Marketing Intelligence & Planning

Communicator credibility, personality factors and customer responses to comparative advertising claims
Roger Bennett
Article information:
To cite this document:
Roger Bennett, (1997),"Communicator credibility, personality factors and customer responses to comparative advertising
claims", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 15 Iss 2 pp. 85 - 96
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634509710165885
Downloaded on: 22 April 2015, At: 21:35 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 68 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1922 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Kenneth E. Clow, Karen E. James, Kristine E. Kranenburg, Christine T. Berry, (2006),"The relationship of the visual element
of an advertisement to service quality expectations and source credibility", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 Iss 6 pp.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 21:35 22 April 2015 (PT)

404-411 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876040610691293
Christian Dianoux, Jean-Luc Herrmann, Helen Zeitoun, (2013),"Comparative advertising: citing or not the leading brand and
its price", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 30 Iss 4 pp. 345-354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-02-2013-0454
David H. Silvera, Benedikte Austad, (2004),"Factors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement advertisements",
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Iss 11/12 pp. 1509-1526 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560410560218

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 203778 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Communicator credibility, personality factors and
customer responses to comparative advertising
claims
Pre-existing data on the
personality characteristics of
a sample of 392 people and
how these individuals rated
persons who communicated
to them a fictitious compara-
tive claim were related to
changes in subjects’ evalua-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 21:35 22 April 2015 (PT)
tions of two businesses
before and after the transmis-
sion of the false statement.
Results suggest that person-
ality factors and the esteem
in which the message commu-
nicator is held may affect
customer responsiveness to
comparative advertising.
However, asymmetric reac-
tions were observed: respon-
dents were more likely to
increase their ratings of the
business alleged to be supe-
rior in the comparative claim
than they were to reduce their
evaluations of the other
enterprise. The results are
consistent with earlier studies
which concluded that com-
parative advertising exerts
significant effects on con-
sumer behaviour and that
comparative claims can
influence consumer evalua-
tions of competing
businesses or brands, even
when there are no objective
differences between them.
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning
15/2 [1997] 85–96
© MCB University Press
[ISSN 0263-4503]
Roger Bennett
Department of Business Studies, London Guildhall University, London, UK
Introduction
This paper presents the results of an experi-
ment intended to explore possible connec-
tions between customer personality, commu-
nicator credibility and audience responsive-
ness to comparative advertising claims. Com-
parative advertising is that form of advertis-
ing which identifies, explicitly or by implica-
tion, a competing business or goods or ser-
vices of the same kind as are offered by a
competitor. It is banned outright in six of the
15 European Union member countries, and
subject to strict legal control in six other EU
nations. In The Netherlands, for example,
comparative advertising has to be implicit
and may not mention brand names; in Portu-
gal, comparative claims must, by law, pertain
exclusively to items with very similar charac-
teristics; while in Denmark, Finland, Sweden
and Austria comparative advertising is
legally required to be informative, objective,
factual and fair (following the recommenda-
tions of the ICC Code of Practice on this mat-
ter (ICC 1991)). Only in Spain, Ireland and the
UK do entirely voluntary rules on compara-
tive advertising apply, subject of course, to
normal commercial and civil law. Various
factors might explain why comparative adver-
tising is illegal or frowned on in so many
states. Boddewyn (1988) concludes that in, for
example, the Philippines and Japan, cultural
influences generate antipathy towards “con-
frontational” promotional claims; whereas in
France there exists a general preference for
chimerical advertising which itself causes
the dislike of comparative assertions. In Ger-
many comparative advertising is regarded as
blatant unfair competition on the part of the
advertising firm.
Critics of comparative advertising allege
that the typical consumer does not possess
the technical knowledge or information nec-
essary to validate advertisers’ comparative
statements; that accusations against compet-
ing products are likely to be vexatious and
intended to mislead; and that the superiority
of one item over another is rarely demonstra-
ble in objective terms. “Advertising wars”
could result from the escalating use of com-
parative claims and counter-claims, leaving
the consumer hopelessly confused. Also one
or more large and powerful companies in a
particular sector might launch a campaign
criticizing smaller rivals’ products, without
the small firms having the resources neces-
sary to respond. This unfair competition
could drive smaller enterprises into liquida-
tion, thereafter enabling big companies to
exploit customers. Notwithstanding these
criticisms, the European Commission is
committed to legalizing comparative adver-
tising across the EU, provided the compar-
isons put forward are fair and verifiable.
Justifications for the Commission’s view are
that comparative advertising can increase the
volume of information available to
customers, that consumers can easily spot
dubious comparisons, and that the ability to
advertise comparatively is essential in order
to ensure the “freedom of commercial
speech”. Note how the consolidation of the
European Single Market creates the need for
advertisers to be able to compete on equal
terms in all EU national markets using stan-
dardized messages – possibly including com-
parative claims (Jeannet and Hennessey,
1992). Also the rapid intensification of compe-
tition in international markets beyond the
EU is said to represent a further important
force behind current moves towards the
international liberalization of laws on com-
parative advertising (Barry, 1993; Thurow,
1992).
In May 1991 the European Commission
issued a draft directive on comparative adver-
tising intended to amend the existing EU
Directive (84/450) concerning misleading
promotional claims. The draft directive was
itself modified in 1994 and, in its revised
form, would permit comparative advertising
which:
• objectively compares the material, relevant,
verifiable and fairly chosen features of
competing goods or services;
• does not mislead or cause confusion in the
marketplace between the advertiser and a
competitor or between the advertiser’s
trade marks, brand names, goods or ser-
vices and those of a competitor; and
• does not discredit, denigrate or bring into
contempt a competing business, its trade
marks, brand names, goods, services or
activities.
[ 85 ]
 Roger Bennett The draft directive applies to advertise-
Communicator credibility, ments, messages printed on packages and to
personality factors and all other kinds of promotional material.
customer responses to Advocates of comparative advertising insist
comparative advertising
claims that where it is practised it has tended to
stimulate rather than inhibit competition
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning among firms, since the targets of criticism
15/2 [1997] 85–96 are impelled to improve the quality of their
products. Furthermore, a misleading compar-
ative claim is likely to backfire on its perpe-
trator, as false comparisons will bring into
disrepute the credibility of the advertising
firm. Academic research into the effective-
ness of comparative advertising, however, has
produced mixed results. Barry (1993), for
instance, reports that 20 out of 37 empirical
studies of comparative advertising completed
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 21:35 22 April 2015 (PT)
in the USA between 1975 and 1992 concluded
that the practice was effective to some degree.
Seven of the 20 articles that declared positive
consequences to comparative advertising also
proclaimed that the practice had the capacity
to confuse customers and/or improperly to
mislead. Wyckham (1987) in particular
asserts (on the basis of an extensive study of
the effects on 598 individuals of comparative
claims broadcast on US television) that
claims of brand superiority have great poten-
tial to deceive consumers, regardless of demo-
graphic variables and/or product use.
