Effective Counter Arguments

1

Protecting Consumers from Harmful Advertising:
The Role Counter Claim Alignment in Creating Resistance to Persuasion

Petia K. Petrova
Robert B. Cialdini
Noah J. Goldstein
Vladas Griskevicius

working paper, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth

in preparation for 2nd round review
Journal of Consumer Research

Each year consumers spend more than $17 billion on a variety of health and dietary
supplements, such as CortiStress, TrimSpa, One-A-Day WeightSmart, many of which
claim to either facilitate weight loss (e.g. Xenadrine EFX is clinically proven to cause
rapid and substantial weight loss, Consumer Affairs 2007) or decrease the risk of various
diseases such as osteoporosis, Alzheimer's, or cancer (FDA 2002). Concerns, however,
have been raised about the effectiveness and safety of such supplements, and consumers
have been warned that the ingredients of some of these remedies can lead to
gastrointestinal side effects, headaches, and sleep disturbances (County of San
Bernardino, Department of Public Health 2006; “Does Trimspa Really Work?” 2004). As
a result, the Federal Trade Commission fined several companies, including the
manufacturer of Xenadrine EFX, $25 million for deceptive advertising. Yet, an
important question remains. Given the health, financial, and psychological risks that
such advertising poses to consumers, what are the most effective strategies to protect
consumers and generate resistance toward harmful persuasive attempts? More generally,
how can we counteract ad claims that are misleading to consumers?
Although the consumer behavior literature provides considerable insight for
marketers in designing persuasive communications to increase consumers’ intentions to
purchase a product, little knowledge exists on how to create resistance to misleading
advertising and prevent consumption of harmful products. This imbalance seems
unfortunate, given the efforts of various organizations to combat the influence of
different persuasive messages to which consumers are exposed. Such efforts are often
motivated by the general goal of protecting consumers from massive advertising that is
likely to increase risky behaviors such as smoking (Pechmann and Shih 1999, Pechmann
and Knight 2002; Pechmann et al. 2003), alcohol abuse (Casswell and Zhang 1998;
Grube and Wallack 1994; Wyllie, Zhang, and Caswell 1998), unhealthy food
consumption (Brownell and Horgen, 2004; Halford et al., 2004, 2007, 2008; Harris,
Bargh, and Brownell 2009; Hastings et al., 2003; Murray, 2001), gambling, and drug
misuse or abuse (Volkow 2006). Unfortunately, research provides evidence that these
efforts are often unsuccessful. For example, antismoking advertising campaigns are often
found to be ineffective (Chassin, Presson and Sherman 1990; Pechmann and Reibling
2000), disclaimers, disclosures, and product warnings have not been proven effective
(Andrews 1995; Argo and Main 2004; Hankin, Sloan, and Sokol 1998; Johar and

2

Simmons 2000), and even corrective advertising may not reduce false beliefs (Dyer and
Kuehl 1974; Jacoby, Nelson, and Hoyer 1982; Johar 1996).
Spurred by this imbalance in the consumer research literature, the present
investigation examines the effectiveness of various types of counter claims in creating
resistance to misleading advertising and undermining consumption of products with
possible harmful effects. We focused on one particular dimension: whether the counter
claim undermines the original claim made by the ad or presents negative information
without refuting the ad claims. For example, tobacco products are commonly advertised
using images of attractiveness and fun, creating a positive stereotype of smokers (Mazis ,
Ringold, Perry, and Denman 1992; Pechmann and Knight 2002; Pechmann and Shih
1999). At the same time, anti smoking campaigns often provide information about the
negative health consequences of smoking without undermining its positive stereotype.
Indeed, research shows that these messages have increased perceptions of risk. However,
they had little impact on the favorable image of smoking promoted in tobacco advertising
(Romer and Jamieson 2001). Thus, it has been suggested that a more efficient way to
reduce tobacco consumption might be to attack the positive image of smokers and
associate smoking with negative stereotypes (Blum 1994; Pechmann and Knight 2002).
If one wishes to create maximal resistance to a message, should one design
counter claims that attack the specific claims in that message or is it more effective to
provide competing information that reveals another side of the issue? Although both
strategies can be seen in existing campaigns, the current literature does not tell us which
of the two approaches is likely to be more effective. To answer this question we draw on
structural alignment theory and biased assimilation research to predict that whether one
or the other approaches will be more effective will depend on the credibility of the source
of the counter message. That is, we propose that counter claims that attack the specific ad
claims are more effective than competing information that reveals another side of the
issue when the source of the counter message is perceived as credible. However, when
the source of the counter message is not perceived as credible, negative information that
does not undermine the specific ad claims is likely to be more effective.
This research offers three important contributions. First, it represents an initial
step toward reducing an unfortunate gap in the consumer behavior literature regarding
effective strategies for creating resistance to persuasion. Second, it provides insight into
the effects of different types of negative information by proposing a novel distinction
between information that directly refutes the claims of an ad and information that
presents competing evidence unrelated to the ad claims. Third, this research reveals
insight into how the credibility of the source of the negative information determines what
type of information is most likely harm the brand.
Along with their theoretical implications, the findings from this research have
importance for policy makers, consumer advocacy organizations, and marketing
practitioners by providing practical advice on how to best counter misleading advertising
and prevent consumption of products with potential harmful consequences.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

Research into the process of persuasion reveals that the impact of a persuasive
communication depends to a large extent on the personal reactions of the audience to the

3

message (Greenwald 1968). As a central assertion of the cognitive response model of
persuasion (Greenwald 1968), this idea has spurred a number of studies demonstrating
the negative effect of counter argumentation on message acceptance (Brock 1967; Eagly
and Chaiken 1993; Osterhouse and Brock 1970; Petty and Wegner 1998; Killeya and
Johnson 1998; McGuire and Papageorgis 1962; Petty and Cacioppo 1977; Romero,
Agnew, and Insko 1996). The impact of a persuasive communication can also be
undermined by directly providing individuals with ready counter arguments, which
results in levels of resistance similar to those created by forewarning them of a future
persuasive attempt (Romeo et al. 1996). Despite the extensive literature on the role of
counter argumentation in persuasion, there is little research into the content of the type of
counter information that is most likely to create resistance to a message.

What Constitutes an Effective Counter Claim?

We focus on a crucial dimension of differentiating between various counter
claims: whether the counter claim undermines the ad claims or contains negative
information about other unrelated attributes. Commonly, public health campaigns inform
consumers of the health risks associated with various products without undermining the
claims with which such products are promoted. However, little empirical research has
examined the effectiveness of these strategies in comparison to a strategy in which the
counter claims refute the message claims.
The structural alignment theory (Gentner & Markman, 1994, 1997; Markman and
Medin, 1995; Medin, Goldstone, & Markman, 1995) classifies attributes into three
groups: commonalities, alignable differences, and nonalignable differences. The
structural alignment theory further suggests that in choosing among alternatives
individuals primarily rely on alignable differences rather than nonalignable differences.
For example, when consumers learn about new brands, they tend to compare their
attributes to the attributes of familiar brands. Consequently, they are likely to prefer the
new brand over a familiar brand only if the new brand is superior on the attributes with
which the familiar brand is promoted (Zhang and Markman 2001; Zhang, Kardes, and
Cronley 2002; Zhang and Markman 1998).
Research in several domains provide further evidence for the effects of
information alignment. For example, early inoculation research suggests that refuting the
specific claims in a forthcoming attack is likely to result in stronger resistance to the
attack than considering unrelated information in support of the initial belief (McGuire
1964; McGuire and Papageorgis 1962). In another domain, persuasive appeals tend to be
more effective when the nature of the appeal matches rather than mismatches the basis of
the attitude. For example, attitudes based on affect are easier to change with an affect-
based appeal, while cognition-based attitudes are more susceptible to cognitive appeals
(Edwards 1990; Edwards and von Hippel 1995; Fabrigar and Petty 1999). Research also
demonstrates that when a brand is positioned in an abstract way (e.g., “The best pen
money can buy”), general counter claims (“There is nothing special about this pen”) are
likely to cause greater judgment revision than counter claims about specific attributes
(“The package was too difficult to open”). When a brand is positioned in a specific way
(e.g., “Omega 3 provides sloped design and optimal balancing”), counter claims about
specific attributes are likely to be more damaging (Pham and Muthukrishnan 2002).

4

Despite the existing research on information alignment, the relative effectiveness
of undermining the message claims vs. providing negative information unrelated to the
message claim has not been examined before. Yet, applying previous research on
information alignment to resistance processes, it seems that an effective way to
undermine the impact of an ad would be to provide counter claims that are aligned with
the claims of the ad rather than provide negative information unrelated to the ad claims.
The present research tests this question and examines variables that may moderate the
effects of information alignment in creating resistance.

