Persuasion processes associated with direct comparative and noncomparative advertising and implications for advertising effectiveness

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) contends that direct comparative ads, which provide information on named competitors, result in more informed decision making. However, this position is controversial both in the United States and abroad, and research findings have been inconclusive (e.g., ). We investigated the persuasion processes (routes) associated with comparative and noncomparative advertising by manipulating argument strength, and we also examined the moderating role of involvement. In a high‐involvement situation, argument strength influenced brand attitude and purchase intent regardless of ad type (central‐route persuasion), whereas, in a low‐involvement situation, there were no effects for argument strength (peripheral‐route persuasion). The FTC's supposition that comparative ads enhance information processing was supported, however, given moderate involvement: Argument strength affected brand evaluations for the comparative—but not noncomparative—ads. Regarding the persuasion outcome, given low and moderate involvement, subjects' more favorable attitudes toward the comparative ads' interest‐value enhanced purchase intent, but not brand attitude.