New evidence on principles

How to use fear to persuade: (Principle 3.5.1)

Research on mass communications during WWII concluded that mild fear was more persuasive than strong fear. Later research challenged this finding. A meta-analysis of 98 experimental and non-experimental studies confirmed that strong fear is more effective (Witte & Allen 2000).

Sunstein and Zeckhauser (2011) found even stronger support. They concluded that fear is much more likely to be aroused by describing vivid and fearful consequences than by stressing that the harmful event is likely. To the extent that emphasis is placed on a possible fearful outcome, people tend to ignore the probability of such an event. This leads to irrational decisions. [More..]

Increase diversity bake sale: 2011 (Principle 3.6.1)

Persuasion Principle 3.6.1 says, “Provoke customers only when it attracts attention to a selling point.” In September 2011, a bake sale held at the University of California at Berkeley offered cupcakes at various prices depending on the customer’s race and gender. [More . . ] [More..] For example, white males were charged the most at $2.00, while Native American females were eligible to receive a free cupcake. The Berkeley College Republicans used this provocative act in response to a movement that requested the California legislature to repeal a constitution amendment, which currently says that the state “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” The provocative demonstration attempted to provide an analogy of the University’s tuition plan and to question whether such a system is fair. Protests against the bake sale also helped focus attention on the selling point. This provocative approach gained national publicity. Read more about the UC Berkeley bake sale from this article dated on Sept 28, 2011.

Do mandatory disclaimers help customers? (Principle 7.13.1)

Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Disclaimers in Advertising, Kesten C. Green & J. S. Armstrong. Working Paper. Please send peer review, especially experimental evidence that conflicts with our findings.

Disclaimers are widely used by firms to warn customers of dangers and limitations of their products, and are persuasive when the issue is important. We examine the effects of mandatory disclaimers.

Speech restrictions conflict with basic economic incentives. Sellers are motivated by profit to benefit consumers. Government officials lack this motive, and may be tempted by personal beliefs or by pressure from competing suppliers, or other lobbyists, to cause harm. We found that the imposition of mandatory disclaimers in the U.S. has been on the basis not of scientific studies that they would further important government interests but of opinions that they would do so. [More. . ] [More..] Our review of 15 experimental studies found that mandatory disclaimers increased confusion in all cases. All of the 11 of the studies that examined decision-making found that consumers made poorer decisions. We were unable to find evidence that consumers have benefitted from mandatory disclaimers in any situation. We conducted an experiment on the effects of a disclaimer for a Florida court case. Two advertisements for dentists offering implant dentistry were shown to 317 subjects. One advertiser had implant dentistry credentials. Subjects exposed to the disclaimer, especially women and the less educated, more often recommended the advertiser who lacked credentials. In addition, the subjects drew false and damaging inferences about the credentialed dentist.

New Papers: Published or Working papers

Papers relevant to evidence-based advertising can be posted in this section to stake an early claim and to request peer review from visitors to this site. Also send published papers. If you do not have the copyright or permission from the journal, please send the working paper that was submitted for publication.

“Evidence-based Advertising” J. S. Armstrong, International Journal of Advertising (2011)

Extensive and repeated testing of diverse, alternative, and reasonable hypotheses is necessary in order to increase knowledge about advertising. This calls for laboratory, field, and quasi-experimental studies. Fortunately, much useful empirical research on how to create persuasive advertisements kind has been conducted. [More . . ] [More..] A literature review, conducted over 16 years, summarized knowledge from 687 sources that drew upon more than 3,000 studies. The review led to the development of 195 principles—condition-action statements—for advertising. We were unable to find any of these principles in a convenience sample of nine advertising textbooks and three practitioner handbooks. The advice in these books ignored empirical evidence; of the 7,200+ sources referenced in these books, only 30 overlapped with the 687 used to develop the persuasion principles. The papers were published with commentary and a Reply.

Reviews of Persuasive Advertising

Denise M Rousseau, an expert on evidence-based management, reviewed Persuasive Advertising. Interfaces 42, No 1, 2011, 93-9

Philip Gendall Professor of Marketing, Massey University, New Zealand wrote a review that was followed by Scott Armstrong’s Persuasive Advertising is only the end of the beginning: A rejoinder to the review.

Review by Peter Mouncey in the International Journal of Market Research