Investigation of the Effect of Using Three-Part Constructions or the "Rule of Three" in Advertising

Objective. To get closer to understanding the possibility of using the effect of three-part constructions in advertising in relation to the Russian segment of consumers. To consider the effect of the effect of three-part constructions in advertising relative to the level of education and consumer skepticism.
Background. The credibility of an advertising message consists of many factors. One of them is the number of positive reviews about the advertised product. As for the theory of American psychologists S.B. Shu and K.A. Carlson, three-part constructions or the "rule of three" suggest that a construction of three positive statements about a product is the most favorable combination for consumers, while a large number of statements causes skepticism and distrust of advertising. This study was conducted in the Russian segment of consumers with higher and incomplete higher education. The study of the effectiveness of advertising in relation to its reliability in relation to consumers is certainly an urgent topic in relation to marketing.
Study design. The study examined the relationship between higher education, impression skepticism, and the number of positive product claims in advertising. The presence and nature of the relationship were checked through the construction of a linear regression model.
Participants. Russian sample (pilot study): 24 people, of which 14 are women and 10 are men. Participant’s ages ranged from 20 to 76 years (M = 27,0; SD = 13,9). Study: 110 people, of which 72 are women and 38 are men aged 18 to 76 years (M = 30,0; SD = 12,6). The number of respondents with higher education was 56 people, without higher education – 54 people.
Measurements Analysis of the regression model. The method of expert assessments. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov criteria were used to assess the nature of the data distribution.
Results. The impressions from advertising with one positive statement about the product are higher among respondents with higher education; the impression of advertising with three and four statements is not interconnected with the presence of higher education; in relation to advertising with five statements, it was found that the impression is better for people without higher education. Low skepticism subjects were found to prefer ads with more product descriptions (5 or 6). In the group of respondents with higher education and a low level of skepticism, a predisposition to advertising with one and two positive statements about the product was found. Regarding the group of respondents with incomplete higher education and low level of skepticism, there was a tendency to advertise with five statements.
Conclusions. The hypotheses that were confirmed showed that the presence of low levels of skepticism among respondents is associated with a stronger impression of advertising with one, two, five and six positive statements about the product. Regarding the three and four positive statements, the phenomenon was not observed. The study did not find any relationship between the level of education and the effect of the “effect of three” in the advertising message, which suggests the presence of this feature among the Russian segment of consumers.

1. Golovacheva K.S., Smirnova M.M. Znaniya potrebitelei o marketingovom vozdeistvii: sushchnost' i podkhody k upravleniyu [Consumer Knowledge of Marketing Impact: Essence and Management Approaches] // Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Menedzhment = Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Management, 2017, no. 4, pp. 596–621. (In Russ.).
2. Cialdini R.B. Influence: The psychology of persuasion (Collins business essentials). New York, NY: Collins Business, 339 p.
3. Den Boer A.V. Dynamic pricing and learning: historical origins, current research, and new directions // Surveys in operations research and management science. 2015. V 20(1). P. 1–18. DOI:10.1016/j.sorms.2015.03.001
4. Ertimur B., Coskuner-Balli G. Navigating the institutional logics of markets: Implications for strategic brand management // Journal of Marketing. 2015. Vol. 79(2). P. 40–61. DOI:10.1509/jm.13.0218
5. Ham C.D., Nelson M.R., Das S. How to measure persuasion knowledge // International Journal of Advertising. 2015. Vol. 34(1). P. 17–53. DOI:10.1080/02650487.2014.994730
6. Johnstone C.L. Sophistical Wisdom: Politikê Aretê and "Logosophia" // Philosophy & Rhetoric. 2006. Vol. 39(4). P. 265–289. DOI:10.2307/20697163
7. Joireman J., Liu R.L., Kareklas I. Images paired with concrete claims improve skeptical consumers’ responses to advertising promoting a firm’s good deeds // Journal of Marketing Communications. 2018. Vol. 24(1). P. 83–102.
8. Lee J., Kim S., Ham C.D. A double-edged sword? Predicting consumers’ attitudes toward and sharing intention of native advertising on social media // American Behavioral Scientist. 2016. 60(12). P. 1425–1441. DOI:10.1177/0002764216660137
9. Obermiller C., Spangenberg E.R. Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising // Journal of consumer psychology. 1998. Vol. 7(2). P. 159–186.
10. Pornpitakpan C. The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence // Journal of applied social psychology. 2004. Vol. 34(2). P. 243–281. DOI:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
11. Roy R., Sharma P. Scarcity appeal in advertising: Exploring the moderating roles of need for uniqueness and message framing // Journal of Advertising. 2015. Vol. 44(4). P. 349–359. DOI:10.1080/00913367.2015.1018459
12. Sheth J., Sisodia R. The rule of three: Surviving and thriving in competitive markets. Simon and Schuster. New York, NY: The Free Press, 2002. 288 p.
13. Shu S.B., Carlson K.A. When three charms but four alarms: Identifying the optimal number of claims in persuasion settings // Journal of Marketing. 2014. Vol. 78(1). P. 127–139. DOI:10.1509/jm.11.0504
14. Tenenbaum Josh B., Xu Fei. “Word Learning as Bayesian Inference” // Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Gleitman / Lila R., and Joshi, Aravind K. (eds.). Philadelphia: Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, 2000. P. 517–22. DOI:1037/0033-295X.114.2.245
15. Uslay C., Altintig Z.A., Winsor R.D. An empirical examination of the “rule of three”: Strategy implications for top management, marketers, and investors // Journal of Marketing. 2010. 74(2). P. 20–39. DOI:10.1509/jmkg.74.2.20