Mark Lett

DOI 10.1007/s11002-014-9343-9

The trustworthy brand: effects of conclusion explicitness

and persuasion awareness on consumer judgments
Brett A. S. Martin & Carolyn A. Strong

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Two studies examine how a consumers awareness of marketing tactics

influences the effectiveness of conclusion explicitness advertising (implicit, openended or explicit, closed-ended conclusions). Study 1 shows that persuasion awareness
and conclusion explicitness influence brand evaluations. Persuasion aware consumers
prefer implicit conclusions in comparative advertising that allow them to decide which
brand is superior, rather than explicit conclusions which state the superior brand.
Persuasion unaware consumers show no difference for conclusion explicitness. Brand
trust mediates the results. Study 2 demonstrates the robustness of these effects.
Research contributions include persuasion awareness as a moderator of conclusion
explicitness effects and the role of trust as a mediator. For managers, results show how
implicit conclusions can improve the brand evaluations of persuasion aware consumers.
Keywords Conclusion explicitness . Persuasion awareness . Trust . Persuasion
knowledge

1 Introduction
Comparative advertising often highlights that the sponsor brand is superior to alternative brands (Grewal et al. 1997). One way marketers can highlight the preferred brand
to consumers is with a conclusion that states which brand of the presented alternatives
is better (i.e., an explicit conclusion, Kardes 1988). However, given that explicit
conclusions may be viewed as a hard sell by consumers (Kardes et al. 1994), an
alternative is the implicit conclusion. An implicit conclusion is where the conclusion
stating which brand is better is omitted. Instead, product information is offered which
B. A. S. Martin (*)
Consumer Research Group, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George
Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
e-mail: bmartin40@gmail.com
C. A. Strong
Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Aberconway Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EU
Wales, UK
e-mail: Strongc@cardiff.ac.uk

Mark Lett

allows consumers to draw their own conclusions (Sawyer and Howard 1991). By
presenting product information which favors the sponsor brand, an implicit conclusion
message leads a consumer to the intended conclusion.
This research proposes that the differences in persuasion awareness (i.e., consumer
awareness of the tactics used by marketers) may influence consumer responses to
comparative advertising. We show that individual differences in persuasion awareness
interact with conclusion explicitness (explicit vs. implicit conclusions) to influence
brand evaluations. We suggest that consumer brand trust drives this effect. Our work
makes three important contributions. First, we add to the conclusion explicitness
literature by identifying dispositional persuasion awareness as a moderator of when
consumers are more likely to be influenced by explicit or implicit conclusions. Second,
we establish consumer trust in a brand as an underlying mechanism for the effects of
conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness. Thus, we add to literature that shows
positive responses for persuasion aware people (Ahluwalia and Burnkrant 2004) which
is relevant as persuasion awareness has been shown to aid consumers in resisting
persuasion (Campbell et al. 2013). Third, we add to the marketing trust literature by
showing trusting beliefs (study 2) act as a unidimensional construct rather than as
independent sub-dimensions with differing predictive insight as expected.
To summarize, the two studies show that conclusion explicitness and persuasion
awareness can influence consumer brand trust, which in turn influences consumer
brand evaluations.

2 Theoretical background
2.1 Conclusion explicitness in comparative advertising
Early conclusion explicitness research indicated that conclusion explicitness does not
affect brand evaluations (Kardes 1988). Kardes (1988) suggested that implicit conclusions are likely to be effective only when consumers are motivated to process a message.
Subsequent research on comparative advertising supported this view for motivational
variables such as involvement (Sawyer and Howard 1991) and need for cognition
(Martin et al. 2004; Stayman and Kardes 1992). High involvement consumers responded
more favorably to implicit conclusions in a comparative format (Sawyer and Howard
1991) as did high need for cognition consumers (Martin et al. 2004). Research in a noncomparative format suggests that consumer knowledge moderates conclusion explicitness effects. Novices are more likely to believe that the advertised product benefits when
exposed to explicit conclusions (Kardes et al. 1994). Importantly, research has shown
that insights into conclusion explicitness effects can be gained by considering individual
differences such as need for cognition, self-monitoring (Stayman and Kardes 1992), and
objective knowledge (Kardes et al. 1994). We build on this research by considering
another consumer individual differencepersuasion awareness.
2.2 The moderating role of persuasion awareness
We propose that a moderator of conclusion explicitness effectiveness is whether a
consumer is higher or lower in persuasion awareness. Persuasion awareness relates to a

Mark Lett

consumers beliefs about a persuasive agents actions (Friestad and Wright 1994). It
reflects a consumers awareness of marketing tactics which can be used to interpret
marketing promotions (Friestad and Wright 1994). Although studied as a state (e.g.,
Kirmani and Zhu 2007), persuasion awareness (which has also been termed persuasion
knowledge) has also been studied as an individual difference (Ahluwalia and Burnkrant
2004; Bearden et al. 2001).
Research indicates that persuasion awareness can influence how consumers respond
to advertising (Ahluwalia and Burnkrant 2004; Kirmani and Zhu 2007). For example,
persuasion aware consumers are more likely to notice advertising tactics and consider
the intentions of the advertiser, whereas persuasion unaware consumers are less likely
to do so (Ahluwalia and Burnkrant 2004; Bearden et al. 2001). Activating persuasion
awareness can also result in consumer suspicion towards a marketer (Kirmani and Zhu
2007). The implication of these findings is that persuasion aware consumers notice
advertising tactics and can respond in a negative manner to them.
Considering conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness together, we propose
that persuasion aware consumers should evaluate implicit conclusions more favorably
in terms of brand evaluations, willingness to pay and purchase intentions, than explicit
conclusions. Implicit conclusions allow consumers to decide which brand is best.
Explicit conclusions tell consumers which brand they should view as superior. In
contrast, the judgments of persuasion unaware consumers should not be influenced
by conclusion explicitness.
H1a Persuasion aware consumers will exhibit more favorable brand evaluations,
willingness to pay (study 1) and purchase intentions (study 2), when exposed to
comparative messages with implicit (vs. explicit) conclusions.
H1b Persuasion unaware consumers will not exhibit differences in brand evaluations, willingness to pay (study 1) and purchase intentions (study 2), in response to
conclusion explicitness.

2.3 Mechanism underlying the effects

We propose that mediating the effects of conclusion explicitness and persuasion
awareness on evaluations is consumer brand trust. Drawing on Ahearne et al.
(2007), we define brand trust as a willingness to rely on an organization in
which a consumer has confidence. Trust has been found to influence brand
credibility (Garbarino and Johnson 1999). Research shows that persuasion
awareness can result in attributions related to trustworthiness. Campbell and
Kirmani (2000) found that activating consumer persuasion awareness can increase perceptions of salesperson insincerity.
Given persuasion awareness makes people sensitive to persuasion tactics, and if we
assume that implicit conclusions are less of a hard sell than explicit conclusions (Kardes
et al. 1994), then implicit conclusions should result in more brand trust for persuasion
aware consumers. Trust should be generated because persuasion aware consumers are
not being told which brand they should view as better than the other. They are allowed
to decide for themselves. Explicit conclusions should generate less trust by not
allowing consumers to reach their own decision on which brand is superior. Support

Mark Lett

for this view is provided by research showing that advertising tactics can be used by
consumers as a cue for trustworthiness (Herbst et al. 2012).
Moreover, we examine trusting beliefs. Research has examined three types of
trusting beliefsintegrity beliefs, ability beliefs, and benevolence beliefs (Schlosser
et al. 2006). Integrity beliefs refer to the extent the organization exhibits fair and ethical
behavior. Ability beliefs refer to a brand having the skills to perform competently.
Benevolence beliefs refer to a brand being concerned with consumer welfare. Schlosser
et al. (2006) suggest that studying trusting beliefs offers managers more insight than a
global measure of trust. They found in an Internet context that ability beliefs, rather
than integrity or benevolence beliefs, influenced consumer purchase intentions.
However, other scholars suggest that types of trusting beliefs may not be empirically
distinct (Bttner and Gritz 2008). In other words, trusting beliefs may represent a
unidimensional construct rather than three distinct dimensions (integrity, ability, and
benevolence). In study 2, we examine which types of trusting beliefs (integrity, ability,
and/or benevolence) drive the effects from study 1.
In sum, we suggest that a match in conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness
leads to enhanced consumer trust towards a brand, which results in more favorable
evaluations. Persuasion aware people who view an implicit conclusion should feel a
brand is more trustworthy than when they are exposed to an explicit conclusion.
H2a Trust will mediate the effect of conclusion explicitness and persuasion
awareness on consumers evaluations (study 1).
H2b Trusting beliefs will mediate the effect of conclusion explicitness and persuasion knowledge on consumers evaluations (study 2).

3 Study 1
Study 1 examines whether persuasion aware consumers respond more favorably to an
implicit (vs. explicit) conclusion. Trust is assessed as a mediator. Given consumer
product knowledge can affect conclusion explicitness judgments (Chebat et al. 2001),
we measured objective knowledge. Involvement was measured to test whether implicit
conclusions generated higher involvement. Burnkrant and Howard (1984) show that
ads beginning with thought provoking questions can stimulate thinking. Familiarity
was measured as familiar brands can result in consumers engaging in less extensive
message processing (Campbell and Keller 2003).
3.1 Method
3.1.1 Participants and procedure
A 2 (conclusion explicitness: explicit vs. implicit)2 (persuasion awareness) mixed
design was used with conclusion explicitness manipulated and persuasion awareness
measured. Forty-seven undergraduates from an English business school took part for
the chance to win a cash prize (50). They were randomly assigned to conditions and
read a message featuring two digital cameras. To aid realism, we used real brands and
models of digital cameras (Nikon and Samsung) and actual product information. The

Mark Lett

explicit conclusion message heading was adapted from recent overseas advertising in
an unrelated product category (automobiles).
3.1.2 Independent variables
Following prior research (Sawyer and Howard 1991), the conclusion explicitness
manipulation compared two brands on product attributes. Participants read a message
featuring images of a Nikon and Samsung camera, respectively. Beneath the images, a
table displayed comparative information on eight attributes (Appendix). The Nikon
camera was superior on each attribute. Conclusion explicitness was varied with the
message heading. The implicit conclusion heading stated Whos most likely to leave
the other brand behind? Read the facts and you decide. The explicit conclusion
heading stated Whos most likely to leave Samsung behind? Nikon, of course.
Consistent with prior research (Ahluwalia and Burnkrant 2004), persuasion awareness was measured on six 7-point scales (e.g., I can tell when an offer has strings
attached) from Bearden et al. (2001). Items were averaged to form a persuasion
awareness index (M=4.95, SD=1.14, a=.90).
3.1.3 Dependent variables
Brand evaluations were measured on three 7-point scales (bad/good, unfavorable/favorable,
and dislike/like, a=.95). Willingness to pay (WTP) was measured as an open-ended variable
(M=183.05, SD=88.34). WTP was included as it represents a behavioral outcome which
involves a brands monetary valuation by consumers (Chernev et al. 2011).
3.1.4 Mediator, manipulation check, and control measure
Trust was measured on two 7-point scales (trustworthy, credible, r=.80) based on
Darke et al. (2010). For the conclusion explicitness manipulation check, participants
rated the extent the advertisement stated which brand was better on a 7-point scale
(strongly disagree/strongly agree). Involvement was measured on three 7-point scales
(concentrating very little/concentrating very hard, paying very little attention, paying a
lot of attention, very uninvolved/very involved, a=.85, Martin et al. 2009). Objective
knowledge was measured with five statements (e.g., megapixels refer to the camera
shutter speed, true, false, do not know, M=2.80, SD=1.00). Brand familiarity for
Nikon and Samsung, respectively, was measured on separate 7-point scales (not at all
familiar/very familiar). An open-ended suspicion probe showed that no participants
guessed the purpose of the study.
3.2 Results
3.2.1 Manipulation check and control measure
We performed a regression on the manipulation check measure with conclusion
explicitness (dummy coded), persuasion awareness (mean-centered), and the persuasion awareness conclusion explicitness interaction as predictor variables. Participants
in the explicit conclusion conditions rated the message as more of an explicit

Mark Lett

conclusion than participants in the implicit conclusion conditions (=.34, t=2.30,

p<.05). No other effect or interaction was significant (ps>.39). The difference between
conclusion explicitness conditions was confirmed by a t test on the manipulation check
measure (MExplicit =4.92 vs. MImplicit =3.86, t=2.03, p<.05).
A conclusion explicitness, persuasion awareness, conclusion explicitness persuasion awareness interaction regression yielded no effects or interactions for involvement
(ps>.25), objective knowledge (ps>.17), or familiarity (ps>.08). Further, a t test for
conclusion explicitness on persuasion awareness showed no effect (MExplicit =4.91 vs.
MImplicit =5.00, t=.27, p=.79) suggesting conclusion explicitness did not affect persuasion awareness.
3.2.2 Hypotheses testing

Evaluations

We used regression to examine the effect of conclusion explicitness (dummy coded),

persuasion awareness (mean-centered), and their interaction on brand evaluations. This
analysis revealed a significant conclusion explicitness by persuasion awareness interaction on evaluations (=.57, t=2.54, p<.05). This result suggests that persuasion
aware consumers respond more favorably to implicit conclusions than to explicit
conclusions. Next, we ran a spotlight analysis (Fitzsimons 2008) to test conclusion
explicitness effects at a specified level of persuasion awareness. As we were interested
in persuasion aware and unaware consumers, we tested at 1 standard deviation from
the mean for persuasion awareness (see Aiken and West 1991 for this procedure) to see
if conclusion explicitness had an effect for these consumers. As shown in Fig. 1,
persuasion aware consumers reported more favorable evaluations for an implicit
conclusion versus an explicit conclusion (=.42, t=2.03, p=.05). In contrast, persuasion unaware consumers showed no difference in brand evaluations for conclusion
explicitness (=.33, t=1.59, p=.12).
We performed a regression to examine the effect of conclusion explicitness (dummy
coded), persuasion awareness (mean-centered), and their interaction on willingness to
pay. However, this analysis revealed no significant effects for conclusion explicitness,
persuasion awareness, or their interaction (ps>.13).

Explicit conclusion

Implicit conclusion

Note. Results show individuals one standard deviation above or below the mean for
persuasion awareness.

Fig. 1 Study 1: The effect of conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness on evaluations

Mark Lett

3.2.3 Mediation analysis

Bootstrapping was used to test for mediation. Bootstrapping involves repeatedly
sampling and estimating the indirect effect from the data set. This process allows the
researcher to generate confidence intervals for the indirect effect (Preacher and Hayes
2008). A bootstrap (model 8, Hayes 2013) produced a 95 % confidence interval (CI) by
running resampling 1,000 times. This analysis showed that trust mediated the effect of
conclusion explicitness (0=explicit, 1=implicit) and persuasion awareness on evaluations with a positive indirect effect for trust (indirect effect=.40; 95 % CI=.03, 1.11).
3.3 Discussion
Study 1 found that persuasion aware consumers report more favorable brand evaluations in response to implicit conclusions. For persuasion unaware consumers, conclusion explicitness did not affect brand evaluations. The favorable effect of implicit
conclusions for persuasion aware consumers appears to be driven by increased brand
trust. The effects did not extend to WTP. Given WTP represents a behavioral outcome
associated with the strength of a consumers brand attitude (Chernev et al. 2011), the
lack of effects for WTP suggests that using implicit conclusions does not influence
spending behavior. No differences were present for involvement, knowledge, or familiarity suggesting that these constructs are unlikely to account for our findings.

4 Study 2
Study 2 builds on the previous study in a variety of ways. First, in study 1, we discovered
that a global measure of trust mediates the effects. In study 2, we build on this result by
examining three types of trusting beliefsintegrity beliefs, ability beliefs, and benevolence beliefs (Schlosser et al. 2006). Second, we sought to generalize our findings to a
new context (services instead of a product). Given the nonsignificant results for willingness to pay in study 1, we studied a dependent variable with a strong behavioral
component (purchase intentions). Third, we used a fictional target brand to avoid any
potential brand inferences. We also removed product visuals from the message to make
it text only. Fourth, for alternative explanations, we controlled for differences in
involvement, brand familiarity, attribute importance, and message valence. Attribute
importance and message valence were measured to test whether conclusion explicitness
affected the perceived importance of service features or the message framing (i.e., made
the message appear more positive or negative), respectively.
4.1 Method
4.1.1 Participants and procedure
We used a 2 (conclusion explicitness: explicit vs. implicit)2 (persuasion awareness)
mixed design, with conclusion explicitness manipulated and persuasion awareness measured. One hundred and eighty undergraduates from an English business school participated for the chance to win a cash prize (50). They were randomly assigned to conditions.

Mark Lett

Participants completed short-form (eight items or less) filler trait measures which
were included to disguise the study. The persuasion awareness measure was embedded
among the trait measures. Next, adapted from Liu (2008), participants completed a
word generation filler task. They listed five words they could think of featuring the
letter K and five words featuring the letter D. Eight participants were removed for
writing swear words. Two participants were removed for not completing the questionnaire resulting in a final sample of 170 participants. Next, participants read a message
comparing two gymnasiums featuring attribute information derived from a content
analysis of gymnasium websites.
4.1.2 Independent variables
For conclusion explicitness, participants read a message featuring a table of attribute
information for two gymsArchos and the YMCA. The Archos brand was superior on
four attributes (opening times, minimum contract duration, swimming pool, free
parking) and equal on three (e.g., free weights, what group sessions were available to
customers, such as yoga or cardio). Conclusion explicitness was varied with the
message heading. The implicit condition heading stated Two Gyms, You Choose
which Is Better. In the explicit condition, the message information was identical
except for the heading which stated Archos, the Better Gym. Persuasion awareness
was measured as in study 1 (M=5.38, SD=.77, a=.85).
4.2 Dependent variables
Brand evaluations were measured as in study 1 (a=.88). Purchase intentions for a gym
subscription were measured on three 7-point scales (unlikely/likely, definitely would
not/definitely would, improbable/probable, a=.94).
4.3 Mediators, manipulation check, and control measures
For trusting beliefs, integrity was measured on two 7-point scales (no integrity/integrity,
dishonest/honest). Ability was measured on two 7-point scales (novices at managing
gyms/experts at managing gyms, inexperienced at running gyms/experienced at running gyms). Benevolence was measured on two 7-point scales (e.g., would not go out
of their way to help clients/would go out of their way to help clients, unconcerned
about client welfare/very concerned about client welfare, based on Schlosser et al.
2006). Although these dimensions of trusting beliefs have shown correlated results in
the prior research (Bttner and Gritz 2008), we acknowledge that ability, integrity, and
benevolence trusting beliefs can be studied as separate measures (Schlosser et al. 2006).
However, a principal axis factor analysis showed that the ability, benevolence, and
integrity measures loaded onto a single factor. Consequently, we formed a trusting
beliefs index which we report in our results (a=.86).
The manipulation check was three 7-point scales (The advertisement states which brand is
better, I think the advertisement ends with an obvious conclusion about which brand is better, I
think the advertisement ends with an explicit conclusion about which brand is better, a=.73).
Involvement (a=.91) and brand familiarity were measured as in study 1. Attribute
importance was measured for each attribute on a 7-point scale (e.g., free weights, not at

Mark Lett

all important/very important). Message valence was rated on two 7-point scales (few
positive attributes/many positive attributes, many negative attributes/few negative
attributes, r=.53, p<.01, Grhan-Canli and Maheswaran 2000).
4.4 Results
4.4.1 Manipulation check and control measures
A conclusion explicitness by persuasion awareness regression found that explicit
conclusions were rated as more clearly stating the conclusion than implicit conclusions
(=.21, t=2.74, p<.01). No other effect or interaction was significant (ps>.49). A t
test confirmed the manipulation (MExplicit =4.58 vs. MImplicit =4.00, t=2.69, p<.01). A
conclusion explicitness by persuasion awareness regression on the control measures
found no effects for involvement (ps>.50), familiarity (ps>.13), attribute importance
(ps>.08), and valence (ps>.06). As the valence measure had low reliability, we
repeated this analysis with both valence items as the criterion variable, but neither
regression was significant (ps>.09). A t test for conclusion explicitness on persuasion
awareness showed no effect (MExplicit =5.27 vs. MImplicit =5.49, t=1.83, p=.07).
4.4.2 Hypotheses testing

