Consumer Response to False Information: Is Believability Necessary for Persuasion?

Consumer Response to False

Information:

Is Believability Necessary for

Persuasion?•Claudiu V. Dimofte•Georgetown University

•Richard F. Yalch•University of Washington

•May 7, 2005•Vancouver, BC

Outline

• Crisis Management• Damage Control (Study 5)

• False Marketplace Information• Negative Rumors about Company/Brand

• Overselling of Product/Brand Features

• The Implicit Account

• Rumors• Information Processing (Studies 1, 2, 3)

• Infomercials• Curious Disbelief (sic) (Study 4)

• Discussion/Conclusions

PRODUCTINFORMATION

TRUE FALSE

++ - -

ADS/WOMDECEPTIVE

SALESRUMORSCRISES

Coping with Crises

• Examples• Celebrities

•Bill O’Reilly – sexual harassment •Michael Jackson – being weird•Pat O’Brien – alcoholic leaving obscene

messages•Martha Stewart – prison time for lying•Janet Jackson – Superbowl•Paul Abdul – misbehavior with contestant

Damage Control

1. Do Nothing – Bill O’Reilly

2. Refutation – Michael Jackson

3. Apologize and Go On – Pat O’Brien

4. Retrieval – Martha Stewart “Apprentice spinoff”

5. Storage – Janet Jackson “Equipment malfunction”

6. Counterattack – Paula Abdul

Study 5: Damage Control

• Goals:

• Look at all damage control strategies in one experiment

• Participants:

• 133 undergrads from introductory GT Marketing class

• Method:

• Participants are exposed to news coverage on Bank of

America losing customer data

• Participants take IAT and provide explicit truth ratings

Study 5 - Stimuli

• Explicit Procedure Stimuli:

• Participants read web news story on Bank of America’s losing data

• After short delay, they are given 6-item questionnaire about problem gravity, responsibility, BA evaluation, BA data safety, importance of apology, safety of BA vs. WF

• Conditions: apology, do nothing, deny, counterattack, storage, retrieval

• Implicit Procedure Stimuli:

• IAT Bank of America/Wells Fargo, safe/unsafe

CRISIS

APOLOGY

REFUTE

STORAGE

ATTACKRETRIEVAL

ATTACK

Study 5 - Gravity

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Do Nothing Apologize Refute Storage Retrieval Counterattack

"Not Serious at All"

Study 5 – BofA’s Responsibility

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


"Not their fault"

Study 5 – Data Safe & vs Wells Fargo?

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5


"Exremely Safe"

Study 5 – Overall Evaluation of BofA

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5


"Extremely Favorable"

Study 5 – Implicit Associations

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04


BofA- Safe

BofA- Unsafe

Study 5 – Conclusions

• Explicit Results:

• Apologize: Admitting fault was generally worst strategy.

• Ignore: left doubt and did not help. Second worst strategy.

• Refute: slight help with most issues.

• Storage: lowered perceived severity & BofA concerns. Best strategy.

• Retrieval: only lowered severity but aided overall evaluation.

• Counterattack: Minimized severity but kept low safety ratings. Similar but

not as good as retrieval for overall evaluations.

Study 5 – Conclusions

• Implicit Results:

– Bank of America is strongly automatically associated with ‘unsafe’

in all cases except:

apology (only time better thanWells Fargo)

storage (equal to Wells Fargo)

• Overall Insights:

– Storage works at both levels, by turning – into +

– Apology

– – for explicits but + for implicits

– Explicit judgments, think about why they apologized

– Implicit judgments, think about BofA not the apology or safety

PRODUCTINFORMATION

TRUE FALSE

++ - -

ADS/WOMDECEPTIVE

SALESRUMORSCRISES

False Negative Information• Rumors about Company/Brand

• Rumors: specific propositions or beliefs passed along from person to person without any secure standards of evidence (Allport and Postman 1947)

• Originate in unconscious desires that are transformed to become conscious (Rossignol 1973)

• “[…] the rumor could exist at various levels of consciousness and could lead one to get a pizza or a taco without being aware of why one did so” (Koenig 1985)

Unfounded Rumor Examples

• Corona• Mountain Dew• Procter & Gamble

Failing to Combat Rumors can have Severe Consequences

Rumor Quelling Strategies

• Tybout et al. (1981): refutation does not work, use storage

or retrieval strategies

• Iyer and Debevec (1991): rumors are less credible when

propagated by someone that can gain out of its

dissemination

• Koller (1992): the best way to fight rumors is to explain their

rumor and lack of veracity via positive advertising

• Kamins et al. (1997): rumors are generally more easily

spread when they are personally relevant and favorable

• Bordia et. al (2000): best way to fight rumors is via honest

denial

Information Processing Insights

• Tybout et al. (1981)• Directly refuting rumors is the least effective way to

deal with them; offered two alternative strategies:

1. STORAGE STRATEGY: expose consumers to a secondary stimulus during encoding of rumor information, making the brand more likely to be associated with that stimulus rather than the rumor

2. RETRIEVAL STRATEGY: expose consumers to a secondary stimulus during retrieval of brand information, thus lessening the chance of the joint retrieval of brand and rumor

Information Processing Insights (cont’d)

• Tybout et al. (1981) design: employed rumor of McDonald’s’ use of red worm meat in their burgers

1. STORAGE STRATEGY: during encoding of worm rumor information, consumers were exposed to a secondary stimulus (confederate claiming a famous, pricey local French restaurant uses tasty worm sauces)

GOAL: make worm meat more desirable or more associated with French restaurants than McDonalds.

2. RETRIEVAL STRATEGY: during retrieval of McDonald’s information, consumers were exposed to a secondary stimulus (questionnaire about the McDonald’s location they frequent the most) GOAL: lessen likelihood of joint retrieval of McDonald’s and worm meat rumor

3. REFUTATION STRATEGY: after exposure to worm rumor, consumers were exposed to McDonald’s’ claim that red worm meat is too expensive to use.GOAL: alter believability of the worm rumor


Tybout (1981) results

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

No Rumor Rumor Refutation Storage Retrieval

• Problem: no clear understanding of what the processing mechanisms behind these effects are

• STORAGE: did it disrupt the McDonald’s – worms association or did it make eating worms more positive by relating it to French food?

• RETRIEVAL: did it block the activation of the McDonald’s – worm association or inhibited its retrieval in relation to other McDonald’s thoughts?

• REFUTATION: after study, subjects in all conditions showed strong disbelief in the rumor’s veracity so why were they still affected by it?


"Are you aware of the unconscious hostility

you are exhibiting to us right now?“

Doctor X, Psychiatrist

”How could I be aware if it's unconscious?”

Leonard, Mental Hospital patient

in the movie The Awakening

Explicit vs. Implicit Processing


• Explicit (implicit) processing: those aspects of cognition which are (un)available to the individual's conscious awareness.

• The methods used to test for each differ:

• explicit processing is typically examined directly, by asking individuals to evaluate their own thought processes;

• implicit processing is typically examined indirectly by evaluating performance on tests that depend on thought processes that are not subject to introspection.


• Fazio et al. (1986): attitudes characterized by a strong association between the attitude object (AO) and its evaluation are capable of being activated from memory automatically upon mere presentation of AO.

• Devine (1989): dissociation of automatic and controlled processes involved in prejudice

• social stereotype is automatically activated in the presence of a member of stereotyped group and that low-prejudice responses require controlled inhibition thereof


• Bargh et al. (1996): stereotypes become active automatically in the presence of relevant behavior or stereotyped-group features

• participants for whom an elderly stereotype was primed walked more slowly down the hallway when leaving experiment

• Greenwald et al. (1998): measured individual differences in implicit cognition with implicit association test (IAT)

• Bottom line: automatic cognition occurs and is driven by associations that we generally cannot control.

Rumor Processing: The Implicit Account

• False information persuades via an unconscious route by building automatic associations between brands and the information cues in the message.

• While explicitly rejecting the veracity of outlandish brand rumors, consumers lack control over the implicit associations occurring at exposure and being practiced during subsequent evaluations.

Study 1 - Storage

• Goal:• Replicate Tybout et al. (1981) storage strategy

results

• Disentangle processing mechanisms behind strategy

• Participants:• 229 undergrads from introductory Marketing class

• Method:• Participants are exposed to rumor and secondary

stimulus

• Filler task for 5 minutes

• Participants take IAT, then provide explicit brand ratings

Study 1 - Stimuli


• Participants read series of supposed New York Times news stories on politics, business (McDonald’s worm rumor troubles in Asia), sports, and leisure.

• Half read about gourmet worm food from AsiaHalf read about house decorating.

• Implicit Measures:

• IAT McDonald’s/Burger-King, food-related/worm-

related

• IAT food-related/worm-related, pleasant/unpleasant

Study 1 – Stimuli (cont’d)

press “d” for press “k” for

Worm-related Food-related OR OR

McDonald’s Burger King





larva





beef




Pleasant Unpleasant

beef




Pleasant Unpleasant

rainbow




Pleasant Unpleasant

hurricane

Study 1 – Explicit Results

• Tybout et al. (1981) results replicate: consumers in the storage

condition have higher evaluations of McDonald’s than those in the

rumor-only condition: t(228) = -2.20, p < .03

0

20

40

60

80

Control Storage

Brand Rating

Study 1 – IAT Results

• McDonald’s is equally (and weakly) associated with worms in both conditions:

t(117) < 1, ns

• Worms are associated with unpleasant in both conditions, but less so in storage:

t(110) = 2.34, p < .03

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

McDonald's-Worms IAT Worms-Affect IAT

D-m

easu

re

Control Storage

McDonald’s -Worms

McDonald’s -Food

Worms - Unpleasant

Worms - Pleasant

Study 1 – Conclusion & Unresolved Issue

• Conclusion: the storage strategy works by minimizing the negative feelings associated with the rumor via the positive secondary stimulus

• Problem: the McDonald’s – Worms IAT showed little association, even in the control condition

• Stronger rumor induction may be needed (vivid images or repetition).

Study 2 – Retrieval vs Refutation

• Goal: compare two strategies in terms of implementation delay following rumor exposure.

• Method:

• 113 participants exposed to rumor

• Followed by secondary stimulus

• Retrieval – questions unrelated to rumor

• Refutation – statement why the rumor is false

• Filler task for 5 or 30 minutes

• Participants take IAT, then provide explicit brand ratings

Study 2 - Stimuli


• Participants read series of supposed New York Times news stories on politics, business (McDonald’s worm rumor troubles in Asia), sports, and leisure.

• After short/long delay, they are given 4-item questionnaire about the McDonald’s/Circuit City they frequent, or read McDonald’s press release refuting rumor.

• Implicit Measures:

• IAT McDonald’s/Burger-King, food-related/worm-related


• Tybout et al. (1981) results do not replicate:

– interaction Condition x Delay: F(2, 96) = 3.14, p < .05

• Retrieval strategy does not work, fast refutation does

40

50

60

70

80

Control Retrieval Refutation

Brand Rating

Short Delay Long Delay

*

*

* p < .05


• Main effect of Delay: F(2, 104) = 3.34, p = .07• Retrieval does work implicitly if positive thoughts elicited fast enough• Rumors are difficult to fight after delay

-0.12

-0.09

-0.06

-0.03

0

0.03

Control Retrieval Refutation

D-m

easu

re

Short Delay Long Delay

McDonald’s - Worms

McDonald’s - Food

*

** p < .05

Study 3

• Automatic associations quickly established with initial exposures and explicit and implicit – but is this limited to novel stimuli?

• If so, we are truly not as susceptible to undue influence

• If not, can anything be done to prevent undue associations from emerging?

• Test: employ strong pre-existing association, try to change it[s strength] via rumor

Study 3• Goals:

• Look at strong, universally prevalent association:

• Females and caring

• Participants:

• 133 undergrads from introductory GT Marketing class

• Method:

• Participants are exposed to male pregnancy rumor

or message on home decoration

• Participants take IAT and provide explicit truth

ratings

Study 3 - Stimuli


• Participants read supposed CNN story on Asian hospital and its male pregnancy program (house decoration in control)

• After short delay, they are given 4-item questionnaire about the likelihood of this story’s being true, etc.

• All asked about possibility of male pregnancy


• IAT female/male names, caring/uncaring



Male Female OR OR

caring uncaring

John



Male Female OR OR

caring uncaring

nurturing

Study 3 - Results

• Explicit Results:

• Rumor elicits more curiosity: t(132) = 130.34, p

< .001

• Rumor is not credible: t(132) = 125.13, p < .001

• Male pregnancy is possible: t(132) = 131.20, p

< .001

• Implicit Results:

• Both conditions associate female names more with

‘caring’

• Slightly less so in rumor condition, ns

Studies 1 – 3 Conclusions

• Rumors are difficult to manage because explicit beliefs are often not a consideration

• Worm rumor not believed but McDonalds attitudes

• Male pregnancy believed but males no more caring

• Believability does not appear to be a major consideration in using information to make judgments.

