The Effectiveness of Advertising Explicit Warranties

Author(s): Grahame R. Dowling

Source: Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 4 (1985), pp. 142-152
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000080
Accessed: 28-09-2015 05:29 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.85.133 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:29:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Effectiveness of Advertising

Explicit Warranties
Grahame R. Dowling
An experimentwas performedto examinethe effectsof a manufacturer's
warrantycontainedin printadvertisements
for threenewproducts.Contraryto expectationsthatconsumerswoulduse thisextra informationto changetheirattitudestowardsthe products,
had no effecton perceivedriskor intenthe inclusionof a warrantyin theadvertisements
tionto buytheseproducts.Theresultsof thisstudybringintoquestionthevalueof manufacturers'warrantiesas a promotionaltool.

GRAHAME
R. DOWLING
is Senior
Lecturer in the Department of
Commerce, The University of
Newcastle, New South Wales,
2308, Australia. Thanks are expressed to John Rossiterand the
reviewers for comments on an
earlier draft.

Product warranties may be either express or implied. Where a manufacturer

sells goods to a consumer in the normal course of business there is an implied
condition that the goods so supplied are of merchantable quality except where
specific defects are drawn to the customer's attention before the sale. An express warranty is a statement or representation, generally in writing, made by
a seller with respect to the characteror quality of an article sold. It is a guarantee.
The stated conditions of an express warranty become part of the contract of
purchase and sale. The decision to supply goods with an express warranty is
at the discretion of the vendor.
Express product warranties are thought to perform a variety of functions, e.g.
ConsumerProtection
consumers
to
(a) protect
by assuringthem that the productsold is the vendor's product and that it fulfills specified conditions;
VendorProtection
(b) to protect sellers from unreasonableclaims by customers [Udell and Anderson
1968];
MarketingRelated
(c) to act as a general positive influence in the purchase process [Feldman 1976];
(d) to add assurance of product quality and value [Feldman 1976];
(e) to act as a promotionaldevice for the purposeof differentiatingsimilarcompeting
products [Kendalland Russ 1975];
(f) to reducethe perceivedriskinherentin buyinga new product[Roselius1971];and
(g) to establisha feedback system concerningproductdesign, manufacturingquality, delivery, etc. [Kennedy, Pearce, and Quelch 1980].
The public policy effects of explicit warranties are manifested in terms of
the equity of the buyer-seller relationship. Both consumers and vendors are
protected by warranties, with consumers seemingly receiving the most benefit.
The concern for protecting consumers is the belief that individuals, in acquiring goods and services, find themselves in a disadvantageous position in dealing with large manufacturers. Warranties also represent an attempt to ensure
that consumers are more fully informed about the product offered for sale. The
public policy implications of more information in the hands of consumers are
that there should be less chance that the individual will misallocate his/her
resources when deciding to buy a product.
Kennedy, Pearce, and Quelch [1980, p. 265] note that during the 1960s and
early 1970s there was increasing government concern in the U.S. and Canada
142

Dowling

This content downloaded from 14.139.85.133 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:29:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AdvertisingExplicit Warranties

143

that the consumerwas not receivinga fair deal. The riskof economicloss was
being shifted to consumersin a varietyof ways. For example,productswere
designedto have an artificiallyshort economic life, there was frequentproduct failure,partsand servicewere unavailable,productswere not repairedproperly or quickly,and so forth.These issues were of sufficientconcern to consumers to constitutea politicalissue. They also stimulateda new interestin
a varietyof variousformsof warrantylegislatione.g. the Magnuson-MossWarranty, FederalTradeCommissionImprovementAct, 1975.
While there seems to have been widespreaduse of explicitwarranties[see
for example,Udell and Anderson1968]therehas been relativelylittleresearch
which examines how consumers react to and use them in their purchase
decision-makingprocess. Without this research it is difficult for marketers
and public policy makersto gauge the impact of explicit warrantieson consumer choice.
This researchlimits its scope to an examinationof the effects of advertising
warrantieson potentialconsumers'affectivepredispositiontowardsnew products. Notificationthat a productis sold with a warrantyattemptsto change
consumers'attitudestowardthe product.Specifically,this studytests whether
the advertisingof an explicit warrantyby a vendor (a) serves to reduce the
perceived risk inherent in the purchaseof a new product,and/or (b) affects
potential customers' intentions to buy such a product.'

