7.21. DOES PUFFERY DECEIVE IN CHILE?

Proceedings del XXX Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings – Vol. 7, año 2014

2330

7.21. DOES PUFFERY DECEIVE IN CHILE?

Autores:

FARÍAS P.

Universidad de Chile

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


2331

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to test the viability of puffery claims in Chile. Data were collected via

controlled experimentation. The results suggest that puffery claims are not more effective than

factual claims in Chile. Additionally, data do not support the idea that the effect of puffery claims is

moderated by the product category. While experimental research is not sufficient to establish the

generalized non-superiority of puffery claims in the region, the results support the idea that puffery

claims might not be more effective than factual claims for many marketing campaigns in Latin

America.

Keywords: puffery claims; level of exaggeration; advertising effectiveness; credibility; advertising

effectiveness.

1. Introduction

A firm may deliver an attractive message about its product, compare the product to a similar item,

list facts about the product, or make vague claims about the product which cannot be proved or

disproved. This last method is known as puffery - the advertiser puffs up the product to seem like

more than it is. A current ethical and legal issue in advertising is the use of puffery. Puffery is not

illegal and is a common method used in advertising. Though, puffery is a marketing method about

which ethical questions have been raised, because puffery makes positive statements about products

that are not necessarily true (Preston, 1998).

Puffery is advertising with vague and subjective claims that can't be proven true or false. Puffery

frequently includes exaggeration and the use of superlatives. The words better, best, greatest,

ultimate, and finest are typically used in puffery advertisements. Examples of puffery are ‘ultimate

fresh breath’, ‘made from the best stuff on earth’, ‘best tires in the world’, and ‘world's best dad’.

Puffery is legal even though a thin line often exists between puffery and deception, which is illegal.

Consequently, it is important to empirically study consumer perception and evaluation of puffery

claims, and whether this marketing method results in deception.

The studies on puffery claims have shown mixed results. In the U.S., Gao and Scorpio (2011) found

that fact-based claims increased perceptions of ad truthfulness, and perceptions of ad truthfulness

decreased when the consumer was exposed to puffery in an ad and also in a competitor’s ad. Haan

and Berkey (2002) tested consumers' perceptions of the believability of puffery in advertising.

Subjects were asked to rate how believable they found examples of each of the six forms of puffery.


2332

The results of a one-way analysis of variance showed little difference between consumers' levels of

believability across the levels of puffery. In Australia, Cowley (2006) shows that even though

consumers can identify a puffed claim as less credible, they still rated the brand more favorably than

brands associated with a factual claim. Gao et al. (2012), investigating the China-U.S. differences,

found that puffery had very limited effects on the participants' brand attitude and purchase intent,

and the Chinese consistently reported higher purchase intent than the Americans. Jimenez et al.

(2013) show that Mexican consumers are more susceptible to puffery claims than Americans.

Interestingly, the findings also reveal that Mexican immigrants are highly susceptible to both, puffery

and no puffery appeals. According to Jimenez et al. (2013), the mixed results show that recent

Mexican immigrants struggle as they transition to the dominant American consumer culture. First

and second generations of Mexican-Americans, however, react to puffery claims just as typical

American consumers.

The influence of culture is particularly important in advertising because communication patterns are

closely linked to cultural norms (Hong et al., 1987). There may well be cultural factors that cause

puffery in advertising to be seen as less credible and false, which therefore mitigates, rather than

increases its effectiveness. In his scale of six to 91, Hofstede (2001) reported that Latin American

countries are highly collectivist cultures with low individualism scores (Argentina 46, Brazil 38, Chile

23, Colombia 13, Costa Rica 15, Ecuador 8, El Salvador 19, Guatemala 6, Mexico 30, Panama 11, Peru

16, Uruguay 36, Venezuela 12). The individualism-collectivism dimension is related to context. Low-

context communication, which involves the use of explicit and direct messages, is predominant in

individualistic cultures (e.g., Australia, the U.S.), whereas high-context communication, which

involves the use of implicit and indirect messages, is predominant in collectivist cultures (e.g., China,

Latin American countries) (Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 2001). In a high-context culture, many things are left

unsaid, letting the culture explain. Words and word choice become very important in high-context

communication, since a few words can communicate a complex message very effectively, while in a

low-context culture, the communicator needs to be much more explicit and the value of a single word

is less important (Hofstede, 2001).

Puffery in advertising is permitted in most Latin American countries unless the advertised message is

misleading, degradatory of the trademark, or constitutes an attempt to benefit from the notoriety of

another firm or trademark (Bellingall, 2010). Marketing is an understudied area in Latin America

(Fastoso and Whitelock, 2011), and the field of puffery in advertising is no exception. Too little is

known about the potential of puffery claims in Latin America because only one study in the region


2333

address puffery claims (Jimenez et al., 2013). Consequently, the purpose of this study is to test the

viability of puffery claims in Chile.

2. Conceptual Framework

Puffery is characterized by exaggeration. Advertisers use exaggeration to get consumer attention and

preference. Regulators (e.g., FTC) have allowed advertisers to use puffery because regulators believe

that puffery does not deceive consumers. Regulators argue that consumers have the ability to

differentiate between puffery and other types of information. Regulators allow advertisers to use

wildly exaggerated or vague claims for a product or service because they believe that nobody could

possibly treat the claims seriously or be misled by them. Regulators have taken the position that

consumers recognize that puffery lacks credibility, even though very little empirical evidence has

been presented to support this assumption (Cowley, 2006). Consequently, for an advertising claim to

be considered puffery and not false advertising, the average consumer must be able to see easily that

the claim is an exaggeration.

An advertiser may claim that its beer is the best beer in the world. No one can prove the beer is really

the best, but no one can prove it is not. However, if the advertiser says that its beer contains

ingredients that help to prevent cancer that is something science could prove or disprove. Trying to

persuade someone that a beer brand prevents cancer would be a false claim. Consequently, a big

distinction between puffery and false advertising is that puffery is subjective while false advertising

consists of objective statements.

It is often argued that puffery by advertisers is only useful to the seller if it successfully dupes a

credulous buyer (Hoffman, 2006). Two explanations are offered for the deception. First, consumers

believe the claims (Kamins and Marks, 1987; Rotfeld and Rotzoll, 1980; Shimp and Preston, 1981).

Second, consumers process the puffery claims as though they were fact and generate inferences on

the basis of those facts (Holbrook, 1978; Shimp and Preston, 1981; Wyckham, 1987). Consumers can

be more tolerant of advertising exaggeration and less inclined to counter argue than is the case with

other message forms (Shimp and Preston, 1981).

Additionally, puffery claims can increase personal relevance to more consumers (e.g., users of other

brands in the product category) and openly motivate them to generate points of comparison (Walker

et al., 1986; Manning et al., 2001). However, consumers may speculate about the advertiser’s

motives behind the puffery claims. The more claims the advertiser makes about the superiority of

the sponsor brand over competing brands (e.g., ‘best tires in the world’), the more the audience


2334

thinks that the claims are attributable to desperation in the face of extreme competitive pressures.

This negative impact could leads to a drop in overall consumer attitude (Chow and Luk, 2006).

Consumers can identify puffery claims as not credible. Consequently, consumers will not incorporate

a puffery claim into their evaluations or beliefs because they understand that the puffery is a ‘wild’

exaggeration. Puffery claims could be ineffective across cultures, given the underlying assumption

that puffery claims distinctively affect consumers’ cognitive and/or affective activities. Hence:

H1. Consumers in Chile are able to identify puffery claims as less credible than factual claims.

H2. The level of puffery has no effect on attribute beliefs and overall evaluation in Chile.

Consumers develop different levels of involvement through product categories. Consequently,

consumers may concentrate their attention on certain product categories (e.g., the ones they

purchase more often and the ones they are more engaged to). Specifically, in some product

categories the consumers may want more information or to involve themselves more affectively

(Chandrashekaran and Grewal, 2003; Hidalgo et al., 2008; Petty et al., 1983). Hence:

H3. The effect of level of puffery is moderated by the product category.

3. Research Design

Data were collected via controlled experimentation. The design of the study was 3×3. The level of

puffery was a between subject factor with three levels: a factual claim (no puffery), a ‘the very best’

claim (low puffery), and a ‘the ultimate’ claim (high puffery). Following Cowley (2006), the two puffery

levels were taken from Preston (1996; 1998), who identified ‘the very best’ and ‘the ultimate’ as two

of six levels of puffery. The product category was a between subject factor with three product

categories: restaurant, bar, and bus company.

3.1. Sample

429 undergraduate students at a Chilean university participated in the study. Participants’ ages

ranged from 18 to 29, with an average of 21. Student samples have been widely used in advertising

research (e.g., Barry, 1993; Choi and Miracle, 2004; Manzur et al., 2012; Pillai and Goldsmith, 2008;

White Nye et al., 2008; Yagci et al., 2009). Previous studies have asserted that the use of


2335

homogeneous convenience samples improve the internal validity of experimental results (Calder et

al., 1981; Cook and Campbell, 1975). Also, a student sample was appropriate for the present

experiment because undergraduate students are a major target market for a large number of product

categories (e.g., audio systems, banking, bars, bus companies, laptop computers, mobile phones, soft

drinks). In Chile, marketers of these products have conducted promotional campaigns aimed directly

at this market segment.

3.2. Stimuli development

All of the advertisements presented hypothetical brands. The advertisement for the Alternative Bar

claimed the bar was ‘the ultimate club experience’, ‘the very best club in Santiago’, or the factual

claim of ‘music in the city’. The advertisement included a photo of the interior of the bar with a view

of the stage with musical equipment to ensure that the participant knew the factual claim was factual.

The advertisement for the Harbor Bistro claimed the restaurant was ‘the ultimate dining experience’,

‘the very best restaurant in Valparaiso’, or the factual claim of ‘dining with a harbor view’. The

advertisement included a photo of the interior of the restaurant with a view of the harbor; this

ensured that participants could identify the factual claim as factual. The advertisement for Sobre

Ruedas claimed the bus company was ‘the ultimate travel experience’, ‘the very best bus company

in Southern Chile’, or the factual claim of ‘travel in premium seats’. The advertisement included a

photo of the interior of the bus with a view of the premium seats.

3.3. Measures

To ensure the reliability and validity of each construct, all of the measurements were collected from

Cowley (2006). All materials were translated into Spanish using a double translation procedure, which

has been proved as one of the best ways to provide validity to this process (McGorry, 2000). Directly

after viewing the advertisements, participants were asked to provide a credibility rating for the

advertisement. Participants used a 10 point scale anchored with ‘not at all credible’ (0) to ‘very

credible’ (9). After rating the credibility of the ad, the participants were asked to predict the

probability of receiving good service, and whether they believed the restaurant/bar/bus company

would be expensive. Participants used a 10 point scale anchored with ‘not at all likely’ (0) to ‘very

likely’ (9). Price information was not available. Participants had to infer the expense involved with

each product. Finally, participants were asked for an overall evaluation of the restaurant/bar/bus

company on a 10 point scale anchored with ‘not at all good’ (0) to ‘very good’ (9).


2336

3.4. Procedure

Participants were directed to an online survey that randomly assigned them to view one of nine

advertisements. For each product category, one third of the participants saw a factual claim (no

puffery), one third saw a slightly exaggerated claim (low puffery), and one third saw a highly

exaggerated claim (high puffery). Then, participants answered the questionnaire.

4. Results

The analysis of the means for each of the nine treatments is presented in Table 1, and the means of

the factors are presented in Table 2. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) has previously been used by other

researchers in advertising research (e.g., Cowley, 2006; Manning et al., 2001; Manzur et al., 2012;

Pillai and Goldsmith, 2008; White Nye et al., 2008; Yagci et al., 2009). Consequently, ANOVAs were

calculated for credibility, expense, service, and evaluation. The ANOVAs for each variable are

presented in Table 3. Finally, Table 4 presents the Eta2, which reflects the percentage of dependent

variable variance explained by the independent variable in the sample data.

<< Table 1 here >>

<< Table 2 here >>

H1 is supported by verifying that the level of puffery in the advertisement negatively influences the

credibility of the advertisement (p-value < .01). Specifically, the results suggest that the

advertisement is more credible with factual claims (6.62) than with low (5.85) or high (6.02) puffery

claims. The results demonstrate that consumers in Chile are able to identify exaggerated claims as

less credible than factual claims.

H2 is supported because it is not possible to show that the level of puffery in the advertisement has

an influence on expense, service, and overall evaluation (p-value > .05). The attribute beliefs (good

service, being expensive) did not vary with puffery level. The null effect for the level of puffery is

interesting because it indicates that an evaluation based on a factual claim is held as confidently as

an evaluation based on an exaggerated claim.

The main effect of product category was not of theoretical or practical interest, so the focus was on

the interaction, which tested the hypothesis that the effectiveness of level of puffery varied by


2337

product category. H3 is not supported because data do not allow the assertion that the effect of level

of puffery is moderated by the product category (p-value > .05).

<< Table 3 here >>

<< Table 4 here >>

5. Discussion

In general terms, the results of this study suggest that there are no significant differences between

the puffery and factual claims in Chile. Additionally, data do not allow the assertion that the effect of

level of puffery is moderated by the product category. The finding that the advertisement is less

credible with puffery claims than with factual claims is consistent with prior research carried out in

the U.S. (Gao and Scorpio, 2011) and Australia (Cowley, 2006). However, the finding that the level of

puffery has no effect on attributes beliefs and overall evaluation in Chile is not consistent with prior

research carried out in Mexico (Jimenez et al., 2013).

Practitioners in several countries have preferred puffery claims as a convenient and useful technique,

but there are still decisions to be made in regards to which type of claim might be most effective in a

given country. While experimental research is not sufficient to establish the generalized non-

superiority of puffery claims in Latin America, the results support that puffery claims are not more

effective than factual claims, at least for many marketing campaigns in the region. For multinational

advertisers attempting to tap the growing Latin American market, the results suggest that caution

should be exercised when considering standardizing puffery advertisements that have been

successfully developed for other markets.

In most Latin American countries, advertising is self-regulated by private organizations: the CONARP

in Argentina and Uruguay, CONAR in Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, and Paraguay, etc. These private

organisms perform two primary functions: they receive complaints about advertisements (corrective

function) and publicize the advertising codes of ethics and jurisprudence (orienting function) (Manzur

et al., 2012). As a consequence, this research is an important contribution for this type of

organizations, as well as for instructors and professionals of the area. In Latin America, the use of

puffery claims can significantly increase the legal problems associated to marketing campaigns.

However, the results presented in this study suggest that puffery claims could not produce a more

favorable customer response in Latin America. Moreover, puffery claims presents lower message

credibility, which further decreases advertisers’ incentives to use this type of claims in Latin America.


2338

Clearly this is an exploratory study, and a number of other topics are worth exploring in the future.

First, not all individuals within a culture are identical. Indeed, there is substantial variation within a

culture as well as considerable overlap among different cultures. Individual differences should be

incorporated into future research, as should enduring consumer involvement, need for cognition,

consumer knowledge, consumer expertise, brand loyalty, smart shopper self-perception, among

others.

Second, although the use of a student sample was appropriate for this study, future studies should

also use samples of consumers who are in the target markets for many other product categories.

Such studies could increase the generalizability of the results as well as its applicability to advertising

public policy and advertising management in Latin America.

Third, the experiment should be replicated with other advertising media, such as television or radio,

which would help examine the extent to which the results are generalizable to other media vehicles.

Additionally, nine advertisements are certainly insufficient to produce a definitive set of conclusions.

Also, the brands used in this study were hypothetical. The participants had no knowledge of these

brands. The effect of puffery on established brands and the process by which a claim for a well-known

brand is processed may be different than the process investigated in this study. Consequently, the

experiment should be replicated with real brand names, although the use of real brands has some

weaknesses.

Finally, possible differences between countries makes it essential to develop studies that measure,

compare, and analyze the different levels of acceptance of puffery claims among countries and their

possible causes. This article attempts to encourage similar research in Latin America and other

regions that confirms or refutes the results presented in this work.


2339

Referencias

Alba JW, Hutchinson JW. Knowledge calibration: what consumers know and what they think they

know. Journal of Consumer Research 2000; 27 (2):123–56.

Barry, T. (1993), Twenty years of comparative advertising in the United States, International Journal

of Advertising, 12, 323-350.

Begg IM, Anas A, Farinacci S. Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement

familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1992;121(4):446–

58.

Bellingall, A.J. (2010), Comparative advertising in Brazil, Intellectual Property Magazine,

October 1, 27-30.

Braun KA. Postexperience advertising effects on consumer memory. Journal ofConsumer Research

1999;25:319–34 [March].

Bjork RA. Theoretical implications of directed forgetting. In: Melton AW, Martin E, editors. Coding

processes in human memory. New York NY: Wiley; 1972. p. 217–35.

Calder, B., Phillips, L. and Tybout, A. (1981), Designing research for application, Journal of Consumer

Research, 8(2), 197-207

Chandrashekaran, R. and Grewal, D. (2003), Assimilation of advertised reference prices: the

moderating role of involvement, Journal of Retailing, 79(1), 53-62.

Choi, Y.K. and Miracle, G.E. (2004), The effectiveness of comparative advertising in Korea and the

United States: a cross-cultural and individual-level analysis”, Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 75-87.

Chow, C. and Luk, C. (2006), Effects of comparative advertising in high and low-cognitive elaboration

conditions, Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 55-67


2340

Cook, T. and Campbell, D. (1975), The design and conduct of experiments and quasiexperiments in

field settings, in Dimmette, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Research, Rand

McNally, Chicago, IL, 223-326.

Cowley E. Recognition confidence, recognition accuracy and choice. Journal of Business Research

2004;57:641–6 [June].

Cowley E, Janus E. Not necessarily better, but certainly different: A limit to the advertising

misinformation effect on memory. Journal of Consumer Research 2004;31:229–35 [June].

Fastoso, F. and Whitelock, J. (2011), Why is so little marketing research on Latin America published

in high quality journals and what can we do about it? Lessons from a Delphi study of authors who

have succeeded, International Marketing Review, 28(4), 435-449

Feidler K, Wlahter E, Armbruster T, Fau D, Naumann U. Do you really know what you have seen?

Intrusion errors and presuppositions effects on constructive memory. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology 1996; 32:428–511.

Gardener MP, Mitchell AA, Russo JE. Chronometric analysis: An introduction and application to low

involvement perception of advertisement. In: Hunt HK, editor. Advances in Consumer Research, vol.

5. Ann Arbor MI: Association for Consumer Research; 1978. p. 581–9.

Gao, Z., Li, N., Scorpio, E. (2012). Perception of puffery in advertising: investigating the China-US

differences, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(2), 179-198

Gao, Z., and Scorpio, E. (2011). Does Puffery Deceive? An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Consumer

Policy, 34(2), 249-264

Gilbert DT. How mental systems believe. American Psychologist 1991;46 (2):107–19.

Gilbert DT, Krull DS, Malone PS. Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false

information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1990; 59(4):601–13.


2341

Gilbert DT, Tafarodi RW, Malone PS. You can't not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology 1993;65(2):221–33.

Haan, P., and Berkey, C. (2002). A study of the believability of the forms of puffery, Journal of

Marketing Communications, 8(4), 243-256

Hall, E. (1976), Beyond Culture, Doubleday, New York, NY.

Hawkins SA, Hoch SJ, Meyers-Levy J. Low-involvement learning: repetition and coherence in

familiarity and belief. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2001;11(1):1-11.

Hidalgo, P., Manzur, E., Olavarrieta, S. and Farías, P. (2008), Customer retention and price matching:

the AFPs case, Journal of Business Research, 61(6), 691-696.

Hoffman, D. A. (2006), The best puffery article ever, Iowa Law Review, 91, 101-140.

Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values. Behaviors Institutions and

Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Holbrook MB. Beyond attitude structure: toward the informational determinants of attitude. Journal

of Marketing Research 1978;15(4):545–56.

Hong, J.W., Muderrisoglu, A. and Zinkhan, G. (1987), Cultural differences in advertising expression: a

comparative content analysis of Japanese and US magazine advertising”, Journal of Advertising, 16(1),

55-62.

Jimenez, F., Hadjimarcou, J., Barua, M., and Michie, D. (2013), A cross-national and cross-generational

study of consumer acculturation to advertising appeals, International Marketing Review, 30(5), 418-

439


2342

Kamins MA, Marks LJ. Advertising puffery: the impact of using two-sided claims on product attitude

and purchase intention. Journal of Advertising 1987;16(4):6-15.

Manning, K., Miniard, P., Barone, M. and Randall, R. (2001), Understanding the mental representation

created by comparative advertising, Journal of Advertising, 30(2), 27-39.

Manzur, E., Uribe, R., Hidalgo, P., Olavarrieta, S., and Farías, P. (2012), Comparative Advertising

Effectiveness in Latin America: Evidence from Chile, International Marketing Review, 29(3), 277-298

Mayo R, Schul Y, Burnstein E. “I am not guilty” vs “I am innocent”: successful negation may depend

on the schema used for its encoding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2004;40:433–49.

McGorry, S.Y. (2000), Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: survey translation issues,

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(2), 74-81.

Olson JC, Dover PA. Cognitive effects of deceptive advertising. Journal of Marketing Research

1978;15(1):29–38.

Petty, R., Cacioppo, J. and Schumann, D. (1983), Central and peripheral routes to advertising

effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement”, Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.

Petty RE, Tormala ZL, Rucker DD. Resisting persuasion by counterarguing: an attitude strength

perspective. In: Jost JT, Banaji MR, Prentice DA, editors. Perspectivism in social psychology: the yin

and yang of scientific progress, APA science series. APA decade of behavior series. Washington, DC,

US: American Psychological Association; 2004. p. 37–51.

Pillai, K. and Goldsmith, R. (2008), How brand attribute typicality and consumer commitment

moderate the influence of comparative advertising, Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 933-941.

Preston IL. The great American blowup: puffery in advertising and selling. Madison WI: The University

of Wisconsin Press; 1996.


2343

Preston IL. Puffery and other ‘loophole’ claims: how the law's ‘don't ask, don't tell’ policy condones

fraudulent falsity in advertising. Journal of Law and Commerce 1998;1:49-114.

Rotfeld HJ, Rotzoll KB. Is advertising puffery believed? Journal of Advertising 1980;9(3):16–20.

Rotfeld HJ, Preston IL. The potential impact of research on advertising law. Journal of Advertising

Research 1981;21(2):9-17.

Schul Y, Burnstein E. When discounting fails: conditions under which individuals use discredited

information in making a judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1985;49:894–903.

Shimp TA. Do incomplete comparisons mislead? Journal of Advertising Research 1978;18:21–8

[December].

Shimp TA, Preston IL. Deceptive and nondeceptive consequences of evaluative advertising. Journal

of Marketing 1981;45(1):22–32.

Walker, B., Swasy, J. and Rethans, A. (1986), The impact of comparative advertising on perception

formation in new product introductions”, Advances in Consumer Research, 13(1), 121-125

White Nye, C., Roth, M. and Shimp, T. (2008), Comparative advertising in markets where brands and

comparative advertising are novel, Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5), 851-863

Wyckham RG. Implied superiority claims: parody parading as superiority. Proceedings of the 12th

International Research Seminar in Marketing, La Londe Les Maures 1985:360–87.

Wyckham RG. Implied superiority claims. Journal of Advertising Research 1987;27(1):54–63.

Wyer RS, Budesheim TL. Person memory and judgments: the impact of information that one is told

to disregard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1987;53:14–29.


2344

Yagci, M., Biswas, A. and Dutta, S. (2009), Effects of comparative advertising format on consumer

responses: the moderating effects of brand image and attribute relevance, Journal of Business

Research, 62(8), 768-774

Table 1. Means

Restaurant Bar Bus company

No Low High No Low High No Low High

Credibility 6.40 5.57 5.89 7.13 6.05 6.83 6.23 5.92 5.30

Expense 7.47 6.94 7.36 6.85 7.23 7.06 6.72 5.77 5.93

Service 6.26 5.60 5.96 6.72 6.21 6.83 6.36 6.11 5.35

Evaluation 5.81 5.89 6.00 6.75 6.23 7.06 6.19 5.81 5.23

Table 2. Mean of factors

Level of puffery Product category

No Low High Restaurant Bar Bus

company

Credibility 6.62a 5.85b 6.02b 5.94b 6.71a 5.84b

Expense 6.99 6.59 6.83 7.25a 7.03a 6.13b

Service 6.46 5.97 6.06 5.93b 6.60a 5.97b

Evaluation 6.29 5.97 6.12 5.91b 6.70a 5.76b

Notes: Comparing across columns, means with different superscript differ at p <

5% (Tukey's HSD).


2345

Table 3. ANOVAs (F-values)

Level of

puffery

(main effect)

Product

category

(main effect)

Level of puffery x Product

category (interaction

effect)

Credibility 4.993** 6.890** 1.394

Expense 1.063 10.918** 1.436

Service 2.432 5.246** 1.881

Evaluation .770 10.287** 2.337

Notes: Design: Intercept + Level of puffery + Product category + Level of puffery x

Product category. *p-value < 5%, **p-value < 1% (all intercepts showed statistical

significance)

Table 4. Eta2

Level of puffery

(main effect)

Product

category

(main effect)

Level of puffery x Product

category (interaction

effect)

Credibility .023 .032 .013

Expense .005 .049 .012

Service .011 .024 .018

Evaluation .004 .047 .022

Notes: Design: Intercept + Level of puffery + Product category + Level of puffery x

Product category. Eta2 reflects the percentage of dependent variable variance

explained by the independent variable in the sample data.

7.21. DOES PUFFERY DECEIVE IN CHILE?

Documents

Transcript of 7.21. DOES PUFFERY DECEIVE IN CHILE?