The Effectiveness of Advertising

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Public Policy & Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

The Effectiveness of Advertising Explicit Warranties Author(s): Grahame R. Dowling Source: Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 4 (1985), pp. 142-152Published by: American Marketing AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000080Accessed: 28-09-2015 05:29 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 14.139.85.133 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:29:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Effectiveness of Advertising Explicit Warranties

Grahame R. Dowling

An experiment was performed to examine the effects of a manufacturer's warranty contained in print advertisements for three new products. Contrary to expectations that consumers would use this extra information to change their attitudes towards the products, the inclusion of a warranty in the advertisements had no effect on perceived risk or intention to buy these products. The results of this study bring into question the value of manufacturers' warranties as a promotional tool.

GRAHAME R. DOWLING is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Commerce, The University of Newcastle, New South Wales, 2308, Australia. Thanks are ex- pressed to John Rossiter and the reviewers for comments on an earlier draft.

Product warranties may be either express or implied. Where a manufacturer sells goods to a consumer in the normal course of business there is an implied condition that the goods so supplied are of merchantable quality except where specific defects are drawn to the customer's attention before the sale. An express warranty is a statement or representation, generally in writing, made by a seller with respect to the character or quality of an article sold. It is a guarantee. The stated conditions of an express warranty become part of the contract of purchase and sale. The decision to supply goods with an express warranty is at the discretion of the vendor.

Express product warranties are thought to perform a variety of functions, e.g. Consumer Protection

(a) to protect consumers by assuring them that the product sold is the vendor's product and that it fulfills specified conditions;

Vendor Protection (b) to protect sellers from unreasonable claims by customers [Udell and Anderson

1968]; Marketing Related

(c) to act as a general positive influence in the purchase process [Feldman 1976]; (d) to add assurance of product quality and value [Feldman 1976]; (e) to act as a promotional device for the purpose of differentiating similar competing

products [Kendall and Russ 1975]; (f) to reduce the perceived risk inherent in buying a new product [Roselius 1971]; and (g) to establish a feedback system concerning product design, manufacturing quali-

ty, delivery, etc. [Kennedy, Pearce, and Quelch 1980]. The public policy effects of explicit warranties are manifested in terms of

the equity of the buyer-seller relationship. Both consumers and vendors are protected by warranties, with consumers seemingly receiving the most benefit. The concern for protecting consumers is the belief that individuals, in acquir- ing goods and services, find themselves in a disadvantageous position in dealing with large manufacturers. Warranties also represent an attempt to ensure that consumers are more fully informed about the product offered for sale. The public policy implications of more information in the hands of consumers are that there should be less chance that the individual will misallocate his/her resources when deciding to buy a product.

Kennedy, Pearce, and Quelch [1980, p. 265] note that during the 1960s and early 1970s there was increasing government concern in the U.S. and Canada

142 Dowling


Advertising Explicit Warranties 143

that the consumer was not receiving a fair deal. The risk of economic loss was being shifted to consumers in a variety of ways. For example, products were designed to have an artificially short economic life, there was frequent product failure, parts and service were unavailable, products were not repaired prop- erly or quickly, and so forth. These issues were of sufficient concern to consumers to constitute a political issue. They also stimulated a new interest in a variety of various forms of warranty legislation e.g. the Magnuson-Moss War- ranty, Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 1975.

While there seems to have been widespread use of explicit warranties [see for example, Udell and Anderson 1968] there has been relatively little research which examines how consumers react to and use them in their purchase decision-making process. Without this research it is difficult for marketers and public policy makers to gauge the impact of explicit warranties on consumer choice.

This research limits its scope to an examination of the effects of advertising warranties on potential consumers' affective predisposition towards new products. Notification that a product is sold with a warranty attempts to change consumers' attitudes toward the product. Specifically, this study tests whether the advertising of an explicit warranty by a vendor (a) serves to reduce the perceived risk inherent in the purchase of a new product, and/or (b) affects potential customers' intentions to buy such a product.'

Warranties as a Device to Reduce Perceived

Risk

The research noted previously suggests that warranties can and do enhance the attractiveness of a product by reducing the perceived risk inherent in its purchase. Studies conducted by McClure and Ryans [1968], Udell and Ander- son [1968], Kendall and Russ [1975], Perry and Perry [1976], and Feldman [1976] indicate that manufacturers, retailers, and legislators act in accordance with this proposition. The theoretical and empirical research dealing with risk perception and the use of risk handling strategies supports this view.

Since the introduction of the concept of perceived risk into consumer research by Bauer [1960], many researchers have explicitly incorporated the perception of risk into studies of consumer choice. Reviews are provided by Ross [1974], Stem, Lamb, and MacLachlan [1977], and Dowling [1982]. Research into the perception of risk proposes that perceived risk acts as a purchase inhibiting factor. Consumers, when faced with the purchase of a risky product are thought to attempt to reduce the risk involved. Research has shown that consumers invoke a variety of decision heuristics which attempt to (a) reduce the perceived uncertainty about the performance of the product, and/or (b) reduce the adverse consequences to be suffered if the product proves to be unsatisfactory, and/or (c) shift the consumer from one type of loss to another for which (s)he has more tolerance.

First-order effects of express warranties are to reduce the impact of any post- purchase adverse consequences, e.g. financial loss. Second-order effects in- clude the possible reduction of pre-purchase psychological uncertainty. Aaker and Myers [1975, p. 324] argue that under these circumstances the potential consumer will move towards a more balanced or tension-free mental state. Also, if an express warranty is perceived to add value (or quality) to a product this should have a positive effect on intention to buy. Where a product has a high technical content the consumer is at a comparative disadvantage, relative to the manufacturer, in regard to understanding the way the product functions. This occurs because the cost to the consumer of collecting data about such factors as the potential dangers associated with using the product may be prohibitive. In these cases the manufacturer has a comparative advantage


144 Dowling

with respect to the consumer in seeking to reduce any risk associated with the purchase and use of the product.

Often advertising is the first point of contact between a manufacturer and a potential consumer. If a warranty is a determinant attribute affecting choice among similar products then the use of express product warranties in advertisements should have a positive effect on purchase intentions and a negative effect on risk perception. The research discussed below was conducted to test these hypotheses.

Research Design An experiment was performed in which a convenience sample of 236 Newcas- tle (Australia) residents was asked to evaluate three new products shown in separate print advertisements-a flat screen television set, a domestic elec- trostatic air cleaner, and a new form of clothes cleaner. The flat screen television set was a product unavailable in Australia at the time of the study, the air cleaner represented a domestic adaption of an industrial product, while the clothes cleaner was a technologically feasible new product.

All products were priced at $389 and were not identified by brand name. Brand name identification was withheld from respondents because Shimp and Bearden [1979] found that warrantor reputation had a significant effect on consumers' confidence when buying a new product. Also, no mention was made about the type or size of the retailer who would sell the product. Wilkes and Wilcox [1976] have found that consumers expect warranty support from retailers as well as manufacturers. Withholding information about the identity of the vendor attempted to ensure that respondents did not confound the manufacturer's warranty with any retailer supported general product returns policies. Debriefing a subset of respondents (n = 25) at the end of the study indicated that during the course of the study they were not concerned about the role of retailers.

The products were selected so that their intrinsic cues had low confidence and low predictive values for potential consumers-all were technologically complex [Shimp and Bearden 1979]. By setting a high price for the products2 and minimizing the value of intrinsic and selected extrinsic cues (no retailer identification, no comparison with competitive products, no brand names) a deliberate attempt was made to ensure that the products were perceived as inherently risky. Two focus group interviews conducted prior to the main study supported this view. Accordingly, the nature of the product and the presence of a warranty should be the main factors used by respondents to evaluate the perceived risk of the stimulus objects.

The research design used was a 3 x 3 between-subjects multivariate analysis of covariance. The dependent variables were perceived risk and likelihood of purchase. The independent variables consisted of three products, three levels of warranty promotion (none, low, high), and the covariates product interest, specific self-confidence, and importance of warranty.

Perceived risk was measured using the index suggested by Peter and Tarpey [1975], viz:

OPR, = nE i=1 PLij x ILij (1) where OPRj = overall perceived risk for product j.

PL, = probability of loss i from the purchase of product j. ILij = the importance of loss i from the purchase of product j. n = the number of types of loss.



Table 1. Internal Reliability of Multi-item Measures

Specific Product Self-Confidence Perceived Risk

Flat Screen TV Alpha .87 Mean Inter-item Correlation .90 .52

Air Cleaner Alpha .86 Mean Inter-item Correlation .88 .52

Clothes Cleaner Alpha .87 Mean Inter-item Correlation .78 .53

Variables were measured using the approach employed by Peter and Tarpey [1975]. The probability and importance of loss variables form a natural pairing. That is, the absence of either variable would eliminate risk. Also, the adoption of a multiplicative combination rule effectively reduces the influence of a nonsalient adverse consequence on the overall level of perceived risk. Based on previous research the following six types of loss were used in this study: performance, physical, social, financial, psychological, and convenience. The internal reliability of this scale was measured by Cronbach alpha and the mean inter-item correlation [Ray 1972]. Reliability estimates are reported in Table 1 and are satisfactory for this type of research [Nunnally 1967, p. 226]. Likelihood of purchase was measured by a single 15-point scale with endpoints labelled "definitely would buy" and "definitely would not buy" if the product was released onto the market.