Warranties as a Device
to Reduce Perceived
Risk

The researchnoted previously suggests that warrantiescan and do enhance

the attractivenessof a productby reducingthe perceivedrisk inherentin its
purchase.Studiesconductedby McClureand Ryans[1968],Udell and Anderson [1968], Kendalland Russ [1975], Perry and Perry [1976],and Feldman
[1976]indicatethat manufacturers,retailers,and legislatorsact in accordance
with this proposition.The theoreticaland empiricalresearchdealingwith risk
perception and the use of risk handling strategiessupportsthis view.
Since the introduction of the concept of perceived risk into consumer
researchby Bauer[1960],many researchershave explicitlyincorporatedthe
perceptionof risk into studies of consumerchoice. Reviews are providedby
Ross [1974], Stem, Lamb, and MacLachlan [1977], and Dowling [1982].
Researchinto the perceptionof riskproposesthatperceivedriskacts as a purchase inhibitingfactor.Consumers,when faced with the purchaseof a risky
productare thoughtto attemptto reducethe riskinvolved.Researchhas shown
that consumers invoke a variety of decision heuristicswhich attemptto (a)
reducethe perceiveduncertaintyaboutthe performanceof the product,and/or
(b) reduce the adverse consequences to be suffered if the productproves to
be unsatisfactory,and/or(c)shiftthe consumerfromone type of loss to another
for which (s)he has more tolerance.
First-ordereffectsof expresswarrantiesare to reducethe impactof any postpurchase adverse consequences, e.g. financial loss. Second-ordereffects include the possiblereductionof pre-purchasepsychologicaluncertainty.Aaker
and Myers [1975,p. 324] arguethat under these circumstancesthe potential
consumer will move towards a more balanced or tension-freemental state.
Also, if an express warrantyis perceived to add value (or quality)to a product this should have a positive effect on intention to buy. Where a product
has a high technicalcontent the consumeris at a comparativedisadvantage,
relativeto the manufacturer,in regardto understandingthe way the product
functions.Thisoccursbecausethe cost to the consumerof collectingdataabout
such factorsas the potentialdangersassociatedwith using the productmay
be prohibitive.In these cases the manufacturerhas a comparativeadvantage

This content downloaded from 14.139.85.133 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:29:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

144

Dowling

with respect to the consumer in seeking to reduce any risk associated with
the purchase and use of the product.
Often advertisingis the first point of contact between a manufacturerand
a potentialconsumer.If a warrantyis a determinantattributeaffectingchoice
among similarproductsthen the use of express productwarrantiesin advertisementsshould have a positive effect on purchaseintentionsand a negative
effect on riskperception.The researchdiscussedbelow was conductedto test
these hypotheses.
Research Design

An experimentwas performedin which a conveniencesampleof 236 Newcastle (Australia)residentswas asked to evaluate three new products shown in
separateprint advertisements-a flat screen television set, a domestic electrostaticair cleaner,and a new form of clothes cleaner.The flat screen television set was a productunavailablein Australiaat the time of the study, the
air cleaner representeda domestic adaptionof an industrialproduct, while
the clothes cleaner was a technologicallyfeasible new product.
All productswere priced at $389 and were not identifiedby brand name.
Brandname identificationwas withheldfromrespondentsbecauseShimpand
Bearden [1979]found that warrantorreputationhad a significanteffect on
consumers'confidence when buying a new product.Also, no mention was
made aboutthe type or size of the retailerwho would sell the product.Wilkes
and Wilcox [1976]have found that consumersexpect warrantysupportfrom
retailersas well as manufacturers.Withholdinginformationabout the identity of the vendor attemptedto ensure that respondentsdid not confound the
manufacturer'swarrantywith any retailersupportedgeneralproductreturns
policies. Debriefinga subset of respondents (n= 25) at the end of the study
indicatedthat duringthe course of the study they were not concernedabout
the role of retailers.
The productswere selected so that their intrinsiccues had low confidence
and low predictivevalues for potentialconsumers-all were technologically
complex [Shimpand Bearden1979].By settinga high price for the products2
and minimizingthe value of intrinsicand selected extrinsiccues (no retailer
identification,no comparisonwith competitiveproducts,no brandnames) a
deliberateattemptwas made to ensure that the productswere perceived as
inherently risky. Two focus group interviews conducted prior to the main
study supportedthis view. Accordingly,the nature of the product and the
presence of a warrantyshould be the main factors used by respondentsto
evaluate the perceived risk of the stimulus objects.
The researchdesignused was a 3 x 3 between-subjectsmultivariateanalysis
of covariance.The dependent variableswere perceived risk and likelihood
of purchase. The independent variables consisted of three products, three
levels of warranty promotion (none, low, high), and the covariates product
interest, specific self-confidence, and importance of warranty.
Perceived risk was measured using the index suggested by Peter and Tarpey
[1975], viz:

