JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 11(2), 99–113

Copyright © 2001, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Promoting a Brand’s Emotion Benefits: The Influence of Emotion

Categorization Processes on Consumer Evaluations
Julie A. Ruth
School of Business
Rutgers University

Research in psychology has demonstrated that people have a shared knowledge of emotion
categories. Building on this research and our understanding of categorization processes, this
article proposes a mechanism by which consumers utilize information about a brand’s “emo-
tion benefits” in forming attitudes. The results of 2 experimental studies show that (a) consum-
ers’ processing of a brand’s emotion benefit information is consistent with categorization
processes such that emotion category congruity effects are large in basic—versus subordi-
nate—level conditions, (b) associating a brand with cetain emotions can influence brand and
ad attitudes without necessarily eliciting emotions during exposure to advertising, (c) emotion
category congruity “works” through attitude-toward-the-ad and emotion benefit beliefs in in-
fluencing brand attitudes, and (d) subjective product category knowledge moderates the
strength of these effects. Taken together, these results explicate the process by which a knowl-
edge-based consideration of a brand’s emotional benefits can influence consumers’ beliefs
about the brand and brand attitudes.

Emotion-laden experiences including “feelings, fantasy and
fun” have been recognized as an important part of consumer
behavior (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). Not surprisingly,
advertising often links brands to emotional benefits of prod-
uct use (e.g., “Fight your fear with Fosomaxä, the first
non-hormonal treatment for osteoporosis proven to rebuild
bone”; General Foods offers “Coffee so enchanting, you’ll
fall in love”). Some brands are positioned on the basis of emo-
tions (e.g., Pontiac automobiles and excitement, with various
slogans including “We build excitement” and “Pontiac
Sunfire is driving excitement”). Others explicitly link the
brand to emotional benefits through the brand name such as
the “Worry-Free Handycamä Camcorder by Sony.” Despite
its prevalence, it is not clear how such references to prospec-
tive emotion-laden experiences influence consumer evalua-
tions of the brand and ad.
One possible explanation for how references to emotional
benefits affect persuasion is that the emotions themselves are
elicited during advertising exposure. Under this explanation,
exposure stimulates consumer information processing in-
cluding affective responses to the ad, which in turn influence
Requests for reprints should be sent to Julie A. Ruth, School of Business,
227 Penn Street, Rutgers University, Camden, NJ 08102. E-mail:
jaruth@crab.rutgers.edu
brand attitude formation (Batra & Ray, 1986; Edell & Burke,
1987; Holbrook & Batra, 1987). Alternatively, a number of
researchers have noted that mental or cognitive consideration
of the emotional consequences of one’s actions may influence
evaluations (Baron, 1992; Folkes, 1988; Petty, Cacioppo, &
Kasmer, 1988).
Building on the latter perspective, this research investi-
gates the proposition that emotion-oriented product informa-
tion does not necessarily “work” only through eliciting the
promised emotion during information processing. More spe-
cifically, this article investigates a mechanism consumers use
in processing messages with references to emotion associated
with the brand and whether these effects can occur independ-
ent of feelings evoked by advertising. Research has shown
that emotions are represented in memory as a type of cate-
gorical knowledge (Conway & Bekerian, 1987; Shaver,
Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987). It is proposed here
that consumers use this knowledge to process and understand
information regarding the emotion benefits or consequences
of using the product or brand. Emotion benefit information is
considered to convey data about affect-laden experiences as-
sociated with a brand, or “how you feel when you buy, use, or
simply own the product” (Haley, 1985, p. 26). This definition
incorporates those instances where a brand is associated with
emotion benefits through explicit semantic references to feel-
ings (e.g., Pontiac is driving excitement). This definition also
100 RUTH
incorporates descriptions of emotions associated with a brand
(the terms emotions and feelings are used interchangeably).
Research in psychology addressing the characteristics and
processing of categories is used to develop hypotheses regard-
ing emotion category congruity—the match between desir-
able emotion-based consequences of product category use and
the benefits associated with the brand of interest. Experiment 1
tests the dual impact of emotion category congruity and cate-
gory level (basic- vs. subordinate-level emotions) on brand
and ad attitudes. Experiment 2 investigates the moderating im-
pact of product knowledge on the emotion category congru-
ity–attitude relation. The results provide evidence regarding
categorization processes associated with emotion benefits, the
impact of basic- and subordinate-level categories on persua-
sion, and how product category knowledge moderates the con-
gruity effect. Furthermore, the results of step-down analysis of
variance procedures address the sequential relations among
emotion category congruity, ad-evoked feelings, attitudes-to-
ward-the-ad, brand beliefs, and brand attitudes.
CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE AND
KNOWLEDGE OF EMOTIONS
Consumer knowledge has generally been conceptualized as
consumer beliefs and familiarity with products and brands
(Alba & Hutchinson, 1987; Sujan, 1985). This research pro-
poses that in addition to product- and brand-related knowledge,
consumers systematically utilize nonmarket types of knowl-
edge such as knowledge of emotions in evaluating products
and prospective consumption experiences. This proposition is
founded in research showing that emotions are represented in
memory as a type of categorical knowledge (Conway &
Bekerian, 1987; Shaver et al., 1987). That is, people understand
the similarities and differences between emotion types (e.g.,
joy vs. love) in a manner consistent with a prototype perspec-
tive of categorical knowledge (Fehr & Russell, 1991).
Shaver et al. (1987) determined that individuals’knowledge
of emotions is structured hierarchically, similar to the categori-
zation of natural objects (Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, &
Boyes-Braem, 1976). In Shaver et al., one set of participants
rated the prototypicality of 213 emotions (e.g., love, bliss, ten-
derness, anxiety, dread, terror, etc.), and a second sample sorted
135 prototypical emotions into categories according to similar-
ity or “which ones go together.” Average distance cluster analy-
sis showed that two superordinate categories exist, positive and
negative emotions, and five basic-level categories exist—joy,
affection, fear, anger, and sadness. It is important to note that the
basic emotions are those that are basic from the standpoint of the
primary information-processing tasks accomplished through
categorization—identification, reasoning, and cognitive econ-
omy—rather than a physiological or biological perspective
(Izard, 1992; Ortony & Turner, 1990). The moderate level of ab-
straction associated with basic emotions means they are neither
too abstract (e.g., positive emotion) nor too specific (e.g., ela-
tion) and account for a sufficiently large but still distinct (e.g.,
joy vs. affection) set of emotions. In contrast, subordinate-level
emotions are members of their respective basic-level categories
but differ in intensity or quality as compared to the basic-level
category (Shaver et al., 1987). For example, fright is an in-
tensely experienced, subordinate-level representative of the ba-
sic-level category of fear. This hierarchical category structure
reflects individuals’ shared agreement on the characteristics
generally associated with each emotion: (a) the types of situa-
tions that elicit certain emotions (Conway & Bekerian, 1987),
(b) script-like descriptions of specific emotions (Shaver et al.,
1987), and (c) patterns of thoughts or cognitive appraisals that
accompany emotions (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988a,1988b; Smith
& Ellsworth, 1985).
It is important to note that research has shown that people
are able to name an emotion based on a description of its char-
acteristics. For example, when an individual describes a nega-
tive situation involving a high level of uncertainty and a
perception of little control over anticipated negative out-
comes, this experience would be understood and identified as
fear. People are also able to “run the reverse” (Smith &
Medin, 1981) by readily describing the emotion’s generally
agreed-on characteristics when prompted with its semantic
label. For example, if asked to describe the emotion fear, peo-
ple would typically describe situations and perceptions con-
sistent with a negative, highly uncertain experience.
Knowledge of Emotions and Processes
of Categorization
The categorization approach posits that consumers store in-
formation in memory around a set of category expectations
(Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975; Rosch et al., 1976).
Empirical evidence suggests that information-processing ac-
tivities are affected by the degree to which information is dis-
crepant from these category expectations. For instance, speed
and accuracy of identification and classification are greater
for more representative rather than less representative mem-
bers of a category (Mervis & Rosch, 1981). When asked to
cite examples of a category, more representative examples are
listed earlier than less representative members (Nedungadi &
Hutchinson, 1985; Rosch et al., 1976).
Furthermore, consumers’ interpretation of information of-
ten depends on the particular knowledge structures, or catego-
ries, that have been recently or are currently active (Herr, 1989;
Wyer & Srull, 1981). For example, Sujan (1985) studied infor-
mation processing by experts and novices who were presented
with product descriptions that matched or mismatched a cate-
gory label—35-mm and 110-instamatic cameras. For experts,
when the label and the camera descriptions matched (mis-
matched), the evaluation process appeared to be more (less)
category based and faster (slower) evaluations resulted.
Conway and Bekerian (1987) studied the effects of emotion
congruity on a series of lexical decision tasks. Using congru-

