Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.

Product Categorization and Inference Making: Some Implications for Comparative Advertising
Author(s): Mita Sujan and Christine Dekleva
Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Dec., 1987), pp. 372-378
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489498 .
Accessed: 18/08/2013 22:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Product Categorization and Inference
Making: Some Implications for
Comparative Advertising

MITASUJAN
CHRISTINEDEKLEVA*

A categorization approach to inference making was used to determine when the

effects of comparative advertising would differ from those of noncomparative ad-
vertising. Comparative advertising led to different responses for experts relative to
either product class or product type level noncomparative advertising, but for novices
only when the noncomparative ad referredto a broad product class. These differences
were for measures of similarity,distinctiveness, and ad informativeness. Mean values
on brand attitudes were not differentially influenced by comparative versus non-
comparative advertising, though comparative advertising resulted in more polarized
attitudes. These results were interpreted within the categorization framework and
point to the general usefulness of this conceptual framework.

Studies that have examined the effects of compara-
tive advertising have found that, in general, com-
parative advertising is no different from noncompara-
tive advertising (e.g., Belch 1981; Goodwin and Etgar
1980). Indeed, the evidence has not indicated when or
on what measures comparative ads will differ from
noncomparative ads. One problem for earlier work in
comparative advertising has been the lack of a useful
conceptual framework. Though cognitive response the-
ory (Greenwald 1968) has been applied, it has not been
particularly useful in predicting differences between
comparative and noncomparative advertising (cf. Gorn
and Weinberg 1984). We employ categorization theory
(e.g., Mervis and Rosch 1981) to investigate this issue.
The approach is useful in predicting the inferences that
consumers make, i.e., the attributes that consumers as-
cribe to a product even when these are not explicitly
mentioned in the advertising. We derive propositions
about the likely differences between comparative and
*Mita Sujanis AssistantProfessorof Marketing,Collegeof Busi-
ness Administration,The PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,University
Park, PA 16802. ChristineDekleva was a graduatestudent in the
MarketingDepartment,The PennsylvaniaState University, at the
time this researchwas conducted,and her Master'sthesis was part
of this researcheffort.Jim Bettman'scomments on this projectare
gratefullyacknowledged.
noncomparative advertising as a result of differences in
inferences generated.
A CATEGORIZATION APPROACH TO
INFERENCE MAKING
One fundamental premise of the categorization ap-
proach is that objects can be grouped at varying levels
of specificity. For example, products could be grouped
into superordinate or product class categories such as
"cars," into less inclusive product type categories such
as "sports cars," or into specific brand level categories
such as "Nissan 300ZX cars." Categorization theory
also specifies that there is one basic level of inclusiveness
at which individuals naturally categorize and sponta-
neously name objects. The basic level maximizes par-
simony-a few "rich" and "distinct" categories are
formed. Richness refers to the number of attributes de-
scribing the category, and distinctiveness refers to how
differentiated the category is from other categories at
the same level. For products, the product type level is
likely to constitute the basic level of categorization. For
example, for the category of cars, sports cars and family
cars are likely to be perceived as distinct subcategories,
but various brands of sports cars are likely to be seen
as having many shared attributes and few distinct ones.
Categorization ideas further suggest that few infer-
ences can be made about a product by categorizing it

372
? JOURNAL OF CONSUMERRESEARCHe Vol. 14 C December 1987

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CATEGORIZATIONAND INFERENCE MAKING
at the product class level (e.g., a camera can best be
described in terms of "takes pictures," "uses film," etc.).
Categorization at the product type level allows many
more inferences to be drawn, and these inferences are
also likely to be evaluative in character (e.g., a 35mm
camera can be described as "takes good pictures," "uses
a large film format," "versatile," etc.). Further, the in-
ferences that can be made about contrasting product
types are likely to be distinct (e.g., the attributes ascribed
to a 110 camera-"handy to carry," "cartridge film"-
are likely to be different from those ascribed to a 35mm
camera). Finally, categorizing at the brand level rather
than at the product type level is likely to result in some
increase in the attributes that can be used to describe
the product (e.g., a Canon AE-1, in addition to being
described as "takes good pictures," and "versatile," can
also be described as "Japanese made," and "reliable"),
but this increase is likely to be small (e.g., many of the
inferences that can be made about the Canon AE- 1 can
be made based on its membership in the 35mm camera
category).