where

(1)
OPR, = nE i=1
PLijx ILij
OPRj = overall perceived risk for product j.
PL, = probability of loss i from the purchase of product j.
ILij = the importance of loss i from the purchase of product j.
n = the number of types of loss.

This content downloaded from 14.139.85.133 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:29:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

145

Advertising Explicit Warranties

Table 1.

Internal Reliability of Multi-item Measures

Product

Specific
Self-Confidence

Perceived Risk

Flat ScreenTV

Alpha
MeanInter-item
Correlation

.87
.90

.52

Air Cleaner

Alpha
MeanInter-item
Correlation

.86
.88

.52

ClothesCleaner

Alpha
MeanInter-item
Correlation

.87
.78

.53

Variableswere measured using the approach employed by Peter and

Tarpey[1975].The probabilityand importanceof loss variablesforma natural
pairing.Thatis, the absence of eithervariablewould eliminaterisk.Also, the
adoptionof a multiplicativecombinationrule effectivelyreducesthe influence
of a nonsalientadverse consequence on the overall level of perceived risk.
Based on previous researchthe following six types of loss were used in this
study:performance,physical,social,financial,psychological,and convenience.
The internal reliabilityof this scale was measured by Cronbachalpha and
the mean inter-itemcorrelation[Ray1972].Reliabilityestimatesare reported
in Table 1 and are satisfactoryfor this type of research [Nunnally 1967, p.
226]. Likelihoodof purchase was measuredby a single 15-pointscale with
endpoints labelled "definitelywould buy" and "definitelywould not buy"
if the productwas released onto the market.
Specificself-confidencewas measuredas the sum of two 9-pointLikertscales
derived from Bell [1967], which asked how confident and experienced
respondentsperceivedthemselves to be when buying/evaluatingthe type of
productin the advertisementto which they were exposed. The mean interitem correlationfor this variableis reportedin Table 1 and is satisfactoryfor
this type of research.
Productinterestand warrantyimportancewere each measuredby a single
9-point scale. Respondentswere asked whether or not they took a keen interestin the type of productin the advertisementto which they were exposed
and how importantit was to them that a new product was sold with a
warranty.
Each respondentwas asked to read an advertisementfor one of the products. Advertisementswere assignedrandomlyacrossrespondents.The advertisements containedeither no statementconcerningan express warrantyor
one of the expresswarrantystatementsin Table2. The wordingof each warranty statementwas kept simple (no legal phraseology)to aid ease of interpretation.Debriefinga subset of respondents(n= 25) at the completionof the
study revealedno confusionsurroundingthe termsand conditionsof the warranty. Owing to the nature of the productthe high warrantycondition differedacrossproducts.Afterreadingthe advertisementrespondentsanswered
a set of questions concerningtheir reactions to the product.

This content downloaded from 14.139.85.133 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:29:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

146

Dowling

Table 2.

Explicit Warranties
Warranty Condition

Product

Results

Low

High

FlatScreenTV

12 monthwarranty
againstfaulty
manufacture

1 yearwarrantyon
electrical
components,
plus
3 yearwarrantyon
picturedisplay

Air Cleaner

12 monthwarranty
againstfaulty
manufacture

1 yearwarrantyon
electricalcomponents,
plus
2 yearwarrantyon
powersupply
components

ClothesCleaner

12 monthwarranty
againstfaulty
manufacture

1 yearwarrantyon
faultyworkmanship
and materials,
plus
5 yearwarrantyon
radiationseals