The role of source credibility

Starting with the Yale approach to attitude change (Hovland and Weiss, 1951;
Hovland et al., 1953), the role of source credibility in persuasion has been subject to
extensive research (Eagly et al., 1978; Fein et al., 1997; Mills and Jellison, 1967; Priester
and Petty, 1995). Yet previous research has not examined the role of the credibility of the
source of a counter message in the process of resistance to persuasion. How source
credibility influences the effects of information alignment has not been examined either.
Moreover, in previous research examining the effects of information alignment (Fabrigar
and Petty 1999; McGuire 1964; McGuire and Papageorgis 1962; Pham and
Muthukrishnan 2002), the counter message typically came from a trusted source. Thus, it
is not clear what would be the relative effectiveness of aligned and nonaligned counter
claims when the source of these counter claims is not perceived as credible.
Research on biased assimilation (Lord, Ross, and Lepper 1979) suggests that
consumers are likely to be more biased and more critical toward information that is
inconsistent with existing expectations. According to the biased assimilation theory
(Lord, Ross, and Lepper 1979; Edwars and Smith 1996), when people are presented with
an argument, information relevant to the argument is automatically activated. If this
activated information is inconsistent with the argument, people are more likely to
scrutinize the argument and search for information that undermines its validity. The
output of this search is then integrated with other (less biased) considerations to form a
judgment.
Applying the conclusions of the biased assimilation research, we can expect that
consumers will be more biased and critical when presented with aligned counter claims
(and thus forced to reconcile between two opposing views) than when presented with
nonaligned counter claims. Accordingly, when the counter claim comes from a distrusted
source, aligned information will be evaluated more negatively and will be less effective
than nonaligned information.

STUDY 1

In recent years, advertising of health care products has rapidly increased. The
aggressive marketing by the pharmaceutical industry has been cited as one of the leading
causes for the recent increase of misuse and abuse of prescription drugs (Volkow 2006;
United States General Accounting Office 2003). This explosion in health products
advertising is accompanied by an increase in the technical difficulty of the information
with which health products are promoted. Both drug and supplement advertisements rely

5

on scientific jargon to persuade consumers (Haard, Slater, and Long 2004) and claim to
promote health or prevent disease in ways that may confuse the consumer (Vladeck
2000). Furthermore, companies are eager to bring the results of medical studies to
potential consumers, often before the results have been subject to replication or to the
scrutiny of the larger scientific community. For example, in 2007, the Federal Trade
Commission investigated claims made by the manufacturers of Airborne that its product
cures and prevents colds. Investigations revealed that the clinical trials used to support
Airborne’s claims about its effectiveness were actually conducted without any doctors or
scientists (ABC 2008). Furthermore, experts cautioned against the safety of the product
warning that Airborne may provide too much vitamin A. While the package directs
customers to take three pills of Airborne per day, just two pills provide 10,000 IU, the
maximum safe level of vitamin A for a day (Airborne Settlement 2008).
Study 1 implemented a similar context by examining the effectiveness of aligned
and non-aligned claims promoting a new allergy drug. We created an ad for a new brand
of allergy medication called Levatin. One of the versions of the ad promoted the product
as highly safe. Another version promoted the product as highly effective. We then
experimentally crossed the specific content of the aligned and the nonaligned claims.
That is, for each of the two versions of the Levatin ad, we tested the effects of a
Consumer Reports message which presented counter claims undermining either the
effectiveness or the safety of Levatin. This allowed us to test whether we were able to
successfully calibrate the strength of the aligned and nonaligned counterarguments for
each of the ads. Moreover, the crossed design of the study allowed us to ensure that any
differences in the effects of the two types of counter claims could not be attributed to the
specific information in the two counter claims.
Consistently with our conceptual analysis, we expected that when participants are
presented with a counter message from a highly credible source such as Consumer
Reports, the aligned counter claims would be more effective regardless of the specific
information in the ad. However, although we expected that the majority of our
participants would perceive a message from the Consumer Reports as credible, we also
expected individual differences in participants’ perceptions of the credibility of the
Consumer Reports message to moderate the effects of counter claim alignment.
Our goal was to test this prediction in a context that maximally captures the
reality in which consumers encounter negative brand information. Accordingly, we
incorporated several features in the design. First, because typically there is a delay
between exposure to an ad and exposure to negative brand information, we conducted
study 1 in two sessions one week apart. During the first session, participants saw the
Levatin ad. During the second session, one week later, participants saw the Consumer
Reports counter message. Second, consumers typically encounter brand information
along with information about various other brands. Thus, during each of the two sessions,
participants saw and evaluated the Levatin ad and the Consumer Reports message along
with several other unrelated messages. Third, to recreate the natural circumstances in
which consumers encounter brand information, all of the study materials were presented
on a website specifically designed for the purpose of the study.

Method

6

Stimuli. Study 1 focused on two attributes frequently promoted in ads for health
products – effectiveness and safety. To examine the relative importance of these two
attributes, we asked 263 undergraduate students: 1) When choosing a medication (e.g.
allergy medication), how important is it for you that it is proven effective? and 2) When
choosing a medication (e.g. allergy medication), how important is it for you that it is
proven safe? Both attributes were rated as highly important and no significant differences
between the two attributes were observed, F(1,263) = 1.16, n.s., Msafety = 6.93 (scale: 0 to
8, SD = 1.62), Meffectiveness = 6.83 (SD = 1.56).
In order to control for differences in the information provided by the aligned and
non-aligned counter claims we created two versions of an ad for Levatin which either
promoted the product as highly effective or highly safe.
The ad promoting Levatin as highly effective reported results of studies revealing
that Levatin was effective for 93% of the patients. It contained the headline: “Levatin for
allergy symptoms. Clinically proven effectiveness.” Below the headline was a picture and
the following message: “To ensure the effectiveness of our product, we put Levatin to a
stringent clinical trial. The results were incredible. 93% of the participants taking Levatin
experienced significantly reduced allergy symptoms.” Along with this text was a chart
indicating the percentage of cases with improved symptoms.
The second version of the ad promoted Levatin as a safe way to relieve allergy
symptoms; it reported results of studies demonstrating that 99% of the participants taking
the drug did not experience any side effects. The text of the ad was “Levatin for allergy
symptoms. Clinically proven safety. To ensure the safety of our product, we put Levatin
to a stringent clinical trial. The results were incredible. 99% of the participants taking
Levatin experienced no significant side effects.”
For each of the two Levatin ads we created two versions of a message from
Consumer Reports Healthwatch. We modeled the message after a section of the
Consumer Reports magazine in which the magazine reproduces ads and other brand
information and points to misleading or omitted information. Accordingly, we created a
message that reproduced the Levatin ad and then presented information that corrected the
ad claims (Appendix A).
The specific content of the Consumer Reports message varied depending on
condition. For participants who saw the ad positioning the product as highly safe, the
aligned counter claim reported results from larger and better-controlled studies
demonstrating that 30% of the patients taking Levatin experienced significant side
effects. The non-aligned counter claim reported studies showing that 35% of the patients
continued to experience the symptoms they had prior to taking Levatin. The reverse was
the case for participants who saw the effectiveness ad. The aligned counter message
claimed that 35% of the patients continued to experience the symptoms they had had
prior to taking Levatin, and the non-aligned version reported studies demonstrating that
30% of the patients taking Levatin experienced significant side effects. This 2 (ad claim)
by 2 (counter claim alignment) between-subjects design allowed us to control for the
specific information provided by the aligned and non-aligned counter claims.
To ensure equal strength of the claims in the two aligned counter messages we
conducted a second pretest. Fifty four participants viewed one of the two versions of the
aligned counter message and responded to questions. We assessed participants’
evaluations of Levatin by asking them to rate 1) their overall impression of Levatin (from

