Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 249–264 | Cite as

Does Puffery Deceive? An Empirical Investigation

  • Zhihong Gao
  • Elaine A. Scorpio
Original Paper


This paper reports four experiments that investigated whether puffery in advertising deceives or not. The first study tested the effects of six levels of puffery on consumer perceptions of ad truthfulness and brand attitude. Study 2 tested the effect of puffery on perceptions of ad truthfulness under conditions of low- and high-product involvement. Study 3 compared puffery to fact-based claims and found that fact-based claims increased perceptions of ad truthfulness. Study 4 found that perceptions of ad truthfulness decreased when the consumer was exposed to puffery in an ad and also in a competitor’s ad.


Puffery US law Consumer perception Experiments 



This project was supported by Rider University CBA 2009–2010 Davis Fellowship awarded to the first author.


  1. Am. Italian Pasta Co. v. New World Pasta Co. (2004). No. 03–2065, United States court of appeals for the eighth circuit, 371 F.3d 387Google Scholar
  2. Bergh, B. G. V., & Reid, L. N. (1980). Effects of product puffery on response to print advertisements. Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 3(1), 123–134.Google Scholar
  3. Callister, M. A., & Stern, L. A. (2007). The role of visual hyperbole in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 29(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  4. Clorox v. Procter & Gamble (2000). No. 99–1608, United States court of appeals for the first circuit, 228 F.3d 24Google Scholar
  5. FTC (Federal Trade Commission) (1979). Statement of policy regarding comparative advertising. (Last accessed: November 26, 2009) [Available at:]
  6. FTC (1983). FTC policy statement on deception. (Last accessed: November 26, 2009) [Available at:]
  7. Grossman, S. J. (1981). The informational role of warranties and private disclosure about product quality. Journal of Law and Economics, 24(3), 461–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haan, P., & Berkey, C. (2002). A study of the believability of the forms of puffery. Journal of Marketing Communications, 8(4), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harris Poll (2009). Americans trust soft drink advertising. (Last accessed: February 27 2010), [Available at:]
  10. Hawkins, D. I., Best, R. J., & Coney, K. A. (2004). Consumer behavior. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Honigwachs, J. (1987). Is it safe to call something safe? The law of puffing in advertising. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 6, 157–170.Google Scholar
  12. Kamins, M., & Marks, L. J. (1987). Advertising puffery: The impact of using two-sided claims on product attitude and purchase intention. Journal of Advertising, 16(4), 6–15.Google Scholar
  13. Kysar, D. A. (2003). The expectations of consumers. Columbia Law Review, 103, 1700–1790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marks, L. J., & Kamins, M. (1988). The use of product sampling and advertising: Effects of sequence of exposure and degree of advertising claim exaggeration on consumers’ belief strength, belief confidence, and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(3), 266–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Masnik, M. (2010). Domino’s turns a loss in a lawsuit it wasn’t involved in into a TV commercial; last accessed: March 17 2010), [Available at:]
  16. Oliver, R. L. (1979). An interpretation of the attitudinal and behavioral effects of puffery. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 13(1), 8–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Petty, R. D., & Kopp, R. J. (1995). Advertising challenges: A strategic framework and current review. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(2), 41–55.Google Scholar
  18. Pizza Hut v. Papa John’s Int’l (2000). No. 00–10071, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 227 F.3d 489Google Scholar
  19. Preston, I. L. (1994). The tangled web they weave: Truth, falsity, and advertisers. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  20. Preston, I. L. (1996). The great American blow-up. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  21. Preston, I. L. (1997). Regulatory positions toward advertising puffery of the uniform commercial code and the Federal Trade Commission. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16(2), 336–345.Google Scholar
  22. Preston, I. L. (2003). Dilution and negation of consumer information by antifactual content: Proposals for solutions. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 37(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Richards, J. I. (1990). A ‘new and improved’ view of puffery. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 9(1), 73–84.Google Scholar
  24. Richards, J. I., Andrews, J. C., & Maronick, T. J. (1995). Advertising research issues from FTC versus Stouffer Foods Corporation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15(2), 301–309.Google Scholar
  25. Rotfeld, H. J., & Preston, I. L. (1981). The potential impact of research on advertising law “…” the case of puffery. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(2), 9–17.Google Scholar
  26. Rotfeld, H. J., & Rotzoll, K. B. (1980). Is advertising puffery believed? Journal of Advertising, 9(3), 16–45.Google Scholar
  27. Rotfeld, H. J., & Rotzoll, K. B. (1981). Puffery vs. fact claims—Really different? Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 4(1), 85–103.Google Scholar
  28. Schudson, M. (1984). Advertising, the uneasy persuasion. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Simonson, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (1993). Permissible puffery versus actionable warranty in advertising and sales talk: An empirical investigation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12(2), 216–233.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, R. B., & Moschis, G. P. (1985). A socialization perspective on selected consumer characteristics of the elderly. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 19(1), 74–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tuten, T. L. (2008). Advertising 2.0: Social media marketing in a Web 2.0 world. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rider UniversityLawrencevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations