marketing advertisments

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach Author(s): David M. Gardner Source: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Jan., 1975), pp. 40-46Published by: American Marketing AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1250801Accessed: 27-03-2015 03:48 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 121.52.146.139 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:48:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

David M. Gardner

Deception in Advertising:

A Conceptual Approach Deception in advertising needs further definition and procedures

for measurement-Gardner's conceptual approach offers suggestions for both.

T HE recent activity of the Federal Trade Com- mission and the complaints of numerous consumer interest groups have focused great awareness and interest on deceptive advertising. Unfortunately, it is not adequate, for either the advertiser or the regulator, merely to know that deception is wrong. What is needed is, first, a common understanding of deception that focuses on the consumer. Then, accepted ways of detecting deception must be devised.

The purpose of this article is to offer a conceptual approach to understanding and categorizing deception in advertising and to suggest several research approaches that might aid in the measurement of deceptive advertising.

What is Deception? The Need for a Definition

Deception in advertising is far from a new concern. Claims made for remedies hundreds of years ago were often so deceitful that by today's standards they are humorous. While common law dealt with false advertising, the maxim of caveat emptor was in full sway for many years. Traditionally, courts have been quite lenient and have tended to hold that the consumer should have examined the goods in question more adequately, or that the advertisements merely represented "matters of opinion" and should have been treated with skepti- cism.

In 1914 the Federal Trade Commission was formed, and the FTC has been involved in the regulation of advertising from its very first com- plaint. Unfortunately, even though the commission has issued many rulings since 1914, it is not

clear that the FTC, or anyone else, has an adequate understanding of deceptive advertising that is based on a sound conceptual model and backed with good research studies. The Federal Trade Commission has, in general, held that deception exists when an objectively ascertainable material fact is presented falsely, is ambiguous, or is misleading. Out of these rulings has grown a body of law that deals with specific situations. This body of law, however, is the product of case-by-case rulings. Therefore, the law is prescriptive rather than proscriptive. The result is that no overall definition or classification of deception in advertising exists. This has become painfully obvious since 1970, as the FTC has moved in new directions with regard to advertising. The commission's spectacular lack of success in this area has resulted in the failure to rule against any major advertiser, with the possible exception of several consent decrees. This situation is directly traceable to the lack of a working definition and a proscriptive classification of deception in advertising.

In the last several years, a number of authors have focused on specific problems involving false advertising. Dyer and Kuehl1 and Hunt2 explored aspects of corrective and counter advertising. But corrective and counter advertising imply that deceptive advertising can be identified. At the Univer- sity of Minnesota, Haefner studied consumers' understanding of deception." His analysis indicated a strong correlation between advertisements that

1. Robert F. Dyer and Philip G. Kuehl, "The Corrective Advertising Remedy of the FTC: An Experimental Evaluation," JOURNAL OF MARKETING, Vol. 38 (January 1974), pp. 48-54.

2. H. Keith Hunt, "Effects of Corrective Advertising," Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 13 (October 1973), pp. 15-22.

3. James Haefner, "The Perception of Deception in Televi- sion Advertising: An Exploratory Investigation" (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1972). Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 (January 1975), pp. 40-46.

40


Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach 41

were "seen" as deceptive and the same advertisements being described as annoying, offensive, and insulting to the intelligence. Yet, Haefner also found that consumers' perceptions of deception did not agree with those of FTC attorneys for the same products.

Recent Definitional Efforts In regulating advertising, the Federal Trade

Commission has primarily been concerned with "protecting competition." This has led the FTC to look primarily at advertising practices that allowed a given competitor to gain business at the expense of others because of untruthful advertising. As a result, much effort has been devoted to regulating price claims. Likewise, considerable attention has been given to fraudulent claims that for all practical purposes are outright lies. Consequently, the Fed- eral Trade Commission has often been embroiled in questions of the number of people who need to be affected for deception to exist and how intel- ligent a consumer must be to be protected.4

Cohen suggests that the emphasis may switch from "protecting competition" to "protecting consumers," as the Federal Trade Commission pur- sues the unfairness doctrine as applied to deceptive advertising.5 However, Cohen fails to point out that this pursuit most likely will be subject to the same problems as former approaches, because there has been little concern for incorporating the consumer into any understanding of deception in advertising. This is still largely true, inasmuch as most evidence used in deceptive advertising complaints comes from "experts" who testify based on their special training and experience. These experts testify as to their expectations of what consumers are likely to believe. Likewise, other experts testify on the technical aspects of the product. It is not hard to imagine that "qualified" experts can be found to support each side of a case. This being so, the facts of the case often get lost in attempts by both sides to discredit expert witnesses and to win the case on legal procedures. Legal practice attempts to find "truth" by determining the asser-

tions and evidence that can withstand cross-ex- amination. Legal truth, therefore, is different from truth as viewed by the layman and certainly different from truth in the scientific method sense. It should be clearly understood that the lawyer be- lieves that the adversary relationship is a very satisfactory way to find "truth." Since inferential research is so easily subject to attack, many law- yers do not like to use any evidence that is in any way inferential.6

It should be pointed out that one effort by the Federal Trade Commission and another by the Food and Drug Administration are directly related to deception in advertising. Both efforts are based on the assumption that more information will allow the consumer to be better informed and, hence, less vulnerable to incomplete or misleading advertising claims.7 First, since 1971 the Federal Trade Commission has asked certain industries to docu- ment the claims made in their advertisements. Unfortunately, procedural problems and misunder- standings have to date kept this strategy from providing the consumer with more information. Second, the Food and Drug Administration has proposed labeling regulations that would require extensive nutritional labeling on the package and certain inclusions in advertising.8 It is hoped that, with this information, the consumer will be in a better position to evaluate products on their own merits and not solely on the basis of advertised claims.

Many consumers think they recognize deception in advertising. However, their understanding of deception must be translated into appropriate legal terms and practices if deceptive practices are to be stopped by legal procedures. The problems of translation are immense and at least two-fold. First, what is deception? Is a lie that virtually everyone recognizes as a lie deceptive? Conversely, is an advertisement that contains no literal lies but that results in deceptive perceptions deceptive? These are questions of "deceptive to whom?" Second, can deception be measured? Can people identify which advertisements are deceptive? There are many other problems, of course, such as the question of advertising effectiveness and, in particular, of deceptive advertising effectiveness. As shown above, past efforts to define and measure deception suffer from the lack of consideration of how consumers process and use information available to them in advertisements.

4. David A. Aaker, "Deceptive Advertising," in Consumer- ism, 2nd ed., David A. Aaker and George S. Day, eds. (New York: Free Press, 1974), pp. 137-145.

5. Dorothy Cohen, "The Concept of Unfairness as It Relates to Advertising Legislation," JOURNAL OF MARKETING, Vol. 38 (July 1974), pp. 8-13.

6. Aaker, same reference as footnote 4, pp. 146-150. 7. Aaker, same reference as footnote 4, p. 154. 8. Warren A. French and Hiram C. Barksdale, "Food Label-

ing Regulations: Efforts Toward Full Disclosure," JOURNAL OF MARKETING, Vol. 38 (July 1974), pp. 14-19.

* ABOUT THE AUTHOR. David M. Gardner is associate professor of business administration at the University of Illinois, Urbana. He recently served as a consultant to the Federal Trade Commission.


42 Journal of Marketing, January 1975

A Conceptual Approach to Deception Few writers have attempted to define deception

in advertising. Of those who have, their attempts fall into two categories: the act of deceiving by the advertiser, and the consumer's perception of the advertisement. For instance, Webster suggests that deception is "the act of misleading through false- hood and misrepresentation."9 This definition suf- fers, as does the present legal approach, in one major respect. It focuses on the act of deceiving by the advertiser, rather than the effect of the message on the consumer. With this understanding of deception, the likelihood is great that some advertisements will be judged deceptive when, in fact, they are not because they have no deceptive impact on the consumer. At the same time, other advertisements are judged not deceptive although their impact on the consumer is deceptive.

