This article was downloaded by: [Case Western Reserve University]

On: 18 October 2014, At: 12:23

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Advertising
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujoa20

A Further Assessment of Indirect Comparative Advertising

Claims of Superiority Over all Competitors
a b c
Paul W. Miniard Ph.D. , Michael J. Barone Ph.D. , Randall L. Rose Ph.D. & Kenneth C. Manning
d
Ph.D.
a
College of Business Administration, Florida International University
b
College of Business Administration, Iowa State University
c
Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina
d
College of Business, Colorado State University
Published online: 02 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Paul W. Miniard Ph.D. , Michael J. Barone Ph.D. , Randall L. Rose Ph.D. & Kenneth C. Manning Ph.D. (2006) A Further
Assessment of Indirect Comparative Advertising Claims of Superiority Over all Competitors, Journal of Advertising, 35:4, 53-64, DOI:
10.2753/JOA0091-3367350404

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367350404

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and
views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by
Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary
sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,
expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,
in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 A FURTHER ASSESSMENT OF INDIRECT COMPARATIVE
ADVERTISING CLAIMS OF SUPERIORITY OVER ALL COMPETITORS
Paul W. Miniard, Michael J. Barone, Randall L. Rose, and Kenneth C. Manning

ABSTRACT: Although numerous inquiries concerning comparative advertising appear in the literature, little research
has examined indirect comparative claims touting a brand’s superiority over all competitors. While the available evidence
offers advertisers little reason to use such claims, our research conveys a different story about its effectiveness. Study 1 shows
indirect comparative advertising claiming superiority over all competitors to be more effective than direct comparative and
noncomparative advertising in positioning a brand against the entire market along featured attributes. Study 2 demonstrates
that indirect comparative advertising’s inferiority in positioning a brand against a specific competitor as opposed to all
competitors disappears when consumers spontaneously generate this competitor during ad processing.
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 12:23 18 October 2014

A fundamental consideration in the development of adver-
tising strategy involves competitive positioning. At one
extreme, advertising can act as if the advertised brand exists
in a competitive void through the use of a noncompetitive
positioning strategy, wherein the brand’s performance along
salient attributes is discussed without reference to the com-
petition. In this case, advertising focuses solely on the merits
of the advertised brand with no explicit attempt to position
the brand relative to its competitors. This type of advertising
is referred to as noncomparative (NC) advertising.
Alternatively, firms often rely on comparative advertising to
directly communicate and establish a competitive positioning.
For example, advertisements for Energizer batteries have used
the claim “lasts longer than Duracell” to position the brand
relative to its key competitor. Soft Scrub cleanser advertise-
ments have positioned the brand more broadly against its
competitors via claims that the product “outcleans all other
liquid abrasive cleansers on soap scum and bathtub ring.” Com-
mon to both examples is an emphasis on how the advertised
brand fares against the competition. Comparative advertise-
ments can be further classified on the basis of whether or not
Paul W. Miniard (Ph.D., University of Florida) holds the Knight-
Ridder Eminent Scholar Chair in Marketing, College of Business
Administration, Florida International University.
Michael J. Barone (Ph.D., University of South Carolina) is an as-
sociate professor and Dean’s Faculty Fellow in Marketing, College
of Business Administration, Iowa State University.
Randall L. Rose (Ph.D., Ohio State University) is a professor of mar-
keting, Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina.
Kenneth C. Manning (Ph.D., University of South Carolina) is an
associate professor of marketing and FirstBank Research Fellow,
College of Business, Colorado State University.
specific competitors are identified explicitly as a reference point
for interpreting claims about the advertised brand’s merits.
For example, direct comparative (DC) advertisements (like
Energizer’s) are those that name specific competitors as a point
of comparison. By contrast, indirect comparative (IC) advertis-
ing (like Soft Scrub’s) does not identify particular competitive
brands, but instead refers to unnamed competitors, such as “the
leading brand,” “other brands,” or “all other brands.”
In their classic article, Wilkie and Farris (1973) proposed
that comparative advertising should be more successful in
product positioning than its NC counterpart. This prediction
has been supported repeatedly, as numerous studies have shown
that DC advertising is superior to NC advertising in position-
ing the advertised product against the specific competitor used
as a point of comparison (e.g., Dröge and Darmon 1987; Gorn
and Weinberg 1984; Miniard, Rose, Barone, and Manning
1993; Rose, Miniard, Barone, Manning, and Till 1993).
In contrast, IC advertising’s potential for positioning the
advertised product has received far less attention in the lit-
erature. This lack of attention is particularly true for what
would seem to be the most potent type of IC advertising,
namely, that which positions the advertised brand as superior
to all competitors along the featured attribute(s). In the single
investigation we could find that examined this type of IC
advertising, Pechmann and Ratneshwar (1991) report that it
was outperformed by DC advertising in terms of positioning
the advertised brand against the comparison brand used in
the DC advertisement. Thus, the evidence that speaks to the
persuasiveness of IC advertising claiming superiority over
all competitors offers no basis for supporting its usage in the
marketplace.
The purpose of our research is to further explore the ef-
fectiveness of this type of IC advertising. Whereas Pechmann

Journal of Advertising, vol. 35, no. 4 (Winter 2006), pp. 53–64.

© 2006 American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0091-3367 / 2006 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/JOA0091-3367350404
 54 The Journal of Advertising
and Ratneshwar (1991) focused on DC and IC advertising’s
relative success in positioning the advertised brand against
a single competitor, they did not consider how each might
fare in positioning the advertised brand against the entire
market. The initial study presented in this paper does so.
Nor did Pechmann and Ratneshwar consider the role played
by consumers’ spontaneous activation of a specific competitor
during the processing of an IC advertisement in determining
its effectiveness at positioning the advertised brand against this
competitor. We report a second study that portrays a differ-
ent picture about IC advertising’s effectiveness in positioning
against a specific competitor when spontaneous activation is
taken into account. Collectively, our studies convey a more
favorable view of the effectiveness of IC advertising claiming
superiority over all competitors than is currently offered in
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 12:23 18 October 2014
the literature.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES AND OVERVIEW
Our perspective on advertising’s effectiveness in product
positioning is driven by the various encoding frames encour-
aged by different types of advertising during ad processing,
the resultant mental representations stored in memory, and
the likelihood of retrieving these impressions subsequently.
By virtue of explicitly identifying the competition, a DC
advertisement encourages consumers to employ this reference
point during encoding. Consequently, provided that it receives
sufficient attention, virtually everyone should think about
how the advertised brand compares to this competitor while
processing the advertisement. This type of relative encoding
frame should be far less prevalent, however, when consumers
encounter NC advertising. Indeed, the spontaneous generation
of any competitive brand during the processing of NC advertis-
ing appears to be more the exception than the rule (Miniard
et al. 1998; Walker, Swasy, and Rethans 1986).
Unlike NC advertising, IC advertising that refers to the
“leading brand,” “other brands,” or “all other brands” en-
courages the spontaneous activation of specific competitors
during ad processing, given that these abstract reference
points should prompt consumers to think about a particular
exemplar(s). Nonusers of the advertised brand, for instance,
may think about how this brand compares with their brand, and
well-known brands might be activated even by consumers who
are not using them. Nonetheless, it seems rather unlikely that
consumers processing an IC advertisement would exhibit the
same uniformity in relative encoding frames that character-
izes the processing of a DC advertisement. Although the IC
advertisement may lead some consumers to think about how
the advertised brand compares to the particular competitor
identified within a DC advertisement for the same brand, oth-
ers will surely think about different competitors. Moreover,
some consumers may not think about any specific competitors,
but may instead engage in prototype-based processing (Snyder
1992), whereby the advertised brand is contrasted against an
abstract reference point based on either an idealized or aver-
aged set of product features. Accordingly, a DC advertisement
should be more effective than an IC advertisement in position-
ing the advertised brand against a specific competitor because
it is much more likely than the IC advertisement to evoke the
desired encoding frame (i.e., thinking about how the advertised
brand compares to this competitor).
An additional reason why a DC advertisement should out-
perform an IC advertisement in positioning against a particular
competitor relates to differences in the mental representations
created by these ad types. Mental representations vary in terms
of their relative versus nonrelative properties (Manning et al.
2001). Relative representations are impressions about the adver-
tised product in relation to some reference point. In the case of a
DC advertisement, this reference point would be the particular
comparison brand(s) featured in the advertisement (e.g., an im-
pression that the advertised brand comes in more colors than the
competitor). Conversely, nonrelative impressions are representa-
tions that are devoid of these reference points (e.g., an impression
that the advertised brand comes in six different colors).
Manning et al. (2001) observed that NC advertisements
created impressions that were almost exclusively nonrelative,
indicating that spontaneous thinking about competitors when
processing such advertising is rather uncommon. Furthermore, as
one would expect, a far greater number of relative mental repre-
sentations existed following exposure to comparative advertising
than following NC advertising. It is interesting to note, though,
that both relative and nonrelative impressions were detected in
memory following exposure to comparative advertising. This
mixture is attributable to the fact that comparative advertising
typically contains noncomparative (e.g., “Mitral-ES pain reliever
is fully absorbed into the bloodstream in only 7 minutes . . .”)
and comparative (“. . . 30% faster than Extra-Strength Tylenol”)
information.
While both DC and IC advertising should therefore en-
courage the creation of relative mental impressions, these
representations should differ in the particular reference point
contained therein. Sufficient processing of a DC advertise-
ment will result in the formation of relative mental impres-
sions containing the specific reference point activated by the
advertisement’s comparison brand (Manning et al. 2001). An
IC advertisement should prompt relative mental impressions
possessing the abstract reference point featured in the adver-
tisement (e.g., all other brands), as well as specific competitive
reference points to the extent that spontaneous activation of
individual competitors occurs during ad processing. Nonethe-
less, because consumers’ idiosyncratic activations are unlikely
to parallel the uniformity in thought induced by the explicit
identification of the competitor in a DC advertisement, many
of the mental representations formed after exposure to the IC