Specific self-confidence was measured as the sum of two 9-point Likert scales derived from Bell [1967], which asked how confident and experienced respondents perceived themselves to be when buying/evaluating the type of product in the advertisement to which they were exposed. The mean inter- item correlation for this variable is reported in Table 1 and is satisfactory for this type of research.

Product interest and warranty importance were each measured by a single 9-point scale. Respondents were asked whether or not they took a keen interest in the type of product in the advertisement to which they were exposed and how important it was to them that a new product was sold with a warranty.

Each respondent was asked to read an advertisement for one of the products. Advertisements were assigned randomly across respondents. The advertisements contained either no statement concerning an express warranty or one of the express warranty statements in Table 2. The wording of each warranty statement was kept simple (no legal phraseology) to aid ease of interpretation. Debriefing a subset of respondents (n = 25) at the completion of the study revealed no confusion surrounding the terms and conditions of the warranty. Owing to the nature of the product the high warranty condition dif- fered across products. After reading the advertisement respondents answered a set of questions concerning their reactions to the product.


146 Dowling

Table 2. Explicit Warranties

Warranty Condition Product Low High Flat Screen TV 12 month warranty 1 year warranty on

against faulty electrical manufacture components,

plus 3 year warranty on picture display

Air Cleaner 12 month warranty 1 year warranty on against faulty electrical components, manufacture plus

2 year warranty on power supply components

Clothes Cleaner 12 month warranty 1 year warranty on against faulty faulty workmanship manufacture and materials,

plus 5 year warranty on radiation seals

Results Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to conduct the manipulation checks on the major treatment variable and to test the hypotheses outlined earlier. To help the reader interpret the results of this analysis a brief description of MANCOVA is provided. MANCOVA is the multivariate exten- sion of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). When a set of dependent variables are intercorrelated, multivariate analysis of variance can be used to form a linear combination of the criterion variables and then to use the set of treatment variables to account for the generalised variance of these criterion variables. If covariates are included in the research design, this procedure is performed after adjusting for the effects of the covariates. To aid the interpretation of the results of MANCOVA it is also helpful to perform an AN- COVA. Consequently, in the tables that follow two sets of analysis are reported: "all" referring to the multivariate analysis and then each dependent variable in a univariate analysis.

Interpretation of the ANCOVAs should be undertaken with care as this approach inflates the probability of a Type I error. As Spector [1977] has argued however, when hypothesis testing is the aim of the analysis, a univariate analysis is appropriate to show the ability of each dependent variable to dif- ferentiate between the various treatment groups independently of the other dependent variables.

Manipulation Checks MANCOVA was used to test the effectiveness of the warranty manipulation for each product. The test consisted of a single factor (low, high warranty) and two response variables (satisfaction with the warranty and adequacy of warranty coverage). Both response variables were measured on a single 9-point scale with endpoints labelled "extremely satisfactory" and "not at all satisfactory." Because it made no sense to ask questions about the satisfaction and coverage of a warranty for those subjects who received an advertisement without a warranty, this manipulation check only applies to the low/high warranty conditions.



Table 3. Warranty Manipulation Checks

Flat Screen TV Source F DF Prob.

Covariates Alla 1.02b 6,86 0.42 Satisfaction 0.26 3,44 0.86 Coverage 0.71 3,44 0.55

Overall Grand Mean Alla 7.13c 2,43 0.00 Satisfaction 10.06 1,44 0.00 Coverage 1.09 1,44 0.30

Warranty Alla 7.25c 2,43 0.00 Satisfaction 14.48 1,44 0.00 Coverage 6.30 1,44 0.02

Error Satisfaction mean square = 3.59 Coverage mean square = 4.80

Air Cleaner Source F DF Prob.