Aaker tried to incorporate perception into the definition by saying that deception is

found when an advertisement is the input into the perceptual process of some audience and the output of that perceptual process (a) differs from the reality of the situation and (b) affects buying behavior to the detriment of the consumer.10

What Aaker has not explicitly spelled out is that it is imperative that any definition of deception in advertising recognize the interaction of the advertisement with the accumulated beliefs and experiences of the consumer. On the other hand, Aaker's definition is highly commendable because it focuses on buying behavior, which is something the Federal Trade Commission has largely ignored.

In an attempt to have a definition that is both operationally and behaviorally oriented, the following is offered:

If an advertisement (or advertising campaign) leaves the consumer with an impression(s) and/or belief(s) different from what would nor- mally be expected if the consumer had reasonable knowledge, and that impression(s) and/or belief(s) is factually untrue or potentially misleading, then deception is said to exist. Within this definition, three categories of decep-

tion in advertising are proposed. These three categories are not distinct; they tend to overlap, and all three focus on deception from the consumer's viewpoint. While the focus is not on the act of deceiving, it appears that present laws are compat- ible with this behavioral approach.

Unconscionable Lie To be classified as deceptive in this category, an

advertisement would make a claim that is com- pletely false. The key to differentiating this classification from those that follow is that the claim could not be true even if properly qualified. There would be no way for consumers to achieve the claimed benefits. For instance, a claim that an automotive carburetor device would increase gasoline mileage to over 50 m.p.g. would be an unconscionable lie.

Claim-Fact Discrepancy An advertisement would be classified as decep-

tive in this category if some qualification must be placed upon the claim for it to be properly understood and evaluated. If the claimed benefits are only available to those consumers who use the product in a given manner, with proper precau- tions, or if the consumer can only understand the claim if he knows the exact information on which it was based, a claim-fact discrepancy exists. The former is illustrated by dandruff shampoo, which may work as claimed for people with a certain type of problem, but that problem is not the predomi- nant dandruff-causing problem. The latter is illustrated by claims that three out of five doctors found X. If the consumer knew what types of doctors, how many were surveyed, and what questions were asked, he would then be able to evaluate the claim accurately.

Claim-Belief Interaction Deceptive advertising classified as "claim-belief

interaction" is that in which an advertisement or advertising campaign interacts with the accumulated attitudes and beliefs of the consumer in such a manner as to leave a deceptive belief or attitude about the product or service being advertised, without making either explicit or implied deceptive claims. For example, suppose detergent manufac- turers discovered that just putting red and blue crystals in some detergents resulted in a significant number of housewives attributing more cleaning power to those detergents with crystals than those without. Therefore, the simple statement that Brand X had blue crystals would be deceptive even though no claims about increased cleaning power were made.

It should be reiterated that the three categories of deception outlined above are not distinct. There is a good deal of overlap. For instance, it is hypothesized that "claim-belief interaction" is present to some extent in all types of deception. And certainly there is overlap between "unconscionable lie" and "claim-fact discrepancy" types of deception because, to a certain extent, they are two points on a continuum.

9. Frederick E. Webster, Jr., Social Aspects of Marketing (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 33.

10. Aaker, same reference as footnote 4, p. 139.



Research Approaches The unconscionable lie type of deception is not

based on any sophisticated understanding of behavior, but rather on the economic assumption that to lie in an advertisement is anticompetitive and unfair to consumers. Therefore, the traditional method of seeking out gross lies appears to be sufficient and appropriate. The investigator works backward from the advertising claims to determine if there is reasonable evidence to support the claims. A claim of reduced price can be checked to see if, in fact, the item has ever been sold at a higher price; or a watch can be checked to see if it does, indeed, have 21 jewels. Note that this procedure makes no value judgments about whether the product was a good buy at the supposedly reduced price or whether the watch was a good buy even though it might not have 21 jewels. Successful prosecution of this type of deception does not need to prove intent to deceive or even that anybody was in fact deceived; where a lie is present, only the potential to deceive need be proved. A Behavioral Hypothesis

The suggested research approaches for both claim-fact discrepancy and claim-belief interaction types of deception are based on the assumption that deception of this type involves consumer attitudes. Furthermore, it is assumed that an attitude toward a product is a function of beliefs about that product and the evaluations of each belief. A single measure may deal only with one component; nonetheless, the context is that of consumer attitudes.

A multiattribute attitude model seems appropriate to serve as the basis for a detailed study of deception in advertising that will lead to a measure(s) of deception. This type of model seems applicable for two reasons. First, based on the works of Rosenberg11 and Fishbein,12 a multiattribute attitude model suggests that an individual's attitude toward any product or service can be seen as a function of: (a) the strength or importance of his beliefs about the product, that is, those beliefs in his response hierarchy; and (b) the evaluation of those beliefs, that is, the evaluation of associated responses.

Applying the Rosenberg-Fishbein logic to consumers, one finds that consumers learn to associate

certain product attributes with a given product class and brands within that class. Furthermore, these product attributes are each valued on some dimen- sion by individual consumers. For instance, consumers may learn that for men's socks, the attributes of durability, construction, materials, and appearance are highly relevant. And for each of these attributes, the consumer will learn a positive or negative evaluation. The sum of these evaluations for relevant (salient) attributes represents the affect associated with that product. The more positive the affect, the more positive the attitude toward the product; the more negative the affect, the more negative the attitude toward the product.

The second reason that a multiattribute attitude model seems appropriate is that its use offers the potential of being able to (1) make operational any measure(s) of deception in advertising, and (2) relate findings to other theories through this well- known approach.

To apply this logic to consumer deception, it must first be recognized that most promotional strategies attempt either to change existing beliefs about a product and brand (i.e., how these beliefs are evaluated) or to introduce a new belief or make an existing belief more salient or important. There- fore, it seems probable that deception can occur in either of two ways:

1. The promotional communication influences the probability that a particular belief will be associated with an attitude toward a brand.

2. The promotional communication influences the evaluation of a particular belief associated with a brand.

For instance, a promotional communication could attempt to increase the probability that a belief about "low cost" will be associated with a particular brand. Or the communication could attempt to increase the positive evaluation of a belief about "construction." Of course, whether deception is the actual result depends on several issues. These will be discussed below.

An important assumption of the proposed approaches is the classification of product attributes into two categories. This is essential because of the absolute necessity of allowing the advertiser to introduce attributes and work towards positive evaluation of those attributes that merely influence affect but add nothing, otherwise, to factual product evaluation. Therefore, it is assumed that there are "functional" and "nonfunctional" product attributes. Functional attributes are those that relate to design, wear, performance, guaranties, and the like; nonfunctional attributes relate to style, appearance, and other "nonobjective" attributes. At-

11. Milton J. Rosenberg, "Cognitive Structure and Atti- tudinal Affect," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 53 (November 1956), pp. 367-372.

12. Martin Fishbein, "A Behavior Theory Approach to the Relations Between Beliefs about an Object and the Attitude Toward the Object," in Readings in Attitude Theory and Mea- surement, Martin Fishbein, ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967), pp. 389-399.



tributes that have typically been classified as "psychological" or "well-being" could potentially fall into either classification.

A Plan for Detecting Deception What follows is an attempt to transfer the logic

presented above into a set of approaches that can be used to screen advertisements for possible deceptive impact on consumers. At this stage of development, not enough is known about these approaches to suggest that they can detect deception in advertising. However, they should be able to spot potential abuses that can be explored in detail, using behavioral research procedures that lend themselves to the specific problem at hand.

All three of the procedures proposed here have as their foundation the following two assumptions:

a. If a functional attribute has acquired a high probability of being associated with a specific brand when, in fact, objective evidence is to the contrary or needs qualification to be true, and this belief is positively evaluated, then, by either of the previously mentioned defini- tions, deceptive beliefs exist.

b. If a nonfunctional attribute is viewed by consumers as a functional attribute and positively evaluated, deceptive beliefs exist.

Normative Belief Technique. This technique is based on the assumption that there is some "optimal" set of functional product attributes for each product class. Optimal is defined as that group of attributes that is necessary and adequate to define a product class and would represent the consensus of consumers who were adequately informed. Ade- quately informed consumers are those who have had the opportunity to acquire extensive information about the product class. A further assumption necessary for this technique is that there exists an "acceptable" range of probabilities associated with each attribute. Acceptable is defined as the range of probabilities for each attribute associated with a product, arrived at by a consensus of adequately informed consumers.

The normative belief technique would be made operational in the following manner. First, product class norms for product attributes must be established. This is a delicate process and one filled with a number of problems. As reflected in a recent paper by Wilkie and Weinreich, the measurement of salient product attributes is in a state of flux.13

For this technique, a variety of structured and unstructured techniques should be used to gather salient product attributes from a wide variety of product class users. These data would be supple- mented by data from appropriate experts from the particular product class under study. The experts would provide a comprehensive range of attributes free from consumer attitudes and expectations.

Second, research needs to be conducted that will show which product attributes are functional and which are nonfunctional. Consumer beliefs and the use of experts would both be appropriate at this stage.

The third step is to establish acceptable ranges of probabilities for functional attributes associated with a product, and acceptable ranges of evaluation. The reason for establishing ranges of evaluation will become clear in the next step.

The fourth step is to show advertisements for various brands within a product class to consumers and have them (a) estimate probabilities of each attribute being associated with the brand being advertised, and (b) give their evaluation of each attribute.

Then, those advertisements that produced probability and evaluative estimates within the acceptable range for functional attributes would be deemed nondeceptive. However, it is clear that standards of sample proportion within acceptable ranges must be established.

As an example, for the product class hair shampoo, salient product attributes might be: cleaning, soft hair, manageability, nondry scalp, dandruff control, pleasant smell, and conditioning. Investi- gation of the physical characteristics of the product, plus interviews with adequately informed consumers on how and why the product is used would serve to determine which of these attributes are functional. By asking a wide range of adequately informed consumers how probable it is that this product has each of the attributes, a point and interval estimate would be computed. For instance, a likely result would be that the probability of this product possessing dandruff control falls within the range of .35 and .49 for 95% of the surveyed consumers.

Then, after advertisements for specific brands of hair shampoo have been shown to a wide range of consumers, the analysis would consist of looking for those specific brands within the product class (i.e., hair shampoo) that exceeded the interval estimate. Those brands that had estimates that fell within or below the previously determined range (i.e., .49 for dandruff control) would be deemed nondeceptive. Those that exceeded the interval estimate would be singled out for further investiga-

13. William L. Wilkie and Rolf P. Weinreich, "Effects of the Number of Attributes Included in an Attitude Model: More is not Better" (Institute Paper, Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic and Management Sciences, Krannert Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Purdue Universi- ty, June 1972).



tion. Extenuating circumstances may result in a given brand having high estimates on a particular attribute, but the determination of its deceptive impact would be assessed by further testing.

In general, an advertisement could be judged deceptive, using this procedure, for several reasons. It could be judged deceptive because consumers rated the probability of a functional attribute being associated with the product as very high when, in fact, the product had no levels or meaningless levels of that attribute. Likewise, it could be judged deceptive if functional product attributes, either individually or collectively, re- ceived a more positive evaluation than was indicated by product class norms. This second reason is highly speculative and warrants rigorous research before it can be advanced as a definite measure of deception.