7

negative to positive), 2) how they would evaluate Levatin, overall (from unfavorable to
favorable), 3) how likely they would be to consider taking Levatin if at some point they
experience allergy symptoms, 4) how likely they would be to buy Levatin if they found
themselves shopping for an allergy medication, 5) how likely they would be to
recommend Levatin to a friend who is deciding on which allergy product to take, and 6)
how much they like Levatin (from not at all to very much). These items fit well in a
single scale (Cronbach’s Reliability α = .86). Perceptions of the credibility of the
Consumer Reports article were then assessed with the following questions: 1) How
honest is the Consumer Reports message? 2) “To what extent do you feel you can trust
the information presented in the Consumer Reports message? 3) To what extent do you
feel that you can believe the information presented in the Consumer Reports message?
and 4) To what extent do you feel that the Consumer Reports message accurately portrays
Levatin? (α = .91). Finally, we asked participants: To what extent do you think the
Consumer Reports message disproved the original claim of the ad? All of the responses
were provided on a scale from 0 to 8.
The pretest did not reveal any significant differences in the effects of the two
aligned counter claims on brand evaluations (Meffectiveness = 2.38, Msafety = 2.36, F < 1),
perceived credibility of the Consumer Reports message (Meffectiveness = 5.00, Msafety = 5.27;
F < 1) and the extent to which the counter message disproved the original claims of the
ad (Meffectiveness = 5.20, Msafety = 5.15, F < 1). These results provided confidence that the
two counterclaims provided comparable information.
Procedure. During two consecutive sessions, one week apart, 45 male and 77
female undergraduate students evaluated a series of messages presented on a website
designed for the purpose of the study. Most of the messages were filler ads unrelated to
the study with the exception of the Levatin ad that was presented during the first session
and the Consumer Reports counter message that was presented in the second session one
week later. To reduce demand characteristics, one of the filler messages also came from a
consumer protection organization and contained information about call phones.
Participants were able to access the experimental web site from their home or
other locations with internet access. This allowed us to simulate the natural circumstances
under which consumers encounter information about health products. To further reduce
demand characteristics we informed participants that during the two experimental
sessions they would view various messages and advertisements that appeared in a one-
week period in various media (e.g. magazines, web-pages, or newspapers). We further
told participants that we were interested in their reactions to the messages that had
appeared that week, so after each message they would be asked some questions.
During the first session of the study, participants saw a set of three messages. The
second message in the session was the Levatin ad, which was presented for 30 seconds.
After examining each message, participants responded to a series of questions. This
allowed us to obtain a baseline measure of the evaluations of the Levatin and test the
effects of the different counter messages while controlling for the initial evaluations of
the advertised brand. One week later, participants completed the second session of the
study, and reviewed a set of two filler ads and the Consumer Reports counter message,
which appeared second in the session and was presented for 75 seconds. Again, after
examining each message, participants responded to a series of questions.

8

After completing the study, participants were eligible for a drawing to win $50 if
at the end of the study they responded correctly to a set of questions related to the
information in the ads.
Dependent Variables
After presenting the Levatin ad at session 1, we assessed message beliefs by
asking participants 1) To what extent do you think Levatin can effectively reduce allergy
symptoms? and 2) To what extent do you think Levatin has significant side effects. Then,
we assessed participants’ evaluations of Levatin with the items used in the pretest
(Cronbach’s Reliability α = .95).
One week later, during the second session of the study, participants saw the
Consumer Reports message (along with several filler ads) and responded to a set of
questions. We assessed message beliefs again using the items from session 1. Then, as a
manipulation check, we asked participants to rate the extent to which they thought the
Consumer Reports message disproved the original claim of the ad. We also assessed
evaluations of Levatin with the same items used in session 1 (Cronbach’s Reliability α =
.94). Participants then rated their perceptions of the credibility of the Consumer Reports
article by responding to the following questions: 1) How honest is the Consumer Reports
message?, 2) To what extent do you feel you can trust the information presented in the
Consumer Reports message?, 3) To what extent do you feel that you can believe the
information presented in the Consumer Reports message?, and 4) To what extent do you
feel that the Consumer Reports message accurately portrays Levatin? (α = .95). The
dependent variables were measured in the order they were described above. All of the
responses were provided on a scale from 0 to 8.
At the end of the study participants indicated their gender and whether they have
used allergy medication in the past. Then they responded to the questions related to the
drawing of the $50 prize (e.g. What was the dominant color in the Levatin ad?, Which of
the following brands was not advertised in the set of ads that you saw during the
experiment?). At the end we included a set of questions intended to address participants’
awareness of the purpose of the study (e.g. Do you have any questions about this study?,
What do you think the purpose of the study was?, Did you find any aspect of the study
odd, confusing, or disturbing?, Do you think that there might have been more to the study
than the stated purpose?). Most of the participants indicated that the study examined
responses to advertising. However, none of the participants guessed the hypothesis of the
study. The post-experimental questionnaire also revealed that none of the participants
found any aspect of the study confusing or disturbing.

Results

Preliminary analysis. Analysis of participants’ initial brand evaluations during
session 1 revealed no significant effects of claim of the ad (safety vs. effectiveness,
F(1,118) = 2.35, n.s.). Analyses of participants’ initial beliefs in the ad claims revealed
that participants who saw the effectiveness ad perceived Levatin as significantly more
effective in relieving allergy symptoms than participants who saw the safety ad, F(1, 120)
= 8.75, p = .01, Meffectiveness = 5.57, Msafety = 4.58. Similarly, participants who saw the
safety ad believed that Levatin has less side effects than participants who saw the
effectiveness ad, F(1, 120) = 18.30, p < .01, Meffectiveness = 4.14, Msafety = 2.68. There were

9

no significant differences in the extent to which participants believed the claims of the
two ads, as measured by ratings of Levatin’s safety (among participants who viewed the
safety ad) or effectiveness (among participants who viewed the effectiveness ad), F < 1.
Consistent with the purpose of our manipulations, participants perceived the two
aligned messages as disproving the claims of the ad to a greater extent than the two non-
aligned messages (F(1, 118) = 38.70, p < .01; Maligned= 6.25; Mnonaligned = 3.56).
Furthermore, as indicated by the nonsignificant effect of ad claim (safety vs.
effectiveness), F < 1, and the nonsignificant interaction between ad claim and counter
claim alignment, F(1, 118) = 1.44, p = .22, participants rated the two aligned counter
messages corresponding to the two Levatin ads as equally disproving the claims of the
ad.
Brand Evaluations. Our main hypothesis predicted that across the two Levatin
ads, the aligned counter claims would result in greater change in participants’ evaluations
of the brand than the nonaligned counter claims. To test this hypothesis we conducted
analysis of covariance with participants’ evaluations of Levatin during the second session
as a dependent variable and Levatin evaluations measured at session 1 as a covariate. The
analysis revealed a significant main effect of counter claim alignment, F(1, 117) = 6.44, p
= .01. The main effect of ad claim (safety vs. effectiveness, F(1, 117) = 1.55, p = .22)
and the interaction between ad claim and counter claim type were not significant (F(1,
117) = 1.02, p = .32). According to these results, the aligned counter claims resulted in a
greater decrease in the evaluations of Levatin regardless of their specific content. When
the product was advertised as highly effective, a counter claim about the ineffectiveness
of the product lowered participants’ evaluations of Levatin to a greater extent than a
counter claim about possible side effects, Mnonaligned adj. = 2.59, Maligned adj. = 1.77. At the
same time, when Levatin was advertised as a safe way to relieve allergy symptoms, the
same information about low effectiveness was less detrimental than information about
possible side effects, Mnonaligned adj. = 2.07, Maligned adj. = 1.71, Figure 1.
To examine whether changes in ad claim beliefs mediated the effects of counter
claim alignment on brand evaluations, we calculated ad claim beliefs based on
participants’ ratings of Levatin’s safety (for participants who viewed the safety ad) or
effectiveness (for participants who viewed the effectiveness ad). First, we tested the
effects of counter claim alignment on ad claim beliefs at Session 2 including initial ad
claim beliefs as a covariate. The results revealed a significant main effect of counter
claim alignment on ad claim beliefs, F(1,117) = 80.52, p = .001. The aligned counter
claim resulted in lower beliefs in the ad claims than the nonaligned counter claim. A
marginally significant interaction between counter claim alignment and ad claim,
F(1,117) = 3.55, p = .06 revealed that this effect was stronger when the ad claimed that
Levatin was safe. However, the effect of counter claim alignment on ad claim beliefs was
highly significant for both participants who saw the effectiveness ad (Mnonaligned adj. = 4.96,
Maligned adj. = 2.85, F(1,48) = 22.42, p < .001) and the safety ad (Mnonaligned adj. = 5.70,
Maligned adj. = 2.33, F(1,68) = 70.09, p < .001).
To test the mediating role of message beliefs, we conducted an Analysis of
Covariance with the evaluations of Levatin after seeing the counter message as a
dependent variable. Counter claim alignment and belief in the ad claim after viewing the
counter message were included as predictors. To control for differences in the initial
evaluations of Levatin, we included Levatin evaluations at session 1 and belief in the ad

