CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY Categorization

25 Oct 2005 16:33 AR ANRV264-PS57-17.
tex XMLPublishSM (2004/02/24) P1: KUV

10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190136
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2006. 57:453–85

doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190136
Copyright
c 2006 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY: Categorization,

Inferences, Affect, and Persuasion
Barbara Loken
Department of Marketing, University of Minnesota, Carlson School of Management,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455; email: [email protected]
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2006.57:453-485. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota- Law Library on 08/29/06. For personal use only.
Key Words information processing, attitudes, judgments, literature review

■ Abstract This chapter reviews research on consumer psychology with emphasis
on the topics of categorization, inferences, affect, and persuasion. The chapter reviews
theory-based empirical research during the period 1994–2004. Research on categoriza-
tion includes empirical research on brand categories, goals as organizing frameworks
and motivational bases for judgments, and self-based processing. Research on infer-
ences includes numerous types of inferences that are cognitively and/or experienced
based. Research on affect includes the effects of mood on processing and cognitive
and noncognitive bases for attitudes and intentions. Research on persuasion focuses
heavily on the moderating role of elaboration and dual-process models, and includes
research on attitude strength responses, advertising responses, and negative versus
positive evaluative dimensions.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
CONSUMER CATEGORIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
Similarity-Based Category Inferences to New Category Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
Assimilation and Contrast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
The Influence of New Category Members on the Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
Goals as Organizing Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
Factors That Influence Category Expansion and Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
Self as a Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
CONSUMER INFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460
Inferences Based on Omitted Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460
Singular Brand Versus Multiple Brand Inferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
Inferences Based on Irrelevant Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
Inferences Based on Experiential and Sensory Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
Conditional Inferences, Correlations, and Causal Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
Metacognitive Experiences and Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
Brand Name Inferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
Accessibility-Diagnosticity Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
Biases and Motivated Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
CONSUMER AFFECT, MOOD, FEELINGS, AND ATTITUDES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
0066-4308/06/0110-0453$20.00 453
25 Oct 2005 16:33 AR ANRV264-PS57-17.tex XMLPublishSM (2004/02/24) P1: KUV
454 LOKEN
The Effects of Mood on Judgments and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465

Cognitive Versus Noncognitive Bases for Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466
Cognition, Affect, and Behavioral Intentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
MODELS OF PERSUASION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468
Elaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468
Attitude Strength, Resistance, and Confidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
Ad Repetition, Ad Spacing, Incidental Ad Exposure, and Fluency . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
Differences in Negative and Positive Evaluative Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
INTRODUCTION
A recent Annual Review of Psychology chapter (Simonson et al. 2001) describes

the consumer behavior literature as divided into three major subgroups: (a) the con-
sumer information processing segment, (b) the behavioral decision theory (BDT)
segment, and (c) the postmodernist, postpositivist, interpretive segment, the first
two of which have psychological foundations. The first subgroup, consumer in-
formation processing, includes consumer cognition and affect, and is the focus of
the present review. Consumer information processing has as its theory base social
and cognitive psychology (e.g., research by Bargh 2002, Barsalou 1999, Chaiken
1980, Fishbein & Ajzen 1975, Fiske & Neuberg 1990, Higgins 2002, Markus &
Kunda 1986, Petty & Cacioppo 1986, and Wyer & Srull 1989, to name just a
few). The BDT literature, which includes topics such as choice models, economic
psychology, and consumer search strategies, draws from a somewhat different
psychological literature (see Simonson et al. 2001) and is covered in this review
only to the extent that it overlaps with topics addressed. Individual differences
research (personality, individual difference measures, and expertise) and domain-
specific findings such as price perceptions, ethics and socially responsible business
practices, social marketing, survey research, Internet marketing, and others, are
not reviewed here unless applicable to the theoretical issues addressed. Included
in this review is theoretically based, empirical research in consumer psychology
published primarily in four journals: Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Journal of Marketing Research, and Journal of Marketing.
From 1982 to 1998, Annual Review of Psychology articles reviewed the con-
sumer psychology literature every four years (Kassarjian 1982, Bettman 1986,
Cohen & Chakravarti 1990, Tybout & Artz 1994, Jacoby et al. 1998). In 2001,
Simonson et al. broke with tradition and wrote a historical perspective on consumer
research and a more general discussion of philosophical debates in the discipline.
With the expansive nature of the field, it has become increasingly difficult to eval-
uate all consumer psychology literature in a single review.
The present chapter returns to a more traditional review of consumer research,
but differs from prior reviews in that it is both narrower in topic focus (consumer
categorization, inferences, affect, and persuasion) and covers a broader range of
years, 1994–2004, with primary emphasis on research in the years 1997–2004.
CONSUMER COGNITION AND AFFECT 455
Research in the years 1994–1996 was reviewed previously (Jacoby et al. 1998),
and is included to the extent that it helps frame and clarify research on the topics
addressed. Research published outside the designated years or in publications
outside of the four journals noted is included selectively.
CONSUMER CATEGORIZATION
During the review period, research on brand categories (e.g., Healthy Choice prod-
ucts) and goal-derived categories (e.g., things to eat in my car on the way to work)
has increased relative to more traditional research on product categories (e.g., au-
tomobiles, shampoos). Research on brand categories has focused on the manner

in which perception of new category members (brand extensions) are influenced
by category beliefs and affect and also on how information about new category
members reciprocally influence beliefs and attitudes about the category. Research
on goal-derived categories focuses on the flexibility of category representations,
and the effects of goals on cognition and affect. Research on the self, as a cate-
gory and as a basis for processing information, has continued and is increasingly
directed toward the study of self-construals and multicultural views of the self.
Similarity-Based Category Inferences to

New Category Members
Consumers regularly use category information in making judgments about a new
category member. For example, test-driving a Lexus hybrid automobile may lead
consumers to infer that it shares similarities with a traditional Lexus (e.g., high
performance, prestige, leather seats). Similarity-based inferences such as these
have been the focus of research on brand categories. A brand category, such as
Lexus, can be viewed as both a set of attributes (e.g., high performance, prestige)
and a set of exemplar products (e.g., Lexus sedans, Lexus SUVs), and in any
given context, information about either attributes or products may be accessible
(Loken et al. 2002, Meyvis & Janiszewski 2004). Similarly, accessible informa-
tion about the extension (e.g., Lexus hybrid) may pertain to its product category
(hybrids), its individuating attributes (e.g., its front panel display), or its connec-
tion to the parent brand (Lexus). To the extent that accessible information about
the brand category and accessible information about the brand extension increase
consumers’ perceptions of similarity between the parent brand and extension, cat-
egory inferences should be more likely to occur. This well-established finding
continues in the review period; greater perceived similarity (or perceived “fit”)
between the parent brand and the new brand extension increases acceptance of
the brand extension, whether due to product category similarity or brand-specific
associations (Barone et al. 2000, Bottomley & Holden 2001, Klink & Smith 2001).
Similarity (between the parent brand and new extension) has also been viewed as a
heuristic in decision making. Similarity is more often used in evaluating brand
456 LOKEN
extensions when the product category information of either the parent brand
(Meyvis & Janiszewski 2004) or the extension (Klink & Smith 2001) is the only
information accessible or available, and is less often used when the extension’s
individuating attribute information is available (Klink & Smith 2001). To the ex-
tent that both product category similarity and brand attribute similarity reflect a
common goal, they will both predict extension acceptance; if goals are incongru-
ent, other factors (e.g., only product category similarity or only brand attribute
similarity) may determine extension acceptance (Martin & Stewart 2001).
In addition to research on brand extensions, other consumer research replicates
earlier findings of a positive relationship between a category member’s typical-
ity (or similarity to other category members) and the category member’s evalu-
ation. In general, more typical category members are better liked (Carpenter &
Nakamoto 1996; Folkes & Patrick 2003, study 3; Simonin & Ruth 1998; Veryzer
& Hutchinson 1998; Zhang & Sood 2002).
Another type of similarity-based comparison involves the alignability of at-
tributes of the new category stimulus and the existing category (e.g., Gentner &
Markman 1997, Gregan-Paxton 2001, Gregan-Paxton & John 1997, Moreau &
Markman 2001, Roehm & Sternthal 2001). Alignable differences (versus differ-
ences that are not alignable) are more memorable (Zhang & Markman 1998),
comparative ads are more effective than noncomparative ads when brands can be
compared along the same (versus different) attributes (Zhang et al. 2002; see also
Lurie 2004 for research on structural properties of attributes), and brand evaluations
are more prone to revision when counterattitudinal information can be compared
along the same attributes as accessible brand information (Pham & Muthukrishnan
2002).
A different perspective argues that resolving a moderate disparity produces pos-
itive affect, which is applied to the object evaluated (Peracchio & Meyers-Levy
1994). Per this view, an object that is moderately dissimilar from a category will
be better liked than either a similar or extremely dissimilar object. This moderate
incongruity effect was found for people with low prior knowledge about the cat-
egory, who required more effort to resolve the incongruity (Peracchio & Tybout
1996), and disappeared when people had low motivation to process information
(e.g., under high risk conditions, Campbell & Goodstein 2001).
Assimilation and Contrast

Theories of assimilation/contrast argue that if, during encoding, an object is per-
ceived as similar to a category, it will be assimilated to the category and take
on its features and affect; a contrast response occurs when responses to the ob-
ject are adjusted away from the comparison standard, if an object is perceived as
dissimilar to a comparison standard, and usually occurs at the time of judgment.
Contrast effects occur when situational cues include dissimilarities information
(Hafner 2004, Wanke et al. 1998) or individuating information highlights dis-
similarities (Cooke et al. 2002), when sufficient cognitive resources are available
for processing contextual information or when people are high in need for cog-
nition (Meyers-Levy & Tybout 1997), and when remembered information is re-
counted analytically rather than episodically (Bickart & Schwarz 2001). Others
argue that contrast effects are not due to more cognitive effort, but rather depend
on whether the accessible context information (the standard of comparison) is
well defined (Levin & Levin 2000) and is both distinctive and relevant (Stapel
et al. 1998). Finally, although assimilation responses are generally the default re-
sponse, in some situations contrast effects can be the default (Raghunathan & Irwin
2001).
The Influence of New Category Members on the Category

Information about new category members can also influence existing category
beliefs. For example, brand extensions (new category members) can have effects
on beliefs and attitudes about the parent brand category that are either negative
(dilution of the brand) or positive (enhancement). Beliefs about a well-known
brand were influenced negatively when information about a brand extension (John
et al. 1998) or information about a brand context (Buchanan et al. 1999) was
incongruent with beliefs about the brand (see also Milberg et al. 1997). People
processed the incongruent information thoughtfully and analytically (Buchanan
et al. 1999). Negative dilution, as well as positive enhancement, effects were repli-
cated under conditions of high motivation (Gurhan-Canli & Maheswaran 1998)
and when extension information was high in accessibility (Ahluwalia & Gurhan-
Canli 2000). Under low motivation, people used nonanalytic processing; more
(versus less) prototypical extensions modified parent brand evaluations (Gurhan-
Canli & Maheswaran 1998). That is, extremely atypical category members had
less impact on category beliefs than did moderately atypical category members.
When extension information was low in accessibility, diagnostic cues were used;
negative information (producing dilution effects) was more diagnostic for brand
evaluations when extensions were in similar, but not dissimilar, categories to the
parent brand, and positive information (producing enhancement effects) was more
diagnostic when extensions belonged to dissimilar, rather than similar, categories
(Ahluwalia & Gurhan-Canli 2000).
Negative brand extension information can also affect existing individual prod-
ucts of the parent brand if these products are not already strongly established in the
minds of consumers (John et al. 1998). Outside a laboratory setting, too, people
were found to update their perceptions of the parent brand and individual products
of the brand based on their experiences with brand extensions (Erdem 1998).
Finally, priming a new brand extension can increase the accessibility of the
parent brand category, particularly when the parent brand category is not already
chronically accessible (Morrin 1999). Researchers have examined primes in a
variety of other contexts, too, including prosmoker and antismoker stereotypes
(Pechmann & Knight 2002), exemplars in television viewing (Shrum et al. 1998),
and product expensiveness judgments (Adaval & Monroe 2002).
458 LOKEN
Goals as Organizing Frameworks

Goals can serve as organizing frameworks for product or purchase information
(Huffman 1996, Martin & Stewart 2001), and multiple goals can coexist within a
given individual (Sengupta & Johar 2002). Activating a goal can influence mem-
bers of a consideration set (Chakravarti & Janiszewski 2003, Ratneshwar et al.
1996), increase similarity perceptions of objects that do not visually resemble
each other (Ratneshwar et al. 2001), and increase the attractiveness of objects re-
lated to those goals (Martin & Stewart 2001, Ratneshwar et al. 2000); objects not
related to the goal are devalued (Brendl et al. 2003). Goal-derived categories have
flexible boundaries; similarities between category members were found to vary
depending on whether a personal or situational goal was salient (Ratneshwar et al.

2001). When goals conflict (i.e., a single product cannot meet all salient goals) or
when there is goal ambiguity (i.e., a lack of salient goals), consumers are more
likely to consider alternatives from different product categories (Ratneshwar et al.
1996). When people violated their goals, they showed decreased performance
on a subsequent task, as compared to people with no goals (Soman & Cheema
2004).
Motivational and self-regulatory approaches to assessing goals have increased
in interest (e.g., Ariely & Levav 2000, Bagozzi & Dholakia 1999, Baumeister
2002, Higgins 2002, Krishnan & Shapiro 1999). Researchers have compared con-
sumers who were promotion-focused and prevention-focused using a variety of
operationalizations (e.g., independent versus interdependent self-views, Aaker &
Lee 2001; ideals versus “oughts,” Pham & Avnet 2004). Consumers who were
promotion-focused (versus prevention-focused) were persuaded more by positive
(versus negative) outcomes (Aaker & Lee 2001), subjective affective responses
to an ad (versus message substance, Pham & Avnet 2004), hedonic, attractive,
performance-related attributes (versus utilitarian, unattractive, reliability-related
attributes, Chernov 2004a), and actions that departed from (versus preserved) the
status quo (Chernov 2004b).
Factors That Influence Category Expansion and Flexibility

Consumers need to have stable representations of objects and events in memory that
can be used for interpreting and evaluating objects and events in their environment.
Category stability was demonstrated by Viswanathan & Childers (1999) in their
reanalysis of Loken & Ward’s (1990) study of prototypicality measures. Using the
same attributes, with minor modifications, to measure attribute-based indices of
prototypicality yielded—almost a decade later—significant relationships between
these attribute-based measures and a global typicality measure. A new, fuzzy set–
based measure also predicted global typicality.
Category representations also require flexibility and the ability to adapt to
changes in the environment. In addition to the flexibility of goal-derived cate-
gories, noted earlier, research finds that category boundaries become broader or nar-
rower, and more or less flexible, depending on motivational, ability, and contextual
factors. A positive mood state may increase motivation to engage in relational

elaboration, as demonstrated by greater clustering of brands recalled by product
category membership and greater recall of brand names when they were in the
same product categories as stimulus brands (Lee & Sternthal 1999). When people
were in a more (versus less) positive mood (Barone & Miniard 2002, Barone et al.
2000) and received information about a new brand category member (brand exten-
sion) that was moderately dissimilar to the parent brand category, they were more
likely to perceive the brand extension as similar to the parent brand category and
evaluate it favorably. However, mood did not enhance evaluations of extensions of
unfavorable parent brands (Barone & Miniard 2002).
When consumers were exposed five times (versus once) to information about a
brand category’s positive link to an incongruent brand extension, their perceptions
of extension consistency increased and they evaluated the extension more favor-
ably (Lane 2000). When a brand’s benefits were accessible, which occurred more
for brand categories with more (versus less) diverse members, new incongruent
category extensions were rated more positively (Meyvis & Janiszewski 2004).
Innovative consumers, who tend to be less risk averse, were more accepting of
incongruent category members (Klink & Smith 2001).
Ability and knowledge factors also increase flexibility. Experts (relative to
novices) were more likely to organize information by product subcategories, re-
trieve different brands for different usage occasions (Cowley & Mitchell 2003), and
store information about alternatives in a way that increased flexibility in evaluating
the same product across different usage occasions (Mitchell & Dacin 1996). Older
children, relative to younger children, define categories more by complex func-
tional (versus perceptual) cues (John 1999; see also Achenreiner & John 2003).
Owners (versus nonowners) of a brand (Kirmani et al. 1999) have broader, more
flexible categories when making judgments. Strategies taught to consumers to
break down frequency estimates into subcategories (e.g., unbundling credit card
expenses) can reduce errors and processing effort (Menon 1997, Srivastava &
Raghubir 2002).
Self as a Category
The self category has been described as flexible or malleable (Aaker 1999).
The same individual may retrieve and use different self-views, depending upon
the chronic and temporal accessibility of these inputs, in the form of cultural
views (Aaker & Lee 2001, Briley & Wyer 2002, Brumbaugh 2002, Forehand &
Deshpande 2001, Lau-Gesk 2003, Mandel 2003), social identities (Bolton & Reed
2004, Reed 2004), or personality traits (Aaker 1999). A social identity that is
salient, important to the self, and evaluatively diagnostic (versus one that is not) is
more likely to influence attitudes (Reed 2004), and thinking dominated by a strong
salient identity is more resistant to corrective procedures (Bolton & Reed 2004).
Self-appraisals regarding performance or reflections of what others might think
influenced more global self-definitions (Laverie et al. 2002). In comparison with
460 LOKEN
an independent self-view, priming an interdependent self-view has been associated

with more financial risk-taking and less social risk-taking (Mandel 2003), and with
prevention goals (Aaker & Lee 2001). Priming cultural identity (whether Chinese
or American) produced a group mind-set that increased prevention goals (Briley
& Wyer 2002).
Research continues to find that information processing with respect to the self
increases elaborative thought and persuasion, such as when generating self stories
(West et al. 2004) or when processing strong message arguments relative to the
self (Burnkrant & Unnava 1995). But these positive effects of self-referencing
on attitudes were found to be eliminated when consumers were not motivated to
process the ad information (Meyers-Levy & Peracchio 1996), or when elaboration

was excessive and created tedium or critical thinking (Burnkrant & Unnava 1995,
Meyers-Levy & Peracchio 1996). The type of self-referencing used by consumers

is also important. Self-referencing that is retrospective (with reference to autobi-
ographical experiences from one’s past) includes more thoughts with contextual
detail than does self-referencing that is anticipatory (imagining experiences in
one’s future). If an ad provides detailed contextual information, this information
interferes with retrospective thinking (which has its own detailed representations)
but facilitates anticipatory thinking (Krishnamurthy & Sujan 1999).
CONSUMER INFERENCES
Inferences Based on Omitted Conclusions
Consumers make inferences beyond what they read or see in the text of a message,
and these inferences can have an impact on judgments (Kardes et al. 2001, 2004b).
When ads omitted (versus included) a key element, recall was improved along
dimensions related to the element (Sengupta & Gorn 2002). When a compara-
tive ad stated a specific (versus vague) cost savings amount (relative to a named
comparison brand) for one service provided by the brand, consumers inferred that
the brand was also superior on other, missing, service price data, contributing to
suboptimal choices (Pechmann 1996). Greater motivation and ability increase the
likelihood that consumers will engage in spontaneous inferences. Consumers were
more likely to complete ambiguously cropped objects in ads under high than under
low motivation conditions (Peracchio & Meyers-Levy 1994) and to later falsely
recall the object as intact, although completing these objects did not necessarily
improve evaluations of the product in the ads. With regard to deceptive infer-
ences, highly motivated consumers were more likely to make invalid inferences
from one type of deceptive ad claim (incomplete comparison claims); however,
they were less likely to be deceived by ads that required detailed processing for
nondeception to occur (inconspicuous qualification claims, Johar 1995). When
cognitive capacity was high, consumers were also more likely to use product dis-
closures to correct or update their judgments about the product (Johar & Simmons
2000).
Singular Brand Versus Multiple Brand Inferences

Research examines contexts in which a single brand is evaluated relative to contexts
in which a brand is compared with alternative brands. Consumers are not always
motivated to consider and compare alternative brands (Mantel & Kardes 1999),
even when information about multiple brands is presented (Wang & Wyer 2002).
When consumers do compare brands, generally under high motivation conditions,
they rate a favorable focal brand less positively (relative to focusing on a single
brand; Posavac et al. 2004; Hsee & Leclerc 1998), disregard features that are
common across brands, leading to biased evaluations (Wang & Wyer 2002), and
show greater direction-of-comparison effects (Mantel & Kardes 1999). Consumers
also show correction effects when they are made aware that relevant information
is missing (when the format is changed from a noncomparative to a comparative

format, or vice versa; Muthukrishnan & Ramaswami 1999).
Inferences Based on Irrelevant Attributes

Irrelevant attributes (e.g., silk in shampoo) can have an impact on brand prefer-
ences (Carpenter et al. 1994), and these initial preferences can be self-perpetuating
because of selective interpretation of subsequent experience data (Muthukrishnan
& Kardes 2001). Adding irrelevant information to supportive product benefit in-
formation reduced people’s beliefs about the product benefit, even when people
acknowledged the irrelevance of the information and when the irrelevant infor-
mation increased the product’s similarity to a liked typical product (Meyvis &
Janiszewski 2002). Others find that, while the effects of irrelevant information are
persistent, when the true irrelevancy is clarified to consumers, the effects are re-
duced (Carpenter et al. 1994, study 2), and when future brand extensions continue
to use irrelevant attributes, a brand’s equity may suffer (Broniarczyk & Gershoff
2003). Brown & Carpenter (2000) find that trivial attributes may have either pos-
itive or negative value depending on whether such valuation helps consumers
accomplish a goal.
Inferences Based on Experiential and Sensory Data

Experiential data are engaging (Hoch 2002), accessible (Park et al. 1994), and
viewed as nonpartisan and unambiguous (see Hoch 2002 for a review). Experience
information tends to be more influential than advertising information (Kempf &
Smith 1998), and even imagined experience can be convincing to consumers (Hoch
2002).
But product experiences are not always unambiguous (Wooten & Reed 1998),
and consumers believe they learn from experience even when those experiences are
largely uninformative (Muthukrishnan & Kardes 2001). Other people’s opinions
influenced evaluation of a product if those opinions were considered before the con-
sumer had had a chance to consider the evaluative implications of their own product
experience (Wooten & Reed 1998). Even memory for a product experience has been
462 LOKEN
found to change in the direction of advertised information (presented after the prod-
uct experience) that provides a different interpretation of the experience (Braun
1999), although only when product familiarity is low (Cowley & Janis 2004).
Advertising was more likely to frame the interpretation of product experiences
for older than for younger children (Moore & Lutz 2000). Research shows other
fallibilities associated with experience data (Alba & Hutchinson 2000, Hoch 2002).
Although people like experience data, experience attribute claims (claims based
on attributes that the consumer can verify only through direct experience) are
generally regarded as less credible than search attributes, which are verifiable
without consumption (Jain et al. 2000), but will be used by consumers when these
attributes are the only data available and are accompanied by a high (versus low)
credibility source (Jain & Posavac 2001).
Sensory experience data aside from traditional product usage also have an im-
pact on judgment, and research on them has increased in emphasis during the review
period. When consumers experienced sound quality, and were provided criteria
with which to evaluate it (i.e., reducing its ambiguity and increasing its diagnostic-
ity), their memory of the information improved, they placed more weight on it, and
made better choices (Shapiro & Spence 2002). Other inferences based on auditory
systems include those based on the consumer’s formal writing system (phonetic
versus logographic; Tavassoli & Han 2001, Tavassoli & Lee 2003, Zhang & Schmitt
2004), the speed and pitch of an announcer’s voice (Chattopadhyay et al. 2003),
and the phonetic structure of brand names (Yorkston & Menon 2004). When expe-
riencing a product by touch, consumers’ confidence in judgments increased if they
were high (versus low) along a need-for-touch dimension (Peck & Childers 2003).
Ambient scent improved memory for familiar and unfamiliar brands (Morrin
& Ratneshwar 2003).
Visual elements, such as pictures (McQuarrie & Mick 2003), color as a back-
drop on Internet Web sites (Gorn et al. 2004, Mandel & Johnson 2002), product
shape (Folkes & Matta 2004, Raghubir & Krishna 1999, Wansink & Van Ittersum
2003), aesthetic design and unity (Veryzer & Hutchinson 1998), angle of vision,
cutting rate, camera motion (Larsen et al. 2004), typeface (Childers & Jass 2002,
Henderson et al. 2004), and numerical information (Viswanathan & Childers 1996),
have been found to convey meaning and influence processes such as information
search, elaborative processing, attitudes, and consumption. Visual elements can
also cause interference effects if ads for two different brands have similar pictures
(Kumar 2000, Kumar & Krishnan 2004).
A more direct link between perceptual (sensory-motor) data and cognition has
emerged. Features of an ad compete for available cognitive resources if they require
processing two elements simultaneously from the same (versus different) sensory
modality (Olsen 1997, Tavassoli & Lee 2003, Unnava et al. 1996). Features of an ad
can also be complementary and increase advertising effectiveness when perceptual
and other features (e.g., celebrity endorser, picture, brand name, scent, plot of
accompanying television show) are congruent with product attribute information
(Luna & Peracchio 2001, Mitchell et al. 1995, Russell 2002).
Conditional Inferences, Correlations, and Causal Reasoning

Research on conditional inferences found that when a belief in a conclusion was
supported by a set of arguments that independently led to the same conclusion, it
was more resistant to persuasion attempts than when a belief was supported by a
set of arguments that only when considered together led to the same conclusion
(Kardes et al. 2001). Areni (2002) proposes a model of belief probabilities for
precise predictions of argument effectiveness.
Baumgartner (1995) found that people engaged in an active, theory-guided
appraisal of the empirical data they received; when a theory was not available,
the resulting judgment was suboptimal. Consumers were more sensitive to inter-
attribute correlational data when information load was low or when consumers
were motivated to elaborate (Kardes et al. 2004a), but were less prone to spillover
effects of negative information when they were highly committed to the brand
(Ahluwalia et al. 2001). While associative network theory continues to be a
prominent paradigm for examining belief interconnections and consumer learning
(Morrin 1999), others (van Osselaer & Janiszewski 2001) argue for a more dynamic
adaptive network theory in which association strengths are not learned indepen-
dently on the basis of the co-occurrence of two cues, but instead are updated and
evolve as cues interact. Attribution theory (Weiner 2000) and dialectical thinking
processes (Kahle et al. 2000) are useful for understanding the causal reasoning
strategies of consumers, and causal reasoning has been found to be shared across
cultural subgroups, which in turn influence the causal reasoning of individuals
(Sirsi et al. 1996).
Metacognitive Experiences and Knowledge

