SEX DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSES TO PROBABILITY MARKERS IN ADVERTISING CLAIMS

ABSTRACT:

The arises 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 (eg "may," "probably," "possibly") and deposits (e.g., "definitely," "undoubtedly," "absolutely") in advertising claims. Women answered negatively to both types of probability markers, of the like kind that mean acceptance of the focal claim shifted downward when compared with conditions in which no marker was used. upon the other hand, hedges decreased the variance of claim acceptance among men without affecting the mean rejoinder and pledges had little or no issue on the mean or variance among men These be deriveds are discussed in terms of sex differences in elaboration doorsills and the multiple roles postulate of the elaboration likelihood pattern (ELM).

Despite the obvious character of language in communication and persuasion, the marketing literature has surprisingly little to say about in what manner words are used to persuade audiences to accept advertising claims. Although authors similar as Cook (1992), Geis (1982) Leech (1966) Myers (1994) and Vestergaard and Schroder (1985) have explored various linguistic aspects of advertising language, there have been real few empirical studies of the consequences of these variables on message recipients (McGuire 2000) individual of the more noticeable omissions in the literature is the application of mind of what sociolinguists call "probability markers." Specifically, advertising claims vary in the stage of certainty indicated by the language used. Words and phrases are repeatedly used to signal an advertiser's confidence or guarantee that a claim is real For example, a recent advertisement for Nutra-Life states: "Nutra-Life gelid and Flu fighter may bring the severity and duration of colds" (italics added). The word "may" is a probability marker called a "hedge," which signals that the claim is not necessarily veritable and that a lower step of certainty should be associated with the claim compared with an advertisement in which no probability marker is not absent (i.e., "Nutra-Life Cold and Flu fighter restores the severity and duration of colds")

By contrast, "pledges" are probability markers that signal out and out certainty in the claim being made, as in a new ad for NTTMobile Communications Network, which states "The greatest in quantity visible aspect of wireless communications is undoubtedly clan talking on their phones" (italics added). The word "undoubtedly" signals thorough confidence in the claim, level suggesting that it would be foolhardy to gainsay the truth of this assertion. While each of the aforementioned authors has discussed the various uses and possible issues of hedges in advertising, empirical research is still largely lacking (cf Harris et al. 1993) and despite their prevalence in advertising and other forms of persuasive communications (Areni 2002) pawns have received almost no attention from either sociolinguists or advertising researchers.

The research reported below attempts to fill this void in the literature by means of reviewing the various proposed results of hedges and pledges upon certainty of the claim, attention, perceptions of the source, legal status of the claim, and persuasion. It then proofs the effects of hedges and pawns on claim acceptance in a laboratory experiment. The hypothesized be deriveds are based on previous research indicating that women are more sensitive than men to specific features of verbal messages (Darley and Smith 1995; Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran 1991; Meyers-Levy and Sternthal 1991; Putrevu 2001) thus pointing to the sex of the message recipient as a potential moderator of the consequences of probability markers on acceptance of the focal claim.

HEDGES, pawns AND PERSUASION

Probability markers exhibit a continuum of certainty (i.e., "undoubtedly," "probably," "likely," "possibly," "unlikely," "not at all likely," etc) ranging from clean conviction to complete uncertainty (Budescu and Wallsten 1985; Fillenbaum et al. 1991) Probability markers signaling that a claim is not categorically veritable have been termed hedges (Erickson et al. 1978; O'Barr 1982) Hedges bring the force of a statement by the agency of allowing for exceptions or avoiding rigid commitments (Erickson et al. 1978; Wright and Hosman 1983) This includes any linguistic means indicating a lack of commitment to the fact of a proposition, or a desire not to expres that commitment categorically (Hyland 1998) Essentially, hedges are words upon the lower end of the probability continuum, including pragmatic particles similar as "about" and "sort of" and modal bourns such as "may," "possibly," and "probably." In an advertising words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following hedges may protect the sponsoring companies from legal liability, as words of the like kind as "may" and "could" make it virtually impossible for a claim to be proven false (Geis 1982)

On the other hand, probability markers that indicate a full certainty or commitment to a claim are called gages (Areni 2002). These include words and phrases of that kind as "definitely," "undoubtedly," and "you can be certain." pawns are absolute in nature; they signal total confidence in the claim. Despite their prevalence in written and nuncupatory communication, pledges have received comparatively little attention from sociolinguists, and there are no empirical studies of the issues of pledges in a marketing connected thought [i]or[/i] thoughts The following section reviews existing literature upon the effects of probability markers. Table 1 summarizes a certain number of key aspects of hedges and gages as they relate to communication and persuasion.