ent (incongruent) emotion category descriptions as primes,
recognition of emotion words was facilitated (inhibited). They
also observed congruity effects when situational attributes as-
sociated with a particular emotion category—descriptions of
the emotion—were used as the prime. That is, recognition of
the emotion word was facilitated (inhibited) in the presence of
congruent (incongruent) descriptions.
By extension, it is proposed that presentation of a brand’s
emotion benefit information accesses categorical knowledge
of the emotion and the types of experiences and conditions as-
sociated with it. For example, when told that the Pontiac
Sunfire is driving excitement, it is proposed that the consumer
accesses categorical knowledge linked with excitement (i.e.,
strongly positive with modest to high arousal) and associates
it with the brand. Accessing this prior emotion knowledge
provides a relatively quick and efficient way of understanding
the emotional consequences associated with a situation or, in
this case, the brand.
Categorical Knowledge of Emotions and
Effects on Attitudes
How does the categorization of emotion, then, influence atti-
tude formation? What will determine whether a match between
an instance and the category results in favorable or unfavorable
evaluations of the brand? Category congruity leads to favorable
evaluations because, all things being equal, people prefer ob-
jects and situations that conform to expectations (Mandler,
1982). In contrast, when presented with an object that is incon-
gruent with categorical knowledge, greater elaboration and ef-
fort is required to resolve the incongruity in some manner.
Whereas extreme incongruity yields relatively less favorable
evaluations because the incongruity is difficult to resolve, some
research has found that moderate incongruity is positively val-
ued because of the psychological reward of processing and re-
solving the moderate incongruity (Meyers-Levy & Tybout,
1989). Although moderate incongruity is generally preferred,
there are limits to this effect. When strong, certain (unambigu-
ous) affect is associated with the relevant category, this affect
will “dominate that which may be obtained as a consequence of
the processing and elaboration prompted by different levels of
category congruity” (Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989, p. 40).
Similarly, Heckler & Childers (1992) demonstrated that con-
gruity is evaluated based on perceptions of relevance and expec-
tancy. The degree to which information falls into some
predetermined pattern or structure of the category is consistent
with “expectancy” (Heckler & Childers, 1992). Congruent in-
formation is both relevant and expected; incongruent informa-
tion is relevant and unexpected.
By implication, a brand associated with a particular emotion
benefit should be evaluated favorably when it matches a rele-
vant and desirable emotional consequence of the product. When
a match occurs between the emotions relevant to product cate-
gory use and in what this particular brand can deliver—emotion
PROMOTING A BRAND’S EMOTION BENEFITS 101
category congruity—relatively favorable brand evaluations
should result. This is expected because an emotion category de-
scription will be presented as a desired attribute of the product
category experience, coupled with an emotion benefit specifi-
cally associated with the advertised brand (i.e., semantic label).
Similar to the findings of Conway and Bekerian (1987) in lexi-
cal decision settings, individuals will perceive the match or mis-
match based on their categorical knowledge of emotions.
Furthermore, individuals’ general preference for matching ex-
pectations (Mandler, 1982) implies that emotion category con-
gruity will yield relatively favorable brand attitudes. Thus, in
conditions where the brand is associated with the relevant and
desirable target emotion, evaluations of the brand will be rela-
tively more favorable as compared to conditions where the