10

claim at session 1 as covariates. The results revealed that once controlling for changes in
ad claim beliefs, the effect of counter claim alignment was no longer significant, F(1,
117) = .92, p = .76. Instead, it was replaced by a significant effect of ad claim beliefs on
brand evaluations, F(1, 117) = 12.00, p < .001. According to this analysis, the effects of
counter claim alignment on Levatin evaluations were mediated by changes in
participants’ beliefs in the ad claims.
Moderating Role of Counter Message Credibility. We first compared participants’
evaluations of the four versions of the Consumer Reports message during the second
session. Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences in the perceived
credibility of the aligned and non-aligned counter messages, F(1,120) = 1.33, n.s. The
main effect of type of ad and the interaction between the two factors was not significant
either (F’s < 1). This allowed us to include in the analysis as a continuous variable
participants’ perceptions of the credibility of the Consumer Report message along with
counter claim alignment, type of ad, and the covariate ratings from session 1.
The results revealed a significant positive effect of counter message credibility on
participants’ evaluations of Levatin, F(1, 117) = 5.53, p = .02. This effect, was further
moderated by a significant interaction between counter claim alignment and credibility of
the counter message, F(1, 117) = 5.17, p = .03. The main effect of ad claim and the
interaction between ad claim and counter claim alignment were not significant, Fs < 1. As
the regression lines depicted on Figure 2 demonstrate, among participants who perceived
the Consumer Reports message as credible, the aligned counter claims resulted in more
negative evaluations of Levatin than the nonaligned counter claims. However, among
participants who did not trust the Consumer Reports message, the nonaligned counter
claims resulted in lower evaluations of Levatin than the aligned counter claims.
We further tested whether changes in participants’ beliefs in the ad claims
mediated the interaction effects between counter claim alignment and perceived
credibility of the counter message. Thus, we first examined the effects of counter claim
alignment and counter message credibility on ad claim beliefs at Session 2. Initial beliefs
in the ad claim were included as a covariate. The results revealed a significant interaction
between counter claim alignment and counter message credibility, F(1,117) = 9.20, p <
.01. These effects were not moderated by type of ad, F’s < 1.
Second, we examined the effects of counter claim alignment and perceived
credibility of the counter message on brand evaluations by also including in the model ad
claim beliefs at session 2. Again, initial brand evaluations and initial ad claim beliefs
were included in the analysis as covariates. The results revealed that once we included ad
claim beliefs in the equation, the interaction between counter claim alignment and
counter message credibility was no longer significant, F(1,117) = .006, p = .94. Instead,
it was replaced by a significant effect of ad claim beliefs on brand evaluations, F(1,117)
= 14.11, p < .001. According to this analysis, changes in participants’ beliefs in the
claims of the ad mediated the interaction effect of counter claim alignment and counter
message credibility on brand evaluations.
Additional Analyses. To examine the role of product involvement in the effects of
the two types of counter claims, we tested if previous use of allergy medication
moderated the observed differences between the effects of aligned and non-aligned
counter claims. Thus we conducted an Analysis of Covariance with Levatin evaluations
after seeing the Consumer Reports message as a dependent variable, previous use of

11

allergy medication, counter claim alignment, and ad claim included as predictors. Initial
evaluations of Levatin were included as a covariate. The results revealed that after seeing
the Consumer Reports message, participants who had previously used allergy medication
evaluated Levatin more negatively (Madj.. = 1.85) than participants who had not used
allergy medication in the past (Madj. = 2.50). However, past use of allergy medication did
not moderate the effect of counter claim alignment on Levatin evaluations, F(1, 113) =
.92, n.s.

Discussion

The results of study 1 revealed that for an ad that positioned the product as
effective, counter claims about low effectiveness resulted in greater resistance than
counter claims about low safety. However, the opposite was the case for an ad that
positioned the product as safe. Because the specific information about safety and
effectiveness was the same across conditions, these results show that the differences in
the effects of aligned and non-aligned counter claims were not driven by the differential
strength of their specific content.
Study 1 further demonstrated that although the aligned counter claims had an
overall stronger negative effect on the evaluations of Levatin than the non-aligned
counter claims, this difference was significant only when the counter message was
perceived as highly credible. However, it should be noted, that in Study 1 we measured,
rather than manipulated, participants ratings of Consumer Reports message. Thus, further
evidence should be obtained by manipulating the credibility of the source of the message.

STUDY 2

In study 2, we experimentally manipulated the credibility of the source of the
counter message. We expected that aligned counter claims would result in greater change
in the evaluations of the brand when they came from a credible source. However, when
the source of the counter message is not credible, nonaligned counter claims would lead
to greater resistance.
In study 2 we also aimed to provide stronger support for our conclusions and
extend the generalizability of the findings by testing the hypotheses in a different context
and a different product - an energy drink called Delight that was produced by a local
company – Cornucopia Beverages. We chose the context of energy drinks because
consumption of such drinks is prevalent among the college population from which our
sample was drawn. Moreover, energy drinks are frequently advertised with misleading
claims about their effects on performance and endurance while failing to inform
consumers of the negative health effects that such products can have (Pierre 2000).
In addition, we aimed to increase the validity of our conclusions by incorporating
several elements in the design of study 2. First, to reduce demand characteristics, we did
not ask participants to evaluate the target brand immediately after seeing the counter
message. Instead, after seeing the counter message participants saw and evaluated an
unrelated ad. Then, they saw the Delight ad again and evaluated the brand in response to
the ad.
Second, in contrast to study 1, the ad did not provide any specific evidence in
support of its claims. Instead, it simply stated that the product contains special ingredients

12

that either help maintain a healthy lifestyle (in one version of the ad) or provide energy
(in the other version).
Third, to extend the generalizability of the findings from study 1, we did not
reproduce the original ad in the counter message nor we repeated the claims of the ad in
the counter message. Instead, we created a general counter messages about energy drinks
consumption without even mentioning the target brand.

Method

Study 2 employed a 2 (ad claim) X 2 (counter claim alignment) X 2 (counter
message source) between subjects design. Four hundred and sixty three college students
participated in the study (206 male; 257 female). We told participants that the study
examined how consumers form preferences about different products and provided them
with the following instructions: “In order to recreate the natural environment in which
consumers learn about products, you may see some of the ads multiple times.
Furthermore, since consumers typically encounter product information from various
sources, you may see messages from public organizations, consumer advocate agencies,
or different competitors. Because the purpose of the study is to recreate the natural
experience of evaluating products, please respond to the questions about each of the
advertised products according to your first impressions”.
The study was conducted in a laboratory using MediaLab software. During the
experimental session participants saw a set of messages. The second and the seventh
message in the set was the Delight target ad which was presented for 30 seconds. The
fifth message in the set was the counter message, which was presented for 45 seconds.
The rest of the messages were unrelated filler ads. After examining each message,
participants responded to a series of questions.
Stimuli. In order to control for differences in the information provided by the
aligned and non-aligned counter claims, we created two versions of an ad promoting a
beverage called Delight Energy in one of the versions and Delight Vitamin in the other
version of the ad. The first version of the ad promoted Delight Energy as an excellent
source of energy with the following message: “Special formula enhanced with potent
ingredients to give you the energy you need. “ The ad also displayed the name of the
manufacturer of Delight Energy – a local company called Cornucopia Beverages”
(Appendix B). The second version of the ad promoted Delight Vitamin with the
following message: “Special formula enhanced with B-vitamins to help you maintain a
healthy lifestyle.” The two ads were equivalent in all regards except for the text in the
copy and the name of the product depicted on the bottle.
We created two versions of the counter message both of which had the headline:
“Think natural before consuming another beverage.” One of the versions of the counter
message claimed that energy drinks do not provide long-lasting energy. It included the
following text “Manufacturers of energy drinks are eager to tell you how good their
products are. What they don’t tell you is that the energy from these beverages is likely to
last only a few hours and then you may feel even more tired. After only a few hours these
drinks will make you feel exhausted and unmotivated to remain active. For high energy
throughout the day drink natural fruit and vegetable juices.” (Appendix B). The second
version of the counter message claimed that energy drinks are not healthy. It had the

13

following text: “Manufacturers of energy drinks are eager to tell you how good their
products are. What they don’t tell you is that these beverages contain artificial ingredients
that are harmful for your body. These ingredients can accelerate heart rate, increase blood
pressure, and cause severe dehydration. To keep your body healthy, drink natural fruit
and vegetable juices.” Importantly, none of the counter messages contained specific
information about the advertised product Delight.
To manipulate the credibility of source of the counter message, below the copy of
the counter message we included either “Brought to you by your friends at V8” along
with the V8 brand logo or “U.S. Department of Health and Human Services” along with
the logo of the organization (Appendix B).
Dependent Variables. To assess participants’ evaluations of Delight after the first
exposure to the ad we asked them to 1) rate their impression of Delight Vitamin / Delight
Energy and 2) indicate if they would consider buying Delight Vitamin / Delight Energy.
The two items were highly correlated, r = .572, p < .001. To assess initial beliefs in the
claims of the ad, participants who saw the Delight Energy ad rated the extent to which
they believed Delight Energy can give them the energy they need. Participants who saw
the Delight Vitamin rated the extent to which they believed Delight Vitamin can help
them maintain a healthy lifestyle.
After evaluating several filler ads participants saw one of the four versions of the
counter message. We assessed their perceptions of the credibility of the source of the
counter message by asking them whether they thought the Manufacturer of V8 / U.S.
Department of Health & Human Services is a trustworthy source of information.
Participants then viewed another set of filler ads and saw the Delight ad for a second
time. They evaluated the brand again by responding to the following questions: 1) How
would you evaluate Delight Vitamin / Delight Energy, overall? and 2) How likely would
you be to consider buying Delight Vitamin / Delight Energy (r =.71, p < .001). All
responses were provided on a scale from 1 to 9.
At the end of the experiment we assessed involvement with the product category
by asking participants to indicate how often they consume energy drinks on average (e.g.,
one beverage per day, a few beverages per week, one beverage per week, a few beverages
per month, less than one beverage per month). Participants also indicated their gender
and responded to a post-experimental questionnaire which included suspicion check
questions. None of the participants guessed the hypothesis of the study or found any
aspect of the study confusing or disturbing.

