Impressive insults: How do consumers respond to self‐deprecating advertisements?

Abstract

Most advertisements highlight a product's positive attributes to attract consumers. Yet, some brands deliberately criticize themselves by employing self‐deprecation within their communications, such as Carlsberg's “Probably not the best beer in the world” campaign. This research examines whether, when, and why consumers react more favorably to self‐deprecating advertisements. In six experiments, we demonstrate that when the self‐deprecated attribute holds less importance to consumers, self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting) advertisements enhance brand trust by elevating the brand's social attractiveness and diminishing consumer skepticism. Importantly, self‐deprecation in advertisements also lowers consumers' tendency to avoid them. We empirically rule out several alternative explanations (i.e., consumer engagement, sentiment, nonconformity, and novelty) for these effects. Our research builds on prior studies in impression management and social psychology, contributing to the literature on advertising, self‐deprecation, and consumer skepticism by promoting the strategic use of self‐deprecating advertisements to bolster brand trust and reduce advertising avoidance. We offer actionable insights for managers and practitioners, highlighting how self‐deprecation can effectively address the challenges of building trust in diverse consumer‐facing marketing contexts.

Full text

Received: 24 November 2023
|
Accepted: 8 July 2024
DOI: 10.1002/mar.22078
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Impressive insults: How do consumers respond
to self‐deprecating advertisements?
Vaishnavi Kale |Eda Sayin
Department of Marketing, IE Business School,
IE University, Madrid, Spain
Correspondence
Vaishnavi Kale, Department of Marketing, IE
Business School, IE University, Madrid, Spain.
Email: vaishnavi.kale@ie.edu
Abstract
Most advertisements highlight a product's positive attributes to attract consumers.
Yet, some brands deliberately criticize themselves by employing self‐deprecation
within their communications, such as Carlsberg's “Probably not the best beer in the
world”campaign. This research examines whether,when,andwhy consumers react
more favorably to self‐deprecating advertisements. In six experiments, we demon-
strate that when the self‐deprecated attribute holds less importance to consumers,
self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting) advertisements enhance brand trust by elevating
the brand's social attractiveness and diminishing consumer skepticism. Importantly,
self‐deprecation in advertisements also lowers consumers' tendency to avoid them.
We empirically rule out several alternative explanations (i.e., consumer engagement,
sentiment, nonconformity, and novelty) for these effects. Our research builds on prior
studies in impression management and social psychology, contributing to the literature
on advertising, self‐deprecation, and consumer skepticism by promoting the strategic
use of self‐deprecating advertisements to bolster brand trust and reduce advertising
avoidance. We offer actionable insights for managers and practitioners, highlighting
how self‐deprecation can effectively address the challenges of building trust in diverse
consumer‐facing marketing contexts.
KEYWORDS
advertising avoidance, brand trust, consumer skepticism, self‐deprecation, social attractiveness
1|INTRODUCTION
The marketplace is saturated with self‐promoting advertisements
like Disneyland's “Happiest place on Earth.”However, certain
brands occasionally deviate from this norm and deliberately
accentuate their shortcomings. The 1965 Volkswagen advertise-
ment stating, “If you can sell her on this, you can sell her on
anything,”Listerine's “The taste people hate. Twice a day,”and
Oatly's “This tastes like sh*t! Blah!”illustrate how brands employ
self‐deprecation in their advertisements. This departure from the
conventional advertising approach of highlighting positive product
characteristics (Eisend, 2006), raises intriguing questions about the
underlying motivations of self‐deprecating communications. To gain
insights into consumers' real‐world responses to such advertise-
ments, we conducted sentiment analyses on user‐generated
comments in response to self‐promoting and self‐deprecating
advertisements. We found that consumers exhibited positive rather
than negative sentiments for both advertisement types (See
Supporting Information S1: Web‐Appendix 9). However, the under-
lying reasons why certain brands choose self‐deprecation over
Psychol Mark. 2024;41:2695–2710. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar
|
2695
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2024 The Author(s). Psychology & Marketing published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

conventional self‐promotion remain unclear, inspiring us to explore
in experimental settings.
The existing social psychology literature on self‐deprecation
presents conflicting findings. Some psychologists associate self‐
deprecation with depression and anxiety (Luyten et al., 2007),
viewing it as a form of self‐sabotage wherein individuals internalize
the negative remarks they direct toward themselves (Breuning, 2016;
Chandler, 2017). Conversely, other research indicates that self‐
deprecators are perceived as warm, humble, and less self‐centered,
fostering social attractiveness and closer interpersonal relationships
(Baumgartner et al., 2018; DelGreco & Denes, 2020). This research
explores self‐deprecating advertisements, aiming to understand
whether, when, and why they prove more effective than self‐
promoting ones, and proposes self‐deprecating advertisements as a
remedy to tackle consumers' declining trust in brands and subsequent
advertising avoidance.
Prior research and industry evidence suggest a concerning decline
in consumer trust towards advertising and brands (Ipsos, 2022;Rajavi
et al., 2019). Upholding consumer trust is critical for brands as it
directly impacts consumer loyalty, positive word‐of‐mouth, repeat
purchases, and market share expansion (Monahan & Romero, 2020).
Additionally, declining trust may cause advertisement avoidance,
where consumers tend to reduce their exposure to advertisements
by ignoring them (McDonald, 2018). Advertisement avoidance imposes
a significant annual financial burden for brands, exceeding US$40
billion (Rua, 2021). Additionally, it disrupts consumer‐brand relation-
ships (Rojas‐Méndez et al., 2009) and brands' ability to communicate
with their customers effectively.
We posit that the erosion of trust stems partly from the
prevalence of self‐promotion in advertising, where brands predomi-
nantly highlight positive attributes (Eisend, 2006), leading to consumer
skepticism (Hoppner & Vadakkepatt, 2019). Extant literature identifies
advertising as a context requiring impression management, that is, a
setting in which brands are motivated to control the impressions
consumers form of them (Schniederjans et al., 2018). Thus, brands
deliberately use advertising to cultivate favorable impressions among
consumers (Kronrod & Danziger, 2013). In such a context, we argue
that consumers may value the transparency achieved through self‐
deprecation. By reducing perceived self‐serving motives (Baumgartner
et al., 2018), self‐deprecation may enhance a brand's social attractive-
ness, which may alleviate consumer skepticism, enhancing their brand
trust and reducing advertisement avoidance. We posit, however, that
the effectiveness of self‐deprecation depends on its directed focus.
Specifically, we contend that self‐deprecation will be socially attractive
when directed toward lower‐importance attributes. By criticizing
themselves for traits that are deemed unimportant, self‐deprecators
can seem more honest and modest (Baumgartner et al., 2018;Bitterly
&Schweitzer,2019), thereby garnering favorable evaluations.
Conversely, self‐deprecating about important attributes may invite
negative judgements (Critcher et al., 2018), as any positive impact
might be outweighed by the criticism directed towards the important
attribute. Thus, we propose that deliberate self‐deprecation directed
toward low‐importance attributes in an advertisement would lead
consumers to attribute higher social attractiveness to the brand,
mitigating their skepticism, thereby enhancing brand trust and
reducing advertisement avoidance.
This paper represents one of the first empirical inquiries into self‐
deprecating advertisements in marketing research. Our research
demonstrates that self‐deprecating advertisements, when focused on
low‐importance attributes, can enhance brand trust and reduce
advertisement avoidance, making several significant contributions.
First, it challenges the conventional wisdom that advertisements
should primarily feature positive attributes by showing that self‐
deprecation can be effective under certain circumstances. Second, it
resolves conflicting findings in the self‐deprecation literature
(Baumgartner et al., 2018; Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2019; Critcher
et al., 2018) by demonstrating that self‐deprecation generates
favorable responses when used deliberately on less important
attributes. Finally, by revealing that self‐deprecating (vs. self‐
promoting) advertisements reduce advertisement avoidance, our
research offers valuable insights for marketers and opens intriguing
avenues for future research.
2|CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
2.1 |Self‐deprecation
“Self‐deprecation,”also known as negative self‐evaluation or self‐
criticism (Owens, 1994), involves downplaying one's skills or qualities
(Owens, 1993). It is a form of “self‐talk”that involves expressing
negative self‐views (Baumgartner et al., 2018; Critcher et al., 2018;
Owens, 1993;Speer,2019) and has been studied in impression
management and interpersonal communication contexts across disci-
plines like organizational behavior, political science, and social psychol-
ogy (Owens, 1994; Speer, 2019;Vonk,1999). Self‐deprecating
advertisements are rare because marketing communications typically
convey positive product information. Consequently, marketing research
on this phenomenon is scarce. One exception is the study by Mookerjee
et al. (2021), where the authors, without explicitly using the term
self‐deprecation, demonstrated that labeling unattractive organic
produce as “ugly”increased purchase likelihood. We define our scope
as advertisements that engage in self‐criticism or convey negative
product information and explore how consumers perceive self‐
deprecating advertisements. Self‐deprecating advertising differs from
two‐sided messaging in that it solely involves criticism as evidenced by
Carlsberg's advertisement saying, “Probably not the best beer in the
world,”or Citroën's slogan, “Surprisingly, we didn't fire the designer.”
Conversely, two‐sided messaging includes both praise and criticism (e.g.,
Picnic Chocolate Bar's “Deliciously Ugly”)(Eisend,2006,2022).
Existing literature on self‐deprecation yields contradictory
findings. In social psychology, self‐deprecation is often associated
with lower self‐esteem, leading others to believe the negative
statements people make about themselves (O'Donnell et al., 2016;
Owens, 1994). Critcher et al. (2018) prompted one group of
participants to make self‐deprecating remarks about their abilities,
2696
|
KALE and SAYIN

