Enhancing or disrupting guilt: the role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent

Abstract

Viewing the consumer as an active, skeptical reader of the persuasion attempt is an emerging perspective in advertising research. This perspective suggests that a consumer's recognition of an emotional “tactic” in an ad can have a significant impact on an ad's intended effect. Adopting this approach, we examine whether consumers' evaluations of an ad's credibility can enhance, and perceptions of manipulative intent can disrupt, the emotional response intended by the advertiser. We also investigate the effects of these two variables on attitude toward the ad and corporate attributions, including attitude toward the sponsor of the ad. We examine a commonly employed emotional tactic—the guilt appeal—and report the results of an experimental study. Our results suggest that credible guilt advertisements that are not overtly manipulative induce guilt feelings and positive attitudes. However, when consumers infer manipulative intent by the marketer, consumers do not feel guilty, but do have negative attitudes toward the sponsor of the advertisement and the advertisement.