Aims of the research
Clearly, comparative advertising is an impor-
tant issue, and some form of it will almost
certainly be legalized across the EU within
the next few years (there is no substantial
opposition to the draft directive from any EU
member state). Unfortunately, however, little
research has been undertaken into the per-
sonal consumer characteristics that might
determine individual responsiveness to com-
parative claims (see Barry, 1993 for a taxon-
omy of the various types of comparative
advertising and a general review of the acade-
mic literature in the field). Rather, emphasis
has been placed on the relative importance of
the extent of the information that accompa-
nies comparative claims (Chevins, 1975;
Muehling et al., 1990; Sheluga and Jacoby,
1978) and the media in which comparative
advertisements are located (see Barry, 1993,
pp. 332-7). This paper examines the relation-
ship between the impact of a comparative
claim and two key consumer characteristics:
the personality of the message recipient, and
the perceived credibility of the agent trans-
mitting the claim. Justifications for the
analysis of the effects of these factors derive
from an extensive literature which suggests
that individual personality affects consumer
[ 86 ]
behaviour (see Foxall and Goldsmith, 1994 for
a review of recent contributions) and that the
credibility of message communicators is
crucial to the influence process. It is known,
for example, that the communicator’s pres-
tige or status frequently affects the accep-
tance or rejection of his or her stated views
(Baron and Byrne, 1993), and that communi-
cator credibility often depends on the esteem
in which the communicator is held by the
message recipient (as evidenced by percep-
tions of the communicator’s honesty,
integrity, reliability, trustworthiness, etc. –
see Hovland and Weiss, 1951). Other factors
possibly affecting the influence process are
the presence or absence of a vested interest
on the communicator’s part (Eagly et al.,
1978), and the communicator’s attractiveness
in terms of his or her likeability (Rogers,
1978). Impressions of reliability, knowledge-
ability and so on might be attributable to the
communicator’s experience, educational
status, manner of expression and other per-
sonal qualities (Taylor et al., 1994). Influence
theory has direct and obvious applications to
the study of the effectiveness of comparative
advertising appeals. Swinyard (1981), for
instance, found that the most successful com-
parative advertising was that which was
persuasive and convincing, but not subject to
counter-arguments, as the latter led to
decreased communicator credibility.
Muehling (1987) and Gotlieb and Sarel (1991)
each reported direct and significant relations
between source credibility and the believabil-
ity of comparative claims. Strong relation-
ships between source credibility, attitude
formation and persuadability generally have
been noted by Cialdini et al. (1981), McGuire
(1985) and Shavitt (1990); and between com-
parative opinions and personal characteris-
tics (income and social class, for example) by
Bem (1967), Goethals and Darley (1987), Morse
and Gergen (1970), Taylor and Lobel (1989)
and Wood (1989). Goethals and Darley (1987)
conclude moreover that similarity of commu-
nicator and message recipient is a significant
factor in the opinion formation process.
Attribution to the communicator of stereo-
typical characteristics by the audience might
also affect whether comparative statements
are believed (Taylor et al., 1994).
Hypotheses and methodology
A number of testable hypotheses emerge from
the above-mentioned considerations, notably
that:
1 comparative claims do actually lead to
attitude change;
 Roger Bennett 2 response levels vary with respect to mes-
Communicator credibility, sage recipients’ personality type;
personality factors and 3 the esteem in which a communicator is
customer responses to held by message recipients (used as a
comparative advertising
claims proxy for communicator credibility) influ-
ences the extent to which a comparative
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning claim is accepted.
15/2 [1997] 85–96
To test these hypotheses an experiment was
conducted on a sample of 392 undergraduate
and short-course business students at a
London university. As part of their standard
introductory business studies units, large
numbers of the university’s students rou-
tinely participate in personal awareness/
development exercises, including personality
assessments. The latter are completed purely
as a training and educational activity within
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 21:35 22 April 2015 (PT)
the human resources management element of
the programme, their purpose being to help
students understand the rationale and
mechanics of selection testing for jobs. Class
sizes are very large, and students spend much
of their time working in groups. Peer group
appraisal is an essential part of the course
grading system, so each person receives peer
evaluation forms on which he or she awards
marks out of ten for the contributions of col-
leagues to the work of the group. These evalu-
ations indicate how reliable, hard-working,
trustworthy, dependable, etc. each group
member is regarded by his or her peers. The
instrument is further described in a later
section.
Another routine activity undertaken by
these students is their evaluation of the qual-
ity levels of various local facilities and ser-
vices such as college and nearby public
libraries, the refectory, university living
accommodation, local transport provision,
and so on. To this standard appraisal form
were added extra items for evaluating stu-
dents’ perceptions of the quality of the prod-
uct and service of two nearby fast-food out-
lets. Both these firms are well known and
have numerous other outlets in central Lon-
don. The sizes, product range, price levels,
layouts, market sections served, quality levels
and presentational styles of the two outlets
are very close. There is no prima facie reason
to suppose that one outlet is better than the
other.
Classes attended by the students averaged
80 to 110 people, breaking down into ten to 15
groups. During a particular class, one mem-
ber of each group was called away on the
pretext of their having to attend to a minor
matter concerning the administration of the
project on which the groups were currently
engaged. These individuals were in fact
briefed about the experiment, told to return
to the group and, during conversation over
the next half hour, to make a clear and spe-
cific comparative claim regarding the quality
of the product and service provided by the
two local fast-food outlets. The communicator
had a “captive audience”, so that the message
was clearly heard by other members of the
group. Students had already filled in the sheet
assessing local facilities and services (includ-
ing evaluations of the fast-food outlets) the
week prior to the class in question. One week
later, the lecturer informed the class that the
original assessments of local facilities and
services had been accidentally destroyed,
apologized and asked the class to complete
replacement forms. Comparison of the origi-
nal sheets with those filled in a week after the
comparative claim had been transmitted
enabled the measurement of the extent to
which participants’ attitudes towards the
quality of the product and service provided
by the two outlets had altered. Students were
informed they had been experimented on and
were given coding sheets and asked to record
and analyse the data they had generated. The
experiment was repeated five times over a
period of 15 months during 1994 and 1995,
generating 392 useable observations.
The sample
Two-thirds of the sample consisted of under-
graduates (predominately between 18 and 26
years of age), the remainder comprised short-
course students, some of whom were older,
although a detailed breakdown of participant
ages could not be obtained. The sample con-
tained approximately equal numbers of males
and females. Around a fifth of the undergrad-
uates were from continental EU states. Only a
small percentage of the sample came from
non-EU nations. Students were used as the
subjects of experimentation (rather than
members of the general public) for the follow-
ing reasons.