advertisement will not include the comparison brand in the
DC advertisement.
The final component in our explanation for expecting differ-
ences in the positioning effectiveness of DC and IC advertising
involves retrieval considerations. According to the principle of
encoding specificity (Tulving and Thomson 1973), retrieval is
enhanced when features of the encoding situation are recreated
as part of the retrieval context. Encoding features that influence
the mental representations formed during ad processing serve
as effective retrieval cues by virtue of their correspondence with
certain aspects of the mental representations (e.g., Friestad and
Thorson 1993; Keller 1987).
In the present context, the reference point activated by
(and contained within the mental impressions associated
with) a comparative advertisement should serve as a potent
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 12:23 18 October 2014
retrieval cue. Consider, for example, the consumer exposed
to a DC advertisement that leads to the formation of relative
impressions involving the advertised and comparison brands.
If subsequently faced with a choice between these two specific
brands, their presence in the choice context should cue the
mental representations created previously. This would not be
the case, however, if the choice involves the advertised brand
and a different competitor. Similarly, measures assessing the
DC advertisement’s positioning effectiveness that recreate the
association between the advertised and comparison brands
should better cue retrieval of the relative mental representa-
tions created by the advertisement than should measures that
do not contain this particular interbrand association. By the
same token, measures that activate the association between the
advertised brand and the abstract reference point employed
in the IC advertisement should better facilitate the retrieval
of the types of relative mental representations expected to be
created by the IC advertisement.
Based on these encoding, mental representation, and re-
trieval considerations, we propose the following hypotheses
regarding the DC and IC advertisements’ effectiveness in po-
sitioning the advertised brand against either the specific com-
petitor identified in the DC advertisement or the more abstract
reference point contained within the IC advertisement:
H1: A DC advertisement is more effective than IC or NC
advertisements in positioning the advertised brand against
the specific competitor used as the comparison brand in the DC
advertisement.
H2: An IC advertisement claiming superiority over all other
brands is more effective than DC or NC advertisements in
positioning the advertised brand against the entire market.
For completeness, we also consider the relative effectiveness
of each ad type in achieving a noncompetitive positioning of
the product. By its very nature, NC advertising encourages
a nonrelative encoding frame during processing that leads
Winter 2006 55
consumers to form mental representations of the advertised
brand that are unlikely to be tied to the competition. The
potential for these nonrelative representations to also exist after
exposure to comparative advertising should depend on whether
consumers adopt a nonrelative encoding frame in addition to
the relative encoding frame that typically characterizes the
processing of such advertisements. As noted earlier, because
comparative advertising often contains both comparative and
noncomparative information, consumers may employ relative
and nonrelative encoding frames (Manning et al. 2001). Thus,
the effectiveness of different advertising types in achieving a
noncompetitive positioning should depend on the noncom-
parative information provided by each type. In Study 1 of this
investigation, we examined DC, IC, and NC advertisements
that were equivalent in their noncomparative information.
Because all of these advertisements provided the same oppor-
tunity to form the same nonrelative mental representations,
we hypothesize that:
H3: DC, IC, and NC advertisements containing the same
noncomparative information are equally effective in developing
a noncompetitive positioning.
Beyond anticipating when differences may or may not oc-
cur between comparative and noncomparative advertising in
competitive and noncompetitive positioning, we also expected
differences within each type of comparative advertising in
achieving a particular competitive positioning. Our basic
premise is that the explicit reference point used by a com-
parative advertisement is more likely to be present within
consumers’ encoding frames and mental representations than
other possible reference points that are not identified explicitly
in the advertisement, thereby facilitating the ad’s effective-
ness in positioning the advertised brand against this explicit
reference point. In the case of a DC advertisement, it seems
highly unlikely that consumers would spontaneously think
about how the advertised brand compares to all competitors.
Conversely, in the case of an IC advertisement, at least some
consumers are likely to activate specific competitors during
processing. Nonetheless, virtually all consumers will encode
the information about the advertised brand relative to all
other brands. These differences in the uniformity in which
a particular reference point is activated should impact the
overall positioning effectiveness of DC and IC advertising
