Effects and Effectiveness of Corrective Advertising: Assumptions and Errors in Regulation Research

References

• Armstrong, G. M., Franke, E. R., & Russ, F. A. (1982). The effects of corrective advertising on company image. Journal of Advertising, 11(4), 39–47.
   Google Scholar
• Bozinoff, L., & Ghingold, M. (1983). Evaluating guilt arousing marketing communications. Journal of Business Research, 11, 243–255.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, M. T., & Preston, I. L. (1977). The FTC’s use of evidence to determine deception. Journal of Marketing, 41, 54–62.
   Google Scholar
• Broad, W., & Wade, N. (1982). Betrayers of the truth; Fraud and deceit in the halls of science. New York: Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Brooker, G. (1981). A comparison of the persuasive effects of mild humor and mild fear appeals. Journal of Advertising, 10(4), 29–40.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. D., & Muehling, D. D. (1989). Advocacy advertising and the boundaries of commercial speech. Journal of Advertising, 18, 40–50.
   Google Scholar
• Dershowitz, A. M. (1971). Preventing detention. In A. Goldstein & I. Goldstein (Eds.), Crime, law and society. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gelb, B. D., Hong, J. W., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1985). Communications effects of specific advertising elements: An update. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 2, 75–98.
   Google Scholar
• Healy, J.S., & Kassarjian, H. H. (1983). Advertising substantiation and advertiser response: A content analysis of magazine advertisements. Journal of Marketing, 47, 107–127.
   Google Scholar
• Le Due, D. R. (1987). Beyond broadcasting: Patterns in policy and law. White Plains, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, P. (1987). Cable television and the first amendment. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
   Google Scholar
• Peltzman, S. (1981). The effects of FTC advertising regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 24, 403–448.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, I. L. (1975). The great American blow-up: Puffery in advertising and selling. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, I. L. (1980). Researchers at the Federal Trade Commission: Peril and promise. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 3, 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, I. L. (1983a). Research on deceptive advertising: Commentary. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Information processing research in advertising (pp. 289–305). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, I. L. (1983b). A review of the literature on advertising regulation. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 6, 1–38.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, I. L. (1986). Data-free at the FTC? How the Federal Trade Commission decides whether extrinsic evidence is required. American Business Law Journal, 24, 359–376.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, I. L. (1987). Extrinsic evidence and Federal Trade Commission deceptiveness cases. Columbia Business Law Review, 3, 633–694.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, I. L. (1989). The Federal Trade Commission’s identification of implications as constituting deceptive advertising. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 57, 1243–1310.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, I. L., & Richards, J. I. (1986). Consumer miscomprehension as a challenge to FTC prosecutions of deceptive advertising. John Marshall Law Review, 12, 605–635.
   Google Scholar
• Ray, M., & Wilkie, W. (1970). Fear: The potential of an appeal neglected by marketing. Journal of Marketing, 34, 54–62.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, J. I. (1990). Deceptive advertising: Behavioral study of a legal concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Rotfeld, H. J. (1978). The differing perspectives of researchers and lawyers towards deceptive advertising and puffery. In S. E. Permut (Ed.), Advances in advertising research and management (pp. 101–104). New Haven, CT: American Academy of Advertising.
   Google Scholar
• Rotfeld, H. J. (1983). What is misleading? In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Information processing research in advertising (pp. 169–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Rotfeld, H. J. (1988). Fear appeals and persuasion: Assumptions and errors in advertising research. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, II, 21–40.
   Google Scholar
• Rotfeld, H. J., & Preston, I. L. (1981). The potential impact of research on advertising law. Journal of Advertising Research, 21, 9–17.
   Google Scholar
• Rotfeld, H. J., & Rotzoll, K. B. (1980). Is advertising puffery believed? Journal of Advertising, 9(3), 16–20, 45.
   Google Scholar
• Rotfeld, H. J., & Rotzoll, K. B. (1981). Puffery vs. fact claims: Really different? Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 4, 85–103.
   Google Scholar
• Scammon, D. L., & Semenik, R. J. (1982). Corrective advertising: Evolution of the legal theory and application of the remedy. Journal of Advertising, 11, 10–20.
   Google Scholar
• Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325–343.
   Google Scholar
• Stem, L. W., & Eovaldi, T. L. (1984). Legal aspects of promotion strategy: Advertising. In L. W. Stem & T. L. Eovaldi, Legal aspects of marketing strategy: Antitrust and consumer protection issues (pp. 369–411). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkie, W. L. (1982). Affirmative disclosure: Perspectives on FTC orders. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 1, 95–110.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkie, W. L. (1985). Affirmative disclosure at the FTC: Objectives for the remedy and outcomes of past orders. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 4, 91–111.
   Google Scholar