The trustworthy brand: effects of conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness on consumer judgments

8/9/2019 The trustworthy brand: effects of conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness on consumer judgments

1/13

The trustworthy brand: effects of conclusion explicitnessand persuasion awareness on consumer judgments

Brett A. S. Martin & Carolyn A. Strong

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Two studies examine how a consumer s awareness of marketing tacticsinfluences the effectiveness of conclusion explicitness advertising (implicit, open-ended or explicit, closed-ended conclusions). Study 1 shows that persuasion awarenessand conclusion explicitness influence brand evaluations. Persuasion aware consumers prefer implicit conclusions in comparative advertising that allow them to decide which brand is superior, rather than explicit conclusions which state the superior brand.Persuasion unaware consumers show no difference for conclusion explicitness. Brandtrust mediates the results. Study 2 demonstrates the robustness of these effects.

Research contributions include persuasion awareness as a moderator of conclusionexplicitness effects and the role of trust as a mediator. For managers, results show howimplicit conclusions can improve the brand evaluations of persuasion aware consumers.

Keywords Conclusion explicitness . Persuasion awareness . Trust . Persuasionknowledge

1 Introduction

Comparative advertising often highlights that the sponsor brand is superior to alterna-tive brands (Grewal et al. 1997 ). One way marketers can highlight the preferred brandto consumers is with a conclusion that states which brand of the presented alternativesis better (i.e., an explicit conclusion, Kardes 1988 ). However, given that explicit conclusions may be viewed as a hard sell by consumers (Kardes et al. 1994 ), analternative is the implicit conclusion. An implicit conclusion is where the conclusionstating which brand is better is omitted. Instead, product information is offered which

Mark Lett DOI 10.1007/s11002-014-9343-9

B. A. S. Martin ( * )

Consumer Research Group, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, 2 GeorgeStreet, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australiae-mail: [email protected]

C. A. StrongCardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Aberconway Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EUWales, UK e-mail: [email protected]


2/13

allows consumers to draw their own conclusions (Sawyer and Howard 1991 ). By presenting product information which favors the sponsor brand, an implicit conclusionmessage leads a consumer to the intended conclusion.

This research proposes that the differences in persuasion awareness (i.e., consumer

awareness of the tactics used by marketers) may influence consumer responses tocomparative advertising. We show that individual differences in persuasion awarenessinteract with conclusion explicitness (explicit vs. implicit conclusions) to influence brand evaluations. We suggest that consumer brand trust drives this effect. Our work makes three important contributions. First, we add to the conclusion explicitnessliterature by identifying dispositional persuasion awareness as a moderator of whenconsumers are more likely to be influenced by explicit or implicit conclusions. Second,we establish consumer trust in a brand as an underlying mechanism for the effects of conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness. Thus, we add to literature that shows

positive responses for persuasion aware people (Ahluwalia and Burnkrant 2004 ) whichis relevant as persuasion awareness has been shown to aid consumers in resisting persuasion (Campbell et al. 2013 ). Third, we add to the marketing trust literature byshowing trusting beliefs (study 2) act as a unidimensional construct rather than asindependent sub-dimensions with differing predictive insight as expected.

To summarize, the two studies show that conclusion explicitness and persuasionawareness can influence consumer brand trust, which in turn influences consumer brand evaluations.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Conclusion explicitness in comparative advertising

Early conclusion explicitness research indicated that conclusion explicitness does not affect brand evaluations (Kardes 1988 ). Kardes ( 1988 ) suggested that implicit conclu-sions are likely to be effective only when consumers are motivated to process a message.Subsequent research on comparative advertising supported this view for motivationalvariables such as involvement (Sawyer and Howard 1991 ) and need for cognition(Martin et al. 2004 ; Stayman and Kardes 1992 ). High involvement consumers respondedmore favorably to implicit conclusions in a comparative format (Sawyer and Howard1991 ) as did high need for cognition consumers (Martin et al. 2004 ). Research in a non-comparative format suggests that consumer knowledge moderates conclusion explicit-ness effects. Novices are more likely to believe that the advertised product benefits whenexposed to explicit conclusions (Kardes et al. 1994 ). Importantly, research has shownthat insights into conclusion explicitness effects can be gained by considering individualdifferences such as need for cognition, self-monitoring (Stayman and Kardes 1992 ), andobjective knowledge (Kardes et al. 1994 ). We build on this research by consideringanother consumer individual difference persuasion awareness.