as follows:
H4: A DC advertisement is more effective in positioning the
advertised brand against the comparison brand identified in
the ad than against the entire market.
H5: An IC advertisement is more effective in positioning the
advertised brand against the entire market than against a
specific competitor.
 56 The Journal of Advertising
Advertisements Employed in Study 1
Noncomparative
Noncomparative Advertisement
IF YOU’RE LOOKING FOR A POWERFUL PAIN
RELIEF MEDICINE, THEN LOOK NO FURTHER!
NEW
MITRAL-ES
POWERFUL PAIN RELIEF MEDICINE
Mitral is fast-acting—independent medical tests
conducted at Stanford, Harvard, and Northwestern
medical schools have shown that it is fully absorbed into
the bloodstream in only 7 minutes.
The pain relief provided by Mitral is also long-lasting—
the same medical studies mentioned above have shown
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 12:23 18 October 2014
that Mitral effectively relieves pain for a full 8 hours.
Fast-acting, long-lasting Mitral-ES.*
Powerful pain relief for your powerful headache.
*P.S. The “ES” in Mitral-ES stands for Extra Strength
Although none should be surprised by H4’s prediction
that a DC advertisement will be more effective in positioning
against a single competitor than all competitors, H5’s predic-
tion is certainly more counterintuitive. After all, if consumers
believe that the advertised brand is better than all other com-
petitors, one might then expect they should also believe that
it is better than any specific competitor. Indeed, some might
anticipate that an IC advertisement will be more effective
in positioning against a specific competitor than the entire
market (i.e., the opposite of H5), given that consumers may
be more likely to believe that the advertised brand is superior
to a single competitor than to all competitors.
To test H1 through H5, the following study examined
participants’ responses to various measures after exposure to
either a DC advertisement using a well-known competitor as
the comparison brand, an IC advertisement using “all other
brands” as the point of comparison, or an NC advertisement
devoid of competitive comparisons. Study 1 includes relative
measures (i.e., those that require judgments of the advertised
brand in comparison to some competitive reference point)
as well as nonrelative measures (i.e., those requiring judg-
ments without imposing a reference point; see Miniard et
al. 1993, 1998; Rose et al. 1993). Using these alternative
measurement formats, we assessed participants’ beliefs about
the advertised brand along the attributes featured in the
advertisement to gauge the positioning effectiveness of NC,
DC, and IC advertisements.
FIGURE 1
Direct Comparative
Direct Comparative Advertisement
Advertisement Indirect Comparative
Indirect ComparativeAdvertisement
Advertisement
IF YOU’RE LOOKING FOR A POWERFUL PAIN IF YOU’RE LOOKING FOR A POWERFUL PAIN
RELIEF MEDICINE, THEN LOOK NO FURTHER! RELIEF MEDICINE, THEN LOOK NO FURTHER!
NEW NEW
MITRAL-ES MITRAL-ES
POWERFUL PAIN RELIEF MEDICINE POWERFUL PAIN RELIEF MEDICINE
Mitral is fast-acting—independent medical tests Mitral is fast-acting—independent medical tests
conducted at Stanford, Harvard, and Northwestern conducted at Stanford, Harvard, and Northwestern
medical schools have shown that it is fully absorbed into medical schools have shown that it is fully absorbed into
the bloodstream in only 7 minutes, 30% faster than the bloodstream in only 7 minutes, 30% faster than any
Extra-Strength Tylenol. other brand of pain relief medicine.
The pain relief provided by Mitral is also long-lasting— The pain relief provided by Mitral is also long-lasting—
the same medical studies mentioned above have shown the same medical studies mentioned above have shown
that Mitral effectively relieves pain for a full 8 hours, that Mitral effectively relieves pain for a full 8 hours,
25% longer than Extra-Strength Tylenol. 25% faster than any other pain reliever.
Fast-acting, long-lasting Mitral-ES.* Fast-acting, long-lasting Mitral-ES.*
Powerful pain relief for your powerful headache. Powerful pain relief for your powerful headache.
*P.S. The “ES” in Mitral-ES stands for Extra Strength *P.S. The “ES” in Mitral-ES stands for Extra Strength
STUDY 1
Method
Participants and Design
One hundred and three undergraduate business students were
assigned randomly to one of three (DC, IC, or NC) advertise-
ment conditions. All ads promoted a fictitious brand of pain
reliever called “Mitral-ES” along two attributes (time required
for absorption into the bloodstream and duration of pain relief).
The use of two attributes allowed us to test for positioning
differences on each attribute separately, thereby enhancing
the generalizability of our findings. In the NC advertisement,
the claims presented information regarding the performance
of Mitral only. The DC advertisement included claims de-
tailing the superiority of Mitral relative to Extra-Strength
Tylenol. Finally, the IC advertisement featured claims that
favorably compared Mitral against “any other brand of pain
relief medicine.” Figure 1 presents the versions employed in
each advertisement condition.
Procedure
A meaningful test of the research hypotheses requires partici-
pants to engage in sufficient processing of the advertisements
to form beliefs about the advertised brand along the attributes
 Winter 2006 57