Judgments are based not only on what information comes to mind, but also on how
it comes to mind (Lee 2004). In a dialogue published recently in the Journal of
Consumer Psychology on consumers’ metacognitive experiences, Schwarz (2004)
argues that content-based theories of judgment formation cannot account for the
subjective experiences that accompany thought processes that often give rise to
counterintuitive findings. Processing fluency (e.g., the ease with which information
is recalled) and other subjective experiences can be informational inputs used in
judgments. Researchers discussed whether these metacognitive experiences (par-
ticularly with regard to processing fluency) were more likely to influence judgments
under low motivation (Schwarz 2004) or under both low- and high-motivation
(Lee 2004) conditions, the extent to which discrepancies from expectations (and
the direction of those discrepancies) increase the use of naı̈ve theories, how judg-
ment and choice contexts differ (Huber 2004), and the importance of both af-
fective and cognitive metacognitive experiences as signals in judgments (Pham
2004).
Researchers also have demonstrated that consumers form metacognitive beliefs
about persuasion tactics and marketers’ motives (e.g., Boush et al. 1994, Campbell
& Keller 2003, Friestad & Wright 1995). The use of these beliefs depends on
464 LOKEN
whether, like other beliefs, they are easily accessible (Brown & Krishna 2004,
Campbell & Kirmani 2000, Shiv et al. 1997) or an ulterior motive by the marketer
is made salient (Warlop & Alba 2004).
Brand Name Inferences

Some brand names carry meanings that are more transferable than are others to new
product extensions (Wanke et al. 1998). Keller et al. (1998) found that a brand name
that implied superiority on a specific attribute (e.g., PicturePerfect televisions)
rather than a nonsuggestive name (e.g., Emporium) led to better memory for related
product attributes but inhibited recall of unrelated product attributes. A general
superiority name is often preferred to a category-specific name when extending

to new product categories (Sen 1999), and focusing on a specific brand attribute
rather than the brand name can sometimes reduce consumers’ evaluations of brand
extensions (van Osselaer & Alba 2003).
When two brand names are combined (e.g., Slim Fast chocolate cake mix
by Godiva) the composite benefits more when the header brand (Slim Fast) is
combined with a complementary brand (Godiva) than when presented alone or
combined with a noncomplementary brand (e.g., Haagen-Dazs; Park et al. 1996).
In brand alliances, both brands are affected, but familiar (versus unfamiliar) brands
contribute more to brand evaluations (Siminon & Ruth 1998; see also Levin &
Levin 2000). When the ingredient in a brand extension is branded (e.g., Tide
with Irish Spring scent), more initial acceptance is found, but, unless the branded
ingredient represents a dissimilar attribute, using a new ingredient name (e.g.,
Tide with EverFresh scent) improves long-range expansion of the brand to new
categories (Desai & Keller 2002).
Accessibility-Diagnosticity Model
A number of psychological theories incorporate the constructs of accessibility
(salience) and diagnosticity (relevance). In consumer research, the framework of
Feldman & Lynch (1988), which argues that judgments are a function of the ac-
cessibility and the diagnosticity of information inputs relative to the accessibility
and diagnosticity of alternative inputs, has been used for understanding judgment
revision (Pham & Muthukrishnan 2002), behavioral frequency judgments (Menon
et al. 1995), car repurchase decisions (Fitzsimons & Morwitz 1996), the effects of
previously formed attitudes on choice (Baker 2001), cultural differences in the use
of cues (Aaker 2000), and brand extension information effects on family brand
evaluations (Ahluwalia & Gurhan-Canli 2000). A variant of the accessibility-
diagnosticity model, the mere-accessibility model, has been proposed to account
for conditions under which accessibility alone is sufficient to determine judg-
ments, for example when ease-of-retrieval occurs at a low awareness level and
functions as an heuristic in decision making, when the cognitive demands of the
task are too high, or when extra cognitive effort is unwarranted (Menon & Raghubir
2003).
Biases and Motivated Reasoning

Among the types of biases that have been examined in the review period are the
truth effect (Law et al. 1998), the inclusion effect (Joiner & Loken 1998), pre-
decisional distortion (Russo et al. 1998), anchor-and-adjustment (Wansink et al.
1998), frequency heuristics (Alba et al. 1999), false consensus (West 1996), self-
positivity (Lin et al. 2003, Menon et al. 2002, Raghubir & Menon 1998), nega-
tivity (Ahluwalia 2002), forward and backward telescoping (Morwitz 1997), and
metacognitive biases (Alba & Hutchinson 2000).
Although most of the research on biases in consumer research has assumed
cognitive bases for errors or deficits, research increasingly has examined bias as
motivated reasoning. Researchers argue, for example, that inconsistent information

(Jain & Maheswaran 2000) and impression and defensive goals (Ahluwalia 2002)
increase consumers’ selectively processing information in a biased manner. Other
research finds that biases were reduced when consumers had sufficient motivation
and ability to counter the bias, i.e., when accuracy in judgments was rewarded
(West 1996), when the evidence against the bias was strong, when the bias was
based on events not controllable, and when the judgments did not pertain to or
protect the view of self (Kamins et al. 1997, Lin et al. 2003, Menon & Johar 1997).
CONSUMER AFFECT, MOOD, FEELINGS,

AND ATTITUDES
The importance of the role of affect has increased during the review period, and
emotional states increasingly are being added to traditional models of consumer
behavior (e.g., satisfaction/dissatisfaction, Phillips & Baumgartner 2002; decision
choice models, Luce et al. 1999). Most research during the review period on
affect and attitudes falls into two general categories: (a) research on the types
of processes by which moods and feelings influence judgments, and (b) more
traditional research on the cognitive (versus noncognitive) bases for attitudes and
the role of cognition and attitudes in predicting intentions and behavior.
The Effects of Mood on Judgments and Processing

Mood affects judgments; being in a positive mood can increase consumers’ prefer-
ences for products. Mood can spread to others, too, who in turn will like the product
(Howard & Gengler 2001). Predominant theoretical rationales for mood effects
are mood-congruency theories, which argue that moods increase the accessibil-
ity of mood-congruent thoughts (e.g., Isen et al. 1992), and affect-as-information
theories, which argue that moods are used (often mistakenly) as a source of in-
formation in evaluations of a target (e.g., Schwarz 1997). The information value
of a mood may derive from its arousal dimension, its valence dimension, or both
(Gorn et al. 2001). Mood valence has more effect on product judgments when
mood information is a relevant basis for the judgments, for example, for consumers
466 LOKEN
using consummatory or hedonic (versus instrumental) criteria (Adaval 2001, Pham

1998, Yeung & Wyer 2004) or when the affective tone of a target ad is ambiguous
(Gorn et al. 2001). Adaval (2003) found that moods influenced judgments through
their effects on the extremity of evaluative implications of cognitions about the
target rather than increased importance weights attached to the information. Yeung
& Wyer (2004), however, found that when people have already formed an impres-
sion of a product based on a picture that elicits affect, subsequent mood and other
information that becomes available has less impact on product judgments.
Research has also examined the regulatory processes in which consumers en-
gage. Feelings convey both contextual appraisal information as well as motivational
(goal-relevant) information (see Pham 2004). Some mood research suggests that
consumers were willing to make decision errors in order to maintain a positive
mood (Meloy 2000). But other research suggests that when the stakes are high
(e.g., life threatening), consumers will forego short-term mood maintenance for
longer-term gains (Keller et al. 2003), or will even maintain a negative mood if
it will improve task performance; that is, people will guide affect regulation in a
functional manner (Cohen & Andrade 2004).
Moods also affect type of processing. Some research supports the idea that
people in a positive mood engage in nonanalytic, top-down, creative processing
styles, and people in a negative mood engage in analytic, effortful processing
(Keller et al. 2002, Murry & Dacin 1996). Shiv & Fedorikhin (1999) find that
people will choose based on utilitarian considerations (e.g., fruit salad over cake)
unless their processing load is high, in which case they will choose based on
hedonic considerations (cake over fruit salad). Other findings suggest that people
in a positive mood are not less motivated to process information (Adaval 2003,
Pham et al. 2001), but instead rely more on strategic thinking (Lee & Sternthal
1999) or diagnostic inputs (Pham 1996), especially when the risks of not being
informed are very high (Keller et al. 2003).
Aside from testing these theories of affect, consumer research finds that emo-
tions are predictable and can be measured reliably. Consumers tend to provide
reliable measures of emotion (Richins 1997) and have a shared knowledge of
emotion categories (Ruth 2001), and negative emotions (which people prefer to
avoid) cause predictable shifts in choice patterns (Luce et al. 1999). Baumgartner
et al. (1997) showed how moment-to-moment emotional responses to an ad could
be integrated into an overall evaluation of the ad.
Cognitive Versus Noncognitive Bases for Attitudes

Many of the existing theories of mood and affect are consistent with traditional
attitude research that assumes cognitions underlie attitudes and that feelings are
used in reasoning processes (cf. Adaval 2003, Pham et al. 2001). Nevertheless,
a debate published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology (1995, 1997) raises
issues about whether attitudes are primarily belief based (driven by cognition)
or nonbelief based (driven by affect or other factors). Central to the debate is
whether automaticity effects, degree of effort in processing, or mood and bodily

reactions reflect degree of cognitive or belief-based processing (e.g., Fishbein
& Middlestadt 1995, 1997; Haugtvedt & OSU Consumer Psychology Seminar
1997; Herr 1995; Miniard & Barone 1997; Priester & Fleming 1997; Schwarz
1997). Fishbein and Middlestadt argue that regardless of whether processing of
information is more or less effortful (with respect to attention, counterarguing,
or elaboration), such processing activity is cognitive and has impact effects on
other cognitions that are more proximal determinants of attitude. These proximal
determinants (i.e., salient beliefs and the evaluative implications of those beliefs)
would need to be ruled out empirically in order to conclude that attitudes are not
belief based. Using these criteria, some research (Fishbein & Middlestadt 1995)
finds that attitude toward an ad influenced attitude toward a behavior indirectly
through cognitive structure, whereas other research (Bodur et al. 2000) finds that
the connection between affect and attitude was direct and not mediated by cognitive
structure.
Most cognitive psychologists would agree that cognition includes an array of
conscious and unconscious processes and representations (cf. Barsalou 1999).
A growing number of consumer studies examine implicit brand attitudes, atti-
tudes that may be activated automatically and outside conscious awareness (Bargh
2002, Maison et al. 2004, Shapiro 1999). Increased emphasis is being placed on
development of appropriate measurement techniques to assess automaticity and
nonconscious processing (see Krishnan & Chakravarti 1999), such as the Implicit
Association Test (Brunel et al. 2004).
Cognition, Affect, and Behavioral Intentions

A first avenue of research on intentions has examined factors that affect the rela-
tionship between behavioral intentions and behavior. The process of measuring a
purchase intention (called the “mere measurement” effect) has been found to in-
crease subsequent purchase in the product category, probably because it increases
the accessibility of cognitions about the product category and cognitions of acces-
sible brands in the category (Morwitz & Fitzsimon 2004). The effect was found
to decay after three months (Chandon et al. 2004) and was attenuated when con-
sumers viewed the intention question as a persuasion attempt and had sufficient
cognitive capacity for correction (Williams et al. 2004). Asking people to pre-
dict whether they will perform a behavior also increases the probability of their
performing the behavior (Spangenberg & Greenwald 1999).
A second avenue of research examines models of determinants of behavioral
intentions. Tests of the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975) and
a variant found support across four countries, although, in general, components
explained more variance in Western (United States, Italy) than in Eastern (China,
Japan) cultures (Bagozzi et al. 2000). The models also explained differences in cul-
tural orientation (independent versus interdependent). In a related model of social
behavior, Lee (2000) found that the normative factor was a stronger determinant of
468 LOKEN
behavioral intention among collectivists, whereas the attitude factor was a stronger
determinant among individualists.
A meta-analysis (Notani 1998) of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991),
which is an extension of the theory of reasoned action, found that the construct
of perceived behavioral control (PBC) predicted behavior more when it reflected
control over factors primarily internal (versus external) to the individual, when
it was operationalized as a global measure (rather than as a set of beliefs), when
the behaviors were familiar (versus unfamiliar), and when the sample included
nonstudent (versus student) samples. The meta-analysis also found attitude toward
performing a behavior was a more consistent predictor than PBC of behavioral
intention, and intention was a stronger predictor than PBC of behavior, supporting
the original theory of reasoned action.
MODELS OF PERSUASION
Elaboration
The moderating role of elaborative thought on persuasion has been a key research
issue in the past decade. Amount of elaborative thought (high versus low) and
valence of thought (favorable or unfavorable) have been examined extensively.
Type of thought has also been studied, such as analysis of item-specific versus
relational thoughts (e.g., Malaviya et al. 1996), thoughts that vary as a function
of specific goals (e.g., Escales & Luce 2004, Sengupta & Johar 2000), thoughts
about the self (Meyers-Levy & Peracchio 1996), and metacognitive thoughts and
experiences (e.g., Schwarz 2004). More commonly, elaborative thought has been
examined as a function of how information is framed by goals or contextual factors.
Research on the amount of elaborative thought predicted by dual process models,
in particular, has been plentiful.
DUAL-PROCESS MODELS OF PERSUASION Consumer research on the elaboration

likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo 1986), the heuristic-systematic model
(Chaiken 1980), and other dual-process models (e.g., Fiske & Neuberg 1990) has
continued to stack up evidence in favor of two levels of processing (sometimes re-
garded as two ends of a continuum), one in which the level of consumer motivation
and elaborative thought is high and relies on detailed, systematic, or central-route
processing, and a second, more heuristic or peripheral route that is generally asso-
ciated with lower levels of motivation and elaborative thought. Research finds that
highly motivated consumers, who engaged in more elaborative processing, were
more influenced by negative (versus positive) frames and message claims (Block &
Keller 1995, Shiv et al. 2004), had more persistent attitudes (Haugtvedt et al. 1994,
Sengupta et al. 1997), were more influenced by argument strength (versus number
of arguments) in a collectivist culture (Aaker & Maheshwaran 1997), placed less
emphasis on country of origin as a processing cue (Gurhan-Canli & Maheswaran

