Gender Differences in Processing Comparative Advertising in a Competitive Context-Evidence For Differential Strategies

EXTENDED ABSTRACT - This study argues that, in a competitive ad context, the likelihood of engaging in involving brand evaluation strategies varies for different consumers. Past research indicates that male and female participants differ in terms of their processing strategies. Women are said to be Acomprehensive processors@ and more likely to integrate product information, whereas men seem less motivated to engage in detailed message elaboration (Meyers-Levy, 1989). According to Meyers-Levy, the effect of gender differences on information processing can be partially explained by women’s lower threshold for message attention. Therefore, this study argues that female participants will engage in involved brand evaluation strategies only if the products are presented in the same context, whereas male participants will not be motivated to do so unless they are exposed to comparative appeals which specifically direct their attention to relative product advantages.

Citation:

Chingching Chang (2005) ,"Gender Differences in Processing Comparative Advertising in a Competitive Context-Evidence For Differential Strategies", in AP - Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 6, eds. Yong-Uon Ha and Youjae Yi, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 357-358.

Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 6, 2005      Pages 357-358

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN PROCESSING COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING IN A COMPETITIVE CONTEXT-EVIDENCE FOR DIFFERENTIAL STRATEGIES

Chingching Chang, National Chengchi University, Taiwan

EXTENDED ABSTRACT -

This study argues that, in a competitive ad context, the likelihood of engaging in involving brand evaluation strategies varies for different consumers. Past research indicates that male and female participants differ in terms of their processing strategies. Women are said to be "comprehensive processors" and more likely to integrate product information, whereas men seem less motivated to engage in detailed message elaboration (Meyers-Levy, 1989). According to Meyers-Levy, the effect of gender differences on information processing can be partially explained by women’s lower threshold for message attention. Therefore, this study argues that female participants will engage in involved brand evaluation strategies only if the products are presented in the same context, whereas male participants will not be motivated to do so unless they are exposed to comparative appeals which specifically direct their attention to relative product advantages.

Due to these processing differences, this study also suggests that a comparative appeal will lead female participants to generate enhanced perceived manipulative intent and result in deteriorated ad and brand evaluations. In clear contrast, a direct comparative appeal will increase the possibility that male participants show higher levels of brand evaluation involvementBthus, in turn, generating more favorable responses.

This study also proposes a hypothesis about the alignability of product attributes. Recent research suggests that product comparison is carried out by an alignment process that generates three properties: commonality, alignable differences, and nonalignable differences (Zhang & Markman, 1998; Zhang & Markman, 2001; Zhang, Kardes & Cronley, 2002; Zhang & Fitzsimons, 1999). The difficulty of comparison increases with the alignability of the attributes (Zhang & Fitzsimons, 1999). In keeping with this line of research, the present study proposes that, in a competitive ad viewing context, alignability of product attributes for two competitive brands will moderate the relative effects of comparative ad appeals based on gender. As the processing difficulty increases, the use of comparative ad appeals will not generate enhanced manipulative intent for female participants. At the same time, as the processing difficulty increases, using comparative ad appeals will not effectively motivate male participants to engage in message elaboration. Given these differences, the superior effects of attribute-based non-comparative appeals for female participants on ad and brand evaluations, as well as on purchase intention, will be attenuated when the two competing ads feature nonalignable, as opposed to alignable, product attributes. The same holds true with respect to the superior effects of comparative appeals on male participants.

Findings of this study show that women get involved with brand evaluations to a similar degree regardless of whether or not direct comparative appeals are used. Under a competitive advertising viewing context, direct comparative appeals do not encourage female participants to be more involved with brand evaluations. In clear contrast, direct comparative advertising appeals enhance male participants’ involvement in brand evaluations to a higher extent than non-comparative appeals. Other findings are that the processing differences between genders have evaluative consequences. Direct comparative appeals, as opposed to non-comparative appeals, cause women to perceive the manipulative intent of the ad. The result is negative ad and brand evaluations and reduced purchase intention. Direct comparative appeals, however, as opposed to non-comparative appeals, seem to effectively motivate men to be more involved in brand evaluations, thus leading to more favorable ad and brand evaluations as well as enhanced purchase intentions. Finally, the findings of this study suggest that the attribute alignability of competing products moderates the effectiveness of comparative and non-comparative appeals for different genders.

REFERENCES

Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 225-254.

Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 69-83.

Chang, C. (2001). Processing advertising in a competitive context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Washington, D. C.

Chang, C. (2002). Relative judgments in competitive contexts. Advances in Consumer Research, 30.

Donthu, N. (1998). A cross-country investigation of recall of and attitude toward comparative advertising. Journal of Advertising, 17(2), 1110122.

Dorge, C., & Darmon, R. Y. (1987). Associative positioning strategies through comparative advertising: Attribute versus overall similarity approaches. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 377-388.

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1-31.

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1995). Persuasion knowledge: Lay people and researchers’ beliefs about the psychology of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 62-74.

Gotlieb, J. B., & Sarel, D. (1991). Comparative advertising effectiveness: The role of involvement and source credibility. Journal of Advertising, 12(4), 10-18.

Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 404-420.

Houston, D. A., & Sherman, S. J. (1995). Cancellation and focus: The role of shared and unique features in the choice process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 357-378.

Houston, D. A., Sherman, S., & Baker, S. M. (1989). Feature matching, unique features, and the dynamics of the choice process: Pre-decision conflict and post Bdecision satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 411-430.

Jain, S. P., Buchanan, B., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Comparative versus non-comparative advertising: The moderating impact of prepurchase attribute verifiability. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 201-211.

Laczniak, R. N., & Muehling, D. D. (1993). The relationship between experimental manipulations and tests of theory in an advertising message involvement context. Journal of Advertising, 22(3), 59-74.

Madden, T. J., Allen, C. T., & Twible, J. L. (1988). Attitude toward the ad: An assessment of diverse measurement indices under different processing "sets". Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 242-252.

Meyers-Levy, J. (1988). Factors affecting the use of conceptually driven and data driven processing. In M. Houston (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 15, pp. 169-173). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Meyers-Levy, J. (1989). Priming effects on product judgments: A hemispheric interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 76-86.

Meyers-Levy, J. & Sternthal, B. (1991). Gender differences in the use of message cues and judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 84-96.

Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (1991). Exploring differences in males and females’ processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 63-70.

Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitudes? Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 318-332.

Muehling, D. D., Stoltman, J. J., & Grossbart, S. (1990). The impact of comparative advertising on levels of message involvement. Journal of Advertising, 19(4), 41-50.

Pettit-O’Malley, K. L. & Johnson, M. S. (1992). Differentiative comparative advertising: Some positive results revealed by measurement of simultaneous effects on the ad-sponsoring and comparison brands. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 14(1), 35-44.

Pfau, M. (1994). Impact of product involvement, message format, and receiver sex on the efficacy of comparative advertising messages. Communication Quarterly, 42(3), 244-258.

Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281-295.

Wang, C. L., & Mowen, J. C. (1997). The separateness-connectedness self-schema: Scale development and application to message construction. Psychology and Marketing, 14(2), 185-207.

Wang, C. L., Bristol, T., Mowen, J. C., & Charkraborty, G. (2000). Alternativve modes of self-construal: Dimensions of connectedness-separateness and advertising appeals to the cultural and gender-specific self. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 107-115.

Worchel, S., & Cooper, J. (1971). Understanding social psychology. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Yi, J. (1990). The effects of contextual priming in print advertisements. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 17(2), 25-223.

Zhang, S., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (1999). Choice-process satisfaction: The influence of attribute alignability and option limitation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(3), 192-214.

Zhang, S., Kardes, F. R., & Cronley, M. L. (2002). Comparative advertising: Effects of structural alignability on target brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(4), 303-311.

Zhang, S., & Markman, A. B. (1998). Overcoming the early entrant advantage: The role of alignable and nonalignable differences. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 413-426.

Zhang, S., & Markman, A. B. (2001). Processing product unique features: Alignability and involvement in preference construction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 13-27.

Zhang, Y. (1996). Responses to humorous advertising: The moderating effect of need for cognition. Journal of Advertising, 25(1), 15-32.

----------------------------------------