For better or for worse? Valenced comparative frames and regulatory focus

Three experiments examine how prevention-focused and promotion-focused con-sumers evaluate the comparison brand and what information they anchor on in direct comparative ads framed positively or negatively. Negative (vs. positive) frames lead prevention-focused respondents to exhibit higher evaluations for the advertised brand and lower evaluations for the comparison brand. Under promotion focus, positive (vs. negative) frames lead to more favorable attitudes toward the advertised brand with no difference in attitudes for the comparison brand. Pref-erence for consistency is posited as a possible process explanation. We also find an evaluation order effect: prevention-focused (promotion-focused) individuals evaluate the comparison (advertised) brand first. Comparative advertising has been extensively investi-gated (Grewal et al. 1997; Jain and Posavac 2004; Pechmann and Ratneshwar 1991; Zhang, Cronley, and Kar-des 2000), yet the issue of comparative message framing and the effect of different types of motivational orientation on the effectiveness of comparative advertising have re-ceived little attention. In addition, the implications for the comparison brand are not well understood. Past research has assessed the effectiveness of a direct comparative ad through advertised brand evaluations. However, for a better under-standing of direct comparative ads, it is critical to examine (a) comparison brand evaluations and (b) the difference in attitudes toward the advertised and comparison brands. While message framing has received wide attentio