When More May Be Less: The Effects of Regulatory Focus on Responses to Different Comparative Frames

We examined the consequences of regulatory focus on exposure to two types of comparative advertising frames—a maximal claim (“brand A is superior to brand B”) and a minimal claim (“brand A is equivalent or similar to brand B”)—in three experiments. In experiment 1, we manipulated these frames, basing the sponsor brand’s claim on comparison with an existing brand. In experiment 2, we operationalized the frames using a comparison featuring a sponsor brand targeting an established standard (Food and Drug Administration guidelines). A third experiment provided convergent evidence for the process underlying these effects. Consistent with theoretical reasoning, we found that promotion‐focused individuals were more persuaded by maximal comparisons while prevention‐focused individuals were either equally persuaded by the two frames or more persuaded by minimal frames. For prevention‐focused individuals, maximal frames represented either a “no loss” or a “deviation from the norm.” The no loss representation led to maximal and minimal frames being equally persuasive. The deviation from the norm representation led to greater negative elaboration on maximal frames, making them less persuasive than minimal frames. For promotion‐focused people, a maximal frame simply represented a gain over a minimal frame, and hence it induced more favorable elaboration and greater persuasion.