Multivariateanalysis of covariance (MANCOVA)was used to conduct the

manipulationcheckson the majortreatmentvariableand to test the hypotheses
outlinedearlier.To help the readerinterpretthe resultsof this analysisa brief
descriptionof MANCOVAis provided.MANCOVAis the multivariateextension of analysisof covariance(ANCOVA).When a set of dependentvariables
are intercorrelated,multivariateanalysis of variance can be used to form a
linear combinationof the criterionvariablesand then to use the set of treatment variables to account for the generalised variance of these criterion
variables.If covariatesare included in the researchdesign, this procedureis
performedafter adjustingfor the effects of the covariates.To aid the interpretationof the results of MANCOVAit is also helpful to perform an ANCOVA. Consequently, in the tables that follow two sets of analysis are
reported:"all" referringto the multivariateanalysis and then each dependent variable in a univariateanalysis.
Interpretationof the ANCOVAsshould be undertakenwith care as this approachinflatesthe probabilityof a Type I error.As Spector[1977]has argued
however, when hypothesis testing is the aim of the analysis, a univariate
analysis is appropriateto show the ability of each dependentvariableto differentiatebetween the various treatmentgroups independentlyof the other
dependent variables.

ManipulationChecks MANCOVAwas used to test the effectiveness of the warrantymanipulation

for each product. The test consisted of a single factor (low, high warranty)
and two response variables(satisfactionwith the warrantyand adequacy of
warrantycoverage).Bothresponsevariableswere measuredon a single9-point
scale with endpointslabelled "extremelysatisfactory"and "notat all satisfactory." Because it made no sense to ask questions about the satisfactionand
coverage of a warranty for those subjects who received an advertisement
withouta warranty,this manipulationcheck only appliesto the low/highwarranty conditions.

This content downloaded from 14.139.85.133 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:29:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Advertising Explicit Warranties

Table 3.
Source

147

Warranty Manipulation Checks

Flat Screen TV
F

DF

Prob.

Covariates
Alla

Satisfaction
Coverage
OverallGrandMean
Alla

Satisfaction
Coverage
Warranty
Alla

Satisfaction
Coverage
Error
Satisfaction
Coverage
Source

1.02b

6,86

0.42

0.26
0.71

3,44
3,44

0.86
0.55

7.13c

2,43

0.00

10.06
1.09

1,44
1,44

0.00
0.30

7.25c

2,43

0.00

14.48
6.30

1,44
1,44

0.00
0.02

DF

Prob.

2.17b

6,94

0.05

0.57
0.90

3,48
3,48

0.64
0.45

10.99c

2,47

0.00

21.28
7.04

1,48
1,48

0.00
0.01

8.43c

2,47

0.00

1,48
1,48

0.00
0.00

DF

Prob.

1.52b
8.63
10.16

6,102
3,52
3,52

0.18
0.10
0.09

10.07c
14.92
13.93

2,51
1,52
1,52

0.00
0.00
0.00

12.25c

2,51

0.00

1,52
1,52

0.00
0.00

mean square= 3.59

mean square= 4.80
Air Cleaner
F

Covariates
Alla

Satisfaction
Coverage
OverallGrandMean
Alla

Satisfaction
Coverage
Warranty
Alla

Satisfaction
Coverage
Error
Satisfaction
Coverage

Source
Covariates
Alla
Satisfaction
Coverage
OverallGrandMean
All
Satisfaction
Coverage
Warranty
Alla

Satisfaction
Coverage
Error
Satisfaction
Coverage

15.53
14.25
mean square= 3.42
mean square = 4.02

Clothes Cleaner
F

20.92
13.64

mean square= 3.88

mean square =4.47

"All"=both dependent variables combined in a multivariatetest.

value based on Wilk's LikelihoodRatio
c
F value based on Hotelling T2

bF

This content downloaded from 14.139.85.133 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:29:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

148

Dowling

Table 3 presents the results of this analysis. After adjustingfor the three
covariatesthe effects of the warrantyconditionsfor both the multivariateand
univariate analyses were significant. Also, for all products the warranty
manipulationsworked as intended with the high warrantycondition being
perceived as more satisfactory(means:6.2 TV; 6.7 Air Cleaner;6.0 Clothes
CleanerV's 4.0; 4.7; 3.4) and providinga more adequate coverage (5.2 TV;
6.1 Air Cleaner;5.8 ClothesCleanerV's 3.7; 4.0; 3.6). Because the covariates
were not significantand only one treatmentfactor was involved no further
analysis is required to establish that the warranty conditions worked as
expected.
To check thatthe threeproductsused in this study were perceiveddifferently, a separateconvenience sample of ten judges evaluated each product on
six 7-pointLikertscales. Eachscale measuredone of the following attributes:
relativeadvantage,ease of use, complexity,compatibilitywith lifestyle and
otherproducts,abilityto affordthe product,and trialability.These attributes
were derivedfrom Rogers[1962].Table4 providesoperationaldefinitionsof
these attributesand a profileof the averageratingof the judges for each product. Interjudgereliabilities(agreement)are reportedin Table5. Becausejudges
ratedeach productattributeon a scalehavingseven responsecategories,agreement between judges was defined to occurwhenever responseswere within
one scale categoryof each other.Table4 shows that eleven of the twenty-one
interproductcomparisonsare significantlydifferent.For the purpose of this
study each product is considered to have a distinct identity.
Hypothesis Testing The main hypothesis of this study was tested using a MANCOVA.The factors consisted of the three productsand three warrantyconditionsdescribed
previouslyand two covariates,productinterestand specific self-confidence.
Table 6 presents the results of this analysis. Inspection of these results indicatesthatafteradjustingfor the effectsof the covariatesthe warrantyvariable
Table 4.
Attribute
Relative Advantage
Ease of Use
Complexity
Compatibility

Product Profile
Low

High
cc

TVAC
CC

TV AC

TV

AC

CC

Lifestyle
AC TV

CC

Other Products
Affordability

CC TV

AC

Trialability

CC
TV

AC

TV= flat reen television

CC= clot s cleaner
AC= air -aner

TV

ACCC

(a) An al drawnbetween two products indicates a t statistic significantat p<.05.

(b) Desc: tions of each productattributegiven to judges were: relative advantage=product
shoul]
ork better than existing products;ease of use =product should be easy to use;
complexity=easy to understand how product works; compatibility-lifestyle/other
products=product would fit in well with current lifestyle / other products in home;
affordability= couldaffordto buy one of theseproducts;trialability= easy to use the product
in the retailer'sshowroom.

This content downloaded from 14.139.85.133 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:29:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Advertising Explicit Warranties

Table 5.

149

Interjudge Reliabilities
T.V.

Air Cleaner

Clothes Cleaner

Relative Advantage

.73

.80

.82

Ease of Use
Complexity

.87
.47

1.00
1.00

.91
.73

Compatibility
Lifestyle
Other Products
Affordability
Trialability
Average

.49
.73
.82
.87
.74

.67
.89
.62
.84
.83

.87
.87
.93
.98
.87

was ineffective in reducingrisk perceptionor increasingrespondents'intentions to buy the product.These results are contraryto expectations.
Table 6 shows that the covariates and the type of product affected the
dependent variables.3 Respondents who were more interested and
knowledgeableabouta particularnew productstatedthatthey wouldbe more
likely to want to buy one. Also, risk perceptionwas marginallyassociated
with the type of productbeing evaluated.Bothof these findingsseem to have
face validity.
Table 6.

Warranty Effects on Risk Perception

and Behavioral Intention
F

Source

DF

Prob.

Covariates
Alla

Perceived Risk
BehavioralIntention

8.34b

4,448

0.00

0.82
17.25

2,225
2,225

0.44
0.00

84.64c

2,224

0.00

130.32
15.50

1,225
1,225

0.00
0.00

OverallGrandMean
Alla

Perceived Risk
BehavioralIntention
Product
Alla

3.94C

4.448

0.00

Perceived Risk
BehavioralIntention

3.85
2.65

2,225
2,225

0.03
0.07

Alla

0.22b

4,448

0.93

Perceived Risk
BehavioralIntention

0.36
0.07

2,225
2,225

0.70
0.93

0.41b
0.36
0.44

8,448
4,225
4,225

0.91
0.84
0.78

Warranty

ProductX Warranty
Alla
Perceived Risk
BehavioralIntention
Error
Perceived Risk
BehavioralIntention

mean square=4000
mean square= 11.3

a "All"=both dependent variables combined in a multivariatetest.

b F value

based on Wilk's Likelihood Ratio

c F value based on Hotelling T2

This content downloaded from 14.139.85.133 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:29:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

150

Dowling

It is possible that the three products used in this study did not provoke
enoughoverallinterestin respondentsfor the warrantiesto affectriskperception or behavioralintention.This does not appearto be the case. The product
interestvariablehad a mean score of 5.0 (on a 9-pointscale) with a standard
deviation of 2.2 for the three products.
Althoughthe perceived risk measure showed an acceptablelevel of internal reliabilityit is possible that the manner in which each pair of PLi, ILi
variableswas combined may have affected the results. The summation approachin the measurementindex used to operationaliseperceivedrisk (equation 1) has neither been theoreticallyjustified by its users nor criticizedby
nonusers.Aggregationacrossvarioustypesof loss may resultin a compromise
value. In effect summationresults in less utilizationof the separatedimensions of the perceivedriskconstruct.To testwhetherthe summationprocedure
suppressedany relationshipbetween the warrantyeffects and the dependent
variables another MANCOVAwas computed. In this analysis a "disaggregated"measure of perceived risk (eachPli x ILij)and the behavioralintention measurewere used as the dependentvariables.The results, reported
in Table 7, again show no relationshipbetween the warrantyvariable and
respondents'affectivepredispositiontowardsthe products.Consequently,the
aggregationprocess adoptedin the Peter and Tarpey(1975)index of perceived risk is not responsible for the ineffectiveness of the warrantyfactor.
Discussion

The researchdesign employed in this study focused more on controllingfor

threatsto internalratherthan externalvalidity. Consequently,generalization
of the findings reportedhere should be undertakenwith caution. Notwithstandingthis warning,the results of this study suggest that the effectiveness
of highlightinga manufacturer'swarrantyin an advertisementmay not be
as useful as previouslythought.This occurredeven though an advertisement
containinga warrantyprovidesinformationto consumersthat can help them
make a more informed decision than they would in the absence of that
information.
Appliancesand consumerelectronicproductsare matureproductcategories
which make considerableuse of warranties.Consequently,the use of three
such productsin this researchmay account for the lack of a significantrelationship between the use of a warrantyand its effect on risk perceptionand
purchaseintentions.Forexample,it is possiblethat respondentsassumedthat
each of the productspresented to them for evaluationwould automatically
be accompaniedby a warranty.Hence, explicitmention of the warrantyprovided no new informationto integrateinto their product evaluations. The
possibilityexists that the effectiveness of advertisingan explicitwarrantyfor
a productin a less matureproductclass would be greaterthan for the products studied here. Replicationof this study using productsin various stages
of their life cycle is needed.
If consumersdo not use warrantyinformationwhen readingadvertisements
then manufacturersare unlikely to provide this informationin this form of
communication.This is not to say however, that explicit warrantiesare not
importantto consumerswhen evaluatingproducts.It is highly probablethat
at the time an actualpurchaseis being consummateda warrantyis an important element of the product mix. Also, as Wilkes and Wilcox [1976] have
shown, consumersexpect the retailerto play a majorpart in rectifyingproduct malfunctions.What this researchhas failed to establishis the usefulness
of advertisingexplicit warranties.
Much more informationis needed concerningconsumers'perceptionsand
use of express warrantiesbefore public policy makers will be in a position

This content downloaded from 14.139.85.133 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:29:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Advertising Explicit Warranties

Table 7.
Source

151

Warranty Effects on Risk Perception

and Behavioral Intention
F

DF

Prob.

3.37b

14,438

0.00

Overall Grand Mean

Alla

30.93c

7,219

0.00

Product
Alla

3.67c

14,438

0.00

Warranty
All"

0.66b

14,438

0.81

1.07b

28,791

0.37

Covariates
Alla

Productx Warranty

All"
Error

Types of Loss
Performance
Physical
Social
Convenience
Financial
Psychological
Behavioral intention

mean square= 222

mean square= 300
mean square=97
mean square= 370
mean square= 370
mean square= 190
mean square= 11

a "All"= both
dependent variables combined in a multivariatetest.
b F value based on Wilk's Likelihood Ratio
c F value based on Hotelling T2

to increase or decrease regulation regarding their use in the marketplace. The

concept of a fair deal for consumers needs to be interpreted within the context of the provision of adequate information to consumers to ensure efficient
operation of market activity. Public policy makers need to blend research findings from law, economics, and marketing to achieve this aim.

Notes

1. To use Calder,Phillips,andTybout's(1981)terminology,the studyis positionedas "theory

application"ratherthan "effects application"research.
2. For example, at the time of the study a portableblack and white television set retailed
for approximately$100.
3. A significantcovariatemeans that a significantadjustmentof the criterionvariable(s)took
place before the effects of the treatmentvariables were estimated.

References

Aaker, David A. and John G. Myers (1975), AdvertisingManagement.Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall.
Bauer,RaymondA. (1960), "ConsumerBehavioras Risk Taking"in DynamicMarketingfora
ChangingWorld,R. S. Hancock, ed. Chicago:AmericanMarketingAssociation,389-98.

This content downloaded from 14.139.85.133 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:29:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

152

Dowling
Bell, GeraldD. (1967), "Self-Confidenceand Persuasionin Car Buying,"Journalof Marketing
Research4 (Feb.),46-52.
Calder,BobbyJ., LynnW. Phillips,and Alice M. Tybout (1981), "DesigningResearchfor Application,"journal of ConsumerResearch8, no. 2 (Sept.), 197-207.
Dowling,GrahameR. (1982),"PerceivedRisk:TheConceptandIts Measurement."Unpublished
paper, University of Newcastle.
Feldman,LaurenceP. (1976), "New Legislationand the Prospectsfor RealWarrantyReform,"
journal of Marketing40, no. 3 (July),41-47.
Kendall,C. L. and FrederickA. Russ (1975), "Warrantyand ComplaintPolicies: An Opportunity for MarketingManagement,"Journalof Marketing39, no. 2 (April),36-43.
Kennedy,John R., Michael R. Pearce, and John A. Quelch (1980), "ConsumerProductWarranties:Perspectivesand Issues," in MacroMarketing:A CanadianPerspective,Thompson,
Simmie, Heslop, and Shapiro,eds. Chicago:AmericanMarketingAssociation,257-72.
McClure,PeterJ. andJohn K. Ryans(1968),"DifferencesBetween Retailers'and Consumers'
Perceptions,"Journalof MarketingResearch5 (Feb.), 35-40.
Methods.New York: McGraw-HillBook Co.
Nunally, Jum (1967),Psychometric
Perry,Michaeland ArnonPerry (1976), "ServiceContractComparedto Warrantyas a Means
to Reduce Consumer'sRisk,"Journalof Retailing52, no. 2 (Summer),33-40, 90.
Peter, J. Paul and LaurenceX. Tarpey (1975), "A ComparativeAnalysis of Three Consumer
Decision Strategies,"journal of ConsumerResearch2, no. 1 (June),29-37.
Ray,J. J. (1972),"ANew ReliabilityMaximizationProcedurefor LikertScales,"TheAustralian
Psychologist7, no. 1, 40-46.
Roselius, Ted (1971), "ConsumerRankingsof Risk ReductionMethods,"Journalof Marketing
35, no. 1 (Jan.),56-61.
Ross, Ivan (1974), "PerceivedRisk and ConsumerBehavior:A CriticalReview," in Advances
in Consumer
Research,Vol.2, M. J. Schlinger,ed. Illinois:Associationfor ConsumerResearch,
1-19.
Shimp,TerenceA. andWilliamO. Bearden(1979),"Warrantyand OtherExtrinsicCue Interaction Effectson Consumers'Confidence,"in Advancesin ConsumerResearch,J. C. Olson, ed.
Ann Arbor:Associationfor ConsumerResearch, 308-13.
Spector, Paul E. (1977), "WhatTo Do With SignificantMultivariateEffects in Multivariate
Analyses of Variance,"journal of AppliedPsychology62, no. 2, 158-63.
Stem, D. E., C. W. Lamb,and D. L. MacLachlan(1977), "PerceivedRisk:A Synthesis,"EuropeanJournalof Marketing11, no. 4, 312-19.
Udell, Jon G. and Evan E. Anderson(1968), "The ProductWarrantyas an Element of Competitive Strategy,"journal of Marketing32, no. 4 (Oct.), 1-8.
Wilkes, RobertE. andJamesB. Wilcox (1976), "ConsumerPerceptionsof ProductWarranties
and TheirImplicationsfor RetailStrategy,"
journalof BusinessResearch4, no. 1 (Feb.),35-43.

This content downloaded from 14.139.85.133 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:29:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions