Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav.

12: 133–147 (2013)

Published online 4 March 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.1421

Direct or indirect comparative ads: The moderating role of information

processing modes
ARTI D. KALRO1*, BHARADHWAJ SIVAKUMARAN2 and RAHUL R. MARATHE3
1
Shailesh J Mehta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Mumbai 400 076, India
2
Great Lakes Institute of Management, Chennai 600 015, India
3
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennai 600 036, India

ABSTRACT

Comparative advertising is widely used as a persuasion tool. Contemporary advertisers employ both direct (e.g. “Total Corn Flakes
have more nutritional ingredients than Kellogg Corn Flakes”) and indirect comparative advertisements (e.g. “Total Corn Flakes have more
nutritional ingredients than other corn flakes”) in their campaigns. Consumers process ads predominantly either through analytical
(using reason and semantics) or imagery (using nonverbal, sensory representation of perceptual information) modes of processing.
Drawing on extant research in advertising and information processing, we posit that direct comparisons are better suited for analytical
processing while indirect ones are more amenable for imagery processing.
Using a 2*2 factorial design (comparison format—direct/indirect; mode of information processing—analytical/imagery), we show that
direct (indirect) comparative advertisements are more effective in reducing perceived manipulative intent, enhancing attitude toward the
advertisement, and increasing the perceived differences between the brands for consumers using analytical (imagery) information
processing modes.
We add to the comparative advertising literature by identifying a moderator (mode of information processing) that influences the effectiveness
of direct and indirect comparisons. Further, we study indirect comparisons when most extant research considers direct comparisons.
Managerially, our work suggests that advertisers using comparative advertising should use direct comparisons under analytical processing
conditions and use indirect comparisons under imagery processing conditions. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION, LITERATURE REVIEW, AND
MOTIVATION FOR STUDY
Comparative advertising is widely used as a persuasion tool.
Some classic examples of comparative advertising campaigns
are that of Avis versus Hertz (Lawrence, 1993) and Silverado
trucks by General Motors versus Dodge Ram trucks by
Chrysler Corp (Williams, 2012). Comparative advertising
is widely used in emerging markets as well (Kalro et al.,
2010); some recent examples include Ford India versus
the rest (Singh, 2011) and Reckitt Benckiser’s Quantum
dishwashing detergent versus Procter & Gamble’s Cascade
(Neff, 2011). Sometimes, brands are compelled to retaliate
to competitor attacks. For instance in India, Complan (a Heinz
brand) launched a broadside against Horlicks, the market
leader owned by GlaxoSmithKline. Horlicks in turn retaliated
forcefully with a direct comparison campaign (Bhushan and
Chatterjee, 2008). It would have been nearly impossible for
Horlicks not to retaliate.
Brands using comparative advertising may make a direct
reference (where a competitor is explicitly named/shown;
e.g. “Total Corn Flakes have more nutritional ingredients
than Kellogg Corn Flakes”) (Wilkie and Farris, 1975) or an
indirect reference (the competitor is implicitly referred to,
without naming it) to their competitor(s) (Jackson et al., 1979).
Some forms of indirect comparisons include references like
“compared to the leading brand,” “compared to Brand X,”
“better than other brands,” “compared to all other brands,” or
*Correspondence to: Arti D. Kalro, Assistant Professor, Shailesh J. Mehta School
of Management, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400 076, India.
E-mail: kalro.arti@iitb.ac.in
visual comparisons without naming the competitor (Miniard
et al., 2006). Hence, for this study, we adopt the comprehen-
sive definition of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
defining comparative advertising as “advertising which
compares alternative brands on objectively measurable
attributes or price, and identifies the alternative brand by
name, illustration, or other distinctive information” (Federal
Register, USA, 1979, pp. 47328–47329).
In many consumer markets (like USA, India, and Philippines),
advertisers use a mix of both direct and indirect comparisons
(Millward Brown, 2009). Consistent with this report, Kalro
et al. (2010) find that 68 per cent of all comparative ads are
direct while 32 per cent are indirect. However, very few studies
have looked at studying direct versus indirect comparative
ads (e.g. Walker and Anderson, 1991; Snyder, 1992). Most
of the extant literature on comparative advertising focuses
on direct comparisons versus noncomparative advertisements
(e.g., Polyorat and Alden, 2005; Thompson and Hamilton,
2006; Pillai and Goldsmith, 2008). It is not sufficient to
look at only direct comparisons because direct and indirect
comparisons are processed differently (e.g. Walker and
Anderson, 1991; Snyder, 1992). Snyder (1992) showed that
direct comparisons promote exemplar-based processing and
indirect comparisons promote prototype-based processing.
Therefore, advertisers who want to use comparative advertis-
ing are either unsure of which (direct or indirect) to use or
end up using direct comparisons (since this is the “default”),
when in fact indirect comparisons may be warranted in
their case.
The widespread use of both direct and indirect comparisons
and, sometimes, the simultaneous use of them by the same
advertiser (Kalro et al., 2010) suggest that these different

