Kent Academic Repository
Full text document (pdf)
Copyright & reuse
Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all
content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions
for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder.
Versions of research
The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version.
Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the
published version of record.
Enquiries
For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact:
researchsupport@kent.ac.uk
If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down
information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html
Citation for published version
Petrovici, Dan and Golden, Linda and Orazbek, Dariya (2019) Direct and Indirect Brand Comparisons,
Message Framing and Gender Effects in Advertising. Journal of Market Development and Competitiveness,
13 (5). ISSN 2155-2843.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33423/jmdc.v13i5.2637
Link to record in KAR
https://kar.kent.ac.uk/78425/
Document Version
Author's Accepted Manuscript
Direct and Indirect Brand Comparisons, Message Framing and Gender Effects in
Advertising
Dan Petrovici
University of Kent
Linda Golden
University of Texas at Austin
Dariya Orazbek
University of Kent
With increased competition between brands, companies use brand comparisons. The purpose of this research
was to survey UK consumers to examine the effects of direct and indirect comparative advertising, message
framing, and gender for their individual and joint impact on consumer response to advertising for analgesic
painkillers. Research shows that the type of brand comparison, how comparisons are framed (prevention vs
promotion) and the gender of the target market has significant effects on consumer response to messages. The
interactions also generate significant differences in how consumers respond to ads. Managerial implications
in terms of advertising competitive strategies are highlighted.
Keywords: Direct Comparative Advertising, Indirect Comparative Advertising, Regulatory Focus Theory
INTRODUCTION
The majority of comparative advertising research has focused on Direct Comparative Advertising [explicit
mention of competing brand(s) on a specific attribute(s)] and a comparison Noncomparative Advertising.
Indirect Comparative Advertising, which is a subtle comparison without naming specific brands but which
may use a Brand X or “other brands” comparison, is much less researched (Williams & Page, 2013). Most
comparative advertising research has been conducted in the USA with more limited cross national
comparisons, as comparative advertising was not allowed in most of Europe and many parts of the globe until
the late 1990s (Beard, 2018).
With the exception of Chang (2007), little is known about gender differences in consumer perceptions of
comparative advertising and even less attention has been devoted to how message framing and regulatory focus
interacts with ad appeals (Kao, 2012). While research on Regulatory Focus Theory has been applied in various
fields such as financial decisions (Zhao, et al., 2017), psychology (Malaviya & Brendl, 2014), and
entrepreneurship (Angel & Hermans, 2018), there are fewer applications in marketing, particularly advertising.
This study contributes to the literature by examining the role of ad format (direct vs indirect comparative
advertising), gender, and message framing for consumer ad response in the UK. The empirical research goals
are as follows: to examine (1) the role of direct and indirect comparative advertising, message
framing/regulatory focus, and gender for their individual and joint impact on claim believability, and (2) brand
beliefs and attitude certainty and perceived ad fairness of the audience using a market leader and fictitious
brands of analgesic painkiller.
The pharmaceutical industry has been one of the industries that uses various forms of comparative
advertising and analgesics are a frequently purchased consumer product. This industry is one of the largest
markets in the world in terms of trade and employment (Panteli & Edwards, 2018) with highly advanced
technological innovations, enormous investments and high risk. Comparative advertising is legal in the UK and
officially recognized as a useful strategy to make the company stand out in the market place (Advertising
Standards Authority- ASA, 2019), as long as there is sufficient verifiable information to allow consumers to
fully understand the claim.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES
This research draws on Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1997) that focuses on persuasion and goals,
positing two orientations for individuals: the “promotion focus” and the “prevention focus.” Aspirations and
achievements are important for individuals with a promotion focus (the presence or absence of positive
outcomes or gains while prevention-focused individuals are concerned about the presence and absence of
negative outcomes or losses (Higgins, et al., 2001) which correspond to responsibilities and safety).
A promotion focus is motivated by accomplishment, advancement, desire and growth. The emphasis is on
positive outcomes such as aspirations and achievements to attain the “ideal” self. This “ideal” self is pursued
through goals of hopes and aspirations. This involves a sense of eagerness to attain advancement and gains. In
contrast, a prevention focus is motivated by security, responsibility, and safety. The emphasis is on the
avoidance of negative outcomes such as failures and threats in the attainment of the “ought” self. This “ought”
self is pursued through goals of duties, obligations, and necessities. This involves a state of vigilance and
caution to assure non-losses and safety as a goal-pursuit strategy (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997).
Self-regulation is generally referred to as a process, in which individuals pursue the alignment of their
behaviours and actions with their personal underlying goals and standards (Higgins, 2002).The difference
between promotion and prevention foci can be outlined using three fundamental factors (Higgins, 2002):
Needs, which people aim to satisfy. Several psychologists (e.g., Maslow, 1955; Schaeffer & Emerson,
1964; Bowlby, 1969) suggested that people have a number of fundamental needs, including safety,
protection, security, growth and development. The regulatory focus concept, on the other hand, argues
that this hedonic principle operates differently, depending on the needs and wants people aim to satisfy.
This depends on whether an individual’s self-regulatory is promotion or prevention. Thereby, are of a
higher importance for those in prevention orientation, whereas promotion-oriented subjects tend to
prioritize growth and accomplishment (Jain, et al., 2006).
The nature of an individual’s goal. Higgins (1987) states that the standards that are established by
individuals can be classified into two general groups: ideal-self and ought-self. Those individuals
whose standards are represented in their beliefs of their ideal-selves reflect their hopes and aspirations.
On the other hand, those people with standards are represented as their ought-selves generally reflect
their obligations and responsibilities. With respect to the regulatory foci, people who are in promotion-
focus tend to approach their goals associated with ideal-self, whereas those in prevention-focus tend to
attain their goals associated with their ought-self (Brockner & Higgins, 2001).
Psychological state and situations, which are considered significant or important by individuals. When
people are engaged in promotion focus, the situations in which there exists either the presence or
absence of positive outcomes play an important role for them (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Therefore,
they experience satisfaction in scenarios where there is a presence of positive outcomes, whereas if
there is absence of positive gains, people experience distress caused by non-gains. By contrast, people
engaged in prevention-focus are affected by the presence or absence of negative outcomes. Thereby,
those people experience the satisfaction or pleasure of a non-loss or a pain if they experience a loss.
To summarise, promotion regulatory focus is concerned with the presence of favourable outcomes or gains,
as well as the absence of those gains. On the other hand, prevention regulatory focus is concerned with the
absence of unfavourable outcomes, which are commonly referred to as non-losses, and the distressing presence
of unfavourable outcomes or losses (Higgins, et al., 2001).
Regulatory focus is commonly considered a comparatively stable individual trait (Higgins, 2002). The
tendency of a person to consistently give preference to either promotion or prevention focus is commonly
referred to as chronic regulatory focus. Typically, it originates from an individual’s early childhood and is
heavily influenced by their primary caregiver, as well as all stages of socialisation and interpersonal
relationships (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). Additionally, chronic regulatory focus can depend on cultural
characteristics of an individual. According to recently conducted research, collectivist cultures (such as Asian
countries) have a higher likelihood of engaging in prevention focus, whereas individualist cultures (such as
Western cultures) tend to engage in promotion focus (Kim & Park, 2019).
Previous studies found that gain and achievement message frames work more effectively when an ad
promotion focus and the risk perceived by participants or customers is low. On the contrary, when an ad uses
prevention focus, it was found to be more persuasive when the communication contained a loss message and
had a higher perceived risk (Lee & Aaker, 2004). Regulatory focus was also viewed as a guide in the allocation
of scarce cognitive resources (Wang & Lee, 2006). People dedicated increased attention to and based their
product evaluation on product information that is relevant to their regulatory concerns, but only when they were
not motivated to process information and they process information selectively. This selective information
influenced their product assessment. the regulatory fit effect is not the result of systematic processing extending
the work of Aaker and Lee (2001).
Persuasive effects research on message framing showed inconclusive results (Lee, et al., 2018). Message
framing may interact with other variables such as individual characteristics (Jain, et al., 2007), product
characteristics (Chang, 2007), timing of message exposure relative to purchase decision (Kim & Kim, 2016)
or message-related factors (e.g. sidedness, Kao, 2012).
Very few studies have drawn on regulatory focus theory in marketing (e.g., Jain et al., 2007), with more
studies in the fields of psychology, communications and advertising journals (Cornelis, et al., 2012; Floorack
& Scarabis, 2006; Lee, et al., 2018; Mourali & Pons, 2009). None have incorporated the theory in the context
of framing for comparative advertising, although one- versus two-sided message impacts have been considered
(Florack, et al., 2009).
This research also builds on the literature on comparative advertising formats (Grewal, et al., 1997). There
are different views as to whether direct or indirect comparative advertising is more effective. Indirect
Comparative Advertising (ICA) was found more effective than Direct Comparative Advertising (DCA) in
positioning a brand against the entire market (Miniard, et al. 2006). Direct comparative ads may be more
effective than indirect in positioning the brand against a specific competitor or the comparison brand
(Pechmann & Ratneshwar, 1991). Manzur, et al. (2012) reported a greater message believability for ICA
relative to DCA in Chile, while Jeon and Beatty (2002) found a systematic positive consumer response to DCA
over ICA in Korea and no difference in response for the USA. There is research supporting the relative
effectiveness of DCA over ICA in the USA and the UK (Beard, 2018; Petrovici, et al., 2016).
A direct attack against a named, well-known and widely purchased brand can attract greater suspicion and
inferences that the marketer is deceptive, leading to greater resistance to persuasion (Campbell & Kirmani,
2000; Golden, 1979). Thus, positive responses toward a direct comparative ad that could be perceived as being
manipulative would be reduced with an indirect (no named competitors) comparison ad (Campbell, 1995;
Chang, 2007). However, since the direct comparative ad sponsor tested here is not a leading brand, it is expected
that the additional information provided in a direct comparative ad relative to competitors will result in superior
effectiveness over an indirect comparative advertisement.
While consistent with results in existing prior literature, only a few studies have focused on direct versus
indirect comparative advertising. The direct comparative ad format is more explicit in nature than indirect ads.
In line with Shao, et al., (2004) reasoning, consumers from individualistic cultures such as the UK are more
likely to view them as informative.
Finally, we would expect attacks against a specific market leader to generate a greater ease of generation of
attitude towards a given object (Haddock, et al., 1999) on the grounds of ease of comparison relative to more
vague attacks against the entire category. This accessibility of attitudes is expected to be associated with greater
attitude certainty. More uncertainty is associated with deliberation and less accessible attitudes. Attacking a
well-known market leader is likely to trigger perceptions of unfairness, as a market leader is associated with
strong credentials in the foundations of the marketing funnel (e.g. awareness, consideration set). Hence
certainty of attitudes for DCA is expected to exceed ICA and DCA may be viewed as a more unfair tactic.
H1: Claim believability, Brand beliefs and Attitude certainty will be higher for DCA than for ICA.
H1a: DCA will be perceived as more unfair than ICA.
Prior research states that Asians and Westerners differ in regulatory focus (Aaker & Lee, 2001; Lee, et al.,
2000; Ouschan, et al., 2007). Asians are relatively prevention focused (i.e., tend to minimize the negative
consequences of their decisions), whereas Westerners are more promotion focused (i.e., focus on the positive
consequences of decisions without thinking about negative aspects). Collectivist cultures (mostly East-Asian
cultures) are considered prevention oriented whereas individualistic cultures, such as the UK, are considered
promotion oriented (Kim and Park, 2019; Kurman & Hui, 2011). This would result in regulatory fit, leading
to higher effectiveness levels of an ad. Various studies (e.g. Jones, et al., 2003) in other fields of behavioral
change (i.e. encouraging healthier lifestyles) support the view that positively framed messages focused on gains
may be more effective than the ones focused on losses. Gain framed messages were found more effective in
encouraging prevention behavior (Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012). Hence, the following hypothesis is postulated
in this UK study:
H2: Advertisements using a promotion focus will be more effective that those using prevention focus
regardless of the comparison type (direct or indirect).
To elaborate on attitude certainty, a prevention focus involves an individual’s sensitivity to negative
outcomes and is concerned with security, protection, safety and avoiding undesirable outcomes (Crowe &
Higgins, 1997). The vigilance associated with prevention messages is expected to be associated with lower
attitudinal certainty.
H3a: Promotion framed messages will be more effective for Direct Comparative Advertisements.
H3b: Prevention framed messages will be more effective for Indirect Comparative Advertising. These results
are expected to be consistent across all dependent variables.
Prior marketing literature has suggested that men tend to engage in more selective processing and rely on
heuristic cues (Meyers-Levy, 1989; Meyers-Levy & Sternthal, 1991), while women engage more in
comprehensive processing. Thus, cues in DCA ads may be used to a greater extent by men in forming attitudes
and beliefs. Men had more favorable ad and brand evaluations in comparative ads in some situations than did
females (Chang, 2007).
H4. Women will have a less favourable reaction to DCA than will men.
In general it is expected that there will be significant main effects for ad type, framing and gender with
emphasis on the significant effects hypothesized above. Other significant interaction effects and a statistically
significant three-way interaction are also anticipated, although not formally hypothesized here.
METHOD
Sample
The current research featured an online survey designed to understand consumer responses to comparative
ads and ways to frame messages. A sample of 153 subjects were recruited from among a UK population of 18
to 25 year olds. A convenience sample pre-test investigated the clarity of questions among individuals with
various demographic characteristics.
The study uses a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial between subjects design experiment, with ad format [direct
comparative (DCA) or indirect comparative (ICA); promotion vs prevention framed messages; male vs
female respondents]. To eliminate the confounding effects of prior experience with a particular brand on
attitude formation, a fictitious brand, “PROMINOL,” was the advertised brand. This procedure is in line with
good practice in comparative advertising (Jeon & Beatty, 2002; Nye, et al., 2008).
A series of four digital ads was generated for the online survey. The regulatory focuses related to message
framing are manipulated in this study. Matching the framing of the message with the product and the
expected regulatory focus of the audience “induced” by the message framing (pleasure v. pain) is particularly
relevant for an analgesic pain killer advertisement. The manipulated claims were “twice faster and longer
lasting pain relief” with packaging showing images representing targeted areas of the body. In the prevention