Hass and Linder also found that when a two-sided message inadequately refutes the counterarguments possessed by a message recipient it may actually strengthen the cognitive defenses of the message recipient and reduce persuasion.
This finding runs counter to the earlier theorizing on two-sided message structures Hovland et al. Thus, while the general assumption has been that the use of a two-sided message may enhance persuasion through the implicit refutation of counterarguments a message recipient may possess, it appears that the presentation of an inadequate refutation may actually strengthen the recipient's cognitive defenses and inhibit attitude change.
Hass and Linder's findings suggest that the availability of counterarguments to a message recipient has an impact on the effectiveness of two-sided message structures. Several studies in the marketing literature have shown positive effects resulting from the use of a two-sided or varied product claim message versus a one-sided or nonvaried product claim approach.
Settle and Golden found that advertising claims which vary over product characteristics resulted in higher confidence rating for each claim and concluded that disclaiming superiority on at least one product attribute is a way of increasing the perceived credibility of the source. However, Settle and Golden's interpretation of their findings, as well as their attribution process explanation, has been criticized by Hansen and Scott and Burnkrant Attributional processing was assessed by having message recipients provide cognitive response measures and by asking them to explain their responses to a direct measure of perceived truthfulness.
They found that the varied product claim messages resulted in significantly more correspondent attributions i. Smith and Hunt offered an attributional explanation for these findings based on Jones and Davis' correspondence theory. This explanation suggests that the use of varied product claims moves the message recipient toward a dispositional attribution of truthfulness or honesty which leads to greater source credibility.
Several studies have examined the effects of one- and two-sided messages in the context of comparative and noncomparative advertisements. Using audio messages placed in an actual radio programming environment, Mazis found no significant differences between one- and two-sided messages on recall, attitude, and purchase intention measures. He did find that more counterarguments were generated for comparative, one-sided messages used by a leading brand than for two-sided, comparative messages used by a less popular brand.
Mazis also found a higher level of source derogation for the two-sided message which he suggested was an indication of the subjects responding negatively to the advertiser's disparagement of his own brand. Swinyard examined the effects of one- and two-sided, comparative and noncomparative print messages in a controlled field experiment. He found that two-sided product claims resulted in less counterarguing and higher evaluations of advertiser truthfulness than did one-sided claims.
However, the two-sided message did not result in greater behavioral intention or more favorable behavior as measured by coupon redemption than the one-sided message.
Etgar and Goodwin examined the effects of one- and two-sided comparative print ads and found that the two-sided appeal yielded significantly higher brand attitudes than the more traditional one-sided appeal. Belch found no differences between one- and two-sided, comparative and noncomparative television commercials seen over three levels of message exposure one, three and five times on cognitive response, message acceptance and advertiser perception measures.
In this study the two-sided message manipulation was not successful in the noncomparative one and three exposure conditions. However, in the comparative conditions, where the disclaimer was perceived, the two-sided appeals did not generate more favorable cognitive responses or attitudes and purchase intention than the one-sided message. The studies reviewed above offer some support for the notion that a two-sided advertising message may enhance the recipient's perceptions of advertiser credibility and may even reduce counterarguing against a message.
There is, however, less support that the effectiveness of two- sided messages will carry beyond these mediating variables and result in favorable affective and cognitive responses. Favorable attitudinal responses for two-sided versus one-sided messages were found only in the study by Etgar and Goodwin The mentioning of a higher price might not be Perceived as a disclaimer but rather might be perceived as part of a price-quality appeal cf.
Jacoby, Olson and Haddock, This could result in more favorable attitudes toward the brand in the two-sided condition. First, the lack of an effect of the two-sided messages on the affective and conative variables suggests that enhanced credibility does not always result in more favorable perceptions of the product or service. Unless the mediating effect of enhanced credibility is fairly powerful, a significant effect on affect and conation should not be expected.
It should also be noted that a two-sided message may actually cause message recipients to form different beliefs about the advertised brand than will a one-sided message. These beliefs may in turn mediate attitudinal and behavioral differences. This may have been the case in the Etgar and Goodwin study as the acknowledgment of a higher price in the two-sided message may have resulted in more favorable beliefs regarding product quality as compared to the one-sided appeal.
The perception of higher quality would then mediate the favorable attitudes toward the brand found in the two-sided condition. When no differences are found due to message sidedness, the two-sided message may have failed to create different beliefs or the beliefs may not mediate message acceptance. This latter condition is likely given the fact that the disclaimed attribute is often trivial or nonsalient and is unlikely to mediate any attitudinal or conative changes.