2.2 The moderating role of persuasion awareness

We propose that a moderator of conclusion explicitness effectiveness is whether aconsumer is higher or lower in persuasion awareness. Persuasion awareness relates to a

Mark Lett


3/13

consumer s beliefs about a persuasive agent s actions (Friestad and Wright 1994 ). It reflects a consumer s awareness of marketing tactics which can be used to interpret marketing promotions (Friestad and Wright 1994 ). Although studied as a state (e.g.,Kirmani and Zhu 2007 ), persuasion awareness (which has also been termed persuasion

knowledge) has also been studied as an individual difference (Ahluwalia and Burnkrant 2004 ; Bearden et al. 2001 ).

Research indicates that persuasion awareness can influence how consumers respondto advertising (Ahluwalia and Burnkrant 2004 ; Kirmani and Zhu 2007 ). For example, persuasion aware consumers are more likely to notice advertising tactics and consider the intentions of the advertiser, whereas persuasion unaware consumers are less likelyto do so (Ahluwalia and Burnkrant 2004 ; Bearden et al. 2001 ). Activating persuasionawareness can also result in consumer suspicion towards a marketer (Kirmani and Zhu2007 ). The implication of these findings is that persuasion aware consumers notice

advertising tactics and can respond in a negative manner to them.Considering conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness together, we propose

that persuasion aware consumers should evaluate implicit conclusions more favorablyin terms of brand evaluations, willingness to pay and purchase intentions, than explicit conclusions. Implicit conclusions allow consumers to decide which brand is best.Explicit conclusions tell consumers which brand they should view as superior. Incontrast, the judgments of persuasion unaware consumers should not be influenced by conclusion explicitness.

H1a Persuasion aware consumers will exhibit more favorable brand evaluations,willingness to pay (study 1) and purchase intentions (study 2), when exposed tocomparative messages with implicit (vs. explicit) conclusions. H1b Persuasion unaware consumers will not exhibit differences in brand evalua-tions, willingness to pay (study 1) and purchase intentions (study 2), in response toconclusion explicitness.

2.3 Mechanism underlying the effects

We propose that mediating the effects of conclusion explicitness and persuasionawareness on evaluations is consumer brand trust. Drawing on Ahearne et al.(2007 ), we define brand trust as a willingness to rely on an organization inwhich a consumer has confidence. Trust has been found to influence brandcredibility (Garbarino and Johnson 1999 ). Research shows that persuasionawareness can result in attributions related to trustworthiness. Campbell andKirmani ( 2000 ) found that activating consumer persuasion awareness can in-crease perceptions of salesperson insincerity.

Given persuasion awareness makes people sensitive to persuasion tactics, and if weassume that implicit conclusions are less of a hard sell than explicit conclusions (Kardeset al. 1994 ), then implicit conclusions should result in more brand trust for persuasionaware consumers. Trust should be generated because persuasion aware consumers arenot being told which brand they should view as better than the other. They are allowedto decide for themselves. Explicit conclusions should generate less trust by not allowing consumers to reach their own decision on which brand is superior. Support

Mark Lett


4/13

for this view is provided by research showing that advertising tactics can be used byconsumers as a cue for trustworthiness (Herbst et al. 2012 ).

Moreover, we examine trusting beliefs. Research has examined three types of trusting beliefs integrity beliefs, ability beliefs, and benevolence beliefs (Schlosser

et al. 2006 ). Integrity beliefs refer to the extent the organization exhibits fair and ethical behavior. Ability beliefs refer to a brand having the skills to perform competently.Benevolence beliefs refer to a brand being concerned with consumer welfare. Schlosser et al. (2006 ) suggest that studying trusting beliefs offers managers more insight than aglobal measure of trust. They found in an Internet context that ability beliefs, rather than integrity or benevolence beliefs, influenced consumer purchase intentions.However, other scholars suggest that types of trusting beliefs may not be empiricallydistinct (Bttner and Gritz 2008 ). In other words, trusting beliefs may represent aunidimensional construct rather than three distinct dimensions (integrity, ability, and

benevolence). In study 2, we examine which types of trusting beliefs (integrity, ability,and/or benevolence) drive the effects from study 1.

In sum, we suggest that a match in conclusion explicitness and persuasion awarenessleads to enhanced consumer trust towards a brand, which results in more favorableevaluations. Persuasion aware people who view an implicit conclusion should feel a brand is more trustworthy than when they are exposed to an explicit conclusion.

H2a Trust will mediate the effect of conclusion explicitness and persuasionawareness on consumers evaluations (study 1).

H2b Trusting beliefs will mediate the effect of conclusion explicitness and per-suasion knowledge on consumers evaluations (study 2).

3 Study 1

Study 1 examines whether persuasion aware consumers respond more favorably to animplicit (vs. explicit) conclusion. Trust is assessed as a mediator. Given consumer product knowledge can affect conclusion explicitness judgments (Chebat et al. 2001 ),we measured objective knowledge. Involvement was measured to test whether implicit conclusions generated higher involvement. Burnkrant and Howard ( 1984 ) show that ads beginning with thought provoking questions can stimulate thinking. Familiaritywas measured as familiar brands can result in consumers engaging in less extensivemessage processing (Campbell and Keller 2003 ).

3.1 Method

3.1.1 Participants and procedure

A 2 (conclusion explicitness: explicit vs. implicit)2 (persuasion awareness) mixeddesign was used with conclusion explicitness manipulated and persuasion awarenessmeasured. Forty-seven undergraduates from an English business school took part for the chance to win a cash prize (50). They were randomly assigned to conditions andread a message featuring two digital cameras. To aid realism, we used real brands andmodels of digital cameras (Nikon and Samsung) and actual product information. The

Mark Lett


5/13

explicit conclusion message heading was adapted from recent overseas advertising inan unrelated product category (automobiles).

3.1.2 Independent variables

Following prior research (Sawyer and Howard 1991 ), the conclusion explicitnessmanipulation compared two brands on product attributes. Participants read a messagefeaturing images of a Nikon and Samsung camera, respectively. Beneath the images, atable displayed comparative information on eight attributes ( Appendix ). The Nikoncamera was superior on each attribute. Conclusion explicitness was varied with themessage heading. The implicit conclusion heading stated Who s most likely to leavethe other brand behind? Read the facts and you decide. The explicit conclusionheading stated Who s most likely to leave Samsung behind? Nikon, of course.

Consistent with prior research (Ahluwalia and Burnkrant 2004 ), persuasion aware-ness was measured on six 7-point scales (e.g., I can tell when an offer has stringsattached ) from Bearden et al. ( 2001 ). Items were averaged to form a persuasionawareness index ( M =4.95, SD=1.14, a =.90).

3.1.3 Dependent variables

Brand evaluations were measured on three 7-point scales (bad/good, unfavorable/favorable,and dislike/like, a =.95). Willingness to pay (WTP) was measured as an open-ended variable

( M =183.05, SD=88.34). WTP was included as it represents a behavioral outcome whichinvolves a brand s monetary valuation by consumers (Chernev et al. 2011 ).

3.1.4 Mediator, manipulation check, and control measure

Trust was measured on two 7-point scales (trustworthy, credible, r =.80) based onDarke et al. ( 2010 ). For the conclusion explicitness manipulation check, participantsrated the extent the advertisement stated which brand was better on a 7-point scale(strongly disagree/strongly agree). Involvement was measured on three 7-point scales(concentrating very little/concentrating very hard, paying very little attention, paying alot of attention, very uninvolved/very involved, a =.85, Martin et al. 2009 ). Objectiveknowledge was measured with five statements (e.g., megapixels refer to the camerashutter speed, true, false, do not know, M =2.80, SD=1.00). Brand familiarity for Nikon and Samsung, respectively, was measured on separate 7-point scales (not at allfamiliar/very familiar). An open-ended suspicion probe showed that no participantsguessed the purpose of the study.

3.2 Results

3.2.1 Manipulation check and control measure

We performed a regression on the manipulation check measure with conclusionexplicitness (dummy coded), persuasion awareness (mean-centered), and the persua-sion awareness conclusion explicitness interaction as predictor variables. Participantsin the explicit conclusion conditions rated the message as more of an explicit

Mark Lett


6/13

conclusion than participants in the implicit conclusion conditions ( = .34, t = 2.30, p.39). The difference betweenconclusion explicitness conditions was confirmed by a t test on the manipulation check measure ( M Explicit =4.92 vs. M Implicit =3.86, t =2.03, p .25), objective knowledge ( p s>.17), or familiarity ( p s>.08). Further, a t test for conclusion explicitness on persuasion awareness showed no effect ( M Explicit =4.91 vs. M Implicit =5.00, t = .27, p=.79) suggesting conclusion explicitness did not affect per-suasion awareness.

3.2.2 Hypotheses testing

We used regression to examine the effect of conclusion explicitness (dummy coded), persuasion awareness (mean-centered), and their interaction on brand evaluations. Thisanalysis revealed a significant conclusion explicitness by persuasion awareness inter-action on evaluations ( =.57, t =2.54, p.13).

Note. Results show individuals one standard deviation above or below the mean for persuasion awareness.

E v a

l u a

t i o n s

Explicit conclusion Implicit conclusion

Fig. 1 Study 1: The effect of conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness on evaluations

Mark Lett


7/13

3.2.3 Mediation analysis

Bootstrapping was used to test for mediation. Bootstrapping involves repeatedlysampling and estimating the indirect effect from the data set. This process allows the

researcher to generate confidence intervals for the indirect effect (Preacher and Hayes2008 ). A bootstrap (model 8, Hayes 2013 ) produced a 95 % confidence interval (CI) byrunning resampling 1,000 times. This analysis showed that trust mediated the effect of conclusion explicitness (0=explicit, 1=implicit) and persuasion awareness on evalua-tions with a positive indirect effect for trust (indirect effect=.40; 95 % CI=.03, 1.11).

3.3 Discussion

Study 1 found that persuasion aware consumers report more favorable brand evalua-

tions in response to implicit conclusions. For persuasion unaware consumers, conclu-sion explicitness did not affect brand evaluations. The favorable effect of implicit conclusions for persuasion aware consumers appears to be driven by increased brandtrust. The effects did not extend to WTP. Given WTP represents a behavioral outcomeassociated with the strength of a consumer s brand attitude (Chernev et al. 2011 ), thelack of effects for WTP suggests that using implicit conclusions does not influencespending behavior. No differences were present for involvement, knowledge, or famil-iarity suggesting that these constructs are unlikely to account for our findings.

4 Study 2

Study 2 builds on the previous study in a variety of ways. First, in study 1, we discoveredthat a global measure of trust mediates the effects. In study 2, we build on this result byexamining three types of trusting beliefs integrity beliefs, ability beliefs, and benev-olence beliefs (Schlosser et al. 2006 ). Second, we sought to generalize our findings to anew context (services instead of a product). Given the nonsignificant results for will-ingness to pay in study 1, we studied a dependent variable with a strong behavioralcomponent (purchase intentions). Third, we used a fictional target brand to avoid any potential brand inferences. We also removed product visuals from the message to makeit text only. Fourth, for alternative explanations, we controlled for differences ininvolvement, brand familiarity, attribute importance, and message valence. Attributeimportance and message valence were measured to test whether conclusion explicitnessaffected the perceived importance of service features or the message framing (i.e., madethe message appear more positive or negative), respectively.

