Advance Search

Breaking through the clutter and the impact of ambiguous arguments on consumers' purchase decisions

Chimeziem Elijah Nwankwo-Ojionu
University Putra Malaysia
Nor Azura Adzharuddin
University Putra
Moniza Waheed
University Putra
Azlina Mohd Khir
University Putra
Emem Chimeziem Elijah
University of Calabar
Keywords:
Copyright and Licensing:

Copyright (c) 2024 Chimeziem Elijah Nwankwo-Ojionu, Nor Azura Adzharuddin, Moniza Waheed, Azlina Mohd Khir, Emem Chimeziem Elijah

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Share:

How to Cite

Breaking through the clutter and the impact of ambiguous arguments on consumers’ purchase decisions. (2024). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 43(2), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.36615/1k83qp53
  • Articles
  • Submited: February 7, 2024
  • Published: December 6, 2024

Abstract

The study explored the proliferation and codification of discursive resources related to ambiguous arguments. This has led to a point of clarification. Marketing communication scholars have purposefully neglected the impact of ambiguous arguments, focusing instead on strategic clarity. As a result, there is a lack of conceptualisation and clarity surrounding this topic. Nonetheless, studies about ambiguous arguments are still nascent because of the overbearing criticisms that ambiguity hinders effective communication and persuasion. The study experimented to investigate the impact of ambiguous arguments on consumers’ purchase decisions and demonstrated that ambiguous arguments elicit favourable purchase decisions (participants (N=260): ambiguous 130 high and 130 low). The findings reveal that highly ambiguous arguments were rated significantly more with relevance, actuality, accuracy and comprehensiveness. In addition, individuals exposed to highly ambiguous argument advertisements elicited more favourable purchase decisions than those exposed to low ambiguous argument advertisements. The findings suggest that highly ambiguous arguments (ads) undoubtedly affect consumers’ purchase decisions because of the newness, complexity and irresolvable argument presented. The motivation could not predict the relationship between ambiguous arguments and consumers’ purchase decisions. The study tested some of the key predictions of the elaboration likelihood model and strategic ambiguity model with the cues; and discovered that individuals are persuaded by central or peripheral routes based on their capacity to elaborate. The implications and future studies concerning the current theoretical framework and verifiable findings on the impacts of ambiguous arguments are carefully discussed, based on the findings.