Results

Preliminary analysis. Examination of participants’ initial ratings of the two
Delight ads revealed a significant difference in the initial evaluations of Delight, MDeight
Vitamin = 5.66, MDelight Energy = 5.49, F(1,459) = 4.95, p = .03. We controled for this
difference in subsequent analyses by including this variable as a covariate. We also
examined participants’ evaluations of the four versions of the counter message. Analysis
of variance revealed that participants rated V8 as significantly more credible than the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, MV8 = 3.6, MDHHS = 2.2, F(1,461) =
73.96, p < .001. No significant differences were observed in the credibility of the source
of the aligned and the non-aligned counter messages, F(1,455) = 1.05, p = .40. The

14

interaction effect between counter claim alignment and counter message source on the
perceived credibility of the source of the counter message was not significant either, F <
1.
Brand Evaluations. We predicted that when the counter message came from a
credible source, aligned counter claims would be more effective in reducing brand
evaluations than competing information about another attribute. However, when the
source of the counter message was not credible, nonaligned counter claims would have
stronger effect on brand evaluations than aligned counter claims. To test this hypothesis,
we conducted an Analysis of Covariance with evaluations of Delight at the second
viewing of the ad as a dependent variable and initial evaluations as a covariate. The
analysis revealed a significant interaction between counter claim alignment and counter
message source, F(1,458) = 6.56, p = .01. This effect was not moderated by ad type
(Delight Energy vs. Delight Vitamin), F(1,445) = .48, p = .45 or participants’ scores on
the social desirability scale, F < 1.
As the means displayed on Figure 3 demonstrate, when the counter message came
from V8, the aligned counter claim had a stronger undermining effect than the non-
aligned counter claim, F(1,269) = 4.33, p = .04. When the message came from the less
trusted source US DHHS, the non-aligned counter claims resulted in marginally
significant greater change in participants evaluations of Delight, F(1,186) = 2.84, p = .09.
Furthermore, consistent with the biased assimilation hypothesis, credibility of the source
of the counter message had a significant effect on brand evaluations when the message
contained aligned counter claims, F(1,236) = 4.36, p = .04. However, when the counter
message contained nonaligned counter claims, source credibility did not influenced the
effectiveness of the counter messages, F(1,223) = 2.27, n.s.
Ad Claim Beliefs. Analysis of covariance with ad claim beliefs after the second
exposure to the ad as a dependent variable and a covariate initial beliefs, revealed a
significant effect of type of counter claim, F(1, 381) = 4.09, p = .04. The aligned counter
claims resulted in greater decrease in participants beliefs in the claims of the ad than the
nonaligned counter claim, Madj. aligned = 5.51, Madj. nonaligned = 5.93. This main effect was
qualified by a marginally significant interaction between type of counter claims and
countermessage source, F(1,385)=3.29, p= .07. The interaction between type of ad, type
of counterclaim, and counter message source was not significant, F < 1.
When the message came from the more trusted source V8, the aligned and
nonaligned counter claims had similar effects on participants’ beliefs in the ad claims, F
< 1, M adj. aligned =5.53, M adj. nonaligned = 5.58. When the message came from the less trusted
source US DHHS the aligned counter claims had a greater impact on participants beliefs
in the specific ad claims than the nonaligned counter claims, F(1,114) = 5.81, Madj. aligned
= 5.59, Madj. nonaligned = 6.38. This pattern suggest that the superior effect of nonaligned
counter claim in reducing brand evaluations in the low credibility source condition was
not driven by changes in participants beliefs in the specific ad claims.
Cognitive Responses. Analysis of participants’ cognitive responses did not
indicate significant differences in the valence of participants’ thoughts about the brand,
F’s < 1. We further examined differences in participants’ thoughts indicating
deceptiveness of the Delight ad. The results revealed significant interaction between type
of counter claim and source of the counter message, F(1,455)=3,628, p = .057. When the
message came from V8, the aligned counter claim resulted in a greater number of

15

thoughts about the deceptiveness of the Delight ad than the nonaligned counter claim
(Maligned = .27, Mnonaligned = .21). The opposite pattern occurred when the countermessage
came from the U.S DHHS. When the source of the message was not perceived as
credible, the nonaligned counter claim resulted in greater perceptions of deceptiveness of
the advertiser than the aligned counter claim (Maligned = .34, Mnonaligned = .). The
interaction between type of counter claim and message source was not moderated by ad
type (energy vs. vitamin), F(1,451) = 1.09, p = .30, or order of the thought listing task, F
(1, 451) = .09, p = .76.
Additional analyses. Product involvement measured by participants’ history of
energy drinks consumption did not moderate the effects of counter claim alignment and
source credibility on the evaluations of Delight, F(1,454) = 1.39, p = .24, company
credibility, F(1,454) = .26, p = .61, and beliefs in the ad claims, F(1,454) = .07, p = .79.

Discussion

Study 2 replicated and extended the results of Study 1 with a higher-involvement
product. Study 2 examined the effect of aligned messages that did not mention the
particular brand and did not explicitly undermine the specific claims with which the
specific brand was advertised. Yet, even when the aligned counter claims did not have a
stronger effect on participants’ beliefs in the specific ad claims than the non-aligned
counter claims, the aligned counter claims had a stronger effect on the evaluations of the
brand. This finding suggests that when the countermessage comes form a credible source,
aligned counter claim will result in greater resistance even when they do not undermine
consumers’ beliefs in the specific claims of the ad. Indeed, participants in the aligned
counter claim condition reported more thoughts about the deceptiveness of Delight than
participants in the nonaligned counter claims condition.
When the message came from the more trusted source, the aligned counter claims
were more effective than the non-aligned counter claims. These results were consistent
with the findings from the previous studies where the source of the message was
Consumer Reports. However, when the counter message came from the less trusted
sources we found that the non aligned counter claims were more effective. These findings
suggest that organizations that are not perceived as credible would be more effective in
creating resistance by providing information that is not aligned with the target message.
We manipulated the credibility of the source of the counter message by having the
message come either from the government institution U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services or “your friends at V8”, a manufacturer of vegetable juices that was
heavily advertised during the time we conducted the study. Our data suggest that on
particular topics, government institutions can be perceived as less credible sources of
information than popular commercial companies. Perhaps such a result may be expected
given the recent decline among consumers in deference to government institutions
(Flatters and Willmott 2009). As government agencies are been politicized to the point of
being characterized by many as no longer impartial, as it has been the case with the US
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
consumers are likely to become increasingly distrustful of government organizations.
At the same time, our findings also suggest that just because a message comes
from a commercial company, doesn’t mean that it will be perceived as less credible.
Indeed, when we asked three hundred and five participants from the same subject pool as

16

the participants in study 2 to evaluate the trustworthiness of various organizations, the
ratings of V8 were as high as the ratings of Consumer Reports, MV8 = 5.9, MCR = 6.2,
F(1, 305) = 1.84, p = .18.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Consumers are increasingly exposed to messages promoting products with
possible harmful effects. Thus, organizations concerned with consumer welfare are
increasingly more involved in providing consumers with counter persuasive
communications designed to prevent consumption of such products among vulnerable
populations. Yet, little scientific knowledge is available to advise such organizations on
what type of counter claims would be most likely to make these efforts successful.
Spurred by this gap in the consumer research literature, the present investigation
examined the relative effects of (1) counter information that undermined the specific
claims of the ad promoting the product and (2) equally negative information about
product attributes not mentioned in the ad.
The results revealed that when the source of the counter message is perceived as
credible, counter claims that are aligned with the ad claims will be more effective in
creating resistance than equally negative information that does not specifically address
the ad claims. Such a conclusion is consistent with research demonstrating that anti-
smoking advertisements reinforcing negative smoking stereotypes (e.g., “smoking
stinks”, “how to spot a nerd”) can offset the effects of common tobacco ads depicting
images of young, attractive, glamorous, and sexy people who are having fun (Pechmann
and Knight 2002). Our findings are also consistent with examinations of various
antismoking campaigns suggesting that whereas messages depicting the negative health
effects of smoking have been generally ineffective, one of the most successful ways to
decrease tobacco consumption was to provide evidence for the deceptiveness of tobacco
advertising (Goldman and Glantz 1998).
The results of this investigation, however, have a broader set of implications for
preventing consumption of a variety of harmful products. Skin cancer, for example, is the
most common form of cancer (Glanz, Saraiya, & Wechsler, 2002). Yet, despite relatively
easy prevention, skin cancer rates are on the rise, which is due in part to increased
exposure through the use of tanning beds. Indeed, tanning bed use is a major risk factor
for both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (Geller et al., 2002; National Cancer
Institute, 2005). Regular users of indoor tanning are eight times more likely to have
melanomas as compared to never users (Westerdahl, Ingvar, Masback, Jonsson, &
Olsson, 2000, Glanz, Saraiya, & Wechsler, 2002). At the same time, to speed the tanning
process, suntan bed manufacturers have developed tanning beds that produce higher
levels of UVB rays and thus increase the risk of skin cancer to users by (World Health
Organization, 2003). To protect consumers, the World Health Organization (WHO)
warned that there are adverse health effects associated with tanning bed use and
suggested that no person under 18 should use a tanning bed (World Health Organization,
2003, 2005). Our findings, however, suggest that a different approach should be
considered. To counter the appeals of youth and beauty used by the tanning industry,
messages designed to reduce tanning should make consumers aware that tanning can