4.1 Method

4.1.1 Participants and procedure

We used a 2 (conclusion explicitness: explicit vs. implicit)2 (persuasion awareness)mixed design, with conclusion explicitness manipulated and persuasion awareness mea-sured. One hundred and eighty undergraduates from an English business school partici- pated for the chance to win a cash prize (50). They were randomly assigned to conditions.

Mark Lett


8/13

Participants completed short-form (eight items or less) filler trait measures whichwere included to disguise the study. The persuasion awareness measure was embeddedamong the trait measures. Next, adapted from Liu ( 2008 ), participants completed aword generation filler task. They listed five words they could think of featuring the

letter K and five words featuring the letter D. Eight participants were removed for writing swear words. Two participants were removed for not completing the question-naire resulting in a final sample of 170 participants. Next, participants read a messagecomparing two gymnasiums featuring attribute information derived from a content analysis of gymnasium websites.

4.1.2 Independent variables

For conclusion explicitness, participants read a message featuring a table of attribute

information for two gyms

Archos and the YMCA. The Archos brand was superior onfour attributes (opening times, minimum contract duration, swimming pool, free parking) and equal on three (e.g., free weights, what group sessions were available tocustomers, such as yoga or cardio). Conclusion explicitness was varied with themessage heading. The implicit condition heading stated Two Gyms, You Choosewhich Is Better. In the explicit condition, the message information was identicalexcept for the heading which stated Archos, the Better Gym. Persuasion awarenesswas measured as in study 1 ( M =5.38, SD=.77, a =.85).

4.2 Dependent variables

Brand evaluations were measured as in study 1 ( a =.88). Purchase intentions for a gymsubscription were measured on three 7-point scales (unlikely/likely, definitely wouldnot/definitely would, improbable/probable, a =.94).

4.3 Mediators, manipulation check, and control measures

For trusting beliefs, integrity was measured on two 7-point scales (no integrity/integrity,dishonest/honest). Ability was measured on two 7-point scales (novices at managinggyms/experts at managing gyms, inexperienced at running gyms/experienced at run-ning gyms). Benevolence was measured on two 7-point scales (e.g., would not go out of their way to help clients/would go out of their way to help clients, unconcernedabout client welfare/very concerned about client welfare, based on Schlosser et al.2006 ). Although these dimensions of trusting beliefs have shown correlated results inthe prior research (Bttner and Gritz 2008 ), we acknowledge that ability, integrity, and benevolence trusting beliefs can be studied as separate measures (Schlosser et al. 2006 ).However, a principal axis factor analysis showed that the ability, benevolence, andintegrity measures loaded onto a single factor. Consequently, we formed a trusting beliefs index which we report in our results ( a =.86).

The manipulation check was three 7-point scales (The advertisement states which brand is better, I think the advertisement ends with an obvious conclusion about which brand is better, Ithink the advertisement ends with an explicit conclusion about which brand is better, a =.73).

Involvement ( a =.91) and brand familiarity were measured as in study 1. Attributeimportance was measured for each attribute on a 7-point scale (e.g., free weights, not at

Mark Lett


9/13

all important/very important). Message valence was rated on two 7-point scales (few positive attributes/many positive attributes, many negative attributes/few negativeattributes, r =.53, p .13), attribute importance( p s>.08), and valence ( p s>.06). As the valence measure had low reliability, werepeated this analysis with both valence items as the criterion variable, but neither regression was significant ( p s>.09). A t test for conclusion explicitness on persuasionawareness showed no effect ( M Explicit =5.27 vs. M Implicit =5.49, t = 1.83, p =.07).

4.4.2 Hypotheses testing

A conclusion explicitness by persuasion awareness regression on evaluations

revealed a significant interaction ( =.30, t =2.95, p.10). A spotlight analysis revealed that persua-sion aware consumers reported more favorable evaluations for implicit rather than explicit conclusions ( =.31, t =2.92, p< .01). Persuasion unaware con-sumers showed no differences in their evaluations in response to conclusionexplicitness ( = .14, t = 1.29, p=.20) Fig. 2.