Covariates Alla 2.17b 6,94 0.05 Satisfaction 0.57 3,48 0.64 Coverage 0.90 3,48 0.45

Overall Grand Mean Alla 10.99c 2,47 0.00 Satisfaction 21.28 1,48 0.00 Coverage 7.04 1,48 0.01


Error Satisfaction mean square = 3.42 Coverage mean square = 4.02

Clothes Cleaner Source F DF Prob. Covariates

Alla 1.52b 6,102 0.18 Satisfaction 8.63 3,52 0.10 Coverage 10.16 3,52 0.09

Overall Grand Mean All 10.07c 2,51 0.00 Satisfaction 14.92 1,52 0.00 Coverage 13.93 1,52 0.00


Error Satisfaction mean square = 3.88 Coverage mean square =4.47

a "All" =both dependent variables combined in a multivariate test.

b F value based on Wilk's Likelihood Ratio c F value based on Hotelling T2


148 Dowling

Table 3 presents the results of this analysis. After adjusting for the three covariates the effects of the warranty conditions for both the multivariate and univariate analyses were significant. Also, for all products the warranty manipulations worked as intended with the high warranty condition being perceived as more satisfactory (means: 6.2 TV; 6.7 Air Cleaner; 6.0 Clothes Cleaner V's 4.0; 4.7; 3.4) and providing a more adequate coverage (5.2 TV; 6.1 Air Cleaner; 5.8 Clothes Cleaner V's 3.7; 4.0; 3.6). Because the covariates were not significant and only one treatment factor was involved no further analysis is required to establish that the warranty conditions worked as expected.

To check that the three products used in this study were perceived different- ly, a separate convenience sample of ten judges evaluated each product on six 7-point Likert scales. Each scale measured one of the following attributes: relative advantage, ease of use, complexity, compatibility with lifestyle and other products, ability to afford the product, and trialability. These attributes were derived from Rogers [1962]. Table 4 provides operational definitions of these attributes and a profile of the average rating of the judges for each product. Interjudge reliabilities (agreement) are reported in Table 5. Because judges rated each product attribute on a scale having seven response categories, agreement between judges was defined to occur whenever responses were within one scale category of each other. Table 4 shows that eleven of the twenty-one interproduct comparisons are significantly different. For the purpose of this study each product is considered to have a distinct identity.

Hypothesis Testing The main hypothesis of this study was tested using a MANCOVA. The factors consisted of the three products and three warranty conditions described previously and two covariates, product interest and specific self-confidence. Table 6 presents the results of this analysis. Inspection of these results indicates that after adjusting for the effects of the covariates the warranty variable

Table 4. Product Profile Attribute High Low

cc Relative Advantage TV AC Ease of Use CC

TV AC Complexity Compatibility AC TV CC

Lifestyle Other Products CC AC TV

Affordability CC TV AC Trialability CC TV AC

TV = flat reen television TV AC CC CC = clot s cleaner AC = air -aner

(a) An al drawn between two products indicates a t statistic significant at p


Table 5. Interjudge Reliabilities T.V. Air Cleaner Clothes Cleaner

Relative Advantage .73 .80 .82 Ease of Use .87 1.00 .91 Complexity .47 1.00 .73 Compatibility

Lifestyle .49 .67 .87 Other Products .73 .89 .87

Affordability .82 .62 .93 Trialability .87 .84 .98 Average .74 .83 .87

was ineffective in reducing risk perception or increasing respondents' intentions to buy the product. These results are contrary to expectations.

Table 6 shows that the covariates and the type of product affected the dependent variables.3 Respondents who were more interested and knowledgeable about a particular new product stated that they would be more likely to want to buy one. Also, risk perception was marginally associated with the type of product being evaluated. Both of these findings seem to have face validity.

Table 6. Warranty Effects on Risk Perception and Behavioral Intention

Source F DF Prob.

Covariates Alla 8.34b 4,448 0.00 Perceived Risk 0.82 2,225 0.44 Behavioral Intention 17.25 2,225 0.00

Overall Grand Mean Alla 84.64c 2,224 0.00 Perceived Risk 130.32 1,225 0.00 Behavioral Intention 15.50 1,225 0.00

Product Alla 3.94C 4.448 0.00 Perceived Risk 3.85 2,225 0.03 Behavioral Intention 2.65 2,225 0.07

Warranty Alla 0.22b 4,448 0.93 Perceived Risk 0.36 2,225 0.70 Behavioral Intention 0.07 2,225 0.93

Product X Warranty Alla 0.41b 8,448 0.91 Perceived Risk 0.36 4,225 0.84 Behavioral Intention 0.44 4,225 0.78

Error Perceived Risk mean square= 4000 Behavioral Intention mean square = 11.3

a "All"= both dependent variables combined in a multivariate test.