Consumer Impression Technique. This technique is based on the assumption that consumers learn to respond to stimuli in consistent and predictable ways. They tend to see what prior experiences have taught them. Therefore, this technique centers on learned consumer impressions. This is not a sophisticated technique, but a practical one that could be implemented after only a short period of pretest- ing to develop appropriate questionnaires and procedures. In this approach, consumers would be shown advertisements and then asked to state (using properly designed and controlled procedures) what they felt the advertisement was tell- ing them. Some questions would be quite general, others quite specific. The information gained from consumer reactions would be compared with the actual fact and claim of the advertisement to determine if the necessary qualifications were understood in such a way as to make the total advertisement either deceptive or not deceptive. This procedure is roughly similar to that used by many advertisers to pretest a given advertisement.

For instance, consumers could be shown an advertisement for a health club. A general question would be to ask what they feel the advertisement is saying. Then, they would be asked more specific questions directly related to the advertisement, such as: Will you become healthier by joining this club? Will your cost be $15.00 or less per month? Will you have an exercise program tailored specifi- cally for you?

Expectation Screening Procedure. The third method is based on the fact that, cognitively, consumers exposed to an advertisement are engaged in a comparison process. At the minimum, consumers are comparing what they perceive the advertisement to be saying with (1) expectations of what they anticipate seeing for a given product, brand,

usage combination; and (2) appropriate evaluative frames of reference. For instance, most people who see an advertisement for a television set anticipate certain things about any set; that is, it has a cabinet, it works, and it has some type of warranty or guarantee.

The technique for this procedure is simple. First, norms of what people expect to see for a given product class can be developed by asking consumers what they expect to find when they evaluate that product. It is hypothesized that these norms would all be functional in nature. However, should they be nonfunctional, they would be treated with special care.

After norms of expectations are developed, responses to a given advertisement can be compared with norms for a given product class. If the responses to a given advertisement are significantly different from the product class norms, that advertisement should be singled out for a very specific and thorough investigation. Special effort should be made to determine if the total advertisement is interacting with the existing belief structure of consumers in such a way that it produces a deceptive impact.

Criteria for Evaluation The three procedures outlined above, and any

proposed procedures for the determination of deception in advertising, should meet the following criteria:

1. Measurement focused on consumer reaction 2. Allows the advertiser to be creative 3. Allows the advertiser to use truthful product

claims 4. Is flexible enough to be adaptable to special

situations in the marketplace The three procedures proposed above are in-

tended to meet these criteria, but only extensive research will demonstrate whether, in fact, they do.

Conclusion Decisions about what deceptive advertising is,

and which advertising is deceptive, will be made by public agencies and the courts with or without research evidence. The classification of deception in advertising presented here should be viewed only as a hypothesis that needs testing and verification. Yet, if agencies such as the Federal Trade Commis- sion and the Food and Drug Administration are to make informed rulings on cases involving alleged deceptive advertising, it is in everyone's best interest for them to have research evidence and research procedures available. It still will be up to the



agencies and courts to decide what evidence and what research procedures to use, but at present they have only legal procedures, so they operate on the basis of "fireside" inductions.14

It is also apparent that as advertisers learn more about deception, they will learn more about the process by which consumers process advertising information. This should result not only in fewer deceptive advertisements, but in more effective advertising in general. If advertisements were pre- tested for deceptive impact, a potentially significant side benefit could be that a number of advertisements and campaigns would be found lacking on other criteria, such as recall and awareness levels, thereby leading to redesign before expenditure on less efficient advertisements.

One potential side benefit of the classification used here, and the use of the normative belief technique, is that it would encourage advertisers to rely more on "functional" attributes in their advertising and, hence, convey more factual information. At the same time, those advertisers whose products lack objective criteria and, therefore, are best sold by increasing positive affect would not be penalized.

There are many potential problems associated with the techniques advanced here. The halo effect problem, carryover from other brands and other products, and consumer expectations are just a few. Also, there is one major question that should be raised.