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

134 A. D. Kalro et al.
comparative formats (direct and indirect) aim at different
consumer segments. Additionally, Soscia et al. (2010) show
that not all customers belonging to a product target group
perceive comparative advertising equivalently. Hence, gener-
alizing conclusions across varying formats of comparative
ads (direct versus indirect) is very difficult (Walker and
Anderson, 1991). As mentioned earlier, most research in this
area looks at the effectiveness of comparative versus noncom-
parative ads while we attempt to answer the question “given
comparative advertising, which one to use, direct or indirect?”
Few studies that have considered direct versus indirect
comparisons have identified variables such as typicality of
featured attribute (Pechmann and Ratneshwar, 1991), brand
position in the marketplace (Snyder, 1992), claim substantia-
tion (WoonBong et al., 2006), and culture (Jeon and Beatty,
2002) moderating the relationship between comparison format
(direct versus indirect) and advertising effectiveness. We
study the effectiveness of direct and indirect comparisons
in conjunction with mode of information processing (analytical
and imagery).
Looking at information processing modes, Thompson and
Hamilton (2006) examine consumers’ readiness to process
information in either a comparative or a noncomparative
format. Based on research on the processability of information
(ease with which consumers process information), they
classify the consumer’s readiness to process information
into imagery (using nonverbal, sensory representation of
perceptual information) and analytical (using reason and
semantics) processing modes. They demonstrate that adver-
tising effectiveness depends on the degree of consistency
between the consumer’s information processing mode and
the advertising formats (comparative versus noncomparative).
Briefly, their study shows that when consumers engage in
analytical processing, comparative advertisements are more
effective, and when consumers engage in imagery processing,
noncomparative advertisements are more effective. However,
Thompson and Hamilton (2006) consider only direct and
do not consider indirect comparisons, whereas in the
marketplace, advertisers use both direct and indirect
comparisons. Moreover, direct and indirect comparisons
need not work in the same manner.
Thus, the goal of this study is to examine whether
advertisers should match different comparative advertising
formats (direct/indirect) with different modes of information
processing (analytical/imagery) to enhance the effectiveness
of comparative advertisements. In other words, should
advertisers use direct/indirect comparisons under different
information processing conditions (analytical/imagery)?
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH
HYPOTHESES
In this section, we briefly explain the different informa-
tion processing modes and the choice of dependent
variables. Then we draw on prior literature and come up with
hypotheses linking comparison formats (direct/indirect)
and information processing modes (analytical/imagery)
with perceived manipulative intent, attitude toward the
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
advertisement, and perceived differences between the
brands as dependent variables.
Analytical and imagery information processing
The process through which a consumer is exposed to
information and how he or she attends to it, comprehends
it, places it in memory, and retrieves it for later use is called
information processing (MacInnis and Price, 1987). These
processing modes may vary in terms of how consumers
elaborate information while processing an advertisement.
Oliver et al. (1993) observed that the consumers might
elaborate the information present in an advertisement, using
either of the two qualitative information processing modes:
analytical or imagery.
Consumers who predominantly employ the analytical
mode of information processing use reason and semantics,
and those who predominantly employ imagery information
processing use nonverbal, sensory representation of perceptual
information (Childers et al., 1985). Although these modes
are not mutually exclusive, one mode usually dominates
the other (MacInnis and Price, 1987). In the analytical mode
of information processing, consumers evaluate products on
an attribute-by-attribute basis (Sujan, 1985), while in the
imagery mode of information processing, the product is
evaluated on the overall quality of the imagined experience
with the product (Keller and McGill, 1994).
This research examines only the interaction effects
(e.g. comparison formats * information processing modes
on perceived manipulative intent) and not the main effects
(e.g. direct versus indirect on perceived manipulative
intent). This is because prior research (e.g. Pechmann and
Ratneshwar, 1991; Neese and Taylor, 1994; Jeon and
Beatty, 2002; WoonBong et al., 2006) shows that one
cannot make a sweeping generalization that direct compari-
sons are always better/worse than indirect ones; it depends
on certain moderating variables.
Choice of dependent variables
This study considers three dependent variables: perceived
manipulative intent, attitude toward the advertisement, and
perceived brand differences.
Perceived manipulative intent refers to a state where “a
consumer infers that the advertiser is attempting to persuade
him/her by inappropriate, unfair, or manipulative means”
(Campbell, 1995). Chang (2007) elaborates on the findings
of Boush et al. (1994), which reveal that although skepticism
toward advertising is a general phenomenon, tactics like
comparative advertising magnify the skepticism. Judgments
such as manipulativeness of persuasive tactics influence the
believability of the advertisement and consequently influence
a consumer’s behavioral responses (Yagci et al., 2009).
Hence, we consider this as one of the dependent variables.
While many researchers have studied consumers’ attitudes
toward direct comparative advertisements versus their
attitudes toward noncomparative advertisements (Goodwin
and Etgar, 1980; Belch, 1981; Swinyard, 1981; Gorn and
Weinberg, 1984; Dröge and Darmon, 1987; Donthu, 1998),
there is scant research to understand consumers’ attitude
toward direct versus indirect comparative advertisements.
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 133–147 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Comparative ads: Role of information processing modes
This study attempts to investigate consumers’ attitude toward
different comparative advertising formats (direct and indirect).
Thus, attitude toward the ad (Aad) is included as the second
dependent variable.
Creating perceived differences between the advertised
brand and the referred-to brand(s) is critical because this
helps the advertised brand establish a distinct position
vis-à-vis other brand(s) in the consideration set (Dickson
and Ginter, 1987). Further, Nakanishi and Bettman (1974)
suggest that the greater the perceived variation among the
brands on a specific attribute, the greater is the perceived
importance of that attribute as a choice or evaluation
criterion. Therefore, this study considers perceived brand
differences as the third dependent variable.
Interaction effects of comparison formats and informa-
tion processing modes on the dependent variables
Previous research has shown that comparative ads (noncom-
parative ads) are more effective when consumers use analytical
(imagery) information processing (Thompson and Hamilton,
2006). The underlying premise is that, by definition, compara-
tive advertisements are relational (Muehling et al., 1990) and
consumers cannot process the comparative claims in isolation
from one another. This relational evaluation across brands
results in consumers integrating the claims about the advertis-
ing brand, along with the comparative information given
about the other referred-to brand(s). This integration stimulates
processing and increases the likelihood of cognitive elabora-
tion. Thus, comparative claims facilitate the assessment of
the advertising brand’s benefits over competitor(s), making
comparative ads more effective under analytical processing.
Research shows that consumers process direct and indirect
comparisons differently (Walker and Anderson, 1991; Snyder,
1992). While direct comparisons are processed with reference
to an exemplar (a particular member of the category to which
the new stimulus is compared, typically a market leader),
indirect ones evoke a prototype (idealized or average set of
features of category members to which the new stimulus is
compared) in consumers’ minds (Snyder, 1992). Using this
logic, it is apparent that direct comparisons are possibly
more suited to analytical processing, since the exemplar
referred to by Snyder (1992) is concrete and well recognized
by the audience. On the other hand, indirect comparisons
may be more suited for imagery processing conditions, since
the prototype is an idealized set of features, and this is not
very concrete and apparent; rather, it is more abstract, therefore
lending itself to imagery processing.
Walker and Anderson (1991) also state that when a
claim is implicit (i.e. indirect), the ad is not processed with
reference to specific points (in other words, it is more amena-
ble to imagery processing) whereas when the claim is explicit
(i.e. direct), the ad is processed with reference to specific
points (in other words, more amenable to analytic processing).
Direct comparisons that name competitors provide more
opportunity for audience involvement, in terms of comparing
the advertised brand with the “specific” referred-to brand(s)
(Wilson and Muderrisoglu, 1980). This high involvement
will be effective under analytical processing, because in
this mode of processing, consumers prefer explicitly named
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
135
competitors so that they can use these encoding cues as a
point of reference for interpreting claims about the advertised
brand’s merits over the competitor(s) mentioned. Further, the
use of direct comparisons against competitors, for consumers
engaging in analytical processing, will reduce the perceived
manipulative intent of the advertiser and enhance attitudinal
responses. This is because the presentation of congruent
facts facilitates the development of an elaborate associative
network, thus enhancing information availability (Bradshaw
and Anderson, 1982). This information availability increases
the vividness of information, and comparisons across the
competitors activate the preexisting knowledge structures of
the consumers (Dröge, 1989). Thus, the audience may come
to value such information because it makes decision making
easier and reduces current or later search efforts (Lynch and
Srull, 1982; Cohen and Basu, 1987).
In addition, also in direct comparisons, consumers create
mental representations in relation to a specific reference point
(the referred-to brand in the advertisement). Concurrently,
analytical information processing is data driven, leading
consumers to evaluate products on an attribute-by-attribute
basis (Sujan, 1985), and this encourages them to summarize
features across brands rather than focus on a single brand
(MacInnis and Price, 1987). Therefore, in direct compari-
sons, consumers engaged in analytical processing learn from
the information on the relative merits of a sponsoring brand
and competing brands. Hence, under analytical conditions
where the processing is data driven and focused on verbal
retrieval and encoding (MacInnis and Price, 1987), direct
comparisons will be more effective in creating differentiation
between the sponsored brand and the referred-to brand.
Hence, we posit the following:
H1a: When consumers engage in analytical processing,
perceived manipulative intent will be lower in direct
comparisons than in indirect comparisons.
H2a: When consumers engage in analytical processing,
direct comparative ads will have stronger Aad than indirect
comparative ads.
H3a: When consumers engage in analytical processing,
perceived brand differences will be higher in direct
comparisons than in indirect comparisons.
Studies suggest that while processing comparative ads
that make implicit claims over other brands (e.g., “Malayala
Manorama has a circulation that’s greater than that of
the No.2, No. 3, No.4 dailies put together”), it is likely that
the base category level schema is automatically activated
(Miniard et al., 2006). Walker and Anderson (1991) also
state that “since the implicit claim does not contain specific
