Skip to main content

We are more tolerant than I: self-construal and consumer responses toward deceptive advertising

Abstract

Deceptive advertising, or advertising that intends to mislead consumers by false claims or incomplete disclosure, is ubiquitous in the marketplace. Though prior research has shown that consumers generally view companies’ deceptive communication as unethical and react to it negatively, anecdotal evidence suggests that some consumers are more accepting of such misleading tactics than others. Delving deeper into this phenomenon, this research examines the role of self-construal on consumers’ responses toward deceptive advertising. Three studies provide converging evidence that interdependent (vs. independent) consumers are more tolerant of deceptive advertising, which is mediated by their attribution styles. Moreover, we further demonstrate the self-construal effect on lie acceptability decreases as the firm becomes smaller, when it is easier for consumers to pinpoint who should be responsible for the misconduct and thus are more likely to make internal attribution.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Following Spiller et al. (2013), we further conducted a floodlight analysis using the Johnson-Neyman technique. This analysis revealed a significant negative effect of the dishonest ad on lie acceptability for those who scored 5.19 (B=−1.01, SE=.52, p=.05) or below on the self-construal scale but not for those who scored above 5.19 on the interdependent self-construal. These results confirm our expectations by demonstrating that participants with low interdependent self-construal were less likely to accept a firm’s dishonest ad.

  2. 2.

    We conducted an additional study to rule out alternative mechanisms (e.g., perceived controllability, perceived intention, sense of entitlement) as well as to examine the effects of other cultural dimensions (e.g., long-term orientation, power-distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity) on lie acceptability (see Appendix A in MDA for more detail).

  3. 3.

    Please see Appendix C in MDA for more detail.

References

  1. Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Team size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: A perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 203–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aune, R. K., & Waters, L. L. (1994). Cultural differences in deception: Motivations to deceive in Samoans and North Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(2), 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baum, J. R., & Wally, S. (2003). Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24(11), 1107–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen, C. Y. (2009). Who I am and how I think: The impact of self-construal on the roles of internal and external reference prices in price evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 416–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 47–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cojuharenco, I., Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M., & Schminke, M. (2012). Self-construal and unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 447–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising deception, defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dunbar, N. E., Gangi, K., Coveleski, S., Adams, A., Bernhold, Q., & Giles, H. (2016). When is it acceptable to lie? Interpersonal and intergroup perspectives on deception. Communication Studies, 67(2), 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Eberly, M. B., Holley, E. C., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Beyond internal and external: A dyadic theory of relational attributions. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 731–753.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Feldman, R. S., & Rosen, F. P. (1978). Diffusion of responsibility in crime, punishment, and other adversity. Law and Human Behavior, 2(4), 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Feng, C., Deshpande, G., Liu, C., Gu, R., Luo, Y. J., & Krueger, F. (2016). Diffusion of responsibility attenuates altruistic punishment: A functional magnetic resonance imaging effective connectivity study. Human Brain Mapping, 37(2), 663–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fonseca, A., Brauer, M., Moisuc, A., & Nugier, A. (2013). Cognitive load causes people to react ineffectively to others’ norm transgressions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(7), 1518–1527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. (2001). Emotion and ethical decision-making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gollwitzer, M., & Bücklein, K. (2007). Are “we” more punitive than “me”? Self-construal styles, justice-related attitudes, and punitive judgments. Social Justice Research, 20(4), 457–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., & Utsey, S. O. (2009). Collectivism, forgiveness, and social harmony. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(6), 821–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoyt, C. L., & Price, T. L. (2013). Ethical decision making and leadership: Merging social role and self-construal perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(4), 531–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kühnen, U., Hannover, B., & Schubert, B. (2001). The semantic-procedural interface model of the self: The role of self-knowledge for context-dependent versus context-independent modes of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 397–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T. (2006). What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lapinski, M. K., & Levine, T. R. (2000). Culture and information manipulation theory: The effects of self-construal and locus of benefit on information manipulation. Communication Studies, 51(1), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lammers, J., Stapel, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21(5), 737–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Levine, T. R., Lapinski, M. K., Banas, J., Wong, N. C. H., Hu, A. D. S., Baum, K. L., & Anders, L. N. (2002). Self-construal, self and other benefit, and the generation of deceptive messages. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31(1), 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Levine, T. R., McCornack, S. A., & Avery, P. B. (1992). Sex differences in emotional reactions to discovered deception. Communication Quarterly, 40(3), 289–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mealy, M., Stephan, W., & Urrutia, C. (2007). The acceptability of lies: A comparison of Ecuadorians and Euro-Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(6), 689–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Menon, T., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1999). Culture and the construal of agency: Attribution to individual versus group dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 701–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 949–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Oliveira, C. M., & Levine, T. R. (2008). Lie acceptability: A construct and measure. Communication Research Reports, 25(4), 282–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J., & Schor, J. B. (2011). The underdog effect: The marketing of disadvantage and determination through brand biography. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 775–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Seiter, J. S., Bruschke, J., & Bai, C. (2002). The acceptability of deception as a function of perceivers’ culture, deceiver’s intention, and deceiver-deceived relationship. Western Journal of Communication, 66(2), 158–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sinha, J., & Lu, F. C. (2016). “I” value justice, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal effects on post-transgression consumer forgiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(2), 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., & McClelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tipton, M. M., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Robertson, D. C. (2009). Regulatory exposure of deceptive marketing and its impact on firm value. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 227–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Udayasankar, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and firm size. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 167–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2007). Social groups and the flexibility of virtue. Psychological Science, 18(8), 689–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Vincent, L. C., Emich, K. J., & Goncalo, J. A. (2013). Stretching the moral gray zone: Positive affect, moral disengagement, and dishonesty. Psychological Science, 24(4), 595–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wuerthele, M. (2016). Corporate culture, haste reportedly at core of Samsung mishandling of Note 7 situation. Retrieved from https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/10/12/corporate-culture-haste-reportedly-at-core-of-samsung-mishandling-of-note-7-situation. Accessed 5 July 2020.

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by a Hong Kong SAR General Research Fund (HKBU12501617) awarded to the first author, the Start-up Research Fund awarded by Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (#JBK2001068; #JBK2107164) to the second author.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaoyan Liu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Sohyun Bae, Xiaoyan Liu and Sharon Ng contributed equally to this paper.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1.16 MB)

Supplementary file2 (PDF 313 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bae, S., Liu, X. & Ng, S. We are more tolerant than I: self-construal and consumer responses toward deceptive advertising. Mark Lett (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-021-09593-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Deceptive advertising
  • Lie acceptability
  • Self-construal
  • Causal attribution
  • Firm size