Gardner and Ross1i suggest that any advertise-

ment is going to be deceptive to some consumers because of the claim-belief interaction process specified earlier. Therefore, a brand that has been on the market (successfully) for the longest time compared to others will likely occupy the "reliable" position in the consumer's frame of reference. The advertiser need only mention the brand name and a substantial percentage of the audience may understand the message as, "Here we are again, old reliable Gerbers, the safest, most nutritious, most reliable baby food your baby can eat." If that claim were made explicitly, it would be deceptive. But Gerbers does not have to make that claim; consumers get the message without being told. It is quite possible that the procedures mentioned here will find such advertising deceptive in some manner. Why should an advertisement that merely repeats the brand name be judged deceptive? But why should this be any the less "deceptive," if you go along with the Gerbers example, than a campaign for a new baby food product that explicitly makes such a claim? No ready solution to this dilemma can be advanced. However, the dilemma cries out for research.

Finally, the legal question of deception in advertising and the classifications and techniques advanced here largely ignore the advertising/sales relationship. Certainly, it would be nice to know the nature of this relationship. It is perfectly clear, however, that it is logical to assume that those advertisements that are deceptive will produce more sales for the advertiser than he would otherwise expect. Until that issue is disproved, consumer activists and government agencies will continue to be concerned with deceptive advertising.

Deceptive advertising can be defined and measured. It must be. But it will require large resources and inputs from many directions and an open mind on the part of all.

14. Paul E. Meehl, "Law and the Fireside Inductions: Some Reflections of a Clinical Psychologist," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1971, pp. 65-100.

15. David M. Gardner and Ivan Ross, "Potential Contribu- tions of Consumer Psychology to Deceptive Advertising Deter- minations and Corrective Measures" (Paper presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., May 3, 1973).


Article Contentsp. 40p. 41p. 42p. 43p. 44p. 45p. 46

Issue Table of ContentsThe Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Jan., 1975), pp. i-xvi+1-128Front Matter [pp. i-xvi]JM Introduces a New Section [p. 1]The Marketing Researcher as a Decision Maker: Myth or Reality? [pp. 2-7]Four Subtle Sins in Marketing Research [pp. 8-15]Newprod: The Design and Implementation of a New Product Model [pp. 16-23]Marketing Applications of MDS: Assessment and Outlook [pp. 24-31]Organizational Determinants of the Industrial Salesman's Role Conflict and Ambiguity [pp. 32-39]Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach [pp. 40-46]Identifying Buyers of a Major Automotive Innovation [pp. 47-53]The Role of Trading-Up in the Development of the Retailing System [pp. 54-62]Marketing Notes and CommunicationsMarketing Strategy under Conditions of Economic Scarcity [pp. 63-67]Discovering New Product Opportunities with Problem Inventory Analysis [pp. 67-70]Role Clarity and the Salesman [pp. 71-74]The Underestimated Potential of the Canned Sales Presentation [pp. 75-78]A Cautionary Note on "Difference in Attribute Importance for Different Industrial Products" [p. 79]A Reply to "A Cautionary Note on 'Difference in Attribute Importance for Different Industrial Products' " [p. 80]

Applied MarketingCamouflage Can Be Made to Do Double Work [pp. 81-84]Copy Testing in a Competitive Environment [pp. 84-86]Diagnosis. The Handmaiden of Prediction [pp. 87-89]The Purchase Intention Question in New Product Development: A Field Test [pp. 90-92]

Legal Developments in Marketing [pp. 93-104]Marketing Abstracts [pp. 105-116]Book ReviewsReview: untitled [pp. 117-118]Review: untitled [p. 118]Review: untitled [pp. 118-119]Review: untitled [p. 119]Review: untitled [p. 120]Review: untitled [pp. 120-121]Review: untitled [p. 121]Review: untitled [pp. 121-122]Review: untitled [p. 122]

Back Matter [pp. 123-128]

marketing advertisments

Documents

conceptual approach

advertising needs

false advertising

regulation of advertising

gardner deception

definition deception

conceptual approach

jstor terms