points, which conflict with the general (or base category level
schema), consumers will process the advertisement naturally
and automatically, with minimal conflict”. There is support
for the notion that creating cognitive load by providing
surplus information (for instance, by explicitly naming
the competitors) may consume more cognitive resources
and consequently hinder imagery processing (Petrova and
Cialdini, 2005). This suggests that indirect comparisons
will be compatible with imagery processing. It will be easy
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 133–147 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
136 A. D. Kalro et al.
to imagine the product in indirect comparisons, since they
will be free of the other distracting brands. Further, imagery
processing is holistic in nature. Consumers’ cognitive resources
for processing information across brands on various attributes
are reduced (MacInnis and Price, 1987). Thus, indirect
comparisons will accord better with the imagery mode of
information processing, where consumers evaluate the
product on the overall quality of the imagined experience
with the product (Keller and McGill, 1994) and not on
specific points.
Using the logic of abstraction-based positioning (i.e. achiev-
ing brand consideration but without directly comparing against
the market leader or a strong brand), indirect comparisons will
help the sponsored brand position itself against the entire
market (Miniard et al., 2006). In addition, under imagery pro-
cessing, indirect comparisons lead to product-category level
activation, and this will enhance the consumers’ process of
“imagined experience” with the product. Therefore, indirect
comparisons are consistent with imagery processing, and this
will reduce perceived manipulative intent and create positive
attitude toward the advertisement.
While processing indirect comparisons, it is likely that the
consumers activate the basic level category automatically
because indirect comparisons do not identify the competitors
explicitly. For example, consider the phrase “Skippy Peanut
Butter has more protein than any other sandwich food.”
In this case, consumers may infer that “Skippy” is the best
sandwich food (Walker and Anderson, 1991). Recent research
(Miniard et al., 2006) has shown that indirect comparisons
help the advertiser position the advertised brand against the
entire market. Hence, we posit the following:
H1b: When consumers engage in imagery processing,
perceived manipulative intent will be lower in indirect
comparisons than in direct comparisons.
H2b: When consumers engage in imagery processing,
indirect comparative ads will have stronger Aad than direct
comparative ads.
H3b: When consumers engage in imagery processing,
perceived brand differences will be higher in indirect
comparisons than in direct comparisons.
METHOD
In real markets, advertisers often use a combination of
several formats of advertising (noncomparative, direct compar-
ative, and indirect comparative advertising). If we had used a
survey, isolating and measuring the effect of a particular
type of comparison strategy would not have been possible.
Therefore, consistent with similar research in this area
(Miniard et al., 2006; Thompson and Hamilton, 2006;
Chang, 2007), we use an experimental design for this study.
Participants and design
We assigned 125 (Women = 49.6%, MeanAge = 19.5 years)
subjects randomly to four experimental conditions in a
2 (comparison formats: direct/indirect) * 2 (information
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
processing modes: analytical/imagery) between-subjects
experimental design. The respondents were students of
prominent universities in a metropolitan city in India.
Product selection and attributes
Studies in comparative advertising generally focus on
consumer goods that are high on utilitarian and functional
benefits (Barry, 1993). However, a recent content analysis
(Kalro et al., 2010) revealed that advertisers use comparative
advertising for both utilitarian and hedonic products. Further,
by definition, products high on utility will stimulate analyti-
cal processing and products high on hedonic consumption
benefits will encourage imagery processing (Hirschman and
Holbrook, 1982). If we use a hedonic product, we would
be biasing subjects to use imagery processing, and if we
use a utilitarian product, we would be priming them to think
analytically. Hence, we needed to have a product that was
high on both—utilitarian and hedonic benefits.
Apart from this, our study needed a product that was
familiar to subjects. Six products (out of 30) scored high on
both hedonic and utility consumption benefits (Voss et al.,
2003), the categories being mobile phones, digital cameras,
laptops, two-wheelers, clothes, and television sets. From
these six, we chose the top three categories most commonly
used by the respondents: mobile phones, digital cameras,
and laptops. A pretest was conducted among 75 participants
(these respondents were different from the ones in the
experiment) to identify an appropriate product and the
attributes to be used for the stimuli. These participants rated
their familiarity and involvement levels with the three
chosen product categories. Given the high familiarity and
usage levels among the respondents, the mobile phone
category was shortlisted. The study used the subjective
knowledge scale (Mitchell and Dacin, 1996) to measure
familiarity (i.e. how much a person thinks he or she knows
about the product) and the purchase decision involvement
(PDI) scale for involvement (Mittal, 1989). The study observed
a high involvement value of 5.6 for mobile phones. Appendix
A shows the scales and their respective reliabilities.
Stimuli
After selecting mobile phones as the product category, we
conducted another pretest with 37 respondents to understand
the specific attributes consumers consider important. The
pretest responses revealed that smart phones such as Apple
iPhone, BlackBerry Storm, Nokia 5800 Xpress Music, Nokia
E71, and HTC Touch Diamond gratify both the hedonic and
utilitarian needs of the consumers. Based on these responses,
we introduced a new (fictitious) smart phone model as the
stimulus in this study. For a high involvement category such
as a smart phone, the reputation of the sponsored brand or the
company plays a key role in the purchase decision. There-
fore, the study used a well-known company name, Toshiba,
to introduce a new model of smart phone. Toshiba had
launched Toshiba TG-01 in the United States in February
2009 (Cadden, 2009) but not in the Indian market. In order
to make the attributes comparable with other competitors
mentioned in the advertisement, the study upgraded the
model number to TG-03 in the manipulation. Hence, the
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 133–147 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Comparative ads: Role of information processing modes
(Indian) respondents would have no preconceived bias with
respect to this model, Toshiba TG-03.
The advertisements in this experiment mirrored reality in
terms of the tagline and the product attributes. In the adver-
tisement, Toshiba TG-03 had Toshiba’s tagline, “Delivering
the Best User Experience”. Again, based on the importance
attached to certain attributes mentioned in the pretest, the
study chose the top six attributes (slimmest body, least
weight, highest display resolution, largest screen, highest
camera resolution, and waterproof). The advertised brand,
Toshiba TG-03, had superior levels of these six attributes
relative to the referred-to brand(s). A set of two conditions
were prepared, manipulating the comparison formats: direct
and indirect comparative ads. Kalro et al. (2010) revealed
that approximately 70 per cent of the comparative ads were
“multibrand” (where the advertiser compares advertising
brand to multiple players in that category). Therefore, in this
research, we compared Toshiba TG-03 to three leading players
in the market, under both direct and indirect comparisons.
For the direct comparative advertisement, the study drew
comparisons against Apple iPhone, Nokia 5800 Xpress
Music, and BlackBerry, in a tabular format, claiming superi-
ority for Toshiba TG-03. According to a report by Mawston
(2010), Apple iPhone was the market leader in the first
quarter of the year 2009. The other two brands followed
Apple iPhone in terms of the market share. The indirect
comparative advertisement compared Toshiba TG-03 to Brand
X, Brand Y, and Brand Z (subtly referring to Apple iPhone,
Nokia 5800 Xpress Music, and BlackBerry, respectively, in
terms of their logos, fonts, and colors). As the experiment
required manipulation of information processing modes,
the advertisements had to contain a mix of experiential and
nonexperiential information cues. Therefore, both text and
table were included in the advertisement. The study varied
only the text of the advertisements across the two conditions,
and all graphic elements were identical across the advertise-
ments (see Appendix B for the advertisements). These two
comparative ad formats were common across both information
processing conditions, analytical and imagery.
Note: All the respondents were users of cell phones, and
77 per cent of the respondents reported themselves high on
subjective knowledge in the category of smart phones.
Information processing instructions
Following the procedure outlined in Keller and McGill
(1994) and Thompson and Hamilton (2006), we manipulated
information processing by varying the instructions given to
participants about how they should process the advertisement
(see APPENDIX C for the instructions).
Table 1. Distribution characteristics of variables
Variable Minimum
Information processing—analytical 1.750
Information processing—imagery 1.000
Perceived manipulative intent 1.000
Attitude toward the ad 1.000
Perceived brand differences 1.000
Subjective product class knowledge 1.200
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
137
Procedures and measures
The study assigned participants randomly to the analytical
and imagery conditions. After giving the information processing
instructions, each participant was given a folder containing a
print advertisement for the smart phone (Toshiba TG-03) and
a questionnaire that they had to fill, postexposure. In both
sets of conditions (analytical and imagery), participants were
explicitly asked to process the advertisements for five minutes,
and then they were asked to fill in the questionnaire applicable
to that manipulation condition. The advertisements were not
embedded with any other material.
The study adopted all scales for the dependent variables
from extant literature. The study measured analytical proces-
sing using a four-item scale from Mantel and Kardes (1999)
and imagery processing using a two-item scale from Shiv
and Huber (2000) to check if the manipulation of information
processing was effective. The study used “users of compari-
son brand” and “subjective product class knowledge of the
consumers” regarding smart phones as covariates. Appendix
A shows all the scales used in the study.
RESULTS
Table 1 gives the distribution characteristics of the variables
in the experiment.
Appendix A displays the individual reliabilities of each of
the scales, which were all well above acceptable levels.
Manipulation check: Information processing
Participants engaged in more analytical processing in the
analytical than in the imagery condition (Manalytical = 5.201,
Mimagery = 4.737; F(1,123) = 5.752; p < 0.05), and more imag-
ery processing in the imagery than in the analytical condition
(Mimagery = 4.941, Manalytical = 4.348; F(1,123) = 4.464; p < 0.05),
showing that our processing mode manipulation worked.
Overall results
We conducted a 2 (comparison formats: direct/indirect) *
2 (information processing modes: analytical/imagery)
MANCOVA with perceived manipulative intent, attitude
toward the advertisement, and perceived differences between
the brands as the dependent variables and two covariates,
“users of comparison brands” and “subjective knowledge
of the respondents”. As hypothesized, there is a significant
interaction between comparison formats and information
processing modes for all the dependent variables. The two-
way MANCOVA results are as follows: Pillai’s Trace = 0.260;
Wilks’ lambda = 0.740; Hotelling’s Trace and Roy’s Largest
Maximum Mean Std. deviation
7.000 4.982 1.099
7.000 4.628 1.586
6.000 3.251 1.013
7.000 5.356 1.211
7.000 4.064 1.707
7.000 5.169 1.190
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 133–147 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
138 A. D. Kalro et al.

