Beyond Skepticism: Can Accessing Persuasion Knowledge Bolster Credibility?

Isaac, Mathew S.; Grayson, Kent

doi:10.1093/jcr/ucw063

Cited by 83 publications

(155 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to prior research, we argue and show that even when supplied with external warnings about digital manipulation and even though consumers judge the disclosed retouched advertisements to be less honest than disclosed unretouched ads, disclosure of such digital manipulation may have unintended consequences where disclosure would be thought, based on prior research, to evoke negative persuasion knowledge—in fact it evokes consumer perceptions of the unexpected advertiser's disclosure honesty and hence leads to more favorable attitudes. These results are consistent with Isaac and Grayson's () findings that persuasion knowledge does not necessarily always invoke skepticism in consumers, but ranges on a continuum of credibility and skepticism. When consumers activate their persuasion knowledge as a result of a marketing tactic that is perceived as credible and honest (as opposed to marketing tactics with low credibility), they will have positive product evaluations specifically when the negative information is voluntarily offered by the marketer.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

How well will this brand work? The ironic impact of advertising disclosure of body‐image retouching on brand attitudes

Semaan

Kocher

Gould

2018

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior research has demonstrated various effects of exposure to thin-idealized models in advertisements on consumers' product evaluations. Although this past research provides important insights, it does not take into account that many of these thin-idealized images have been digitally manipulated. The present work studies the consequences of disclosure of this digital manipulation and the process consumers engage in when evaluating the brands responsible for these advertisements. We demonstrate that retouched advertisements may, contrary to conventional wisdom, have favorable consequences. Indeed, we show that individuals have more favorable brand attitudes for retouched (vs. unretouched) ads when retouching is disclosed (vs. undisclosed). We show that disclosed retouched ads utilize a two-sided persuasive appeal, therefore leading consumers to evaluate the brand more favorably. We replicate this effect and explore attractiveness-relevant products and type of disclosure as boundary conditions. K E Y W O R D Sadvertising disclosure, attractiveness-relevant products, digital manipulation, mandated disclo- sure, persuasive appealsThe girl in this photo has not been retouched! the real you is sexy! American Eagle's lingerie line, Aerie Advertising Campaign

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

How well will this brand work? The ironic impact of advertising disclosure of body‐image retouching on brand attitudes

Semaan

Kocher

Gould

2018

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most studies examining the effects of young consumers' susceptibility to integrated advertising formats did not find support for the cognitive defense view. They found either no effect (e.g., Mallinckrodt & Mizerski, 2007; Van Reijmersdal, Rozendaal, & Buijzen, 2012; Waiguny & Terlutter, 2011) or found a negative effect (e.g., Isaac & Grayson, 2016; Rozendaal, Buijzen, & Valkenburg, 2009; Van Reijmersdal, Rozendaal, & Buijzen, 2015; Vanwesenbeeck, Walrave, & Ponnet, 2017). Vanwesenbeeck, Ponnet, and Walrave (2017), for example, found that the understanding of the persuasive intent of in‐game advertising positively influenced young adolescents' purchase intention, but had no effect on their attitudes toward the advertised brand.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adolescents and handheld advertising: The roles of brand familiarity and smartphone attachment in the processing of mobile advergames

Berlo

Reijmersdal

Rozendaal

2020

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many adolescents are inseparable from their smartphones on which they are often confronted with covert advertising‐like mobile advergames. This study explores the roles of brand familiarity and smartphone attachment in adolescents’ abilities to recognize the commercial intent of advergames. Moreover, it considers the potential indirect effects of brand familiarity and smartphone attachment on the susceptibility of young consumers to mobile advergames. An experiment (N = 98) was conducted, which showed that brand familiarity moderates the effect of playing advergames on the recognition of the commercial intent of advergames. Furthermore, smartphone attachment was found to facilitate the recognition of the commercial intent of advergames, such that adolescents who experienced higher levels of smartphone attachment (when compared to lower levels) were better able to differentiate between advergames and non‐commercial games (games without advertising). Interestingly, no association between smartphone attachment and brand responses were found—suggesting that smartphone attachment did not affect adolescents’ compliance with the advertised message.

show abstract

“…Persuasion knowledge-knowing that someone (e.g., politicians) is trying to influence you-should reduce your beliefs in what they claim. However, Isaac and Grayson (2017) report that such knowledge may actually increase credibility in some circumstances. If voters are ambivalent between the choices (e.g., Clinton vs. Trump), they may be persuaded by less reliable sources (Zemborain and Johar 2007).…”

Section: How Do People Determine What Is True?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Sense from (Apparent) Senselessness: The JCR Lens

Dahl¹,

Fischer²,

Johar³

et al. 2017

Journal of Consumer Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What explains the emergence of nativist and populist movements across the globe? From the election of Donald Trump to the vote for Brexit, pundits wonder how and why these unforeseen outcomes came to pass. Why were people so surprised about these outcomes? Why do people sometimes vote against their self-interest? And why do people fall prey to fake news and believe seemingly outrageous claims? In this, our last editorial, we claim that some answers to these questions can be found in the pages of this journal-in articles published in JCR 1. While JCR welcomes and publishes many different types of papers, it has traditionally focused on theory building, and our goal in this article is to show how rich and robust theoretical work-uncovering the "why" behind effects-can help us explain and understand events. In our view, such understanding remains a key goal of science, even though immediate practical application of many JCR papers may not seem obvious.We will address the first two questions relying on the literatures on optimism, motivated reasoning and forgetting, survey and prediction pool biases, the affective bases for decisions, and the potential for social performance and media influence. Then we turn to a critical question that looms large and could provoke undesired consequences: how do people determine whether a claim is true? WHY WERE PEOPLE SO SURPRISED ABOUT THE OUTCOMES OF THESE ELECTIONS?In the days leading up to the 2016 Brexit and US presidential elections, many people actively tracked and attended to political polls and models. On November 8, 2016-Election Day in the United States-"The Upshot" column writers in the New York Times predicted that Hillary Clinton had an 85% chance of winning the presidency. On June 23, 2016, the day of the UK Brexit referendum, betting markets predicted an 88% chance that "remain" would win. After the outcomes of those elections were revealed, many expressed shock and wondered why the opinion polls were so wrong. While most polls did indicate a greater probability of Clinton beating Trump and "remain" beating "exit," polls also measure variation, and these polls indicated enough variation that the alternative outcomes should not have been so surprising. For example, on Election Day in the United States, the legendary Nate Silver's poll-analysis blog FiveThirtyEight predicted a 71% chance for the Democrats to win the presidency. Thus, Silver also predicted a non-negligible, nearly 30% chance that Trump would win. In the United Kingdom, during the month leading up to the Brexit vote, nearly the same number of surveys gave "exit" the edge as gave "remain" the edge (17 of 35 surveys conducted in June 2016 indicated "exit" had the edge), suggesting either outcome had a realistic possibility of occurring.So why were people so surprised about these outcomes? Research published in this journal (and elsewhere) has shown that people are unrealistically optimistic about themselves (Tanner and Carlson 2009) and that they engage in motivated reasoning (Jain and Maheswaran 2000). I...

show abstract

Beyond Skepticism: Can Accessing Persuasion Knowledge Bolster Credibility?

Cited by 83 publications

References 64 publications

How well will this brand work? The ironic impact of advertising disclosure of body‐image retouching on brand attitudes

How well will this brand work? The ironic impact of advertising disclosure of body‐image retouching on brand attitudes

Adolescents and handheld advertising: The roles of brand familiarity and smartphone attachment in the processing of mobile advergames

Making Sense from (Apparent) Senselessness: The JCR Lens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About