The Effect of Novel Attributes on Product

Evaluation

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/28/3/462/1830079 by Indian Institute of Management Raipur user on 29 January 2021
ASHESH MUKHERJEE
WAYNE D. HOYER*

Many technological innovations introduce attributes that are novel or completely

unknown to a large number of consumers. For example, recently introduced at-
tributes such as GPS in cars or I-Link in computers are likely to have been novel
to many consumers. Past research suggests that the addition of novel attributes
is likely to improve product evaluation and sales, since consumers interpret these
attributes as additional benefits provided by the manufacturer. However, this article
demonstrates that the positive effect of novel attributes holds only in the case of
low-complexity products. In the case of high-complexity products, the addition of
novel attributes can actually reduce product evaluation because of negative learn-
ing-cost inferences about these attributes. Further, the positive and negative effects
of novel attributes on product evaluation are accentuated by external search for
information when the information discovered through search is ambiguous in na-
ture. Finally, it is shown that the negative effect of novel attributes on the evaluation
of high-complexity products can persist even after consumers are given explicit
information about the benefits of novel attributes. A key marketing implication of
these findings is that novel attributes may contribute to technophobia, or consumer
resistance toward technological innovation.

F irms often try to improve and differentiate their prod-

ucts by introducing additional product features or at-
tributes. These additional attributes may vary in their de-
gree of familiarity to consumers. While some attributes,
such as high fuel economy for a car, are likely to be very
familiar, others may be completely unfamiliar or novel to
most consumers. Such novel attributes have been intro-
duced in a range of products, including computers (e.g.,
Dell Dimension with “2X AGP” and “I-Link”), cars (e.g.,
Volkswagen with “Fahrvergnügen”), and washing ma-
chines (e.g., Whirlpool with “fuzzy logic”). A key research
question, therefore, centers on the impact of these novel
attributes on consumer judgment and choice (see Lehmann
1999).
One stream of research has shown that adding familiar
attributes to a product (e.g., down filling to a winter jack-
*Ashesh Mukherjee (e-mail: ash@management.mcgill.ca) is assistant
professor of marketing at McGill University, and Wayne D. Hoyer (e-mail:
wayne.hoyer@bus.utexas.edu) is the James L. Bayless/W. S. Farish Fund
Chair for Free Enterprise at the University of Texas at Austin. The authors
thank Susan Broniarczyk, Pat West, Vijay Mahajan, Thomas Burnham,
Andrew Gershoff, David Mick, and the reviewers for their help during the
development of this article. The authors also acknowledge the financial
support of the Faculty of Management Research Fund at McGill University
and the Bonham Fund at the University of Texas at Austin. Please address
all correspondence to Ashesh Mukherjee, Faculty of Management, McGill
University, 1001 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1G5,
Canada.
462
et) generally improves product evaluation (see Carpenter,
Glazer, and Nakamoto 1994; Meyers-Levy and Tybout
1989; Nowlis and Simonson 1996). Further, this positive
impact has been shown to be a robust phenomenon, per-
sisting even when the attributes are irrelevant (Carpenter
et al. 1994) or potentially harmful for the product in ques-
tion (Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989). However, other re-
search indicates that adding familiar attributes may not
always improve product evaluation. For example, it has
been shown that the impact of familiar attributes on prod-
uct evaluation depends on factors such as attribute-specific
associations (Broniarczyk and Gershoff 1997), brand price/
quality (Nowlis and Simonson 1996; Simonson, Carmon,
and O’Curry 1994), and size of the choice set (Brown and
Carpenter 2000).
Although these previous studies throw considerable
light on the effects of newly introduced familiar attri-
butes, little is known about the effects of novel attributes
on product evaluation. Drawing on the inference-making
and hypothesis-testing literatures, we identify two vari-
ables, namely, product complexity and attribute infor-
mation discovered during search, which determine wheth-
er novel attributes have positive or negative effects on
product evaluation. Specifically, we investigate the role
of product complexity when search yields ambiguous in-
formation (study 1) and unambiguous information (study
2) about novel attributes.

䉷 2001 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 28 ● December 2001

All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2002/2803-0008$03.00
NOVEL ATTRIBUTES
STUDY 1: THEORY
Inference Making
Past research indicates that, in many social and con-
sumption contexts, individuals make inferences, or guesses
based on limited information (see Broniarczyk and Alba
1994; Huber and McCann 1982). Because of the quick,
relatively effortless, and widespread nature of inference
making, and the lack of knowledge about novel attributes,
we argue that consumers frequently make inferences about
these attributes. According to the cost-benefit framework of
judgment and decision making (see Johnson and Payne
1985), judgments are often based on an appraisal of both
potential benefits and costs, and the weights assigned to
benefits and costs depend on their relative diagnosticity for
the task at hand. In the present case, we focus on one key
benefit-related inference (i.e., value inference) and one cost-
related inference (i.e., learning-cost inference) about novel
attributes.
Value Inference. Novel attributes are most often en-
countered as part of marketing communications such as ad-
vertising, packaging, or point-of-purchase displays. We ar-
gue that consumers use this marketing communication
context as a cue to make value inferences about novel at-
tributes, concluding that these attributes represent additional
value or benefit provided by the manufacturer. The notion
that consumers make value inferences about novel attributes
is supported by at least two streams of research. First, re-
search on persuasion knowledge indicates that consumers
hold a key belief about the marketplace—that marketers seek
to design products and advertising that are maximally ef-
fective at improving attitudes toward their products (see
Friestad and Wright 1994). If so, then the introduction of
novel attributes should be interpreted by consumers as a
signal of additional value being provided by marketers. Sec-
ond, as mentioned earlier, past research indicates that con-
sumers make positively valenced inferences about newly
introduced familiar attributes, even when these attributes are
irrelevant or evaluatively ambiguous (Carpenter et al. 1994).
If consumers have a tendency to associate benefits with
newly introduced familiar attributes, then novel attributes
should also be interpreted positively as signals of added
value.
Learning-Cost Inference. The cost-benefit framework
suggests that consumers can also make negative inferences
about novel attributes. One important type of negative in-
ference could focus on learning cost. “Learning cost” refers
to the cognitive effort required to accumulate the knowledge
necessary for effective usage (see Klemperer 1987; Shugan
1980). Specifically, we argue that consumers make high–
learning cost inferences about novel attributes in high-
complexity products (e.g., computers) and low–learning
cost inferences about novel attributes in relatively low-
complexity products (e.g., refrigerators). Here, product com-
plexity is the extent of new knowledge required for effective
463
usage (e.g., Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Hill, Smith, and
Mann 1987).1
This argument is supported by two lines of research.
First, learning-cost inferences follow from the nature of
high-complexity products (i.e., they are more difficult to use
and understand). Since knowledge acquisition requires cog-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/28/3/462/1830079 by Indian Institute of Management Raipur user on 29 January 2021
nitive effort, attributes of high-complexity products (in-
cluding novel attributes) should be associated with high
learning cost and vice versa (see Farrell and Shapiro 1988).
Second, research on information overload suggests that in-
dividuals are vigilant about the mental effort required to
process information (e.g., Keller and Staelin 1987), and the
need for cognition literature indicates that individuals are
sensitive to cognitive effort (e.g., Cacioppo, Petty, and Mor-
ris 1983). Thus, anticipated cognitive effort in the form of
learning cost may be an important type of inference made
about novel attributes. Note that high–learning cost infer-
ences are likely to be negatively valenced, while
low–learning cost inferences are positively valenced, since
individuals are generally said to be averse to mental effort
(see Fiske and Taylor 1984).
If consumers make these two types of inferences (i.e.,
value and learning cost) about novel attributes, then the
effects of novel attributes on product evaluation are likely
to be different for low- and high-complexity products. In
the case of low-complexity products, individuals make high-
value and low–learning cost inferences about novel attri-
butes. Since both these inferences are positive in valence,
linear combinatorial models of attitude formation predict
that the addition of novel attributes to low-complexity prod-
ucts will improve overall product evaluation. In the case of
high-complexity products, however, the impact of novel at-
tributes on product evaluation is less clear. If consumers rely
on high (positive) value inferences about novel attributes,
then the inclusion of novel attributes should improve eval-
uation. If, on the other hand, consumers rely more on high
(negative) learning-cost inferences, then the inclusion of
novel attributes should reduce product evaluation.
A dominant research finding in psychology and consumer
behavior has been that negative information is more im-
pactful than positive information (Herr, Kardes, and Kim
1991; Skowronski and Carlston 1987). For example, it has
been shown that negatively valenced attributes generally
have a stronger influence on judgments of product quality
than either neutral or positive attributes (Fiske 1980). Sim-
ilarly, negative word of mouth has been shown to have a
stronger impact than positive word of mouth (Herr et al.
1991), negative personality traits have been shown to have
the greatest impact on interpersonal judgments (Skowronski
and Carlston 1987), and losses often loom larger than gains
(e.g., Kahneman and Tversky 1979). These findings suggest
1
Past research has usually defined product complexity as the extent to
which a product is difficult to understand and use (e.g., Rogers 1983). We
argue that difficulty of use, and not difficulty of understanding, is the key
dimension of complexity, since individuals are likely to be more concerned
with effectively utilizing new products than with understanding their inner
mechanics.
464
that consumers are likely to rely more on negative learning-
cost inferences than on positive value inferences about novel
attributes in high-complexity products. Consequently, the
addition of novel attributes to a high-complexity product is
likely to reduce product evaluation. The preceding argu-
ments are summarized in the following hypotheses:
H1: As compared with the case where novel attributes
are absent, the presence of novel attributes in low-
complexity products is likely to improve product
evaluation.
H2: As compared with the case where novel attributes
are absent, the presence of novel attributes in
high-complexity products is likely to reduce prod-
uct evaluation.
However, value and learning-cost inferences may not be
the only factors determining the impact of novel attributes
on product evaluation. After making inferences, individ-
uals are likely to search for additional information to check
the validity of their inferences (e.g., Huber and McCann
1982). We propose that information found through search
interacts with initial inferences about novel attributes
through a hypothesis-testing process to influence final
product evaluation.
Hypothesis Testing
Individuals often form evaluative judgments through a
hypothesis-testing process where initial hypotheses about
an object are tested using subsequently collected evidence
(see Hoch and Deighton 1989). A key finding is that hy-
pothesis testing shows a confirmatory bias whereby evi-
dentiary information consistent with prior hypotheses has
greater impact than inconsistent information (Darley and
Gross 1983). In other words, if individuals encounter
ambiguous or mixed evidence during search, they tend to
pay more attention and give more weight to hypothesis-
consistent than to hypothesis-inconsistent information.
Two concepts related to hypothesis confirmation are es-
pecially relevant in the present case, namely, inferential
hypotheses and multiple hypotheses.
Inferential Hypotheses. Past research in consumer be-
havior has focused on how consumers test hypotheses that
are directly provided to them, usually through advertising
(Hoch and Deighton 1989; Hoch and Ha 1986). In contrast,
we examine inferential hypotheses, or hypotheses based on
internally generated inferences about product attributes. Past
research in impression formation indicates that individuals
often make tentative inferences about members of stereo-
typical groups on contact and then confirm these inferential
hypotheses using subsequent information (Devine 1989).
Past research also suggests that such inferred hypotheses are
held more strongly than those based on externally presented
information (Harris, Dubitsky, and Bruno 1983) and are
more resistant to evidential discrediting (Davies 1997). De-
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
spite these indications of the importance of inferential hy-
potheses, consumer research has not yet investigated their
role in hypothesis testing (Hoch and Deighton 1989).
Multiple Hypotheses. Consumer hypothesis-testing re-
search has generally considered only one hypothesis at a
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/28/3/462/1830079 by Indian Institute of Management Raipur user on 29 January 2021
time, usually quality or price (e.g., Hoch and Ha 1986).
However, recent research indicates that individuals can con-
sider multiple hypotheses simultaneously and that, at the
testing stage, individuals focus on confirming only one dom-
inant hypothesis in the set (Evett et al. 1994; McDonald
1990). For example, McDonald (1990) found that multiple
categorization hypotheses at different levels of abstraction
(e.g., birds, birds that fly, animals) can be entertained about
a given exemplar (e.g., a sparrow), but only the dominant
hypothesis at the most accessible level of categorization
(e.g., a bird) was subject to the confirmation bias.
In the present case, we argue that value and learning-cost
inferences constitute multiple inferential hypotheses about
novel attributes that are subsequently tested during search.
In the case of low-complexity products, the two hypotheses
of high value and low learning cost are both positive in
valence, representing different facets of desired quality.
Hence, an overall positive hypothesis of value is likely to
be tested in a confirmatory fashion during subsequent
search. If search yields ambiguous or mixed information
about the novel attribute, consumers are likely to pay more
attention to the positive part than to the negative part of the
information found through search. Further, since confirmed
hypotheses are likely to be held more confidently than un-
confirmed hypotheses, ambiguous search is expected to ac-
centuate the presearch positive effect of novel attributes on
product evaluation described in hypothesis 1. In contrast,
for novel attributes in high-complexity products, consumers
hold two hypotheses of opposite valence, namely, a posi-
tively valenced hypothesis of high value and a negatively
valenced hypothesis of high learning cost. In this situation,
the negativity bias literature discussed earlier suggests that
learning cost is likely to be the dominant hypothesis, which
is tested in a confirmatory fashion during ambiguous search.
Consequently, consumers are likely to pay more attention
to negative information about novel attributes encountered
during search, and this search is likely to accentuate the
presearch negative effect of novel attributes on product eval-
uation from hypothesis 2.
These proposed effects of search on attention and eval-
uation are consistent with research on attitude polarization
and predecisional distortion of information. The attitude po-
larization literature indicates that mere thought about a non-
neutral object can result in the initial attitude becoming
more extreme, because of selective elaboration of attitude-
consistent information in memory (e.g., Trope and Liberman
1996). Similarly, in the present case, the dominant hypoth-
esis about novel attributes (either value or learning cost) can
focus attention on consistent external information encoun-
tered during search, leading to attitude polarization after
search. Similarly, research on predecisional distortion has
found that individuals spontaneously form tentative brand
NOVEL ATTRIBUTES
preferences based on initial information and that subse-
quently presented attribute information is distorted in the
direction of these tentative preferences, leading to progres-
sively stronger attitudes (e.g., Russo, Meloy, and Husted
Medvec 1998). The preceding arguments are summarized
as follows:
H3: Consumers who are exposed to novel attributes
in low-complexity products will subsequently pay
more attention to positive (than to negative) in-
formation encountered during search.
H4: The positive effect of novel attributes on the eval-
uation of low-complexity products will be stron-
ger after exposure to ambiguous information dur-
ing search than before search.
H5: Consumers who are exposed to novel attributes
in high-complexity products will subsequently
pay more attention to negative (than to positive)
information encountered during search.
H6: The negative effect of novel attributes on the eval-
uation of high-complexity products will be stron-
ger after exposure to ambiguous information dur-
ing search than before search.
STUDY 1: METHOD
Subjects and Design
One hundred forty undergraduate students at a Canadian
university participated in the study for course credit and
a chance to win four prizes of $50. The hypotheses were
tested using a 2 (product complexity) # 2 (novel attribute)
# 2 (search) ANOVA design. The product-complexity and
novel-attribute factors were manipulated between subjects,
while the search factor was nested within the novel-attribute-
present condition and manipulated within subjects.
Independent Variables
Four product descriptions were developed to manipulate
the product-complexity and novel-attribute variables. Each
description had a generic picture of the product in question,
followed by four descriptive sentences. The first sentence
manipulated high/low product complexity by providing a
category label for the product. The second and third sen-
tences described common attributes of the product category
in question, extracted from actual print ads. The fourth sen-
tence manipulated the presence/absence of novel attributes.
The search variable was manipulated by asking subjects to
browse a matrix of information about two novel attributes
seen in one of the product descriptions.
465
Product Complexity. Following pretests of a larger
pool of products, two high-complexity products (i.e., “a new
type of personal computer/programmable camera”) and two
low-complexity products (i.e., “a new type of washing ma-
chine/refrigerator”) were selected to manipulate the com-
plexity factor. Note that these products control for price (i.e.,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/28/3/462/1830079 by Indian Institute of Management Raipur user on 29 January 2021
they are all relatively high-priced) and that unique associ-
ations with specific products are avoided by using a general
prefix (i.e., “a new type of”). Pretest results, using a two-
item, seven-point scale adapted from Rogers (1983) and
anchored by difficult/easy to use and high/low complexity,
a p .82, indicated that these products differed significantly
on the dimension of product complexity ( p’s ! .01). In order
to conserve subjects, only two combinations of high/low
complexity products, namely, computer/refrigerator and
camera/washing machine were used in the study.
Novel Attribute. The novel-attribute factor was manip-
ulated by including two fictional attributes (ASM system
and Multiplexer) in the product description. In the novel-
attribute-present condition, the fourth sentence in the prod-
uct description stated that the product “features the ASM
system and the Multiplexer at low introductory rates.” In
the novel-attribute-absent condition, a neutral statement
(“This product will be available through retail outlets in most
markets”) was used as the fourth sentence in order to control
for the amount of information presented to subjects. A pre-
test with 25 students confirmed that subjects regarded the
fictional attributes as novel and the alternative statement as
neutral.
Search. After evaluating two product descriptions, sub-
jects were given an opportunity to search for additional
information about the novel attributes seen in one of the
descriptions. Then, on completing the search task, subjects
evaluated the product with the novel attributes a second time.
These presearch and postsearch conditions constituted two
levels of the search factor, nested within the novel-attribute-
present condition. During the search task, subjects browsed
the opinions of 100 consumers said to be “chosen at random
from actual users” of the advertised products (see Ozanne,
Brucks, and Grewal 1992). The opinions were presented
on a computer screen in the form of a grid of 100 buttons
(labeled Consumer 1–Consumer 100). Subjects could click
on any button to open a pop-up window containing that
consumer’s responses to single-item, nine-point scales
measuring the value of the new features (not at all/very
valuable), the extent to which the new features were dif-
ficult to learn (very difficult/easy to learn), and overall
evaluation of the new features (very bad/good). Subjects
were told that the consumer responses were measured at
three different times to rule out mood effects and that the
opinions shown in the grid represented the average of the
three measurements.
The underlying database of consumer opinions was care-
fully designed to maximize the probability of subjects’ en-
countering ambiguous information during search. The mean
of the three responses for each “consumer” was sampled
466
from a normal (5, 2) distribution centered on the midpoint
of the nine-point opinion scale. The three responses for each
consumer were then constructed by (a) randomly assigning
the mean of the three opinions to one of the responses and
(b) adding and subtracting a number randomly chosen be-
tween 0.10 and 0.75 to the initial response, to create the
other two responses. There were equal numbers of consum-
ers with a mean opinion (i.e., average of three responses)
greater than 5.0 and less than 5.0, and the response trios for
each consumer were randomly assigned to consumer num-
bers (1–100).
