Based on theoretical and policy considerations, two criteria for a feasible procedure to detect misleading advertising are derived. Current concepts for detecting misleading advertising are reviewed and found wanting with respect to these criteria. Due to the orientation toward cases, misleading advertising can be detected only in specific instances, while judgments about a certain ad's capacity to mislead still must be made on intuitive grounds. A different procedure is presented, the misleading components approach, that aims at detecting certain types of misleading messages which might be found in many advertisements, thus avoiding the problems associated with case-oriented methodologies. Results are reported from a pilot study that show that it is possible to identify misleading components in advertising.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AakerDavid A. (1974), “Deceptive Advertising,” in Consumerism, 2d ed., AakerDavid A. and DayGeorge S., eds. New York: Free Press, 137–57.
2.
AdamsWilliams A. (1979), “Evaluation of an Expectancy Screening Model for Federal Trade Commission Reviews of Advertising Deception,” in Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes, MaloneyJohn C. and SilvermanBernard, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 254–66.
3.
AGV (1974), Formen und Umfang irrefúhrender Werbung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Gro[b]britannien.Kòln: Institut fúr angewandte Verbraucherforschung.
4.
ArmstrongGary M., GurolMetin N., and RussFrederick A. (1979), “Detecting and Correcting Deceptive Advertising,”Journal of Consumer Research6, 237–46.
5.
BrandtMichael T. and PrestonIvan L. (1977), “The Federal Trade Commission's Use of Evidence to Determine Deception,”Journal of Marketing41 (1), 54–62.
6.
BrehmJack W. (1966), The Theory of Psychological Reactance.New York: Academic Press.
7.
CohenDorothy (1980), “The FTC's Advertising Substantiation Program,”Journal of Marketing44(1), 26–35.
8.
DedlerKonrad, GottschalkIngrid, and GrunertKlaus G. (1981), “Perceived Risk as a Hint for Better Consumer Information and Better Products: Some New Applications of an Old Concept,” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 8, MonroeKent B., ed. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 391–97.
9.
EighmeyJohn (1979), “A Perspective on Advertising Copy Research and Advertising Law Enforcement,” in Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes, MaloneyJohn C. and SilvermanBernard, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 267–79.
10.
FordGary T., KuehlPhilip G., and RekstenOscar (1975), “Classifying and Measuring Deceptive Advertising: An Experimental Approach,” in 1975 Combined Proceedings, MazzeEdward M., ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 493–97.
11.
GardnerDavid M. (1975), “Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach,”Journal of Marketing39 (1), 40–46.
12.
HaefnerJ. E. (1972), “The Legal Versus the Behavioral Meaning of Deception,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, VenkatesanM. Ven, ed. College Park, Md.: Association for Consumer Research, 356–60.
13.
HarrisRichard J. (1977), “Comprehension of Pragmatic Implications in Advertising,”Journal of Applied Psychology62, 603–8.
14.
HolbrookMoris B. (1978), “Beyond Attitude Structure: Toward the Informational Determinants of Attitude,”Journal of Marketing Research15, 545–56.
15.
JacobyJacob and SmallConstance (1975), “The FDA Approach to Define Misleading Advertising,”Journal of Marketing39 (4), 65–73.
16.
KuehlPhilip G. and DyerRobert F. (1977), “Applications of the ‘Normative Belief’ Technique for Measuring the Effectiveness of Deceptive and Corrective Advertisements,” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 4, PerraultWilliam D., ed. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 204–12.
17.
NormanDonald A. and BobrowDaniel J. (1976), “On the Role of Active Memory Processes in Perception and Cognition,” in The Structure of Human Memory, CoferCharles N., ed. San Francisco: Freeman.
18.
OlsonJerry C. and DoverPhilipp A. (1978), “Cognitive Effects of Deceptive Advertising,”Journal of Marketing Research15, 29–38.
19.
PrestonIvan L. (1977), “The FTC's Handling of Puffery and Other Selling Claims Made ‘By Implication’,”Journal of Business Research5, 155–81.
20.
PrestonIvan L. (1980), “Researchers at the Federal Trade Commission—Peril and Promise,” in Current Issues and Research in Advertising, LeighJames H. and MartinClaude R., eds. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Graduate School of Business Administration, 1–15.
21.
RotfeldHerbert J. and RotzollKim B. (1980), “Is Advertising Puffery Believed?,”Journal of Advertising10, 16–20.
22.
RussoJ. Edward (1976), “When Do Advertisements Mislead the Consumer: An Answer from Experimental Psychology,”Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 3, AndersonBeverlee B., ed. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 273–75.
23.
RussoJ. Edward, MetcalfBarbara L., and StephensDebra (1981), “Identifying Misleading Advertising,”Journal of Consumer Research8, 119–31.
24.
SchutzHoward G. and CaseyMarianne (1981). “Consumer Perceptions of Advertising as Misleading,” Journal of Consumer Affairs15, 340–57.
25.
ShimpTerence A. (1978), “Do Incomplete Comparisons Mislead?,”Journal of Advertising Research18, 21–27.
26.
ShimpTerence A. and PrestonIvan L. (1981), “Deceptive and Nondeceptive Consequences of Evaluative Advertising,”Journal of Marketing45 (1), 22–32.
27.
StonePhilip J., DunphyDexter C., SmithMarshall S., and OgilvieDaniel M. (1966), The General Inquirer: A Computer Approach to Content Analysis.Cambridge, MA: MIT-Press.