150 Dowling

It is possible that the three products used in this study did not provoke enough overall interest in respondents for the warranties to affect risk perception or behavioral intention. This does not appear to be the case. The product interest variable had a mean score of 5.0 (on a 9-point scale) with a standard deviation of 2.2 for the three products.

Although the perceived risk measure showed an acceptable level of internal reliability it is possible that the manner in which each pair of PLi, ILi variables was combined may have affected the results. The summation approach in the measurement index used to operationalise perceived risk (equa- tion 1) has neither been theoretically justified by its users nor criticized by nonusers. Aggregation across various types of loss may result in a compromise value. In effect summation results in less utilization of the separate dimen- sions of the perceived risk construct. To test whether the summation procedure suppressed any relationship between the warranty effects and the dependent variables another MANCOVA was computed. In this analysis a "disag- gregated" measure of perceived risk (each Pli x ILij) and the behavioral intention measure were used as the dependent variables. The results, reported in Table 7, again show no relationship between the warranty variable and respondents' affective predisposition towards the products. Consequently, the aggregation process adopted in the Peter and Tarpey (1975) index of perceived risk is not responsible for the ineffectiveness of the warranty factor.

Discussion The research design employed in this study focused more on controlling for threats to internal rather than external validity. Consequently, generalization of the findings reported here should be undertaken with caution. Notwith- standing this warning, the results of this study suggest that the effectiveness of highlighting a manufacturer's warranty in an advertisement may not be as useful as previously thought. This occurred even though an advertisement containing a warranty provides information to consumers that can help them make a more informed decision than they would in the absence of that information.

Appliances and consumer electronic products are mature product categories which make considerable use of warranties. Consequently, the use of three such products in this research may account for the lack of a significant relationship between the use of a warranty and its effect on risk perception and purchase intentions. For example, it is possible that respondents assumed that each of the products presented to them for evaluation would automatically be accompanied by a warranty. Hence, explicit mention of the warranty provided no new information to integrate into their product evaluations. The possibility exists that the effectiveness of advertising an explicit warranty for a product in a less mature product class would be greater than for the products studied here. Replication of this study using products in various stages of their life cycle is needed.

If consumers do not use warranty information when reading advertisements then manufacturers are unlikely to provide this information in this form of communication. This is not to say however, that explicit warranties are not important to consumers when evaluating products. It is highly probable that at the time an actual purchase is being consummated a warranty is an important element of the product mix. Also, as Wilkes and Wilcox [1976] have shown, consumers expect the retailer to play a major part in rectifying product malfunctions. What this research has failed to establish is the usefulness of advertising explicit warranties.

Much more information is needed concerning consumers' perceptions and use of express warranties before public policy makers will be in a position



Table 7. Warranty Effects on Risk Perception and Behavioral Intention

Source F DF Prob.

Covariates Alla 3.37b 14,438 0.00

Overall Grand Mean Alla 30.93c 7,219 0.00

Product Alla 3.67c 14,438 0.00

Warranty All" 0.66b 14,438 0.81

Product x Warranty All" 1.07b 28,791 0.37

Error Types of Loss

Performance mean square = 222 Physical mean square = 300 Social mean square =97 Convenience mean square = 370 Financial mean square = 370 Psychological mean square = 190 Behavioral intention mean square = 11

a "All" = both dependent variables combined in a multivariate test.


to increase or decrease regulation regarding their use in the marketplace. The concept of a fair deal for consumers needs to be interpreted within the con- text of the provision of adequate information to consumers to ensure efficient operation of market activity. Public policy makers need to blend research findings from law, economics, and marketing to achieve this aim.

Notes 1. To use Calder, Phillips, and Tybout's (1981) terminology, the study is positioned as "theory application" rather than "effects application" research.

2. For example, at the time of the study a portable black and white television set retailed for approximately $100.

3. A significant covariate means that a significant adjustment of the criterion variable(s) took place before the effects of the treatment variables were estimated.

References Aaker, David A. and John G. Myers (1975), Advertising Management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Bauer, Raymond A. (1960), "Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking" in Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World, R. S. Hancock, ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 389-98.


152 Dowling

Bell, Gerald D. (1967), "Self-Confidence and Persuasion in Car Buying," Journal of Marketing Research 4 (Feb.), 46-52.

Calder, Bobby J., Lynn W. Phillips, and Alice M. Tybout (1981), "Designing Research for Ap- plication," journal of Consumer Research 8, no. 2 (Sept.), 197-207.

Dowling, Grahame R. (1982), "Perceived Risk: The Concept and Its Measurement." Unpublished paper, University of Newcastle.

Feldman, Laurence P. (1976), "New Legislation and the Prospects for Real Warranty Reform," journal of Marketing 40, no. 3 (July), 41-47.

Kendall, C. L. and Frederick A. Russ (1975), "Warranty and Complaint Policies: An Oppor- tunity for Marketing Management," Journal of Marketing 39, no. 2 (April), 36-43.

Kennedy, John R., Michael R. Pearce, and John A. Quelch (1980), "Consumer Product War- ranties: Perspectives and Issues," in Macro Marketing: A Canadian Perspective, Thompson, Simmie, Heslop, and Shapiro, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 257-72.

McClure, Peter J. and John K. Ryans (1968), "Differences Between Retailers' and Consumers' Perceptions," Journal of Marketing Research 5 (Feb.), 35-40.

Nunally, Jum (1967), Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Perry, Michael and Arnon Perry (1976), "Service Contract Compared to Warranty as a Means

to Reduce Consumer's Risk," Journal of Retailing 52, no. 2 (Summer), 33-40, 90. Peter, J. Paul and Laurence X. Tarpey (1975), "A Comparative Analysis of Three Consumer

Decision Strategies," journal of Consumer Research 2, no. 1 (June), 29-37. Ray, J. J. (1972), "A New Reliability Maximization Procedure for Likert Scales," The Australian

Psychologist 7, no. 1, 40-46. Roselius, Ted (1971), "Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction Methods," Journal of Marketing

35, no. 1 (Jan.), 56-61. Ross, Ivan (1974), "Perceived Risk and Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review," in Advances

in Consumer Research, Vol. 2, M. J. Schlinger, ed. Illinois: Association for Consumer Research, 1-19.

Shimp, Terence A. and William O. Bearden (1979), "Warranty and Other Extrinsic Cue Interac- tion Effects on Consumers' Confidence," in Advances in Consumer Research, J. C. Olson, ed. Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research, 308-13.

Spector, Paul E. (1977), "What To Do With Significant Multivariate Effects in Multivariate Analyses of Variance," journal of Applied Psychology 62, no. 2, 158-63.

Stem, D. E., C. W. Lamb, and D. L. MacLachlan (1977), "Perceived Risk: A Synthesis," Euro- pean Journal of Marketing 11, no. 4, 312-19.

Udell, Jon G. and Evan E. Anderson (1968), "The Product Warranty as an Element of Com- petitive Strategy," journal of Marketing 32, no. 4 (Oct.), 1-8.

Wilkes, Robert E. and James B. Wilcox (1976), "Consumer Perceptions of Product Warranties and Their Implications for Retail Strategy," journal of Business Research 4, no. 1 (Feb.), 35-43.


Article Contentsp. 142p. 143p. 144p. 145p. 146p. 147p. 148p. 149p. 150p. 151p. 152

Issue Table of ContentsJournal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 4 (1985), pp. 1-193Front MatterEditor's Statement [p. n5-n5]The Impact of a Nutrition Information Program on Food Purchases [pp. 1-13]Designing and Marketing Consumer Energy Conservation Policies and Programs: Implications from a Decade of Research [pp. 14-32]Residential Energy Conservation: An Investigation of the Post Tax Credit Era in the U.S. [pp. 33-46]The Demand for Alcoholic Beverages: An Aggregate Time-Series Analysis [pp. 47-54]The Ability of Children to Understand the Product Package: A Study of Limitations Imposed by Cognitive Developmental Stage [pp. 55-68]Product Liability in the '80s [pp. 69-79]Product Safety Warnings: A Legal Review [pp. 80-90]Affirmative Disclosure at the FTC: Objectives for the Remedy and Outcomes of Past Orders [pp. 91-111]The Multi-Dimensionality of Comparative Advertising: Implications for the Federal Trade Commission [pp. 112-128]Advertising Self-Regulation: Private Government and Agent of Public Policy [pp. 129-141]The Effectiveness of Advertising Explicit Warranties [pp. 142-152]Misleading Advertising: In Search of a Measurement Methodology [pp. 153-165]Assessing Social Impacts of New Products: An Attempt to Operationalize the Macromarketing Concept [pp. 166-178]Marketing, Minorities, and Consumption: Traditional and Neo-Marxist Perspectives [pp. 179-193]

Documents

The Effectiveness of Advertising