TABLE 1
Relative and Nonrelative Measures

Indirect relative measures

1. Relative brand attribute belief
2. Relative quality
3. Relative brand attitude
Direct relative measures
1. Relative brand attribute belief
2. Relative quality
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 12:23 18 October 2014
How likely is it that Mitral-ES is faster acting than all other brands of pain relief medicine?
(very unlikely = 1, very likely = 9)
Compared with all other brands of pain relief medicine, the overall quality of Mitral-ES is:
(much lower = 1, much higher = 9)
Compared with all other brands of pain relief medicine, my opinion of Mitral-ES is:
(more unfavorable = 1, more favorable = 9)
(more negative = 1, more positive = 9)
How likely is it that Mitral-ES is faster acting than Extra-Strength Tylenol?
(very unlikely = 1, very likely = 9)
Compared with Extra-Strength Tylenol, the overall quality of Mitral-ES is:

(much lower = 1, much higher = 9)

3. Relative brand attitude Compared with Extra-Strength Tylenol, my opinion of Mitral-ES is:
(more unfavorable = 1, more favorable = 9)
(more negative = 1, more positive = 9)
Nonrelative measures
1. Brand attribute belief How likely is it that Mitral-ES is fast acting?
(very unlikely = 1, very likely = 9)
2. Quality The overall quality of Mitral-ES is:
(very low = 1, very high = 9)
3. Brand attitude My opinion of Mitral-ES is:
(very unfavorable = 1, very favorable = 9)
(very negative = 1, very positive = 9)

featured in the advertising claims. Participants were therefore
informed that after being shown an advertisement for a new
brand of pain reliever, they would report their impressions
of the advertised brand and make a brand choice involving
pain relievers. They were then presented with two folders and
instructed to examine the advertisement (one of the three ver-
sions described earlier) contained in the top folder for as long
as they wished. Upon completion, participants closed this
folder and opened the next folder, which held a questionnaire.
Participants were not allowed to refer back to the advertise-
ment while completing the questionnaire.
Measures
The questionnaire contained both nonrelative and relative
measures (see Table 1 for examples) that used nine-point
response scales. Nonrelative measures assessed beliefs about
Mitral’s performance along each attribute featured in the ads.
Participants also evaluated overall quality. Brand attitude
was assessed by the average value (r = .96) of two scales, one
anchored by “favorable” and “unfavorable,” and the other by
“positive” and “negative.”
The questionnaire also contained two sets of measures rep-
resenting the relative counterparts of the nonrelative measures
(see Table 1). These two sets of relative measures differed with
respect to the reference point included in their response frames.
The direct relative measures assessed Mitral’s performance rela-
tive to Tylenol (for brand attitude, r = .96), while the indirect
relative measures employed “all other brands of pain relief
medicine” as a reference point (for brand attitude, r = .98). The
sequence of the three measurement sets was counterbalanced
across three different orders with each type of measure appearing
once in either the first, second, or third position. Because treat-
ment effects were unaffected by measurement order (p > .1), we
collapsed across this factor in all subsequent analyses. Finally,
participants also made a brand choice decision by indicating
whether they would choose Mitral or Tylenol.
Results
Tests of H1–H3
Our first three hypotheses collectively suggest an interac-
tion between advertising type and measurement set, such
that responses to the direct relative belief measures should
be most favorable in the DC advertisement condition (H1),
 58 The Journal of Advertising
responses to the indirect relative belief measures should be
most favorable in the IC advertisement condition (H2), and
responses to the nonrelative belief measures should not vary
across the three advertisement conditions (H3). To examine
these expectations, a 3 (advertising type: DC, IC, NC) × 3
(measurement set: direct relative, indirect relative, nonrela-
tive) × 2 (belief type: fast-acting, long-lasting) mixed-factor
ANOVA (analysis of variance), with advertising type as a
between-subjects factor and measurement set and belief type
as within-subjects factors, was undertaken for responses to
the measures assessing beliefs about Mitral’s performance
along the two attributes featured in the advertisement (cell
means are presented in Figure 2). Only two effects attained
significance. One involved a main effect of measurement set
( p < .001). Consistent with prior findings (Miniard et al.
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 12:23 18 October 2014
1993, 1998; Rose et al. 1993), participants reported more
favorable beliefs ( p < .001) when responding to the non-
relative measures (M = 7.14) than when responding to the
relative measures (for the direct relative measures, M = 6.11;
for the indirect relative measures, M = 5.81).
More important, the anticipated interaction between the
advertising type and measurement set factors was significant
( p < .02). To see whether this interaction conformed to the data
patterns predicted by H1–H3, we executed a series of simpli-
fied ANOVAs. H1 proposes that a DC advertisement is more
effective at positioning against the specific competitor used
as the comparison brand within the DC advertisement than
advertising that does not employ this competitor as an explicit
reference point. If so, then the DC advertisement should evoke
more favorable responses to the direct relative belief measures
than either the IC or NC advertisements. To test whether these
responses differed as predicted between the DC and IC adver-
tisements, they were submitted to a 2 (advertising type: DC,
IC) × 2 (belief type) ANOVA. Similarly, to determine whether
differences existed between the DC and NC advertisements,
these responses were analyzed using a 2 (advertising type:
DC, NC) × 2 (belief type) ANOVA. Both analyses supported
H1, as participants exposed to the DC advertisement reported
more favorable beliefs about the advertised brand relative to
the comparison brand than was the case for those given either
the IC (p = .058) or NC (p = .006) advertisements.1
Although H1 does not refer to how the IC and NC adver-
tisements would perform relative to each other in positioning
against a specific competitor, these two ads were compared in
another 2 (advertising type: IC, NC) × 2 (belief type) ANOVA.
No difference in beliefs was observed between them (p > .4). In
conjunction with the prior findings, these null effects indicate
that the IC and NC advertisements were equally inferior to the
DC advertisement in positioning the advertised brand against
a specific, well-known competitor.
H2 predicts that IC advertising claiming superiority over
all competitors is better at positioning the advertised brand
against the entire market than either DC or NC advertising. To
test H2, we employed a 2 × 2 ANOVA in which the advertis-
ing type factor contrasted the IC and DC advertisements, and
another ANOVA contrasting the IC and NC advertisements.
The advertising type factor was significant in both analyses (for
IC versus DC, p = .028; IC versus NC, p = .015), but not when
it contrasted the DC and NC advertisements (p > .7). These
results support the IC advertisement’s predicted superiority
in positioning against the entire market while also showing
that the DC and NC advertisements were equally inferior in
achieving this outcome.
Finally, H3 suggests that the different advertising types
will be equivalent in creating a noncompetitive positioning
for the advertised brand. To test this hypothesis, nonrelative
beliefs were analyzed using a 3 × 2 ANOVA that included all
three conditions in the advertising type factor. Advertising
type was not a significant factor ( p > .3), nor were any pairwise
comparisons among the advertisements significant ( p > .19).
Thus, as expected, the various advertisements were similar in
achieving a noncompetitive positioning.
To explore whether the positioning effects just reported
would carry over to participants’ more global brand evalua-
tions (see Figure 2 for cell means), we repeated the analytical
procedures described earlier, but replaced the two beliefs
with the two global evaluations (overall quality and brand
attitude). Consistent with the belief results, a 3 (advertising
type) × 3 (measurement set) × 2 (type of global evaluation)
ANOVA revealed a main effect of measurement set (p < .001)
due to more favorable responses (p < .001) to the nonrelative
global measures (M = 6.51) than to either the direct relative
(M = 5.39) or indirect relative (M = 5.87) measures. The
interaction between the advertising type and measurement
factors was also significant ( p < .04). Subsequent analyses
using 2 × 2 ANOVAs for each measurement set indicated
that the effects found for direct relative beliefs did carry
over to direct relative evaluations. Participants given the DC
advertisement reported more favorable evaluations of Mitral
relative to Tylenol than those receiving the IC (p = .054) or
NC (p = .029) advertisements. Differences did not exist, how-
ever, between the latter two advertisements ( p > .8). For the
indirect relative evaluations, they showed a similar pattern of
means to those observed for indirect relative beliefs, but did
not achieve statistical significance. Participants given the IC
advertisement did not report more favorable indirect relative
evaluations than those exposed to either the DC ( p = .24) or
NC ( p = .31) advertisements. Nor did these evaluations differ
between the DC and NC advertisements ( p > .8). Thus, the
IC advertisement’s superiority in positioning Mitral against
the entire market did not lead to a corresponding improve-
ment in participants’ evaluations of it relative to all other
brands. Finally, consistent with the lack of effects found for
the nonrelative beliefs, nonrelative evaluations did not differ
 Winter 2006 59