2000), and engaged more in adaptive learning of feature-benefit associations (van
Osselaer & Janiszewski 2001). Consumers also processed information more sys-
tematically when message arguments were preceded by counterfactual (“if only”)
thinking (Krishnamurthy & Sivaraman 2002) and when the message arguments
were compatible with self-regulatory focus (Aaker & Lee 2001).
Incongruity of persuasive elements also increased elaboration. Information was
processed more systematically when comparative ads featured dissimilar (ver-
sus similar) brands, especially when individuals were low in need for cognition
(Priester et al. 2004), when information was inconsistent with prior preferences
(Jain & Maheshwaran 2000), when brand extensions were incongruent with ex-
pectations regarding the parent brand (Gurhan-Canli & Maheswaran 1998), and
when message items were inconsistent with expectations, particularly for elderly
adults (Yoon 1997). Consumers elaborated more on messages from endorsers who
were untrustworthy (e.g., from endorsing too many products) than from endorsers
who were trustworthy (Priester & Petty 2003).
Consumers showed more heuristic processing when information was in a nar-
rative versus an unorganized list form, presumably because the narrative form is
structurally similar to daily life experiences (Adaval & Wyer 1998). Heuristic pro-
cessing was also found more for elderly (than for younger) adults (Yoon 1997),
who show reduced ability over time to remember detailed information.
Under low motivation conditions, people may also rely more on their subjective
accessibility experiences rather than content (Schwarz 2004). Children (versus
adults) focused more on surface than on deep cues (Zhang & Sood 2002; cf. John
1999), and younger children engaged in less elaboration than did older children
(Moore & Lutz 2000).
Cues that have been traditionally regarded as peripheral or heuristic (e.g., brand
names and endorser attractiveness) led to more attitude persistence (Sengupta et al.
1997) and were processed more centrally or systematically (and elaborated upon
more) when the cue was perceived to have relevance to the message arguments
(e.g., endorser attractiveness, Shavitt et al. 1994; source effects, Kirmani & Shiv
1998) or was perceived as diagnostic (e.g., Aaker & Maheswaran 1997). Other
variables, too, have been found to take on multiple roles in a persuasive message,
such as rhetorical questions (Ahluwalia & Burnkrant 2004), message framing
(Meyers-Levy & Maheswaran 2004), and color (Meyers-Levy & Peracchio 1995).
Also, both types of thought (heuristic and systematic) can occur concurrently
(Meyers-Levy & Maheswaran 2004).
Finally, even though high arousal is generally believed to reduce cognitive ca-
pacity, Pham (1996) found that when consumers were highly aroused, they selected
informative diagnostic cues over a peripheral cue (endorser status). People also
seemed to use different routes to persuasion because different types of information
were perceived as diagnostic under different routes rather than because they had
different desired levels of accuracy (Pham & Avnet 2004).
470 LOKEN
PROBLEM-SOLVING AND ELABORATIVE THOUGHT Problem-solving thinking that

increases cognitive elaboration can increase the persuasiveness of a message. Two-
sided advertisements in which the positive and negative attributes were logically
related increased favorable inferences, especially when people had sufficient pro-
cessing time to elaborate upon them (Bohner et al. 2003). Time (and presumably
effort) can also reduce logical inconsistencies in beliefs (Kardes et al. 2001). Analo-
gies require substantial cognitive resources, so they are more effective if used by
experts who devote substantial resources to the processing task. They can even
be effective for novices if substantial resources are allocated to the task and the
novices are trained in how to map structural relations between a base and a target
(Roehm & Sternthal 2001).

NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF ELABORATION ON PERSUASION Elaboration can have a

neutral or negative effect on attitudes if consumers are elaborating upon irrelevant,
nondiagnostic, or negative information (e.g., Grewal et al. 1997, Priester et al.
2004, Schlosser & Shavitt 2002). Asking a hypothetical question that contained
negative information about a political candidate contaminated voting choices; in-
creased contamination occurred as elaboration increased and the questions focused
on aspects relevant to the choice (Fitzsimons & Shiv 2001). Too much cognitive
elaboration can be viewed as cognitive effort, which people view as costly and
tend to avoid (Fiske & Taylor 1984); when cognitive effort was expended without
resolution or other benefits, negative affect and behavior resulted (Garbarino &
Edell 1997).
When reasons against (as compared with reasons for) choosing a BMW over
a Mercedes were easy to retrieve, or consumers imagined that they were easy to
retrieve, consumers decreased (versus increased) their evaluations of the BMW
relative to the Mercedes (Wanke et al. 1997), although results were attributed to
fluency of retrieval rather than to negative thought content. A reasons analysis
was also found to lower attitude stability (Sengupta & Fitzsimons 2004), increase
attitude ambivalence (Sengupta & Johar 2002), increase culture-bound thoughts
(Briley et al. 2000), and was disruptive of the link between attitude and behavior
when attitudes at delay were reconstructed from contextual cues and there was a
mismatch between original and delayed attitudes (Sengupta & Fitzsimons 2000).
Resource-matching theory (Peracchio & Meyers-Levy 1997) argues that pro-
cessing is most efficient when the level of cognitive resources required for a task
match the consumer’s level of available cognitive resources. It’s the dose that makes
the poison (Paracelsus); too much elaboration can lead to irrelevant thoughts or
counterarguments (Keller & Block 1997); having too few resources relative to
those required can lead to heuristic processing (Peracchio & Meyers-Levy 1997).
Both high and low levels of fear appeals have been persuasive, as long as available
and required resources matched (Keller & Block 1996). Mantel & Kellaris (2003)
found that perceptions of time were estimated to be longer when the available and
required resources were matched, because information linked to the time period
was more easily reconstructed.
Attitude Strength, Resistance, and Confidence

Some research has examined the longer-term effects of previously formed attitudes
on subsequent processing and evaluations. Haugtvedt et al. (1994) found that even
when people showed similar levels of attitude persistence, extremity, and confi-
dence, they were more resistant to attack if the basis for their attitude included more
substantive product information. Priester & Petty (2003), too, show that equally
extreme attitudes can vary in their cognitive bases, their strength, and their effec-
tiveness. Priester et al. (2004) found that strong brand attitudes influenced choice
because they increased the brand’s inclusion in the consumer’s consideration set.
Attitude certainty and thought confidence have been viewed as metacognitive
responses to ads. When people counterargued a message, it increased their attitude

certainty and their attitude-intention link, but only if the message was from an
expert source (Tormala & Petty 2004). Just as strong attitudes are more likely than
weaker attitudes to guide behavior, stronger beliefs (confidence in one’s thoughts)
are more likely to guide attitudes; increased confidence in positive thoughts in-
creased the effectiveness of ads, and increased confidence in negative thoughts
decreased their effectiveness (Brinol et al. 2004).
Ad Repetition, Ad Spacing, Incidental Ad Exposure,

and Fluency
With increased ad repetition, consumers’ attention decreases (based on detection
of eye movements), but the order in which visual elements of the ad are scanned
remains the same (Pieters et al. 1999). Ad repetition increases attitude persis-
tence, and when ads are substantively varied, repetition increases attitude resis-
tance (Haugtvedt et al. 1994). Changing the ad executions and the modality of
the advertising (e.g., between target and competitive advertising) also reduces
competitive interference effects (Unnava & Sirdeshmukh 1994).
Incidental ad exposure may occur when consumers are focusing on a primary
task (e.g., reading a magazine article) and nevertheless process advertising in-
formation that is not the focus (e.g., a print ad on the same or adjoining page).
Incidental ad exposure is found to increase perceptual fluency, the perception of ad
or brand familiarity (Shapiro et al. 1997), inclusion of the brand in the consumer’s
consideration set (Shapiro 1999, Shapiro et al. 1997), and perhaps conceptual
fluency as well (Janiszewski & Meyvis 2001, Shapiro 1999).
Background music interfered with processing when the time interval between
ad presentations was short under incidental learning, but it did not change the
effect of time interval on recall under more effortful processing conditions (Olsen
1997). Based on a meta-analysis (Janiszewski et al. 2003) of the spacing effect (i.e.,
the time interval between presentations of ad material), the most effective sched-
ule may be one in which ads alternate between encouraging intentional process-
ing (e.g., using media such as television ads) and promoting incidental processing
(e.g., using media such as billboards).
472 LOKEN
Differences in Negative and Positive Evaluative Dimensions

Evaluations (positive/negative responses) are pervasive and dominant human re-
sponses (Jarvis & Petty 1996) that sometimes are performed automatically, unin-
tentionally, and/or without awareness (Bargh 2002). Consumer research finds that
negations (versus affirmations), whether they involve reporting a questionnaire re-
sponse (e.g., disliking versus liking judgments; Herr & Page 2004) or processing
message information (e.g., not difficult to use versus difficult to use; Grant et al.
2004), require more elaboration and are less spontaneously generated, suggesting a
two-step process required for processing negations. When persuasive stimulus in-
formation that contained negative (versus positive) information or that was framed
in a negative (versus positive) way required and/or motivated greater elaboration

(as reported earlier; see also Cox & Cox 2001), it was often more persuasive
(Block & Keller 1995, Homer & Batra 1994, Meyers-Levy & Maheswaren 2004,
Shiv et al. 2004), especially when consumers were accuracy-motivated (Ahluwalia
2002) or perceived the negative tactic used as fair (Shiv et al. 1997). On the other
hand, consumers who processed narratives and imagined scenarios were more re-
sistant to incorporating negative (Adaval & Wyer 1998) and corrective information
(Bolton 2003), their inferences about a firm’s service providers were more resistant
to negative than positive information (Folkes & Patrick 2003), and the greater in-
fluence of negative (versus positive) information was attenuated when consumers
were impression-motivated but reversed when consumers were defense-motivated
(Ahluwalia 2002).
Exposure to both positive and negative information weakens attitudes if recon-
ciliation of evaluative items is not a salient goal or if issue elaboration is prevented.
Attitudes also weaken when people feel inconsistencies in preexisting beliefs and
attitudes or when they feel ambivalent, experiencing both positive and negative
affect toward an attitude object (Sengupta & Johar 2002). Conflicting affective or
emotional responses (Mick & Fournier 1998), that is, mixed emotions, may be
difficult to manage (Williams & Aaker 2002), but in some cases, conflict in emo-
tions may be a naturally occurring phenomenon. Ambivalent “weakened” attitudes
may not always reflect weakness; older (versus younger) and Asian (versus Anglo)
Americans have been found to be more adaptable in accepting mixed emotions
(Williams & Aaker 2002).
CONCLUSIONS
In the review period, general conclusions about psychological phenomena (e.g.,
dual processes of persuasion, relationship between category similarity and affect)
have been followed up through studies that examine (a) the effects in more di-
verse and numerous domains and contexts than found previously (demonstrating
the effects’ generalizability and importance), and (b) contingencies and excep-
tions to these effects. The difficult task of determining the size and nature of the
contingencies for many of these topic domains has not yet been accomplished.
However, the moderating roles of elaboration, accessibility, and diagnosticity have

been successfully used to understand the patterns associated with contingent effects
in a variety of consumer domains.
Amount of elaborative thought and valence of thought is an important moder-
ating variable studied extensively in the review period. Not surprisingly, thought-
fulness or increased elaboration has been found to positively influence persuasion
or problem solving in most cases because the information elaborated upon was, by
and large, positive, relevant message information. When the information elaborated
upon was irrelevant or negative, its effect on persuasion was reduced. When the
information elaborated upon was biased, change occurred in a manner consistent
with the bias or stereotypic thinking. To the extent that the effort of elaboration led
to positive outcomes (such as reduced uncertainty or feelings of successful resolu-
tion of inconsistencies), these positive outcomes, in some cases, became associated

