Volume 12 - Issue 62
/ February 2023
105
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.62.02.8
How to Cite:
Spasova, L. (2023). The third-person effects and susceptibility to persuasion principles in advertisement. Amazonia
Investiga, 12(62), 105-114. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.62.02.8
The third-person effects and susceptibility to persuasion principles in
advertisement
Ефекти на третата персона и на податливостта към убеждаващите принципи в
реклама
Received: January 2, 2023 Accepted: February 22, 2023
Written by:
Lyubomira Spasova1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1438-9104
Abstract
This investigation has several main objectives: 1) to
determine whether the third-person effect (TRE)
(Gunther & Thorson 1992;Youn, Faber, & Shah,
2000) can be achieved through advertising
messages; 2) to identify which strategies for
persuasive social influence from P. Cialdini
(Cialdini, 2001-2021) help to enhance the third-
person effect (TRE) among advertising consumers;
3) to find some causal relationships between
susceptibility to persuasion on Kaptein’s scale
(Kaptein et al., 2012) or STPS and TRE among
consumers of advertising. The results of the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that
consumers aged 46 to 65 believed that positive the
third-person effect (TRE) statements exert their
influence on other age groups. When measuring the
negative influence of the third-person effect (TRE),
it was found that young adults aged 18 to 25 were
most likely to assume that this influence was
successful among other consumers, i.e. they
overestimated the effects on others but not on
themselves. Through regression analyses, it is
found that persuasive strategies such as scarcity and
social proof achieve their influence among youths,
and scarcity and authority principles - among
females and among other consumers (but not on
themselves) when several negative strategies are
combined. The research findings can serve social
psychologists, behavioural psychologists, and those
who protect the interests of business organizations.
Keywords: TRE, persuasive strategies in
advertisement, STPS for Bulgarian costumers.
1
Senior Lecturer PhD at Faculty of Economics, Department of Social Sciences and Business Language Training, Trakia University,
Bulgaria.
106
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Introduction
Persuasion has been the subject of human
research for millennia and finds its application in
various areas of social life such as: social
psychology, behavioural psychology, mediated
communication, product offering design, direct
marketing and advertising. Research has
embedded the idea that persuasion explains the
perceived and preferred basis of attitudes
(Kaptein, 2012), as well as a range of behavioural
changes in the achieved influence of interactive
systems and technologies (Oinas-Kukkonen et
al., 2008; Ploug et al., 2010). Despite views of
the future of persuasive technologies that find
they will be more effective than their human
counterparts because they can be more persistent
and 'always on' (Fogg & Eckles, 2007), other
effects are being sought to achieve persuasive
social influence. This is the additional effect of
perception that can mediate the impact on
purchase intentions, and is referred to as third
person effects (TPE) (Gunther & Thorson, 1992;
Youn, Faber, & Shah, 2000; Eisend, 2008).
Conveying greater relevance of the product or
service is achieved through the consumer's
perceived value, which is explained by
researchers as the main driver of purchase
intentions and behavior (Zeithaml, 1988; Baker
et al., 2002). In addition, it can be argued that the
consumer's perceived value or the third person
effect (TRE), is enhanced by the application of
persuasive strategies developed by R. Cialdini
(Cialdini, 2001; Cialdini, 2016; Cialdini, 2021)
to achieve lasting persuasive social influence in
advertising. It is assumed that consumer
perceived value has different effects on different
groups of consumers and in the way they believe
other consumers perceive advertising messages.
The perceptual difference (based on attitudes
toward a particular advertising message) arises
because people tend to overestimate the
perceived influence on themselves relative to
others for a particular message because they
believe they are more resistant to persuasion than
others (Eisend, 2008, p. 35). A similar effect is
observed when there is a discrepancy between
the perceived influence on the self and the actual
achieved influence on the self. Therefore, the
ways in which consumers perceive social
influence on them, as well as the perceived
influence on other consumers, can provide a clear
picture of the influence achieved by applying
persuasive strategies in advertising.