17

prematurely age and wrinkle skin. When they come from a credible source, such aligned
counterclaims may be more effective than the messages currently available.
In other domains, our findings suggest that messages promoting nutritious eating
should undermine the appeals of fun, happiness and being “cool” with which unhealthy
food products are advertised (Folta, Goldberg, Economos, Bell, & Meltzer, 2006;
Harrison & Marske, 2005). Messages promoting safe driving should undermine the
commercial depictions of joy and excitement of high speed. Finally, anti-debt campaigns
should attack the specific appeals of luxurious lifestyle and freedom used by credit
lenders. Yet, these strategies are likely to be effective only when utilized by organizations
with high credibility.
In addition to providing evidence for the effectiveness of directly undermining the
specific claims with which a product is promoted, the present research also revealed that
such strategy has a particular advantage when provided by a trustworthy source. That is,
the aligned counter claims had an overall stronger negative effect only when the source of
counter message was perceived as highly credible. This finding is particularly important
for the goals of the present research, as it suggests that the use of aligned information is
particularly suitable for organizations recognized as concerned with consumer welfare.
Having the trust of the consumer as an important asset, such organizations can effectively
employ aligned counter claims and be successful in reducing consumption of harmful
products.
Along with these practical implications, the present research advances the
consumer behavior literature regarding (1) the study of resistance to persuasion and (2)
the role of information alignment on judgment revision. Previous research has examined
different forms of information alignment. For example, studies demonstrate that
alignment of affect-based or cognition-based information plays an important role in
judgment revision (Edwards 1990; Fabrigar and Petty 1999). Other studies have
examined the effects of alignment of general versus specific brand positioning and the
type of negative information (Pham and Muthukrishnan 2002). The present investigation
advances these findings by examining the effects of alignment between the specific
content of the original claim and the new information.
The present investigation also contribute to the structural alignment literature by
revealing conditions under which information alignment influence judgments. The
structural alignment research has suggested several variables that are likely to increase
focus on alignable differences. For example, disproportionate focus on alignable
attributes is reduced with increased involvement (Zhang and Markman 2001).
Furthermore, because the comparability of options increases when their attributes are
thought about abstractly (Johnson, 1984), decisions that have distant future consequences
(relative to near future consequences) involve an increased consideration of nonalignable
attributes (Malkoc, Zauberman, and Ulu 2005). We advance these findings by
demonstrating that the credibility of the source of a message may be an important
variable moderating the structural alignment effect.
One important feature of the present research is that although the aligned counter
claims refuted the specific claims of the ad, they did not contain direct evidence for
manipulative intent. Yet, the aligned information resulted in a greater decline in the
participants’ ratings of the company credibility which mediated the differential effect of
aligned and non-aligned counter claims on brand evaluations. This finding is consistent

18

with previous research suggesting that morally relevant facts about actions’ outcomes
(e.g. effects on other people) are particularly likely to prompt spontaneous inferences
about the actor’s beliefs and intentions (Leslie, Knobe, and Cohen, 2006; Knobe 2005;
Young and Saxe 2009). Future research should examine the effects of information
alignment in the presence or absence of direct claims for the deceptiveness of the ad, as
such additional information may amplify the effect of directly undermining message
claims. Alternatively, directly claiming that an ad is dishonest may have a backfiring
effect. As the present studies do not address these possibilities, further research is needed
to examine the role of implied and directly claimed deceptiveness on brand evaluations
revision.
We examined the effects of aligned and non-aligned counter claims both
immediately after presenting the counter message and at subsequent presentation of the
ad at a later point. Future research can examine the effects on aligned and non-aligned
counter claims on subsequent presentations of the ad. Because the effectiveness of the
aligned counter claims was driven by changes in the credibility of the sponsor of the ad,
subsequent presentations of the ad claims may further decrease participants’ evaluations
of the brand (Petrova et al., 2010). Changes in the perceived credibility of the company
can also influence evaluations of subsequent advertising from the same company. This
prediction is consistent with results from the inoculation studies (McGuire 1961) in
which the refutational defense created resistance not only to a subsequent exposure to the
same arguments, but also to a subsequent exposure to different arguments. Furthermore,
research shows that the effects of revealing the deceptiveness of a message can transfer to
other messages by the same or different sources (Darke and Ritche 2007; Darke,
Ashworth, and Ritchie 2008). A possible direction for future research is to examine if
similar effects would be observed when the counter information refutes the claims in an
ad without providing evidence for its deceptiveness.
Across studies, we tested our hypotheses with both high and low involvement
products. We also specifically tested the role of product involvement as measured by
participant use of the product category. Across studies, product involvement did not
moderate the effects of counter claim alignment. Yet, research can further examine the
role of product involvement in the effects of different types of counter claims. To the
extent that counter arguing a message requires cognitive resources, we can expect the
observed effects to be more likely among consumers who are involved with the product
category and thus have the motivation and ability to process the message systematically
(Romero et. at., 1996). Furthermore, under distraction or cognitive load individuals are
less likely to engage in systematic processing of persuasive messages (e.g., Petty, Wells,
& Brock, 1976; Osterhouse and Brock, 1970). Thus, messages presented in fast pace or
when individuals are overloaded with information are particularly difficult to counter
argue. In the present research we used print ads presented on a screen for a certain time.
Since consumers typically have less time to generate counterarguments with TV ads, it is
possible to observe different effects with different presentation formats.
As a final note, although this research was motivated by the goal of helping public
organizations in protecting consumers from products with harmful effects, it provides an
insight regarding the design of successful marketing communications. Previous research
has suggested that it is more profitable for a company to provide information that its
brand is superior on attributes advertised by the competitor than to provide information

19

about unique attributes (Zhang and Markman 2001; Zhang, Kardes, and Cronley 2002;
Zhang and Markman 1998). We advance these findings by demonstrating that the
credibility of the company may be an important variable moderating this effect. We also
provide insight about the harmful effects that negative information can have on brand
evaluations. In today’s environment, negative information is easy to distribute, whether
by news reports, internet chat rooms, blogs, brand communities, consumer protection
organizations, or competitors. It is becoming increasingly important for companies to
ensure that their marketing communications can sustain negative brand information from
such sources. It is also becoming increasingly important for managers to be aware of the
ways in which consumers revise their evaluations when information undermining the
brand position becomes available. By promoting their products with information that is
truthful, credible, and not likely to be refuted in future challenges, marketers can ensure
the long-term success of their brands.

20

REFERENCES

ABC (2008), Airborne Settlement, Wednesday, March 05, 2008, 7:37 AM,
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/consumer&id=5996792#bodyText
Airbone Settlement (2008),
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/settlements/11041/airborne-
settlement.html
Andrews, J. Craig (1995), “The Effectiveness of Alcohol Warning Labels: A Review and
Extension,” American Behavioral Scientist, 38, 622-632.
Argo, Jennifer J. and Kelley J. Main (2004), "Meta-Analyses of the Effectiveness of
Warning Labels," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 23 (2), 193-208.
Bacon, Frederick T. (1979), "Credibility of Repeated Testimonials: Memory for Trivia,"
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5 (3), 241-
52.
Begg, Ian M., Ann Anas, and Suzanne Farinacci (1992), “Dissociation of Process in
Belief: Source Recollection, Statement Familiarity and the Illusion of Truth,”
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121 (December), 446-58.
Begg, Ian M. and Victoria Armour (1991), "Repetition and the Ring of Truth: Biasing
Comments," Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 23 (2), 195-213.
Bennetts, K., R M. Borland, H Swerrison (1991), “Sun Protection Behavior of Children
and their Parents at the Beach,” Psychological Health, 5, 279-287.
Blum, Alan (1994), “Paid Counter-advertising: Proven Strategy to Combat Tobacco Use
and Promotion,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10, 3.
Borland Ron, D. Hill, and Noy S. Kay (1990), “Being Sunsmart - Changes in Community
Awareness and Reported Behavior Following Primary Prevention for Skin
Cancer Control,“ Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 7 (3), 126-35.
Brock, Timothy C. (1967), "Communication Discrepancy and Intent to Persuade as
Determinants of Counterargument Production," Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 3 (3), 296-309.
Brownell, K.D. & Horgen, K.B. (2004). Food fight: The inside story of the food
industry, America's obesity crisis, and what we can do about it. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Campbell, Margaret C. (1995), "When Attention-Getting Advertising Tactics Elicit
Consumer Inferences of Manipulative Intent: The Importance of Balancing
Benefits and Investments," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 225-54.
——— and Amna Kirmani (2000), “Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The
Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence
Agent,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (June), 69–83.
Casswell, Sally, and Jiang Feng Zhang (1998), “Impact of Liking for Advertising and
Brand Allegiance on Drinking and Alcohol-related Aggression: A Longitudinal
Study,” Addiction 93, 1209–17.
Chassin, Laurie, Clark C. Presson, Steven J. Sherman (1990), “Social Psychological
Contributors to the Understanding and Preventing of Adolescent Cigarette

21

Smoking,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 133-151.
Consumer Affairs, (2007),
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/01/ftc_weight_loss.html.
Cosmides, Leda and John Tooby (1992), “Cognitive Adaptations for Social Exchange,”
in The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture,
eds. Jerome H. Barkow, Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby, New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 163-228.
County of San Bernardino, Department of Public Health (2006), “Nutrition Program
Online,” http://www.co.san-
bernardino.ca.us/eatwell/PDF%20files/TrimSpaflyer.pdf.
CROWNE, D . P. and MARLOWE, D . A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. consult. Psychol, 1960, S4, 349-354.
Darke, Peter R. and Robin J. B. Ritchie (2007), “The Defensive Consumer: Advertising
Deception, Defensive Processing, and Distrust,” Journal of Marketing Research,
44(1), 114-127.
Darke, P.R., Ashworth, L.T.A., & Ritchie, R.B. (2008). Damage From Corrective
Advertising: Causes and Cures. Journal of Marketing.
Dyer, Robert F. and Philip G. Kuehl (1974), "The Corrective Advertising Remedy of the
FTC: An Experimental Evaluation," Journal of Marketing, 48-54.
Eagly, Alice Hendrickson and Shelly Chaiken (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Edwards, Kari (1990), "The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Attitude Formation and
Change," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (2), 202-16.
Ellen, Pam S., Lois A. Mohr, and Deborah J. Webb (2000), "Charitable Programs and the
Retailer: Do They Mix?" Journal of Retailing, 76 (3), 393-406.
Fabrigar, Leandre R. and Richard E. Petty (1999), "The Role of the Affective and
Cognitive Bases of Attitudes in Susceptibility to Affectively and Cognitively
Based Persuasion," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (3), 363-81.
FDA Consumer Advisory (2002), "Kava – containing dietary supplements may be
associated with severe liver injury."
FDA, (2002), http://www.fda.gov/oc/nutritioninitiative/report.html.
Fein, Steven, Allison L. McCloskey, and Thomas M. Tomlinson (1997), "Can the Jury
Disregard that Information? The Use of Suspicion to Reduce the Prejudicial
Effects of Pretrial Publicity and Inadmissible Testimony," Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215-26.
Flatters, Paul and Michael Willmott (2009), “Understanding the Post-Recession
Consumer,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 2009, 106-111.
Folta, S.C., Goldberg, J.P., Economos, C., Bell, R. & Meltzer, R. (2006) “Food
advertising targeted at school-age children: A content analysis” Journal of
Nutrition Education and Behavior, 38, 244-248.
Fox Ten O’clock News (2004), "Does TrimSpa Really Work?"
http://www.whns.com/Global/story.asp?S=1648207.
Gilbert, Daniel T., Douglas S. Krull, and Patrick S. Malone (1990), “Unbelieving the
Unbelievable: Some Problems in the Rejection of False Information,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 601-13.
Goldman, Lisa K. and Stanton A. Glantz (1998), “Evaluation of Antismoking

22

Advertising Campaigns,” Journal of American Medical Association, 279, 772 –
777.
Greenwald, Anthony G. (1968), "Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion,
and Attitude Change," in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, ed. T. C. Brock,
A.G. Greenwald, and T.M. Ostrom, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 147-70.
Grube, Joel W., and Laurence Wallack (1994), “Television Beer Advertising and
Drinking Knowledge, Beliefs, and Intentions Among School Children,” American
Journal Of Public Health, 84, 254–59.
Haard, Jennifer, Michael D. Slater, and Marilee Long (2004), "Scientese and Ambiguous
Citations in the Selling of Unproven Medical Treatments," Health
Communication, 16 (4), 411-26.
Halford, J.C.G., Boyland, M.J., Hughes, G., Oliveira, L.P., & Dovey, T.M. (2007).
Beyond-brand effect of television (TV) food advertisements/commercials on
caloric intake and food choice of 5-7-year-old children. Appetite, 49, 263-267.
Halford, J.C.G., Boyland, E.J., Hughes, G.M., Stacey, L., McKean, S, & Dovey, T.M.
(2008). Beyond-brand effect of television food advertisements on food choice in
children: the effects of weight status. Public Health Nutrition, 897-904.
Halford, J.C.G., Gillespie, J., Brown, V., Pontin, E.E., & Dovey, T.M. (2004). Effect of
television advertisements for foods on food consumption in children. Appetite, 42,
221-225.
Hankin, Janet R., James J. Sloan, and Robert J. Sokol (1998), "The Modest Impact of the
Alcohol Beverage Warning Label on Drinking During Pregnancy Among a
Sample of African-American Women," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17
(1), 61-69.
Harris, Jennifer L., John A. Bargh, and Kelly D. Brownell (2009) ‘Priming Effects of
Television Food Advertising on Eating Behavior’, Health Psychology, in press.
Harrison, K. & Marske, A.L. (2005). Nutritional content of foods advertised during the
television programs children watch most. American Journal of Public Health, 95,
1568-1574.
Hasher, Lynn, David Goldstein, and Thomas Toppino (1977), “Frequency and the
Conference of Referential Validity,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 16, 107-12.
Hastings, G., Stead, M., McDermott, L., Forsyth, A., MacKintosh, A.M., Rayner, M., et
al. (2003). Review of research on the effects of food promotion to children.
Accessed at
www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/foodpromotiontochildren1.pdf on
2/20/09.
Hawkins, Scott A. and Stephen J. Hoch (1992), “Low-Involvement Learning: Memory
with Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 212-25.
Jacoby, Jacob, Margaret C. Nelson, and Wayne D. Hoyer (1982), "Corrective Advertising
and Affirmative Disclosure Statements - Their Potential for Confusing and
Misleading the Consumer," Journal of Marketing, 46 (1), 61-72.
Jain, Shailendra P. and Steven S. Posavac (2004), “Valenced Comparisons,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 41 (February), 46–58.
Johar, Gita Venkataramani (1996), "Intended and Unintended Effects of Corrective

23

Advertising on Beliefs and Evaluations: An Exploratory Analysis," Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 5 (3), 209.
Johar, Gita Venkataramani and Carolyn J. Simmons (2000), "The Use of Concurrent
Disclosures to Correct Invalid Inferences," Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (4),
307-22.
Killeya, Ley A. and Blair T. Johnson (1998), "Experimental Induction of Biased
Systematic Processing: The Directed-thought Technique," Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24 (1), 17-33.
Knobe, Joshua (2005), “Theory of mind and moral cognition: Exploring the
connections,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 357–359.
Leslie, Alan M., Knobe, Joshua, and Cohen, Adam (2006), “Acting intentionally and the
side-effect effect: ‘‘Theory of mind’’ and moral judgment”, Psychological
Science, 5, 421–427.
Lutz, Richard J. (1985), "Affective and Cognitive Antecedents of Attitude Toward the
Ad: A Conceptual Framework," Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects,
ed. L. Alwitt and A. Mitchell, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,
45-65.
Main, Kelley J., Jennifer J. Argo, and Bruce A. Huhmann, (2004), “Pharmaceutical
Advertising in the USA: Information or Influence?” International Journal of
Advertising, 23(1), 119-142.
MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989), "An Empirical Examination of the
Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting
Context," Journal of Marketing, 53, 48-65.
Mazis, Michael B., Debra J. Ringold, Elgin S. Perry, and Daniel W. Denman (1992),
“Perceived Attractiveness of Models in Cigarette Advertisement,” Journal of
Marketing, 56 (January), 22-37.
McGuire, William J. (1961), "The Effectiveness of Supportive and Aligned Defenses in
Immunizing and Restoring Beliefs against Persuasion," Sociometry, 24 (2), 184-
97.
(1962), "Persistence of the Resistance to Persuasion Induced by Various
Types of Prior Beliefs Defenses," Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 64, 241-48.
(1964), "Inducing Resistance to Persuasion - Some Contemporary
Approaches," Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1 (1), 191-
229.
McGuire, William J. and Demetrios Papageorgis (1962), "Effectiveness of Forewarning
in Developing Resistance to Persuasion," Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 24-34.
Murray, Bridget (2001), “Fast-food Culture Serves up Super-size Americans,” American
Psychological Association Monitor, (December), 33.
Osterhouse, Robert A. and Timothy C. Brock (1970), "Distraction Increases Yielding to
Propaganda by Inhibiting Counterarguing," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 15 (4), 344-58.
Pechmann, Cornelia (1992), “Predicting When Two-sided Ads will be More Effective
than One-sided Ads. The Role of Correlational and Correspondent Inferences,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 441-53.
Pechmann, Cornelia and Susan J. Knight (2002), “An Experimental Investigation of the