with the attitude object. Most of the research on elaboration in the review period
examined positive (or negative) thoughts about the message rather than positive
(or negative) thoughts about the processes of elaboration (resolution or effort).
Interesting new research directions have emerged in the review period that
pattern after some of the effects of social and cognitive psychology. Consumer
research has placed increased emphasis on consumers’ flexibility or malleability
in retrieving different and multiple cognitive representations that, depending on
the context, reflect different individual goals, cultural orientations, views of self,
naı̈ve theories or beliefs about the way the world works, and even differences in
affective states and experiences. Research on retrieval and use of these multiple and
different representations highlights the dynamic role of information accessibility
in cognitive and affective judgments.
Research has also increasingly examined how consumers are motivated to con-
trol, manage, or self-regulate their cognitions and affect. People demonstrate con-
trol over affective processes and goals, sometimes undertake corrective processes
to adjust for errors in accuracy or unwanted influences, and have knowledge of
persuasion strategies. The role of context is important in determining when these
control and corrective processes are used and in determining the nature of the cog-
nitive or affective representations used in judgments. But research is also increas-
ing on the role of implicit cognitions and affect and nonconscious ways in which
cognition and sensory experiences influence affect and judgment. Finally, the re-
lationship between sensory-motor, perceptual, and experiential information on the
one hand, and cognition on the other, has emerged as an important research topic.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the perspective and comments of Joan Meyers-
Levy, Deborah Roedder John, Durairaj Maheswaran, Frank Kardes, Rohini
Ahluwalia, Bob Wyer, and Curt Haugtvedt on an earlier draft of this article.
Preparation for this article was supported in part by a McKnight-BER research
grant from the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota.
474 LOKEN
The Annual Review of Psychology is online at http://psych.annualreviews.org
LITERATURE CITED
Aaker JL. 1999. The malleable self: the role of an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. J.
self-expression in persuasion. J. Market. Res. Consum. Res. 27(3):371–81
36(1):45–58 Ahluwalia R, Unnava HR, Burnkrant RE. 2001.
Aaker JL. 2000. Accessibility or diagnosticity? The moderating role of commitment on the
Disentangling the influence of culture on per- spillover effect of marketing communica-
suasion processes and attitudes. J. Consum. tions. J. Market. Res. 38(4):458–70
Res. 26(4):340–57 Ajzen I. 1991. Attitudinal versus normative
Aaker JL, Lee AY. 2001. “I” seek pleasures messages: an investigation of the differen-
and “we” avoid pains: the role of self- tial effects of persuasive communications on
regulatory goals in information processing behavior. Sociometry 34:263–80

and persuasion. J. Consum. Res. 28(1):33– Alba JW, Hutchinson JW. 2000. Knowledge
49 calibration: what consumers know and what
Aaker JL, Maheswaran D. 1997. The effect of they think they know. J. Consum. Res.
cultural orientation on persuasion. J. Con- 27(2):123–56
sum. Res. 24(3):315–28 Alba JW, Mela CF, Shimp TA, Urbany JE.
Achenreiner GB, John DR. 2003. The mean- 1999. The effect of discount frequency and
ing of brand names to children: a develop- depth on consumer price judgments. J. Con-
mental investigation. J. Consum. Psychol. sum. Res. 26(2):99–114
13(3):220–29 Areni CS. 2002. The proposition-probability
Adaval R. 2001. Sometimes it just feels right: model of argument structure and message ac-
the differential weighting of affect-consistent ceptance. J. Consum. Res. 29(2):168–87
and affect-inconsistent product information. Ariely D, Levav J. 2000. Sequential choice in
J. Consum. Res. 28(1):1–17 group settings: taking the road less traveled
Adaval R. 2003. How good gets better and bad and less enjoyed. J. Consum. Res. 27(3):279–
gets worse: understanding the impact of af- 90
fect on evaluations of known brands. J. Con- Bagozzi RP, Dholakia UM. 1999. Goal-setting
sum. Res. 30(3):352–67 and goal-striving in consumer behavior. J.
Adaval R, Monroe KB. 2002. Automatic con- Market. 63:19–32
struction and use of contextual information Bagozzi RP, Wong N, Abe S, Bergami M. 2000.
for product and price evaluations. J. Consum. Cultural and situational contingencies and
Res. 28(4):572–88 the theory of reasoned action: application to
Adaval R, Wyer RS. 1998. The role of narra- fast food restaurant consumption. J. Consum.
tives in consumer information processing. J. Psychol. 9(2):97–106
Consum. Psychol. 7(3):207–45 Baker WE. 2001. The diagnosticity of advertis-
Ahluwalia R. 2002. How prevalent is the neg- ing generated brand attitudes in brand choice
ativity effect in consumer environments? J. contexts. J. Consum. Psychol. 11(2):129–39
Consum. Res. 29(2):270–79 Bargh JA. 2002. Losing consciousness: au-
Ahluwalia R, Burnkrant RE. 2004. Answer- tomatic influences on consumer judgment,
ing questions about questions: a persuasion behavior, and motivation. J. Consum. Res.
knowledge perspective for understanding the 29(2):280–85
effects of rhetorical questions. J. Consum. Barone MJ, Miniard PW. 2002. Mood and
Res. 31(1):26–42 brand extension judgments: asymmetric ef-
Ahluwalia R, Gurhan-Canli Z. 2000. The effects for desirable versus undesirable brands.
fects of extensions on the family brand name: J. Consum. Psychol. 12(4):283–90
Barone MJ, Miniard PW, Romeo J. 2000. The tensions? Empirical generalizations based on
influence of positive mood on brand exten- secondary analysis of eight studies. J. Mar-
sion evaluations. J. Consum. Res. 26(4):386– ket. Res. 38(4):494–500
400 Boush DM, Friestad M, Rose GM. 1994. Ado-
Barsalou LW. 1999. Perceptual symbol sys- lescent skepticism toward TV advertising
tems. Behav. Brain Sci. 22:577–660 and knowledge of advertiser tactics. J. Con-
Baumgartner H. 1995. On the utility of consum. Res. 21(1):165–75
sumers’ theories in judgments of covariation. Braun KA. 1999. Postexperience advertising ef-
J. Consum. Res. 21(4):634–43 fects on consumer memory. J. Consum. Res.
Baumgartner H. 2002. Toward a personology of 25(4):319–34
the consumer. J. Consum. Res. 29(2):286–92 Brendl CM, Markman AB, Messner C. 2003.
Baumgartner H, Sujan M, Padgett D. 1997. The devaluation effect: activating a need de-
Patterns of affective reactions to advertise- values unrelated objects. J. Consum. Res.
ments: the integration of moment-to-moment 29(4):463–73

responses into overall judgments. J. Market. Briley DA, Morris MW, Simonson I. 2000. Rea-
Res. 34(2):219–32 sons as carriers of culture: dynamic versus
Baumeister RF. 2002. Yielding to temptation: dispositional models of cultural influence on
self-control failure; impulsive purchasing, decision making. J. Consum. Res. 27(2):157–
and consumer behavior. J. Consum. Res. 78
28(4):670–76 Briley DA, Wyer RA. 2002. The effect of group
Bettman JB. 1986. Consumer psychology. membership salience on the avoidance of
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 37:257–90 negative outcomes: implications for social
Bickart B, Schwarz N. 2001. Service experi- and consumer decisions. J. Consum. Res.
ences and satisfaction judgments: the use of 29(3):400–15
affect and beliefs in judgment formation. J. Brinol P, Petty RE, Tormala ZL. 2004. Self-
Consum. Psychol. 11(1):29–41 validation of cognitive responses to adver-
Block LG, Keller PA. 1995. When to accentu- tisements. J. Consum. Res. 30(4):559–73
ate the negative: the effects of perceived ef- Broniarczyk SM, Gershoff AD. 2003. The re-
ficacy and message framing on intentions to ciprocal effects of brand equity and trivial
perform a health-related behavior. J. Market. attributes. J. Market. Res. 40(2):161–75
Res. 32(2):192–203 Brown CL, Carpenter GS. 2000. Why is the triv-
Bodur HO, Brinberg D, Coupey E. 2000. Belief, ial important: A reasons-based account for
affect and attitude: alternative models of the the effects of trivial attributes in choice. J.
determinants of attitude. J. Consum. Psychol. Consum. Res. 26(4):372–85
9(1):17–28 Brown CL, Krishna A. 2004. The skeptical
Bohner G, Einwiller S, Erb H, Siebler F. 2003. shopper: a metacognitive account for the ef-
When small means comfortable: relations be- fects of default options on choice. J. Consum.
tween product attributes in two-sided adver- Res. 31(3):529–39
tising. J. Consum. Psychol. 13(4):454–63 Brumbaugh AM. 2002. Source and nonsource
Bolton LE. 2003. Stickier priors: the effects cues in advertising and their effects on the
of nonanalytic and analytic thinking in new activation of cultural and subcultural knowl-
product forecasting. J. Market. Res. 40:65– edge on the route to persuasion. J. Consum.
79 Res. 29(2):258–69
Bolton LE, Reed A II. 2004. Sticky priors: Brunel FF, Tietje BC, Greenwald AG. 2004.
the perseverance of identity effects on judg- Is the implicit association test a valid and
ments. J. Market. Res. 41(4):397–411 valuable measure of implicit consumer social
Bottomley PA, Holden SJS. 2001. Do we re- cognition? J. Consum. Psychol. 14(4):385–
ally know how consumers evaluate brand ex- 415
476 LOKEN
Buchanan L, Simmons CJ, Bickart BA. 1999. Chernov A. 2004b. Goal orientation and con-
Brand equity dilution: retailer display and sumer preference for the status quo. J. Con-
context brand effects. J. Market. Res. sum. Res. 31(3):557–65
36(3):345–55 Childers TL, Jass J. 2002. All dressed up with
Burnkrant RE, Unnava HR. 1995. Effects of something to say: effects of typeface se-
self-referencing on persuasion. J. Consum. mantic associations on brand perceptions
Res. 22(1):17–26 and consumer memory. J. Consum. Psychol.
Campbell MC, Goodstein RC. 2001. The mod- 12(2):93–106
erating effect of perceived risk on con- Cohen JB, Andrade EB. 2004. Affective intu-
sumers’ evaluations of product incongruity: ition and task-contingent affect regulation. J.
preference for the norm. J. Consum. Res. Consum. Res. 31(2):358–67
28(3):439–49 Cohen JB, Chakravarti D. 1990. Consumer psy-

Campbell MC, Keller KL. 2003. Brand famil- chology. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41:243–88
iarity and advertising repetition effects. J. Cooke ADJ, Sujan H, Sujan M, Weitz BA. 2002.
Consum. Res. 30(2):292–304 Marketing the unfamiliar: the role of con-
Campbell MC, Kirmani A. 2000. Consumer’s text and item-specific information in elec-
use of persuasion knowledge: the effects of tronic agent recommendations. J. Market.
accessibility and cognitive capacity on per- Res. 39(4):488–98
ceptions of an influence agent. J. Consum. Cowley E, Janis E. 2004. Not necessarily bet-
Res. 27(1):69–83 ter, but certainly different: a limit to the ad-
Carpenter GS, Glazer R, Nakamoto K. 1994. vertising misinformation effect on memory.
Meaningful brands from meaningless differ- J. Consum. Res. 31(1):229–35
entiation: the dependence on irrelevant at- Cowley E, Mitchell AA. 2003. The moderating
tributes. J. Market. Res. 31(3):339–50 effect of product knowledge on the learning
Carpenter GS, Nakamoto K. 1996. Impact of and organization of product information. J.
consumer preference formation on market- Consum. Res. 30(3):443–54
ing objectives and second mover strategies. Cox D, Cox AD. 2001. Communicating the
J. Consum. Psychol. 5(4):325–58 consequences of early detection: the role of
Chaiken S. 1980. Heuristic versus systematic evidence and framing. J. Market. 65(3):91–
information processing and the use of source 103
versus message cues in persuasion. J. Per- Desai KK, Keller KL. 2002. The effects of in-
sonal. Soc. Psychol. 39:752–66 gredient branding strategies on host brand ex-
Chakravarti A, Janiszewski C. 2003. The influ- tendibility. J. Market. 66(1):73–93
ence of macro-level motives on consideration Erdem T. 1998. An empirical analysis of um-
set composition in novel purchase situations. brella branding. J. Market. Res. 35(3):339–
J. Consum. Res. 30(2):244–58 51
Chandon P, Morwitz VG, Reinartz WJ. 2004. Escales JE, Luce MF. 2004. Understanding the
The short- and long-term effects of measur- effects of process-focused versus outcome-
ing intent to repurchase. J. Consum. Res. focused thought in response to advertising.
31(3):566–72 J. Consum. Res. 31(2):274–85
Chattopadhyay A, Dahl DW, Ritchie RJB, Feldman JM, Lynch JG. 1998. Self-generated
Shahin KN. 2003. Hearing voices: the im- validity and other effects of measuring be-
pact of announcer speech characteristics on lief, attitude, intention, and behavior. J. Appl.
consumer response to broadcast advertising. Psychol. 73(3):421–35
J. Consum. Psychol. 13(3):198–204 Fishbein M, Ajzen I. 1975. Belief, Attitude,
Chernov A. 2004a. Goal-attribute compatibil- Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction
ity in consumer choice. J. Consum. Psychol. to Theory and Research. Reading, MA:
13(1,2):141–50 Addison-Wesley
Fishbein M, Middlestadt SB. 1995. Noncog- screen color affects time perception. J. Mar-
nitive effects on attitude formation and ket. Res. 41(2):215–25
change: fact or artifact? J. Consum. Psychol. Gorn GJ, Pham MT, Sin LY. 2001. When
4(2):181–202 arousal influences ad evaluation and valence
Fishbein M, Middlestadt SB. 1997. A strik- does not (and vice versa). J. Consum. Psy-
ing lack of evidence for nonbelief-based chol. 11(1):43–55
attitude formation and change: a response Grant SJ, Malaviya P, Sternthal B. 2004. The
to five commentaries. J. Consum. Psychol. influence of negation on product evaluations.
6(1):107–15 J. Consum. Res. 31(3):583–91
Fiske ST, Neuberg SL. 1990. A continuum of Gregan-Paxton J. 2001. The role of abstract and
impression formation, from category-based specific knowledge in the formation of prod-
to individuating processes: influences of in- uct judgments: an analogical learning per-

formation and motivation on attention and spective. J. Consum. Psychol. 11(3):141–48
interpretation. In Advances in Experimental Gregan-Paxton J, John DR. 1997. Consumer

Social Psychology, ed. MP Zanna, 23:1–74. learning by analogy: a model of inter-
New York: Academic nal knowledge transfer. J. Consum. Res.
Fiske ST, Taylor SE. 1984. Social Cognition. 24(3):266–84
New York: Random House Grewal D, Kavanoor S, Fern EF, Costley M,
Fitzsimons GJ, Morwitz VG. 1996. The effect Barnes JH. 1997. Comparative advertising:
of measuring intent on brand-level purchase a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. J.
behavior. J. Consum. Res. 23(1):1–11 Market. 61(4):1–15
Fitzsimons GJ, Shiv B. 2001. Nonconscious Gurhan-Canli Z, Maheswaran D. 1998. The ef-
and contaminative effects of hypothetical fects of extensions on brand name dilution
questions on subsequent decision making. J. and enhancement. J. Market. Res. 35(4):464–
Consum. Res. 28(2):224–38 73
Folkes V, Matta S. 2004. The effect of package Gurhan-Canli Z, Maheswaran D. 2000. Deter-
shape on consumers’ judgments of product minants of country-of-origin evaluations. J.
volume: Attention as a mental contaminant. Consum. Res. 27(1):96–108
J. Consum. Res. 31(2):390–401 Hafner M. 2004. How dissimilar others may
Folkes VS, Patrick VM. 2003. The positivity ef- still resemble the self: assimilation and con-
fect in perceptions of services: seen one, seen trast after social comparison. J. Consum. Psy-
them all? J. Consum. Res. 30(1):125–37 chol. 14(1,2):187–95
Forehand MR, Deshpande R. 2001. What we Haugtvedt CP, Ohio State Univ. Consum. Psy-
see makes us who we are: priming ethnic chol. Semin. 1997. Beyond fact or artifact:
self-awareness and advertising response. J. an assessment of Fishbein and Middlestadt’s
Market. Res. 38(3):336–49 perspectives on attitude change processes. J.
Friestad M, Wright P. 1995. Persuasion knowl- Consum. Psychol. 6(1):99–106
edge: lay people’s and researchers’ beliefs Haugtvedt CP, Schumann DW, Schneier WL,
about the psychology of advertising. J. Con- Warren WL. 1994. Advertising repetition and
sum. Res. 22(1):62–74 variation strategies: implications for under-
Garbarino EC, Edell JA. 1997. Cognitive ef- standing attitude strength. J. Consum. Res.
fort, affect, and choice. J. Consum. Res. 21(1):176–89
24(2):147–58 Henderson PW, Giese JL, Cote JA. 2004. Im-
Gentner D, Markman AB. 1997. Structural pression management using typeface design.
alignment in analogy and similarity. Am. Psy- J. Market. 68(4):60–72
chol. 52(1):45–56 Herr PM. 1995. Whither fact, artifact, and at-
Gorn GJ, Chattopadhyay A, Sengupta J, Tri- titude: reflections on the theory of reasoned
pathi S. 2004. Waiting for the web: how action. J. Consum. Psychol. 4(4):371–80
478 LOKEN
Herr PM, Page CM. 2004. Asymmetric asso- Janiszewski C, Noel H, Sawyer AG. 2003. A
ciation of liking and disliking judgments: meta-analysis of the spacing effect in ver-
So what’s not to like? J. Consum. Res. bal learning: implications for research on ad-
30(4):588–601 vertising repetition and consumer memory.
Higgins ET. 2002. How self-regulation creates J. Consum. Res. 30(1):138–49
distinct values: the case of promotion and Jarvis WB, Petty RE. 1996. The need to evalu-
prevention decision making. J. Consum. Psy- ate. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 70:172–94
chol. 12(3):177–91 Johar GV. 1995. Consumer involvement and
Hoch SJ. 2002. Product experience is seductive. deception from implied advertising claims.
J. Consum. Res. 29(3):448–54 J. Market. Res. 32(3):267–79
Homer PM, Batra R. 1994. Attitudinal effects Johar GV, Simmons CJ. 2000. The use of con-
of character-based versus competence-based current disclosures to correct invalid infer-

negative political communication. J. Con- ences. J. Consum. Res. 26(4):307–22
sum. Psychol. 3(2):163–85 John DR. 1999. Consumer socialization of chil-

Howard DJ, Gengler C. 2001. Emotional conta- dren: a retrospective look at twenty-five years
gion effects on product attitudes. J. Consum. of research. J. Consum. Res. 26(3):183–
Res. 28(2):189–201 213
Hsee CK, Leclerc F. 1998. Will products look John DR, Loken B, Joiner C. 1998. The negative
more attractive when presented separately or impact of extensions: Can flagship products
together? J. Consum. Res. 25(2):175–86 be diluted? J. Market. 62(1):19–32
Huber J. 2004. A comment on metacognitive Joiner C, Loken B. 1998. The inclusion effect
experiences and consumer choice. J. Con- and category-based induction: theory and ap-
sum. Psychol. 14(4):356–59 plication to brand categories. J. Consum.
Huffman C. 1996. Goal change, information ac- Psychol. 7(2):101–29
quisition, and transfer. J. Consum. Psychol. Kahle LR, Liu RR, Rose GM, Kim W. 2000. Di-
5(1):1–15 alectical thinking in consumer decision mak-
Isen AM, Niedenthal P, Cantor N. 1992. The ing. J. Consum. Psychol. 9(1):53–58
influence of positive affect on social catego- Kamins MA, Folkes VS, Perner L. 1997. Con-
rization. Motiv. Emot. 16:65–78 sumer responses to rumors: good news, bad
Jacoby J, Johar GV, Morrin M. 1998. Consumer news. J. Consum. Psychol. 6(2):165–87
behavior: a quadrennium. Annu. Rev. Psy- Kardes FR, Cronley ML, Kellaris JJ, Posavac
chol. 49:319–44 SS. 2004a. The role of selective informa-
Jain SP, Buchanan B, Maheswaran D. 2000. tion processing in price-quality inferences.
Comparative and noncomparative advertis- J. Consum. Res. 31(2):368–74
ing: the moderating impact of pre-purchase Kardes FR, Cronley ML, Pontes MC, Houghton
verifiability. J. Consum. Psychol. 9(4):201– DC. 2001. Down the garden path: the role
12 of conditional inference processes in self-
Jain SP, Posavac SS. 2001. Prepurchase at- persuasion. J. Consum. Psychol. 11(3):159–
tribute verifiability, source credibility, and 68
persuasion. J. Consum. Psychol. 11(3):169– Kardes FR, Posavac SS, Cronley ML. 2004b.
80 Consumer inference: a review of processes,
Jain SP, Maheswaran D. 2000. Motivated rea- bases, and judgment contexts. J. Consum.
soning: a depth-of-processing perspective. J. Psychol. 14(3):230–56
Consum. Res. 26(4):358–71 Kassarjian HH. 1982. Consumer psychology.
Janiszewski C, Meyvis T. 2001. Effects of brand Annu. Rev. Psychol. 33:619–49
logo complexity, repetition, and spacing on Keller KL, Heckler SE, Houston MJ. 1998. The
processing fluency and judgment. J. Consum. effects of brand name suggestiveness on ad-
Res. 28(1):18–32 vertising recall. J. Market. 62(1):48–57
Keller PA, Block LG. 1996. Increasing the per- Kumar A, Krishnan S. 2004. Memory interfer-
suasiveness of fear appeals: the effect of ence in advertising: a replication and exten-
arousal and elaboration. J. Consum. Res. sion. J. Consum. Res. 30(4):602–11
22(4):448–59 Lane VR. 2000. The impact of ad repetition and
Keller PA, Block LG. 1997. Vividness effects: ad content on consumer perceptions of in-
a resource-matching perspective. J. Consum. congruent extensions. J. Market. 64(2):80–
Res. 24(3):295–304 91
Keller PA, Lipkus IM, Rimer BK. 2002. De- Larsen V, Luna D, Peracchio LA. 2004. Point of
pressive realism and health risk accuracy: the view and pieces of time: a taxonomy of image
negative consequences of positive mood. J. attributes. J. Consum. Res. 31(1):102–11
Consum. Res. 29(1):57–69 Lau-Gesk LG. 2003. Activating culture through
Keller PA, Lipkus IM, Rimer BK. 2003. Af- persuasion appeals: an examination of the
fect, framing, and persuasion. J. Market. Res. bicultural consumer. J. Consum. Psychol.
40(1):54–65 13(3):301–15
Kempf DAS, Smith RE. 1998. Consumer pro- Laverie DA, Kleine RE III, Kleine SS. 2002.
cessing of product trial and the effects of prior Reexamination and extension of Kleine,
advertising: a structural modeling approach. Kleine, and Kernan’s social identity model
J. Market. Res. 35(3):325–38 of mundane consumption: the mediating role
Kirmani A, Shiv B. 1998. Effects of source of the appraisal process. J. Consum. Res.
congruity on brand attitudes and beliefs: the 28(4):659–69
moderating role of issue-relevant elabora- Law S, Hawkins SA, Craik FIM. 1998.
tion. J. Consum. Psychol. 7(1):25–47 Repetition-induced belief in the elderly: re-
Kirmani A, Sood S, Bridges S. 1999. The own- habilitation age-related memory deficits. J.
ership effect in consumer responses to brand Consum. Res. 25(2):91–107
line stretches. J. Market. 63(1):88–101 Lee AY. 2004. The prevalence of metacogni-
Klink RR, Smith DC. 2001. Threats to the ex- tive routes to judgments. J. Consum. Psychol.
ternal validity of brand extension research. J. 14(4):349–55
Market. Res. 38(3):326–426 Lee AY, Sternthal B. 1999. The effects of pos-
Krishnamurthy P, Sivaraman A. 2002. Counter- itive mood on memory. J. Consum. Res.
factual thinking and advertising responses. J. 26(2):115–27
Consum. Res. 28(4):650–58 Lee JA. 2000. Adapting Triandis’s model of
Krishnamurthy P, Sujan M. 1999. Retrospec- subjective culture and social behavior rela-
tion versus anticipation: the role of the ad tions to consumer behavior. J. Consum. Psy-
under retrospective and anticipatory self- chol. 9(2):117–26
referencing. J. Consum. Res. 26(1):55–69 Levin IP, Levin AM. 2000. Modeling the role of
Krishnan HS, Chakravarti D. 1999. Memory brand alliances in the assimilation of product
measures for pretesting advertisements: an evaluations. J. Consum. Psychol. 9(1):43–
integrative conceptual framework and a diag- 52
nostic template. J. Consum. Psychol. 8(1):1– Lin Y, Lin C, Raghubir P. 2003. Avoiding
37 anxiety, being in denial, or simply stroking
Krishnan HS, Shapiro S. 1999. Prospective and self-esteem: Why self-positivity? J. Consum.
retrospective memory for intentions: a two- Psychol. 13(4):464–77
component approach. J. Consum. Psychol. Loken B, Joiner C, Peck J. 2002. Category atti-
8(2):141–66 tude measures: exemplars as inputs. J. Con-
Kumar A. 2000. Interference effects of contex- sum. Psychol. 12(2):149–62
tual cues in advertisements on memory for Loken B, Ward J. 1990. Alternative approaches
ad content. J. Consum. Psychol. 9(3):155– to understanding the determinants of typical-
66 ity. J. Consum. Res. 17:111–26
480 LOKEN
Luce MF, Payne JW, Bettman JR. 1999. Emo- Meloy MG. 2000. Mood-driven distortion
tional trade-off difficulty and choice. J. Mar- of product information. J. Consum. Res.
ket. Res. 36(2):143–59 27(3):345–59
Luna D, Peracchio LA. 2001. Moderators of Menon G. 1997. Are the parts better than the
language effects in advertising to bilinguals: whole? The effects of decompositional ques-
a psycholinguistic approach. J. Consum. Res. tions on judgments of frequent behaviors. J.
28(2):284–95 Market. Res. 32:335–46
Lurie NH. 2004. Decision making in informa- Menon G, Block LG, Ramanathan S. 2002.
tion rich environments: the role of informa- We’re at as much risk as we are led to be-
tion structure. J. Consum. Res. 30(4):473–86 lieve: effects of message cues on judgments
Maison D, Greenwald AG, Bruin RH. 2004. of health risk. J. Consum. Res. 28(4):533–49
Predictive validity of the implicit associa- Menon G, Johar GV. 1997. Antecedents of pos-
tion test in studies of brands, consumer at- itivity effects in social versus nonsocial judg-
titudes, and behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. ments. J. Consum. Psychol. 6(4):313–37

14(4):427–42 Menon G, Raghubir P. 2003. Ease-of-retrieval
Malaviya P, Kisielius J, Sternthal B. 1996. The as an automatic input in judgments: a mere-
effect of type of elaboration on advertis- accessibility framework? J. Consum. Res.
ing process and judgment. J. Market. Res. 30(2):230–43
33:410–21 Menon G, Raghubir P, Schwarz N. 1995.
Mandel N. 2003. Shifting selves and decision Behavioral frequency judgments: an acces-
making: the effects of self-construal prim- sibility-diagnosticity framework. J. Consum.
ing on consumer risk taking. J. Consum. Res. Res. 22(2):212–28
30(1):30–40 Meyers-Levy J, Maheswaran D. 2004. Explor-
Mandel N, Johnson EJ. 2002. When Web pages ing message framing outcomes when system-
influence choice: effects of visual primes atic, heuristic, or both types of processing
on experts and novices. J. Consum. Res. occur. J. Consum. Psychol. 14(1,2):159–67
29(2):235–45 Meyers-Levy J, Peracchio LA. 1995. Under-
Mantel SP, Kardes FR. 1999. The role of di- standing the effects of color: how the cor-
rection of comparison, attribute-based pro- respondence between available and required
cessing, and attitude-based processing in resources affects attitudes. J. Consum. Res.
consumer preference. J. Consum. Res. 22(2):121–38
25(4):335–52 Meyers-Levy J, Peracchio LA. 1996. Modera-
Mantel SP, Kellaris JJ. 2003. Cognitive deter- tors of the impact of self-reference on per-
minants of consumers’ time perceptions: the suasion. J. Consum. Res. 22(4):408–23
impact of resources required and available. Meyers-Levy J, Tybout AM. 1997. Context ef-
J. Consum. Res. 29(4):531–38 fects at encoding and judgment in consump-
Markus H, Kunda Z. 1986. Stability and mal- tion settings: the role of cognitive resources.
leability in the self-concept in the percep- J. Consum. Res. 24(1):1–14
tion of others. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Meyvis T, Janiszewski C. 2002. Consumers’
51(4):858–66 beliefs about product benefits: the effect of
Martin IM, Stewart DW. 2001. The differential obviously irrelevant product information. J.
impact of goal congruency on attitudes, in- Consum. Res. 28(4):618–35
tentions, and the transfer of brand equity. J. Meyvis T, Janiszewski C. 2004. When are
Market. Res. 38(4):471–93 broader brands stronger brands? An acces-
McQuarrie EF, Mick DG. 2003. Visual and ver- sibility perspective on the success of brand
bal rhetorical figures under directed process- extensions. J. Consum. Res. 31(2):346–57
ing versus incidental exposure to advertising. Mick DG, Fournier S. 1998. Paradoxes of tech-
J. Consum. Res. 29(4):579–87 nology: consumer cognizance, emotions,
and coping strategies. J. Consum. Res. tive experience. J. Consum. Res. 28(1):89–
25(2):123–43 104
Milberg S, Park CW, McCarthy M. 1997. Man- Muthukrishnan AV, Ramaswami S. 1999. Con-
aging negative feedback effects associated textual effects on the revision of evaluative
with brand extension: the impact of alterna- judgments: an extension of the omission-
tive branding strategies. J. Consum. Psychol. detection framework. J. Consum. Res. 26(1):
6(2):119–40 70–84
Miniard PW, Barone MJ. 1997. The case for Notani AS. 1998. Moderators of perceived be-
noncognitive determinants of attitude: a cri- havioral control’s predictiveness in the the-
tique of Fishbein and Middlestadt. J. Con- ory of planned behavior: a meta-analysis. J.
sum. Psychol. 6(1):77–93 Consum. Psychol. 7(3):247–71
Mitchell A, Dacin PA. 1996. The assessment of Olsen DG. 1997. The impact of interstimulus
alternative measures of consumer expertise. interval and background silence on recall. J.
J. Consum. Res. 23(3):219–39 Consum. Res. 23(4):295–311

Mitchell DJ, Kahn BE, Knasko SC. 1995. Park CW, Jun SY, Shocker AD. 1996. Com-
There’s something in the air: effects of con- posite branding alliances: an investigation of
gruent or incongruent ambient odor on con- extensions and feedback effects. J. Market.
sumer decision making. J. Consum. Res. Res. 33:453–66
22(2):229–38 Park CW, Mothersbaugh DL, Feick L. 1994.
Moore ES, Lutz RJ. 2000. Children, advertis- Consumer knowledge assessment. J. Con-
ing, and product experiences: a multimethod sum. Res. 21(1):71–82
inquiry. J. Consum. Res. 27(1):31–48 Pechmann C. 1996. Do consumers overgen-
Moreau CP, Lehmann DR, Markman AB. 2001. eralize one-sided comparative price claims,
Entrenched knowledge structures and con- and are more stringent regulations needed?
sumer response to new products. J. Market. J. Market. Res. 33(2):150–62
Res. 38(1):14–29 Pechmann C, Knight SJ. 2002. An experimental
Morrin M. 1999. The impact of brand ex- investigation of the joint effects of advertis-
tensions on parent brand memory struc- ing and peers on adolescents’ beliefs and in-
tures and retrieval processes. J. Market. Res. tentions about cigarette consumption. J. Con-
36(4):517–25 sum. Res. 29(1):5–19
Morrin M, Ratneshwar S. 2003. Does it make Peck J, Childers TL. 2003. Individual differ-
sense to use scents to enhance brand mem- ences in haptic information processing: the
ory? J. Market. Res. 40(1):10–26 “need for touch” scale. J. Consum. Res.
Morwitz VG. 1997. It seems like only yester- 30(3):430–42
day: the nature and consequences of telescop- Peracchio LA, Meyers-Levy J. 1994. How am-
ing errors in marketing research. J. Consum. biguous cropped objects in ad photos can
Psychol. 6(1):1–29 affect product evaluations. J. Consum. Res.
Morwitz VG, Fitzsimons GJ. 2004. The mere- 21(1):190–214
measurement effects: Why does measuring Peracchio LA, Meyers-Levy J. 1997. Evaluat-
intentions change actual behavior? J. Con- ing persuasion-enhancing techniques from a
sum. Psychol. 14(1,2):64–74 resource-matching perspective. J. Consum.
Murry JP, Dacin PA. 1996. Cognitive mod- Res. 24(2):178–92
erators of negative-emotion effects: impli- Peracchio LA, Tybout AM. 1996. The mod-
cations for understanding media context. J. erating role of prior knowledge in schema-
Consum. Res. 22(4):439–47 based product evaluation. J. Consum. Res.
Muthukrishnan AV, Kardes F. 2001. Persistent 23(3):177–92
preferences for product attributes: the effects Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. 1986. Communica-
of the initial choice context and uninforma- tion and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral
482 LOKEN
Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Priester JR, Nayakankuppam D, Fleming MA,
Springer-Verlag Godek J. 2004. The A2 SC2 model: the in-
Pham MT. 1996. Cue representation and selec- fluence of attitudes and attitude strength on
tion effects of arousal on persuasion. J. Con- consideration and choice. J. Consum. Res.
sum. Res. 22(4):373–87 30(4):574–87
Pham MT. 1998. Representatives, relevance, Priester JR, Petty RE. 2003. The influence
and the use of feelings in decision making. J. of spokesperson trustworthiness on message
Consum. Res. 25(2):144–57 elaboration, attitude strength, and advertising
Pham MT. 2004. The logic of feeling. J. Con- effectiveness. J. Consum. Psychol. 13:408–
sum. Psychol. 14(4):360–9 21
Pham MT, Avnet T. 2004. Ideals and oughts Raghubir P, Krishna A. 1999. Vital dimen-
and the reliance on affect versus substance in sions in volume perception: Can the eye
persuasion. J. Consum. Res. 30(4):503–18 fool the stomach? J. Market. Res. 36(3):313–
Pham MT, Cohen JB, Pracejus JW, Hughes 26

GD. 2001. Affect monitoring and the pri- Raghubir P, Menon G. 1998. AIDS and me,
macy of feelings in judgment. J. Consum. never the twain shall meet: the effects of
Res. 28(2):167–88 information accessibility on judgments of
Pham MT, Muthukrishnan AV. 2002. Search risk and advertising effectiveness. J. Con-
and alignment in judgment revision: impli- sum. Res. 25(1):52–63
cations for brand positioning. J. Market. Res. Raghunathan R, Irwin JR. 2001. Walking the
39(1):18–30 hedonic product treadmill: default contrast
Phillips DM, Baumgartner H. 2002. The role and mood-based assimilation in judgments
of consumption emotions in the satisfaction of predicted happiness with a target product.
response. J. Consum. Psychol. 12(3):243– J. Consum. Res. 28(3):355–68
52 Ratneshwar S, Barsalou LW, Pechmann C,
Pieters R, Rosbergen E, Wedel M. 1999. Vi- Moore M. 2001. Goal-derived categories: the
sual attention to repeated print advertising: a role of personal and situational goals in cat-
test of scanpath theory. J. Market. Res. 36(4): egory representations. J. Consum. Psychol.
424–38 10(3):147–57
Posavac SS, Sanbonmatsu DM, Kardes FR, Ratneshwar S, Mick DG, Huffman C, eds. 2000.
Fitzsimons GJ. 2004. The brand positivity The Why of Consumption: Contemporary
effect: when evaluation confers preference. Perspectives on Consumer Motives, Goals
J. Consum. Res. 31(3):643–51 and Desires. London/New York: Routledge
Priester JR, Dholakia UM, Fleming MA. 2004. Ratneshwar S, Pechmann C, Shocker AD. 1996.
When and why the background contrast ef- Goal-derived categories and the antecedents
fect emerges: thought engenders meaning by of across-category consideration. J. Consum.
influencing the perception of applicability. J. Res. 23(3):240–50
Consum. Res. 31(3):491–501 Reed A II. 2004. Activating the self-importance
Priester JR, Godek J, Nayakankuppum DJ, Park of consumer selves: exploring identity
K. 2004. Brand congruity and comparative salience effects on judgments. J. Consum.
advertising: When and why comparative ad- Res. 31(2):286–95
vertisements lead to greater elaboration. J. Richins ML. 1997. Measuring emotions in the
Consum. Psychol. 14(1,2):115–23 consumption experience. J. Consum. Res.
Priester JR, Fleming MA. 1997. Artifact or 24(2):127–46
meaningful theoretical constructs? Examin- Roehm ML, Sternthal B. 2001. The moderat-
ing evidence for nonbelief- and belief-based ing effect of knowledge and resources on the
attitude change processes. J. Consum. Psy- persuasive impact of analogies. J. Consum.
chol. 6(1):67–76 Res. 28(2):257–72
Russell CA. 2002. Investigating the effective- yond our conscious control: perceptual and
ness of product placements in television conceptual fluency effects caused by inciden-
shows: the role of modality and plot con- tal ad exposure. J. Consum. Res. 26(1):16–
nection congruence on brand memory and 36
attitude. J. Consum. Res. 29(3):306–18 Shapiro S, MacInnis DJ, Heckler SE. 1997. The
Russo JE, Meloy MG, Medvec VH. 1998. Pre- effects of incidental ad exposure on the for-
decisional distortion of product information. mation of consideration sets. J. Consum. Res.
J. Market. Res. 35(4):438–52 24(1):94–104
Ruth JA. 2001. Promoting a brand’s emotion Shapiro S, Spence MT. 2002. Factors affecting
benefits: the influence of emotion categoriza- encoding, retrieval, and alignment of sensory
tion processes on consumer evaluations. J. attributes in a memory-based brand choice
Consum. Psychol. 11(2):99–113 task. J. Consum. Res. 28(4):603–17

Schlosser AE, Shavitt S. 2002. Anticipating dis- Shavitt S, Swan S, Lowrey TM, Wanke M.
cussion about a product: Rehearsing what to 1994. The interaction of endorser attractive-
say can affect your judgments. J. Consum. ness and involvement in persuasion depends
Res. 29(1):101–15 on the goal that guides message processing.
Schwarz N. 1997. Moods and attitude judg- J. Consum. Psychol. 3(2):137–62
ments: a comment on Fishbein and Mid- Shiv B, Britton JAE, Payne JW. 2004.
dlestadt. J. Consum. Psychol. 6(1):93–98 Does elaboration increase or decrease the
Schwarz N. 2004. Metacognitive experiences in effectiveness of negatively versus posi-
consumer judgment and decision making. J. tively framed messages? J. Consum. Res.
Consum. Psychol. 14(4):332–48 31(1):199–208
Sen S. 1999. The effects of brand name sugges- Shiv B, Edell JA, Payne JW. 1997. Factors af-
tiveness and decision goal on the develop- fecting the impact of negatively and posi-
ment of brand knowledge. J. Consum. Psy- tively framed ad messages. J. Consum. Res.
chol. 8(4):431–55 24(3):285–94
Sengupta J, Fitzsimons GJ. 2000. The effects Shiv B, Fedorikhin A. 1999. Heart and mind
of analyzing reasons for brand preferences: in conflict: the interplay of affect and cog-
disruption or reinforcement. J. Market. Res. nition in consumer decision making. J. Con-
37(3):318–30 sum. Res. 26(3):278–92
Sengupta J, Fitzsimons GJ. 2004. The effect of Shrum LJ, Wyer RS, O’Guinn TC. 1998. The
analyzing reasons on the stability of brand effects of television consumption on social
attitudes: a reconciliation of opposing pre- perceptions: the use of priming procedures to
dictions. J. Consum. Res. 31(3):705–11 investigate psychological processes. J. Con-
Sengupta J, Goodstein RC, Boninger DS. 1997. sum. Res. 24(4):447–58
All cues are not created equal: obtaining atti- Siminon BL, Ruth JA. 1998. Is a company
tude persistence under low-involvement con- known by the company it keeps? Assess-
ditions. J. Consum. Res. 23(4):351–61 ing the spillover effects of brand alliances
Sengupta J, Gorn GJ. 2002. Absence makes the on consumer brand attitudes. J. Market. Res.
mind grow sharper: effects of element omis- 35(1):30–42
sion on subsequent recall. J. Market. Res. Simonson I, Carmon Z, Dhar R, Drolet A,
39(2):186–202 Nowles S. 2001. Consumer research: in
Sengupta J, Johar GV. 2002. Effects of incon- search of identity. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
sistent attribute information on the predic- 52:249–75
tive value of product attitudes: toward a res- Sirsi AK, Ward JC, Reingen PH. 1996. Micro-
olution of opposing perspectives. J. Consum. cultural analysis of variation in sharing of
Res. 29(1):39–56 causal reasoning about behavior. J. Consum.
Shapiro S. 1999. When an ad’s influence is be- Res. 22(4):345–72
484 LOKEN
Soman D, Cheema A. 2004. When goals responses to new product designs. J. Consum.
are counterproductive: the effects of vio- Res. 24(4):374–94
lation of a behavioral goal on subsequent Viswanathan M, Childers TL. 1996. Processing
performance. J. Consum. Res. 31(1):52– of numerical and verbal product information.
62 J. Consum. Psychol. 5(4):359–85
Spangenberg ER, Greenwald AG. 1999. So- Viswanathan M, Childers TL. 1999. Under-
cial influence by requesting self-prophecy. J. standing how product attributes influence
Consum. Psychol. 8(1):61–89 product categorization: development and val-
Srivastava J, Raghubir P. 2002. Debiasing using idation of fuzzy set-based measures of grad-
decomposition: the case of memory-based edness in product categories. J. Market. Res.
credit card expense estimates. J. Consum. 36(1):75–94
Psychol. 12(3):253–64 Wang J, Wyer RS. 2002. Comparative judgment

Stapel DA, Koomen W, Velthuijsen AS. 1998. processes: the effects of task objectives and
Assimilation or contrast? Comparison rele- time delay on product evaluations. J. Con-

vance, distinctness, and the impact of acces- sum. Psychol. 12(4):327–40
sible information on consumer judgments. J. Wanke M, Bless H, Schwarz S. 1998. Context
Consum. Psychol. 7(1):1–14 effects in product line extensions. J. Consum.
Tavassoli NT, Han JK. 2001. Scripted thought: Psychol. 7(4):299–322
processing Korean Hancha and Hangul in Wanke M, Bohner G, Jukowitsch A. 1997.
a multimedia context. J. Consum. Res. There are many reasons to drive a BMW:
28(3):482–93 Does imagined ease of argument genera-
Tavassoli NT, Lee YH. 2003. The differential tion influence attitudes? J. Consum. Res.
interaction of auditory and visual advertising 24(2):170–77
elements with Chinese and English. J. Mar- Wansink B, Kent RJ, Hoch SJ. 1998. An an-
ket. Res. 40(4):468–81 choring and adjustment model of purchase
Tormala ZL, Petty RE. 2004. Source credibility quantity decisions. J. Market. Res. 35(1):71–
and attitude certainty: a metacognitive anal- 81
ysis of resistance to persuasion. J. Consum. Wansink B, Van Ittersum K. 2003. Bottoms up!
Psychol. 14(4):427–42 Peripheral cues and consumption volume. J.
Tybout AM, Artz N. 1994. Consumer psy- Consum. Res. 30(3):455–63
chology. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 45:131– Warlop L, Alba JW. 2004. Sincere flattery:
69 trade-dress imitation and consumer choice.
Unnava HR, Agarwal S, Haugtvedt CP. 1996. J. Consum. Psychol. 14(1,2):21–27
Interactive effects of presentation modality Weiner B. 2000. Attributional thoughts
and message-generated imagery on recall about consumer behavior. J. Consum. Res.
of advertising information. J. Consum. Res. 27(3):382–87
23(1):81–8 West PM. 1996. Predicting preferences: an ex-
Unnava HR, Sirdeshmukh D. 1994. Reducing amination of agent learning. J. Consum. Res.
competitive ad interference. J. Market. Res. 23(1):68–80
31(3):403–11 West PM, Huber J, Min KS. 2004. Altering ex-
Van Osselaer SMJ, Alba JW. 2003. Locus of perienced utility: the impact of story writing
equity and brand extension. J. Consum. Res. and self-referencing on preferences. J. Con-
29(4):539–50 sum. Res. 31(3):623–30
Van Osselaer SMJ, Janiszewski C. 2001. Two Williams P, Aaker JL. 2002. Can mixed emo-
ways of learning brand associations. J. Con- tions peacefully coexist? J. Consum. Res.
sum. Res. 28(2):202–23 28(4):636–49
Veryzer RW, Hutchinson JW. 1998. The influ- Williams P, Fitzsimons GJ, Block LG. 2004.
ence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic When consumers do not recognize “benign”
intention questions as persuasion attempts. J. netic effects of brand names on consumer

Consum. Res. 31(3):540–50 judgments. J. Consum. Res. 31(1):43–51
Wooten DB, Reed A II. 1998. Informational Zhang S, Kardes FR, Cronley ML. 2002. Com-
influence and the ambiguity of product ex- parative advertising: effects of structural
perience: order effects on the weighting of alignability on target brand evaluations. J.
evidence. J. Consum. Psychol. 7(1):79–99 Consum. Psychol. 12(4):303–11
Wyer RS, Srull TJ. 1989. Memory and Cog- Zhang S, Markman AB. 1998. Overcoming the
nition in Its Social Context. Hillsdale, NJ: early entrant advantage: the role of alignable
Erlbaum and nonalignable differences. J. Market. Res.
Yeung CWM, Wyer RS. 2004. Affect, appraisal, 35(4):413–26
and consumer judgment. J. Consum. Res. Zhang S, Schmitt BH. 2004. Activating sound
31(2):412–24 and meaning: the role of language profi-

Yoon C. 1997. Age differences in consumers’ ciency in bilingual consumer environments.
processing strategies: an investigation of J. Consum. Res. 31(1):220–28

moderating influences. J. Consum. Res. Zhang S, Sood S. 2002. “Deep” and “surface”
24(3):329–42 cues: brand extension evaluations by children
Yorkston E, Menon G. 2004. A sound idea: pho- and adults. J. Consum. Res. 29(1):129–41
P1: JRX/LOW P2: KUV
November 8, 2005 22:20 Annual Reviews AR264-FM
Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 57, 2006
CONTENTS
Frontispiece—Herbert C. Kelman xvi
PREFATORY
Interests, Relationships, Identities: Three Central Issues for Individuals and

Groups in Negotiating Their Social Environment, Herbert C. Kelman 1

BRAIN MECHANISMS AND BEHAVIOR: EMOTION AND MOTIVATION
Emotion and Cognition: Insights from Studies of the Human Amygdala,
Elizabeth A. Phelps 27
STRESS AND NEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
Stressful Experience and Learning Across the Lifespan, Tracey J. Shors 55
REWARD AND ADDICTION
Behavioral Theories and the Neurophysiology of Reward, Wolfram Schultz 87
GENETICS OF BEHAVIOR
Genetics of Affective and Anxiety Disorders,
E.D. Leonardo and René Hen 117
SLEEP
Sleep, Memory, and Plasticity, Matthew P. Walker and Robert Stickgold 139
COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY, ETHOLOGY, AND EVOLUTION
Neuroecology, David F. Sherry 167
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY
The Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Beauty, Gillian Rhodes 199
LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION
Explanation and Understanding, Frank C. Keil 227
ADOLESCENCE
Adolescent Development in Interpersonal and Societal Contexts,
Judith G. Smetana, Nicole Campione-Barr, and Aaron Metzger 255
INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT
Enduring Effects for Cognitive Therapy in the Treatment of Depression
and Anxiety, Steven D. Hollon, Michael O. Stewart, and Daniel Strunk 285
vii
P1: JRX/LOW P2: KUV
November 8, 2005 22:20 Annual Reviews AR264-FM
viii CONTENTS
FAMILY/MARITAL THERAPY
Current Status and Future Directions in Couple Therapy,
Douglas K. Snyder, Angela M. Castellani, and Mark A. Whisman 317
ATTITUDE CHANGE AND PERSUASION
Attitudes and Persuasion, William D. Crano and Radmila Prislin 345
BARGAINING, NEGOTIATION, CONFLICT, SOCIAL JUSTICE
Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation, Tom R. Tyler 375
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND ASSESSMENT
Personality and the Prediction of Consequential Outcomes, Daniel J. Ozer

and Verónica Benet-Martı́nez 401

ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
Child Development and the Physical Environment, Gary W. Evans 423
MARKETING AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
Consumer Psychology: Categorization, Inferences, Affect, and Persuasion,
Barbara Loken 453
STRUCTURES AND GOALS OF EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
Classroom Goal Structure, Student Motivation, and Academic
Achievement, Judith L. Meece, Eric M. Anderman,
and Lynley H. Anderman 487
DATA ANALYSIS
Analysis of Longitudinal Data: The Integration of Theoretical Model,
Temporal Design, and Statistical Model, Linda M. Collins 505
TIMELY TOPICS
The Internet as Psychological Laboratory, Linda J. Skitka
and Edward G. Sargis 529
Family Violence, Patrick Tolan, Deborah Gorman-Smith, and David Henry 557
Understanding Affirmative Action, Faye J. Crosby, Aarti Iyer,
and Sirinda Sincharoen 585
INDEXES
Subject Index 613
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 47–57 637
Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 47–57 642
ERRATA
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology chapters
may be found at http://psych.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY Categorization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY Categorization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY Categorization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

25 Oct 2005 16:33 AR ANRV264-PS57-17.

tex XMLPublishSM (2004/02/24) P1: KUV

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2006. 57:453–85

CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY: Categorization,

Key Words information processing, attitudes, judgments, literature review

The Effects of Mood on Judgments and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465

A recent Annual Review of Psychology chapter (Simonson et al. 2001) describes

CONSUMER COGNITION AND AFFECT 455

tomobiles, shampoos). Research on brand categories has focused on the manner

Similarity-Based Category Inferences to

Assimilation and Contrast

CONSUMER COGNITION AND AFFECT 457

The Influence of New Category Members on the Category

Goals as Organizing Frameworks

depending on whether a personal or situational goal was salient (Ratneshwar et al.

Factors That Influence Category Expansion and Flexibility

CONSUMER COGNITION AND AFFECT 459

factors. A positive mood state may increase motivation to engage in relational

an independent self-view, priming an interdependent self-view has been associated

process the ad information (Meyers-Levy & Peracchio 1996), or when elaboration

Meyers-Levy & Peracchio 1996). The type of self-referencing used by consumers

CONSUMER COGNITION AND AFFECT 461

Singular Brand Versus Multiple Brand Inferences

is missing (when the format is changed from a noncomparative to a comparative

Inferences Based on Irrelevant Attributes

Inferences Based on Experiential and Sensory Data

CONSUMER COGNITION AND AFFECT 463

Conditional Inferences, Correlations, and Causal Reasoning

Metacognitive Experiences and Knowledge

Brand Name Inferences

superiority name is often preferred to a category-specific name when extending

CONSUMER COGNITION AND AFFECT 465

Biases and Motivated Reasoning

motivated reasoning. Researchers argue, for example, that inconsistent information

CONSUMER AFFECT, MOOD, FEELINGS,

The Effects of Mood on Judgments and Processing

using consummatory or hedonic (versus instrumental) criteria (Adaval 2001, Pham

Cognitive Versus Noncognitive Bases for Attitudes

CONSUMER COGNITION AND AFFECT 467

whether automaticity effects, degree of effort in processing, or mood and bodily

Cognition, Affect, and Behavioral Intentions

DUAL-PROCESS MODELS OF PERSUASION Consumer research on the elaboration

CONSUMER COGNITION AND AFFECT 469

emphasis on country of origin as a processing cue (Gurhan-Canli & Maheswaran

PROBLEM-SOLVING AND ELABORATIVE THOUGHT Problem-solving thinking that

(Roehm & Sternthal 2001).

NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF ELABORATION ON PERSUASION Elaboration can have a

CONSUMER COGNITION AND AFFECT 471

Attitude Strength, Resistance, and Confidence

responses to ads. When people counterargued a message, it increased their attitude

Ad Repetition, Ad Spacing, Incidental Ad Exposure,

Differences in Negative and Positive Evaluative Dimensions

in a negative (versus positive) way required and/or motivated greater elaboration

CONSUMER COGNITION AND AFFECT 473

However, the moderating roles of elaboration, accessibility, and diagnosticity have

tion of inconsistencies), these positive outcomes, in some cases, became associated

The Annual Review of Psychology is online at http://psych.annualreviews.org

regulatory goals in information processing behavior. Sociometry 34:263–80

CONSUMER COGNITION AND AFFECT 475