1 It enabled the assembly of large groups of
people in controlled environments
wherein:
• conditions could be predetermined and
manipulated in systematic ways;
• subjects could be exposed to a specific
experience; and
• extraneous influences and unwanted
variations in external conditions could
be kept to a minimum.
The effects of the communicator’s message
could be carefully monitored and mea-
sured and its impact assessed. Hence it is
reasonable to expect that the opinion
changes observed resulted mainly from
the introduction of the comparative claim
and not from confounding extraneous
variables, thus improving the internal
validity of the experiment. The sample
[ 87 ]
 Roger Bennett
Communicator credibility,
personality factors and
customer responses to
comparative advertising
claims 2 There were no problems of non-response:
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning
15/2 [1997] 85–96
3 The students did not know they were being
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 21:35 22 April 2015 (PT)
4 Although students are on average younger
[ 88 ]
needed to be large in order to generate a
sufficient number of subjects in each per-
sonality category to allow a meaningful
analysis of the results.
students were compelled to complete the
exercise (as an integral part of their
course programme) hence avoiding the
respondent self-selection biases that typi-
cally arise when members of the general
public are approached at random and
asked to participate in experiments. All
the students in the sample were exposed to
the same level of intervention in relation
to the false comparative claim.
experimented on. Thus there were no
elements of the situation (other than those
deliberately manipulated) that might have
prompted subjects to respond in manners
that appeared to the latter to be consistent
with the hypotheses of the experiment (see
Aronson et al., 1985; Orme, 1962 for analy-
ses of the damaging consequences of test
subjects’ knowledge of their participation
in experiments). Use of involuntary sub-
jects meant, moreover, that results were
not laboratory dependent, hence
contributing to their external validity. The
deliberate deception of test subjects was
justified for the experiment in question on
the grounds that it was necessary to iden-
tify students’ genuine unprompted reac-
tions to the intervention (see Gross and
Fleming (1982) and Suls and Rosnow (1988)
for a discussion of this issue), was essen-
tial to the research (see Northcraft and
Neale, 1987; Ohbuchi et al., 1989), and
caused no stress or discomfort to test sub-
jects (see Kelman, 1967). Rogers (1983),
Baron and Byrne (1993) and others have
argued that deception is a legitimate
research tool provided the experiment is
followed by a proper debriefing (as was the
case with the experiment in question), and
that deceived individuals do not thereafter
resent having been the subject of experi-
mentation.
and better educated than the general pub-
lic there are few other a priori grounds for
supposing that the sample under consider-
ation was not reasonably representative of
other users of fast food outlets. People of
all ages eat fast food, and the fact that
someone is relatively well educated does
not necessarily affect his or her memory
or thinking ability or susceptibility to
influence by peers. The sample itself con-
tained fair numbers of persons from vari-
ous ethnic groups, social backgrounds and
place of birth and possessing differing
levels of social experience, disparate politi-
cal and social attitudes, prejudices, and so
on. Crucially, the mix of personality types
within this (large) sample is likely to
match that of the population as a whole,
because personality does not normally
depend on age or level of education. Also
the immediate environmental circum-
stances in which students consume fast
food are essentially the same as those
experienced by office workers and other
employees in the geographical area con-
cerned. Gleitman (1995), Schartzman and
Strauss (1973), and others have argued that
it is legitimate to use students for experi-
mentation provided the sample reflects the
sorts of people to whom the results are to
be generalized (at least approximately) in
the wider population. Indeed, it has been
claimed (Calder et al., 1981; Cook and
Campbell, 1975) that the use of homoge-
neous convenience samples (such as stu-
dents) can actually improve the internal
validity of experimental results. The criti-
cal question is not so much whether stu-
dents’ particular life experiences differ
from those of other people, but rather
whether such differences matter or are
outweighed by overlaps in relation to the
topic under consideration. Mook (1983)
suggests that the relevant criteria should
be whether the characteristics of the
sample:
• actually prevent the drawing of meaning-
ful inferences; and
• negate the generalizability of conclu-
sions.
It is suggested that neither of these barriers
apply to the present experiment. The above-
mentioned considerations explain perhaps
why student samples have been used exten-
sively for previous research into comparative
advertising. Barry’s (1993) review of empiri-
cal studies in the field reports that 25 out of 37
articles published between 1975 and 1992
employed students as subjects for experimen-
tation (sample sizes ranging from 60 to 625).
Sears (1986) notes that 75 per cent of all pub-
lished papers in the area of general social
psychology have used undergraduate stu-
dents in experiments.
Measurement of variables
The instrument used to assess participants’
personality type was derived from a conven-
tional Myers-Briggs indicator based on the
Jungian fourfold classification of individual
tendencies: introvert/extrovert (I/E); intu-
itive/sensing (N/S); feeling/thinking (F/T);
and perceiving/judging (P/J) (Hogan and
 Roger Bennett Champagne, 1980; Jung, 1923). A number of
Communicator credibility, studies in the marketing field have examined
personality factors and relationships between consumer behaviour
customer responses to and personality, finding general support for
comparative advertising
claims the proposition that personality affects con-
sumer attitudes and decisions (Allsopp, 1986;
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning Foxall and Goldsmith, 1994; McAlister and
15/2 [1997] 85–96 Pessemier, 1982; Snyder and DeBono, 1985).
The instruments applied during these (and
other) investigations have themselves been
subject to extensive discussion, especially
regarding their reliability (i.e. whether they
consistently measure the factors the instru-
ment is supposed to measure) and construct
validity (their ability to predict behaviour)
over time (see Baron and Byrne (1993) and
Ozer (1989) for reviews of relevant literature).
It is important to note that personality assess-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 21:35 22 April 2015 (PT)
ment instruments are not “tests”, as such,
since there are no “correct” or “incorrect”
answers to questions: their purpose is simply
to highlight the main personality traits and
tendencies of the individual (see Gergen et
al., 1986; Wright and Mischel, 1988).
To apply the instrument used in the experi-
ment, subjects are asked to complete a check-
list questionnaire through which they
express their preferences regarding various
issues and situations. The instrument itself
(which was adapted from Hogan and Cham-
pagne (1980) is “ipsative” in nature, i.e. it
requires subjects to choose between alterna-
tives when answering each question. Accord-
ing to the Jungian typology, extroverts are
socially outgoing, free-thinking and readily
communicate with the outside world. Intro-
verts, conversely, are diligent, reflective and
independently minded. “Intuitors” are imagi-
native problem solvers who relate well to
complex theories and new ideas, although
they can easily become bored by detailed
work. “Sensors” are practical, patient, careful
and systematic, but inclined to lose sight of
the overall picture. They prefer the concrete
to the abstract, and perform best in clearly
structured environments. A “feeling” person
is one who empathizes with others and excels
at persuasion, conciliation and the identifica-
tion of acquaintances’ human and personal
needs. However, he or she can be disorga-
nized, illogical and uncritical of issues and
events; guided more by emotion than by
objective facts. “Thinkers” are said to be
logical, analytical and objective but inclined
to confront rather than conciliate, and to be
insensitive to other people’s views. Perceivers
can see all sides to a problem and are flexible
in approach; they constantly search for fresh
angles on issues but, in consequence, can be
indecisive and prone not to finish tasks.
