Marketing Letters

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 349–358 | Cite as

Evaluative and factual ad claims, knowledge level, and making inferences

  • Sarah Gardial
  • Gabriel Biehal

Abstract

A lab study examined the effect of type of ad claim (factual versus evaluative) and knowledge level on subjects' product feature inference making from three camera ads. Each ad had some missing brand information. The results showed that as knowledge increased, so did inference making. Also, there was a significant interaction between ad claim and knowledge. Inference making was positively correlated with knowledge level for factual ads but not for evaluative ones. Finally, subjects made very few inferences to fill in missing ad features but instead did more interpretive processing.

Key words

Inference Making Ad Claim Product Knowledge 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, Rolph E., and Marvin A. Jolson. (1980). “Technical Wording in Advertising: Implications for Market Segmentation,”Journal of Marketing 44, 47–66.Google Scholar
  2. Alba, Joseph W., and J. Wesley Hutchinson. (1987). “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,”Journal of Consumer Research 13(4), 411–454.Google Scholar
  3. Bettman, James R., and C. Whan Park. (1980). “Implications of a Constructive View of Choice for Analysis of Protocol Data: A Coding Scheme for Elements of Choice Processes.” In Jerry Olson (ed.),Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 148–153.Google Scholar
  4. Brucks, Merrie. (1985). “The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research 12 (June), 1–16.Google Scholar
  5. Carlston, Donal E. (1980). “The Recall and Use of Traits and Events in Social Inference Processes,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 16 (July), 303–328.Google Scholar
  6. Chattopadhyay, Amitava, and Joseph W. Alba. (1988). “The Situational Importance of Recall and Inference in Consumer Decision Making,”Journal of Consumer Research 15(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  7. Dick, Alan, Dipankar, Chakravarti, and Gabriel J. Biehal. (1990). “Memory Based Inferences During Consumer Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research 17(1), 82–93.Google Scholar
  8. Dover, Phillip A. (1981). “Inferential Belief Formation: An Overlooked Concept in Information Processing Research.” In Thomas Kinnear (ed.),Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 187–189.Google Scholar
  9. Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. (1975).Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  10. Ford, Gary T., and Ruth A. Smith. (1987). “Inferential Beliefs in Consumer Evaluations: An Assessment of Alternative Processing Strategies,”Journal of Consumer Research 14(3), 363–371.Google Scholar
  11. Gardial, Sarah Fisher, and Gabriel Biehal. (1986). “Measuring Consumers' Inferential Processing in Choice.” In E. C. Hirschman and M. B. Holbrook (eds.),Advances in Consumer Research Vol. XII. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 101–105.Google Scholar
  12. Gardial, Sarah Fisher, and David W. Schumann. (1990). “In Search of the Elusive Consumer Inference.” In M. Goldberg, G. Gorn, and R. Pollay (eds.),Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. XVII. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 283–287.Google Scholar
  13. Greenwald, Anthony G., and Clark Leavitt. (1984). “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels,”Journal of Consumer Research 11(1), 581–592.Google Scholar
  14. Holbrook, Morris B. (1978). “Beyond Attitude Structures Toward Inferential Determinants of Attitude,”Journal of Marketing Research 15, 545–556.Google Scholar
  15. Huber, Joel, and John McCann. (1982). “The Impact of Inferential Beliefs on Product Evaluations,”Journal of Marketing Research 14, 324–333.Google Scholar
  16. Jaccard, James, and Gregory Wood. (1988). “The Effects of Incomplete Information on the Formation of Attitudes Toward Behavioral Alternatives,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(4), 580–591.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, Richard D., and Irwin P. Levin. (1985). “More Than Meets the Eye: The Effect of Missing Information on Purchase Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research 12, 169–177.Google Scholar
  18. Kardes, Frank. (1988). “Spontaneous Inference Processes in Advertising: The Effects of Conclusion Omission and Involvement on Persuasion,”Journal of Consumer Research 15(2), 225–233.Google Scholar
  19. Kardes, Frank. (1986). “Effects of Initial Product Judgments on Subsequent Memory-Based Judgments,”Journal of Consumer Research 13(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  20. Lynch, John G., Howard, Marmorstein, and Michael F. Weigold. (1988). “Choices from Sets Including Remembered Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research 15(2), 169–184.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, Raymond B. (1980). “Inferences at Comprehension: Fact or Artifact?”Journal of Reading Behavior 12(4), 279–297.Google Scholar
  22. Peter, J. Paul. (1979). “Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing Practices,”Journal of Marketing Research 16, 6–17.Google Scholar
  23. Shimp, Terence A., and Ivan L. Preston. (1981). “Deceptive and Non-Deceptive Consequences of Evaluative Advertising,”Journal of Marketing 45(1), 22–32.Google Scholar
  24. Sujan, Mita. (1985). “Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments,”Journal of Consumer Research 12(1), 31–46.Google Scholar
  25. Sujan, Mita, and Christine Dekleva. (1987). “Product Categorization and Inference Making: Some Implications for Comparative Advertising,”Journal of Consumer Research 14(3), 372–378.Google Scholar
  26. Wyer, Robert S.Jr., and Donal E. Carlston. (1979).Social Cognition, Inference, and Attribution. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Gardial
    • 1
  • Gabriel Biehal
    • 2
  1. 1.University of TennesseeUSA
  2. 2.University of MarylandUSA

Personalised recommendations