brand is associated with a different or incongruent one.
H1: Emotion benefit congruity (incongruity) will be as-
sociated with relatively more (less) favorable
brand attitudes.
Thus, when a specific emotion benefit is conveyed as relevant
and desirable for the product category, a brand will be evalu-
ated, in part, on the consumer’s perceptions that the brand sat-
isfies these expectations.
The effect of emotion benefit congruity will be moderated
under certain category-level processing conditions. The supe-
riority of basic-level categories has been shown in a number of
categorization studies (Mervis & Rosch, 1981). When people
are shown an object, there is tendency to name it at the basic
level, and basic-level objects are recognized faster than either
subordinates or superordinates (Rosch et al., 1976). These ef-
fects occur because basic-level categories maximize
within-category similarity while minimizing the similarity be-
tween basic-level categories. Furthermore, subordinate-level
emotions are members of their respective basic-level catego-
ries but are less representative of the basic-level category be-
cause they apply to a smaller range of category-related
situations or may even share some characteristics with other
categories (Shaver et al., 1987). For example, anger is per-
ceived to be the best representative of the basic category,
whereas frustration, although bearing category resemblance
to the basic category anger, is less representative of the entire
category of anger-related experiences.
Given these characteristics, particularly within- and be-
tween-category resemblance, the impact of emotion category
congruity will be most pronounced in basic-level conditions
and will be attenuated by use of subordinate-level emotions
associated with the brand.
H2: The category level of the brand’s emotion benefit
(basic vs. subordinate) will interact with congruity
in its effect on attitudes such that the difference in
attitudes will be relatively large (small) in ba-
sic-level (subordinate-level) conditions of cate-
gory congruity.
102 RUTH
In other words, a brand’s basic-level emotion benefit is most
similar to or the best match when the product category’s rele-
vant and desired emotional consequences are also described
at the basic level. In contrast, the subordinate, although a
member of the basic-level category, is not as good a represen-
tative of the entire category. Therefore, an interaction is hy-
pothesized because the magnitude of the congruity effect will
be dependent on the category level of the emotion benefit as-
sociated with the brand.
Furthermore, most brand marketing situations would call
for describing positive emotional experiences (i.e., how the
brand will lead to positive emotions or avoidance of nega-
tive emotions, although some products and brands are de-
sired for their vicarious negative emotional experiences
such as scary movies). The hedonic tone of the emo-
tion—whether describing a positive emotion or describing
how to avoid a negative emotion through brand use—might
be expected to influence the favorability of attitudes. In
general, people prefer positive and pleasurable stimuli. Yet,
the research on emotion knowledge is grounded in a grow-
ing body of psychological literature that views emotions as
functional and adaptive. The experience of emotion enables
an individual to cope with the environment, to orient toward
significant situations, and to appropriately approach posi-
tive and avoid negative objects or events (Ellsworth &
Smith, 1988a, 1988b; Lazarus, 1991).
Thus, information about overcoming negative emo-
tion-inducing product situations could be just as rewarding
and valued as the prospect of experiencing positive emo-
tions. For example, ads for Louis Kemp Seafoods state,
“Fear not. There’s nothing to it [cooking with seafood] with
new Louis Kempâ FAT FREE Scallops.” One could easily
envision an equally valued emotion benefit of “the joy of