“Judgemental individuals” are decisive,
orderly and stick with tasks. They make
quick decisions, but are reluctant to admit
mistakes and are sometimes dominated by
their own plans (Jung, 1923; Margerison and
Lewis, 1982).
Each person will exhibit both dimensions
of each pair of personality variables to some
extent, but normally one dimension of each
pair will be stronger than the other so that it
becomes possible to classify individuals as
being (say) INFP; ENTJ; ISFP, and so on
(Jung, 1921). Thus, for example, an ENTJ
person is an extrovert with strengths in the
intuitive, thinking and judgemental aspects
of personality and possible weaknesses in
other dimensions. The Jungian approach has
gained acceptance in a wide range of fields,
including occupational choice, health care,
personnel selection, counselling, training
and management development (Arnold et al.,
1991; Hogan and Champagne, 1980). Sixteen
possible combinations of personality dimen-
sions emerge from the procedure. The numer-
ical breakdown from the sample is shown in
Table I.
The comparative claim
One member of each group (the “communica-
tor”) was instructed to engineer a conversa-
tion with other group members in the course
of which he or she would state that the com-
municator had “read in the newspapers” that
an authoritative survey had “proved” that the
product and service of one of the fast-food
outlets were greatly superior to those of the
other in terms of value for money, quantity of
ingredients, freshness of items, nutritional
value, absence of non-natural additives and
so on. Students were instructed to restrict
their comments to general issues and not to
make any statement alleging that there was
anything wrong with or unhygienic or
unhealthy about either of the outlets. This
approach is in line with that proposed by
Wilkie and Farris (1975) for the drawing of
comparisons between specific product or
service attributes for brands of the same
generic class of product or service (see Good-
win and Elgar, 1980; Murphy and Admund-
sen, 1981; Shimp, 1978 and Wyckham, 1987 for
examples of the effectiveness of this type of
parity comparison).
Which of the two outlets was named as the
better was rotated between repetitions of the
experiment, in order to focus on the effects of
the comparative claim rather than the partic-
ular circumstances of a specific business.
Suppose that, by chance, one of the firms
happened to be objectively superior in some
respect or other (although there was no rea-
son to presume that this was the case) and
that this fact was recognized by members of
the sample. If communicators were to state in
[ 89 ]
 Roger Bennett all repetitions that the outlet in question was
Communicator credibility, in reality the better one, they would simply be
personality factors and reinforcing pre-existing opinions, and little
customer responses to useful data would be obtained. Actually, it
comparative advertising
claims soon emerged that results were not at all
sensitive to which particular outlet was
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning named as being superior. Accordingly the
15/2 [1997] 85–96 statistics shown in Tables I and II relate to
aggregate data for all repetitions of the exper-
iment, regardless of which of the outlets was
praised in the comparative claim. No signifi-
cant differences in the pattern of results were
evident in disaggregated data.
Participants’ appraisals of the merits of the
two outlets occurred a week before and a
week after the communicator’s intervention.
Evaluations were recorded on Thurstone-
type line scales on which subjects drew a tick
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 21:35 22 April 2015 (PT)
at an appropriate point on the line to indicate
their perception of each outlet’s calibre. The
right-hand extreme of each line was marked
“excellent”; the left-hand extreme “very
poor”. Separate lines were presented under
headings for “price”, “quality of food”, “speed
and convenience” and, taking all these vari-
ables into account, “overall value for money”.
Lines were divided into 11 equal portions
around the central portion marked “fair”. A
category for “very good” was placed between
markings for “fair” and “excellent” on the
right of the line, and for “not very good” on
the left-hand side. Participants’ markings on
the “overall value for money” line were used
as the measure of attitude towards an outlet.
Students were asked to write their college
identification number on the completed ques-
tionnaire. Thus, when the appraisal exercise
was repeated two weeks later, on the pretext
that the first batch had been accidentally
destroyed, it was possible to compare quickly
and directly the locations of the ticks on the
lines on the first and second questionnaires
and hence to allocate numerical values to the
changes observed.
Communicator credibility
A measure of the esteem in which the com-
municators of the comparative claim were
held by other group members was obtained
from student peer group assessment sheets
that all students were required to complete in
respect of each member of his or her group.
Students had to allocate marks out of ten to
each colleague under headings for contribu-
tions to the planning of tasks, decision
making, conducting research, helping other
group members, contributions to meetings
and participation in group activities, and
contributions to presentations and the prepa-
ration of group reports. These peer assess-
ments were combined to give an overall
grade, again expressed as a mark out of ten.
[ 90 ]
Experience over several years has demon-
strated that students take these evaluations
very seriously and do not award marks casu-
ally or frivolously. A cross-check on the plau-
sibility of grades awarded is available
through comparing colleagues’ perceptions of
the worth of an individual’s contributions
against that person’s (compulsory) self-
assessments under the same headings (partic-
ipants had to give themselves marks out of
ten for their various contributions). It seems
reasonable to conclude that the final grades
awarded fairly reflect the diligence, reliabil-
ity, trustworthiness, industriousness and
integrity of each participant, as perceived by
other members of his or her group. Moreover
it is reasonable to suppose that persons scor-
ing highly in this exercise are more likely to
be believed than persons given a low grade; so
that the grades awarded may be said to repre-
sent a plausible proxy for the perceived credi-
bility of the people who delivered the compar-
ative claim.
Analysis of data
Data on individual students were classified
according to:
1 personality type (ESTJ, ESFP, INFJ, etc.).
2 the mark out of ten given to the communi-
cator (i.e. the “communicator credibility”
variable); and
3 marks given to the two outlets before and
after hearing the comparative claim.
Variable X denotes the change in
participants’ assessments of the outlet
alleged to be superior, as measured before
and after the communicator’s intervention,
and Y designates the pre/post-intervention
change in relation to the outlet claimed to be
inferior. Mean values for participants’ pre-
and post-intervention evaluations of the two
outlets were computed for each personality
category, and a standard t-test (for non-inde-
pendent samples) applied to assess whether
these were significantly different. Mean val-
– –
ues for X and Y are shown (as X and Y ) in
Table I. An asterisk alongside a value indi-
cates that the change was significant at the 5
per cent confidence level. The variable N in
Table I denotes the number of individuals in
each personality category; the column Z
shows the number of persons in each cate-
gory who recorded a shift in attitude of more
than 10 per cent (just over one unit on the
Thurstone scale) in the predicted direction
for either outlet.
–
Significant values for X (indicating sub-
stantial improvements in subjects’ opinions
of the outlet alleged to be superior) appear in
seven of the 16 personality categories; notably
 Roger Bennett Table I Table II
Communicator credibility, Mean values for changes in assessments Correlations between perceived communicator
personality factors and credibility and changes in subjects’ assess-
– –
customer responses to X Y N Z
comparative advertising ments of outlets
claims ESTJ 0.7* –0.1 21 5
ESFJ 0.4 –0.3 28 8 R(x) R(y)
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning ENTJ 0.2 0.0 31 3 ESTJ 0.29 –0.19
15/2 [1997] 85–96 ENFJ 1.0* –1.0* 18 9 ESFJ 0.37* –0.16
ESTP –0.1 –0.4 29 2 ENTJ 0.28 0.15
ESFP 0.65* –0.4 44 12 ENFJ 0.36 –0.34
ENTP –0.1 0.1 17 1 ESTP 0.24 0.19
ENFP 0.6* –0.3 41 10 ESFP 0.39* –0.32*
ISTJ 0.0 0.0 9 0 ENTP –0.15 0.07
ISFJ 0.4 0.1 11 2 ENFP 0.33* –0.26
INTJ 0.4 –0.1 27 3 ISTJ –0.1 0.07
INFJ 0.8* –0.4 24 7 ISFJ 0.35 –0.21
ISTP 1.2* –0.5 31 7 INTJ 0.17 0.1
ISFP 0.2 0.2 22 3 INFJ 0.4* –0.3
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 21:35 22 April 2015 (PT)

INTP –0.2 0.1 9 0 ISTP 0.42* –0.37*

INFP 0.7* 0.5 30
Note:
* Change was significant at the 5 per cent confidence
level
for ISTP, ENFJ and INFJ types. The “feeling”
characteristic occurs in three other personal-
ity divisions that exhibit significant positive
responses to the comparative assertions
regarding the praised outlet. Relative to the
sample sizes involved, the proportions of
persons showing attitude changes of more
than 10 per cent (variable Z) were large in
categories containing the F characteristic (50
per cent for the ENFJ combination, otherwise
between about a third and a quarter). Mean
attitude changes in respect of the outlet
–
stated to be inferior (Y ), were generally
small, and all were statistically insignificant
except for ENFJ (another “feeling” combina-
tion). Clearly, attitude changes occurred pre-
dominantly in relation to the outlet claimed
as superior by the message communicator.
Table II shows correlation coefficients
between the communicator credibility vari-
able and variable X (call this correlation R(x))
and between communicator credibility and Y
(call this R(y)). Statistically significant corre-
lations at the 5 per cent level are indicated by
an asterisk. Use of a correlational research
design offers a quantitative measure of the
strengths of the connections between commu-
nicator credibility and attitude change. The
sign on R(x) should be positive (since having
a high opinion of the communicator should
result in increases in evaluations of the cali-
bre of the allegedly superior outlet), while the
sign on R(y) is expected to be negative (rat-
ings of the outlet claimed to be inferior
should fall).
Six of the 16 R(x) correlations between
communicator credibility and changes in
6 ISFP –0.15 0.11
INTP 0.29 –0.07
INFP 0.37* –0.21
Note:
* Statistically significant correlations at the 5 per cent
confidence level
participants’ assessments of the outlet
alleged to be superior attained statistical
significance. Only two of the correlations
relating to the outlet stated to be inferior R(y)
were significant, although certain inferences
follow from this fact (see below). Signs on all
but three R(x) correlations were in the “cor-
rect” direction (positive); six of the signs on
R(y) correlations were wrong. R(x) for all 392
observations was 0.34; for R(y) the
corresponding coefficient was -0.22, (both
these correlations being statistically signifi-
cant). The figures in Table II broadly endorse
the proposition that communicator credibil-
ity influences message recipients’ responses,
although the influence seems to operate in an
asymmetric manner. It is clear that the
results for R(x) are much stronger than for
R(y). There are more significant values for
R(x), a greater proportion of the variation in
the data (as measured by r 2 ) is explained
(between 5 and 15 per cent in most
categories), and the signs on coefficients are
generally plausible. In other words, commu-
nicator credibility seemingly affects respon-
dents’ ratings of the outlet alleged to be supe-
rior, but not those of the outlet criticized in
the comparative claim! It can be seen that
correlations involving the outlet claimed to
be inferior are generally insignificant, and
frequently carry the wrong sign. Relations
between the esteem in which the communica-
tor is held and acceptance of his or her mes-
sage appear to break down in the case where
a particular outlet is criticized. Thus, stu-
[ 91 ]
 Roger Bennett dents in the sample seem to increase their
Communicator credibility, ratings of the outlet praised by a credible
personality factors and communicator, but do not significantly
customer responses to reduce their assessments of the other firm.
comparative advertising
claims Further evidence for this is provided by the
–
figures in Table I for the average changes (X
Marketing Intelligence & –
Planning and Y ) in evaluations recorded following the
15/2 [1997] 85–96 comparative claim. Nearly half of all the per-
sonality categories exhibited a significant
– Judgementals are orderly, abhor ambiguity
improvement in mean attitude (X ) towards
– and loose thinking, prefer working to a plan
the allegedly superior outlet; yet only one Y
value (i.e. deteriorations in average assess-
ments of the outlet claimed to be inferior)
attained significance. Possible reasons for
this observed response asymmetry are:
1 that many students will have personally
experienced the products of the allegedly
inferior outlet and, knowing first-hand
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 21:35 22 April 2015 (PT)
that the food and service are reasonable,
will not reduce their evaluation of the
outlet after hearing a comparative claim;
and
2 that both businesses are well-known
throughout London, so that again, the
communicator’s adverse comparison
might be less plausibly received.
The other major conclusion to emerge from
Tables I and II is that the FP and FJ personal-
ity types appear to be more responsive to
communicator influence than others. Corre-
lations for R(x) and R(y) were re-run using
data on persons in these categories, then
using data for all subjects in all the F cate-
gories (N = 218), and then for all persons with
an E dimension, an I dimension, S, T, J, and
other dimensions respectively. R(x) was 0.36
for the FP type and 0.35 for the FJ category.
Corresponding correlations for R(y) were
–0.21 and –0.23. R(x) for all persons with an F
dimension in their personality was 0.43; for
R(y) the coefficient was –0.3. Coefficients for
R(x) for subjects exhibiting each of the other
seven dimensions (E, I, S, T, J, N and P) varied
between 0.11 (for T) and 0.32 (for S). All had
the correct sign and most were statistically
significant (though note how the very large
sample sizes for these correlations mean that
low value coefficients still assume statistical
significance). Figures for R(y) correlations
involving personality dimensions other than
F were low and generally insignificant, rein-
forcing earlier conclusions.
Discussion
Personality types F, P and J have been thor-
oughly analysed over several decades (see
Margerison and Lewis (1982) for an extensive
review of the early literature). The “feeling”
individual is said to take decisions on the
basis of personal values and to examine
[ 92 ]
situations and events in terms of personal
standpoints rather than cold analysis and
hard facts. Also such people tend to polarize
issues, become over-committed to a point of
view, and relate “fairness” to their own ideas
and beliefs (Jung, 1923). The “judgemental”
person, according to the Jungian typology,
likes issues to be clarified and resolved.
and strive to get things done. The converse to
this is the “perceptive” individual, who can
tolerate ambiguity, enjoys searching for infor-
mation, tries to find out as much as possible
prior to taking a decision, and has a curious
and open mind. Perceivers sometimes avoid
taking decisions unless they are told what to
do. That the “feeling” personality type should
be relatively susceptible to comparative
claims from credible communicators is plau-
sible; that a “feeling” person who possesses a
further personality strength in relation to
“judging” or “perceiving” should also be
susceptible equally makes sense.
The communicator’s allegations were
entirely spurious, yet apparently led to
changes in opinion among certain groups!
Persons whose appraisals of products, situa-
tions and events tend to rely on empathy and
personal values (i.e. the “feeling” personality
type) were more susceptible to communicator
influence than others, particularly when this
personality trait was combined with “percep-
tion” (i.e. wanting more information and
needing to be told what to do) on the one
hand, or “judging” (i.e. being decisive,
making fast evaluations and wanting then to
move on quickly to other things) on the other.
These findings – that credible communicators
were able to influence certain types of respon-
dent through the use of false statements –
arguably support the fundamental criticism
of comparative advertising, namely that it
can be used mischievously to change con-
sumer evaluations of competing
products/businesses when, in fact, there are
no objective differences between them. Per-
haps, therefore, it is right and proper for
countries that currently ban comparative
advertising to continue to do so, or allow it
only in cases where a brand is demonstrably
superior and/or where the competitor is not
openly disparaged by the advertising firm.
Note how the dividing line between “true”
and “false” comparisons can be extremely
vague, and how (if the EU draft directive
becomes law) the policing of the propriety of
advertisers’ comparative claims will repre-
sent (to say the least) a formidable task.
 Roger Bennett Caveats and reservations
Communicator credibility, The most problematic aspect of this work is,
personality factors and perhaps, the assumption that it is possible to
customer responses to assess via a 20-minute ipsative instrument,
comparative advertising
claims an individual’s whole personality, including
his or her values, psychological tendencies,
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning motives, dispositions, beliefs and mental and
15/2 [1997] 85–96 other personal characteristics. Psychometric
assessment has been much criticized during
recent years (Bennett, 1991; 1994), especially
regarding whether instruments are valid and
reliable. Personality evaluations derive from
expressed opinions at particular moments in
time, and it is known that subjects sometimes
answer questions according to how they
believe the person administering the instru-
ment thinks the questions should be
answered rather than to their actual beliefs.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 21:35 22 April 2015 (PT)
Note moreover the existence of conflicting
schools of thought in the psychological
assessment field, each school possessing its
own ideas concerning what personality is;
whether adults possess core personalities
that do not alter with age; about what ques-
tions need to be asked to discover someone’s
personality; and how to evaluate the answers
he or she gives. Further discussion of these
matters is beyond the scope of this paper,
which necessarily has to take as given the
usefulness of this type of personality evalua-
tion instrument.
Another possible objection is that students
who receive high peer group ratings are not
necessarily regarded as credible communica-
tors, although there is no a priori reason why
this should not be the case. Note moreover
that message recipients might act in response
to the comparative claim even though they do
not regard the communicator very highly, i.e
they might remember the message while
forgetting the source – the so-called sleeper
effect (Cook et al, 1979).
It should be remembered that communica-
tors were given strict instructions not to
make derogatory statements about either of
the outlets or to discredit their products in
any way (e.g. by alleging that they were
unhealthy or unhygienic). Such statements
would have been defamatory and have caused
problems with the outlets, both of which
readily consented to their names being used
in the research, but only on condition that so-
called knocking copy was not to be used. Yet
the essential criticism of comparative adver-
tising is that it inevitably belittles competing
items. Thus, it would be instructive to repeat
the experiment using unashamedly condem-
natory comments (e.g. that one of the outlets
had been fined for being infested with
vermin, had failed a public health inspection,
was using sandwich fillings made from food-
stuffs unfit for human consumption, etc.) and
to compare the results with those obtained
for more general and non-abusive compara-
tive claims. Then it would be possible to
assess the impact on attitude change of bla-
tantly unfair comparative advertising. Such
experimentation was not possible in the
research environment in which the work was
completed. Further caveats are necessary
regarding the characteristics of the sample.
Test subjects were normally young, on a tight
financial budget and, in comparison with the
rest of the population, relatively well edu-
cated. It is likely that, as consumers, they are
discriminating and well-informed.
Additional research needs to be undertaken
to compare the results of this experiment
with results obtained from samples of con-
sumers of various ages, income levels, occu-
pations and types of employment, ethnic
groups, and who live in different regions.
Conclusion
Results from this experiment are consistent
with those of previous studies reporting sig-
nificant positive relationships between
claims of brand superiority and improve-
ments in customer attitudes towards the
advertised item. They also support the propo-
sition that comparative advertising has the
power to mislead. The results are also very
much in line with the conclusions of Prasad
(1976) whose experiments with 202 university
students revealed that the believability of
comparative claims concerning video cam-
eras and appearing in print media were sig-
nificantly lower among subjects known to
have experienced the denigrated brand; of
McDougall (1978) who found similar
outcomes among 225 randomly selected
females exposed to print advertisements for
deodorants; of Muehling (1987) who observed
that affective reactions to a comparative
claim were strongest for the brand
commended rather than its competitors; and
of studies conducted by Iyer (1988), Pechmann
and Ratneshwar (1991) and Pettit-O’Malley
and Johnson (1992).
To the extent that the results of investiga-
tions claiming positive and significant rela-
tions between comparative advertising and
consumer behaviour are valid they have a
number of implications for marketing. The
use of comparative advertising can, it seems,
enhance message recipients’ cognition of a
brand or supplier (such cognition extending
to the attention paid to a brand, recognition,
interpretation of messages and recall, see
Pechmann and Stewart, 1990); can influence
attitudes towards and perceptions of
brand/supplier credibility (Shimp and Dyer,
[ 93 ]
 Roger Bennett 1978); and affect consumer opinions in the
Communicator credibility, short run. It appears from the present study
personality factors and moreover that the strengths of these influ-
customer responses to ences vary with respect to the type of person
comparative advertising
claims receiving a comparative claim, rather than
the type of product considered. People pos-
Marketing Intelligence &
Planning sessing certain personality traits (notably
15/2 [1997] 85–96 those associated with subjectivity in the eval-
uation of issues) were found to be more
responsive to comparative claims made by
high-esteem communicators.
