IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/1665r.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

When Is Honesty The Best Policy? The Effect of Stated Company Intent on Consumer Skepticism

Author

Listed:
  • Grier, Sonya A.

    (Stanford U)

  • Forehand, Mark R.

    (U of Washington)

Abstract

Prior research suggests that consumers evaluate firms more negatively if they attribute the firm's business practices to firm-serving motivations rather than to motivations that serve the public good. The authors propose an alternative hypothesis: firm-serving attributions lower evaluation of the firm only when they are inconsistent with the firm's expressed motive. As such, the negative effect of consumer skepticism regarding a firm's motives can be inhibited by public acknowledgment of the strategic benefits to the firm. The power of this inhibition procedure was demonstrated in an experiment that manipulated the salience of firm-serving benefits and the firm's publicly stated motive. Consumer evaluation of the sponsoring firm was lowest in conditions when firm-serving benefits were salient and the firm outwardly stated purely public-serving motives. This experiment also revealed that the potential negative effects of skepticism were the most pronounced when individuals engaged in causal attribution prior to company evaluation. Finally, this study measured the different effects on attribution and evaluation of two distinct forms of skepticism: situational skepticism--a momentary state of distrust of an actor's motivations--and dispositional skepticism--an individual's ongoing tendency to be suspicious of other people's motives.

Suggested Citation

  • Grier, Sonya A. & Forehand, Mark R., 2002. "When Is Honesty The Best Policy? The Effect of Stated Company Intent on Consumer Skepticism," Research Papers 1665r, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1665r
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/rp1665.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ford, Gary T & Smith, Darlene B & Swasy, John L, 1990. "Consumer Skepticism of Advertising Claims: Testing Hypotheses from Economics of Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(4), pages 433-441, March.
    2. Boush, David M & Friestad, Marian & Rose, Gregory M, 1994. "Adolescent Skepticism toward TV Advertising and Knowledge of Advertiser Tactics," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 165-175, June.
    3. Campbell, Margaret C & Kirmani, Amna, 2000. "Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 69-83, June.
    4. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1994. "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, June.
    5. Crowley, Ayn E & Hoyer, Wayne D, 1994. "An Integrative Framework for Understanding Two-Sided Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(4), pages 561-574, March.
    6. Sparkman, Richard M, Jr & Locander, William B, 1980. "Attribution Theory and Advertising Effectiveness," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 7(3), pages 219-224, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Becker-Olsen, Karen L. & Cudmore, B. Andrew & Hill, Ronald Paul, 2006. "The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 46-53, January.
    2. Serife YAZGAN PEKTAS & Azize HASSAN, 2020. "The Effect of Digital Content Marketing on Tourists’ Purchase Intention," Journal of Tourismology, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 79-98, June.
    3. Suwelack, Thomas & Hogreve, Jens & Hoyer, Wayne D., 2011. "Understanding Money-Back Guarantees: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 462-478.
    4. Skarmeas, Dionysis & Leonidou, Constantinos N., 2013. "When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR skepticism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1831-1838.
    5. Wu, Fang & Swait, Joffre & Chen, Yuxin, 2019. "Feature-based attributes and the roles of consumers' perception bias and inference in choice," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 325-340.
    6. Golovacheva, E., 2016. "When consumers activate persuasion knowledge: Review of antecedents and consequences," Working Papers 6440, Graduate School of Management, St. Petersburg State University.
    7. Yann Verhellen & Caroline Oates & Patrick Pelsmacker & Nathalie Dens, 2014. "Children’s Responses to Traditional Versus Hybrid Advertising Formats: The Moderating Role of Persuasion Knowledge," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 235-255, June.
    8. Lisa Koonce & Zheng Leitter & Brian White, 2023. "The effect of a warning on investors’ reactions to disclosure readability," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 769-791, June.
    9. Chang-Dae Ham & Jeesun Kim, 2019. "The Role of CSR in Crises: Integration of Situational Crisis Communication Theory and the Persuasion Knowledge Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 353-372, August.
    10. Lunardo, Renaud, 2012. "Negative effects of ambient scents on consumers’ skepticism about retailer’s motives," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 179-185.
    11. Basso, Kenny & dos Santos, Cristiane Pizzutti & Albornoz Gonçalves, Manuela, 2014. "The impact of flattery: The role of negative remarks," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 185-191.
    12. Jochen Theis & Marvin Nipper & Marco Meier, 2024. "The influence of corporate philanthropic donations on private investors' valuation judgments: Experimental evidence," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 540-554, January.
    13. Linli Xu & Kenneth C. Wilbur & S. Siddarth & Jorge M. Silva-Risso, 2014. "Price Advertising by Manufacturers and Dealers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(11), pages 2816-2834, November.
    14. Annie Banikema & Dominique Roux, 2014. "La propension à résister du consommateur : contribution à l'étude d'une disposition à s'opposer aux tentatives d'influence marchande," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-02956891, HAL.
    15. Svenja Mohr & Rainer Kühl, 2021. "Exploring persuasion knowledge in food advertising: an empirical analysis," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(8), pages 1-27, August.
    16. Kenneth M. Henrie & Christian Gilde, 2019. "An Examination of the Impact of Astroturfing on Nationalism: A Persuasion Knowledge Perspective," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-11, January.
    17. Namin Kim & Youri Sung & Moonkyu Lee, 2012. "Consumer Evaluations of Social Alliances: The Effects of Perceived Fit Between Companies and Non-Profit Organizations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(2), pages 163-174, August.
    18. Annie Banikema & Dominique Roux, 2014. "La propension à résister du consommateur : contribution à l'étude d'une disposition à s'opposer aux tentatives d'influence marchande," Post-Print hal-02956891, HAL.
    19. Andrew E. Wilson & Peter R. Darke & Jaideep Sengupta, 2022. "Winning the Battle but Losing the War: Ironic Effects of Training Consumers to Detect Deceptive Advertising Tactics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(4), pages 997-1013, December.
    20. Jong Yoon Lee & Jae Hee Park & Jong Woo Jun, 2019. "Brand Webtoon as Sustainable Advertising in Korean Consumers: A Focus on Hierarchical Relationships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-10, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1665r. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.