Consumer Reactance After Contact with Comparative Advertising: The Role of Independent Test Results and Consumers’ Predisposition to Show State Reactance—A Structured Abstract

Abstract

Existing research shows positive and negative effects of comparative advertising (e.g., Dröge 1989; Thompson and Hamilton 2006). Negative effects are explained by lower credibility because comparative claims are often ascribed the intention to delude consumers (Swinyard 1981). Such questionable and one-sided communication can in turn lead to state reactance (Brehm 1972), which is a motivation to regain a threatened or eliminated freedom in an advertising context such as uninfluenced opinion formation and free product choice (Clee and Wicklund 1980). Consequently, negative effects on attitudes (Dillard and Shen 2005) and behaviors can occur (Quick and Kim 2009). Research on comparative advertising provides almost no insights in the relative effectiveness of specific types of comparative advertising such as comparisons based on attributes vs. overall product quality. In this context, it additionally makes sense to examine effects of added information cues such as independent test results (ITR), which are commonly used in comparative advertising (Harmon et al. 1983) and supposed to affect its credibility. Furthermore, it is interesting to include consumers’ predisposition to show state reactance (PSR) because individuals differ in their propensity to experience reactance after a persuasive attempt (Shen and Dillard 2005), and because it thus might influence consumers’ evaluations of comparative advertising. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to analyze effects of different types of comparative advertising in combination with ITR through state reactance on attitudes toward the ad and the product as well as on purchase intentions depending on people’s individual PSR.