while another group (unaware of the prompt) evaluated the self‐
deprecating participants. Their results showed those who self‐
deprecated were judged as less skilled. O'Donnell et al. (2016) also
revealed that individuals who self‐deprecated about their intelligence
or appearance were perceived as having less self‐esteem.
Conversely, research in impression management revealed posi-
tive effects of self‐deprecation. In a hiring context, candidates who
self‐deprecated were perceived as warmer and more competent than
those who did not disclose any negative information (Bitterly &
Schweitzer, 2019). DelGreco and Denes (2020) showed that self‐
deprecating responses to compliments in online dating were
perceived as more likeable than self‐promoting ones. On social
media, using self‐deprecating hashtags suggested less arrogance and
increased admiration (Austin et al., 2022). Research in political
science highlighted that given the self‐promoting tendency of
politicians, self‐deprecating comments evoked surprise and amuse-
ment, improving the politician's likability (Baumgartner et al., 2018).
Prior research demonstrating self‐deprecation's positive outcomes
(Baumgartner et al., 2018; Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2019)revolves
around its use on low‐importance attributes that carry minimal
significance to the evaluation. For example, job candidates were
perceived favorably when they self‐deprecated about their trigonom-
etry knowledge (Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2019), an attribute that was
irrelevant to the job requirements. A presidential candidate's self‐
deprecating comment about his weight—a characteristic unrelated to
his political competence, increased his likability among voters
(Baumgartner et al., 2018). Self‐deprecating about a product's visual
appeal by using “ugly”labeling highlighted the organic nature of the
product, which improved consumers' taste and healthiness perceptions
(Mookerjee et al., 2021). Thus, given that all brand communications are
deliberate attempts to impress consumers (Houman Andersen, 2001),
we suggest that using self‐deprecating advertisements focused on
low‐importance attributes may cultivate positive consumer evalua-
tions. Conversely, self‐deprecation concerning high‐importance attri-
butes could lead to unfavorable evaluations, as the positive impact of
self‐deprecation might be overshadowed by the criticism directed
towards the high‐importance attribute.
In summary, we anticipate that the positive effects of self‐
deprecation will be evident in situations requiring impression
management, such as job interviews (Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2019)or
political campaigns targeting voter influence (Baumgartner et al., 2018),
especially when directed towards low‐important attributes. In these
contexts, self‐deprecation is deliberate, with individuals intentionally
engaging in impression management aiming to foster positive and
closer connections with others (Schniederjans et al., 2018). Conse-
quently, evaluators may appreciate self‐deprecators' transparency,
leading to favorable evaluations, that is, social attractiveness.
2.2 |Social attractiveness of self‐deprecation
Prior literature on interpersonal interactions demonstrates that self‐
deprecators are perceived as humble and likeable, causing others to
seek closer relationships with them (Baumgartner et al., 2018;
DelGreco & Denes, 2020). DelGreco and Denes (2020) show that
women who self‐deprecate by not readily accepting compliments are
perceived as more socially attractive. People who display warmth,
competence, and likability are often regarded as socially attractive,
encouraging others to seek closer relationships with them (Andersen
& Guerrero, 1996; Chen & Guo, 2021; Gilbert, 1997; Gilbert
et al., 1995). We propose that brands deliberately self‐deprecating
on a low‐importance attribute, given its association with traits such as
humility (Vonk, 1999), likeability (DelGreco & Denes, 2020), warmth,
and competence (Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2019), would be perceived as
socially attractive.
Social psychology research highlights multiple advantages of social
attractiveness, like elevated social status (Gilbert et al., 1995), credibil-
ity (Edwards et al., 2015), affiliation motivations (Gilbert, 1997), and
reduced blame attributions (Alicke & Zell, 2009). Alicke and Zell (2009)
discovered that socially attractive individuals received less suspicion,
resulting in reduced accountability for their transgressions. Edwards
et al. (2015) also illustrated that perceived social attractiveness
increased credibility. While self‐deprecation in advertising remains
underexplored, research on two‐sided messages indicates that
presenting negative product information alongside positive aspects
enhances likability (Kamins et al., 1989) and credibility, while reducing
skepticism (Eisend, 2006). Mookerjee et al. (2021)revealthatlabelinga
product as “ugly”(solely negative information) may augment seller
credibility. Building on the prior literature, we contend that when a
brand self‐deprecates on a low‐importance attribute in its advertise-
ments, consumers will perceive the self‐criticism as socially attractive,
thereby reducing consumer skepticism.
2.3 |Consumer skepticism, brand trust, and
advertisement avoidance
Consumer skepticism, defined as the “tendency towards disbelief of
advertising claims”(Obermiller et al., 2005, p.7), emerges when
consumers detect self‐serving motives in brand communications
(Webb & Mohr, 1998). Campbell and Kirmani (2000) demonstrated
that when salespeople are perceived to have self‐serving motives, it
triggers skepticism because of perceptions of insincerity and
dishonesty. Since marketing communications aim to create positive
consumer impressions (Houman Andersen, 2001), and advertise-
ments typically present brands favorably (Eisend, 2006), consumers
often harbor skepticism towards brand communications. This skepti-
cism prompts heightened vigilance against brands' promotional
efforts and increased scrutiny of persuasion tactics (Friestad &
Wright, 1994). Webb and Mohr (1998) show that consumers become
more skeptical of brand communications when they perceive
exploitation of social causes for self‐interest, thereby reducing the
effectiveness of social campaigns.
As previously discussed, social attractiveness bolsters credibility,
reduces suspicion, and mitigates skepticism (Alicke & Zell, 2009). We
argue that self‐deprecating advertisements, while enhancing a
KALE and SAYIN
|
2697

brand's social attractiveness, are also perceived as less self‐serving
due to their self‐critical nature, thus further reducing consumer
skepticism. Additionally, consumer skepticism diminishes brand trust.
For instance, skepticism toward online reviews resulted in distrust in
both the review platform and the reviewed brands (Nam et al., 2020).
Specifically, consumers' skepticism about hotel reviews on TripAdvi-
sor, a travel website, lowered their trust in both the hotel and
TripAdvisor (Nam et al., 2020). Furthermore, skeptical consumers
were less likely to trust brand recommendations from their Facebook
friends (Chari et al., 2016). Low brand trust triggers advertisement
avoidance. Ketelaar et al. (2015) show that consumers lacking trust in
a brand view advertisements as ineffective information sources and
thus avoid them. Similarly, Baek and Morimoto (2012) illustrate that
mistrust and skepticism towards brands' persuasion attempts causes
consumers to avoid advertisements.
Combining insights from the prior literature, we argue that
consumers will perceive a brand self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting)
on a low‐importance attribute as more socially attractive, which will
subsequently reduce consumer skepticism, enhance brand trust and
diminish advertisement avoidance (See Figure 1). Formally, we
hypothesize that:
H1 Self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting) advertisements directed
toward a low‐importance attribute will (a) increase a brand's
social attractiveness, (b) diminish consumer skepticism, (c)
bolster brand trust, and (d) mitigate advertisement avoidance.
H2 The effect of self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting)
advertisements directed toward a low‐importance attribute
on brand trust will be serially mediated by brand's social
attractiveness and consumer skepticism.
H3 The effect of self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting)
advertisements directed toward a low‐importance attribute
on advertisement avoidance will be serially mediated by
consumer skepticism and brand trust.
H4 The effect of self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting)
advertisements on a brand's social attractiveness, consumer
skepticism, and brand trust will be attenuated when the self‐
deprecation is directed toward a high‐importance attribute.
3|STUDY 1
Study 1 examined the effect of advertisement types (self‐deprecating
vs. self‐promoting) on consumer skepticism and brand trust, using a
fictitious coffee brand to avoid any potential bias arising from prior
brand associations (Low & Lamb, 2000). We designed our stimuli
after rigorous pre‐testing to ensure that (1) the self‐deprecated
attribute is given low importance, (2) self‐deprecation is perceived as
deliberate, and (3) the stimuli are equivalent on aspects such as
aesthetic appeal, fluency, and consumer sentiment valence (See
Supporting Information S1: Web‐Appendix 1). We posit that employ-
ing self‐deprecation yields positive evaluations when directed at low‐
importance attributes and perceived as a deliberate strategy.
3.1 |Procedure
One hundred eighteen students from a Western‐European university
saw either a self‐deprecating or a self‐promoting advertisement
FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework.
2698
|
KALE and SAYIN

(See Figure 2), and reported brand trust, consumer skepticism, and
perceived self‐deprecation (manipulation check). Fourteen partici-
pants failed an attention check question incorporated among the
questions (“If you are reading this, select ‘Strongly Disagree’”) and
were excluded from the analysis, leaving a final sample of 104. Since
traditional advertising strategies typically self‐promote (Eisend, 2006),
they serve as the default against which we evaluate the effect of self‐
deprecating advertisements. Therefore, we did not employ a separate
control condition to establish baseline effects. Given the scarcity of
self‐deprecating advertisements, individuals may exhibit heightened
engagement in processing them, affecting their skepticism and trust.
To address this, we measured the time participants spent observing
the advertisements (in seconds) to indicate their engagement level.
For this and subsequent studies, please see Supporting Information
S1: Web‐Appendix 5for comprehensive procedure details, Support-
ing Information S1: Web‐Appendix 6for measures and their reliability
coefficients, and Supporting Information S1: Web‐Appendix 7for
discriminant validity analysis for the measures.
3.2 |Results and discussion
An independent sample t‐test ensured the effectiveness of the
advertising type manipulation. The self‐deprecating advertisement
was rated significantly more self‐deprecating than the self‐
promoting one (t(102) = 7.19, p< 0.001). Independent samples
t‐tests revealed that the self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting)
advertisement resulted in significantly higher brand trust
(t(102) = 3.538), p< 0.001) and lower skepticism (t(102) = −5.795,
p< 0.001) (Means reported in Table 1).
A mediation test (PROCESS Model 4; Hayes, 2022; 10,000
samples) revealed that the self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting)
advertisement reduced consumer skepticism, which in turn increased
brand trust (index: B= 1.067, se = 0.242, 95% CI = [0.627, 1.563])
(See Figure 3for all path coefficients). Participants did not spend
more time observing the self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting)
advertisement (p= 0.843), ruling out engagement as an alternative
explanation.
FIGURE 2 Study 1 Stimuli:Self‐deprecating (a) and self‐promoting (b) advertisements.
TABLE 1 Results of Studies 1 and 2.
Study # Measures
Self‐deprecating
advertisement
Self‐promoting
advertisement
pValue Cohen's dN=50 N=54
Study 1 Perceived self‐deprecation 6.15 (1.56) 3.55 (2.08) <0.001 1.410
Brand trust 6.04 (1.72) 4.78 (1.90) <0.001 0.236
Consumer skepticism 3.99 (1.71) 6.06 (1.91) <0.001 −1.137
Engagement 55.35 (65.02) 52.20 (94.94) 0.843 0.038
Study 2 N=96 N= 101
Perceived Self‐deprecation 6.77 (2.10) 3.59 (2.31) <0.001 1.44
Brand trust 6.84 (1.44) 5.45 (1.74) <0.001 0.087
Consumer skepticism 2.73 (1.57) 5.66 (2.17) <0.001 −1.55
Brand's social attractiveness 5.82 (2.15) 4.56 (2.19) <0.001 .580
Perceived nonconformity 6.11 (2.22) 4.93 (2.17) <0.001 .540
Engagement 24.56 (20.63) 22.05 (11.52) .291 .151
Note: Standard deviations are reported in parentheses.
KALE and SAYIN
|
2699

Study 1 provided initial evidence that self‐deprecating (vs. self‐
promoting) advertisements reduce consumer skepticism, thereby
enhancing brand trust.
4|STUDY 2
In study 2, we used another product category and measured brand's
social attractiveness alongside brand trust and consumer skepticism.
Furthermore, we evaluated the perceived conformity of advertise-
ments to advertising norms, aiming to exclude nonconformity as a
potential mediator. This decision was motivated by the deviance
regulation theory, which suggests that nonconformity may garner
positive evaluations (Blanton & Christie, 2003). Given that consumers
anticipate self‐promotion in advertisements (Eisend, 2006), self‐
deprecation might be perceived as nonconforming. Pretests ensured
the effectiveness and equivalence of the stimuli (See Supporting
Information S1: Web‐Appendix 2).
4.1 |Procedure
201 participants (47.7% females, M
age
= 42.9 years, USA residents
recruited from Connect by CloudResearch) viewed either a self‐
deprecating or a self‐promoting advertisement (See Figure 4). Four
participants failed an attention check (as in Study 1) and were
excluded from the analyses, resulting in a final sample of 197. Brand
trust and consumer skepticism were measured as in Study 1. Brand's
social attractiveness was measured by prompting participants to
envision the brand as a person and asking them to report their
agreement with statements such as “I would like to have a friendly
relationship with this personified brand”(Scale items in Supporting
Information S1: Web‐Appendix 6). Next, participants rated perceived
conformity (“How conforming is this advertisement's style to the
advertising industry norms?”;1=not conforming at all to 9 = extremely
conforming), which we reverse‐coded to form the perceived
nonconformity measure. Finally, participants responded to a manipu-
lation check (as in Study 1) and reported their demographics. We
additionally measured the time spent observing the advertisement.
4.2 |Results and discussion
An independent samples t‐test revealed that the self‐deprecating
advertisement was rated significantly more self‐deprecating than the
self‐promoting advertisement (t(195) = 10.09, p< 0.001). Other
independent samples t‐tests showed that the self‐deprecating (vs.
self‐promoting) advertisement resulted in greater brand trust
(t(195) = 6.09, p< 0.001), lower consumer skepticism (t(195) = −10.84,
p< 0.001), and higher social attractiveness (t(195) = 4.07, p< 0.001)
(Means reported in Table 1). Participants perceived the self‐deprecating
(vs. self‐promoting) advertisement as more nonconforming
(t(195) = 3.79, p< 0.001). We ruled out nonconformity as an alternative
explanation by conducting a parallel mediation analysis (Supporting
Information S1: Web‐Appendix 2.3).
Hayes (2022, p.161) recommends utilizing parallel mediation only
when no mediator causally influences another. Prior research implies
a causal relationship between social attractiveness and skepticism
(Alicke & Zell, 2009; Edwards et al., 2015) and between skepticism
and brand trust (Chari et al., 2016; Nam et al., 2020). Therefore, we
tested for a serial mediation (Process Model 6; Hayes, 2022; 10,000
samples) to explore whether self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting)
advertisements increased a brand's social attractiveness, which
reduced consumer skepticism, consequently enhancing brand trust,
and found a significant and positive indirect effect (B= 0.088,
se = 0.035, 95% CI = [0.031, 0.168]) (See Figure 5for details).
The correlational nature of the relationship between the media-
tors allows for the possibility of alternative statistical models
being significant (Engeler & Barasz, 2021). However, we assert the
plausibility of our proposed serial mediation model (Figure 5), because
our conceptualization relies on prior literature (Pieters, 2017). Study 2
indicated that self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting) advertisements
positively influenced brand trust by enhancing brand's social attract-
iveness and decreasing consumer skepticism.
FIGURE 3 Mediation path coefficients.
FIGURE 4 Study 2 Stimuli: Self‐deprecating (a) and self‐
promoting (b) advertisement.
2700
|
KALE and SAYIN