24

Joint Effects of Advertising and Peers on Adolescents’ Beliefs and Intentions
about Cigarette Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June), 5- 19.
Pechmann, Cornelia and Ellen T. Reibling (2000), "Anti-smoking Advertising
Campaigns Targeting Youth: Case Studies from USA and Canada," Tobacco
Control, 9, 18-31.
Pechmann, Cornelia and Chuan Fong Shih (1999), “Smoking Scenes in Movies and
Antismoking Advertisements Before Movies: Effects on Youth,” Journal of
Marketing, 1-13.
Pechmann, Cornelia, , Guangzhi Zhao, Marvin E. Goldberg, and Ellen T. Reibling
(2003), “What to Convey in Antismoking Advertisements for Adolescents: The
Use of Protection Motivation Theory to Identify Effective Message Themes,”
Journal of Marketing, 67 (April), 1–18.
Pierre, Nicole, S. (2000). “Red Bull’s Energy-Drink Claims May Be Hype – But Not Its
Sales”, Business Week, June 30.
Petty, Richard E. and Duane T. Wegner (1998), "Attitude Change," in The Handbook of
Social Psychology (4th edition), ed. S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, and G. Lindzey,
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 323-90.
Petty, Robert E. and John T. Cacioppo (1977), "Forewarning, Cognitive Responding, and
Resistance to Persuasion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (9),
645-55.
Petrova, P. K., Cialdini, R. B., and Goldstein, N. J. (2010), ‘Creating resistance to
Persisting Persuasive Attempts’, working paper, Tuck School of Business.
Pham, Michael T. and A.V. Muthukrishnan (2002), "Search and Alignment in Judgment
Revision: Implications for Brand Positioning," Journal of Marketing Research, 39
(1), 18-30.
Robinson, June K., Alfred W. Rademaker, Jo Anne Sylvester, and Brian Cook (1997),
“Summer Sun Exposure: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Midwest
Adolescents,” Preventive Medicine, 26, 364–72.
Romer, Daniel and Patrick Jamieson (2001), “Advertising, Smoker Imagery, and the
Diffusion of Smoking Behavior,” in Smoking: Risk, Perception, & Policy, ed.
Paul Slovic, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Romero, Anna A., Christopher R. Agnew, and Chester A. Insko (1996), "The Cognitive
Mediation Hypothesis Revisited," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
651-65.
Skowronski, John J., Dona E. Carlson, Lynda Mae, and Matthew T. Crawford (1998),
“Spontaneous Trait Transference: Communicators Take on the Qualities They
Describe in Others,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (4), 673-
848.
Skurnik, Ian, Carolyn Yoon, Denise C. Park, and Norbert Schwarz (2005), “How
Warnings about False Claims Become Recommendations,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 31 (March), 713-24.

Robert Strahan, Kathleen Carrese Gerbasi (1972) Short, homogeneous versions of the
Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, 28 (2), 191-193.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006a), “Sun Safety Action Steps,” March,
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/actionsteps.html.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006b), “The Sun, UV, and You,” September,

25

http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/doc/sunuvu.pdf.
United States General Accounting Office, (2003), “Prescription Drugs Ð Oxycontin
Abuse and Diversion and Efforts to Address the Problem,” GAO-04-110.
Vladeck, David C. (2000), "Truth and Consequences," Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 19 (1), 132-38.
Volkow, Nora D. (2006), “Efforts of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to Prevent and
Treat Prescription Drug Abuse - Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources Committee on Government Reform,”
United States House of Representatives, July 23, accessed at
http://www.drugabuse.gov/Testimony/7-26-06Testimony.html on February 6th,
2007.
Wilke, Michael (1997), "Alternative Remedies Enter the Mainstream," Advertising Age,
68 (8), 18.
Wright, Peter (1980), "Message-Evoked Thoughts - Persuasion Research Using Thought
Verbalizations," Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (2), 151-75.
Wyllie, A., J F. Zhang, and Sally Caswell (1998), “Responses to Televised Alcohol
Advertisements Associated with Drinking Behavior of 10–17-Year-Olds,”
Addiction, 93, 361–71.
Young, Liane and Saxe, Rebecca (2009), “An fMRI Investigation of Spontaneous Mental
State Inference for Moral judgment”, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
forthcoming.
Zhang, Shi, Frank R.Kardes and Maria L. Cronely (2002), "Comparative Advertising:
Effects of Structural Alignability on Target Brand Evaluation," Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 12 (4), 303-311.
Zhang, Shi and Arthur B. Markman (2001), "Processing Product Unique Features:
Alignability and Involvement In Preference Construction," Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 11 (1) , 13-27.
Zhang, Shi and Arthur B. Markman (1998), "Overcoming the Early Entrant Advantage:
The Role of Alignable and Non-Alignable Differences," Journal of Marketing
Research, 35 (November), 413-426.
Glanz, K., Saraiya, M., & Wechsler, H. (2002). Guidelines for school programs to
prevent skin cancer. MMWR, 51(RR04), 1-16.
Geller, A. C., Colditz, G., Oliveria, S., Emmons, K., Jorgensen, C., Gideon, N. et al.
(2002). Use of sunscreen, sunburning rates, and tanning bed use among more than
10,000 US children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 109, 1009-1014.
Westerdahl, J., Ingvar, C., Masback, A., Jonsson, N., & Olsson, H. (2000). Risk of
cutaneous malignant melanoma in relation to use of tanning beds: Further
evidence for UV-A carcinogenicity. British Journal of Cancer, 82, 1593-1599.
World Health Organization (2003). Artificial tanning sunbeds: Risks and guidance.
Retrieved October 17, 2005, from
http://www.who.int/uv/publications/sunbedpubl/en
World Health Organization (2005). The World Health Organization recommends that no
person under 18 should use a sunbed. Retrieved July 18, 2005, from
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2005/np97/en/
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No
difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5, 152–158.

26

Gentner, Dedre and Arthur B. Markman (1997). Structure Mapping in Analogy and
Similarity. American Psychologyst, 52(1), 4-56.
Malkoc, Selin A., Gal Zauberman, and Canan Ulu (2005). “Consuming Now or Later?
The Interactive Effect of Timing and Attribute Alignability.” Psychological
Science, 16(5), 411-417
Lord, Charles G., Lee Ross, and Mark R. Lepper. 1979. “Biased Assimilation and
Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered
Evidence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11): 2098-2109.
Edwards, Kari, and Edward E. Smith. 1996. “A Disconfirmation Bias in the Evaluation of
Arguments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1): 5-24.
Redlawsk, David. 2002. “Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration? Testing the Effects of
Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making.” Journal of Politics,
64(4):1021-1044.
Taber, Charles S. and Milton Lodge. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of
Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science, 50(3): 755-769.

27

FIGURE 1
STUDY 1. EFFECTS OF COUNTER CLAIM ALIGNMENT
ON BRAND EVALUATIONS

3
Nonaligned
2.8 counter claim
2.6

2.4 Aligned
Brand evaluations

counter claim
2.2

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
Effectiveness Safety
Ad claim

28

FIGURE 2
AND COUNTER MESSAGE CREDIBILITY ON BRAND EVALUATIONS

Nonaligned
7.00
counter claim

Aligned counter
6.00 claim

5.00
Brand evaluations

4.00

3.00

2.00

R Sq Linear = 0.131
1.00
R Sq Linear = 0.002

0.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

Counter message credibility

29

FIGURE 3
AND CREDIBILITY OF THE COUNTER MESSAGE SOURCE
ON BRAND EVALUATIONS

6

5.9
Nonaligned
counter claim
5.8
Brand evaluations

5.7
Aligned
5.6 counter claim

5.5

5.4

5.3

5.2

5.1

5

Low High
Credibility of the source of the counter message

Effective Counter Arguments

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Effective Counter Arguments

Similar a Effective Counter Arguments (20)

Effective Counter Arguments