| Summary: | 碩士 === 臺灣大學 === 商學研究所 === 98 === Florack et al. (2009) demonstrated regulatory focus moderated two-sided claims on product evaluation in noncomparative advertising. The regulatory focus theory defined two kinds of individuals in promotion focus and prevention focus. Promotion-focused individuals are sensitive to the presence or absence of positive outcome, while prevention-focused individuals are sensitive to the presence or absence of negative outcome. Since two-sided claims enhance ad credibility but also disclose negative product information, the result supported that promotion-focused individuals would have better product evaluation through two-sided claims than prevention-focused individuals in noncomparative advertising.
This study further focus on how the regulatory focus moderates two-sided claims on brand attitude of comparative advertising. Comparative claims in comparative advertising might decrease ad credibility and increase more counterarguments and negative cognition, the moderate effect of regulatory focus might be efficient less. This study apply a 3 (Complete comparative / Partial comparative / Noncomparative) x 2(One-/Two-sided claims) x 2(Promotion / Prevention) design and use GRFM scale to measure chronic regulatory focus of participants. 377 participants showed that (1) brands promoted by complete comparative and partial comparative advertising would have better brand attitude than noncomparative advertising. (2) Regulatory focus moderates two-sided claims on product evaluation in partial comparative ads and noncomparative ads, but not in complete comparative ads.
|
|---|
