Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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 387
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.
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.
Clorox v. Procter & Gamble (2000). No. 99–1608, United States court of appeals for the first circuit, 228 F.3d 24
FTC (Federal Trade Commission) (1979). Statement of policy regarding comparative advertising. (Last accessed: November 26, 2009) [Available at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-compare.htm]
FTC (1983). FTC policy statement on deception. (Last accessed: November 26, 2009) [Available at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm]
Grossman, S. J. (1981). The informational role of warranties and private disclosure about product quality. Journal of Law and Economics, 24(3), 461–483.
Haan, P., & Berkey, C. (2002). A study of the believability of the forms of puffery. Journal of Marketing Communications, 8(4), 243–256.
Harris Poll (2009). Americans trust soft drink advertising. (Last accessed: February 27 2010), [Available at: http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/americans-trust-soft-drink-advertising11969/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=mc&utm_medium=textlink]
Hawkins, D. I., Best, R. J., & Coney, K. A. (2004). Consumer behavior. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Honigwachs, J. (1987). Is it safe to call something safe? The law of puffing in advertising. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 6, 157–170.
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.
Kysar, D. A. (2003). The expectations of consumers. Columbia Law Review, 103, 1700–1790.
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.
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: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100211/0133368126.shtml#comments]
Oliver, R. L. (1979). An interpretation of the attitudinal and behavioral effects of puffery. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 13(1), 8–27.
Petty, R. D., & Kopp, R. J. (1995). Advertising challenges: A strategic framework and current review. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(2), 41–55.
Pizza Hut v. Papa John’s Int’l (2000). No. 00–10071, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 227 F.3d 489
Preston, I. L. (1994). The tangled web they weave: Truth, falsity, and advertisers. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Preston, I. L. (1996). The great American blow-up. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
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.
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.
Richards, J. I. (1990). A ‘new and improved’ view of puffery. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 9(1), 73–84.
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.
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.
Rotfeld, H. J., & Rotzoll, K. B. (1980). Is advertising puffery believed? Journal of Advertising, 9(3), 16–45.
Rotfeld, H. J., & Rotzoll, K. B. (1981). Puffery vs. fact claims—Really different? Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 4(1), 85–103.
Schudson, M. (1984). Advertising, the uneasy persuasion. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
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.
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.
Tuten, T. L. (2008). Advertising 2.0: Social media marketing in a Web 2.0 world. Westport: Praeger.
Disclosure
This project was supported by Rider University CBA 2009–2010 Davis Fellowship awarded to the first author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1. Sugar ad
Appendix 2. Decree auto tire ad
Appendix 3. The Competitor, Moda’s auto tire ad
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gao, Z., Scorpio, E.A. Does Puffery Deceive? An Empirical Investigation. J Consum Policy 34, 249–264 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-9159-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-9159-4