Dependent Variables and Manipulation Checks
Attention was unobtrusively measured by the computer
as the amount of time spent looking at positive and neg-
ative opinions (see Madey and Gilovitch 1993). A “positive-
opinion” consumer was defined as one with a mean eval-
uation greater than the midpoint of the scale (i.e., 5.0), while
a “negative-opinion” consumer had a mean opinion less than
the midpoint of the scale. Product evaluation was measured
using a six-item, nine-point scale anchored by good/bad,
like/dislike, useful/not useful, desirable/undesirable, high-
quality/low-quality, and favorable/unfavorable (Peracchio
and Tybout 1996). Value inference was measured by a three-
item, nine-point scale anchored by likely to offer a lot of
advantages/few advantages, perform well/poorly, add a lot
of value/little value. Learning-cost inference was measured
by a three-item, nine-point scale anchored by learning to
effectively use these features is likely to take a lot of time/
effort/energy. In addition, financial cost inferences were
measured using a single-item scale (i.e., “the new features
are likely to be very expensive”). The novel-attribute ma-
nipulation was checked by asking subjects if they had heard
of the novel attributes prior to the study (yes/no). The com-
plexity manipulation was checked by having subjects rate
the test products on the two-item complexity scale validated
in the pretest. The ambiguity of the information found
through search was confirmed by analyzing the proportions
of “positive-opinion” and “negative-opinion” consumers in
the click-stream data recorded from subjects.
Procedure
Subjects were seated at a computer and asked to respond
to a survey presented on the screen, ostensibly as part of
a research project on new-product advertising. Subjects
were first asked to read and evaluate two product descrip-
tions of prototypes under development. One of the de-
scriptions was for a high-complexity product; the other
was for a low-complexity product. One of the descriptions
had two novel attributes (ASM system and Multiplexer),
while the other had no novel attributes. The order of pre-
sentation of the products and novel attributes was coun-
terbalanced across subjects. After evaluating both products
and revealing their inferences about the encountered novel
attributes, subjects were told that people in real life often
consult sources of information other than advertising, such
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
as Consumer Reports and opinions of friends, before fi-
nalizing their product evaluations. Subjects were then told
that the experimenter had recorded the opinions of one
hundred randomly selected consumers about the new fea-
tures seen earlier in one of the products and that they could
browse the opinions at their own pace. After subjects in-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/28/3/462/1830079 by Indian Institute of Management Raipur user on 29 January 2021
dicated that they had completed the browsing (or search)
task by clicking on a button at the bottom of the screen,
they evaluated the target product (i.e., the one with the
novel attributes) and responded to the inference scales
again. Next, subjects completed a jigsaw puzzle on the
screen to clear short-term memory and were then asked to
estimate the percentages of positive- and negative-opinion
consumers seen earlier during the search task. Finally, sub-
jects completed the manipulation checks, indicated their per-
ceived knowledge of the test-product categories on three-
item knowledge scales, and were thanked and dismissed.
STUDY 1: RESULTS
Manipulation Checks
Six subjects said that they had previously seen one or
more of the novel attributes used in this study, and these
subjects were excluded from the analysis. The complexity
manipulation was deemed successful, since there were sig-
nificant differences ( p ! .01) between (but not within) the
high-complexity (Mprogrammable camera p 4.38, Mcomputer p 4.69)
and low-complexity products (Mwashing machine p 2.25, Mrefrig-
erator p 2.01) on the two-item scale (a p .87). The click-
stream data confirmed that search yielded ambiguous
information. The proportions of positive- and negative-
opinion consumers clicked were not statistically different
for personal computers (48.6% vs. 51.4%, t(27) p 1.39,
p ! .17), programmable cameras (52.5% vs. 47.5%,
t(17) p 1.51, p ! .14), washing machines (46.5% vs.
53.5%, t(19) p 1.62, p ! .12), or refrigerators (46.9% vs.
53.1%, t(26) p 1.44, p ! .16). Further, the mean of the
opinions clicked did not vary across the experimental con-
ditions (F(5, 128) p .52, p ! .75). Finally, product category
knowledge was not a significant covariate in any of the
analyses and is not discussed further.
Tests of Hypotheses
Hypotheses 1 and 2 proposed that, before search, novel
attributes would improve product evaluation for low-com-
plexity products but reduce product evaluation for high-
complexity products. Consistent with the hypotheses, the
interaction of complexity and novel-attribute factors in an
overall ANOVA was significant for both the computer/wash-
ing machine (F(1, 89) p 7.01, p ! .01) and programmable
camera/refrigerator product pairs (F(1, 89) p 3.97, p !
NOVEL ATTRIBUTES
TABLE 1
EFFECTS OF COMPLEXITY AND SEARCH: STUDY 1
Product evaluationa
Complexity Product Novel attribute absent
Low Refrigerator 4.64
Low Washing machine 4.85
High Personal computer 5.84
High Programmable camera 5.57
a
The postsearch evaluation is shown inside parentheses.
.04).2 As is shown in table 1, the addition of novel attributes
improved evaluations of refrigerators (t(53) p 1.56, p !
.12) and washing machines (t(36) p 1.82, p ! .07) but re-
duced evaluations of personal computers (t(53) p 2.03,
p ! .04) and programmable cameras (t(36) p 1.29, p !
.20).
Hypotheses 3 and 4 proposed that when consumers un-
dertake ambiguous search after being exposed to novel at-
tributes in low-complexity products they pay more attention
to positive information and that the process of search ac-
centuates the presearch positive effects of novel attributes
on product evaluation. Conversely, hypotheses 5 and 6 pro-
posed that in the corresponding case of high-complexity
products consumers pay more attention to negative infor-
mation and that search negatively polarizes product evalu-
ations. To test the attention hypotheses (i.e., hypotheses 3
and 5), an ANOVA was performed with complexity as the
independent variable and the difference between positive
and negative looking times as the dependent variable. Con-
sistent with the hypotheses, it was found that complexity
had a significant main effect for both computer/washing
machine (F(1, 46) p 11.73, p ! .001) and camera/refrig-
erator (F(1, 43) p 8.68, p ! .005). Planned comparisons
indicated the average looking time was significantly great-
er for negative than for positive opinions for both com-
puters (t(27) p 2.33, p ! .02) and programmable cameras
(t(17) p 2.05, p ! .05). In contrast, the average looking
time was significantly greater for positive than negative
opinions in the case of refrigerators (t(26) p 1.91, p !
.06) and washing machines (t(19) p 2.38, p ! .02).
The attitude polarization hypotheses (i.e., hypotheses 4
and 6) were also supported by the data. First, the interaction
of the complexity and novel-attribute factors in an overall
ANOVA explained significantly more variance after search
than before search, for both computer/washing machine
(Dq 2 p 22.4%, p ! .001) and programmable camera/refrig-
erator (Dq 2 p 14.3%, p ! .001). Second, although novel
attributes had relatively weak effects on evaluations of the
2
Since only two pairs of high- and low-complexity products (i.e., com-
puter/refrigerator and camera/washing machine) were used in the study,
the ANOVA was performed separately for the two product pairs. It may
be noted that such disaggregated ANOVA analysis (replicated across prod-
uct categories) has been performed in related previous research (e.g., Now-
lis and Simonson 1996).
467
Time per Time per
positive negative
opinion opinion
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/28/3/462/1830079 by Indian Institute of Management Raipur user on 29 January 2021
Novel attribute present (sec) (sec)
5.15 (5.70) 2.81 2.43
5.50 (6.27) 3.50 2.73
5.16 (4.38) 3.64 4.12
5.08 (4.46) 3.20 3.94
four test products before search ( p’s ! .12, .07, .04, .20),
each of these effects became highly significant after search
at p ! .01. Third, within-subject comparisons of pre- and
postsearch evaluations showed that search increased eval-
uations for refrigerators (t(26) p 1.88 , p ! .07) and washing
machines (t(19) p 3.66, p ! .01) while decreasing evalua-
tions for personal computers (t(27) p 6.55, p ! .01) and
programmable cameras (t(17) p 2.37, p ! .03).
The pattern of inference means suggested that inferential
hypotheses were mediating these effects of novel attributes
on product evaluation (see table 2).3 First, it was found that
value inferences were significantly greater than the midpoint
of the scale for both high- and low-complexity products,
while learning-cost inferences were greater than the mid-
point only for the high-complexity products. Further, con-
sistent with confirmation of a value hypothesis in the case
of low-complexity products, the value inference score in-
creased after search for washing machines (t(19) p 3.13,
p ! .01) and refrigerators (t(26) p 2.14 , p ! .04) but not for
personal computers or programmable cameras. Similarly,
confirmation of a learning-cost hypothesis for high-com-
plexity products was indicated by a postsearch increase of
learning-cost inferences for personal computers (t(27) p
2.66, p ! .01) and programmable cameras (t(17) p 2.38,
p ! .03) but not for washing machines or refrigerators. No-
tably, the “expensive” inference mean was not significantly
greater than the midpoint of the scale for any of the products,
thus ruling out an alternative explanation for the negative
effect of novel attributes on product evaluation.
Finally, the nature of processing during search was in-
vestigated by analyzing the recall data. It was expected that
subjects who paid more attention to positive information
during search would encode this information more deeply
and thus show greater subsequent recall of positive infor-
mation. Conversely, subjects who paid more attention to
negative information during search should later recall seeing
more negative (than positive) information. As is consistent
with this argument, subjects who encountered novel attri-
butes in low-complexity products later recalled seeing more
3
The four-step mediation analysis recommended by Baron and Kenny
(1986) cannot be performed in the present case, since inferences about the
novel attribute (i.e., the proposed mediating variable) do not exist in half
the experimental conditions (i.e., where the novel attribute is absent).
468
INFERENCES ABOUT NOVEL ATTRIBUTES: STUDY 1
Value
Complexity Product Presearch
Low Refrigerator 5.43
Low Washing machine 5.63*
High Personal computer 5.81*
High Programmable camera 5.66*
*Significantly different from 5.0 at p ! .05.
**Significantly different from 5.0 at p ! .01.
positive than negative opinions during search (52.79% vs.
47.71%, t(48) p 1.89, p ! .06), while those in the high-
complexity condition reported seeing more negative opin-
ions than positive opinions during search (53.93% vs.
46.29%, t(43) p 2.89, p ! .01).
The results of study 1 indicate that novel attributes im-
prove evaluations for low-complexity products while re-
ducing evaluations for high-complexity products, although
these effects are relatively weak before search. After search,
however, these effects are greatly strengthened, even when
the information accessed during search is objectively am-
biguous in nature. Finally, attention, inference, and recall
data suggest that a hypothesis-testing process mediates the
polarizing effect of search. However, a drawback of study
1 was that, unlike in most real-life marketing situations,
subjects were not provided with any explanatory informa-
tion about the benefits of novel attributes. Study 2 examines
an interesting question related to this issue: Can provision
of benefit information reverse the negative effect of novel
attributes on the evaluation of high-complexity products? In
addition, study 2 strengthens the external validity of the
earlier results by replicating them in a new product category,
namely, Web television.
STUDY 2: THEORY
In this study, we examine the effect of novel attributes
on the evaluation of high-complexity products when benefit
information (e.g., “the ASM system lets you receive tele-
vision channels from around the world”) is provided to con-
sumers. Specifically, we examine the impact of benefit in-
formation under two conditions: when evidence either
disconfirms or confirms the learning-cost hypothesis. Such
an investigation would simulate two types of attribute usage
information usually provided by marketers—usage infor-
mation that could be construed as disconfirmatory (e.g., “the
ASM system is completely automatic”) or confirmatory
(e.g., “the ASM system is manually operated”) evidence for
learning cost.
When benefit information is coupled with evidence dis-
confirming the learning-cost hypothesis, the prediction is
straightforward. In this case, the evidentiary information
clearly confirms the value hypothesis and disconfirms the
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
TABLE 2
Inferences about novel attributes
Learning cost Expensive
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/28/3/462/1830079 by Indian Institute of Management Raipur user on 29 January 2021
Postsearch Presearch Postsearch Presearch Postsearch
5.97** 4.13* 3.83** 4.37* 4.22**
6.31** 4.58 4.26* 4.78 4.62
6.04** 6.05** 6.61** 5.32 5.42
5.93** 5.65* 6.43** 5.16 5.27
competing learning-cost hypothesis. Consequently, individ-
uals are likely to accept the value hypothesis and discard
the learning-cost hypothesis, leading to a reversal of the
negative effect of novel attributes obtained in the previous
study. This argument is consistent with previous research
on stereotypical beliefs, which has shown that clear, con-
sistent evidence is heeded even when hypotheses are
strongly held (e.g., Linville 1982; Tesser 1976).
On the other hand, when benefit information is coupled
with evidence confirming the learning-cost hypothesis,
there is a conflict between value and learning cost. Since
the evidence does not provide a relative advantage to either
hypothesis, we argue that the negativity advantage of the
learning-cost hypothesis, which led to its dominance in
study 1, will reassert itself. Consequently, we predict that
the negative effect of novel attributes on product evaluation
will persist in the face of explicit benefit information. This
argument is consistent with previous research on the neg-
ativity effect, which has found that negative information
has enduring advantages over positive information. In ad-
dition to studies mentioned earlier (e.g., Herr et al. 1991),
research in impression formation has found that unfavor-
able expectancies about people are held more confidently
and confirmed more often than favorable expectancies
(Ybarra, Schaberg, and Kieper 1999). Similarly, Rothbart
and Park (1986) found that people believe it takes very
little information to conclude that a target has negative
traits but much more information to conclude that a target
possesses positive traits (see also Reeder and Coovert
1986). The preceding arguments are summarized in the
following hypotheses:
H7: When evidence disconfirms learning cost, the neg-
ative effect of novel attributes on the evaluation
of high-complexity products will be reversed by
explicit benefit information.
H8: When evidence confirms learning cost, the neg-
ative effect of novel attributes on the evaluation
of high-complexity products will persist in the
face of explicit benefit information.
NOVEL ATTRIBUTES
STUDY 2: METHOD
Subjects and Design
One hundred twenty undergraduate students at a Canadian
university participated in the study for course credit and a
chance to win four prizes of $50. The hypotheses were tested
using a 2 (novel attribute) # 2 (search) # 2 (learning-cost
evidence) ANOVA. The novel-attribute and search factors
were manipulated as before, while the evidence factor was
manipulated between subjects by varying usage information
about a novel attribute in a computer/Web television.
Information about the Novel Attribute
One novel attribute (i.e., ASM system) was used in this
study in order to simplify the provision of evidence infor-
mation. Benefit information was provided to all subjects by
informing them that “the ASM system lets you receive tel-
evision channels from around the world.” Pretests indicated
that this benefit was likely to be valued by subjects if it
were present in a new computer and Web television (Web
TV), respectively (M p 6.67 and 7.28 on a nine-point value
scale). The learning-cost factor was manipulated by provid-
ing two types of usage information about the novel attribute.
Subjects in the disconfirmatory condition were told that “the
ASM system is completely automatic,” while those in the
confirmatory condition were told that “the ASM system is
manually operated.” In a pretest with 30 students, the likely
learning cost of the ASM system in a computer/Web TV
was found to be significantly lower than the neutral midpoint
of the scale when it was described as “completely automatic”
(Mcomputer p 1.78, MWeb TV p 1.91; t(14) p 24.24, 21.43;
p’s ! .001). In contrast, the learning-cost means were sig-
nificantly greater than the midpoint of the scale when the
ASM system was described as being “manually operat-
ed” (Mcomputer p 6.18, MWeb TV p 6.32; t(14) p 4.59, 4.03;
p’s ! .01).
Dependent Variables and Manipulation Checks
Inferences about the novel attribute (i.e., value and learn-
ing cost) and product evaluation were measured using the
same scales as before. The complexity of the two test prod-
ucts was checked using a new four-item scale. This scale
consisted of the two items used in the previous studies (i.e.,
difficult/easy to use and high/low complexity) and two new
items based on the definition of complexity proposed earlier
(i.e., a lot/little new knowledge required for effective use
and many/few new procedures need to be mastered for ef-
fective use). Price perceptions of the test products were
measured as a potential covariate, using a single-item, nine-
point scale anchored by “likely to be very dissimilar/similar
in price.”
469
Procedure
As in study 1, subjects initially evaluated two products,
one with a novel attribute and one without, as part of a
research project on new-product advertising. Subjects then
searched a grid of consumer opinions designed to yield am-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/28/3/462/1830079 by Indian Institute of Management Raipur user on 29 January 2021
biguous consumer opinions about the novel attribute. Sub-
jects then evaluated the target product (i.e., the one with the
novel attribute) again, provided ratings of the dependent
variables, and were thanked and dismissed. However, the
procedure also differed from the previous study in two ways.
First, only two high-complexity products, namely, “a new
type of personal computer” and “a new type of Web tele-
vision,” were used in this study. Second, when subjects
indicated that they had finished searching by clicking on a
button at the bottom of the screen, benefit and usage infor-
mation about the novel attribute was presented to subjects
in a pop-up window.
STUDY 2: RESULTS
Manipulation Checks
Three subjects who said that they had heard of the (fic-
tional) novel attribute were deleted from the data. The four-
item complexity scale was found to be reliable (a p .74),
and both the test products were rated high on complexity
(MWeb TV p 4.95, Mcomputer p 4.70). The searched opinions
were ambiguous, since the proportions of positive and neg-
ative opinions clicked were not statistically different for Web
TV (48.5% vs. 51.5%, t(58) p 1.50, p ! .13) or personal
computer (51.3% vs. 48.7%, t(57) p 1.04, p ! .30). Finally,
the two products were judged to be similar in price, with
the mean score significantly greater than the neutral mid-
point of the scale (M p 5.52, t(116) p 3.48, p ! .01), and
perceived price was not a significant covariate in the
analysis.
Tests of Hypotheses
It was hypothesized that the negative effect of novel at-
tributes on product evaluation would be reversed by benefit
information when evidence disconfirms learning cost (hy-
pothesis 7) but would persist in the face of benefit infor-
mation when evidence confirms learning cost (hypothesis
8). An ANOVA with evidence as the independent variable
and postsearch evaluation as the dependent variable was
performed to test these hypotheses (see table 3). As is sup-
portive of the hypotheses, evidence had a significant main
effect on postsearch evaluation (F(1, 57) p 16.33, p !
.001). Follow-up comparisons showed that the addition of
novel attributes improved product evaluation for both Web
TV (M p 5.05 vs. 5.74, t(85) p 2.25, p ! .02) and com-
puter (M p 5.68 vs. 6.51, t(86) p 2.91, p ! .005) when
evidence disconfirmed learning cost. In contrast, when ev-
idence confirmed learning cost, the addition of novel at-
tributes reduced product evaluation for both Web TV
(M p 5.05 vs. 4.44, t(86) p 1.98, p ! .05) and computer
470
TABLE 3
EFFECTS OF ATTRIBUTE INFORMATION: STUDY 2
Novel
attribute
Complexity Product absent
High Web TV 5.05
High Personal computer 5.68
(M p 5.68 vs. 5.22, t(86) p 1.67, p ! .09). Finally, the pat-
tern of inference means was consistent with the proposed
hypothesis confirmation processes. When evidence discon-
firmed learning cost, pre- and postsearch inferences differed
significantly for both value and learning cost ( p’s ! .01).
This indicates that subjects were paying attention to the
presented evidence for both value and learning cost. In con-
trast, when evidence confirmed learning cost, pre- and post-
search inferences differed for learning cost ( p’s ! .01) but
not for value ( p’s 1 .24), indicating a focus on confirming
only the dominant learning-cost hypothesis.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Past research on new attribute introduction suggests that
adding novel attributes to a product is likely to improve
product evaluation. However, the two studies reported in
this article indicate that positive effects of novel attributes
are likely to obtain only in the case of relatively low-com-
plexity products, such as refrigerators and washing ma-
chines. In the case of high-complexity products, such as
computers, programmable cameras, and Web television, the
addition of novel attributes can actually reduce product eval-
uation because of learning-cost inferences made about these
attributes. Further, it was shown that the effects of novel
attributes on product evaluation are accentuated by search,
even when the information encountered during search is
objectively ambiguous in nature. Finally, it was demon-
strated that the negative effect of novel attributes on the
evaluation of high-complexity products is a robust effect
and can persist in the face of explicit benefit information.
The studies reported herein increase our sparse knowledge
of the theoretical process mediating the effects of novel
features on product evaluation (see Brown and Carpenter
2000). Specifically, we drew on the inference-making and
hypothesis-testing literatures to demonstrate the importance
of a type of inference that has been largely ignored in past
research, namely, learning-cost inference (Farrell and Sha-
piro 1988; Klemperer 1987). We showed that consumers
make learning-cost inferences about novel attributes in high-
complexity products and that these can overshadow value
inferences to cause a net reduction in product evaluation.
Equally important, we show that these negative learning-
cost effects can be mitigated by appropriate benefit and us-
age information about novel attributes. Finally, our studies
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Product evaluation
Novel attribute present
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/28/3/462/1830079 by Indian Institute of Management Raipur user on 29 January 2021
Postsearch
Presearch Benefit ⫹ Automatic Benefit ⫹ Manual
4.46 5.74 4.44
5.10 6.51 5.22
extend the hypothesis-testing literature by incorporating the
concepts of inferential and multiple hypotheses.
The results of this article have practical significance as
well. The negative effect of novel attributes on the evalu-
ation of high-complexity products provides one explanation
for technophobia, or consumer resistance toward high-tech
innovations (Fournier, Dobscha, and Mick 1998; Mick and
Fournier 1998). Many technological innovations are per-
ceived to be highly complex in nature and introduce features
that are novel to a large number of consumers (see Alba
and Hutchinson 1987). Further, the high risk associated with
many of these products is likely to engender extensive search
activities (Ratchford 1982). Under these circumstances,
novel attributes are likely to reduce product evaluation and
sales, thus increasing the level of technophobia. Recent re-
search on consumer reactions to technological products in-
dicates that “certain features of these products frustrate and
overwhelm consumers” (Fournier et al. 1998). Because of
their associated learning cost (or comprehension difficulty),
novel features may be one such source of frustration and
lack of control. This article also indicates at least two ways
in which technophobia caused by novel attributes can be
managed. First, since the negative effects of novel attributes
are a function of learning cost, marketers should always
strive to reduce learning-cost perceptions by offering com-
pelling evidence of ease of usage (e.g., America Online’s
“So easy to use, no wonder we’re #1” ads). Second, since
provision of benefit information is necessary to reverse the
negative effects of novel attributes on high-complexity prod-
ucts, marketers of such products must take heed not to pull
back benefit information from advertising too soon after
product introduction.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Several limitations of this research should also be noted.
Since a within-subjects design was used to investigate the
effect of search, subjects were asked to rate the same product
twice during the experimental session. This procedure may
have led to greater elaboration of information about the
target product and hence inflated the polarization effect (see
Tesser 1978). Future research can investigate this issue by
extending the time period of the experiment, such that dou-
ble presentation of the target product is less salient. Such a
longitudinal investigation would also be consistent with real-
NOVEL ATTRIBUTES
life choice, where search is usually undertaken some time
after consumers are exposed to advertising. A longitudinal
study would also throw light on the temporal persistence
of the polarization effect. There is some evidence in the
literature that memory for negative information is weaker
than memory for positive information (see Skowronski and
Carlston 1987). If so, then a time lag between inference
making and search should reduce the negative polarizing
effect for high-complexity products to a greater extent than
the positive polarizing effect for low-complexity products.
Several other avenues for research can also originate from
this article. First, future research could also investigate
whether recent product experiences can prime value and
learning-cost inferences (e.g., Devine 1989). For example,
it is possible that consumers who have recently struggled
to use a complex product, such as a Palm Pilot, will make
stronger learning-cost inferences about novel attributes in
Web TV than those who have not had such an experience.
Similarly, it is possible that recent successful trials can
prompt value inferences about novel attributes in complex
products. Second, in the studies reported here, the presen-
tation of benefit information was temporally separated from
the initial presentation of the novel attribute. It would be
interesting to examine the effect of benefit information if it
is presented concurrently with the novel attribute. Third,
recent research suggests that invalid inferences (e.g., about
product quality) can be corrected by concurrent disclosures
only under high-capacity conditions (Johar and Simmons
2000). If so, then learning-cost inferences may be suscep-
tible to correction by concurrent “ease of use” information
only when consumers have high motivation, ability, and
opportunity to process. Finally, it has been found that at-
titude polarization increases with the time spent thinking
about the object in question (e.g., Tesser and Conlee 1975).
This suggests that increasing the time spent on search should
further increase the polarization effect obtained in the pres-
ent research.
[Received September 1999. Revised February 2001. David
Glen Mick served as editor, and Michael D. Johnson
served as associate editor for this article.]
REFERENCES
Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions
of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13
(March), 411–454.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-
Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Re-
search: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (Decem-
ber), 1173–1182.
Broniarczyk, Susan M. and Joseph W. Alba (1994), “The Role of
Consumers’ Intuitions in Inference Making,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 21 (December), 393–407.
Broniarczyk, Susan M. and Andrew D. Gershoff (1997), “Mean-
ingless Differentiation Revisited,” Advances in Consumer Re-
search, 24, 223–228.
Brown, Christina L. and Gregory S. Carpenter (2000), “Why Is
471
the Trivial Important? A Reason-Based Account for the Ef-
fects of Trivial Attributes on Choice,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 26 (March), 372–385.
Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty, and Kathleen J. Morris (1983),
“Effects of Need for Cognition on Message Evaluation, Re-
call, and Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 45 (October), 805–818.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/28/3/462/1830079 by Indian Institute of Management Raipur user on 29 January 2021
Carpenter, Gregory S., Rashi Glazer, and Kent Nakamoto (1994),
“Meaningful Brands from Meaningless Differentiation,” Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 31 (August), 339–350.
Darley, John M. and Paget H. Gross (1983), “A Hypothesis-
Confirming Bias in Labeling Effects,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 44 (January), 20–33.
Davies, Martin F. (1997), “Belief Persistence after Evidential Dis-
crediting: The Impact of Generated vs. Provided Explanations
on the Likelihood of Discredited Outcomes,” Journal of Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, 33 (November), 561–578.
Devine, Patricia G. (1989), “Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Au-
tomatic and Controlled Components,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1 (January), 5–18.
Evett, Sophia R., Patricia G. Devine, Edward R. Hirt, and Jana
Price (1994), “The Role of the Hypothesis and the Evidence
in the Trait Hypothesis Testing Process,” Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 30 (September), 456–481.
Farrell, Joseph and Carl Shapiro (1988), “Dynamic Competition
with Switching Costs,” Rand Journal of Economics, 19
(Spring), 123–137.
Fiske, Susan T. (1980), “Attention and Weight in Person Percep-
tion: The Impact of Negative and Extreme Behavior,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (June), 889–906.
Fiske, Susan T. and Shelley E. Taylor (1984), Social Cognition,
New York: Addison Wesley.
Fournier, Susan, Susan Dobscha, and David Glen Mick (1998),
“Preventing the Premature Death of Relationship Marketing,”
Harvard Business Review, 51 (January–February), 42–44
Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), “The Persuasion Knowl-
edge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 1–31.
Harris, Richard Jackson, Tony M. Dubitsky, and Kristin J. Bruno
(1983), “Psycholinguistic Studies of Misleading Advertising,”
in Information Processing Research in Advertising, ed. Rich-
ard Jackson Harris, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 241–262.
Herr, Paul M., Frank R. Kardes, and John Kim (1991), “Effects
of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Per-
suasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 17 (March), 454–462.
Hill, Thomas, Nancy D. Smith, and Millard F. Mann (1987), “Role
of Efficacy Expectations in Predicting the Decision to Use
Advanced Technologies: The Case of Computers,” Journal
of Applied Psychology, 72 (May), 307–313.
Hoch, Stephen J. and John Deighton (1989), “Managing What
Consumers Learn from Experience,” Journal of Marketing,
53 (April), 1–20.
Hoch, Stephen J. and Young-Won Ha (1986), “Consumer Learning:
Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 221–233.
Huber, Joel and John W. McCann (1982), “The Impact of Infer-
ential Beliefs on Product Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 19 (August), 324–333.
Johar, Gita Venkatramani and Carolyn J. Simmons (2000), “The
Use of Concurrent Disclosures to Correct Invalid Inferences,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (March), 307–322.
472
Johnson, Eric J. and John W. Payne (1985), “Effort and Accuracy
in Choice,” Management Science, 31 (April), 395–414.
Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1979), “Prospect Theory:
An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica, 47
(March), 263–291.
Keller, Kevin Lane and Richard Staelin (1987), “Effects of Quality
and Quantity of Information on Decision Effectiveness,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 14 (September), 200–213.
Klemperer, Paul (1987), “Markets with Consumer Switching Costs,”
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102 (May), 375–394.
Lehmann, Donald R. (1999), “Consumer Behavior and Y2K,”
Journal of Marketing (“Fundamental Issues and Directions
for Marketing,” ed. George S. Day and David B. Montgom-
ery) 63 (5), 14–18.
Linville, Patricia W. (1982), “The Complexity-Extremity Effect
and Age-Based Stereotyping,” Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 42 (February), 193–211.
Madey, Scott F. and Thomas Gilovitch (1993), “Effect of Temporal
Focus on the Recall of Expectancy-Consistent and Expec-
tancy-Inconsistent Information,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65 (September), 458–468.
McDonald, John (1990), “Some Situational Determinants of Hy-
pothesis-Testing Strategies,” Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 26 (May), 255–274.
Meyers-Levy, Joan and Alice M. Tybout (1989), “Schema Con-
gruity as a Basis for Product Evaluations,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 16 (June), 39–54.
Mick, David Glen and Susan Fournier (1998), “Paradoxes of
Technology: Consumer Cognizance, Emotions, and Coping
Strategies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (September),
123–143.
Nowlis, Stephen M. and Itamar Simonson (1996), “The Effect of
New Product Features on Brand Choice,” Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 32 (February), 36–46.
Ozanne, Julie L., Merrie Brucks, and Dhruv Grewal (1992), “A
Study of Information Search Behavior during Categorization
of New Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18
(March), 452–463.
Peracchio, Laura A. and Alice M. Tybout (1996), “The Mod-
erating Role of Prior Knowledge in Schema-Based Product
Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (December),
177–191.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Ratchford, Brian T. (1982), “Cost-Benefit Models for Explaining
Consumer Choice and Information-Seeking Behavior,” Man-
agement Science, 28 (February), 197–212.
Reeder, Glenn D. and Michael D. Coovert (1986), “Revising an
Impression of Morality,” Social Cognition, 4 (Spring), 1–17.
Rogers, Everett M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, New York:
Free Press.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/28/3/462/1830079 by Indian Institute of Management Raipur user on 29 January 2021
Rothbart, Myron and Bernadette Park (1986), “On the Confirm-
ability and Disconfirmability of Trait Concepts,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (January), 131–142.
Russo, J. Edward, Margaret G. Meloy, and Victoria Husted Medvec
(1998), “Predecisional Distortion of Product Information,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (November), 438–452.
Shugan, Steven (1980), “The Cost of Thinking,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 7 (September), 99–111.
Simonson, Itamar, Ziv Carmon, and Suzanne O’Curry (1994), “Ex-
perimental Evidence on the Negative Effect of Product Fea-
tures and Sales Promotions on Brand Choice,” Marketing
Science, 13 (Winter), 23–40.
Skowronski, John J. and Donald E. Carlston (1987), “Social Judg-
ment and Social Memory: The Role of Cue Diagnosticity in
Negativity, Positivity, and Extremity Biases,” Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 52 (April), 689–699.
Tesser, Abraham (1976), “Attitude Polarization as a Function of
Thought and Reality Constraints,” Journal of Research in
Personality, 10 (January), 183–194.
——— (1978), “Self-Generated Attitude Change,” in Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 11, ed. Leonard Ber-
kowitz, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 289–338.
Tesser, Abraham and Mary C. Conlee (1975), “Some Effects of
Time and Thought on Attitude Polarization,” Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 31 (June), 262–270.
Trope, Yaacov and Akiva Liberman (1996), “Social Hypothesis
Testing: Cognitive and Motivational Mechanisms,” in Social
Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, ed. E. Tory Hig-
gins and Arie W. Kruglanski, New York: Guilford, 239–270.
Ybarra, Oscar, Linda Schaberg, and Shelley Kieper (1999), “Fa-
vorable and Unfavorable Target Expectancies and Social In-
formation Processing,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 77 (October), 698–709.