cooking” with this product. Thus, a null effect of hedonic
tone is postulated because experiencing positive emotions
or avoiding negative emotions can be equally relevant and
valued by consumers.
H3: Positive and negative emotional benefits will not
differ in their impact on brand attitudes.
In sum, emotion benefit congruity, category level, and
hedonic tone will be important in understanding how atti-
tudes toward the brand are influenced by a brand’s emotion
benefit information. Furthermore, extensive research has
shown that attitude-toward-the-ad (AAd) is an important me-
diator of advertising processing’s effect on brand attitudes
(Brown, Homer, & Inman, 1998). By investigating the impact
of emotion benefit congruity, category level, and hedonic tone
on ad attitudes and brand attitudes, this study will provide in-
sight on whether the categorical properties of emotion knowl-
edge and emotion benefit information work through ad
attitudes or influence brand attitudes directly. Furthermore,
we can determine whether and to what extent these effects
work through emotions elicited in response to the ad itself.
EXPERIMENT 1
An experiment was designed to investigate the hypothesized
effects of emotion benefit congruity, category level, and
hedonic tone on attitude toward the ad and brand. For this ex-
periment, one product was used where each of several basic
emotions would be equally relevant and believable (Heckler
& Childers, 1992; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981) so that only the
emotion associated with the product—but not the prod-
uct—varied. Several pretests, described later, showed the
emotion benefits associated with camcorders and video-
recording were relevant and believable to the participant pop-
ulation. Camcorders provide a visual and verbal representa-
tion of important events such as weddings, where family and
friends are reminded of their love for one another and the joy
in marriage and the wedding party, yet where people can ex-
perience fears that they may not be able to perform their roles
adequately, perhaps even experiencing anger when things do
not go as planned or desired.
Procedure
The participants were 151 staff members and graduate and
undergraduate students recruited via an advertisement placed
in the university newspaper. Participants were randomly as-
signed to one of eight conditions in the between-participants
2 × 2 × 2 experimental design where emotion benefit congru-
ity (congruent vs. incongruent emotion benefits), category
level (basic-level or subordinate-level words in the headlines
and tag lines), and hedonic tone (positive vs. negative emo-
tion benefits) were manipulated. The experimental manipula-
tions are summarized in Appendix A.
Following Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann (1983), two
booklets were prepared for the experiment. The first booklet
contained the cover story and instructions to review a maga-
zine containing articles and advertisements. This booklet in-
cluded an ad for a fictitious brand in the camcorder product
category, the Vanguard Camcorder. To reduce primacy and
recency effects, this target ad was the third of four items (one
magazine article and two other filler ads).
After reviewing the magazine booklet at their own
speed, participants turned to the second booklet containing
the dependent measures and manipulation checks. The in-
troduction to the second booklet informed participants
that, in the interest of time, they would be questioned re-
garding only two of the four items in the previous booklet.
All participants were questioned about the Vanguard Cam-
corder and the article to add to the study’s realism. Partici-
pants first provided open-ended responses to the ad and
then completed measures of dependent variables of inter-
est. Following the experimental tasks, participants were
debriefed and paid $5 for their participation. The debrief-
ing process indicated that participants were unaware of the
purpose of the experiment.

Independent Variables
Emotion benefit congruity. Emotion benefit congru-
ity consisted of two levels: congruent and incongruent. Fol-
lowing Sujan (1985), category congruity was manipulated by
presenting an in-set description of an emotion a consumer had
experienced when using a competitor’s product and stating in
the headline and tagline that the Vanguard Camcorder was as-
sociated with a particular emotion (e.g., “Capture memories
of joy with the Vanguard Camcorder”). The emotions were ei-
ther members of the same emotion category or were in differ-
ent categories, but both were either positive or negative.
When the brand’s emotion benefit was in the same category as
the described emotion (e.g., a headline stating “Capture mem-
ories of joy with high-quality pictures with Vanguard Cam-
corder” coupled with a description of experiencing joy while
using a camcorder), participants were in the congruent condi-
tion. When the brand’s emotion benefit was in a different cate-
gory than the described emotion (e.g., a headline stating
“Capture memories of joy” coupled with a description of ex-
periencing affection while using a camcorder), participants
were in the incongruent condition. Thus, consistent with the
procedures used in lexical decision task research (Conway &
Bekerian, 1987), the description served as the prime for set-
ting expectations about an emotion important to this product
category, and the emotion term served as the benefit associ-
ated with this particular brand. Although two basic-level posi-
tive emotions and three basic negative emotions have been
identified in the literature, only two of the three negative emo-
tions, namely fear and anger, were selected to balance the
number of category congruity combinations for both positive
and negative emotions. Other elements of the ad remained
constant including a discussion of product attributes that were
selected from a Consumer Reports review of desirable cam-
corder features.
Category level. Category level was manipulated in the
headline and tagline and consisted of two conditions: use of a
basic-level or subordinate-level emotion term in the headline
and tagline. Potential subordinates were selected from Shaver
et al. (1987). A pretest identified subordinates that were mem-
bers of their respective basic-level categories but that did not
differ significantly from the basic categories in pleasantness
or intensity.
Hedonic tone. Hedonic tone refers to whether an emo-
tion is perceived to be positive or negative (Russell, 1980). In
the context of this experiment, hedonic tone refers to experi-
encing a positive emotion or avoiding a negative emotion.
This factor had two levels: positive emotions (e.g., “Capture
memories of joy”) and negative emotions stated positively
(e.g., “Capture memories without anxiety”). For ease of dis-
cussion, the latter are referred to as negative emotion benefits.
PROMOTING A BRAND’S EMOTION BENEFITS 103
Pretests
Several steps were involved in developing the stimuli. First,
a generic description of camcorder use at a wedding was de-
veloped. Second, the description was modified to capture
the key characteristics of each emotion. Third, these de-
scriptions were subjected to three pretests to ensure accu-
racy of description and equivalence in believability and
relevance. In Pretest 1, 32 participants similar to the even-
tual participant populations read the four emotion descrip-
tions and, from a list of the five basic emotions, identified
the emotion described in each scenario. Aided recognition
was 71%. Based on particpants’ feedback, descriptions
were revised to improve categorization accuracy. In Pretest
2, 30 participants viewed the revised descriptions embedded
in the experimental materials described previously. Just
prior to completion of the pretest, participants read the one
description they had seen earlier and identified the emotion.
Identification accuracy was 81%. Also, the participants
were asked to rate the passage for believability, complexity,
relevance to camcorder usage, and ease of understanding
(Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). Analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
indicated the descriptions did not differ on these four char-
acteristics (ps > .05). Pretest 3 was conducted with 22 par-
ticipants who rated the intensity of 30 emotions.
Subordinate emotion terms were selected to ensure they did
not differ in intensity from each other and their basic-level
counterpart (ps > .05).
Dependent Variables
The primary dependent variables were attitude-to-
ward-the-brand (ABrand) and AAd. Drawn from previous re-
search, attitudes were measured on three 7-point semantic
differential scales including the extent to which participants
liked or disliked the brand or ad, had a favorable or unfavor-
able impression of the brand or ad, and a positive or negative
evaluation of the brand or ad. The Cronbach alpha (a) coeffi-
cients for ABrand and AAd were .94 and .83, respectively, in-
dicating a high degree of internal consistency.
Another dependent measure of interest was the
open-ended responses participants provided prior to the
measures of ABrand and AAd. Following Batra and Ray
(1986), participants were asked to list their thoughts and
feelings when reviewing the ad for the Vanguard Cam-
corder. After completing this task, participants were in-
structed to place to the left of each line a plus (+), minus
(–), or zero (0) categorizing the thought or feeling as posi-
tive (+), negative (–), or neutral (0). Two independent cod-
ers who were unaware of the conditions categorized each
response as to whether it referred to feelings elicited at the
point of contact with the ad and, if the participants failed to
do so, whether the feelings were positive, negative, or neu-
tral. Intercoder agreement was 84%, and disagreements
104 RUTH

were resolved through discussion. Proportions of positive
emotions-to-total responses and negative emotions-to-total
responses were calculated and used in the analysis.
Finally, just prior to completion of the experiment, partici-
pants were presented with their target emotion description
and were asked to name the emotion. Results showed an 89%
accuracy rate in aided identification. Eliminating participants
who incorrectly identified the emotion did not alter the re-
sults. All participants’ data was retained for analysis.
Results
To test the hypotheses presented formally (H1–H3),
ANOVA and simple main effects tests were used. Sequen-
tial relations among dependent variables (feelings, AAd,
ABrand) were investigated with step-down ANOVA (Roy,
1958; see also Hastak & Olson, 1989; and Yi, 1990, for ex-
amples in consumer psychology).
The results for brand attitudes are consistent with the hy-
pothesized effects. Table 1 shows the F values associated
with the experimental factors and interactions (see Column
A). Appendix B contains the ABrand means for all 16 condi-
tions. Consistent with H1, emotion benefit congruity exerts
a significant positive impact on brand attitudes, F(1, 143) =
4.653, p < .05. Moreover, a two-way interaction effect of
Congruity × Category Level is observed, F(1, 143) = 4.300,
p < .05, whereby the difference in the congruity effect in ba-
sic conditions is relatively large (Mcong,basic = 4.36 vs. Minc,ba-
sic = 3.57) compared to the effect in subordinate conditions
(M cong,sub = 4.33 vs. Minc,sub = 4.30). Following Keppel
(1973) and as expected, the simple main effect of emotion
benefit congruity in the basic condition is significant, F(1,
78) = 12.276, p < .001; but is not significant in the subordi-
nate condition, F(1, 71) = .001, ns. These results support H2,
where an interaction effect of congruity and category level
on brand attitudes was postulated because basic categories
maximize between-category differences, and, thus, the ef-
fect of emotion category congruity was postulated to be
more pronounced in basic conditions. Figure 1 depicts this
interaction effect. Also consistent with H3, hedonic tone
does not exert a statistically significantly effect on ABrand.
That is, the presence of negative emotion benefit informa-
tion did not yield less favorable brand attitudes.
Although not formally hypothesized, Column B shows
the factors’ effects on AAd. The Congruity × Level interac-
tion also influences AAd, F(1, 143) = 5.998, p < .01. A sig-
nificant simple main effect test shows that, within basic
conditions, AAd is more favorable in the congruent
(Mcong,basic = 3.30) versus incongruent conditions (Minc,basic
= 2.48), F(1, 78) = 13.227, p < .001. No difference is ob-
served in the subordinate conditions. Moreover, AAd is
more favorable when the brand is described as delivering
positive (Mpos = 3.37) as compared to negative (Mneg = 2.75)
emotion benefits, F(1, 143) = 5.834, p < .001.
As discussed, an important question concerns whether
the effect of emotion benefit congruity works through its
impact on AAd or whether the congruity effect on ABrand
persists when accounting for its impact on AAd. Stated
somewhat differently, this question refers to whether and to
what extent congruity influences ABrand directly and
whether AAd partially or fully mediates the effect of the
manipulations on ABrand. This question is investigated
through step-down ANOVA procedures (Roy, 1958; see
also Baron & Kenny, 1986, regarding mediation analysis in
regression). By examining dependent variables in a prede-
termined order, step-down analyses can assess the unique
contribution of each variable as it is added to the model in a
theoretically supported, sequential fashion.
Step-down analyses are conducted beginning with the
dependent variable occurring last in the sequential relations
(ABrand in Column A). Then, variables of interest are
added as covariates to account for the experimental factors’