Root = 0.352, F(3,117) = 3.725, p < 0.001, o2 = 0.233. The
covariate “users of comparison brands” is not significant for
all four dependent variables (all p’s > 0.10). The covariate
“subjective knowledge of the respondents” is significant for
perceived manipulative intent and attitude toward the ad (all
p’s < 0.05) but not for perceived brand differences (p > 0.60).
However, even after accounting for the significance of subjec-
tive knowledge, the results were on expected lines. Hence, the
covariates do not alter our results. Detailed results are reported
in Table 2.
Two-way interaction on perceived manipulative intent
For perceived manipulative intent, the main effect of compar-
ative advertising format was not significant (p > 0.40), but
the main effect of information processing modes was highly
significant (F(1,119) = 12.221; p < 0.001). This implies
that perceived manipulative intent of the advertiser using
comparative advertisements is possibly high when consumers
engage in analytical information processing (Manalytical = 3.55,
Mimagery = 2.92). This could possibly be because when
subjects process analytically, they are in a critical frame of
mind, and since advertising in general is considered manip-
ulative, they evaluate the advertisement negatively vis-à-vis
those who process holistically will process information
less critically.
H1a stated that under analytical conditions, perceived
manipulative intent would be lower in direct comparisons,
whereas H1b stated that under imagery conditions, perceived
manipulative intent would be less in indirect comparisons.
This two-way interaction was in the right direction and
significant for perceived manipulative intent (F(1,119) = 8.34;
p < 0.01; o2 = 0.15), as seen in Figure 1. Under analytical
processing, direct comparisons are perceived to be less manip-
ulative, and indirect comparisons are perceived as highly
manipulative (Manalytical-DCA = 3.37, Manalytical-ICA = 3.72). On
the contrary, under imagery processing, direct comparisons
are perceived highly manipulative and indirect comparisons
are low on perceived manipulative intent (Mimagery-DCA = 3.22,
Mimagery-ICA = 2.61).
Two-way interaction on attitude toward the advertisement
(Aad)
For attitude toward the advertisement, the main effects of
comparative advertising formats and information processing
modes were not significant (both p’s > 0.80). H2a stated that
under analytical conditions, attitude toward the advertise-
ment would be high in direct comparisons, and H2b stated
that under imagery conditions, attitude toward the advertise-
ment would be high in indirect comparisons. This two-way
interaction between comparative advertising formats and

Table 2. Tests of between-subjects effects

Source Dependent variable Type III sum of squares Df Mean square F Sig.
a
Corrected model Perceived manipulative intent 26.638 5 5.328 6.290 0.000
Attitude toward the advertisement 23.813b 5 4.763 3.582 0.005
Perceived brand differences 68.720c 5 13.744 5.586 0.000
Intercept Perceived manipulative intent 107.425 1 107.425 126.829 0.000
Attitude toward the advertisement 104.938 1 104.938 78.930 0.000
Perceived brand differences 83.723 1 83.723 34.030 0.000
Subjective_knowledge Perceived manipulative intent 6.736 1 6.736 7.953 0.006
Attitude toward the advertisement 8.897 1 8.897 6.692 0.011
Perceived brand differences 0.670 1 0.670 0.272 0.603
Users_comparison_brand Perceived manipulative intent 1.843 1 1.843 2.176 0.143
Attitude toward the advertisement 2.107 1 2.107 1.585 0.211
Perceived brand differences 1.562 1 1.562 0.635 0.427
Ad_format Perceived manipulative intent 0.546 1 .546 0.645 0.424
Attitude toward the advertisement 0.025 1 0.025 0.019 0.891
Perceived brand differences 0.268 1 0.268 0.109 0.742
Info_processing Perceived manipulative intent 12.221 1 12.221 14.429 0.000
Attitude toward the advertisement 0.005 1 0.005 0.003 0.953
Perceived brand differences 6.843 1 6.843 2.782 0.098
Ad_format * Info_processing Perceived manipulative intent 7.064 1 7.064 8.340 0.005
Attitude toward the advertisement 9.762 1 9.762 7.342 0.008
Perceived brand differences 57.264 1 57.264 23.276 0.000
Error Perceived manipulative intent 100.794 119 .847
Attitude toward the advertisement 158.213 119 1.330
Perceived brand differences 292.768 119 2.460
Total Perceived manipulative intent 1448.720 125
Attitude toward the advertisement 3768.633 125
Perceived brand differences 2426.000 125
Corrected total Perceived manipulative intent 127.432 124
Attitude toward the advertisement 182.025 124
Perceived brand differences 361.488 124
a
R-squared = 0.209 (adjusted R-squared = 0.176).
b
R-squared = 0.131 (adjusted R-squared = 0.094).
c
R-squared = 0.190 (adjusted R-squared= 0.156).

