Influence of involvement and motivation to correction on product evaluation: Asymmetry for strong and weak brands

• Authors: Małgorzata A. Styśko-Kunkowska , Katarzyna Żbikowska
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In previous research, studies on motivated correction in the evaluation of branded products are rare. This experimental study with 246 participants examined how the motivation to correct the impact of brand knowledge influences the product evaluation of actual strong and weak brands in low and high involvement situations. As predicted, asymmetry between the strong and weak brands was observed. After the induction of the motivation to correction, the smaller brand effect occurred only in the cases of low involvement and the weak (negative) brand. The effect of motivated correction was smaller than the effect of high involvement; therefore, the overall results suggest that conscious explicit motivation to correction evokes correction only in cases of weak brands under certain circumstances. However, this impact is not as strong as the influence of high motivation or a strong brand, even though explicit instructions are given to avoid the negative influence of the brand.

Keywords

EN

involvement; motivation to correction; brand; product; evaluation

• Publisher: Committee for Psychological Sciences, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Journal: Polish Psychological Bulletin
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 45
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 488-499

Dates

published

2014-12-01

online

2014-12-16

Contributors

author

Małgorzata A. Styśko-Kunkowska

• Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, ul. Stawki 5/7, 00-183 Warsaw, Poland;

author

Katarzyna Żbikowska

• University of Warsaw, Poland

References

• Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.
• Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347-356.[WoS][Crossref]
• Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), 27 - 41.[Crossref]
• Allen, C. T., Fournier, S., & Miller, F. (2008). Brands and their meaning makers. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr & F. R. Kardes (Eds.).Handbook of Consumer Psychology (pp. 781-822). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Andrews, J. C., & Durvasula, S. (1991). Suggestions for manipulating and measuring involvement in advertising message content. Advances in Consumer Research, 18 (1), 194-201.
• Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automacity in social psychology. In E. T. Higgins, A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology. Handbook of basic principles, New York: The Guilford Press.
• Batra, R., & Homer, P. M. (2004). The situational impact of brand image beliefs. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (3), 318 - 330.[Crossref]
• Bosmans, A., & Baumgartner, H. (2005). Goal - relevant emotional information: When extraneous affect leads to persuasion and when it does not. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 424 - 434.[Crossref]
• Carlson, K., Meloy, M. G., & Russo, J. E. (2006). Leader - driven primacy: using attribute order to affect consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (4), 513 - 518.[Crossref]
• Chaiken, Sh. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (5), 752 - 766.[Crossref]
• Chaiken, Sh., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (3), 460 - 473.[Crossref]
• Chaiken Sh. & Trope Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Publishers.
• Chaudhuri, A. (2006). Emotion and reason in consumer behavior.Butterworth - Heinemann.
• Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Fichter, Ch., & Jonas, K. (2008). Image effects of newspapers. How brand images change consumers’ product ratings. Journal of Psychology, 216 (4), 226 - 234.[WoS]
• Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski [red.], Social psychology. Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133 - 168). New York: The Guilford Press.
• Kardes, F. R. (2006). When should consumers and managers trust their intuition? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (1), 20 - 24.[Crossref]
• Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2005). When negative expectancies turn into negative performance: The role of ease of retrieval. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41 (5), 535 - 541.[Crossref]
• Keller, K. L. (2001). Building customer - based equity. Marketing Management, 10 (2), 14 - 19.
• Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 595 - 600.[Crossref]
• Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management: building, measuring and managing brand equity. (3d ed.), Upper Saddle River, New York: Prentice Hall.
• Kim, J., Morris, J. D., & Swait, J. (2008). Antecedents of true brand loyalty.Journal of Advertising, 37 (2), 99 - 117.[WoS]
• Lambert, A. J., Khan, S., Lickel. B., & Fricke, K. (1997). Mood and correction of positive versus negative stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (5), 1002-1016.[Crossref]
• Lombardi, W. J., Higgins, E.T., & Bargh, J.A. (1987). The role of consciousness in priming effects on categorization: assimilation versus contrast as a function of awareness of the priming task.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 411 - 429.[Crossref]
• Macdonald, E. K., & Sharp, B. M. (2000). Brand awareness effects on consumer decision making for a common, repeat purchase product: A replication. Journal of Business Research, 48 (1), 5 - 15.[Crossref]
• Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, Sh. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low - motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (1), 13 - 25.[Crossref]
• Maheswaran, D. Mackie, D., & Chaiken, Sh. (1992). Brand name as heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (4), 317 - 336.[Crossref]
• Martin, L. L., Crelia, R. A., & Seta, J. J. (1990). Assimilation and contrast as a function of people’s willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (1), 27 - 37.[Crossref]
• Martin, L.L., & Achee, J. W. (1992). Beyond accessibility: The role of processing objectives in judgment. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser [Red.] The construction of social judgments (pp. 195 - 215). Millsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Moorthy, S., Ratchford, B. T., & Talukdar, D. (1997). Consumer information search revisited: Theory and empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 263 - 277.[Crossref]
• Newman, L.S., & Uleman, J.S. (1990). Assimilation and contrast effects in spontaneous trait inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 224 - 240.[Crossref]
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (1), 69 - 81.[Crossref]
• Posavac, S. S., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. R., & Fitzsimons, G.J. (2004). The brand positivity effect: when evaluation confers preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 643 - 651.[Crossref]
• Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well- being: Informative and directive functions of affective states.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (3), 513-523.[Crossref]
• Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992). Constructing reality and its alternatives: an Inclusion/ Exclusion Model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser [Eds.] The construction of social judgments (pp. 217 - 245). Millsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Shapiro, S., & Spence, M. T. (2005). Mind over matter? The inability to counteract contrast effects despite conscious effort. Psychology & Marketing, 22 (3), 225-245. doi:10.1002/mar.20056[Crossref]
• Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). Rational actors or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. Journal of Socio - Economics, 31 (4), 329 - 342.[Crossref]
• Stangor, C., & McMillan, D. (1992). Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-incongruent information: A review of the social and social-developmental literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 111 (1), 42-61.[Crossref]
• Strack, F., Werth, L., & Deutsch, R. (2006). Reflective and impulsive determinants of consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (3), 205 - 216.[Crossref]
• Thompson, S. A., & Sinha, R. K. (2008). Brand communities and new product adoption: the influence and limits of oppositional loyalty.Journal of Marketing, 72 (6), 65 - 80.[WoS][Crossref]
• Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Whan Park, C. (2005). The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 77 - 91.[Crossref]
• Tietje, B. C., & Brunel, F. F. (2005). Toward a unified implicit brand theory. In Kardes, F. R., Herr, P. M., Nantel, J. (Eds.). Applying social cognition to consumer-focused strategy. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2003). Bounding rationality to the world.Journal of Economic Psychology, 24 (2), 143 - 165.[Crossref]
• Traylor, M. B., & Joseph, W. B. (1984). Measuring consumer involvement with products: developing a general scale. Psychology & Marketing, 1 (2), 65-77.[Crossref]
• Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3), 341-352.[Crossref]

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/ppb-2014-0059