For purchase intentions, the conclusion explicitness by persuasion awareness inter-action was not significant ( p=.45). No other predictor variables were significant

E v a

l u a

t i o n s

Explicit conclusion Implicit conclusion

Fig. 2 Study 2: The effect of conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness on evaluations

Mark Lett


10/13

( p s>.15). A bootstrap (model 8, Hayes 2013 , resampling 1,000 times) confirmed that the conclusion explicitness (0=explicit, 1=implicit) and persuasion awareness interac-tion on evaluations were mediated by a positive effect for trusting beliefs (indirect effect=.14; 95 % CI=.01, .31). Trusting beliefs significantly influenced evaluations for

implicit conclusions but not for explicit conclusions. For implicit conclusions, trusting beliefs influenced evaluations (indirect effect=.17; 95 % CI=.06, .31). However, for explicit conclusions, trusting beliefs did not influence evaluations (indirect effect=.03;95 % CI= .08, .12).

4.5 Discussion

Study 2 demonstrates that persuasion aware consumers report more favorable evalua-tions in response to implicit conclusions. For persuasion unaware consumers, conclu-

sion explicitness was not associated with evaluations. However, this pattern of effectswas not evident for purchase intentions. The result for brand evaluations appears to bedriven by trusting beliefs. The lack of differences for involvement, familiarity, attributeimportance, and message valence suggests they do not account for our findings.

5 General discussion

The current research shows how persuasion awareness influences how consumers

respond to implicit or explicit conclusions in comparative advertising. We show acrosstwo studies that persuasion aware people prefer implicit conclusions. Implicit conclu-sions were more persuadable for consumers who were more aware of persuasionattempts than those less aware. These favorable effects for brand evaluations weredriven by brand trust (study 1) and trusting beliefs (study 2). We found that trusting beliefs represent a single factor rather than multiple dimensions (e.g., integrity). Thelack of differences for involvement, knowledge, brand familiarity, and message valencesuggests these constructs are unlikely to account for our findings.

Our research contributes to the literature. First, we show the effect of conclusionexplicitness and persuasion awareness on brand evaluations. Research shows that individual differences such as need for cognition can moderate conclusion explicitnesseffects (Stayman and Kardes 1992 ). We build on these findings by showing that persuasion aware consumers respond more favorably to implicit conclusions. Yet, thiseffect does not extend to WTP or purchase intent suggesting that the interactive effectsof conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness do not directly influence monetaryevaluations or purchasing behavior.

Second, we show that consumer trust (trustworthiness, study 1; trusting beliefs,study 2) mediates the effects of conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness.Thus, our research shows that persuasion awareness can result in positive evaluationsand brand trust, rather than negative evaluations (e.g., Kirmani and Zhu 2007 ). Third,our research contributes to the trust literature by showing that trusting beliefs should not always be viewed as separate sub-dimensions. Our findings showed they represent asingle construct. This suggests that integrity, benevolence, and ability act in a similar fashion as an underlying mechanism for our effects, rather than one trust dimension(e.g., integrity) being the driver of the effects as had been expected.

Mark Lett


11/13

Our findings suggest that implicit conclusions should be used when advertising to persuasion aware consumers. A research limitation is that we did not manipulate persuasion awareness to test if our findings extend to situational states of persuasionawareness.

As suggested by a reviewer, future research could prime persuasion aware-ness by presenting consumers with descriptions of how Machiavelli manipulated people or by coaching consumers about implicit persuasion. In addition, futureresearch could examine conclusion placement. Our research has the conclusionmanipulation in the heading of the advertisement. However, we acknowledgethat some prior studies have placed the conclusion at the bottom of theadvertisement (e.g., Martin et al. 2004 ). As conclusion placement may haveaffected consumer information processing, future research should compare theeffects of where a conclusion is placed in an ad. Further, we studied compar-

ative messages. It would be useful to test conclusion explicitness effects in anon-comparative format to build on prior research (e.g., Kardes 1988 ) where asingle brand is presented with implicit or explicit conclusions.