Finally, the studies which have found favorable effects for two-sided versus one-sided messages have all used a print message modality. The studies by Mazis and Belch , which have used radio and television as the respective message mediums, found few significant differences in effects for the two types of messages. The lack of significant findings in these studies may be clue to several factors including the processing limitations imposed by the externally paced audio and television presentations and the message environment.
For audio and television commercials presented in a compressed time period, the information processing rate is not under the receiver ' s control. Limitations of the recipient's ability to process the message would make it difficult to engage in the processing procedure that might produce a more favorable impact for the two-sided versus one-sided message.
Print may be more effective than audio or television as the medium for a two-sided appeal since a print message affords the recipient greater opportunity to process the message and to dwell on the credibility of the advertiser who admits inferiority on some attributes. Modality differences in information processing were found by Chaiken and Eagly who found that when a message is difficult to understand, the ability to process self-paced printed information makes it easier to recall than externally paced broadcast information.
It should al so be noted that in both the Belch and Mazis studies, the messages were embedded in television and radio programs respectively. Since the messages were presented in the context of a program, receivers could devote attention to the program or other commercials rather than engage in any in-depth processing for the two-sided message.
This study extends the research on advertising message sidedness by not only examining differences in one- and two-sided messages with respect to a number of communication variables, but by also considering whether the effects of message sidedness are influenced by message modality.
The data for this study were collected as part of a laboratory experiment examining the effects of message structure and message modality on comparative and noncomparative messages. A 2 x 2 x 2 factorial between subjects design was used with type of message comparative or noncomparative , message sidedness tone or two-sided , and message modality as the factors. For these cognitive response measures the interaction involving message-type and message sidedness was significant. The interactions were the result of more source derogations and source bolsters being generated in response to a two-sided message in the noncomparative versus comparative conditions.
This results in a 2 x 2 design with message sidedness and medium as the factors and 50 subjects per cell. The copy used in the print message was identical to the message presented by the announcer in the television commercial. All four commercials made the same superiority claims for the new brand.
The comparative messages made direct comparisons with a leading brand of toothpaste on several attributes whereas the noncomparative messages did not mention any other brand. The two-sided appeals disclaimed superiority on the whitening ability attribute while the one-sided message presented only positive claims. The decision to use whitening ability as the disclaimed attribute was based on pretesting of the importance of various product attributes. The results of this pretest indicated that while all of the toothpaste attributes were of at least some importance to consumers, whitening ability was rated lowest.
Two hundred students enrolled in business administration classes were used as subjects with 25 students randomly assigned to each cell of the design. Subjects were told they would be participating in a study on consumers' reactions to advertising for a new product. After receiving the instructions and completing several demographic measures, the stimulus message was presented by either showing a videotape of the commercial or having the subjects read the print advertisement.
Subjects in the print conditions were instructed not to refer back to the advertisement after they completed reading it. Immediately after the message was read or viewed, the subjects were given the cognitive response instructions and were given two minutes to list their thoughts.
They were then asked to complete the dependent measures pertaining to their evaluation of the commercial and product. In addition to cognitive responses, a number of dependent measures were taken, including attitude toward the commercial, attitude toward using the new brand, purchase intentions for the new brand, and measures of advertiser credibility.
The dependent measures used in the analyses were calculated by averaging across the appropriate scales for these measures. Perceptions of advertiser credibility were assessed by having the subjects indicate their impression of the advertiser based on the advertisement they had just viewed or read. These five-point scales included measures of truthfulness, believability, and credibility. The cognitive response categories used were counterargument, support argument, source derogation, and curiosity thoughts defined by Wright , as well as the categories of simple affirmations and simple disaffirmations described by Beaber An additional category, source bolstering, was also used.
This categorization is the positive counterpart of source derogation in that the thought is positive in valence and is directed toward the advertiser or the approach taken by the advertiser in presenting the message. The cognitive response protocols were coded by three judges who were given operational definitions of the response categories and were trained in the application of these definitions.
The remaining responses were classified after some discussion among the judges. The effective use of a two-sided message requires that the product attribute s for which superiority is disclaimed actually be perceived as inferior by message recipients.
To determine whether the two-sided manipulations were successful, subjects were asked to indicate their impression of the new brand's whitening ability the disclaimed attribute. In the comparative treatments, subjects were asked to indicate their impression of the whitening ability of the new brand relative to that of the comparison brand; in the noncomparative treatments, subjects were asked to indicate their impression of the new brand's whitening ability in comparison with that of other brands of toothpaste.
A five-point scale ranging from definitely has more whitener to definitely has less whitener was used to measure these perceptions. The results of the manipulation checks for the various treatments are reported in Table 1, which shows the mean scores on the whitening ability perception scale for each experimental treatment. Higher scores on this measure reflect a more negative impression of the whitening ability of the new brand. To determine whether the two-sided message was effective in conveying a negative impression of the new brand's whitening ability, t- tests were conducted comparing the perceptions of whitening ability in the two-sided and one-sided treatments.
Separate comparisons were made in the comparative and noncomparative conditions in both the print and television conditions. As Table 1 shows, perceptions of the new brand's whitening ability are more negative for the two-sided messages than for the one-sided appeals in conditions. Overall, the results of the manipulation check indicate that the disclaimer was perceived and the two-sided message manipulation was successful. To determine whether there are differences in the effectiveness of one- and two-sided messages in the context of print versus television commercial medium, a two-way analysis of variance was performed for each of the dependent measures of interest with message sidedness and medium as the factors.
While main effects might be expected, of particular interest are the interaction effects involving message sidedness and medium. The results for the various dependent measures are summarized below. This main effect was a result of the television commercial messages being perceived as more truthful than the print messages. This effect was due to the one-sided message being perceived as more credible than the two-sided appeal in the print condition while the two-sided message was perceived as more credible in the television condition.
The main effect was the result of the print message being perceived more favorably than the television commercials, while the interaction stems from the two-sided message being perceived much less favorably than the one-sided message in the television condition versus the print condition. No significant effects were found for the purchase intention measure. Separate ANOVAs were performed for each of the individual cognitive response measures as well as for three summary indices including total thoughts, total positive thoughts, and total negative thoughts.
The only individual cognitive response measure for which significant effects were found was source derogations. With respect to the summary, cognitive response indices, a highly significant main effect of medium was found for the total thoughts measure F - No significant effects were found for the total positive thoughts or total negative thoughts measures.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the relative effectiveness of one- and two-sided advertising messages is influenced by the medium in which the messages are presented. It was suggested that a two-sided message might be more effective than a one-sided message when presented through a print versus television commercial medium.
However, the study results show few significant differences in the effectiveness of one- and two-sided messages and no significant interactions of message sidedness with message modality. Two-sided messages were not found to be significantly better than one-sided messages in enhancing advertiser credibility. This finding is not consistent with the results of other studies which have found that two-sided or varied claim appeals evoke more positive perceptions of advertiser credibility than one-sided or nonvaried claim appeals Settle and Golden ; Smith and Hunt ; Swinyard The absence of a significant difference between one and two-sided messages for the attitude and purchase intention measures is consistent with the findings of other studies Belch ; Mazis ; Swinyard which have failed to find differences in affective and conative measures due to message sidedness.
Then, why do businesses only talk about the positive side of things. In the most simplest form, with a one sided message in advertising, a sceptical audience will simply discard the business. We are not suggesting that businesses should start talking about everything that is wrong with this world.
In fact, with the mentality of treating every negative as a challenge , businesses increase their odds of success. Suppressing the negative side of a message does not mean that no one will find out. We live in an era of information and communication, where everything gets out. What do you prefer in this situation? The negatives going public anyways, or negatives going public through you with an understanding of the situation demonstrated?
You may want to wait and sit out, but the reality ends up out there. In some cases, you may not be aware of the negatives yourself. In such cases, the honest thing to do is to accept the shortcoming and taking the right steps to fix the situation. For instance, in religious fundraising appeals, the negative side is generally skipped because of the overwhelming positive attachment of the target audience. In reality, fundraising systems are inherently inefficient , with the percentage of money reaching the final cause minimal.
In such cases, highlighting the negatives will simply hurt the whole system. There is still some money that reaches the needy, which is better than no money at all. The bottom-line is, through the exposure of two sided messages, especially in one on one situations, you come out as a more genuine person. This improves your chances of doing business in the present, as well as in the future. You also demonstrate a sense of trust, showing that you respect the smartness of your audience, and are therefore, providing a rounded solution.
Axies Digital talks about the positives as well as the negative side of digital marketing. But, we also talk extensively about how we are trying to do things the right way. You can learn more about our business and digital marketing understanding by reading through the rest of our content. Business Strategy Marketing January 19, We can take the same example in arguments. Results of One Sided Message in Advertising In the most simplest form, with a one sided message in advertising, a sceptical audience will simply discard the business.
Negatives Come Out Anyways Suppressing the negative side of a message does not mean that no one will find out. Exceptions to the Rule There are still exceptions to this rule. The Positives of a Two Sided Message The bottom-line is, through the exposure of two sided messages, especially in one on one situations, you come out as a more genuine person. We showcase this in our work too. Or, simply get in touch today to have a chat. One Sided Message.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. Manage consent. Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website.
0コメント