Using corrective and deceptive advertisements taken from the FTC's “Listerine Case,” the authors examine whether exposure to a single corrective advertisement can reduce residual effects emanating from exposure to deceptive advertising in a longitudinal context. Results show that limited exposure to corrective advertisements was ineffective in bringing brand beliefs into equilibrium with “normative” levels. Findings also indicate that corrective ads affect other attributes of the product category even though they are not addressed in a remedial message.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AakerD. A “Deceptive Advertising,” in AakerD. A. and DayG. S., eds., Consumerism: Search for the Consumer Interest, 2nd ed. New York: The Free Press, 1974, 137–56.
2.
Anonymous. “Corrective Advertising—The New Response to Consumer Deception,” Columbia Law Review, 72 (1972), 415–31.
3.
ArmstrongG. M. and McLennanJ. P. “The FTC and the Investigation and Regulation of Deception in Advertising,” in GreerThomas V., ed., Increasing Marketing Productivity / Conceptual and Methodological Foundations of Marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1973, 430–4.
4.
ArmstrongG. M. and RussF. A. “Detecting Deception in Advertising,” MSU Business Topics, 23 (Spring1975), 21–31.
5.
BrandtMichael T. and PrestonL. L. “The Federal Trade Commission's Use of Evidence to Determine Deception,” Journal of Marketing, 41 (January 1977), 54–62.
6.
Soup CompanyCampbell, et al. Packet C1741(1970). See the final order and opinion of the Commission by Chairman Weinberger, dated May 25, 1970, Trade Reg. Rep. 19, 261 (FTC, 1970).
7.
CohenD. “Surrogate Indicators and Deception in Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 36 (July 1972), 10–5.
8.
CohenD., “The Federal Trade Commission and the Regulation of Advertising in the Consumer Interest,” Journal of Marketing, 33 (January 1969), 40–4.
9.
DillonT. “What is Deceptive Advertising?” Journal of Advertising Research, 13 (October 1973), 9–12.
10.
DyerR. F. and KuehlP. G. “The ‘Corrective Advertising’ Remedy of the FTC: An Experimental Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 38 (January 1974), 48–54.
11.
DyerR. F. and KuehlP. G., “The Effectiveness of the FTC's ‘Corrective Advertising’ Policy: New Empirical Insights,” in ZeiglerSharilyn K., ed., Proceedings of the 1974 National Conference of the American Academy of Advertising. Boston: American Academy of Advertising. 166–177.
12.
FordG. T., KuehlP. G., and RekstenO. “Classifying and Measuring Deceptive Advertising: An Experimental Approach,” In Proceedings: 1975 Fall Educators' Conference of the American Marketing Association, Rochester, New York.
13.
GardnerD. M. “Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 39 (January 1975), 40–6.
14.
“Based on Can Deceptive Advertising Be Measured?” Working Series in Marketing Research, No. 18, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Business Administration, June 1973, 22 pages.
15.
HaefnerJ. E. “The Legal Versus the Behavioral Meaning of Deception,” in VenkatesanM., ed., Proceedings of the Association for Consumer Research, Fall1972, 356–60.
16.
HaefnerJ. E., BirchmoreM. T., and PermutS. E. “Applications of Belief Measures to Specific and Overall Advertising Claims: A Program for Research,” in ZeiglerS. K., ed., Proceedings of the 1974 National Conference for University Professors of Advertising, American Academy of Advertising, 311–7.
17.
HaefnerJ. E. and PermutS. E. “An Approach to the Evaluation of Deception in Television Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 3 (Fall1974), 40–5.
18.
HowardM. C.Legal Aspects of Marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1964.
19.
HuntH. Keith. “Effects of Corrective Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, 13 (October 1973), 15–24.
20.
HuntH. Keith, “Source Effects, Message Effects, and General Effects in Counteradvertising,” in VenkatesanM., ed., Proceedings, 3rd Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research, 1972, 370–81.
21.
JacobyJ. and SmallC. “The FDA Approach to Defining Misleading Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 39 (October 1975), 65–8.
22.
JonesM. G. “The FTC's Need for Social Science Research,” Proceedings, 2nd Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research, 1971, 1–9.
23.
KassarjianH. H., CarlsonC. J., and RosinP. E. “A Corrective Advertising Study,” in Mary JaneSchlinger, ed., Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 2, 1975, 631–42.
24.
KuehlP. G. and DyerR. F. “Brand Belief Measures in Deceptive-Corrective Advertising: An Experimental Assessment,” in BernhartKenneth L., ed., Marketing: 1776–1976 and Beyond, 1976 American Marketing Association Educators' Proceedings, 373–9.
25.
KuehlP. G. and DyerR. F., “Applications of the ‘Normative Belief’ Technique for Measuring the Effectiveness of Deceptive and Corrective Advertisements,” in PeraultWilliam L., ed., Advances in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 4, Proceedings of 1976 Association for Consumer Research Annual Conference, 204–12.
26.
MazisM. B. and AdkinsonJ. E. “An Experimental Evaluation of a Proposed Corrective Advertising Remedy,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (May 1976), 178–83.
27.
PrestonI. L. “A Comment on ‘Defining Misleading Advertising’ and ‘Deception in Advertising,’” Journal of Marketing, 40 (July 1976), 54–60.
28.
PrestonI. L., “The FTC's Handling of Puffery and Selling Claims ‘By Implication’” in WardArchet al., eds., Research on Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior. New York: American Elsevier, 1977. Pages unassigned.
29.
RoschJ. T. “Marketing Research and the Legal Requirements of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 39 (July 1975), 69–79.
30.
SawyerA. G. “The Measurement of the Effects of Deceptive and Corrective Advertising,” paper presented at the Seventh American Marketing Association Attitude Research Conference, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, February 14, 1976.
31.
SawyerA. G., “The Need to Measure Attitudes and Beliefs Over Time: The Case of Deceptive and Corrective Advertising,” in BernhartKenneth L., ed., Marketing: 1776–1976 and Beyond, 1976 American Marketing Association Educators' Proceedings, 380–5.
32.
“United States of America Before Federal Trade Commission in the Matter of Warner-Lambert Company,” Docket No. 8891, Final Order, December 9, 1975, 103 pages.
33.
WilkesR. E. and WilcoxJ. “Recent FTC Actions: Implications for the Advertising Strategist,” Journal of Marketing, 38 (January 1974), 55–61.
34.
WilkieW. L. “Research on Counter and Corrective Advertising,” paper presented at the American Marketing Association Conference on Advertising and the Public Interest, Washington, D.C., May 9–11, 1973, 16 pages.
35.
WilkieW. L. and GardnerD. M. “The Role of Marketing Research in Public Policy Decision-Making,” Journal of Marketing, 38 (January 1974), 38–47.
36.
WinerB. J.Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971.
