schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Sex Differences in Responses to Probability Markers in Advertising Claims

The results of a laboratory experiment revealed that women were generally more accepting of advertising claims than men. However, men and women had decidedly different reactions to the use of hedges (e.g., "may," "probably," "possibly") and pledges (e.g., "definitely," "undoubtedly," "absolutely") i... Full description

Journal Title: Journal of advertising 01 May 2006, Vol.35(2), pp.7-16
Main Author: Berney-Reddish, Ilona A
Other Authors: Areni, Charles S
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
ID: ISSN: 0091-3367 ; E-ISSN: 1557-7805 ; DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2006.10639228
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: informaworld_s10_1080_00913367_2006_10639228
title: Sex Differences in Responses to Probability Markers in Advertising Claims
format: Article
creator:
  • Berney-Reddish, Ilona A
  • Areni, Charles S
subjects:
  • Business
ispartof: Journal of advertising, 01 May 2006, Vol.35(2), pp.7-16
description: The results of a laboratory experiment revealed that women were generally more accepting of advertising claims than men. However, men and women had decidedly different reactions to the use of hedges (e.g., "may," "probably," "possibly") and pledges (e.g., "definitely," "undoubtedly," "absolutely") in advertising claims. Women responded negatively to both types of probability markers, such that mean acceptance of the focal claim shifted downward when compared with conditions in which no marker was used. On the other hand, hedges decreased the variance of claim acceptance among men without affecting the mean response, and pledges had little or no effect on the mean or variance among men. These results are discussed in terms of sex differences in elaboration thresholds and the multiple roles postulate of the elaboration likelihood model (ELM).
language: eng
source:
identifier: ISSN: 0091-3367 ; E-ISSN: 1557-7805 ; DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2006.10639228
fulltext: fulltext
issn:
  • 0091-3367
  • 00913367
  • 1557-7805
  • 15577805
url: Link


@attributes
ID256888160
RANK0.07
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordid10_1080_00913367_2006_10639228
sourceidinformaworld_s
recordidTN_informaworld_s10_1080_00913367_2006_10639228
sourcesystemPC
dbid
0.QK
107P
20BK
3AAAVI
4AAOXQ
5AAZMC
6ABFIM
7ABJVF
8ABPTX
9ABQHQ
10ABSSG
11ABTAI
12ACGCV
13ACTIO
14ACTOA
15ADCVX
16ADQGD
17AFOLD
18AIJEM
19ARPNQ
20AVBZW
21BCKCY
22BEJHT
23BLEHA
24BMOTO
25CCCUG
26CRHQX
27C~U
28E~B
29E~C
30FUNRP
31G-F
32GTTXZ
33KDLKA
34KYCEM
35MIDIT
36RNANH
37ROSJB
38RSYQP
39S-F
40TEK
41TFH
42TFL
43TFW
44TNTFI
45TRJHH
46V1K
47~01
48~S~
pqid85668129
galeid150908140
display
typearticle
titleSex Differences in Responses to Probability Markers in Advertising Claims
creatorBerney-Reddish, Ilona A ; Areni, Charles S
ispartofJournal of advertising, 01 May 2006, Vol.35(2), pp.7-16
identifier
subjectBusiness
descriptionThe results of a laboratory experiment revealed that women were generally more accepting of advertising claims than men. However, men and women had decidedly different reactions to the use of hedges (e.g., "may," "probably," "possibly") and pledges (e.g., "definitely," "undoubtedly," "absolutely") in advertising claims. Women responded negatively to both types of probability markers, such that mean acceptance of the focal claim shifted downward when compared with conditions in which no marker was used. On the other hand, hedges decreased the variance of claim acceptance among men without affecting the mean response, and pledges had little or no effect on the mean or variance among men. These results are discussed in terms of sex differences in elaboration thresholds and the multiple roles postulate of the elaboration likelihood model (ELM).
languageeng
source
version9
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
linktorsrc$$Uhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00913367.2006.10639228$$EView_record_in_Taylor_&_Francis
search
creatorcontrib
0Berney-Reddish, Ilona A
1Areni, Charles S
titleSex Differences in Responses to Probability Markers in Advertising Claims
description

