sales Price 4 0.762 154.242
Misleading 4 0.726 163.993
Advertisement
Celebrity Endorsement 3 0.653 108.830
Promotions 5 0.687 94.585
Emotional Exploitation 5 0.679 117.181
In the above table, KMO of all the variables is above 0.5. So it is all right and Bartlett’s test of
sphericity is significant because P<0.5

Regression Analysis
Table 6
Sales Price with Purchase Intention
Unstandardized Standardized T Sig
Coefficient Coefficient
Model B Std error Beta
 1 (Constant) 2.452 0.214 11.449 0.000
Sales Price 0.249 0.058 0.307 4.331 0.000
2 2
Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention, 𝑅 = 0.094, Adjusted 𝑅 =0.089, F(5,181)= 18.758,p<0.05
The results of regression analysis indicates that Sales price influence the Purchase intention by only
8.9% of the variance (R2= 0.094, Adjusted R2=0.089, F(5,181)= 18.758,p<0.05) which means the
sales price is the poor predictor for purchase intentions and has significance of less than 0.05 so null
hypothesis is rejected and hence alternate hypothesis is accepted

Table 7
Misleading Advertisement with Purchase Intention
Unstandardized Standardized T Sig
Coefficient Coefficient
Model B Std error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.474 0.235 10.520 0.000
Misleading 0.231 0.060 0.275 3.833 0.000
Advertisement
Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention, 𝑅2 = 0.75, Adjusted 𝑅2=0.70, F(5,181)= 14.689,p<0.05
The results of regression analysis indicates that Misleading Advertisements influence the Purchase
intention by 70% of the variance (R2= 0.75, Adjusted R2=0.70, F(5,181)= 14.689,p<0.05) which
means the Misleading advertisement is the strong predictor for purchase intentions and has
significance of less than 0.05 so null hypothesis is rejected and hence alternate hypothesis is accepted

Table 8
Celebrity Endorsement with Purchase Intention
Unstandardized Standardized T Sig
Coefficient Coefficient
Model B Std error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.535 0.152 16.712 .000
Celebrity 0.265 0.047 0.390 5.685 .000
Endorsement
Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention, 𝑅2 = 0.152, Adjusted 𝑅2=0.147, F(5,181)= 32.314,p<0.05
The results of regression analysis indicates that Celebrity endorsement influence the Purchase
intention by 14.7% of the variance (R2= 0.152, Adjusted R2=0.147, F(5,181)= 32.314,p<0.05) which
means the Celebrity endorsement is the poor predictor for purchase intentions and has significance of
less than 0.05 so null hypothesis is rejected and hence alternate hypothesis is accepted

Table 9
Promotion with Purchase Intention
Unstandardized Standardized T Sig
Coefficient Coefficient
Model B Std error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.488 0.258 5.776 0.000
Promotion 0.520 .071 0.481 7.358 0.000
2 2
Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention, 𝑅 = 0.231, Adjusted 𝑅 =0.227, F(5,181)= 54.137,p<0.05
The results of regression analysis indicates that Promotion influence the Purchase intention by 22.7%
of the variance (R2= 0.231, Adjusted R2=0.227, F(5,181)= 54.137,p<0.05) which means the
Promotions is the moderate predictor for purchase intentions and has significance of less than 0.05 so
null hypothesis is rejected and hence alternate hypothesis is accepted
Table 10
Emotional Exploitation with Purchase Intention:

Unstandardized Standardized T Sig

Coefficient Coefficient
Model B Std error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.405 0.224 6.277 0.000
Emotional 0.541 0.061 0.552 8.879 0.000
Exploitation
Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention, 𝑅2 = 0.305, Adjusted 𝑅2=0.301, F(5,181)= 78.831,p<0.05
The results of regression analysis indicates that Emotional exploitation influence the Purchase
intention by 30.1% of the variance (R2= 0.305, Adjusted R2=0.301, F(5,181)= 78.831 ,p<0.05) which
means the emotional exploitation is the moderate predictor for purchase intentions and has
significance of less than 0.05 so null hypothesis is rejected and hence alternate hypothesis is accepted

Hypothesis Assessment Summary

S.no Sig.level Decision Result
H0: Sales price has no impact 0.000 Reject Significant Impact (𝑅2 = 0.089)
on consumers buying
intention
H0: Misleading 0.000 Reject Significant Impact 𝑅2 = 0.70
Advertisment has no
impact on consumers
buying intention
H0: Celebrity Endorsement 0.000 Reject Significant Impact 𝑅2 = 0.147
has no impact on
consumers buying
intention
H0: Promotion has no impact 0.000 Reject Significant Impact 𝑅2 = 0.227
on consumers buying
intention
H0: Emotional Exploitation 0.000 Reject Significant Impact 𝑅2 = 0.301
has no impact on
consumers buying
intention

5. Discussion and Conclusion

The results provide verifiable support to the hypothesis which shows relationship between Deceptive
advertisement and purchase intention. The results show positive impact on purchase intention. The
results of the hypothesis developed are discussed in the following section.

Null Hypothesis (HO):

• Misleading advertisements do not affect consumer’s purchase intentions.
 The null hypothesis claims that Deceptive advertisements do not affect consumer’s
purchase intention but the research shows that all the variable of Deceptive advertisements
have some affects on consumers buying Intentions that’s why the Null hypothesis is
rejected. The regression analysis of all variables indicate that Sales price has 8.9% impact
on consumer buying behavior where as Misleading advertisement has about 70% impact
on consumers buying intention furthermore celebrity endorsement has 14.7% impact,
Promotion has 22.7% impact and Celebrity Endorsement has 30.1% impact.

Alternative Hypothesis (HA):

• Misleading advertisements affect consumer’s purchase intentions.

The alternate hypothesis claim that Deceptive advertisements do affect consumer’s

purchase intention which is supported by our results of regression analysis.

Limitations
1. The first limitation is related to non-probability sample technique which fails to represent the
entire population and also have a small sample of 182 which does not represent the entire
population of Karachi.
2. The sample size included mostly the university students of Karachi which restricts the
characteristics of whole population.
3. The responses might be biased or not filled seriously hence causing hindrance in the authenticity
of the research.

Recommendation & conclusion:

Following recommendations are derived from the results:
1. All the variables of Misleading advertisement have a positive impact 70% on purchase
intention; hence marketer in Pakistan should focus on all three variables while making an
appealing advertisement though it’s unethical and can cause loss of trust and loyalty for brands.
2. Celebrity endorsement has the lowest impact of 14.7% on consumer’s intention so marketers
should avoid using famous celebrities to promote their product as the consumers are now aware
of the fact that these celebrities do not use the product personally but are shown in the
advertisements just to attract the customers and make money for themselves.
References:

Azhar, N., & Shah, F. M. (2015). The Impact of Unethical Advertisements on Women Buying
Behavior in Pakistan. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(1),
423-431.

Baum, D. (2017). How Emotion Influences Buying Behavior (And Marketers Can Use it). Journal
of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114-127.

Cawley, J., Avery, R., & Eisenberg, M. (2011). The Effect of Advertising and Deceptive
Advertising on Consumption: The Case of Over-the-Counter Weight Loss Products. NBER
WORKING PAPER SERIES, 1-79.

chanson, P. (1995). Impact of Unethical Advertising, Misleading Information or Deceptive

Advertising on Customer Purchasing Intention with Mediating Effect of Word of Mouth:
Case of Pakistan. International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, 1(4),
49-69.

Chaudhuri, S. R., & Raizadda, A. (2014). An Article on False and Misleading Advertisements.
National Seminar on "Legal Protection of Consumers in a Global Economy-Recent
Approaches and the Way Forward" (pp. 1-15). Varanasi: BHU Press.

Khan, S. K., Saeed, N., Feroz, M., Liaqat, S., Khan, A., & Jabeen, Z. (2015). Impact of Deceptive
Marketing on Consumers Behavior: A Case of Cellular Industry of Pakistan. Journal of
Marketing and Consumer Research, 91-100.

Newell, S. J., Goldsmith, R. E., & Banzhaf, E. J. (1998). The Effect of Misleading Environmental
Claims on Consumer Perceptions of Advertisements. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 6(2), 48-60.

Saeed, R., Lodhi, R., Komal, Hashmi, A., Dastgeer, F., Sami, A., . . . Ahmad, M. (2013). Impact of
Deceptive Advertisement on Consumer Psyche. World Applied Sciences Journal, 26(12),
1662-1667.

Supriya. (2015). An Empirical Study on Misleading Advertisements and Their Impact on

Consumer Buying Behaviour in Gurgaon District of Haryana. International Journal of All
Research Education and Scientific Methods, 3(5), 50-52.

Vijayalakshmi. (2013, May). An impact of consumer buying behavior in decision making process
in purchase of electronic home appliances in Chennai (India): an empirical study.
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Global Business, Economics,
Finance and Social Sciences (GB14Chennai Conference, 11-13.

Xu, A. J., & Wyer Jr., R. S. (2010). Puffery in Advertisements: The Effects of Media Context,
Communication Norms, and Consumer Knowledge. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH,
37, 329-343.