A study of the believability of the forms of puffery

This study tested consumers' perceptions of the believability of puffery in advertising. Forms of puffery have been ranked for their potential ability to deceive consumers. Subjects were asked to rate how believable they found examples of each of the six forms of puffery. The study compared the believability of the claims with the subjects' familiarity and experiences with the products about which the claims were made. The results of a one-way analysis of variance showed little difference between consumers' levels of believability across five of the six levels of puffery. Overall, most consumers did not feel strongly one way or another about the believability of the puffed claims. That both familiarity and experience with the products significantly influenced the believability of the claims made in the study was indicated by χ²-tests. Recommendations are made concerning marketers' use of puffery. Topics for future research in the area are also suggested.     

Reason as a Nexus of Natural Law and Rhetoric

Although the pages of Journal of Business Ethics have hosted an ongoing dialogue on the ethics of rhetoric and persuasion, the debates have been unable to account for the underlying morality of the human propensity to engage in rhetorical discourse as a part of living in society. In this paper, I offer natural-law ethical theory as a moral paradigm in which to examine rhetoric. In this context, I assert that rhetoric services reason, which in turn services our dispositions or inclinations that are one ideological foundation of natural-law theory. As rhetoric affects the apprehension of these dispositions it subsumes a related morality in which rhetorical endeavors can be seen as “natural”. So endowed, I believe that this conception of rhetoric offers a number of philosophical and practical implications, one of which is a new way to assess the morality of commercial manifestations of rhetoric such as spin and the use of puffery in advertising.     

When Do Consumers Believe Puffery Claims? The Moderating Role of Brand Familiarity and Repetition

In the United States, exaggerated advertising claims for products and services, known as “puffery,” make up a considerable proportion of all claims in the marketplace. Legally, advertisers do not need to substantiate the puffery claims because it is believed that consumers would not be deceived by such exaggerated claims. This research reports two experiments that examined the moderating role of brand familiarity and repetition on puffery claims. Results indicated that while puffery generally led to weak main effects, it had significant interaction effects with brand familiarity (Study 1) and claim repetition (Study 2) on the dependent variables.     

Interaction Effect of Ad Puffery and Ad Skepticism on Consumer Persuasion

ABSTRACT

A 2 × 2 experiment was conducted to test the interaction effects of ad puffery and consumer ad skepticism on consumer persuasion using print ads for jeans. High ad skeptics (i.e., those more skeptical of ads) held a more positive attitude toward the ad than low ad skeptics (i.e., those less skeptical of ads) when a puffed (i.e., exaggerated) ad was viewed. Conversely, low ad skeptics had greater purchase intentions than high ad skeptics when a nonpuffed (i.e., nonexaggerated) ad was viewed.