Literature Review
Although persuasion achievement is available in
advertising, a number of aspects of persuasive
communication are in the process of being
understanding. One of these is the presence of a
varying number of persuasive strategies in
marketing, e-commerce, persuasive technology
and in advertising. Fogg (2002) was one of the
first to highlight the importance of findings
(Fogg, 2002) for the design of interactive
systems created with the intention of changing
human attitudes or behavior. The same author
started a field called persuasive technologies
(Fogg, 2002), with the author's greatest
contribution being the compilation of a behavior
model for persuasive design (Fogg, 2009). While
Fogg's work focuses on achieving persuasion
through technology, Kellermann and Cole (1994)
collected 64 taxonomies that describe different
persuasion strategies and their operationalization
(Kellermann & Cole, 1994). The main goal of
their study is the integration of cross-taxonomies
motivating human evaluation (Kellermann &
Cole, 1994, p. 13) as a useful level of analysis
that helps to group and distinguish specific
influence tactics or implementations of different
strategies (Kellermann & Cole, 1994; O’Keefe,
1994). In another subject area such as marketing,
e-commerce and others, Cialdini (2001-2021)
formed seven persuasion principles, based on
research on some individual differences of
consumers (Cialdini, 2001; Cialdini, 2016;
Cialdini, 2021). The researcher attempts to
explain the nature of persuasion strategies and
their broad applicability. On the other hand, Hoy
and Smith (2007) proposed 10 persuasive
strategies by showing their effectiveness in
creating leadership qualities (Hoy & Smith,
2007). Consequently, persuasion is achieved
through different ways among different
individuals as an effective part of mass
communication, business communication, as
well as advertising and interpersonal
communication, and the intermediate level of
these communication is third person effects
(TPE) (Gunther & Thorson, 1992; Youn, Faber,
& Shah, 2000; Eisend, 2008).
Since the persuasive principles developed over
the years from Cialdini (2001-2021), as well as
the impact of "third person effects" (TPE)
(Eisend, 2008), are implemented through specific
advertising messages and lead to a higher
perceived sensitivity of others towards the self
(Gunther & Thorson 1992; Youn, Faber, & Shah
2000), they will be a major part of this research
study. The third-person effect states that when
confronted with negative messages, people will
overestimate the messages' effect on others
relative to themselves (Youn, Faber & Shah
Spasova , L. / Volume 12 - Issue 62: 105-114 / February, 2023
Volume 12 - Issue 62
/ February 2023
107
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
2000, p. 633). This is consistent with the
persuasion knowledge model (PKM), which
states that as people develop knowledge about
the goals and tactics of persuasion agents, they
will be less likely to perceive attempts at
persuasion on themselves as effective (Friestad
& Wright, 1994). Consequently, there is a
disconnect between the effects of media
advertising on others and on the self because this
is due to underestimating others' awareness of
external (situational) factors, and also thus
overestimating others' susceptibility to
advertising content (Youn, Faber & Shah, 2000).
Advertising consumers' resistance to different
messages is also explained by the fact that
individuals perceive the message as having a
greater influence on others to enhance their
perception of personal invulnerability and
control (Gunther, 1991). Another perspective of
researchers is that users who consider an issue
important (Mutz, 1989) perceive themselves as
experts or are highly involved in the message
(Perloff, 1993), which is associated with the
authority principle. Susceptibility to this
principle is achieved when a claim is presented
by an authoritative person and supported by an
authoritative argument. This finding does not
imply that the persuasive strategy of authority
will only achieve a positive effect among all
consumers of an advertisement, because
Milgram's (1974) famous experiment showed
that one-third of participants did not comply with
an authoritative argument (Milgram, 1974;
Kaptein & Eckles, 2010). In addition, reliably
influencing advertising consumers' attitudes and
behaviors through persuasion (but not coercion)
is a research problem that still needs to be
investigated. Kaptein, Markopoulos, Ruyter and
Aarts (2009) found that the target of a persuasion
attempt must be receptive to the consumers of an
advertisement, similarly the message must be
delivered at a specific time to allow the consumer
to process the information (Kaptein,
Markopoulos, Ruyter and Aarts, 2009). These
aspects of persuasion are considered because
there are many variations in the way the message
query is formed. In order to evaluate the effects
of the persuasive strategies proposed by Cialdini
(2001-2021), as well as to elucidate other factors
determining susceptibility to persuasion, the
psychology of each principle must be explained.
The creation of individual interventions in
advertising messages to mimic person-to-person
counselling (Brug, Oenema & Campbell, 2003)
leads to the achievement of the third-person
effect (Youn, Faber & Shah, 2000). Therefore,
segmentation of target groups in advertising, as
well as personalization based on psychological
characteristics such as individuals' stages of
change (Noar, Benac & Harris, 2007), should be
applied by making adaptations to Cialdini's
persuasive strategies to achieve social influence
(Cialdini, 2001; Cialdini, 2016; Cialdini, 2021).