To summarize, the categorization research suggests
that more attributes can be inferred about a product by
categorizing it at more specific levels and that the in-
crease is greater in moving from the product class to
the product type level than from the product type to
the brand level.
Implications for Comparativeversus
NoncomparativeAdvertising
In considering comparative advertising, we examine
comparative ads for unknown or new brands that ex-
plicitly name a competing brand and contain little in-
formation beyond the general comparison made. This
distinction between comparative and noncomparative
ads can be viewed in terms of category level. Noncom-
parative advertising may position the new brand as a
member of a broad product class (e.g., Renault 181 .
a truly fine automobile), or a more specific product type
(e.g., Renault 181 . . . a remarkable sports car). Com-
parative advertising can present cues at the most specific
level by comparing the advocated brand to a well-known
brand already present in the consumer's memory struc-
ture (e.g., Renault 181 . . . comparable to the Nissan
300ZX). Given that the advertised brand is relatively
unknown, any inferences formed about attributes not
mentioned will depend on the cues in the ad, and one
important cue is the category level at which the product
is positioned. Further, since categorization theory sug-
gest that inferences will increase from the product class
to the product type level and level off from the product
type to the brand level, it can be predicted that the effects
of providing a cue at the brand level (e.g., comparing
it to a Nissan 300ZX) will be more pronounced relative
This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:33:35 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
373
to a noncomparative ad if the product is presented
within the broad product class (e.g., as a car). However,
a comparative ad may not be very different from a non-
comparative ad that positions the product at the basic
product type level (e.g., as a sports car).
Moderating Effects of Category Expertise
The categorization approach suggests that increas-
ingly specific categories (e.g., brand level categories) are
utilized by individuals to process information with in-
creasing knowledge about the domain (Mervis and
Rosch 1981). Thus experts, but not novices, might ben-
efit from brand level categories in the number and
quality of inferences that can be made. Hence, for ex-
perts, but not novices, comparative brand level ads may
also differ from noncomparative product type ads.
The general finding that comparative advertising is
no different from noncomparative advertising (e.g.,
Belch 1981; Golden 1979) is not surprising when viewed
within the categorization framework. These studies
generally use product type cues and categories in which
there is little scope for expertise (e.g., fluoride tooth-
pastes). However, as argued earlier, differences can be
expected between comparative and noncomparative
advertising when the product is presented within a broad
product class or the advertising is aimed at expert con-
sumers. The purpose of this article is to test these prop-
ositions.
STUDY 1
Before the effects of inference making on comparative
advertising can be addressed, it is important to verify
the predictions made by categorization theory in the
product context. Thus, the purpose of Study 1 was to
examine the nature of inferences at the product class,
product type, and brand levels.
The procedure used to search for basic level categories
in the object domain was adapted from Sujan (1985b).
Seven product classes were selected (cars, cameras, tape
recorders, video cassette recorders, electronic games,
tennis racquets, and foods). Three product types were
identified for each product class, and two familiar
brands were identified for each product type. Thus, 10
categories were generated for each product.
One hundred twenty students participated in the
study. Each subject listed characteristic attributes for
one category from each of the seven products included
in the study. The procedure produced 12 attribute lists
for each product-category combination, with each list
generated by a different subject. Attributes generated
by two or more subjects were counted as descriptive of
the category. These lists of inferences served as the units
of analyses. Since the number of observations was dif-
ferent at the product class (7), product type (21), and
374
brand (42) levels, the observations at the product type
and brand levels were averaged so that a comparison
between the product class, the "average" product type
in the product class, and the "average" brand in the
product class, or product type (as appropriate), could
be made.
Results
Richness of Inferences. The attributes at the more
specific level that were not mentioned at the higher
level(s) under which they were nested were counted for
each product. For example, for cars, "rapid accelera-
tion" was counted as an additional attribute at the
product type level whereas "has wheels" was not, as it
was also listed at the product class level. Seven obser-
vations were obtained at each level, one for each prod-
uct. For the sample of products used, the gain in attri-
butes was greater in moving from the product class to
the product type level than in moving from the product
type to the brand level (6.5 vs. 2.6, t(12) = 2.9, p < 0.01).
The Evaluative Nature of Inferences. An inference
was counted as being evaluative if it was judged as car-
rying some positive or negative evaluation. Usually an
evaluative inference was an attribute qualified by a de-
scriptor (e.g., "rapid acceleration"). Two judges, blind
to the hypotheses, rated the inferences (agreement
= 0.93). Seven observations were obtained at each level,
one for each product. The proportion of evaluative in-
ferences was lower at the product class level and not
different between the product type and brand levels ( 14
percent vs. 78 percent vs. 83 percent; F(2, 18) = 22.78,
p < 0.01). There was also a larger gain in evaluative
inferences in moving from the product class to the
product type level than in moving from the product
type to the brand level (6.2 vs. 2.6, t( 12) = 2.2, p < 0.05).
Distinctiveness of Inferences. Similarity across in-
ference lists was defined as the ratio of shared to non-
shared attributes. Twenty-one observations were ob-
tained at each level, three for each of the seven product
classes. Comparison of the similarity between product
types within a product category and brands within the
same product type indicated that inferences at the
product type level are more distinct from each other
than inferences at the brand level (0.26 vs. 0.45, t(40)
= 2.0, p < 0.05). Comparison of the similarity between
product types within a product category and brands be-
longing to different product types indicated that brand
level inferences across product types are marginally,
though not significantly, more distinct (0.26 vs. 0.17,
t(40) = 1.7, p < 0.08).
In sum, the results indicate that the "basic" level of
categorization occurs at the product type level. The in-
ferences at this level are rich, evaluative, and quite dis-
tinctive.
This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:33:35 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
STUDY 2
Overview
The purpose of Study 2 was to examine the effects of
varying product cue level in the context of comparative
advertising. An understanding of the differences in in-
ferences at various levels of a product hierarchy was
used to predict not only contingencies under which dif-
ferences in comparative and noncomparative ads can
be expected, but also outcome measures on which these
differences are likely to occur.
Ad Informativeness. Study 1 demonstrated that the
increase in inferences was large between the product
class and product type level and leveled off between the
product type and brand level. Though not investigated
in Study 1, categorization research also suggests that
the increase in inferences between the product type and
brand level will be exaggerated for experts. This pattern
for inferences should be mirrored by perceptions of
perceived ad informativeness. Thus, based on inferences
made, comparative ads will be perceived as more in-
formative than noncomparative product class ads for
all consumers. For experts, but not for novices, com-
parative ads are also likely to be perceived as more in-
formative than noncomparative product type ads.
Brand Attitudes. More specific inferences may result
in a more extreme positive or negative evaluation. Since
inferences may be positive or negative depending upon
other factors (e.g., idiosyncratic prior experience), the
richer, more evaluative inferences generated by more
specific cues may elicit more polarized evaluations from
each consumer, but not necessarily different evaluations
(due to the mix of positive and negative evaluations)
when averaged across consumers. Since arguments
similar to those made earlier for ad informativeness can
be made here, the expected pattern of results for these
measures will be the same as that for ad informativeness.
Similiarity/Distinctivenessof the AdvertisedBrand.
Moving to more specific levels in the product hierarchy
also increases the distinctiveness of inferences. This is
likely to positively influence the extent to which the
advertised product is perceived as similar to like prod-
ucts by increasing knowledge of shared attributes and
perceived as different from contrast products by in-
creasing knowledge of distinct attributes. Thus, com-
parative advertising has the potential of placing the
advertised brand in the "same league" as the named
referent (Gorn and Weinberg 1984) and hence making
it distinct from contrast brands. Again, since inferences
are expected to mediate, the expected pattern of results
for these measures is the same as that for the other mea-
sures.
CATEGORIZATIONAND INFERENCE MAKING
Hypotheses
Based on these arguments, the following hypotheses
are forwarded.
HI: For experts, comparative ads will differ from
noncomparative ads that position or label a
brand as a member of a broad product class
category resulting in:
(a) greater perceived ad informativeness,
(b) more extreme brand evaluations,
(c) greater similarity of the advertised brand
to like brands and to the referent, and
(d) greater distinctiveness of the advertised
brand from contrast brands.
H2: For novices, comparative ads will differ from
noncomparative ads that position or label a
brand as a member of a broad product class
category resulting in:
(a) greater perceived ad informativeness,
(b) more extreme brand evaluations,
(c) greater similarity of the advertised brand
to like brands and to the referent, and
(d) greater distinctiveness of the advertised
brand from contrast brands.
H3: For experts, comparative ads will differ from
noncomparative ads that position or label a
brand as a member of a product type category
on measures (a) to (d).
H4: For novices, comparative ads will not differ
from noncomparative ads that position or la-
bel a brand as a member of a product type
category on measures (a) to (d).
H5: The effects specified in H 1 to H4 will be me-
diated by inferences.
Method
Ninety-four students participated. Subjects saw a
simulated print ad. Their task was to form an impres-
sion of the advertised product. Subjects then filled in
the dependent measures and expertise scales and were
finally debriefed.
IndependentVariables
Type of Ad. Three print ads were created for a fic-
titious brand of camera (Tamron A-25). The brand was
positioned in the noncomparative product class ad as
Tamron's newest camera, in the noncomparative prod-
This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:33:35 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
375
uct type ad as Tamron's newest 35mm SLR camera,
and in the comparative ad as compared to the Canon
AE- 1. Other information in the ads was identical. The
text referred to picture-taking capabilities, ease of use,
and convenience of use. In a pretest, these attributes
were rated as being fairly important and characteristic
of any type of camera.
Expertise. An objective knowledge scale on photog-
raphy and cameras (Sujan 1985a) was applied after all
of the dependent measures were collected. Based on a
median split, subjects were classified as experts or nov-
ices.
Dependent Variables
Inferences. Subjects listed any features that they
thought the advertised brand might possess, even if the
feature was not explicitly mentioned in the ad. The
number of inferences listed was counted for each subject
and coded by two judges who were knowledgeable about
cameras and blind to the hypotheses. The interjudge
reliability was 77 percent. Disagreements were resolved
by discussion, so that all inferences were coded. Attri-
butes coded as being characteristic of all cameras (e.g.,
can use a flash) were given a score of 1, 35mm camera
attributes (e.g., interchangeable lenses) were given a
score of 2, and attributes specific to a subset or particular
brand of 35mm camera (e.g., programmable) were given
a score of 3. The average score indicated the average
level of specificity of the inferences generated. The sum
of the scores of all the inferences generated produced
an inference index that reflected both the number and
specificity of inferences.
Attribute lists that included two general camera class
attributes, two 35mm attributes, and two attributes
specific to the Canon AE- 1 were also used to measure
inferences. The attributes used were drawn from the
attribute lists from Study 1. Subjects rated how likely
it was that the advertised product possessed each of the
features. Subjects' responses on the two scales within
each of these three types were averaged to form three
attribute likelihood indices (coefficient alpha: product
class index = 0.71, product type index = 0.84, brand
index = 0.79).
Ad Informativeness. This was measured on two
scales (informative/uninformative, precise/vague) and
averaged (alpha = 0.76).
Product Evaluation. Three scales (good/bad, favor-
able/unfavorable, positive/negative) were averaged to
form one index of product evaluation (alpha = 0.89).
Extremity of evaluation was computed as the absolute
deviation of the index from the midpoint of the scale.
Similarity/Distinctiveness. 110 Instamatic cameras
were defined as the "contrast" category. Subjects were
376
asked to think about a particular type of camera (i.e.,
a 35mm, a 110 camera, or the Canon AE-1) and then
rate how similar/different the advertised brand was to/
from this camera.
Results
The hypotheses were tested using directional t-tests
(with 88 degrees of freedom).
(H]) Comparative vs. Noncomparative Product Class
Ads: Expert Consumers. The comparative ad led to
higher ratings on measures of perceived informativeness
(3.1 vs. 1.8, where 7 is most informative, t = 3.3, p
< 0.01), extremity of evaluation (1.2 vs. 0.8 where 3 is
most extreme, t = 1.9, p < 0.05; though not mean values
on brand evaluations, 3.9 vs. 3.9), similarity to like
brands (2.7 vs. 4.2 where 1 is most similar, t = 2.7, p
< 0.05), similarity to the Canon AE-1 (3.2 vs. 5.3, t
= 4.2, p < 0.01), and distinctiveness from contrast
brands (6.1 vs. 3.9 where 7 is most distinctive, t = 5.5,
p < 0.01). Thus Hla through Hld were supported.
(H2) Comparative vs. Noncomparative Product Class
Ads: Novice Consumers. Novices, like experts, found
the comparative ad to be more informative (2.4 vs. 1.8,
t = 1.8, p < 0.05), to result in greater similarity to like
brands (2.9 vs. 4.3, t = 2.6, p < 0.05) and to the referent
(3.2 vs. 4.8, t = 3.2, p < 0.01), and to lead to greater
distinctiveness from contrast brands (6.1 vs. 4.5, t = 5.6,
p < 0.01) than the noncomparative product class ad,
thus supporting H2a, H2c, and H2d. Evaluations,
however, were not more polarized (0.7 vs. 0.8) reject-
ing H2b.
(H3) Comparative vs. Noncomparative Product Type
Ads: Expert Consumers. Experts found the compara-
tive ad to be marginally more informative than the
noncomparative product type ad (3.1 vs. 2.6, t = 1.3,
p < 0. 10). Experts were also more extreme in their eval-
uations (1.2 vs. 0.6, t = 2.8, p < 0.05). The comparative
ad did not increase perceptions of similarity to like
brands (2.7 vs. 2.8), but it did lead to greater similarity
to the referent (3.2 vs. 4.1, t = 1.8, p < 0.05) and greater
distinctiveness from contrast brands (6.1 vs. 4.9, t = 3.0,
p < 0.01). Thus, H3a-H3d were at least weakly sup-
ported.
(H4) Comparative vs. Noncomparative Product Type
Ads: Novice Consumers. As expected, there were no
significant differences (t < 1, n.s., in all cases) on per-
ceived informativeness (2.4 vs. 2.5), extremity of eval-
uations (0.7 vs. 0.9), similarity to like brands (2.9 vs.
2.7), or distinctiveness from contrast brands (5.3 vs.
5.0). Thus H4a, H4b, and H4d were supported. How-
ever, the comparative ad did produce greater percep-
tions of similarity to the referent (2.8 vs. 3.9, t = 2.2,
p < 0.05), rejecting H4c.
This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:33:35 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
(H5) Mediational Effects of Inferences. Analyses on
the inference index combined both number and spec-
ificity of the open-ended inferences. As expected, the
analyses indicated that for experts the inference index
was significantly greater when a comparative ad was
used than when either a noncomparative product class
ad (1 5.9 vs. 3.6, t = 7.0, p < 0.01) or a noncomparative
product type ad (15.9 vs. 8.9, t = 4.0, p < 0.01) was
used. For novices, this index was significantly greater
when a comparative ad was used than when a noncom-
parative product class ad was used (7.7 vs. 3.6, t = 2.3,
p < 0.05), but not when a noncomparative product type
ad was used (7.7 vs. 6.6, t < 1, n.s.). Thus, the pattern
of results for inferences mirrored the pattern of results
for the outcome measures.
The closed-ended attribute likelihood indices mea-
sured the extent to which subjects ascribed product class
(camera), product type (35mm camera), and brand
(Canon AE- 1) attributes to the advertised product. Note
that the most general inferences (e.g., uses a flash) can
be made across the product class, product type, and
brand ads. Thus, no effects were expected for the prod-
uct class attribute likelihood index, and the results up-
held this hypothesis.
For both experts and novices, as expected, there was
a greater likelihood of ascribing product type and brand
level attributes to the product when a comparative ad
was used than when a noncomparative product class
ad was used (experts: product type index = 5.6 vs. 3.3
where 7 is the most likely, t = 4.8, p < 0.01, brand index
= 4.5 vs. 3.0, t = 3.3, p < 0.01; novices: product type
index = 4.8 vs. 3.5, t = 2.7, p < 0.05, brand index = 3.9
vs. 2.8, t = 2.4, p < 0.05). Since product type inferences
can be made for both product type and brand ads, no
significant differences were expected for the product
type index between the comparative and noncompar-
ative product type ads. The results upheld this hypoth-
esis (experts: 5.6 vs. 5.2, t < 1, n.s.; novices: 4.7 vs. 5.0,
t < 1, n.s.).
For experts, differences were expected for the brand
index between the comparative and noncomparative
product type ads, and the results directionally supported
this (4.5 vs. 4.0, t = 1, n.s.). For novices, there were no
differences on this measure between the comparative
and noncomparative product type ads (3.9 vs. 3.8, t
< 1, n.s.). Thus, these results were consistent with the
notion that more specific attributes are perceived to be
characteristic of the product when comparative ads are
used than when noncomparative ads are used, especially
by experts.
To directly test the mediational effects of inferences,
regression models were run using Chow F-tests to com-
pare nested models. In the full model, the outcome
measure was predicted using the independent variables
and the inference index. In the restricted or nested
model, the outcome measure was predicted using the
CATEGORIZATIONAND INFERENCE MAKING
inference index alone. A comparison of the two models
would indicate whether the independent variables had
any direct effect on the outcome measure beyond that
due to the effect on inference.
The results of the restricted models indicated that
the inference index was a significant predictor of all of
the outcome measures (F values significant at p < 0.01
in all cases). The Chow tests comparing the restricted
and full models indicated that the independent variables
had no direct effect on two of these measures: ad in-
formativeness and extremity of evaluation (F(3,89) < 1,
n.s. for both). However, the independent variables did
directly influence similarity to like brands (F(3,89)
= 3.3, p < 0.05), similarity to the referent (F(3,89)
= 9.9, p < 0.01), and distinctiveness from contrast
brands (F(3,89) = 5.9, p < 0.01 ) beyond the effects due
to inferences.
A stronger test of the role of inferences was conducted
in which it was determined that the independent vari-
ables had a significant effect on inferences beyond those
obtained by using perceived ad informativeness (F(3,89)
= 17.5, p < 0.01) and extremity of evaluation (F(3,89)
= 22.0, p < 0.01) as "predictors" for inferences. This
suggests that in a causal sequence, inferences precede
(or mediate) the effects on the dependent variables.
Thus, H5, relating to the mediational effects of infer-
ences, was strongly supported for some measures but
not for others.
Discussion
The results of Study 2 support the findings of Study
1: product inferences vary systematically depending on
the specificity of available cues. The findings also point
to the critical role of expertise in inference generation
especially at the subordinate or brand levels. Compar-
ative advertising containing brand cues led to different
responses for experts relative to either product class or
product type level noncomparative advertising but for
novices only in relation to product class level noncom-
parative advertising. Further, Study 2 determined that
inferences were important mediators of some measures
of effectiveness (perceived ad informativeness and ex-
tremity of evaluations). Finally, the study confirmed
previous findings (Gorn and Weinberg 1984) that com-
parative advertising results in greater perceptions of
similarity to the referent regardless of the contingencies
considered.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Previous research that has used cognitive responses
as mediators of the effects of comparative advertising
has found that differences in cognitive responses are
not associated with corresponding differences in re-
sponses to the ad or brand (cf. Gorn and Weinberg
This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:33:35 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
377
1984). This study demonstrates that inferences gener-
ated, i.e., the attributes ascribed to the product even
when not explicitly stated, are important mediators of
both ad perceptions and brand perceptions. Thus, the
study points to one fruitful avenue for future research-
examining the effects of inferences as mediators of ad
and product evaluations (cf. Huber and McCann
1982)-and further suggests that the categorization ap-
proach is a heuristic framework for generating hy-
potheses about the number and nature of inferences.
Future research might examine both cognitive re-
sponses and inferences in a single study to determine
the conditions under which each type of cognition me-
diates outcome measures. Subjects can also be in-
structed to rate the valence of their inferences so that
the coding of inferences more closely parallels the cod-
ing of cognitive responses as counter and support ar-
guments. This might also help predict the direction of
evaluations rather than just their extremity.
The advertising stimuli used in this research con-
tained cues at different levels of specificity, and there
was no mixing of levels of informational cues within
each ad. However, more commonly, ads might contain
a mixture of cues. Based on the categorization literature,
one might predict that the inferences generated would
depend upon the most specific cue present in the stim-
ulus ad. Future research could test this prediction. Fur-
ther, since a single product and single ad execution was
used at each level, the key findings of this study need
to be verified by research using more realistic ads and
multiple products.
The study did not support the hypothesized media-
tional effects of inferences on perceptions of similarity
to like brands and to the referent and distinctiveness
from contrast brands. These measures were directly
predicted by the conditions in the experiment. One rea-
son for this might be that judgments of similarity/dis-
tinctiveness could be made based upon the cues explic-
itly mentioned in the ad (i.e., the ad labelled the product
as a camera, a 35mm camera, or similar to the Canon
AE- 1). Thus, consumers may rely on inferences to make
judgments only when information is not directly avail-
able (e.g., to make judgments of product liking when
all product information is not provided). However,
these findings suggest the need for future research that
directly assesses the "boundaries" of the impact of in-
ferences on information processing.
[Received May 1986. Revised April 198 7.]
REFERENCES
Belch, George E. (1981), "An Examination of Comparative
and Noncomparative Television Commercials: The Ef-
fects of Claim Variation and Repetition on Cognitive
378
Responses and Message Acceptance," Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 18 (August), 333-349.
Golden, Linda L. (1979), "Consumer Reactions to Explicit
Brand Comparisons in Advertisements," Journal of
Marketing Research, 16 (November), 517-532.
Goodwin, Stephen and Michael Etgar (1980), "An Experi-
mental Investigation of Comparative Advertising: Impact
of Message Appeal, Information Load, and Utility of
Product Class," Journal of Marketing Research, 17
(May), 187-202.
Gorn, Gerald J. and Charles B. Weinberg (1984), "The Impact
of Comparative Advertising on Perception and Attitude:
Some Positive Findings," Journal of Consumer Research,
11 (September), 719-727.
Greenwald, Anthony A. (1968), "Cognitive Learning, Cog-
nitive Response to Persuasion and Attitude Change," in
Psychological Foundations ofAttitudes, eds. Anthony G.
This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:33:35 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Greenwald, Timothy C. Brock, and Thomas M. Ostram,
New York: Academic Press, 147-170.
Huber, Joel and John McCann (1982), "The Impact of In-
ferential Beliefs on Product Evaluations," Journal of
Marketing Research, 19 (August), 324-333.
Mervis, Carolyn B. and Eleanor Rosch (1981), "Categoriza-
tion of Natural Objects," Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 12, 89-115.
Sujan, Mita (1985a), "Consumer Knowledge: Effects on
Evaluation Processes Mediating Consumer Judgments,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June), 31-46.
(1985b), "The Nature and Structure of Consumer
Product Categories," Working Paper No. 156, Marketing
Department, College of Business Administration, The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
16802.