Abstract

Consumer Deaeption in Different Types of Deaeptive Ads
Rhee, Eunyoung

The aim of this study is to compare the degree of deception in two different types of deceptive ad claims: comparative and non-comparative.

Comparative ads include both direct and indirect comparison of the competing brand names or attributes. The degree of deception was measured by three sub-categories: claimed attribute beliefs, product attitude and willingness to buy the advertised goods.

Data have been collected from interviews with 400 housewives, mostly residents of Seoul. 14 deceptive ada were selected from the Regulated Ads of 1993 by Fair Trade Commission of Korea and The Association of Consumer Protection Institutions.

The research questions for this study are,

1. to identify the overall degree of misleading in selected regulated ads,

2. to identify the variables that influence overall degree of misleading,

3. to test the differences between camparative ads and non-comparative ads in misleading consumers,

4. to identify the differences in explaining variables for the degree of deception between comparative and non-comparative ads.

The following are the major findi.ngs of this study:

1. The mean score for the deception per ad(4-28) was 14.34 and less than 40K of the subject believed the claimed product attributes. Mean scores for product attitude and. buying intension were above the midpoints. The mean score of deception per person(0-100) was 35.78, mean attribute belief score(0-100) was 34.08, mean product attitude(0-100) score 50.33, mean purchase intension(0-100), 35.21.

2. Variables affecting the degree of deception were ad trust, general attitude to ads, education and average monthly income, in the order of influence. Apart from the education they had positive relations to the deception degrees.

3. Difference in ad claims explained the difference in degree of deception. Deception scores in comparative ads were significantly higher than deceptions in general ads, both in overall and three sub-categorized scores.

4. Ad trust, general attitude toward ads and education were three explaining variables for deceptian in both comparative and general ads. Average monthly income was influential only for general ad deception. Education level had the strongest effect an general ad deception whereas ad trust had the highest β score in comparative ad deception. All the variables had positive relations to the deception degrees, education being the only exception.

Based on these findings the following suggestions can be made:

Consumer education programs should advise consumers, especially those with lower level of education, to he aware of validity of comparison when exposed to comparative ads.

2. The present regulation of deceptive ads needs more specification and more consumer-oriented bases in detecting deception. The categorization based on the comparativeness of an ad claim should be considered as one of the useful bases. At the same time they should legalize the disclosure of test results from various test centers.

3. When above two conditions are satisfied, in order to stimulate voluntary ad regulations in business sectors, defang of comparative ads in Korea should be reexamined.