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 133–147 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Comparative ads: Role of information processing modes 139

Figure 1. Perceived manipulative intent.

information processing modes was in the right direction
and significant for attitude toward the advertisement
(F(1,119) = 7.34; p < 0.01; o2 = 0.13), as seen in Figure 2.
Under analytical processing, direct comparisons have
high attitude toward the advertisement and indirect compari-
sons have low attitude toward the advertisement (Manalytical-
DCA = 5.64, Manalytical-ICA = 5.10). Similarly, the directions
under imagery conditions are as hypothesized. Under imag-
ery processing, direct comparisons have low attitude toward
the ad and indirect comparisons have high attitude toward
the ad (Mimagery-DCA = 5.06, Mimagery-ICA = 5.65).
Two-way interaction on perceived brand differences
For perceived differences between the brands, the main
effect of comparative advertising format was not significant
(p > 0.70). The main effect for information processing
modes is marginally significant, implying that perceived
brand differences is higher in analytical processing (Manalytical =
4.305, Mimagery = 3.833; F(1,119) = 2.782; p < 0.10).
We hypothesized that under analytical processing,
perceived brand differences would be high in direct com-
parisons (H3a), and under imagery processing, perceived
differences between the brands would be high in indirect
comparison (H3b). This two-way interaction was significant
for perceived brand differences (F(1,119) = 23.27;
p < 0.001; o2 = 0.35), in the hypothesized direction
(Figure 3). This implies that under analytical processing,
direct comparisons are perceived to create more differ
ences between the brands (Manalytical-DCA = 5.03, Manalytical-
ICA = 3.58), and under imagery processing, indirect compari-
sons are perceived to create more differences between the
brands than direct comparisons (Mimagery-DCA = 3.20, Mimagery-
ICA = 4.47).
Table 3 summarizes the results of this experiment.

Figure 2. Attitude toward the advertisement (Aad).

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 133–147 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
140 A. D. Kalro et al.

Figure 3. Perceived brand differences.

Table 3. Summary of the results

Hypotheses Dependent variables Independent variables p Results
H1a and H1b Perceived manipulative intent Comparative advertising format 0.005*** Supported
H2a and H2b Attitude toward the ad (direct and indirect)  Information processing modes 0.008*** Supported
H3a and H3b Perceived brand differences (analytical and imagery) 0.000*** Supported

***Significant at p < 0.01.

DISCUSSION perceived differences between the brands. Under analytical

The results of this study show that the main effects of direct
versus indirect comparative advertisements are not signifi-
cant. In other words, the results are consistent with previous
findings (Pechmann and Ratneshwar, 1991; Jeon and Beatty,
2002; WoonBong et al., 2006) that the effectiveness of direct
and indirect comparative advertisements is moderated by
certain conditions. This article establishes that the mode of
information processing as a moderating condition can either
enhance or undermine the effectiveness of direct and indirect
comparisons, depending on the interaction of comparative
advertising formats and the information processing modes
that consumers use to encode the advertising message. The
results suggest that the information processing cues external
to advertisements can significantly influence consumers’
reactions to comparative advertising, particularly consumers’
perceived manipulative intent, attitude toward the advertise-
ment, and perceived differences between the brands.
The results demonstrate that under analytical processing, di-
rect comparisons are perceived to be less manipulative vis-à-vis
indirect comparisons. On the other hand, under imagery proces-
sing, direct comparisons are perceived as highly manipulative
and indirect comparisons are perceived as less manipulative.
Further, the results show that perceived manipulative intent of
the advertiser using comparative advertisements is high when
consumers engage in analytical information processing.
The study finds similar results in the case of the other
dependent variables, attitude toward the advertisement and
processing conditions, direct comparisons are more effective,
whereas under imagery conditions, indirect comparisons are
more effective.
One notable feature of this study is that we obtained large
effect sizes for almost all effects. According to Cohen
(1977), 0.01 ≤ o2 < 0.06 is a small effect, 0.06 ≤ o2 < 0.15
is a medium effect, and 0.15 ≤ o2 is a large effect. Fern
and Monroe (1996) also highlight the importance of report-
ing the effect sizes. Thus, these large effect sizes attest to
the practical significance of our results.
This research offers significant theoretical and managerial
contributions. From a theoretical viewpoint, it extends prior
literature on two fronts.
First, this study identifies information processing modes
as one of the moderating variables that influence the effec-
tiveness of direct and indirect comparative ads. An additional
point to note is that when consumers process analytically
(for example, for a utilitarian product like an electronic dictio-
nary), Thompson and Hamilton (2006) advocate comparative
ads. However, a manager is not sure about whether to use
direct or indirect comparative ads. This is because Thompson
and Hamilton (2006) use only direct comparisons. We show
that it is indeed better to use direct comparisons as opposed
to indirect ones, depending on the information processing
style of the consumer. Thus, this study extends their work
by considering direct and indirect comparisons showing
that under analytical (imagery) processing conditions, direct
(indirect) comparisons work better. Most prior research has