5|STUDY 3
In Study 3, we examined the interaction effect of attribute
importance and advertisement type on brand's social attractiveness,
consumer skepticism, and brand trust.
5.1 |Procedure
301 participants (49.12% females, M
age
= 39.05 years, USA resi-
dents) were recruited from Connect by CloudResearch. Three
participants failed an attention check (Choose the odd one—
Chicago, Berlin, Tomato, Paris), leaving a final sample of 298. This
study followed a 2 (advertisement type: self‐deprecating vs. self‐
promoting) by 2 (attribute type: high‐vs. low‐importance) between‐
subjects design. Attribute types were selected via pretests
(Supporting Information S1: Web‐Appendix 1.1). Participants were
randomly assigned to view one of the advertisements presented
in Figure 6, and then reported brand trust, consumer skepticism
and the brand's social attractiveness as in previous studies. Next,
participants in the low‐importance (high‐importance) condition
rated the importance of attribute “fancy”(“tasty”) for coffee (1 =
not important at all,9=extremely important). Finally, participants
rated perceived self‐deprecation (manipulation check) and reported
their demographics.
5.2 |Results and discussions
A two‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test with advertisement
type and attribute type as fixed factors and perceived self‐
deprecation as dependent variable found that the self‐deprecating
advertisement was considered significantly more self‐deprecating
than the self‐promoting one (F(1, 294) = 331.56, p< 0.001). There
was no other significant main or interaction effects (p's > 0.05).
Participants also rated the attribute “tasty”as significantly more
important than “fancy”(F(1, 294) = 271.62, p< 0.001). The main
effect of advertisement type and its interaction with attribute type
were nonsignificant (p's > 0.05) (Means in Table 2). These results
indicated that manipulations worked as intended.
FIGURE 5 Study 2—serial mediation path coefficients.
FIGURE 6 Study 3 Stimuli: High‐importance self‐deprecating (a), low‐importance self‐deprecating (b), high‐importance self‐promoting
(c), low‐importance self‐promoting (d) advertisement.
KALE and SAYIN
|
2701

Another ANOVA test revealed a significant main effect of
attribute type (F(1, 294) = 5.69, p= 0.018), and a significant
interaction effect of advertisement type and attribute type on brand
trust (F(1, 294) = 8.13, p= 0.005), but no main effect of advertise-
ment type (p> 0.05). Participants in the low‐(vs. high‐importance)
condition trusted the brand more. Additional ANOVA tests revealed
that the main effects of advertisement type and attribute were not
significant for brand's social attractiveness and consumer skepticism
(p's > 0.05). However, their interaction effects on brand's social
attractiveness (F(1, 294) = 13.34, p< 0.001), and consumer skepti-
cism (F(1, 294) = 10.12, p= 0.002) were significant.
In the low‐importance condition, participants exhibited significantly
higher social attractiveness (F(1, 294) = 7.07, p= 0.008) and lower
consumer skepticism (F(1, 294) = 9.36, p= 0.002), and marginally higher
brand trust (F(1, 294) = 3.08, p= 0.080) for the self‐deprecating (vs. self‐
promoting) advertisement. Conversely, in the high‐importance condi-
tion, the self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting) advertisement significantly
reduced brand trust (F(1, 294) = 5.19, p= 0.023) and social attractive-
ness (F(1, 294) = 6.29, p= 0.013), but did not significantly affect
consumer skepticism (p= 0.151, Means in Table 2).
A moderated serial mediation test (PROCESS Model 83, 10,000
samples; Hayes, 2022) replicated Study 2, revealing a significant
indirect effect (index: B= 0.019, se = 0.013, 95% CI = [.002,.050]).
The indirect effect of advertisement type on brand trust through
increased social attractiveness and decreased consumer skepticism
was significant and positive in the low‐importance condition
(B= 0.010, se = 0.007, 95% CI = [.001,.028]), but significant and
negative in the high‐importance condition (B=−0.009, se = 0.007,
95%CI = [−0.027,−0.0002]) (See Figure 7). Thus, self‐deprecating (vs.
self‐promoting) advertisement increased brand's social attractive-
ness, which reduced consumer skepticism and enhanced brand trust
only when the self‐deprecation was about a low‐importance
attribute. Self‐deprecation on a high‐importance attribute lowered
the brand's social attractiveness, negating the positive effect of self‐
deprecating advertisements on brand trust.
We replicated these findings in a Supporting Information study,
where we manipulated the attribute importance based on product
type (hedonic vs. utilitarian), while maintaining the product and
slogan identical (See Supporting Information S1: Web‐Appendix 8).
6|STUDY 4
Study 4 manipulated advertisement type with an alternate tagline and
additionally examined whether perceived brand equity influenced the
impact of advertisement type on the brand's social attractiveness,
consumer skepticism, and brand trust. Prior research has commonly
operationalized brand equity by varying product prices, as brands
associated with higher‐priced products are perceived to possess
greater equity (Erdem & Swait, 2001). Thus, we introduced different
prices for the advertised product to analyze the interaction effect of
price perceptions and advertisement type on the brand's social
attractiveness, consumer skepticism, and brand trust.
TABLE 2 Results—Study 3.
Measures
Low‐importance attribute High‐importance attribute Interaction effect
Ad type main
effect
Attribute type—main
effect
Self‐deprecating
ad (N= 73)
Self‐promoting
ad (N= 76)
Self‐deprecating
ad (N= 74)
Self‐promoting
ad (N= 75) pη
p
2
pη
p
2
pη
p
2
Perceived Self‐deprecation 6.80
a
(2.05) 2.75
b
(2.10) 7.46
a
(1.74) 2.81
b
(2.30) 0.241 0.005 <0.001 0.529 0.173 0.006
Attribute importance 4.23
a
(2.54) 3.99
a
(2.59) 7.89
b
(1.20) 7.96
b
(1.18) 0.559 0.001 0.639 0.001 <0.001 0.484
Brand trust 6.40
a
(1.45) 5.91
a
(1.60) 5.37
b
(2.14) 6.00
a
(1.53) 0.005 0.024 0.955 0.000 0.013 0.021
Consumer skepticism 4.07
a
(2.25) 5.18
b
(2.33) 4.86
b
(2.29) 4.33
b
(1.96) 0.002 0.034 0.252 0.005 0.958 0.000
Brand's social attractiveness 5.95
a
(1.81) 5.09
b
(1.93) 4.69
b
(2.28) 5.49
a
(1.83) <0.001 0.041 0.560 0.001 0.053 0.013
Note: Standard deviations are reported in the parentheses. Cell means with different superscripts ('a' and 'b') within the columns “Low‐importance attribute”and “High‐importance attribute”denote significantly
different means (p's < 0.05) when comparing self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting) advertisements.
2702
|
KALE and SAYIN

6.1 |Procedure
500 female participants (M
age
= 42.45 years) from the US were
recruited via Connect by CloudResearch. Twelve participants failed
the attention check question (as in Study 1), leaving a final sample of
488. We exclusively recruited females, as we used feminine shoes
in the advertisement (To & Patrick, 2021). The study had a 2
(advertisement type: self‐deprecating vs. self‐promoting) by 2 (price:
low vs. high) between‐subjects design. Participants were randomly
assigned to see an advertisement for a fictitious orthopedic shoe
brand (See Figure 8). The shoes were priced at either $285 or $75. A
pre‐test ensured that self‐deprecation was perceived as deliberate
and that “photogenic”is a low‐importance attribute for orthopedic
shoes (See Supporting Information S1: Web‐Appendix 3.1).
After viewing the advertisement, participants reported brand
trust, consumer skepticism, and brand's social attractiveness. Prior
research reveals that warmth and competence are antecedents to
social attractiveness (Chen & Guo, 2021). Thus, we measured them
to explore how they affect our hypothesized effects. Finally,
participants responded to a price perceptions manipulation check
(All scales in Supporting Information S1: Web‐Appendix 6) and
reported perceived self‐deprecation and their age.
6.2 |Results and discussions
Atwo‐way ANOVA test on perceived self‐deprecation found only a
significant effect of advertisement type (F(1, 484) = 648.91, p<0.001).
FIGURE 7 Study 3—serial mediation path coefficients.
FIGURE 8 Study 4 Stimuli: Self‐deprecating ad with high‐price (a), self‐deprecating ad with low‐price (b), self‐promoting ad with high‐price
(c), self‐promoting ad with low‐price (d).
KALE and SAYIN
|
2703

The effects of product price and its interaction with advertisement
type were not significant (p's > 0.05). Another two‐way ANOVA test
on price perception revealed only a main effect of product price. As
expected, $285 was perceived as a significantly higher price than $75
(F(1, 484) = 375.81, p<0.001).
Aseriesoftwo‐way ANOVA tests revealed that advertisement
type significantly affected brand trust (F(1, 484) = 37.42, p<0.001),
social attractiveness (F(1, 484) = 26.42, p< 0.001), and consumer
skepticism (F(1, 484) = 35.99, p< 0.001). Price affected consumer
skepticism (F(1, 484) = 10.02, p= 0.002), but not brand trust and social
attractiveness (p's > 0.1). Advertisement type and price had a signifi-
cant interaction effect on brand trust (F(1, 484) = 5.44, p=0.020)and
consumer skepticism (F(1, 484)= 6.19, p=0.013), but not on social
attractiveness (p= 0.238) (Means reported inTable 3). Within the high‐
price condition, self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting) advertisement
significantly increased brand trust (F(1, 484) = 35.86, p<0.001) and
social attractiveness (F(1, 484) = 20.06, p< 0.001) and lowered
consumer skepticism (F(1, 484) = 36.16, p< 0.001). Likewise, in the
low‐price condition, the self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting) adver-
tisement significantly increased brand trust (F(1, 484) = 7.13,
p= 0.008) and social attractiveness (F(1, 484) = 7.80, p= 0.005), and
reduced consumer skepticism (F(1, 484) = 6.14, p= 0.014). While the
hypothesized effects are directionally alike in both price conditions,
they are stronger in the high (vs. low) price condition.
We additionally explored the effect of advertisement type and
price on brand's perceived warmth and competence and found a
significant main effect of advertisement type (warmth: F(1, 484) = 8.68,
p=0.002; competence: F(1, 484) = 14.16, p<0.001),butnoeffectof
price nor its interaction with advertisement type (p's > 0.05). Given that
perceived warmth and competence are antecedents of social attract-
iveness (Chen & Guo, 2021), the impact of advertisement type on them
mirrored its effect on social attractiveness. Supporting Information S1:
Web‐Appendix 3.2 presents results from two serial mediation analyses
that support prior literature by demonstrating that perceived warmth
and competence are antecedents to social attractiveness.
To test whether our main conceptual model holds even when
perceived warmth and competence are included into the analysis, we
ran another moderated serial mediation test (PROCESS Model 83,
10,000 samples; Hayes, 2022) with warmth and competence as
covariates. Our results revealed a nonsignificant index of moderation
mediation (B= 0.001, se = 0.010, 95% CI = [−0.019, 0.021]) because in
both price conditions, the indirect effect of advertisement type on
brand trust through brand's social attractiveness and consumer
skepticism was significant and positive (High: B= 0.018, se = 0.010,
95% CI = [0.002, 0.041]; Low: B=0.018, se = 0.009, 95% CI=
[.005,.039]) (See Figure 9for details). Contrasting these two indirect
effects revealed a nonsignificant effect (c= 0.001, se = 0.010, 95%
CI = [−0.021, 0.022]). Therefore, we conclude that self‐deprecating
(vs. self‐promoting) advertisements boosted brand trust through
enhancing social attractiveness and reducing consumer skepticism in
both price conditions. Our hypothesized effects are not moderated by
price and hold even when we control for the effects of the brand's
perceived warmth and competence.
TABLE 3 Results—Study 4.
Measures
High‐price Low‐price Interaction effect
Ad type—main
effect Price
Self‐deprecating
ad (N= 124)
Self‐promoting
ad (N= 121)
Self‐deprecating
ad (N= 122)
Self‐promoting
ad (N= 121) pη
p
2
pη
p
2
pη
p
2
Perceived Self‐deprecation 6.99
a
(2.23) 2.64
b
(2.04) 7.19
a
(1.94) 2.42
b
(1.66) 0.247 0.003 <0.001 0.529 0.932 0.000
Price Perceptions 7.38
a
(1.39) 7.67
a
(1.29) 4.49
b
(2.10) 4.60
b
(1.88) 0.555 0.001 0.195 0.003 <0.001 0.437
Brand Trust 6.54
a
(1.52) 5.32
b
(1.68) 6.36
a
(1.51) 5.82
b
(1.65) 0.020 0.011 <0.001 0.072 0.269 0.003
Consumer Skepticism 3.61
a
(2.33) 5.50
b
(2.54) 3.46
b
(2.44) 4.24
b
(2.96) 0.013 0.013 <0.001 0.069 0.002 0.020
Brand's Social Attractiveness 5.83
a
(2.06) 4.58
b
(2.31) 5.89
a
(2.13) 5.10
b
(2.21) 0.238 0.003 <0.001 0.052 0.149 0.004
Warmth 6.59
a
(1.73) 5.82
b
(1.90) 6.63
a
(1.74) 6.39
a
(1.76) 0.103 0.005 .002 0.020 .055 0.008
Competence 6.74
a
(1.69) 5.85
b
(1.99) 6.65
a
(1.82) 6.26
a
(1.01) 0.150 0.004 <0.001 0.028 0.350 0.002
Note: Standard deviations are reported in the parentheses. Cell means with different superscripts ('a' and 'b') within the columns “High‐price”and “Low‐price”denote significantly different means (p's < 0.05)
when comparing self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting) advertisements.
2704
|
KALE and SAYIN

