The effect of type of claim, gender, and buying history on the drawing of pragmatic inferences from advertising claims

Research in cognition has shown that people frequently draw pragmatic inferences that go beyond what is stated directly in the text (e.g., understanding that Sparkle fights cavities implies that it prevents cavities). This study examines the effects of directly asserted claims and five different types of implied claims (hedge words, deleted comparatives, juxtaposed imperatives implying causality, statistical abuses, and negative questions) on the ratings of the truth value of a related claim and on the rated likelihood of purchasing that product. The different types of implied claims that produced the highest truth rating were not the most convincing in the sense of purchase likelihood. Directly asserted claims were no more true or convincing than many of their weaker implied counterparts. Overall, women rated test claims more true than men, regardless of which type of claim they had read. Subjects who were frequent users of a particular product class tended to rate both truth and purchase likelihood higher than nonusers but the effect was significant only for some products. Results are discussed in terms of methodological concerns and general applications.