Evaluations

A conclusion explicitness by persuasion awareness regression on evaluations

revealed a significant interaction (=.30, t=2.95, p<.01). No other effect or
interaction was significant (ps>.10). A spotlight analysis revealed that persuasion aware consumers reported more favorable evaluations for implicit rather
than explicit conclusions ( =.31, t= 2.92, p< .01). Persuasion unaware consumers showed no differences in their evaluations in response to conclusion
explicitness (=.14, t=1.29, p=.20) Fig. 2.
For purchase intentions, the conclusion explicitness by persuasion awareness interaction was not significant (p=.45). No other predictor variables were significant

Explicit conclusion

Implicit conclusion

Fig. 2 Study 2: The effect of conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness on evaluations

Mark Lett

(ps>.15). A bootstrap (model 8, Hayes 2013, resampling 1,000 times) confirmed that
the conclusion explicitness (0=explicit, 1=implicit) and persuasion awareness interaction on evaluations were mediated by a positive effect for trusting beliefs (indirect
effect=.14; 95 % CI=.01, .31). Trusting beliefs significantly influenced evaluations for
implicit conclusions but not for explicit conclusions. For implicit conclusions, trusting
beliefs influenced evaluations (indirect effect=.17; 95 % CI=.06, .31). However, for
explicit conclusions, trusting beliefs did not influence evaluations (indirect effect=.03;
95 % CI=.08, .12).
4.5 Discussion
Study 2 demonstrates that persuasion aware consumers report more favorable evaluations in response to implicit conclusions. For persuasion unaware consumers, conclusion explicitness was not associated with evaluations. However, this pattern of effects
was not evident for purchase intentions. The result for brand evaluations appears to be
driven by trusting beliefs. The lack of differences for involvement, familiarity, attribute
importance, and message valence suggests they do not account for our findings.

5 General discussion
The current research shows how persuasion awareness influences how consumers
respond to implicit or explicit conclusions in comparative advertising. We show across
two studies that persuasion aware people prefer implicit conclusions. Implicit conclusions were more persuadable for consumers who were more aware of persuasion
attempts than those less aware. These favorable effects for brand evaluations were
driven by brand trust (study 1) and trusting beliefs (study 2). We found that trusting
beliefs represent a single factor rather than multiple dimensions (e.g., integrity). The
lack of differences for involvement, knowledge, brand familiarity, and message valence
suggests these constructs are unlikely to account for our findings.
Our research contributes to the literature. First, we show the effect of conclusion
explicitness and persuasion awareness on brand evaluations. Research shows that
individual differences such as need for cognition can moderate conclusion explicitness
effects (Stayman and Kardes 1992). We build on these findings by showing that
persuasion aware consumers respond more favorably to implicit conclusions. Yet, this
effect does not extend to WTP or purchase intent suggesting that the interactive effects
of conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness do not directly influence monetary
evaluations or purchasing behavior.
Second, we show that consumer trust (trustworthiness, study 1; trusting beliefs,
study 2) mediates the effects of conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness.
Thus, our research shows that persuasion awareness can result in positive evaluations
and brand trust, rather than negative evaluations (e.g., Kirmani and Zhu 2007). Third,
our research contributes to the trust literature by showing that trusting beliefs should not
always be viewed as separate sub-dimensions. Our findings showed they represent a
single construct. This suggests that integrity, benevolence, and ability act in a similar
fashion as an underlying mechanism for our effects, rather than one trust dimension
(e.g., integrity) being the driver of the effects as had been expected.

Mark Lett

Our findings suggest that implicit conclusions should be used when advertising to
persuasion aware consumers. A research limitation is that we did not manipulate
persuasion awareness to test if our findings extend to situational states of persuasion
awareness.
As suggested by a reviewer, future research could prime persuasion awareness by presenting consumers with descriptions of how Machiavelli manipulated
people or by coaching consumers about implicit persuasion. In addition, future
research could examine conclusion placement. Our research has the conclusion
manipulation in the heading of the advertisement. However, we acknowledge
that some prior studies have placed the conclusion at the bottom of the
advertisement (e.g., Martin et al. 2004). As conclusion placement may have
affected consumer information processing, future research should compare the
effects of where a conclusion is placed in an ad. Further, we studied comparative messages. It would be useful to test conclusion explicitness effects in a
non-comparative format to build on prior research (e.g., Kardes 1988) where a
single brand is presented with implicit or explicit conclusions.

Appendix
Study 1: Implicit conclusion

Mark Lett

Study 1: Explicit conclusion

References
Ahearne, M., Jelinek, R., & Jones, E. (2007). Examining the effect of salesperson service behavior in a
competitive context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(4), 603616.
Ahluwalia, R., & Burnkrant, R. E. (2004). Answering questions about questions: a persuasion knowledge perspective
for understanding the effects of rhetorical questions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 2642.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D. M., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Consumer self-confidence: refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 121134.
Burnkrant, R. E., & Howard, D. J. (1984). Effects of the use of introductory rhetorical questions versus
statements on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 12181230.
Bttner, O., & Gritz, A. S. (2008). Perceived trustworthiness in online shops. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 7, 3550.
Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects. Journal of
Consumer Research, 30(2), 292304.
Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers use of persuasion knowledge: the effects of accessibility
and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 69
83.
Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2013). Can disclosures lead consumers to resist covert
persuasion? The important roles of disclosure timing and type of response. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 23(4), 483495.

Mark Lett
Chebat, J. C., Charlebois, M., & Glinas-Chebat, C. (2001). What makes open vs. closed conclusion
advertisements more persuasive? The moderating role of prior knowledge and involvement. Journal of
Business Research, 53(2), 93102.
Chernev, A., Hamilton, R., & Gal, D. (2011). Competing for consumer identity: limits to self-expression and
the perils of lifestyle branding. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 6682.
Darke, P. R., Ashworth, L., & Main, K. J. (2010). Great expectations and broken promises: misleading claims,
product failure, expectancy disconfirmation and consumer distrust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 38(3), 347362.
Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(June), 58.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion
attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(June), 131.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 21(June), 7087.
Grewal, D., Kavanoor, S., Fern, E., Costley, C., & Barnes, J. (1997). Comparative versus noncomparative
advertising: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 61(October), 115.
Grhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Determinants of country of origin evaluations. Journal of
Consumer Research, 27(1), 96108.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Herbst, K. C., Finkel, E. J., Allan, D., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2012). On the dangers of pulling a fast one:
advertisement disclaimer speed, brand trust, and purchase intention. Journal of Consumer Research,
38(5), 909919.
Kardes, F. R. (1988). Spontaneous inference processes in advertising: the effects of conclusion omission and
involvement on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 225233.
Kardes, F. R., Kim, J., & Lim, J. S. (1994). Moderating effects of prior knowledge on the perceived
diagnosticity of beliefs derived from implicit versus explicit product claims. Journal of Business
Research, 29(3), 219224.
Kirmani, A., & Zhu, R. (2007). Vigilant against manipulation: the effect of regulatory focus on the use of
persuasion knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(November), 688701.
Liu, W. (2008). Focusing on desirability: the effect of decision interruption and suspension on preferences.
Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 640652.
Martin, B. A. S., Lang, B., & Wong, S. (2004). Conclusion explicitness in advertising: the moderating role of
need for cognition (NFC) and argument quality (AQ) on persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 5766.
Martin, B. A. S., Gnoth, J., & Strong, C. (2009). Temporal construal in advertising. Journal of Advertising,
38(3), 520.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing
indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879891.
Sawyer, A. G., & Howard, D. J. (1991). Effects of omitting conclusions in advertisements to involved and
uninvolved audiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(November), 467474.
Schlosser, A. E., White, T. B., & Lloyd, S. M. (2006). Converting web site visitors into buyers: how web site
investment increases consumer trusting beliefs and online purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing,
70(April), 133148.
Stayman, D. M., & Kardes, F. R. (1992). Spontaneous inference processes in advertising: effects of need for
cognition and self-monitoring on inference generation and utilization. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
1(2), 125142.