The implementation of mutual adaptation, that is,
according to the specificities of persuasive
principles as well as the specificities of
advertising consumers, requires a good
awareness of specific individuals using specific
advertising products and services, as well as of
the different persuasive effects achieved.
This study conceptualizes the presumed social
influence achieved among consumers of
advertising, and the effects on higher perceived
influence on other consumers relative to self.
Consistent with third person effects (TPE)
research, negative influence on others is
perceived to be much stronger than positive
influence (Gunther et al., 2006). Similarly, the
third person effect has been found to occur when
the goal recommended in the message is
perceived as eliciting a negative effect (Youn,
Faber & Shah, 2000). Therefore, in our study,
some negative effects of persuasive principles
should be derived through which the
manifestation of third person effects (TPE) will
be sought. On the other hand, researchers have
pointed out that to whom a message is considered
positive, individuals attribute a greater effect on
themselves than on others because they have the
skills to recognize its value (Cohen & Davis,
1991; Gunther & Thorson, 1992). Creating
different perceptions can lead to analogous
reactions from consumers when trying out
products and services offered in advertising. In
support of these views is the spiral of silence
theory (Noelle-Neumann, 1974), which explains
why individuals do not exhibit pre-expected
behaviour because they see their perspective as
different from the general public's view. Other
authors in some initial studies failed to find third
person effects (TPE), even when the negative
effect was strengthened (Gunther, 1991).
Therefore, several research questions are raised:
1) Does "third person effects" (TPE) exist as a
negative or as a positive manifestation of human
behavior? 2) Can this achieved effect be verified
by persuasive advertising messages? 3) Through
which principles of persuasive social influence
can it be manifested?
According to these previous researches, the
researcher puts forward the following
hypotheses:
108
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Hypothesis 0: There is no "third person effect"
(TPE) among users, which can be verified
through persuasive advertising messages.
Hypothesis 1: There is "third person effect"
(TPE) among users, which can be verified
through persuasive advertising messages.
Hypothesis 2: Third person effects (TPE) can be
achieved by applying certain persuasive social
influence strategies.
In order to provide greater clarity into the process
of persuasive communication achieved, this
paper revisits the issue of the "third person
effect" (TPE), (Youn, Faber & Shah, 2000) by
measuring individuals' susceptibility to
persuasion using the STPS developed by
Kaptein, M., Markopoulos, P., Ruyter, B., &
Aarts, E. (2009), (Kaptein et al., 2009). There are
several reasons for conducting the study: 1) there
are conflicting opinions on the third person effect
(TPE); 2) achieving persuasion through
persuasive strategies is realized under certain
conditions - eliciting positive and negative
effects; 3) applying persuasive strategies in
advertising may yield some mixed results on the
presence or absence of the third person effect
(TPE). The results of this study will benefit
researchers and practitioners in the application of
persuasive communication in advertising.
Methodology
To understand whether our study provides a
means of measuring sensitivity to persuasion
using Cialdini's various principles (Cialdini,
2001; Cialdini, 2016; Cialdini, 2021), we
conducted an exploratory factor analysis using
principal components analysis (PCA), with data
analyzed after applying the Varimax rotation.
The number of subscales in the Kaptein, Ruyter,
Markopoulos and Aarts (2012) methodology is
also 7, and in our study there are reasons to adopt
the 7-factor solution because the extracted
communities range from 0.340 to 0.772 for the
whole samples, which is perfectly satisfactory as
a measure (Kaptein et al., 2012). The extracted
factor loadings range from 0.772 to 0.481, which
is acceptable to form a coefficient of each factor
(Ganeva, 2016). Based on this exploratory
analysis, a 7-factor solution is adopted, according
to which the adapted and modified version of
Kaptein et al. (2012) questionnaire or STPS
questionnaire - Susceptibility to Persuasion
Strategies Scale will be used in the present study
to establish the susceptibility of individuals to
persuasion (Kaptein et al., 2012). Cronbach's
alpha was used to test the reliability of an adapted
and modified version of the STPS questionnaire
(Kaptein et al., 2012). The reliability of Liking
Scale is α=0.69, the reliability of Social Proof
Scale is α=0.78, the reliability of Commitment
and consistency Scale is α=0.69, the reliability of
Scarcity Scale is α=0.84, the reliability of
Reciprocity Scale is α=0.77, the reliability of
Unity Scale is α=0.73, the reliability of Authority
Scale is α=0.81. For the whole sample, the
Cronbach's alpha coefficient is α=0.799. As the
values exceed the minimum recommended value
of α=0.70 (DeVellis, 2012) the internal
consistency for the respective subscales is
sufficiently high, i.e. the items that make them up
form a common scale.
Our further work applies the STPS questionnaire
with 25 (seven subscales) statements (first
module), an adapted and modified version of
Kaptein et al. (2012), and in the next module
(second module) of the survey, statements from
advertisements are offered for respondents to
evaluate, in order to ascertain individuals'
susceptibility to Cialdini's persuasive principles
(Cialdini, 2001; Cialdini, 2016; Cialdini, 2021)
with some negative statements with TRE.
Different advertising images are used to conduct
the experiment, supported by statements that
measure each persuasive strategy containing
manipulations of advertising messages, as
statements provoke negative reactions because
the purpose is to measure third-person effects:
1) Despite 10,000 likes on the Nike sports shoes
advertisement, I would not buy the product
because it limits my choice (social proof); An
internet advertisement offering a 10% discount
cannot make me order takeaway food because it
is a product I am not interested in: (scarcity); A
laundry detergent advertisement makes me
participate in an online game, but I would not
participate because the commitment is too great
(commitment and consistency); The presence of
a popular influencer in a bag advertisement does
not make me try a product because that person is
not important to me (unity); An online
advertising expert recommends a product, but I
would not try the product because I doubt the
expert's opinion (authority); A laundry detergent
advertisement makes me participate in an online
game and brings a discount in the price of the
product, but I would not participate because the
discount is insignificant (reciprocity); A
cosmetics advertisement with a beautiful woman
does not stimulate me to try products (liking). To
measure respondents' perceived sensitivity to
influencing other consumers of advertising,
questions manipulating TPE situations were
asked (Gunther & Thorson, 1992). These are
statements that elicit "third person effects" (TPE)
(Youn, Faber & Shah, 2000): 1) Advertising
affects my initial attitude by making it more
Volume 12 - Issue 62
/ February 2023
109
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
positive; 2) Advertising affects my initial attitude
by making it more negative; 3) Advertising has a
powerful effect on me; 4) Advertising affects the
initial attitude of people around me by making it
more positive; 5) Advertising affects the initial
attitude of people around me by making it more
negative; 6) Advertising has a powerful effect on
men; 7) Advertising has a powerful effect on
women; 8) Advertising has a powerful effect
more on youth; 9) Advertising has a powerful
effect more on adults. The value perception of
advertising was measured with three 5-point
Likert scales ranging from 1-Agree to 5-
Disagree.
Results and Discussion
The study was conducted in the period from June
2021 to December 2022. Self-reported data were
collected from a total sample of 300 respondents
distributed across six age groups, ensuring a 95%
representative size (being e = ± 5%; p = q = 0.50).
Each case from the general population was
equally likely to be included in the study. All
respondents filled in the questionnaire on paper
because this ensures the correctness of the
answers. The total number of respondents is 300
people. According to these criteria, the total
sample was 52% male (156 people) and 48%
female (144 people) and by age group 41.7%
(125 people) were aged 18 to 24 year, 36% (108
people) were aged 25 to 45 year, 22.3% (67
people) were aged 46 to 65 year. Data were
processed using the statistical analysis package
SPSS 19.0. The following used were basic
statistical analyses: Descriptive analysis; Internal
consistency of each of the subscales measuring
the different persuasive strategies (Cronbch
alpha α coefficient), and for the whole sample;
One-way analysis of variance ANOVA to
examine the influence of age on third person
effects (TPE); Student-Fisher t-test for the
statistical significance of differences between
means between groups; Pearson's correlations to
reveal the strength of the relationship between
different persuasive strategies in advertising that
make up the factors (formed scales and
subscales); Regression analysis towards
establishing the causal relationship between
susceptibility to persuasion of influence
principles and third person effects (TPE) (Youn,
Faber & Shah, 2000; Ganeva, 2016).
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
applied to determine the impact of TRE on
different age groups of respondents. It was also
hypothesized that the arithmetic means of the
positive third person effects with respect to age
were different, and the result of the one-factor
analysis of variance (ANOVA) is presented in
Table 1.
Table 1.
Influence of age on the positive third person effects of adverting for other people (ANOVA)
Independent variable
Dependent variable
Mean
F, p
T-test
Age
the positive third person
effects
24 years old) = 3.20-(18 1
x
1345 years old) = 3.-(25 2
x
65 years old) = 3.63-(46 3
x
F=3.91 p=0.00
< 0.00 p
2.98; =
1,2
t
< 0.00 p
3.22; =
1,3
t
< 0.01 p
;973. =
2,3
t
There was a statistically significant difference
between the age groups studied, with the oldest
age group, 46 to 65 years, having the highest
mean score of the positive third person effects for
other people, where F = 3.91; p = 0.00; x3
(46-65 years old) = 3.63, compared to the other
younger age groups: t1,2 = 2.98; p < 0.00 and t1,3
= 3.22; p < 0.00, (Table 1). Many researchers
share the view that third person effects (TRE) is
a powerful persuasive tool for persuasion, with
evidence of its manifestations being negated in
situations of uncertainty (Cialdini, 2001). The
results obtained show that consumers of
advertising from 46 to 65 years old assume that
advertisements have a positive effect on
consumers around them, while for other age
groups this effect decreases: F = 3.91; p = 0.00;
x1 (18-24 years old) = 3.20; x2 (25-45 years old) = 3.31.
Therefore, users in the oldest age group
overestimate the achieved communication
effects on other users, the explanation being that
people have such biased perceptions for
motivational reasons to maintain their own
control and self-esteem (Gunther & Mundy,
1993). It can be assumed that they see themselves
as less susceptible to third person effects (TRE),
(Youn, Faber & Shah, 2000) because they
underestimate others' awareness of externalities
(Eisend, 2008). In addition, third person effects
(TRE) based on commercial advertising
messages typically result in higher perceived
sensitivity of others to the self as they seek to
dismiss the influence on the self (Gunther &
Thorson, 1992; Youn, Faber & Shah, 2000).
110
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
It is hypothesized that the arithmetic means of the
negative third person effects with respect to age
are different, and the result of the one-factor
analysis of variance (ANOVA) is presented in
Table 2.
Table 2.
Influence of age on the negative third person effects of adverting for other people (ANOVA)
Independent variable
Dependent variable
Mean
F, p
T-test
Age
the negative third
person effects
24 years old) = 3.63-(18 1
x
3845 years old) = 3.-(25 2
x
65 years old) = 3.49-(46 3
x
F=2.74 p=0.00
< 0.01 p
; 363. =
1,2
t
< 0.03 p
;183. =
1,3
t
< 0.00 p
;992. =
2,3
t
When analyzing and comparing the results
obtained from the one-factor analysis of variance
(ANOVA) on the negative third person effects
for other people, it was found that young people
aged 18 to 25 years were most likely to assume
that the negative effects for other people were
achieved through the advertisements, because the
mean values of this group were highest x1 (18-24
years old) = 3. 63, where F = 2.74; p = 0.00 relative
to other age groups: t1,2 = 3.36, p < 0.01 t1,3 = 3.18;
p < 0.03 (Table 2). This indicates that young
consumers of advertising are most likely to lower
the perceived negative impact on themselves
relative to other consumers. In this case, the
result may be explained by the biased perception
of young consumers, which again overestimates
the achieved negative effect of advertising on
other consumers but underestimates this effect on
themselves (Davison, 1996). Consumers of
advertising least likely to perceive that it has
negative third-party effects for other people, are
aged 25 to 45 - the middle age, where F = 2.74; p
= 0.00 x2 (25-45 years old) = 3.38 compared to the other
age groups: t1,2 = 3.36, p < 0.01 t2,3 = 2.99; p <
0.00 (Table 2). Therefore, perceived sensitivity
to the negative third person effects for other
people has weak significance for this age group
based on appeals from advertising. Consistent
with TPE research, the negative influence on
others is perceived to be much stronger than the
positive influence (Gunther et al., 2006),
implying that young consumers perceive the
negative effects most strongly for other
consumers. In addition, the researchers point out
that these perceptions can lead to behavioral
responses despite the possible existence of a
minor direct effect on others. The perceived
effect on others alone is sufficient and may
influence one's own behavior (Tsfati & Cohen,
2003).
In order to establish third person effects, various
advertising claims that contain persuasive
strategies and manipulate third person effects
(Youn, Faber & Shah, 2000) were proposed as
control variables for consumer evaluation.
Because consumers have a choice to agree with
or reject negative claims, their response depends
on the perceived importance of an issue as well
as the perceived threat to their freedom of choice
(Brehm, 1966). Cronbach's alpha for statements
measuring negative advertising was 0.780.
Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to
measure the linear relationship between ads
containing statements from the subscales in the
STPS questionnaire. Pearson correlations
showed positive statistically significant
relationships between persuasive statements
adjusted by TRE, with correlations ranging from
0.403 to 0.775. Therefore, the assumptions of
normality, linearity, and homogeneity are not
violated because the correlations are moderately
positive r = 0.403, p < 0.000 to strong r = 0.775,
p < 0.000, with the number of subjects being N =
300.
To establish the linear relationship between third
person effects (TRE) and persuasive principles in
advertising, a linear regression analysis was
conducted (Table 3).
Volume 12 - Issue 62
/ February 2023
111
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Table 3.
Influence of third person effects on the perception of advertising with persuasion principles, regression
analysis (β, p)
Regression model
Dependent variables
Persuasion
principles/ TRE
TRE (negative items)
Advertising effect on
young people
TRE (negative items)
Advertising effect on other
people
TRE (negative items)
Advertising effect on woman
Adj
2
R
Stand. Coeff.
Beta
Adj
2
R
Stand. Coeff.
Beta
Adj
2
R
Stand. Coeff.
Beta
Social proof Scarcity
0.318*
0.314
0.110
0.261
0.145
0.293
0.256
0.181
0.242
Authority Scarcity
0.223
0.226
0.360*
0.118
0.326*
0.281
0.198
0.104
0.156
Scarcity Commitment Authority
0.109
0.188
0.112
0.061
0.191
0.340
-0.012
0.016
0.301
0.163
0.002
0.162
*Other principles are excluded from the models as statistically insignificant.
The assumptions for linear regression analysis
were met as statements measuring persuasive
strategies could statistically significantly predict
the influence of the third person effects (TRE)
scale (Youn, Faber & Shah, 2000), where F
(2,298) =7.49, p < 0.001 indicates results for
third person effects (TRE). Susceptibility to
persuasion in advertisements with social proof
and scarcity principles determines third person
effects (TRE) (negative items) when the
advertisement influences young people (β =
0.318; p < 0.00), (Table 3). The combined social
influence of these persuasion principles in
advertising with negative third person effects
was found. The scarcity principle as well as the
social proof principle, which provoke consumers
of advertising to use products and services for a
short period of time, create a feeling of
uncertainty and this causes people's reactance
resistance (Brehm, 1966; Clee & Wicklund,
1980) and also cognitive dissonance (Festinger,
1957). The value of the adjusted coefficient of
determination is R2 = 0.31, i.e. that 31% of the
variance for the impact of TRE on young people
can be explained by the regression model
presented, which according to Cohen (1988) is a
moderate effect size, (Cohen, 1988).
The achieved social influence of the scarcity
principle as well as the authority principle can
predict the influence of TRE (negative items)
Youn, Faber & Shah, 2000) when consumers
perceive the value of the advertisement as
significant to other consumers (β = 0.360; p <
0.00), (Table 3). The implications of the negative
influence of these two principles, which yield
mixed effects on consumers of advertising, both
positive and negative, are documented by other
authors. Fuegen and Brehm (2004) use reactance
theory to explain how authority endorsements
can lead to negative effects when people's
perception of freedom of choice is threatened
(Fuegen & Brehm, 2004; Kaptein & Eckles,
2010). Therefore, these principles with negative
advertising appeal may have some negative
effects on individuals' attitudes and behaviors,
and our study supports the view of
underestimating the impact of advertising on the
self while overestimating it on other people
(Davison, 1996).
It has been found and achieved influence on
women, through the scarcity principles, and the
principle of authority can predict the influence of
TRE (negative items) Youn, Faber & Shah,
2000), the value of the adjusted coefficient of
determination is R2 = 0.326, i.e. that 32% of the
variance for the impact of TRE on woman can be
explained by the regression model presented,
which according to Cohen (1988) is a moderate
effect size (Cohen, 1988). This result can be
explained by the higher sensitivity of females,
who have more emotional behavior and as it is
clear, are influenced by negative appeals in
advertising, the values of the scarcity principle
are β = 0.156; p < 0.00, and for authority are β =
0.281; p < 0.00. Hence, in advertising, authority
arguments whose influence is enhanced by TRE
(negative items) (Youn, Faber & Shah, 2000)
indicate rejection or questioning of the
authoritative opinion that would lead to lack. In
addition, it can be commented that both social
proof and authority can be powerful tools of
persuasion because individuals in situations of
uncertainty follow other people's behavior and
112
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
may make rash decisions (Cialdini, 2001; Latané
& Nida, 1981).
Conclusions
A number of research studies have indicated that
reliably influencing advertising consumers'
attitudes and behaviors through persuasion is
achieved in a variety of ways, with the success of
each influence dependent on many factors. In the
present research study, an attempt was made to
measure the influence of TRE (Youn, Faber &
Shah, 2000) by manipulating advertising
messages with negative statements. It should not
be underestimated that the target of the
persuasion attempt must be receptive to the
consumers of the advertisement, as well as the
message must be delivered at a specific time to
allow the consumer to process the information
(Kaptein, 2012). This is the reason to look for the
perceived value of the consumer or the third
person effect whose impact is enhanced in a
negative aspect by applying the persuasive
strategies developed by R. Cialdini (Cialdini,
2001; Cialdini, 2016; Cialdini, 2021) as seen in
our results. In a situation of applying third person
effects (TRE) among users of different ages, it is
found that users aged 46 to 65 believe that
positive statements have a strong influence on
other younger age groups. Consequently, this
group overestimated the achieved
communication effects on other users, the
explanation being that people have such biased
perceptions for motivational reasons to maintain
their own control and self-esteem (Gunther &
Mundy, 1993). When measuring the negative
influence of the negative effects for other people
(TRE), it is seen that young people aged 18 to 25
years are the most likely to assume that TRE is
achieved through advertisements. This result is
explained by overestimating the effect achieved
on other people but not on themselves (Davison,
1996).
Manipulated negative statements, containing
persuasive strategies in advertising, yield some
results in young people, the influence exerted on
other consumers and the influence on women.
These are the three groups of advertising
consumers among whom advertising
effectiveness is achieved by (TRE) (negative
items). The persuasive strategies that enhance
third person effects (TRE) (Youn, Faber & Shah,
2000) are the principles of scarcity and social
proof for young people, the principles of
authority and scarcity for other people and for
women. Explanations are found in reactance
theory, which holds that consumers' freedom of
choice is threatened (Fuegen & Brehm, 2004;
Kaptein & Eckles, 2010). These results may
reverse the effect for consumers themselves, who
believe they are less influenced by advertising.
Previous research suggests that with respect to
socially desirable issues, this type of perception
may disappear so that people do not significantly
overestimate the influence on others compared to
the perceived influence on themselves (Eisend,
2008). Future research should find other causal
relationships between Cialdini's (2001-2021)
persuasive principles and third person effects
(TPE) (Youn, Faber & Shah, 2000), and identify
new factors for achieving persuasive influence.
Bibliographic references
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., &
Voss, G. B (2002). The Influence of Multiple
Store Environment Cues on Perceived
Merchandise Value and Patronage Intentions,
Journal of Marketing, 66(April), 120-41.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A Theory of Psychological
Reactance, New York: Academic Press.
Brug, J., Oenema, A., & Campbell, M. (2003).
Past, present, and future of computer-tailored
nutrition education. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 77, 1028-1034.
Cialdini, R. (2001). Influence, Science and
Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
https://www.influenceatwork.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/02/Influence_SP.pdf
Cialdini, R.B. (2016). Pre-suasion. A
revolutionary way to influence and persuade.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Cialdini, R.B. (2021). Influence, New and
Expanded: The Psychology of Persuasion,
New York: Harper Business.
Clee, M. A., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980).
Consumer Behavior and Psychological
Reactance. Journal of Consumer Research,
6(4), 389-405.
Cohen, J., & Davis, R. G. (1991). Third-person
effect s and the differential impact in negative
political advertising. Journalism Quarterly,
68(4), 680-688.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for
the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
https://www.utstat.toronto.edu/~brunner/old
class/378f16/readings/CohenPower.pdf
Davison, W. Ph. (1996). The Third Person Effect
Revisited, International Journal of Public
Opinion Research, 8(2), 113-19.
DeVellis, R. (2012). Scale development: Theory
and application. (3rd ed.) SAGE
Publications.
Eisend, M. (2008). Explaining The Impact of
Scarcity Appeals in Advertising: The
Mediating Role of Perceptions of
Volume 12 - Issue 62
/ February 2023
113
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Susceptibility. Journal of Advertising, 37(3),
33-40. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-
3367370303
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive
dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson
Fogg, B. J., & Eckles, D. (2007). Mobile
Persuasion: 20 Perspectives on the Future of
Behavior Change. Mobile Persuasion, pages
1–166. Stanford Captology Media.
Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive Technology:
Using Computers to Change What We Think
and Do. Morgan Kaufmann.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/764008.7
63957
Fogg, B. J. (2009). A Behavior Model for
Persuasive Design. Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Persuasive
Technology Persuasive 09, April 26-29,
Claremont, California, USA.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The
persuasion knowledge: How people cope
with persuasion attempts. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21, 1-31.
Fuegen, K., & Brehm, J. W. (2004). The intensity
of affect and resistance to social influence.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,
pages 39-63
Ganeva, Z. (2016). Let's reinvent statistics with
IBM SPSS Statistics, Elestra. ISBN 978-619-
7292-01-5.
Gunther, A. C., & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased
Optimism and the Third-Person Effect,
Journalism Quarterly, 70(1), 58-67.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990930700010
7
Gunther, A. C., & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived
Persuasive Effects of Product Commercials
and Public-Service Announcements: Third-
Person Effects in New Domains,
Communication Research, 19(5), 574-96.
Gunther, A. C. (1991). What we think others
think: Cause and consequence in the third-
person effect. Communication Research,
18(3), 355-372
https://doi.org/10.1177/00936509101800300
4
Gunther, A., Bolt, D., Borzekowski, D.,
Liebhart, J., & Dillard, J. (2006). Presumed
Influence on Peer Norms: How Mass Media
Indirectly Affect Adolescent Smoking,
Journal of Communication, 56 (1), 52-68.
Hoy, W. K., & Smith, P. (2007). Influence: A key
to successful leadership. International Journal
of Educational Management, 21(2), 158-167.
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540710729944
Kaptein, M. (2012). Personalized Persuasion in
Ambient Intelligence. Eindhoven University
of Technology Library, Netherlands, ISBN:
978-90-386-3106-6.
Kaptein, M. C., & Eckles, D. (2010). Selecting
Effective Means to Any End: Futures and
Ethics of Persuasion Profiling. In Ploug, T.,
Hasle, P., and Oinas-Kukkonen, H., editors,
Persuasive Technology, pp. 82-93. Springer
Berlin / Heidelberg.
Kaptein, M., De Ruyter, B., Markopoulos, P., &
Aarts, E. (2012). Adaptive persuasive
systems: A study of tailored persuasive text
messages to reduce snacking. ACM Trans.
Interact. Intell. Syst. 2, рр. 10-25. DOI:
10.1145/2209310.2209313
Kaptein, M., Markopoulos, P., Ruyter, B., &
Aarts, E. (2009). Can you be persuaded?
Individual differences in susceptibility to
persuasion, IFIP Conference on Human-
Computer Interaction, LNCS, 5726,
pp.115-118.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/97
8-3- 642-03655-2_13
Kellermann, K., & Cole, T. (1994). Classifying
Compliance Gaining Mes- sages: Taxonomic
Disorder and Strategic Confusion.
Communication Theory, 4(1), 3-60.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2885.1994.tb00081.x
Latané, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of
research on group size and helping.
Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 308–324.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority.
London: Tavistock.
Mutz, D. (1989). The influence of perception of
media influence: Third person effects and the
public expectation of opinions, Intrnational
Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1(1),
pp. 3-23 https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/1.1.3
Noar, S. M., Benac, C. N., & Harris, M. S.
(2007). Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic
review of tailored print health behavior
change interventions. Psychological Bulletin,
133(4), 673–693.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The Spiral of
Silence a Theory of Public Opinion, Journal
of Communication, 24(2), 43-51.DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-
2466.1974.tb00367.x
O’Keefe, D. J. (1994). From Strategy-Based to
Feature-Based Analyses of Compliance
Gaining Message Classification and
Production. Communication Theory, 4(1),
61–69.
Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Hasle, P. F. V.,
Harjumaa, M., Segerstaahl, K., &
Ohrstrom, P. (2008). Persuasive Technology,
Third International Conference,
PERSUASIVE 2008, Oulu, Finland,
June 4-6, 2008. Proceedings, volume 5033 of
114
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
Springer.
Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-Person Effect
Research 1983-1992: A Review and
Synthesis, International Journal of Public
Opinion Research, 5(2), 167-84.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/5.2.167
Ploug, T., Hasle, P., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H.,
(2010). Persuasive Technology, volume 6137
of Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin,
Heidelberg.
Tsfati, Y., & Cohen, J. (2003). The Influence of
Presumed Media Influence on Democratic
Legitimacy: The Case of Gaza Settlers,
Communication Research, 32(6), 794-821.
Youn, S., Faber, R., & Shah, D. (2000).
Restricting Gambling Advertising and the
Third-Person Effect, Psychology &
Marketing, 17(7), 633-49.
https://dshah.journalism.wisc.edu/files/2017/
01/PAM2000.pdf
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions
of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End
Model and Synthesis of Evidence, Journal of
Marketing, 52(July), 2-22.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1251446