FIGURE 2
Observed Response Patterns in Study 1

Fast(er)-Acting Belief Long(er)-Lasting Belief

7.35 7.37 7.29

7.5 7.5
7.26
7.03
7 7 6.85
Response favorability

Response favorability
6.65 6.66
7.03 Direct relative measure 6.51 Direct relative measure
6.5 6.5 Indirect relative measure
Indirect relative measure
6.03
5.9 Nonrelative measure 6.23 Nonrelative measure
6 5.74 6
5.59
5.5 5.44
5.5 5.5
5.41
5 5
NC DC IC NC DC IC

Type of ad Type of ad
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 12:23 18 October 2014

Overall Quality Brand Attitude

7 7
6.56 6.57 6.60
6.76 Direct relative measure 6.41 6.81 Direct relative measure

Response favorability
6.5 6.5
Response favorability

6.18 6.11 Indirect relative measure Indirect relative measure

6.03
5.91 5.91
6 Nonrelative measure 6 5.82 Nonrelative measure

5.49
5.82 5.78
5.5 5.32 5.5
5.23 5.17

5 5
NC DC IC NC DC IC
Type of ad Type of ad
Note: NC = noncomparative advertising; DC = direct comparative advertising; IC = indirect comparative advertising.

across the advertisements (p > .6), nor were any of the pairwise
comparisons significant (p > .3).
We then tested the impact of the advertisements on partici-
pants’ choice of Mitral or Tylenol. Prior findings (Demirdjian
1983; Miniard et al. 1993; Rose et al. 1993) indicate that rela-
tive to NC advertising, DC advertising leads to more frequent
selection of the advertised brand over the comparison brand, as
would be expected, given its advantage in creating more favor-
able beliefs and attitudes toward the advertised brand relative
to the comparison brand. Consistent with this, 51.5% of the
participants given the DC advertisement selected Mitral, com-
pared with 35.3% of those exposed to the NC advertisement.
This difference was significant ( p = .045). However, only 25.7%
of those exposed to the IC advertisement chose the advertised
brand, a percentage lower than that observed for the DC adver-
tisement ( p < .007). A comparison between the NC and IC ads
was not significant (p > .19).
Tests of H4 and H5
H4 predicts that the DC advertisement will evoke more
favorable responses to the direct relative measures than to
the indirect relative measures, while H5 predicts that the
IC advertisement will result in more favorable responses
to the indirect relative measures than to the direct relative
measures. Collectively, then, H4 and H5 suggest an interac-
tion between the ad type and measurement type factors. To
evaluate these hypotheses, responses to the direct and indirect
relative measures were analyzed using a 2 (ad type: DC, IC) × 2
(measurement type: direct relative measures, indirect relative
measures) × 2 (belief type: fast-acting, long-lasting) mixed-
ANOVA. A marginally significant main effect of measurement
set (p < .1) was observed, reflecting more favorable responses
to the direct relative (M = 6.27) than to the indirect relative
(M = 5.96) measures. The analysis also yielded a marginally
significant ad type × belief type interaction (p < .1). While
the DC ad created more favorable beliefs ( p < .05) for the fast-
acting attribute (M = 6.38) than for the long-lasting attribute
(M = 6.14), exposure to the IC ad resulted in similar beliefs
( p > .7) about the attributes (for fast-acting, M = 6.34; for
long-lasting, M = 6.37).
More critically, and consistent with the predictions offered
in H4 and H5, an ad type × measurement set interaction
emerged (p < .05). To determine whether this interaction was
consistent with H4 and H5, we examined the responses to
the direct and indirect relative measures within each ad type
 60 The Journal of Advertising
using a 2 (measurement type) × 2 (belief type) ANOVA. As
predicted by H4, participants exposed to the DC advertisement
responded more favorably to the direct relative belief mea-
sures than to the indirect relative belief measures (p = .004).
In contrast, those given the IC advertisement showed more
favorable responses to the indirect relative belief measures
than to the direct relative belief measures (p = .034). Thus,
H5 was supported.
Discussion
The results of Study 1 both replicate and extend Pechmann
and Ratneshwar’s (1991) findings involving the effectiveness
of indirect comparative advertising claiming superiority over
all competitors. Consistent with Pechmann and Ratneshwar
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 12:23 18 October 2014
(1991) and H1, we find that the DC advertisement outper-
formed the IC advertisement in positioning the advertised
brand against a specific competitor. This superiority was re-
flected in the relative beliefs created by the DC advertisement
as well as in participants’ attitudes and product choices.
Unique to our research, though, are the findings involving
H2 through H5. Study 1 reveals that the IC advertisement’s
weakness in positioning the advertised brand against a specific
competitor is reflected not only in its performance relative to
the DC advertisement, but also in terms of how it compared to
its success in positioning the advertised brand against the en-
tire market. Nonetheless, we further show that the previously
unappreciated strength of IC advertising claiming superiority
over all competitors lies in its greater success in achieving this
more global competitive positioning. Finally, we demonstrate
its equivalence to the DC and NC advertisements in achieving
a noncompetitive product positioning.
At the same time, however, Study 1 and Pechmann and
Ratneshwar’s (1991) research are limited by not considering
whether spontaneous activation of specific competitors dur-
ing ad processing alters the positioning effectiveness of IC
advertising. This omission by Pechmann and Ratneshwar is
understandable given their assumption that consumers “are
not likely to spontaneously identify these other brands” when
processing the IC advertisement (p. 148). In contrast, we have
suggested that some consumers will spontaneously think
about specific competitors (e.g., a well-known brand or the
brand currently used). When this occurs, consumers’ mental
representations will contain both the abstract reference point
prompted by the IC advertisement (e.g., all other brands)
and the specific reference point resulting from the activation
of a particular competitor (e.g., Tylenol). If so, then the IC
advertisement’s inferiority in positioning against a specific
competitor should be eliminated for those consumers who
spontaneously activate this competitor during ad processing.
Only when this competitor is not activated should the IC
advertisement prove less effective in positioning against the
competitor rather than the entire market. This reasoning leads
to the following extension of H5:
H6: The effectiveness of IC advertising claiming superiority
over all others in positioning the advertised brand against a
specific competitor versus the entire market depends on whether
this competitor is activated spontaneously during processing.
(a) When the competitor is not activated, the IC ad should be
more effective in positioning the advertised brand against the
entire market than against the specific competitor.
(b) When the competitor is activated, no difference in positioning
effectiveness (i.e., specific competitor versus entire market) should
occur.
To test H6, a second study was undertaken in which partici-
pants responded to both direct and indirect relative measures
after exposure to an IC advertisement. Evidence concerning
the activation of specific reference points was obtained from
a self-report measure of the particular competitors thought
about during ad processing. Participants were classified into
two groups that differed in terms of whether they thought
about the competitor used as the reference point in the direct
relative measure.
STUDY 2
Method
Fifty undergraduate business students received the same IC
advertisement used in Study 1. Study 2 also followed Study 1
in terms of procedures and measures, with three exceptions.
The first change involved altering participants’ processing in-
structions. Rather than telling them to evaluate the advertised
brand in anticipation of a forthcoming choice, a less directive
instruction was used in which they were told to look at the ad
as they normally would if they encountered it in a magazine
(for a similar procedure, see Pechmann 1992; Pechmann and
Ratneshwar 1991). This change seemed warranted, given that
anticipating a choice might encourage thoughts about other
brands that might be present in the choice set, thereby reduc-
ing the sample size needed for representing those not thinking
about the specific competitor of interest. Second, participants
completed the direct and indirect relative belief measures,
but were not given the nonrelative measures. Measurement
order was counterbalanced across participants. As in Study 1,
we collapsed across these order conditions in the subsequent
analyses because order did not impact our findings ( p > .1).
Finally, participants responded to an open-ended probe asking
them to list which brands, if any, they thought about while
looking at the advertisement. This probe appeared immedi-
ately after ad processing (to enhance sensitivity) and prior to
the measures (to avoid contamination).

FIGURE 3
Observed Response Patterns in Study 2
Faster-Acting Belief
6.4
6.29
6.3
6.33
Response favorability
Response favorability
6.2
Direct relative measure
6.1 6.17
Indirect relative measure
6 5.8
5.9
5.8 5.73
5.7
Yes No
Thought about Tylenol
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 12:23 18 October 2014
Results
Responses to the open-ended probe indicated that 36 of the
50 participants spontaneously generated one or more specific
competitors when looking at the IC advertisement. All but 1
of the 36 reported thinking about Tylenol, the reference point
used in the direct relative measures. Accordingly, participants
were divided based on those who reported thinking about
Tylenol (n = 35) versus those who did not (n = 15).
According to H6a, an IC advertisement claiming superior-
ity over all others will be more effective in positioning against
the entire market (as measured by indirect relative belief
measures) than against a specific competitor (as gauged by the
direct relative measures) when the specific competitor is not ac-
tivated during processing of the advertisement. However, H6b
predicts no difference in positioning effectiveness when the
competitor is considered during processing. Support for these
predictions thus requires a significant interaction between the
factor representing whether or not the specific competitor was
spontaneously activated and the measurement set factor.
To test these predictions, responses to the belief measures
were submitted to a 2 × 2 × 2 mixed-factor ANOVA in which
thinking (did/did not think about Tylenol) served as a be-
tween-subjects factor, while measurement set (direct/indirect)
and belief type (fast-acting/long-lasting) served as within-
subjects factors (see Figure 3 for cell means). Only the antici-
pated thinking × measurement set interaction was significant
(p < .02). Consistent with H6a, follow-up analyses revealed
that those not thinking about the particular competitor iden-
tified in the direct relative measures when processing the IC
advertisement provided less favorable responses to the direct
relative measures than was the case for the indirect relative
measures ( p = .013). As predicted in H6b, however, partici-
pants did not differ in their responses to these measures when
the competitor was activated during ad processing (p > .18).
That is, for those spontaneously generating the competitor,
the IC advertisement was equally effective in positioning the
Winter 2006 61
Longer-Lasting Belief
6.4
6.31 6.27
6.2
Direct relative measure
6.0
Indirect relative measure
5.91
5.6
5.47
5.4
Yes No
Thought about Tylenol
advertised brand against the entire market and the activated
competitive brand. These results support the response patterns
anticipated by H6a and H6b.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
One might expect that a brand possessing an advantage over
all competitors should emphasize this point of differentiation
in its advertising. Counter to this intuition, however, Pech-
mann and Ratneshwar (1991) showed that claims of superior-
ity over all competitors were often less effective in positioning
the advertised brand against a specific competitor, and were
never more effective than directly claiming superiority over
this competitor. Similarly, the aggregative analyses of Study 1
indicated that the IC advertisement was less successful than the
DC advertisement in positioning the advertised brand against
the competitor referenced in the DC advertisement. As such,
these results reinforce Pechmann and Ratneshwar’s conclusions
about IC advertising’s limitation in positioning the advertised
brand relative to a specific competitor when this assessment
disregards the potential for spontaneous activation of particular
competitors during ad processing.
The results from Study 2, however, revealed a more complex
picture of IC advertising’s positioning effectiveness. The IC
advertisement’s weakness in positioning the advertised brand
against a specific competitor in relation to its ability to position
the advertised brand against the entire market—a weakness
initially documented by the aggregative analyses used in Study
1 and replicated in Study 2 among participants who did not
think about this competitor during ad processing—disappeared
among those participants who did spontaneously activate the
competitor. Thus, Study 2’s findings make clear that ignoring
the potential for spontaneous activation of competitive brands
leads to an underappreciation of IC advertising’s ability to posi-
tion the advertised brand against a particular competitor.
Positioning against a single competitor is, of course, not
the only option available to advertisers. Positioning against
 62 The Journal of Advertising
the entire market is also possible, especially when one is in the
enviable position of being able to claim some advantage over
all competitors. Study 1 shows the superiority of IC advertis-
ing over DC and NC advertising in achieving this form of
positioning. Collectively, then, our findings suggest a much
more favorable view of the merits of IC advertising claiming
superiority of one brand over all others than is presently avail-
able in the comparative advertising literature.
Study 2 also adds to our understanding of the role played
by consumers’ thinking during ad processing in shaping per-
suasion processes and outcomes. Cognitive responses are often
utilized to glean insights into the process underlying persua-
sion outcomes (e.g., Campbell and Kirmani 2000; Miniard et
a1. 1991; Wansink, Ray, and Batra 1994; Wright 1973). To
the best of our knowledge, the findings from Study 2 are the
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 12:23 18 October 2014
first to implicate the simple activation of brand names as an
important determinant of persuasion outcomes.
Managerial Implications
Presumably, one objective of the Soft Scrub cleanser advertise-
ment claiming that the product “outcleans all other liquid
abrasive cleansers on soap scum and bathtub ring” is to create
the perception that the product is superior to all others on
this particular dimension. If so, then our findings support
the potential for IC advertising of this nature to be more
successful than either NC or DC advertising in achieving
this positioning. In positioning the brand against specific
competitors, however, the attractiveness of IC advertising
will depend on the advertiser’s objectives. If the objective is to
position a brand against a specific competitor in the minds of
every consumer exposed to the advertisement, IC advertising
claiming superiority over all competitors represents an inferior
option to DC advertising that explicitly references this specific
competitor as the comparison brand. Of course, for nonusers
of the comparison brand featured in DC advertising, creating
this perceived superiority may do little to get them to switch
from the brand they currently use to the advertised brand.
Much more valuable, it would seem, would be to position
the advertised brand as superior to the consumer’s current
brand, while at the same time, maintaining sufficient flexibility
to accommodate different consumers using different brands.
For this objective, IC advertising that positions the advertised
brand as superior to all others should have a significant advan-
tage. To the extent that consumers spontaneously think about
their current brand when processing claims of the advertised
brand’s superiority over all others, then IC advertising should
be effective in positioning the advertised brand against the
consumer’s current option regardless of which brand this might
be. Unlike DC advertising, then, IC advertising should help
the advertised brand court users from all of its competitors.
Finally, our results should caution practitioners about the
potential pitfall of using comparative claims that fail to identify
specific competitors. One might believe that claiming superior-
ity over all competitors will lead consumers to perceive that this
advantage holds for each specific competitor. As we have seen,
however, this need not be the case, such as when consumers do
not spontaneously think about a particular competitor during
processing. To increase the odds that consumers will encode an
advertised advantage over a specific competitor, it would seem
advisable to explicitly refer to the competitor within the adver-
tisement. Thus, if a company wants consumers to perceive that
its pain reliever is faster acting than all other brands and also
wishes to ensure that consumers will perceive this advantage
relative to, say, Tylenol, we recommend that the advertisement
specify that the advertised brand is “faster acting than all other
brands, including Tylenol.”
Plausibility of a Demand Explanation
One might be concerned that our findings are tainted by de-
mand artifacts, in which participants’ responses were driven
by their perceptions of experimenter expectations rather than
reflecting their true reactions to the advertisements. This con-
cern should be diminished, however, by considering the results
for the IC advertisement. From a demand perspective, partici-
pants exposed to an ad claiming that the advertised brand is
superior to all other brands should perceive the experimenter
as expecting them to report that the advertised brand is better
than all others. Participants conforming to these expectations
should not only report that they believe this, but also that the
advertised brand is better than any single competitor. In other
words, if participants infer that they are expected to perceive the
advertised brand as superior to all competitors, they should also
infer that they are expected to perceive the advertised brand as
superior to any single competitor. Both inferences would lead
to equally favorable responses to the direct and indirect relative
measures. In contrast, we find that, as predicted, those given the
IC advertisement in Study 1 and Study 2 (so long as they did
not spontaneously generate the specific brand during processing)
responded more favorably to the indirect relative measures than
the direct relative measures. These observed response patterns
are at odds with those suggested by a demand account.
Limitations and Future Research
Beyond the typical reservations that accompany research us-
ing student participants engaged in deliberate processing of
a single advertisement in artificial viewing conditions (Mc-
Quarrie 1998), there are additional aspects of our research
that constrain the generalizability of our findings. The brand
featured in our advertisements was unknown, thereby limit-
ing our results to settings in which consumers form beliefs
and attitudes, as opposed to situations in which the brand is

well known and consumers hold preexisting beliefs and atti-
tudes. Consequently, we can’t say whether our findings would
extend to the latter situations or how they might be affected
by factors such as the relative market shares of the advertised
and comparison brands (Pechmann and Stewart 1990). Given
that many advertisements in the marketplace involve familiar
brands, future research should examine the extent to which
the current findings generalize to advertising featuring brands
that are familiar, or even well known, to consumers.
Our choice results are also constrained by the fact that
participants’ selections were limited to the advertised and
comparison brands, a constraint that would rarely exist in
the marketplace. Moreover, as an indicator of positioning
effectiveness, this simplistic choice most likely favored the
DC advertisement, given that it should have served as a more
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 12:23 18 October 2014
effective retrieval cue for those receiving this advertisement
relative to the IC and NC advertisements. Allowing partici-
pants to choose among all of the brands typically available in
the marketplace for this product category would have not only
provided a more ecologically valid choice context, but may
also have facilitated the retrieval for participants exposed to
the IC advertisement.
By extolling the competitive advantages of their brand in
DC advertising, advertisers hope to encourage users of the
comparison brand to switch to the advertised brand. Yet us-
ers of the comparison brand are less accepting of attacks on
their brand than are users of other competitive brands (Barone
and Miniard 1999; McDougall 1978; Prasad 1976; Wu and
Shaffer 1987). Unfortunately, we did not identify users of the
comparison brand featured in the DC advertisement in Study
1. This prevented us from examining whether these users dif-
fer in their acceptance of the DC and IC claims. Because their
brand is not explicitly identified in the IC claims, perhaps
comparison brand users are less defensive in their responses
to the advertisement. It is interesting to consider the possibil-
ity that if comparison brand users spontaneously think about
their brand, but feel less threatened because their brand is only
implicitly implied along with all others, they might be more
accepting of the advertised brand’s claims of superiority over
their brand than is the case for DC advertising. We encour-
age future research to explore this potential advantage that IC
advertising might hold over DC advertising.
Future research might also seek to deepen our under-
standing of the spontaneous activation of brands during ad
processing. Although the findings from Study 2 are at odds
with Pechmann and Ratneshwar’s (1991) presumption that
consumers are unlikely to spontaneously activate specific com-
petitors when processing IC advertising, the existence of this
sort of processing in more naturalistic viewing environments is
unknown. Furthermore, we know virtually nothing about the
form that this type of mental activity may take (e.g., thinking
about one’s current brand versus other well-known brands)
Winter 2006 63
and the factors that could influence it (e.g., whether different
types of IC claims vary in their propensity to evoke sponta-
neous activation). Indeed, interesting questions still remain
unanswered in the domain of comparative advertising.
NOTE
1. Analyses testing hypothesized differences between the
advertisement conditions employed one-tailed tests. Such tests
are indicated by the reporting of exact p values (e.g., p = .02).
In contrast, the conventional style for reporting p values (e.g.,
p < .05) indicates two-tailed tests whenever a priori expectations
about differential response patterns between two advertisement
conditions did not exist. Beyond helping the reader to follow
whether a particular test was one-tailed or two-tailed, this nota-
tional system provides precise information about the statistical
consequences of using one-tailed tests.
REFERENCES
Barone, Michael J., and Paul W. Miniard (1999), “How and When
Factual Ad Claims Can Mislead Consumers: Examining the
Deceptive Consequences of Copy × Copy Interactions for
Partial Comparative Ads,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36
(February), 58–74.
Campbell, Margaret C., and Amna Kirmani (2000), “Consumers’
Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibil-
ity and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence
Agent,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 ( June), 69–83.
Demirdjian, Z. S. (1983), “Sales Effectiveness of Comparative
Advertising: An Experimental Field Investigation,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 10 (December), 362–364.
Dröge, Cornelia, and Rene Darmon (1987), “Associative Position-
ing Strategies Through Comparative Advertising: Attribute
Versus Overall Similarity Approaches,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 24 (November), 377–388.
Friestad, Marian, and Esther Thorson (1993), “Remembering
Ads: The Effects of Encoding Strategies, Retrieval Cues,
and Emotional Response,” Journal of Consumer Psychology,
2 (1), 1–23.
Gorn, Gerald J., and Charles B. Weinberg (1984), “The Impact
of Comparative Advertising on Perception and Attitude:
Some Positive Findings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11
(September), 719–727.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1987), “Memory Factors in Advertising: The
Effect of Advertising Retrieval Cues on Brand Evaluations,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 316–333.
Manning, Kenneth C., Paul W. Miniard, Michael J. Barone, and
Randall L. Rose (2001), “Understanding the Mental Rep-
resentations Created by Comparative Advertising,” Journal
of Advertising, 30 (Summer), 27–39.
McDougall, Gordon H. (1978), “Comparative Advertising: The
Effect of Claim Type and Brand Loyalty,” in Current Issues
and Research in Advertising, James H. Leigh and Claude R.
Martin, eds., Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
39–52.
 64 The Journal of Advertising
McQuarrie, Edward F. (1998), “Have Laboratory Experiments
Become Detached from Advertiser Goals? A Meta-Analysis,”
Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (November/December),
15–25.
Miniard, Paul W., Sunil Bhatla, Kenneth R. Lord, Peter R. Dick-
son, and H. Rao Unnava (1991), “Picture-Based Persuasion
Processes and the Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 18 ( June), 92–107.
———, Randall L. Rose, Michael J. Barone, and Kenneth C.
Manning (1993), “On the Need for Relative Measures When
Assessing the Persuasiveness of Comparative Advertising,”
Journal of Advertising, 22 (September), 41–57.
———, ———, Kenneth C. Manning, and Michael J. Barone
(1998), “Tracking the Effects of Comparative and Non-
comparative Advertising with Relative and Nonrelative
Measures: A Further Examination of the Framing Cor-
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 12:23 18 October 2014
respondence Hypothesis,” Journal of Business Research, 41
(February), 137–143.
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 (November), 411–453.
———, and S. Ratneshwar (1991), “The Use of Comparative
Advertising for Brand Positioning: Association Versus Dif-
ferentiation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (September),
145–160.
———, and David W. Stewart (1990), “The Effects of Com-
parative Advertising on Attention, Memory, and Purchase
Intentions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September),
180–191.
Prasad, V. Kanti (1976), “Communications Effectiveness of
Comparative Advertising: A Laboratory Analysis,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 13 (May), 128–137.
Rose, Randall L., Paul W. Miniard, Michael J. Barone, Kenneth
C. Manning, and Brian D. Till (1993), “When Persuasion
Goes Undetected: The Case of Comparative Advertising,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (August), 315–330.
Snyder, Rita (1992), “Comparative Advertising and Brand
Evaluation: Toward Developing a Categorization Approach,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (1), 15–30.
Tulving, Endel, and Donald M. Thomson (1973), “Encoding
Specificity and Retrieval Processes in Episodic Memory,”
Psychological Review, 80 (5), 352–373.
Walker, Beth A., John L. Swasy, and Arno J. Rethans (1986),
“The Impact of Comparative Advertising on Perception
Formation in New Product Introductions,” in Advances in
Consumer Research, vol. 13, Richard J. Lutz, ed., Ann Arbor,
MI: Association for Consumer Research, 121–125.
Wansink, Brian, Michael L. Ray, and Rajeev Batra (1994), “In-
creasing Cognitive Response Sensitivity,” Journal of Advertis-
ing, 23 ( June), 65–75.
Wilkie, William L., and Paul W. Farris (1973), “Comparison
Advertising: Problems and Potential,” Journal of Marketing,
39 (October), 7–15.
Wright, Peter L. (1973), “The Cognitive Processes Mediating
Acceptance of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing Research,
10 (February), 53–62.
Wu, Chenguan, and David R. Shaffer (1987), “Susceptibility
to Persuasive Appeals as a Function of Source Cred-
ibility and Prior Experience with the Attitude Object,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (April),
677–688.