Appendix

Study 1: Implicit conclusion

Mark Lett


12/13

Study 1: Explicit conclusion

References

Ahearne, M., Jelinek, R., & Jones, E. (2007). Examining the effect of salesperson service behavior in acompetitive context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (4), 603 616.

Ahluwalia, R., & Burnkrant, R. E. (2004). Answering questionsabout questions: a persuasion knowledge perspectivefor understanding the effects of rhetorical questions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 26 42.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions . Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D. M., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Consumer self-confidence: refinements in concep-tualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1), 121 134.

Burnkrant, R. E., & Howard, D. J. (1984). Effects of the use of introductory rhetorical questions versusstatements on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (6), 1218 1230.

Bttner, O., & Gritz, A. S. (2008). Perceived trustworthiness in online shops. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7 , 35 50.

Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 292 304.Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers use of persuasion knowledge: the effects of accessibility

and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 69

83.Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2013). Can disclosures lead consumers to resist covert

persuasion? The important roles of disclosure timing and type of response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (4), 483 495.

Mark Lett


13/13

Chebat, J. C., Charlebois, M., & Glinas-Chebat, C. (2001). What makes open vs. closed conclusionadvertisements more persuasive? The moderating role of prior knowledge and involvement. Journal of Business Research, 53 (2), 93 102.

Chernev, A., Hamilton, R., & Gal, D. (2011). Competing for consumer identity: limits to self-expression andthe perils of lifestyle branding. Journal of Marketing, 75 (3), 66 82.

Darke, P. R., Ashworth, L., & Main, K. J. (2010). Great expectations and broken promises: misleading claims, product failure, expectancy disconfirmation and consumer distrust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38 (3), 347 362.

Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (June), 5 8.Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion

attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 1 31.Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer

relationships. Journal of Marketing, 21 (June), 70 87.Grewal, D., Kavanoor, S., Fern, E., Costley, C., & Barnes, J. (1997). Comparative versus noncomparative

advertising: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 61 (October), 1 15.Grhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Determinants of country of origin evaluations. Journal of

Consumer Research, 27 (1), 96 108.Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis . New York: The

Guilford Press.Herbst, K. C., Finkel, E. J., Allan, D., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2012). On the dangers of pulling a fast one:

advertisement disclaimer speed, brand trust, and purchase intention. Journal of Consumer Research,38(5), 909 919.

Kardes, F. R. (1988). Spontaneous inference processes in advertising: the effects of conclusion omission andinvolvement on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 225 233.

Kardes, F. R., Kim, J., & Lim, J. S. (1994). Moderating effects of prior knowledge on the perceiveddiagnosticity of beliefs derived from implicit versus explicit product claims. Journal of Business Research, 29 (3), 219 224.

Kirmani, A., & Zhu, R. (2007). Vigilant against manipulation: the effect of regulatory focus on the use of

persuasion knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (November), 688

701.Liu, W. (2008). Focusing on desirability: the effect of decision interruption and suspension on preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (4), 640 652.

Martin, B. A. S., Lang, B., & Wong, S. (2004). Conclusion explicitness in advertising: the moderating role of need for cognition (NFC) and argument quality (AQ) on persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 32 (4), 57 66.

Martin, B. A. S., Gnoth, J., & Strong, C. (2009). Temporal construal in advertising. Journal of Advertising,38(3), 5 20.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparingindirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40 (3), 879 891.

Sawyer, A. G., & Howard, D. J. (1991). Effects of omitting conclusions in advertisements to involved anduninvolved audiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (November), 467 474.

Schlosser, A. E., White, T. B., & Lloyd, S. M. (2006). Converting web site visitors into buyers: how web site

investment increases consumer trusting beliefs and online purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing,70(April), 133 148.

Stayman, D. M., & Kardes, F. R. (1992). Spontaneous inference processes in advertising: effects of need for cognition and self-monitoring on inference generation and utilization. Journal of Consumer Psychology,1(2), 125 142.

Mark Lett

The trustworthy brand: effects of conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness on consumer judgments

Documents