Studies 1 – 3 Explanations

• Cartesian view on comprehension and acceptance of assertions: messages are at once comprehended and rejected if assessed to be unbelievable

• Spinozan view: all information is first accepted during comprehension, and only subsequently rejected upon believability assessment (Gilbert et al. 1990).

• Support for the latter: all information is automatically awarded bona fide status upon encounter, unless strong prior associations of different valence exist.

False Positive Information

• Overselling of Product/Brand Features• “Too-good-to-be-true” commercial/infomercial claims

• Pragmatic Implications

• Consumers drawing unwarranted inferences (Kardes

1988)

due to processing or production deficits (Gaeth and

Heath 1987)

• Richards (1990) lists 14 types of deceptive advertising

(preemptive – Wonder Bread builds Strong Bodies 12

ways)

False Positive Information

• The “Curious Disbelief” Phenomenon

•“Hard to Believe” Advertising Claims may motivate trial more than believable claims

Maloney (1962)

0%

5%

10%15%

20%

25%30%

35%

40%

45%

Willingness to Try Product

Believers

CuriousNonbelieversDisbelievers

Infomercial Persuasion: The Implicit Account

• False information persuades via an unconscious route by building automatic associations between brands and the novel information cues in the message.

• While explicitly rejecting the veracity of outlandish infomercial claims, consumers lack control over the implicit associations occurring at exposure and being practiced during subsequent evaluations.

Study 4: Power of Infomercials

• Goals:

• Replicate Maloney (1962) explicit results

• Disentangle processing mechanisms behind curious disbelief

• Method:

• 62 participants are exposed to Ultimate Chopper infomercial: alone, preceded or followed by discounting cue (video or text)

• Explicit dependent measures collected

• Participants take two IATs: interesting/believable

Study 4 - Stimuli


• Participants watch about 90 seconds-worth of edited Ultimate Chopper infomercial or read equivalent text

• Discounting cue: about 90 seconds-worth of edited 20/20 footage on infomercial scams


• IAT Ultimate Chopper/Henckels knives, boring/interesting

• IAT Ultimate Chopper/Henckels, believable/unbelievable

Infomercial

Infomercial - Expose


• There is something special about (video) infomercials: Explicit Rating

• main effect: F(3, 61) = 2.40, p = .09; a,b: p < .03

0

2

4

6

8

10

Infomercial Cue+Infomercial Infomercial+Cue Text

Rating

ba

a,b


• Infomercials are generally not credible: all conditions show

disbelief: text info best (slightly above .5 – range: -3 to 3)

F(3, 61) = 2.3, p = .08; a,b: p < .05• Check via suspicion

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2


Believability

a b

a,b


• Supports believability results and shows that cue instills suspicion:

F(3, 64) = 4.6, p < .006; a,b: p < .05; c,d: p < .005• Again, we have explicit disbelief

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5


Suspicion

a,cb,d

a,b

c,d

• Not a lot of explicit curiosity elicited: irrelevant category?

F(3, 61) = .2, ns

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1


Curiosity


• Similar shape/results for several claims (e.g., crushes ice, will never dull)• Peanut Butter main effect: F(3, 63) = 5.1, p < .003

a,c: p < .03; b,d: p < .003 • Nonbelief drives evaluations

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Makes Peanut Butter

a,b

a,cb,d

c,d


-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

Chopper-Interesting IAT Chopper-Believable IAT

D-m

easu

re


Chopper-Interesting

Chopper-Boring

Chopper-Believable

Chopper-Unbelievable


• Interesting IAT: F(3, 58) = 3.3, p < .03 (we have some implicit curiosity for all infomercial conditions, text quite boring: an issue of delivery?)

• Believable IAT: F(3, 58) = 1.9, p = .14 (no implicit disbelief, infomercial seems to build instant automatic believability: an issue of testimonials?)

• It appears the “curious nonbelief” phenomenon translates into “curious implicit belief”


Support for The Implicit Account

• False information may persuade via an automatic route by building automatic associations between brands and the novel information cues in the message.

• While explicitly rejecting the veracity of outlandish infomercial claims or brand rumors, consumers lack control over the implicit associations occurring at exposure and being practiced during subsequent evaluations.

• Is believability really important? The response is automatic…

Consumer Response to False Information: Is Believability Necessary for Persuasion?

Documents

Transcript of Consumer Response to False Information: Is Believability Necessary for Persuasion?