Advertisement

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 307–315 | Cite as

The impact of corrective advertising upon consumers' attitudes, beliefs, and behavior

  • Charles W. Lamb
  • Mary Ann Stutts
Article

Abstract

Laboratory experiments regarding the effectiveness of corrective advertising have produced mixed and somewhat inconsistent results. These findings, as well as previous conceptual contributions to the literature, are reviewed and briefly discussed. An alternate basis upon which to predict the impact of corrective advertising on consumers is proposed and supporting literature from social psychology is reviewed. The authors conclude that corrective advertising is not likely to achieve the goals of FTC policy makers.

Keywords

Consumer Research False Impression Initial Impression American Market Association Corrective Message 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anon. 1972. “Corrective Advertising and the FTC: No, Virginia, Wonder Bread Doesn't Build Strong Bodies Twelve Ways.”Michigan Law Review, 70, 374–399.Google Scholar
  2. Anon. 1977. “Court Reaffirms FTC on Ordering Listerine Corrective Ads.”Advertising Age, October 3, 1977, 6.Google Scholar
  3. Asch, S. 1946. “Forming Impressions of Personality.”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dyer, Robert F. and Kuehl, Phillip G. 1974. “The ‘Corrective Advertising’ Remedy of the FTC: An Experimental Approach.”Journal of Marketing 38 (January) 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. —and—. 1978. “A Longitudinal Study of Corrective Advertising.”Journal of Marketing Research 13 (February) 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Festinger, Leon. 1964. “Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance.” Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gardner, David M. 1975. “Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach.”Journal of Marketing 39 (January) 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. — 1976. “Deception in Advertising: A Receiver Oriented Approach to Understanding.”Journal of Advertising 5 (Fall) 5–11, 19.Google Scholar
  9. Giges, Nancy. 1978. “Listerine Slips in Disclaimer.”Advertising Age, September 11, 2.Google Scholar
  10. Hunt, H. Keith. 1972. “Source Effects, Message Effects, and General Effects in Counter-Advertising” in Venketesen, ed.,Proceedings of the Association for Consumer Research (Fall) 370–381.Google Scholar
  11. Hunt, H. Keith. 1973. “Effects of Corrective Advertising.”Journal of Advertising Research (October) 15–24.Google Scholar
  12. Jones, E.E., Rock, L., Shaver, K.G., Goethals, G.R. and Ward, L.M. 1968. “Pattern of Performance and Ability Attribution: An Unexpected Primary Effect.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 10, 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kassarjian, H.H., Carlson, D.J. and Rosen, P.E. (1975) “A Corrective Advertising Study.” in Mary Jane Schlinger, ed.,Proceedings of the Association for Consumer Research (Fall) 631–642.Google Scholar
  14. Kuehl, Phillip G. and Dyer, Robert F. 1976a. “Brand Belief Measures in Deceptive-Corrective Advertising: An Experimental Assessment.” in Kenneth L. Bernhardt, ed.,Marketing 1776–1976 and Beyond. Chicago: American Marketing Association. 373–379.Google Scholar
  15. Kuehl, Phillip G. and Dyer, Robert F. 1976b. “Applications of the “Normative Belief’ Technique for Measuring the Effectiveness of Deceptive and Corrective Advertisements.” in William L. Perreault, ed.,Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, Proceedings of the 1976 Association for Consumer Research Annual Conference, 204–212.Google Scholar
  16. Lepper, Mark R., Zanna, Mark P. and Abelson, Robert. 1970. “Cognitive Irreversibility in a Dissonance Reduction Situation.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luchins, A.S. {dy1942}. “Mechanization in Problem-Solving: The Effect of Einstellung.”Psychological Monographs 5, No. 248. 0Google Scholar
  18. — 1957. “Experimental Attempts to Minimize the Impact of First Impressions.” in C.I. Hovland, ed.,The Order of Presentation in Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Mazis, Michael B. and Adkinson, Janice E. 1976. “An Experimental Evaluation of a Proposed Corrective Advertising Remedy.”Journal of Marketing Research 13 (May) 178–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ross, Lee, Lepper, Mark R. and Hubbard, Michael. 1975. “Perseverance in Self-Perception and Social Perception: Biased Attributional Processes in the Debriefing Paradigm.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32, 880–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sawyer, Alan G. 1976. “The Need to Measure Attitudes and Beliefs Over Time: The Case of Deceptive and Corrective Advertising” in Kenneth L. Bernhart, ed.,Marketing 1776–1976 and Beyond. Chicago: American Marketing Association. 380–385.Google Scholar
  22. Semenik, Richard J. 1976. “Message Forms and Effective Corrective Advertising: An Experiment.” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Marketing, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  23. Walster, E., Berscheid, E., Abrahams, D. and Aronson, V. 1976. “Effectiveness of Debriefing Following Deceptive Experiments.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6, 370–380.Google Scholar
  24. Wilkie, William. 1973. “Research on Counter and Corrective Advertising.” Paper presented at the American Marketing Association Conference on Advertising and the Public Interest, Washington, D.C., May 10, 1973.Google Scholar
  25. Zadny, J. and Gerald, H.B. 1974. “Attributed Intentions and Informational Selectivity.”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10, 34–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles W. Lamb
    • 1
  • Mary Ann Stutts
    • 2
  1. 1.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityTusconUSA

Personalised recommendations