7|STUDY 5
In Study 5, we replicated our findings for another product category,
and assessed a downstream consequence of brand trust; advertise-
ment avoidance. We also measured participants' perceptions of
novelty for the advertisements, as self‐deprecating advertisements
might be perceived as novel. Separate pretests ensured the
effectiveness and equivalence of the advertisement types (See
Supporting Information S1: Web‐Appendix 4.1).
7.1 |Procedure
210 participants (50% females, M
age
= 38.12 years, USA residents
recruited via Connect by CloudResearch) viewed either a self‐
deprecating or a self‐promoting advertisement (See Figure 10)fora
fictitious brand of compression socks. Five participants failed the
attention check and were excluded from the analyses, leaving a final
sample of 205. Brand trust and consumer skepticism were measured
as in Study 1. Participants then rated their tendency for advertisement
avoidance (scale in Supporting Information S1: Web‐Appendix 6)and
advertisement's perceived novelty (1 = not novel at all to 9 = extremely
novel;Eisend,2006). After responding to a manipulation check (as in
Study 1), participants reported their demographics.
7.2 |Results and discussion
Independent samples t‐tests showed that the self‐deprecating (vs. self‐
promoting) advertisement was significantly more self‐deprecating
(t(203) = 10.71, p< 0.001). Further, the self‐deprecating (vs. self‐
promoting) advertisement increased brand trust (t(203) = 3.37,
p< 0.001) and lowered consumer skepticism (t(203) = −3.09,
p= 0.002). Participants showed significantly less avoidance toward
the self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting) advertisement (t(203) = −3.05,
p=0.003).The self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting) advertisement was
perceived as significantly more novel (t(203) = 3.68, p<0.001) (Means
reported in Table 4). In Supporting Information S1: Web‐Appendix 4.2,
we presented a parallel mediation analysis that ruled out novelty as an
alternative explanation.
A serial mediation test (Process Model 6; Hayes, 2022; 10,000
samples) to explore the indirect effect of advertisement type on
advertisement avoidance through consumer skepticism and brand
trust was significant and negative (B=−0.125, se = 0.058, 95%
CI = [−0.035, −0.258]) (See Figure 11 for details). The results showed
that self‐deprecating (vs. self‐promoting) advertisements reduced
consumer skepticism, which increased brand trust, consequently
reducing advertisement avoidance.
8|GENERAL DISCUSSION
Self‐deprecation is studied extensively in social psychology, organi-
zational behavior, and political science (Baumgartner et al., 2018;
Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2019; DelGreco & Denes, 2020), but has
received little attention in marketing. Across six experiments
(including one Supporting Information study, Supporting Information
S1: Web Appendix 8), we demonstrate that self‐deprecating (vs. self‐
promoting) advertisements targeted at low‐importance attributes
FIGURE 9 Study 4—moderated serial mediation path coefficients.
FIGURE 10 Study 5 stimuli: Self‐deprecating (a) and self‐
promoting (b) advertisement.
KALE and SAYIN
|
2705

enhance a brand's social attractiveness, alleviate consumer skepticism,
boost brand trust, and reduce advertisement avoidance. We also
showed that self‐deprecation is perceived as a deliberate strategy in
advertising, and ruled out consumers' sentiment and engagement
with the advertisement, perception of nonconformity and novelty as
alternative process explanations. Our results were robust across
different price points, product categories (coffee, candles, orthopedic
shoes, and compression socks), and samples (students and online
panels) from diverse geographies (USA and Western‐Europe), ensuring
the reliability and generalizability of our findings.
8.1 |Theoretical contributions
This research, by investigating whether, when, and, why consumers
respond favorably to self‐deprecating advertisements, offers several
theoretical contributions. First, we contribute to advertising research
which argues that advertisements primarily share positive informa-
tion about brands (Hernandez et al., 2019; Mo et al., 2018). We show
that self‐deprecating advertising—introducing only negative conno-
tations about a product or brand—can significantly boost brand trust
and reduce advertisement avoidance. Second, the literature on
self‐deprecation presents conflicting findings on whether it leads to
positive or negative evaluations (Critcher et al., 2018; DelGreco &
Denes, 2020). In responding to the “whether”and “when”questions,
we reconciled these findings by identifying that self‐deprecation
begets favorable responses when used deliberately on low‐
importance attributes. Third, in addressing the “why”aspect, we
found that self‐deprecating advertisements enhance brand trust by
elevating brand's social attractiveness which diminishes skepticism.
Extant research on skepticism‐reduction focuses on the effects of
holistic thinking (DeMotta et al., 2023)andcuriosity‐stimulating
information disclosure (Hüttl‐Maack et al., 2023). We contribute to
this discourse by demonstrating that self‐deprecating advertisements
can reduce skepticism by enhancing a brand's social attractiveness.
Fourth, we contribute to extant research highlighting mistrust and
skepticism towards advertisers (Ketelaar et al., 2015) and their
persuasion tactics (Baek & Morimoto, 2012) as primary causes for
advertisement avoidance. We identify self‐deprecating advertising as a
strategy that mitigates these causes, thereby reducing advertisement
avoidance. Finally, we build on prior research in impression manage-
ment, emphasizing the influence of elements like engaging brand
narratives and celebrity endorsements (Spear & Roper, 2013)on
consumers' brand perceptions. We illustrate that self‐deprecating
advertisements enhance a brand's social attractiveness, prompting
positive brand impressions.
TABLE 4 Results of Study 5.
Measures
Self‐deprecating
advertisement
Self‐promoting
advertisement pValue Cohen's d
N= 101 N= 104
Perceived self‐
deprecation
6.95 (2.00) 3.71 (2.31) <0.001 1.50
Brand trust 6.90 (1.27) 6.29 (1.31) <0.001 0.471
Consumer skepticism 3.03 (1.98) 3.90 (2.07) 0.002 −1.431
Advertisement
avoidance
3.88 (2.16) 4.85 (2.38) 0.003 −0.426
Novelty 6.89 (1.72) 5.93 (2.00) <0.001 0.514
Note: Standard deviations are reported in parentheses.
FIGURE 11 Study 5—serial mediation path coefficients.
2706
|
KALE and SAYIN

8.2 |Managerial and practical implications
Prior research and industry evidence indicate a concerning decline in
consumer trust towards advertisers and brands (Ipsos, 2022; Rajavi
et al., 2019). This presents a serious problem for marketers as brand
trust enhances consumer loyalty, word‐of‐mouth, and market share
expansion (Monahan & Romero, 2020). Our findings offer a potential
solution to the declining trust. Brands can leverage self‐deprecation
across various contexts, including product packaging, social media
engagement, customer service, and collaborations with influencers
and celebrities, not just advertisements. For example, the brand‐
ambassador of eHarmony, actress Lindsay Lohan, self‐deprecated her
single status to promote the dating platform (TrendHunter, 2009).
Self‐deprecation on product packaging helps differentiate the brand
and establish an image that resonates with consumers. For instance,
Oatly, the food company, included a self‐deprecating message on
their packaging, “We could have written anything we wanted here,
but instead we wrote this. At least what's inside this package will feel
like an upgrade.”Oatly further employed self‐deprecating names for
their ice‐cream (“Pretty Average Vanilla”; Wolfsohn, 2019).
Dwindling trust prompts advertisement avoidance, preventing
brand messages from reaching their target consumers (Çelik
et al., 2023;McDonald,2018;Rojas‐Méndez et al., 2009). This can
create a rift between brands and consumers, resulting in missed
opportunities for brands to convey information or address consumer
needs, ultimately leading to lost sales (Knittel et al., 2016). Our findings
show that self‐deprecating advertisements may help advertisers to
alleviate avoidance, foster stronger brand trust, and consequently build
better communications with consumers.
8.3 |Limitations and directions for future research
This research has a few limitations that present opportunities for
future investigations. While self‐deprecating advertisements are
infrequently used so far, we contend that the dissemination of our
findings might encourage a broader adoption to leverage their trust‐
boosting benefits. Our findings revealed that the brand trust‐
enhancing effect of self‐deprecating advertisements was serially
mediated by increased social attractiveness and reduced consumer
skepticism. The correlational nature of the relationship between the
mediators allows for the possibility of alternative statistical models
being significant (Engeler & Barasz, 2021;Pieters,2017). In other
words, when the order of the mediators is changed, the indirect effect
remains significant (Hayes, 2022). Nevertheless, we assert the
plausibility of our proposed model, as it is grounded in prior literature
that suggests that social attractiveness causes skepticism‐reduction
(Alicke & Zell, 2009;Edwardsetal.,2015;Eisend,2006) and consumer
skepticism influences brand trust (Chari et al., 2016;Nametal.,2020).
Our studies directly measured consumers' responses to self‐
deprecating advertisements. However, our methodology did not
allow us to understand consumers' interpretations of the self‐
deprecation or their underlying thought processes. Consumers may
perceive the self‐deprecation message as humorous and ironic
TABLE 5 Directions for future research.
Research domains Future research questions Theoretical and practical importance
Brand types •How do consumers evaluate self‐deprecating advertisements
from established (vs. new) brands?
•How will brand personality (e.g., sincere or sophisticated)
interact with the use of self‐deprecation and self‐promotion in
advertisements?
•Advance our understanding of how brand types
affect consumers' responses to self‐deprecating
advertisements.
•Provide insights for marketers on how to
effectively utilize self‐deprecating
advertisements.
Consumers' individual
differences
•Which dispositional consumer characteristics (e.g., need for
status, self‐enhancement needs, and self‐construal) affect
consumers' evaluation of self‐deprecating advertisements?
•Which situational characteristics (such as mood and cognitive
load) interact with consumers' evaluation of self‐deprecating
advertisements?
•Understand how consumer characteristics affect
their responses to self‐deprecating
advertisements.
•Help advertisers identify suitable consumer
segments for self‐deprecating advertisements.
Diverse situations •How will consumers perceive self‐deprecating advertisements
during a brand crisis?
•How will a brand's self‐deprecating response during situations
of product and service failure affect repurchase intentions?
•Can self‐deprecating advertisements in social, cause‐related,
charity campaigns and public service announcements enhance
organizations' social attractiveness and trustworthiness?
•Identify the contexts in which self‐deprecating
advertisements may benefit or harm brands.
Downstream
consequences
•How may self‐deprecating advertisements affect consumers'
word‐of‐mouth intentions?
•What kind of consumer emotions would self‐deprecating
advertisements generate?
•Advance our knowledge of how self‐deprecating
advertisements affect consumers' actual
behavior or emotions
KALE and SAYIN
|
2707

(Bitterly & Brooks, 2020), causing them to interpret the advertise-
ment differently. Future research could employ qualitative methods
to disentangle potential interpretations of self‐deprecating adver-
tisements. We find that self‐deprecation consistently boosts the
social attractiveness of brands across various samples, product
categories, and country‐contexts. This, in turn, leads to decreased
consumer skepticism and heightened trust after a single exposure to
the advertisement. Future investigations can explore their longitudi-
nal effects, investigating whether the initial boosts in social
attractiveness, brand trust, and reduced skepticism persist or
diminish over time. We anticipate that the impact of a single
exposure to self‐deprecating advertisements would be more pro-
nounced for new brands, as consumers are in the process of forming
their attitudes toward the brand. However, for established brands,
where consumers have already solidified their attitudes and opinions,
a single exposure may not suffice to induce attitude change
(Campbell & Keller, 2003). Future research could explore the effects
of repeated exposure to self‐deprecating advertisements for estab-
lished brands.
Similarly, future research can explore how self‐deprecating
advertisements affect consumer reactions for various brand types
(e.g., brands with distinct personalities), consumer segments (e.g.,
individuals with varying degrees of social status and self‐
enhancement needs), and situational contexts (e.g., brand crisis or
service failure). Researchers may empirically investigate whether
incorporating self‐deprecation into charity appeals and public service
announcements enhances organizations' social attractiveness and
trustworthiness, potentially reducing consumers' avoidance of such
campaigns and encouraging participation in activities benefiting
society, such as recycling, sustainable consumption, and supporting
charitable causes. In Table 5, we outline directions for future research
within consumer psychology and marketing.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ETHICS STATEMENT
This research has been approved by the institutional review board
(IRB) and the Research Ethics Committee at the authors' institution.
ORCID
Vaishnavi Kale http://orcid.org/0009-0007-7696-8316
Eda Sayin http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2433-4497
REFERENCES
Alicke, M. D., & Zell, E. (2009). Social attractiveness and blame. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology,39(9), 2089–2105. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00517.x
Andersen, P. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (1996). The bright side of relational
communication: Interpersonal warmth as a social emotion, Handbook
of Communication and Emotion (pp. 303–329). Academic Press.
Austin, A. B., Costabile, K. A., & Smith, L. (2022). Social judgments, social
media, and self‐deprecation: Role of information source and valence
on trait and favorability judgments. Journal of Media Psychology,
34(3), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000299
Baek, T. H., & Morimoto, M. (2012). Stay away from me. Journal of
Advertising,41(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-
3367410105
Baumgartner, J. C., Morris, J. S., & Coleman, J. M. (2018). Did the “road to
the White house run through”letterman? Chris christie, letterman,
and other‐disparaging versus self‐deprecating humor. Journal of
Political Marketing,17(3), 282–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15377857.2015.1074137
Bitterly, B., & Brooks, A. W. (2020). Sarcasm, self‐deprecation, and inside
jokes: A user's guide to humor at work. Harvard Business Review,
98(4), 96–103.
Bitterly, T. B., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2019). The impression management
benefits of humorous self‐disclosures: How humor influences
perceptions of veracity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes,151,73–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.005
Blanton, H., & Christie, C. (2003). Deviance regulation: A theory of action
and identity. Review of General Psychology,7(2), 115–149. https://
doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.2.115
Breuning, L. G. (2016). 20 signs you are too self‐critical. Retrieved October
10, 2023 from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-
neurochemical-self/201602/20-signs-you-are-too-self-critical
Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising
repetition effects. Journal of Consumer Research,30(2), 292–304.
https://doi.org/10.1086/376800
Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’use of persuasion
knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on
perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research,
27(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1086/314309
Çelik, F., Çam, M. S., & Koseoglu, M. A. (2023). Ad avoidance in the digital
context: A systematic literature review and research agenda.
International Journal of Consumer Studies,47(6), 2071–2105. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12882
Chandler, A. (2017). Self‐deprecation is damaging and unhealthy –let's break
the habit. Retrieved October 10, 2023 from https://metro.co.uk/
2017/01/28/self-deprecation-is-damaging-and-unhealthy-lets-
breakthe-habit-6402441/
Chari, S., Christodoulides, G., Presi, C., Wenhold, J., & Casaletto, J. P.
(2016). Consumer trust in user‐generated brand recommendations
on Facebook. Psychology & Marketing,33(12), 1071–1081. https://
doi.org/10.1002/mar.20941
Chen, F., & Guo, T. (2021). Effects of competence information on
perceptions of warmth. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,24(4),
524–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12452
Critcher, C. R., O'Donnell, M., & Jung, M. (2018). Self‐Deprecation Signals
Humility, But Not As Much As Self‐Deprecators Assume, ACR North
American Advances.
DelGreco, M. & Denes, A. (2020). You are not as cute as you think you
are: Emotional responses to expectancy violations in heterosexual
online dating interactions. Sex Roles,82(9), 622–632. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11199-019-01078-0
DeMotta, Y., Janssen, C., & Sen, S. (2023). Low‐fit cause‐related
marketing: When and why do consumers respond positively.
Journal of Consumer Psychology,34, 281–298. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jcpy.1345
Edwards, C., Stoll, B., Faculak, N., & Karman, S. (2015). Social presence on
LinkedIn: Perceived credibility and interpersonal attractiveness
2708
|
KALE and SAYIN

based on user profile picture. Online Journal of Communication and
Media Technologies,5(4), 102. https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/2528
Eisend, M. (2006). Two‐sided advertising: A meta‐analysis. International
Journal of Research in Marketing,23(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijresmar.2005.11.001
Eisend, M. (2022). The influence of humor in advertising: Explaining the
effects of humor in two‐sided messages. Psychology & Marketing,
39(5), 962–973. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21634
Engeler, I., & Barasz, K. (2021). From mix‐and‐match to head‐to‐toe: how
brand combinations affect observer trust. Journal of Consumer
Research,48(4), 562–585. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab041
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling. Journal of
Consumer Psychology,7(2), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327663jcp0702_02
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How
people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research,
21(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1086/209380
Gilbert, P. (1997). The evolution of social attractiveness and its role in
shame, humiliation, guilt and therapy. British Journal of Medical
Psychology,70(2), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.
1997.tb01893.x
Gilbert, P., Price, J., & Allan, S. (1995). Social comparison, social
attractiveness and evolution: How might they be related. New
Ideas in Psychology,13(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-
118X(95)00002-X
Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression‐based approach (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Hernandez, J. M. D. C., Wright, S. A., & Affonso, F. M. (2019). The
importance of advertising skepticism for brand extension appeals,
Psychology & Marketing,36(7), pp. 687–699. https://doi.org/10.
1002/mar.21205
Hoppner, J. J. & Vadakkepatt, G. G. (2019). Examining moral authority in
the marketplace: A conceptualization and framework. Journal of
Business Research,95, 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2018.07.045
Houman Andersen, P. (2001). Relationship development and marketing
communication: An integrative model. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing,16(3), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620110
389786
Hüttl‐Maack, V., Sedghi, T. M., & Daume, J. M. (2023). Through rose‐
tinted glasses: How inducing and resolving curiosity makes
consumers less skeptical and improves their product evaluations.
Journal of Consumer Psychology,34,92–100. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jcpy.1369
Ipsos. (2022). Ipsos veracity index 2022. Retrieved March 26, 2023, from
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-veracity-index-2022
Kamins, M. A., Brand, M. J., Hoeke, S. A., & Moe, J. C. (1989). Two‐sided
versus one‐sided celebrity endorsements: The impact on advertising
effectiveness and credibility. Journal of Advertising,18(2), 4–10.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4188716
Ketelaar, P. E., Konig, R., Smit, E. G., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2015). In ads we
trust. Religiousness as a predictor of advertising trustworthiness and
avoidance. Journal of Consumer Marketing,32(3), 190–198. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JCM-09-2014-1149
Knittel, Z., Beurer, K., & Berndt, A. (2016). Brand avoidance among
GenerationY consumers. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal,19(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-03-2015-0019
Kronrod, A., & Danziger, S. (2013). Wii will rock you!”the use and effect of
figurative language in consumer reviews of hedonic and utilitarian
consumption. Journal of Consumer Research,40(4), 726–739. https://
doi.org/10.1086/671998
Low, G. S., & Lamb, Jr. C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality
of brand associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management,9(6),
350–370. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420010356966
McDonald, S. C. (2018). What do we really know about attitudes toward
privacy and advertisement avoidance. Journal of Advertising
Research,58(1), 75–76. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2018-010
Mo, Z., Liu, M. T., & Liu, Y. (2018). Effects of functional green advertising
on self and others, Psychology & Marketing, 35(5), pp. 368–382.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21092
Monahan, L. & Romero, M. (2020). Heading the right way? the influence
of motion direction in advertising on brand trust. Journal of
Advertising,49(3), 250–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.
2020.1751010
Mookerjee, S., Cornil, Y., & Hoegg, J. (2021). From waste to taste: How
“ugly”labels can increase purchase of unattractive produce. Journal
of Marketing,85(3), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022242920988656
Nam, K., Baker, J., Ahmad, N., & Goo, J. (2020). Dissatisfaction,
disconfirmation, and distrust: An empirical examination of value
co‐destruction through negative electronic word‐of‐mouth (eWOM.
Information Systems Frontiers,22,113–130. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10796-018-9849-4
Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad
skepticism: The consequences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising,
34(3), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2005.10639199
O'Donnell, M., Jung, M., & Critcher, C. (2016). The potential benefits and
pitfalls of poking fun at yourself: Self‐deprecating humor as
impression management. ACR North American Advances.
Owens, T. J. (1993). Accentuate the positive‐and the negative: Rethinking
the use of self‐esteem, self‐deprecation, and self‐confidence. Social
Psychology Quarterly,56,288–299. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2786665
Owens, T. J. (1994). Two dimensions of self‐esteem: Reciprocal effects of
positive self‐worth and self‐deprecation on adolescent problems.
American Sociological Review,59, 391–407. https://doi.org/10.
2307/2095940
Pieters, R. (2017). Meaningful mediation analysis: Plausible causal
inference and informative communication. Journal of Consumer
Research,44(3), 692–716. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx081
Rajavi, K., Kushwaha, T., & Steenkamp, J.B. E. M. (2019). In brands we trust?
A multicategory, multicountry investigation of sensitivity of consum-
ers' trust in brands to marketing‐mix activities. Journal of Consumer
Research,46(4), 651–670. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz026
Rojas‐Méndez, J. I., Davies, G., & Madran, C. (2009). Universal differences
in advertising avoidance behavior: A cross‐cultural study. Journal of
Business Research,62(10), 947–954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2008.08.008
Rua, D. (2021). Anti‐adblock: Stop ad blockers and recover revenue.
https://blog.getadmiral.com/anti-adblock-how-to-detect-engage-
and-recover-revenue-from-adblockers
Schniederjans, D. G., Atlas, S. A., & Starkey, C. M. (2018). Impression
management for corporate brands over mobile media. Journal of
Product & Brand Management,27(4), 385–403.
Spear, S., & Roper, S. (2013). Using corporate stories to build the
corporate brand: An impression management perspective. Journal of
Product & Brand Management,22(7), 491–501. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JPBM-09-2013-0387
Speer, S. A. (2019). Reconsidering self‐deprecation as a communication
practice. British Journal of Social Psychology,58(4), 806–828. https://
doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12329
To, R. N., & Patrick, V. M. (2021). How the eyes connect to the heart: The
influence of eye gaze direction on advertising effectiveness. Journal
of Consumer Research,48(1), 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/
ucaa063
TrendHunter. (2009). Self‐deprecating celebrities. TrendHunter.com.
Retrieved August 19 from https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/
lindsay-lohan-eharmony-profile-parody-funny-or-die
KALE and SAYIN
|
2709

Vonk, R. (1999). Impression formation and impression management:
Motives, traits, and likeability inferred from self‐promoting and self‐
deprecating behavior. Social cognition,17(4), 390–412. https://doi.
org/10.1521/soco.1999.17.4.390
Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to
cause‐related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing,17(2), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/
074391569801700207
Wolfsohn, M. (2019). Don't judge a brand by its bus bench (or: If you don't
like Oatly's advertising, you're wrong).LinkedIn.https://www.
linkedin.com/pulse/dont-judge-brand-its-bus-bench-you-like-
oatlys-youre-wrong-wolfsohn/
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the
Supporting Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Kale, V., & Sayin, E. (2024).
Impressive insults: How do consumers respond to self‐
deprecating advertisements? Psychology & Marketing,41,
2695–2710. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22078
2710
|
KALE and SAYIN