The results of a laboratory experiment revealed that women were generally more accepting of advertising claims than men. However, men and women had decidedly different reactions to the use of hedges (e.g., "may," "probably," "possibly") and pledges (e.g., "definitely," "undoubtedly," "absolutely") in advertising claims. Women responded negatively to both types of probability markers, such that mean acceptance of the focal claim shifted downward when compared with conditions in which no marker was used. On the other hand, hedges decreased the variance of claim acceptance among men without affecting the mean response, and pledges had little or no effect on the mean or variance among men. These results are discussed in terms of sex differences in elaboration thresholds and the multiple roles postulate of the elaboration likelihood model (ELM).

subjectBusiness
general
0English
1Routledge
210.1080/00913367.2006.10639228
3Taylor & Francis Online - Journals
4Taylor & Francis (Taylor & Francis Group)
sourceidinformaworld_s
recordidinformaworld_s10_1080_00913367_2006_10639228
issn
00091-3367
100913367
21557-7805
315577805
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2006
addtitleJournal of advertising
searchscope
0informaworld_full
1informaworld2
scope
0informaworld_full
1informaworld2
lsr45$$EView_record_in_Taylor_&_Francis
tmp01Taylor & Francis (Taylor & Francis Group)
tmp02
0.QK
107P
20BK
3AAAVI
4AAOXQ
5AAZMC
6ABFIM
7ABJVF
8ABPTX
9ABQHQ
10ABSSG
11ABTAI
12ACGCV
13ACTIO
14ACTOA
15ADCVX
16ADQGD
17AFOLD
18AIJEM
19ARPNQ
20AVBZW
21BCKCY
22BEJHT
23BLEHA
24BMOTO
25CCCUG
26CRHQX
27C~U
28E~B
29E~C
30FUNRP
31G-F
32GTTXZ
33KDLKA
34KYCEM
35MIDIT
36RNANH
37ROSJB
38RSYQP
39S-F
40TEK
41TFH
42TFL
43TFW
44TNTFI
45TRJHH
46V1K
47~01
48~S~
startdate20060501
enddate20060501
lsr40Journal of advertising, 01 May 2006, Vol.35 (2), pp.7-16
doi10.1080/00913367.2006.10639228
citationpf 7 pt 16 vol 35 issue 2
lsr30VSR-Enriched:[pqid, galeid]
sort
titleSex Differences in Responses to Probability Markers in Advertising Claims
authorBerney-Reddish, Ilona A ; Areni, Charles S
creationdate20060501
lso0120060501
facets
frbrgroupid2799022171489272458
frbrtype5
newrecords20190718
languageeng
topicBusiness
collectionTaylor & Francis Online - Journals
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontrib
0Berney-Reddish, Ilona A
1Areni, Charles S
jtitleJournal of advertising
creationdate2006
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext
addata
aulast
0Berney-Reddish
1Areni
aufirst
0Ilona A
1Charles S
auinitI
auinit1I
au
0Berney-Reddish, Ilona A
1Areni, Charles S
atitleSex Differences in Responses to Probability Markers in Advertising Claims
jtitleJournal of advertising
risdate20060501
volume35
issue2
spage7
epage16
pages7-16
issn0091-3367
eissn1557-7805
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
abstract

The results of a laboratory experiment revealed that women were generally more accepting of advertising claims than men. However, men and women had decidedly different reactions to the use of hedges (e.g., "may," "probably," "possibly") and pledges (e.g., "definitely," "undoubtedly," "absolutely") in advertising claims. Women responded negatively to both types of probability markers, such that mean acceptance of the focal claim shifted downward when compared with conditions in which no marker was used. On the other hand, hedges decreased the variance of claim acceptance among men without affecting the mean response, and pledges had little or no effect on the mean or variance among men. These results are discussed in terms of sex differences in elaboration thresholds and the multiple roles postulate of the elaboration likelihood model (ELM).

pubRoutledge
doi10.1080/00913367.2006.10639228
urlhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00913367.2006.10639228
lad01Journal of advertising
date2006-05-01