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 133–147 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Comparative ads: Role of information processing modes
investigated the effectiveness of direct comparative ads
over noncomparative ads. Even recent studies (e.g. Bei
et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2011) that look at audience
characteristics like self-construal and consumer product
knowledge, respectively, consider only direct comparative
ads versus noncomparative ads and omit indirect compari-
sons. Hence, on the second front, this study contributes to
the limited literature studying direct versus indirect compar-
ative ads (Brown and Jackson, 1977; Goodwin and Etgar,
1980; Muehling, 1987; Pechmann and Ratneshwar, 1991;
Walker and Anderson, 1991; Snyder, 1992; Jeon and
Beatty, 2002; WoonBong et al., 2006).
We add to this stream of research by showing that mode
of processing also affects the effectiveness of comparison
formats. We show that advertising effectiveness depends on
the degree of consistency between the consumer’s processing
mode (analytical versus imagery) and the comparative
advertising format (direct versus indirect).
Managerially as well, this study provides interesting
insights to advertisers and brand managers. This study shows
that, depending on the objective of the advertising campaign,
an advertiser should choose the appropriate comparative
advertising format under different information processing
modes of the consumers. The key takeaways for advertisers
are that under analytical processing, direct comparisons are
perceived to be less manipulative; they enhance attitude
toward the advertisement and create perceived differences
between the brands. On the other hand, under imagery
processing, advertisers may use indirect comparisons, as
consumers perceive these as less manipulative. The results
suggest that under imagery processing, indirect compari-
sons enhance attitude toward the advertisement and help
the sponsored brand position itself against the entire
market by creating differences between the advertising
brand and the product category itself. In sum, therefore,
advertisers may use direct comparisons under analytical
processing conditions and indirect ones under imagery
processing conditions.
Analytical processing is usually associated with utilitarian
products. This is because consumers buy utilitarian products
for some instrumental benefits and not for sensory gratifica-
tion. Consumers would then like to think about the various
attributes and trade-offs and not visualize the product experi-
ence. Consumers with high need for cognition (NFC) may
engage in analytical processing as well. High NFC consumers
like to think through their purchases carefully (Levin et al.,
2000). Therefore, for utilitarian products as well as high
NFC consumers, advertisers may use direct comparisons. On
the other hand, hedonic products may be associated with
imagery processing since consumers may like to visualize
the product experience and low NFC consumers may engage
in imagery processing.
In reality, consumer markets are not homogeneous, and
consumers who engage in imagery processing coexist
with consumers who engage in analytical processing. This
study provides suggestions to advertisers to design different
comparative advertising messages for consumer segments
engaging in different information processing modes for
optimal results. This will help determine the effectiveness
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
141
of the substantial sums that advertisers spend on comparative
advertising (using direct and indirect comparisons simulta-
neously) as part of their overall advertising strategy (Irani,
2009; The Economist, 2009; Bijoor, 2010). For reaching
out to analytical consumers, advertisers may use direct
comparisons. For consumers engaging in imagery proces-
sing, advertisers may design subtle, implicit comparisons
against the competitors or the product category itself. In
the industry, there are Web-based firms that may help
companies target customers based on personality and mindset
related targeting (e.g. www.mindsetmedia.com). Managers
can use these firms to identify customers who process predom-
inantly using analytical/imagery processing.
Limitations of this study and scope for future research
While our study makes some valuable contributions, it
also has some drawbacks. One, there are many variations
of indirect comparative ads (like “the leading brand,” “com-
pared to Brand X,” “industry average,” “other brands,” or “all
other brands” and so on). Our theory and manipulation may
hold good only for indirect comparisons that are not concrete
(e.g. “compared to the other brands” and so on). However,
indirect comparisons like “compared to the leading brand”
may be concrete for many consumers. In other words, this
study tests for only one kind of indirect comparison, i.e.
“among other brands” (Brand X, Y, and Z while subtly referring
to three leading brands with their logo and color). As stated by
Walker and Anderson (1991), generalizing conclusions across
varying formats of indirect comparative ads is difficult; the
recommendations of this study may not hold good without
testing for the same. Hence, future research can look at
how consumers process information across these various
indirect comparison formats (particularly, “compared to the
leading brand”) versus direct comparisons. Two, we did not
look at product (e.g. durable versus FMCG) and situational
factors (e.g. time pressure, buying for self versus buying for
others) that may influence the effectiveness of direct versus
indirect comparisons. Three, we did not model the type of
appeal (negative versus positively framed appeals) in compar-
ison formats. Recent research (Putrevu, 2010) shows that this
has an impact on advertising effectiveness. It would also be
interesting to study the interaction between all these factors
or at least some of these on the effectiveness of direct and
indirect comparisons. Four, we did not consider real-world
sales data for brands that use direct and indirect comparisons;
it would have been ideal to validate our results with sales
data. Five, in reality, respondents do not process ads for
five minutes. However, they are bombarded with multiple
exposures of the same advertisement and sometimes through
various media (TV, print, Internet) as well. As we could not
do this (i.e. repeated exposures and using multiple media),
we asked respondents to process the ads for five minutes.
Finally, Thompson and Hamilton (2006) studied comparative
versus noncomparative ads while we considered direct versus
indirect comparisons. Future research can extend our work
by studying the issues that we suggest and by answering the
question: under conditions of analytical/imagery processing,
which works better: noncomparative advertising, direct
comparisons, or indirect comparisons?
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 133–147 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
142 A. D. Kalro et al.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Dr. Swarnalatha R. (Assistant
Professor, Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute
of Technology Madras), Dr. Mathew A. Thomas, and
Mr. Kartik Dua for their meaningful comments that were
helpful in revising this manuscript.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Arti D. Kalro is an assistant professor at the Shailesh J.
Mehta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technol-
ogy (IIT) Bombay, Mumbai. She completed her PhD from
the Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of
Technology (IIT) Madras, Chennai, India. She has published
papers in international journals like the Journal of Interna-
tional Consumer Marketing and presented numerous papers
in various international conferences, including the North
American Society for Marketing Education in India and Asia
Pacific Association for Consumer Research, 2012. She has
served as a reviewer for the working papers submitted to
the North American Conference of the Association for Con-
sumer Research. Her research interests are in the areas of
marketing communications, specifically, advertising.
Bharadhwaj Sivakumaran holds a PhD in Marketing from
the Robert H Smith School of Business, University of Mary-
land, College Park. He has worked at the Nanyang Business
School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, and
the Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of
Technology Madras, and now he is a full-time professor at
Great Lakes Institute of Management, Chennai. Dr. Bharadhwaj’s
work has appeared in journals like the Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, European Journal of Marketing,
Journal of Business Research, Journal of Marketing Manage-
ment, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, and
Advances in Consumer Research. His research areas are in
variety seeking, impulse buying, store environment, and
integrated marketing communications.
Rahul R. Marathe is an assistant professor at the Indian Insti-
tute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India. He completed his
doctoral work at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Subse-
quently, he also worked as a postdoctoral research associate
at the Iowa State. He works on diverse problems of academic
as well as industry interest, broadly in the area of the mathe-
matical and statistical modeling. His research interests also
include stochastic processes and modeling uncertainty.
REFERENCES
Barry TE. 1993. Twenty years of comparative advertising in
the United States. International Journal of Advertising 12(4):
325–351.
Bei LT, Chu CH, Shen YC. 2011. Positioning brand extensions
in comparative advertising: An assessment of the roles of
comparative brand similarity, comparative claims, and con-
sumer product knowledge. Journal of Marketing Communi-
cations 17(4): 229–244.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Belch GE. 1981. An examination of comparative and non-comparative
TV commercials: the effects of claim variation and repetition on
cognitive response and message acceptance. Journal of Marketing
Research 18(3): 333–349.
Bhushan R, Chatterjee P. 2008. Horlicks, Complan slug it out
over price points. The Economic Times (2008, December 23).
Available at http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2008-
12-23/news/27735093_1_horlicks-shubhajit-sen-ad-claims [accessed
on January 21, 2012].
Bijoor H. 2010. Evolved marketing for an evolved consumer.
Business Today (2010, March 15). Available at http://busines-
stoday.intoday.in/content_mail.php?option=com_content&name=
print&id= 14248 [accessed on April 10, 2010].
Boush D, Friestad M, Rose GM. 1994. Adolescent skepticism
toward TV advertising and knowledge of advertiser. Journal of
Consumer Research 21(1): 165–175.
Bradshaw GL, Anderson JR. 1982. Elaborative encoding as an
explanation of levels of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior 21(2): 165–174.
Brown SW, Jackson DW, Jr. 1977. Comparative television advertis-
ing: examining its nature and frequency. Journal of Advertising
6(4): 15–18.
Cadden R. 2009. Toshiba unveils ultra-slim TG01 touchscreen
smartphone with Qualcomm Snapdragon CPU (Online Forum
on Product Launch). Available at http://www.mobileburn.com/
news.jsp?Id=6207 [accessed on December 22, 2009].
Campbell MC. 1995. When attention-getting advertising tactics
elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: The importance
of balancing benefits and investment. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 4(3): 225–254.
Chang C. 2007. The relative effectiveness of comparative and
noncomparative advertising: Evidence for gender differences in
information-processing strategies. Journal of Advertising 36(1):
21–35.
Childers T, Houston M, Heckler S. 1985. Measurement of individ-
ual differences in visual versus verbal information processing.
Journal of Consumer Research 12(2): 125–134.
Cohen J. 1977. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural
sciences. Academic Press: New York.
Cohen JB, Basu K. 1987. Alternative models of categorization:
toward a contingent processing framework. Journal of Consumer
Research 13(4): 455–472.
Dickson PR, Ginter JL. 1987. Market segmentation, product
differentiation, and marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing
51(2): 1–10.
Donthu N. 1998. A cross-country investigation of recall and attitude
toward comparative advertising. Journal of Advertising 27(2):
111–122.
Dröge C. 1989. Shaping the route to attitude change: central versus
peripheral processing through comparative versus noncompara-
tive advertising. Journal of Marketing Research 26(2): 193–204.
Dröge C, Darmon RY. 1987. Associative positioning strategies
through comparative advertising: Attribute versus overall similar-
ity approaches. Journal of Marketing Research 24(4): 377–388.
Federal Register. 1979. Comparative Advertising: Issuance of a
Policy Statement. 4, No. 157 (1979, August 13): 47328–29.
Fern EF, Monroe KB. 1996. Effect-Size estimates: issues and
problems in interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research 23(2):
89–105.
Goodwin S, Etgar M. 1980. An experimental investigation of
comparative advertising: impact of message appeal, information
load, and utility of product class. Journal of Marketing Research
17(2):187–202.
Gorn GJ, Weinberg CB. 1984. The impact of comparative advertis-
ing on perception and attitude: some positive findings. Journal
of Consumer Research 11(2): 719–727.
Hirschman EC, Holbrook MB. 1982. Hedonic consumption: Emerging
concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing 46(3):
92–101.
Irani D. 2009. The gloves are off. Brand Equity, The Economic
Times, Chennai Edition (January 21, 2009): 1–1.
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 133–147 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Comparative ads: Role of information processing modes
Jackson DW, Jr., Brown SW, Harmon RR. 1979. Comparative
magazine advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research
19(6): 21–26.
Jeon JO, Beatty SE. 2002. Comparative advertising effectiveness in
different national cultures. Journal of Business Research 55:
907–913.
Kalro AD, Sivakumaran B, Marathe RR. 2010. Comparative
advertising in India: A content analysis of English print adver-
tisements. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 22(4):
377–394.
Keller PA, McGill A. 1994. Differences in the relative influence
of product attributes under alternative processing conditions:
Attribute importance versus attribute ease of imagability. Journal
of Consumer Psychology 3(1): 29–49.
Lawrence J. 1993. P&G ads get competitive. Advertising Age (Midwest
region edition), Chicago, 64(5) (February 1, 1993): 14–14.
Levin IP, Huneke ME, Jasper JD. 2000. Information processing at
successive stages of decision making: Need for Cognition and
inclusion-exclusion effects. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 82(2): 171–193.
Lynch JG, Jr., Srull TK. 1982. Memory and attentional factors in
consumer choice: concepts and research methods. Journal of
Consumer Research 9(1): 18–37.
MacInnis D, Price L. 1987. The role of imagery in information
processing: review and Extensions. Journal of Consumer
Research 13(4): 473–491.
Mantel SP, Kardes FR. 1999. The role of direction of comparison,
attribute-based processing, and attitude-based processing in con-
sumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research 25(4): 335–352.
Mawston N. 2010. Global handset market returns to 10 percent
growth in Q4 2009. Available at http://www.strategyanalytics.
com/default.aspx?mod=ReportAbstractViewer&a0 = 5267 [accessed
on December 22, 2010].
Millward Brown. 2009. Is there value in comparative advertising?
Knowledge Points. Available at www.millwardbrown.com
[accessed on August 26, 2009].
Miniard PW, Barone MJ, Rose RL, Manning KC. 2006. A further
assessment of indirect comparative advertising claims of superi-
ority over all competitors. Journal of Advertising 35(4): 53–64.
Mitchell AA, Dacin PA. 1996. The assessment of alternative
measures of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research
23(3): 219–239.
Mittal B. 1989. Measuring purchase-decision involvement.
Psychology and Marketing 6(2): 147–162.
Muehling DD. 1987. Comparative advertising: the influence of
attitude-toward-the-ad on brand evaluation. Journal of Advertising
16(4): 43–49.
Muehling DD, Stoltman J, Grossbart S. 1990. The impact of
comparative advertising on levels of message involvement.
Journal of Advertising 19(4): 41–50.
Nakanishi M, Bettman JR. 1974. Attitude models revisited: An
individual level analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 1(3):
16–21.
Neese W, Taylor RD. 1994. Verbal strategies for indirect compara-
tive advertising. Journal of Advertising Research 34(2): 56–70.
Neff J. 2011. Reckitt ads feature consumer reports results despite
ban. Advertising Age 82(32): 20–21.
Oliver RL, Robertson TS, Mitchell DJ. 1993. Imaging and analyzing in
response to new product advertising. Journal of Advertising 22(4):
35–50.
Pechmann C, Ratneshwar S. 1991. The use of comparative advertis-
ing for brand positioning: association versus differentiation.
Journal of Consumer Research 18(2): 145–160.
Petrova PK, Cialdini RB. 2005. Fluency of consumption imagery
generation and the backfire effects of imagery appeals. Journal
of Consumer Research 32(3): 442–452.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
143
Pillai KG, Goldsmith RE. 2008. How brand attribute typicality
and consumer commitment moderate the influence of com-
parative advertising. Journal of Business Research 61(9):
933–941.
Polyorat K, Alden DL. 2005. Self-Construal and Need-For-
Cognition effects on brand attitudes and purchase intentions
in response to comparative advertising in Thailand and the
United States. Journal of Advertising 34(1): 37–48.
Putrevu S. 2010. An examination of consumer responses toward
attribute- and goal-framed messages. Journal of Advertising
39(3): 5–24.
Shiv B, Huber J. 2000. The impact of anticipating satisfaction
on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research 27(2):
202–216.
Singh R. 2011. Ford takes rivals Maruti, Tata and Toyota on a ‘swap
drive’ through advertisement campaigns. Economic Times Bureau
(2011, September 12). Available at http://articles.economictimes.
indiatimes.com/2011-09-12/news/30145343_1_ford-vehicle-ford-
india-vice-president-ford-car [accessed on December 10, 2011].
Snyder R. 1992. Comparative advertising and brand evaluation:
Toward developing a categorization approach. Journal of
Consumer Psychology 1(1): 15–30.
Soscia I, Girolamo S, Busacca B. 2010. The effect of comparative
advertising on consumer perceptions: Similarity or differentia-
tion? Journal of Business and Psychology 25(1): 109–118.
Sujan M. 1985. Consumer knowledge: effects of evaluation
strategies mediating consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer
Research 12(1): 31–45.
Swinyard WR. 1981. The interaction between comparative advertis-
ing and copy claim variation. Journal of Marketing Research
18(2): 175–186.
The Economist. 2009. Advertisers go on the attack: Heated argu-
ments. The Economist (2009, June 4). Available at http://www.
economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id =
13788456 [accessed on December 22, 2009].
Thompson DV, Hamilton RW. 2006. The effects of information
processing mode on consumers’ responses to comparative
advertising. Journal of Consumer Research 32(4): 530–541.
Voss KE, Spangenberg ER, Grohmann B. 2003. Measuring the
hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal
of Marketing Research 30(3): 310–320.
Walker BA, Anderson HH. 1991. Reconceptualising comparative
advertising: a framework and theory of effects. In Holman RH,
Solomon MR (eds). Advances in Consumer Research. Associa-
tion for Consumer Research: Provo, UT; 342–347.
Wilkie WL, Farris P. 1975. Comparison advertising: problems and
potential. Journal of Marketing 39(4): 7–15.
Williams S. 2012. Rivals gang up on Ford trucks as Dodge Ram
joins battering. Advertising Age 83(8): 20–21.
Wilson RD, Muderrisoglu A. 1980. An analysis of cognitive
responses to comparative advertising. In Olson JC (ed).
Advances in Consumer Research. Association for Consumer
Research: San Francisco, CA; 566–571.
WoonBong N, Youngseok S, Marshall R. 2006. The structural
effect of indirect comparative advertisements on consumer atti-
tude, when moderated by message type and number of claims.
In Lees MC, Davis T, Gregory G (eds). Asia-Pacific Advances
in Consumer Research, 7. Association for Consumer Research:
Sydney, Australia; 239–243.
Yagci MI, Biswas A, Dutta S. 2009. Effects of comparative adver-
tising format on consumer responses: the moderating effects
of brand image and attribute relevance. Journal of Business
Research 62(8): 768–774.
Zhang L, Moore M, Moore R. 2011. The effect of self-construals
on the effectiveness of comparative advertising. Marketing
Management Journal 21(1): 195–206.
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 133–147 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
144 A. D. Kalro et al.

APPENDIX A SCALES (RELIABILITIES)

Perceived manipulative intent of the advertiser adapted from Chang (2007) (originally from Campbell, 1995; a = 0.702)

Indicate your agreement/disagreement by circling the numbers given along.

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
disagree Disagree disagree Neutral agree Agree agree
The way this advertisement tries to persuade people seems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
acceptable to me
The advertiser tried to manipulate the audience in ways that I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
don’t like
I was annoyed by this advertisement because the advertiser 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
seemed to be trying to inappropriately manage or control the
consumer audience
I didn’t mind this advertisement: the advertiser tried to be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
persuasive without being excessively manipulative
This advertisement was fair in what was said and shown 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I think that this advertisement is unfair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The first, fourth, and fifth item were reverse-coded.
a

Attitude toward the advertisement (Aad) (combined from Dröge, 1989, and Muehling, 1987; a = 0.896)

What do you think about the advertisement?

Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good
Unattractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Attractive
Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Positive
Unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable
Offensive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Inoffensive
Dull 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting
Irritating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not irritating

Perceived brand differences adapted from Gorn and Weinberg (1984) (single item)

Do you think the advertised brand and the competitor’s brand are similar or different?
Very similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very dissimilar

Information processing (manipulation check for the experiment)

(a) Analytical processing adapted from Mantel and Kardes (1999) (a = 0.733)
You tried to use as much information about the features as possible
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
You carefully compared Toshiba TG-03 to the other brands, on several different features
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
Your evaluations were based on factors rather than on general impressions and feelings
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
Your evaluations were based on careful thinking and reasoning
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

(b) Imagery processing adapted from Shiv and Huber (2000) (a = 0.791)
Indicate the extent to which you imagined yourself using Toshiba TG-03
Not very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 To a great deal
Indicate the extent to which you tried to form a picture of yourself using Toshiba TG-03 when making your choice
Not very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 To a great deal

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 133–147 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Comparative ads: Role of information processing modes 145

Subjective knowledge adapted from Mitchell and Dacin (1996) (a = 0.874)

How familiar are you with mobile phones?
Not familiar at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Extremely familiar
How clear an idea do you have about the various characteristics of mobile phones/digital cameras/laptops that are important in providing you
maximum usage satisfaction?
Not very clear 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very clear
I know a lot about mobile phones/digital cameras/laptops
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Agree
How would you rate your knowledge about mobile phones/digital cameras/laptops relative to the rest of the population?
One of the least knowledgeable people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 One of the most knowledgeable people
How interested are you in mobile phones/digital cameras/laptops?
Not very interested 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very interested

Hedonic/Utility scale adapted from Voss et al. (2003) (a = 0.805)

Indicate your agreement/disagreement by circling the numbers given along.

Ineffective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Effective
Not fun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fun
Unhelpful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helpful
Dull 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Exciting
Not functional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Functional
Not delightful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Delightful
Unnecessary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Necessary
Not thrilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Thrilling
Impractical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Practical
Unenjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Enjoyable

Purchase decision involvement (PDI) adapted from Mittal (1989) (a = 0.795)

In selecting from many types and brands of this product available in the market, would you say that
I would not care at all as to which one I buy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would care a great deal as to which one I buy
Do you think that the various types and brands of this product available in the market are all very alike or are all very different?
They are alike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 They are all different
How important would it be to you to make a right choice of this product?
Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely important
In making your selection of this product, how concerned would you be about the outcome of your choice?
Not at all concerned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much concerned

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 133–147 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
146 A. D. Kalro et al.

APPENDIX B ADVERTISING STIMULI AD 1

(DIRECT COMPARATIVE) and AD 2 (INDIRECT COMPARATIVE)

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 133–147 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Comparative ads: Role of information processing modes
APPENDIX C INFORMATION PROCESSING
INSTRUCTIONS
In the analytical condition, the study asked participants to
process the smart phone and its attributes in a logical way
by evaluating the attributes and benefits of the advertised
brand against that of the competitor(s). The instructions for
analytical processing were as follows:
“We do request that you be careful and well-reasoned in
your choice. Don’t let your imagination get the better of
you. Rather, try to make a logical choice that’s right for
you. Focus on the attributes and benefits of the advertised
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
147
mobile phone (Toshiba TG-03) and think about how the
attributes would meet your needs.”
In the imagery condition, the study asked participants to try
to visualize the smart phone and to imagine their experience
with the smart phone. The instructions for imagery processing
were as follows:
“We do request that you rely on your imagination in
making your choice. Try to picture the mobile phone
(Toshiba TG-03) in your mind and to imagine as vividly
as possible your experience with the smart phone,
Toshiba TG-03.”
J. Consumer Behav. 12: 133–147 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb