[考古] 月度第31篇疑似原文

我把那些内容敲下来了,方便大家存档
Abstract
When attempting to portray the attractiveness of a brand vis-à-vis its competitor and ad may make global claims about superiority or specific claims about one or more attributes. A special case of latter is the piecemeal ad in which the advertised brand is compared to a competitor on one attribute, a different competitor on a second attribute, another competitor on a third attribute, and so on. The present research demonstrates the effectiveness of this technique and explores the parameters of its influence. We find that piecemeal messages are persuasive because they make seemingly strong claims in a believable manner. Consumer skepticism appears to arise only when conditions for scrutiny are very favorable.

Comparative advertising has long interested students of marketing. Recently, interest has been directed toward the potential deceptive effects of comparative ads. In the present research we investigate the deceptive potential of a particular form of comparative advertising known as the “piecemeal report”.

Theoretical Development
In a piecemeal ad, the sponsor brand is compared to one competitor on a particular dimension, a second competitor on a different dimension, a third competitor on yet another dimension, and so on. The danger to consumer lies in the tendency to believe that the sponsor is superior in an overall sense, as would be true if the sponsor were being compared to competitors that truly excel on each dimension. In fact, the sponsor may score next-to-last on each dimension, surpassing only the lone identified competitor. Thus an erroneous conclusion may be drawn from literally true assertions.
When a firm’s messages are deliberately structured to foster misinterpretation, the potential for deception arises. Consumers may fall prey to such deception for at least three reasons. First, there are strong conventions that govern communication. For example, the most obvious meaning of message should be the correct one and, more generally, messages should be informative, relevant, and truthful. Unless led to believe otherwise, consumers may assume that these conventions are being followed in commercial messages. Second, irrespective of conversational norms, a fundamental bias of the cognitive system is to assume that comprehended information is veridical. Disbelief, in contrast, requires a subsequent and deliberate effort. When considered in the context of pragmatic implication, this bias suggests two additional barriers to accurate interpretation: (!) Attempts to disbelieve must be made quickly because verbatim memory for a linguistic expression may be fleeting. Disbelief will be especially unlikely when processing is constrained. Thus,consumers may explicitly assess the believability of a message only when promoted by skepticism-including cues in the massage or environment. Finally, proper interpretation of an utterance can be exceedingly-even when the normal conventions are abandoned and one deliberately attempts to assess the veracity of a statement. Research performed across a variety of domains, including advertising, has demonstrated the relative ineffectiveness of forewarning and training on consumers’s ability to discriminate between literal assertions and the pragmatic implications of those assertions. Taken together, these characteristics of linguistic processing suggest that consumers may be very vulnerable to the effects.

我把那些内容敲下来了,方便大家存档
Abstract
When attempting to portray the attractiveness of a brand vis-à-vis its competitor and ad may make global claims about superiority or specific claims about one or more attributes. A special case of latter is the piecemeal ad in which the advertised brand is compared to a competitor on one attribute, a different competitor on a second attribute, another competitor on a third attribute, and so on. The present research demonstrates the effectiveness of this technique and explores the parameters of its influence. We find that piecemeal messages are persuasive because they make seemingly strong claims in a believable manner. Consumer skepticism appears to arise only when conditions for scrutiny are very favorable.

Comparative advertising has long interested students of marketing. Recently, interest has been directed toward the potential deceptive effects of comparative ads. In the present research we investigate the deceptive potential of a particular form of comparative advertising known as the “piecemeal report”.

Theoretical Development
In a piecemeal ad, the sponsor brand is compared to one competitor on a particular dimension, a second competitor on a different dimension, a third competitor on yet another dimension, and so on. The danger to consumer lies in the tendency to believe that the sponsor is superior in an overall sense, as would be true if the sponsor were being compared to competitors that truly excel on each dimension. In fact, the sponsor may score next-to-last on each dimension, surpassing only the lone identified competitor. Thus an erroneous conclusion may be drawn from literally true assertions.
When a firm’s messages are deliberately structured to foster misinterpretation, the potential for deception arises. Consumers may fall prey to such deception for at least three reasons. First, there are strong conventions that govern communication. For example, the most obvious meaning of message should be the correct one and, more generally, messages should be informative, relevant, and truthful. Unless led to believe otherwise, consumers may assume that these conventions are being followed in commercial messages. Second, irrespective of conversational norms, a fundamental bias of the cognitive system is to assume that comprehended information is veridical. Disbelief, in contrast, requires a subsequent and deliberate effort. When considered in the context of pragmatic implication, this bias suggests two additional barriers to accurate interpretation: (!) Attempts to disbelieve must be made quickly because verbatim memory for a linguistic expression may be fleeting. (!!)Disbelief will be especially unlikely when processing is constrained. Thus,consumers may explicitly assess the believability of a message only when promoted by skepticism-including cues in the massage or environment. Finally, proper interpretation of an utterance can be exceedingly-even when the normal conventions are abandoned and one deliberately attempts to assess the veracity of a statement. Research performed across a variety of domains, including advertising, has demonstrated the relative ineffectiveness of forewarning and training on consumers’s ability to discriminate between literal assertions and the pragmatic implications of those assertions. Taken together, these characteristics of linguistic processing suggest that consumers may be very vulnerable to the effects.