PDF
PDF

Article Metrics Graph

Article Views | PDF Downloads
Chart Graph | Range Graph

References

  1. Anirban, S. (2016). The joint effects of regulatory focus and argument strength of product related information on choice behaviour. Australasian Marketing Journal. Available from: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.AUSMJ.2016.07.001
  2. Anuja, S. & Anubhav, M. (2021). Effects of visual information and argument concreteness on purchase intention of consumers towards online hotel booking. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective. Available frfom: https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629211038069
  3. Arjulayana, A. & E. Enawar. (2022). Cosmetics advertisement language through discursive psychology. Linguistics. Available from: https://doi.org/10.29300/ling.v8i2.8016
  4. Arquero, J.L. & McLain, D.L. (2010). Preliminary validation of the Spanish version of the multiple stimulus types ambiguity tolerance scale (MSTAT-II). The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(1):476-484. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600004029
  5. Arquero, J.L., Polvillo, C.F., Hassall, T. and Joyce, J. (2017). Relationships between communication apprehension, ambiguity tolerance and learning styles in accounting students: Relaciones entre aprensión comunicativa, tolerancia a la ambigüedad y estilos de aprendizaje en estudiantes de contabilidad. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review, 20(1):13‒24.Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcsar.2015.10.002
  6. Atkin, J.L., McCardle, M. & Newell, S.J. (2008). The role of advertiser motives in consumer evaluations of ‘responsibility’messages from the alcohol industry. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(4):315‒335. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260802141447
  7. Barrera Lemarchand, F., Semeshenko, V., Navajas, J. & Balenzuela, P. (2020). Polarizing crowds: Consensus and bipolarization in a persuasive arguments model. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 30(6):063141. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0004504
  8. Beisecker, S., Schlereth, C. & Hein, S. (2024). Shades of fake news: How fallacies influence consumers’ perception. European Journal of Information Systems, 33(1):41‒60. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085x.2022.2110000:
  9. Bhattacherjee, A. & Sanford, C. (2006). Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS quarterly:805‒825. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/25148755
  10. Blair, J. A. (2020). The persuasive ineffectiveness of arguing and arguments. Available from: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA12/Friday/10/
  11. Branković, M. & Žeželj, I. (2016). Does it take a good argument to be persuaded? How manipulating quality of evidence affects message persuasiveness. Psihologija, 49(1):1‒18.
  12. Breves, P. (2021). Biased by being there: The persuasive impact of spatial presence on cognitive processing. Computers in Human Behavior, 119:106723. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106723
  13. Broecks, K.P., van Egmond, S., van Rijnsoever, F.J., Verlinde-van den Berg, M. & Hekkert, M.P. (2016). Persuasiveness, importance and novelty of arguments about carbon capture and storage. Environmental Science & Policy, 59:58‒66. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.004
  14. Brône, G. & Coulson, S. (2010). Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: Double grounding. Discourse Processes, 47(3): 212‒236. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959919
  15. Cahyani, D.A. & Islam, A.F. (2020). The ambiguity of English advertisement. Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa & Seni Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP, 4(1):49. Available from: https://doi.org/10.33394/jo-elt.v4i1.2436
  16. Cao, X., Liu, Y., Zhu, Z., Hu, J. & Chen, X. (2017). Online selection of a physician by patients: Empirical study from elaboration likelihood perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 73:403‒412. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.060
  17. Carpenter, C. J. (2020). Elaboration likelihood model. The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology, 1‒14. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0070
  18. Chang, H.H., Lu, Y.Y. & Lin, S.C. (2020). An elaboration likelihood model of consumer respond action to Facebook second-hand marketplace: Impulsiveness as a moderator. Information & Management, 57(2):103171. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103171
  19. Charles, C.S. (2008). How argument structure biases acceptance of advertising claims: Explaining deviations from logical reasoning in terms of subjective probabilities. ACR North American Advances.
  20. Chen, C.D., Zhao, Q. & Wang, J.L. (2022). How livestreaming increases product sales: role of trust transfer and elaboration likelihood model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(3):558‒573. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1827457
  21. Cheng, K.H. (2017). Reading an augmented reality book: An exploration of learners’ cognitive load, motivation, and attitudes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4). Available from: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2820
  22. Cheung, C.M. & Thadani, D.R. (2012). The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model. Decision Support Systems, 54(1):461‒470. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.008
  23. Childers, T.L., Houston, M.J. & Heckler, S.E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2):125‒134. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1086/208501
  24. Choi, E. & Hwang, J.S. (2011). Ads effectiveness of ambiguous ads message: Focusing on moderating effect of need for cognition and ambiguity tolerance. Journal of the Korean Psychological Association: Consumer · Advertising, 12(2):405‒426. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21074/kjlcap.2011.12.2.405
  25. Chou, C.Y., Chen, J.S. & Lin, S.K. (2021). Value cocreation in livestreaming and its effect on consumer‐simulated experience and continued use intention. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(6):2183‒2199. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12777
  26. Christina, H. (2014). An argument for comprehensiveness as the “special sauce” in a recipe for the patient-centered medical home. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3122/JABFM.2014.01.130296
  27. Codou, S., Pooya, T., Ioannis, C., Thanos., V. & Papadakis, M. (2021). Method in the madness? A meta-analysis on the strategic implications of decision comprehensiveness. Strategic Organization. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127020904973
  28. Crew, T. (2022). Classed markers of a working-class academic identity. Journal of Class & Culture. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1386/jclc_00011_1
  29. Dalrymple, K.A., Gomez, J. & Duchaine, B. (2013). The Dartmouth database of children’s faces: Acquisition and validation of a new face stimulus set. PloS one, 8(11):e79131. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079131
  30. Daugherty, T., Eastin, M.S. & Bright, L. (2008). Exploring consumer motivations for creating user-generated content. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2):16‒25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2008.10722139
  31. Dellaert, B.G., Shu, S.B., Arentze, T.A., Baker, T., Diehl, K., Donkers, B., ... & Steffel, M. (2020). Consumer decisions with artificially intelligent voice assistants. Marketing Letters, 31:335‒347. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09537-5
  32. Dobrosz-Michiewicz, K. (2017). Wieloznaczność poznawcza jako strategia komunikacyjna. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Litteraria Polonica, 41(3):213‒220.
  33. Eisenberg, E.M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication monographs, 51(3):227‒242. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390197
  34. El Hedhli, K., & Zourrig, H. (2022). Dual routes or a one-way to persuasion? The elaboration likelihood model versus the unimodel. Journal of Marketing Communications. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2022.2034033
  35. Elvira, I., Yogesh, K.D. & Rana N.P. (2021). The use of elaboration likelihood model in eWOM Research: Literature review and weight-analysis. Springer Nature. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85447-8_41
  36. Espinoza, M.M. (2021). Calculating the strength of rhetorical arguments in persuasive negotiation dialogues. Inteligencia Artificial, 24(67):36‒39. Available from: https://doi.org/ 10.4114/intartif. vol24iss67pp36-39
  37. Feather, N.T. (1969). Attribution of responsibility and valence of success and failure in relation to initial confidence and task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(2):129. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028071
  38. Fitts, J.K. (2010). Strategic ambiguity: The effects of viewing ambiguous advertisements on college students. Doctoral dissertation. USA: Washington State University. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/2376/103252
  39. Flanagin, A.J., Winter, S. & Metzger, M.J. (2020). Making sense of credibility in complex information environments: The role of message sidedness, information source, and thinking styles in credibility evaluation online. Information, Communication & Society, 23(7):1038‒1056. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1547411
  40. Förster, J., Marguc, J. & Gillebaart, M. (2010). Novelty categorization theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(9):736‒755. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00289
  41. Gao, X., Xu, X.Y., Tayyab, S.M.U. & Li, Q. (2021). How the live streaming commerce viewers process the persuasive message: An ELM perspective and the moderating effect of mindfulness. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 49:101087. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2021.101087
  42. Gordon, H. (2022). Reconsidering reconsent: Threats to internal and external validity when participants reconsent after debriefing. British Journal of Psychology. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12561
  43. Grant, C. & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: creating the blueprint for your “house.” Administrative issues. Journal Education Practice and Research, 4(2). Available from: https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
  44. Han, K.W. & Choi, H.-L. (2015). Use of ambiguity in advertising creativity: A cross-cultural perspective. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(26). Available from: https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i26/87112
  45. Hasan, Z., Naeem, M., Ahmed, S. & Zeerak, S. (2022). Impact of strategic ambiguity tagline on billboard advertising on consumers attention. Market Forces, 17(1):163–184. Available from: https://doi.org/10.51153/mf.v17i1.538
  46. Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: Methodology in the Social Sciences. Kindle Edition, 193. Available from: https://www.oeaw.ac.at/resources/Record/990003105430504498
  47. Hedlund, J., Kauffeldt, T.F. & Lammert, M. (2020). Persuasion under ambiguity. Theory and Decision, 90(3–4):455–482. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-020-09764-2
  48. Herz, M., Diamantopoulos, A. & Riefler, P. (2023). Consumers’ use of ambiguous product cues: The case of “regionality” claims. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 57(3):1395‒1422. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12548
  49. Hoffjann, O. (2021). Between strategic clarity and strategic ambiguity–oscillating strategic communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 27(2):284‒303. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-03-2021-0037
  50. Holford, D.L., Juanchich, M. and Sirota, M. (2022). Ambiguity and unintended inferences about risk messages for COVID-19. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 28(3):486–508. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000416
  51. Hopkins, V., Pickup, M. & Matthews, S. (2023). Ambiguous COVID-19 messaging increases unsafe socializing intentions. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.61.299
  52. Hung, Y., Grunert, K.G., Hoefkens, C., Hieke, S. & Verbeke, W. (2017). Motivation outweighs ability in explaining European consumers’ use of health claims. Food quality and preference, 58:34‒44. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.01.001
  53. Hurst, B. (2015). Not always fun: Older children’s play worlds in Australian outside school hours care. Journal of Playwork Practice, 2(1), 7‒22. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/205316215X14289372671159
  54. Iwama, Y. (2022). Influence of implicit theories on consumer behavior. J Stage Journal of Marketing. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7222/marketing.2022.008
  55. Jacobs, R.S., Werning, S., Jansz, J. & Kneer, J. (2021). Procedural arguments of persuasive games: An elaboration likelihood perspective. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 33(2):49–59. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000278
  56. Jain, M., Fernando, A.G. & Rajeshwari, K. (2020). How do consumers perceive brand campaigns on Twitter? In Re-imagining Diffusion and Adoption of Information Technology and Systems: A Continuing Conversation: IFIP WG 8.6 International Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT, TDIT 2020, Tiruchirappalli, India, December 18–19, 2020, Proceedings, Part II (pp. 438‒443). Springer International Publishing. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64861-9_38
  57. Jinfeng, J., Irwin, P., Levin., G. Gaeth, J. & Chatterjee, S. (2022). Sincere or exciting? Brand personality and argument quality on brand attitude. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2078
  58. Johansen, W. (2018). Strategic ambiguity. The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication, 1–4. Portico. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119010722.iesc0170
  59. Kao, T.F. & Du, Y.Z. (2020). A study on the influence of green advertising design and environmental emotion on advertising effect. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242:118294. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118294
  60. Karimi, S., Papamichail, K.N. & Holland, C.P. (2015). The effect of prior knowledge and decision-making style on the online purchase decision-making process: A typology of consumer shopping behaviour. Decision Support Systems, 77:137‒147. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.06.004
  61. Kellner, C., Le Quement, M.T. & Riener, G. (2022). Reacting to ambiguous messages: An experimental analysis. Games and Economic Behavior, 136:360‒378. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2022.09.007
  62. Khan, S.A., Zainuddin, M. & Al Mahi, M. (2023). From corporate hypocrisy to consumer protest: The role of moral outrage and mobilization networks. Business Research Proceedings, 1(1):38‒39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.51300/brp-2023-65
  63. Khoshsima, H. & Toroujeni, S.M.H. (2017). An introduction to the ambiguity tolerance: As a source of variation in English-Persian translation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(4):91‒103. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.4p.91
  64. Kim, S., Jung, A.R. & Kim, Y. (2016). The effects of typefaces on ad effectiveness considering psychological perception and perceived communicator’s power. Journal of Marketing Communications, 1‒26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2020.1765407
  65. Kochoian, N., Raemdonck, I., Frenay, M. & Zacher, H. (2017). The role of age and occupational future time perspective in workers’ motivation to learn. Vocations and Learning, 10:27‒45. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-016-9160-9
  66. Kokemuller, N. (2021). What is an ambiguous statement in advertising? Chron, 25 May. Available from: https://Smallbusiness.Chron.Com
  67. Koniak, P. & Cwalina, W. (2022). Does it pay to avoid speaking straight about controversial issues? Impact of argumentative ambiguity on the perception of the speaker. Journal of Communication Management, 26():84‒97. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-11-2020-0154
  68. Konovalova, A. & Petrova, T. (2022). Image and text in ambiguous advertising posters. In Proceedings of Seventh International Congress on Information and Communication Technology: ICICT 2022, London, Volume 4, August. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 109‒119. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2397-5_11
  69. Kretiková, E. & Fašková, V. (2016). Influence of Behavioural Economics and Psychology on Consumer Decision Making Process in Marketing Communication. In 3d International Conference on Applied Social Science Research (ICASSR 2015), August. Atlantis Press, 250‒252. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2991/ICASSR-15.2016.71
  70. Kulkarni, K.K., Kalro, A.D. & Sharma, D. (2020). The interaction effect of ad appeal and need for cognition on consumers’ intentions to share viral advertisements. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 19(4), 327‒338. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1809
  71. Lah, N.S.B.C., Hussin, A.R.B.C. & Dahlan, H.B.M. (2019). Information relevance factors of argument quality for e-commerce consumer review. In Recent Trends in Data Science and Soft Computing: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Reliable Information and Communication Technology (IRICT 2018). Springer International Publishing, 871‒881. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99007-1_81
  72. Larasati, K.L.D. & Yasa, N.N K. (2021). The role of positive emotion in mediating the effect of price discount on impulse buying Indomaret customers in Denpasar city, Indonesia. European Journal of Management and Marketing Studies, 6(2). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejmms.v6i2.1009
  73. Li, J. & Wagner, M.W. (2020). The value of not knowing: Partisan cue-taking and belief updating of the uninformed, the ambiguous, and the misinformed. Journal of Communication, 70(5):646‒669. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa022
  74. Liao, L. & Huang, T. (2021). The effect of different social media marketing channels and events on movie box office: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Information & Management, 58(7):103481. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103481
  75. Liu, C-H. (2017). Evaluating arguments during instigations of defence motivation and accuracy motivation. British Journal of Psychology. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/BJOP.12196
  76. Luttrell, A. & Petty, R.E. (2021). Evaluations of self-focused versus other-focused arguments for social distancing: An extension of moral matching effects. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(6):946‒954. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620947853
  77. Marc, F., Herz.A. D. & Riefler, P. (2023). Consumers' use of ambiguous product cues: The case of “regionality” claims. Journal of Consumer Affairs. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12548
  78. Markowitz, C. (2020). Sovereign wealth funds in Africa: Taking stock and looking forward. African Perspectives Global Insights.
  79. Masoud, M. & Zihagh, F. (2022). A meta-analysis of the elaboration likelihood model in the electronic word of mouth literature. International Journal of Consumer Studies. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12814
  80. McAlister, A.R. & Bargh, D. (2016), Dissuasion: the elaboration likelihood model and young children. Young Consumers, 17(3):210‒225. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-02-2016-00580
  81. McLain, D.L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individual's tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and psychological measurement, 53(1):183‒189. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053001020
  82. Mohammad, Z,, Amrullah, Z. & Masnun, A.M. (2023). From corporate hypocrisy to consumer protest: The role of moral outrage and mobilization networks. Available from: https://doi.org/10.51300/brp-2023-65
  83. Mzoughi, M.-N., Chaieb, S. & Garrouch, K. (2018). The effects of rhetorical ambiguity in advertising on comprehension and persuasion: moderating role of tolerance of ambiguity. Recherches En Sciences de Gestion, N°123(6):103–134. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3917/resg.123.0103
  84. Nasr, M. (2023). Varieties of ambiguity: How do voters evaluate ambiguous policy statements? Comparative Political Studies, 56(6):759‒787. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140221089652
  85. Neta, M., Berkebile, M. M., & Freeman, J. B. (2021). The dynamic process of ambiguous emotion perception. Cognition and Emotion, 35(4):722‒729. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2020.1862063
  86. Nilesh, S.B., Rollins, B.L. & Perri, M. (2017). Impact of animated spokes-characters in print direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising: An elaboration likelihood model approach. Health Communication. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1138382
  87. Norton, R.W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39(6):607‒619. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa3906_11
  88. Nowghabi, A.S. & Talebzadeh, A. (2019). Psychological influence of advertising billboards on city sight. Civil Engineering Journal, 5(2):390‒397. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/cej-2019-03091253
  89. Nwankwo-Ojionu, C.E., Adzharuddin, N.A., Waheed, M. & Mohd Khir, A. (2021). Impact of strategic ambiguity tagline on billboard advertising on consumers attention. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 12(1):e202204. Available from: https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/11432
  90. Nye, J.A., Baker, M.R., Bell, R., Kenny, A., Kilbourne, K.H., Friedland, K.D., ... & Wood, R. (2014). Ecosystem effects of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. Journal of Marine Systems, 133:103‒116. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.02.006
  91. Oryila, S.S. & Umar, A. (2016). Vagueness and ambiguity in print media advertisements. The Beam: Journal of Arts & Science, 9:1‒13.
  92. Pan, Y. (2024). Research on the influence of advertising content on consumer purchasing behavior based on elaboration likelihood model (ELM). Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 27:439–444. Available from: https://doi.org/10.54097/mk0f1454
  93. Pand, Y.R, & Gui, W. (2016). Influence of advertisement message on fitbar billboard towards brand awareness and its implication to brand image. Humaniora, 7(1):63‒76. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21512/humaniora.v7i1.3489
  94. Park, J.K. & Shapiro, S. (2023). Promoting the ambiguity of a public health crisis can facilitate adjustment: The joint influence of an ambiguous message focus and implicit self-theories. Health Communication, 38(2):326‒334. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1950297
  95. Paweł, K. & Cwalina, W. (2021). Does it pay to avoid speaking straight about controversial issues? Impact of argumentative ambiguity on the perception of the speaker. Journal of Communication Management. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-11-2020-0154
  96. Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and Persuasion. Springer Series in Social Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1
  97. Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
  98. Piao, P. & Zhang, H. (2023). Research on social media advertising persuasion based on the elaboration likelihood model. SHS web of conferences. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202315403024
  99. Pieters, R., Wedel, M. & Batra, R. (2010). The stopping power of advertising: Measures and effects of visual complexity. Journal of Marketing, 74(5):48‒60. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.5.048
  100. Puškarević, I., Nedeljković, U. & Pušnik, P. (2018). Characterization of letterform complexity. In Proceedings of 9th International Symposium on Graphic Engineering and Design. 8-10th November 2018, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia (pp. 605-611). Available from: https://doi.org/10.24867/GRID-2018-p73
  101. Rai, R. & Tripathi, S. (2020). Consumer buying psychology and brand perception: Influence of word of mouth communication. Journal of Content, Community, and Communication, 12:159‒168. Available from: https://doi.org/ 10.31620/JCCC.12.20/15
  102. Shahab, M.H., Ghazali, E. & Mohtar, M. (2021). The role of elaboration likelihood model in consumer behaviour research and its extension to new technologies: A review and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4):664–689. Portico. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12658
  103. Shishkin, D. & Ortoleva, P. (2023). Ambiguous information and dilation: An experiment. Journal of Economic Theory, 105610. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2023.105610
  104. Simonovic, N. & Taber, J. M. (2022). Psychological impact of ambiguous health messages about COVID-19. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 45(2):159‒171. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-021-00266-2
  105. Simonovic, N. & Taber, J.M. (2023). Effects of construal level on responses to ambiguous health information about alcohol consumption. Health Communication, 38(2):238‒251. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1945197
  106. Singh, H., Tiwary, A.K. & Singh, S. (2023). Experimental investigation on the performance of ground granulated blast furnace slag and nano-silica blended concrete exposed to elevated temperature. Construction and Building Materials, 394:132088. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132088
  107. Sun, Z. & Firestone, C. (2021). Curious objects: How visual complexity guides attention and engagement. Cognitive Science, 45(4):e12933. Available from: https://doi.org/ 10.1111/cogs.12933
  108. Susmann, M.W., Xu, M., Clark, J.K., Wallace, L.E., Blankenship, K.L., Philipp-Muller, A.Z., ... & Petty, R.E. (2022). Persuasion amidst a pandemic: Insights from the elaboration likelihood model. European Review of Social Psychology, 33(2):323‒359. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1964744
  109. Szubielska, M., Ganczarek, J., Pietras, K. & Stolińska, A. (2021). The impact of ambiguity in the image and title on the liking and understanding of contemporary paintings. Poetics, 101537. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2021.101537
  110. Varpio, L., Paradis, E., Uijtdehaage, S. & Young, M. (2020). The distinctions between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework. Academic Medicine, 95(7):989‒994
  111. Vibhanshu, A., Gong, J. & Li, B. (2014). Examining the impact of contextual ambiguity on search advertising keyword performance: A topic model approach. Social Science Research Network. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/6471371.V1
  112. Von der Wense, I. & Hoffjann, O. (2024). They are always ambiguous when they don't know how it will turn out. Dissemination, practices, and ethical assessment of strategic ambiguity. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 01968599231216702. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/01968599231216702
  113. Weber, C., Dunaway, J. & Johnson, T. (2012). It’s all in the name: Source cue ambiguity and the persuasive appeal of campaign ads. Political Behavior, 34, 561‒584. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9172-y
  114. Weber, K., Rach, N., Minker, W. & André, E. (2020). How to win arguments: Empowering virtual agents to improve their persuasiveness. Datenbank-Spektrum, 20, 161‒169. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/S13222-020-00345-9
  115. Wilson, R. T. & Suh, T. (2018). Advertising to the masses: The effects of crowding on the attention to place-based advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 37(3):402‒420. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2017.1331967
  116. Wixom, B.H., & Todd, P.A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1):85‒102. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1050.0042
  117. Xu, H. & Tracey, T.J. (2015). Reciprocal influence model of working alliance and therapeutic outcome over individual therapy course. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(3):351. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000089
  118. Y.J., Sohn. & Edwards, H.H. (2018). Strategic ambiguity and crisis apologia: The impact of audiences' interpretations of mixed messages. International Journal of Strategic Communication. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1512111
  119. Yen-Chun, C., Hao-Chun, H. & Liang, T.-P. (2021). Elaboration likelihood model, endogenous quality indicators, and online review helpfulness. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DSS.2021.113683
  120. Yi, L., & Hu, H. (2021). Online review helpfulness: The moderating effects of review comprehensiveness. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2020-0856
  121. Yun, B., Thomopoulos, R., Bisquert, P. & Croitoru, M. (2018). Defining argumentation attacks in practice: An experiment in food packaging consumer expectations. In Graph-Based Representation and Reasoning: 23rd International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2018, Edinburgh, UK, June 20-22, 2018, Proceedings 23 . Springer International Publishing, 73‒87. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91379-7_6
  122. Zaki, M., Hasan, M., Usman, U., Ahmed, S. & Zeerak, S. (2022). Impact of strategic ambiguity tagline on billboard advertising on consumers attention. Market Forces. Available from: https://doi.org/10.51153/mf.v17i1.538
  123. Zeng, J., Li, J., He, Y., Gao, C., Lyu, M. & King, I. (2020). What changed your mind: The roles of dynamic topics and discourse in argumentation process. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020, April, 1502‒1513. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1145/3366423.3380223
  124. Zhou, Q. (2022). Influence of parameters of optical fibers on optical soliton interactions. Chinese Physics Letters, 39(1):010501. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1088/0256-307X/39/1/010501
How to Cite
Breaking through the clutter and the impact of ambiguous arguments on consumers’ purchase decisions. (2024). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 43(2), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.36615/1k83qp53

Send mail to Author

Send Cancel

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Custom technologies based on your needs

  • ORCID
  • Crossref
  • PubMed
    • Clarivate