Note how a number of empirical studies
published in the comparative advertising
field argue that, while comparative advertis-
ing does affect consumer behaviour in cer-
tain circumstances, overall it lacks credibil-
ity when compared to the effects of non-com-
parative claims (Barry, 1993, p. 346). Accord-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 21:35 22 April 2015 (PT)
ing to this view, consumers are extremely
sceptical of comparative assertions, so that
factual non-comparative messages (when
offered) are more likely to be believed. Theo-
retical support for this proposition is avail-
able from several investigations into the
principle of reactance, i.e. the idea that per-
sons who feel that an outsider is deliberately
attempting to influence them frequently react
against the communicator’s message, result-
ing in minimal attitude change and failure to
persuade (Brehm, 1966; Rhodewalt and Davi-
son, 1983). Yet the popularity of comparative
advertising among advertisers in countries
where it is permitted continues to increase
(as evidenced by current demands for its
legalisation across the EU). Why should so
many important and influential companies
want to engage in the practice if its persua-
sive capacity is (allegedly) low? The results
from the present study may offer a clue as to
why advertisers’ desires to engage in compar-
ative advertising are so great. If particular
types of people are more responsive to com-
parative claims than others (as these results
suggest) then campaigns which (perhaps
unwittingly) target such groups using com-
parative advertising will be likely to succeed.
Thus, comparative advertising might be
observed to be highly effective in specific
market segments and circumstances, even
though the managers organizing the cam-
paigns may not be aware why this is the case.
It could be that customer groups possessing
relevant personality characteristics were
accessed by chance, or that certain personal-
ity types susceptible to comparative advertis-
ing tend to buy a particular brand or category
of product. Equally, comparative claims
aimed at the wrong personality categories
will fail to exert persuasive influence. A
major implication of the results of the present
study, therefore, is that marketing managers
need to consider very carefully the likely
[ 94 ]
personality mixes of target audiences prior to
embarking on comparative advertising cam-
paigns. Further research into differences in
the personality make-ups of various
consumer groups is clearly required, espe-
cially in respect of television audiences for
particular kinds of programme, readership of
certain categories of magazine, listenership
of various radio broadcasts, and so on.
References
Allsopp, J.F. (1986), “Personality as a determinant
of beer and cider consumption among young
men”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 7, pp. 341-7.
Aronson, E., Brewer, M. and Carlsmith, J.M.
(1985), “Experimentation in social psychol-
ogy”, in Lindzey, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Social
Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 441-86, Random House,
New York, NY.
Arnold, J., Robertson, I.T. and Cooper, C. (1991),
Work Psychology: Understanding Human
Behaviour in the Workplace, Pitman, Boston,
MA and London.
Baron, R.A. and Byrne, D. (1993), Social Psychol-
ogy, 7th ed., Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Barry, T.E. (1993), “Twenty years of comparative
advertising in the United States”, Interna-
tional Journal of Advertising, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 325-50.
Bem, D.J. (1967), “Self-perception: an alternative
explanation of cognitive dissonance phenom-
ena”, Psychological Review, Vol. 74, pp. 183-200.
Bennett, R. (1991), “Psychometric testing: the case
for government control”, Business Education
International, Autumn, pp. 4-6.
Bennett, R. (1993), European Advertising: Media
Planning, Marketing Analysis and Country-
by-Country Profiles, Kogan Page, London.
Bennett, R. (1994) , Organisational Behaviour, 2nd
ed., Pitman, London.
Boddewyn, J.J. (1988), “Comparison advertising:
advantages and disadvantages for consumers,
competitors, media, industry and the market-
place”, in Balate, E. (Ed.), Unfair Advertising
and Comparative Advertising pp. 175-95, Story
Scientia, Brussels.
Brehm, J.W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological
Reactance, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Calder, B.J., Phillips, L.W. and Tybout, A.M. (1981),
“Designing research for application”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 197-207.
Chevins, A. (1975), “A case for comparative adver-
tising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 31-6.
Cialdini, R.R., Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1981),
“Attitude and attitude change”, in Resenweig,
M.R. and Porter, L.W. (Eds), Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 357-404.
Cook, T. and Campbell, D. (1975), “The design and
conduct of experiments and quasi-experi-
ments in field settings”, in Dunnette, M. (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organisational
Research, Rand McNally and Co, Chicago, IL.
 Roger Bennett Cook, T.D., Gruder, C.L., Henningan, K.M. and
Communicator credibility, Flay, B.R. (1979), “History of the sleeper
personality factors and effect”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86,
customer responses to pp. 662-79.
comparative advertising Eagly, A.H., Wood, W. and Chaiken, S. (1978),
claims
“Causal inferences about communicators and
Marketing Intelligence & their effect on opinion change”, Journal of
Planning
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 36,
15/2 [1997] 85–96
pp. 424-35.
Foxall, G.R. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1994), Consumer
Psychology for Marketing, Routledge, London.
Gergen, K.J., Hepburn, A. and Fisher, D.C. (1986),
“Hermeneutics of personality description”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 50, pp. 1261-70.
Gleitman, H. (1995), Psychology, 4th ed. Norton,
New York, NY.
Goethals, G.R. and Darley, J.M. (1987), “Social
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 21:35 22 April 2015 (PT)
comparison theory”, in Mullen, B. (Ed.),
Theories of Group Behaviour, Springer-Verlag,
New York, NY.
Goodwin, S. and Elgar, M. (1980), “An experimen-
tal investigation of comparative advertising:
impact of message appeal, information load,
and utility of product class”, Journal of Mar-
keting Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 187-202.
Gotlieb, J.B. and Sarel, D. (1991), “Comparative
advertising effectiveness: the role of involve-
ment and source credibility”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 38-45.
Gross, A.E. and Fleming, I. (1982), “Twenty years
of deception in social psychology”, Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 8,
pp. 402-8.
Hogan, R.C. and Champagne, D.W. (1980), “Per-
sonal style inventory”, Handbook for Group
Facilitators, University Associates, San Diego,
CA, pp. 89-91.
Hovland, C. and Weiss, W. (1951) “The influence of
source credibility on communicator effective-
ness”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 15,
pp. 650-53.
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) (1991),
International Code of Advertising Practice,
ICC, Paris.
Iyer, E.S. (1988), “The influence of verbal content
and relative newness on the effectiveness of
comparative advertising”, Journal of Adver-
tising, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 15-21.
Jeannet, J. and Hennessey, H.D. (1992), Global
Marketing Strategies, 2nd ed., Houghton Mif-
flin Company, Boston, MA.
Jung, C.G. (1921), “Personality types”, Collected
Works, Vol. 6, Bollinger Press, New Jersey.
Jung, C.G. (1923) Psychological Types, Kegan Paul.
Kelman, H.C. (1967), “Human use of human sub-
jects”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 67, pp. 1-11.
Margerison, C. and Lewis, R. (1982), “Mapping
managerial styles”, International Journal of
Manpower, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
McAlister, L. and Pessemier, E. (1982), “Variety
seeking behaviour: an interdisciplinary
review”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9,
pp. 311-22.
McDougall, G.H.G. (1978), “Comparative advertis-
ing: the effect of claim type and brand loy-
alty”, in Leigh, J. and Martin, C.R. Jr (Eds),
Current Issues and Research in Advertising,
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,
pp. 39-52.
McGuire, W.J. (1985), “The nature of attitude
change” in Lindzey, G. (Ed.), Handbook of
Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Random House, New
York, NY.
Mook, D.J. (1983), “In defence of external invalid-
ity”, American Psychologist, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 379-87.
Morse, S. and Gergen, K.J. (1970), “Social compari-
son, self-consistency and the concept of self ”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 16, pp. 148-56.
Muehling, D.D. (1987), “Comparative advertising:
the influence of attitude-toward-the-ad on
brand evaluation”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 43-9.
Muehling, D.D., Stoltman, J.J. and Grossbart, S.
(1990), “The impact of comparative advertis-
ing on levels of message involvement”, Jour-
nal of Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Murphy, J.H. and Admundsen, M.S. (1981), “The
communications effectiveness of comparative
advertising for a new brand on users of the
dominant brand”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 14-20.
Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1987), “Experts,
amateurs and real estate”, Organisational
Behaviour and Decision Processes, Vol. 39,
pp. 84-7.
Ohbuchi, K., Kamdea, M. and Agari, N. (1989),
“Apology as aggression control”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 56,
pp. 219-27.
Orme, M.T. (1962), “On the social psychology of
the psychological experiment”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 17, pp. 776-83.
Ozer, D.J. (1989), “Construct validity in personal-
ity assessment”, in Buss, D.M. and Cantor,
N. (Eds), Personality Psychology, Springer
Verlag, New York, NY.
Pechmann, C. and Ratneshwar, S. (1991), “The use
of comparative advertising for brand position-
ing: association vs. differentiation”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp. 145-60.
Pechmann, C. and Stewart, D.W. (1990), “The
effects of comparative advertising on atten-
tion, memory, and purchase intentions”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17,
pp. 180-91.
Pettit-O’Malley, K.L. and Johnson, M.S. (1992),
“Differentiating comparative advertising:
some positive results revealed by measure-
ment of simultaneous effects on the ad-spon-
soring and comparison brands”, Journal of
Current Issues and Research in Advertising,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 35-44.
Prasad, V.K. (1976), “Communications-effective-
ness of comparative advertising: a laboratory
analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 128-37.
[ 95 ]
 Roger Bennett Rhodewalt, R. and Davison, J. (1983), “Reactance:
Communicator credibility, the role of self-attribution in response to
personality factors and reduced behavioural freedom”, Journal of
customer responses to Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 44,
comparative advertising
pp. 220-8.
claims
Rogers, C.R. (1978), Personal Power, Constable,
Marketing Intelligence &
London.
Planning
Rogers, R.W. (1983), “Subjects’ reactions to experi-
15/2 [1997] 85–96
mental deception”, in Cacioppo, J.R. (Ed.),
Social Psychophysiology, Guildford Press, New
York, NY.
Schartzman, L. and Strauss, A.L. (1973), Field
Research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Sears, D.O. (1986), “College sophomores in the
laboratory: influences of a narrow database
on social psychology’s view of human
nature”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 515-30.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 21:35 22 April 2015 (PT)
Shavitt, S. (1990), “The role of attitude objects in
attitude functions”, Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 124-48.
Sheluga, D.A. and Jacoby, J. (1978), “Do compara-
tive claims encourage comparison shopping?
The impact of comparative claims in con-
sumers’ acquisition of product information”,
in Leigh, J.H. and Martin, C.R. Jr (Eds), Cur-
rent Issues and Research in Advertising, The
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,
pp. 23-37.
Shimp, T.A. (1978), “Do incomplete comparisons
mislead?” Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 21-7.
Shimp, T.A. and Dyer, D.C. (1978), “The effects of
comparative advertising mediated by market
position of sponsoring brand”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 13-9.
[ 96 ]
Snyder, M. and DeBono, K.G. (1985), “Appeals to
image and claims to quality: understanding
the psychology of advertising”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 49,
pp. 586-97.
Suls, J. and Rosnow, J. (1988), “Concerns about
artefacts in behavioural research”, in
Morawski, M. (Ed.), The Rise of Experimenta-
tion in Psychology, Yale University Press, New
Haven, CT.
Swinyard, W.R. (1981), “The interaction between
comparative advertising and copy claim
variation”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 175-86.
Taylor, S.E. and Lobel, M. (1989), “Social compari-
son activity under threat”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 96, pp. 569-75.
Taylor, S.E., Peplau, L.A. and Sears, D.O. (1994),
Social Psychology, 8th ed., Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Thurow, L. (1992), Head to Head: The Coming
Economic Battle among Japan, Europe, and
America, New York, William Morrow and
Company, NY.
Wilkie, W.L. and Farris, P.W. (1975), “Comparison
advertising: problems and potential”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 7-15.
Wood, J.V. (1989), “Theory of research concerning
social comparisons of personal attributes”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 106, pp. 231-48.
Wright, J.C. and Mischel, W. (1988), “Conditional
hedges and the intuitive psychology of traits”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 55, pp. 454-69.
Wyckham, R.G. (1987), “Implied superiority
claims”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 54-63.
 This article has been cited by:

1. William T. Neese, G. Tomas. 2002. Local Retail Segmentation Using the CETSCALE. Journal of Promotion Management
8, 135-161. [CrossRef]
2. Jo K. Glasser. 2002. Factors related to consultant credibility. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 54, 28-42.
[CrossRef]
3. Roger Bennett, Helen Gabriel. 2000. Press stories as a medium for social marketing: the publisher's perspective. International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 5:10.1002/nvsm.v5:1, 32-45. [CrossRef]
4. Graeme Galloway, Karla Lopez. 1999. Sensation seeking and attitudes to aspects of national parks: a preliminary empirical
investigation. Tourism Management 20, 665-671. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 21:35 22 April 2015 (PT)