TABLE 1
ANCOVA Results (F Values) of Mediating Responses on Attitudes Toward the Brand (Experiment 1)

Dependent Variables

Independen t Variables ABrand (A) AAd (B) ABrand (C) Positive Emotions a (D) Negative Emotionsa (E) AAd (F) ABrand (G)

Congruity (CONG) 4.653** .941 3.972** .720 .050 .476 3.817**

Category level (LEVEL) 3.249* 2.118 1.193 .213 2.869 .355 .561
Hedonic tone (HED) 2.851* 5.834*** .010 3.762** .215 3.249* .001
CONG × LEVEL 4.300** 5.998*** .359 .358 .967 5.052** .403
CONG × HED 1.530 1.442 .346 1.957 1.798 .144 .494
HED × LEVEL .027 .058 .183 .045 .002 .141 .192
CONG × LEVEL × HED .340 .015 .776 .030 2.458 .192 .390
Covariates
AAd 132.974*** 109.401***
Positive emotionsa 27.001*** .380
Negative emotionsa 13.433*** 4.704**

Note. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; ABrand = attitude-toward-the-brand; AAd = attitude-toward-the-ad .

aEmotions elicited in response to the ad.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .001.


FIGURE 1 Interaction of emotion benefit congruity and category
level on attitudes toward the brand (Experiment 1).
influence on variables shown to be mediators in the sequen-
tial process. The model presented in Column C shows the
impact of the experimental manipulations on ABrand when
their effects on AAd are first accounted for through the
AAd covariate. That is, after controlling for the effects of
the manipulations on AAd, the Congruity × Level effect is
no longer significant, but congruity still exerts a significant
main effect on ABrand, F(1, 142) = 3.972, p < .05. This re-
sult shows that emotion benefit congruity influences
ABrand both directly and indirectly, through its impact on
AAd (Column B) and AAd’s subsequent and significant im-
pact on ABrand (Column C).
To investigate a possible explanation that the manipula-
tions themselves elicit positive or negative emotions, which in
turn influence attitudes, a similar mediation analysis was per-
formed. The models in Columns D and E assess the manipula-
tions’ impact on the proportion of positive and negative
emotions elicited in response to the ad. For positive emotions
(Column D), only hedonic tone influences the proportion of
positive emotions elicited (Mpos = .08 vs. Mneg = .04). None of
the manipulations are related to the level of negative emotions
elicited (see Column E). For completeness, Column F shows
that positive and negative emotions are, indeed, significant
predictors of AAd, F(1, 141) = 27.001, p < .001, and F(1, 141)
= 13.433, p < .001, and that the impact of Congruity × Level
persists even when the elicited affective responses are in-
cluded. Furthermore, when all covariates are included (Col-
umn G), emotion benefit congruity still exerts a significant
impact on ABrand, as hypothesized.
Discussion
First, the pattern of results shows that, as expected, emotion
benefits systematically influence brand attitudes. Con-
sumers are sensitive to the degree to which the brand’s
promised emotion benefits are consistent with those that are
relevant and important to the product category as a whole.
In particular, the congruity effect is moderated by category
level, where only basic conditions show sensitivity to the
emotion benefit match or mismatch. When the emotion
benefit promised by the brand is congruent or moderately
incongruent with the emotion benefit promised in the copy
PROMOTING A BRAND’S EMOTION BENEFITS 105
(e.g., an emotion benefit that is a subordinate of the same or
different category), brand attitudes are relatively positive.
These results are consistent with the notion that subordi-
nates, sharing some characteristics or overlap with their
own and other basic-level categories, are moderately incon-
gruent (Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989) and result in gener-
ally favorable attitudes. When the emotion benefit of the
brand is clearly incongruent with expectations in the basic
conditions, ad and brand attitudes suffer. Furthermore, it is
important to note that these congruity effects stem from
people’s knowledge associated with the description of the
emotion as relevant to the product category combined with
the emotion explicitly associated with the brand (e.g., emo-
tion word used in the headline or tagline). Thus, the results
are not merely due to semantic matching (word to word) but
rather categorization matching (description to word), con-
sistent with the research of Conway and Bekerian (1987) in
nonevaluative settings.
Second, emotion benefit congruity does not elicit emo-
tions directly, as shown by the models in Columns D and E.
These results indicate that advertising does not necessarily
have to evoke the target emotion during exposure and suggest
that mental consideration of prospective emotional benefits
may be sufficient to persuade. Nevertheless, feelings elicited
by the ads (but not by the manipulations themselves) influ-
ence AAd (Column F), a result consistent with past research
(Batra & Ray, 1986; Edell & Burke, 1987; Holbrook & Batra,
1987). Thus, by replicating past research on ad-evoked feel-
ings while hypothesizing and demonstrating a categorization
process associated with emotion benefits, an alternative route
through which emotions work in advertising and persuasion
has been supported empirically.
Third, the Congruity × Level interaction influences ad atti-
tudes, and the impact of congruity on ABrand persists even
when accounting for AAd’s known impact on ABrand
(Column C) and when accounting for any possible direct or
indirect effects of positive and negative emotions and AAd
(Column G). Although consumers’ AAd reflects preferences
for positive emotion benefit information, presentation of pos-
itive versus negative emotion benefits does not necessarily
lead to more favorable brand attitudes. The pattern of these re-
sults is distinct from ad-evoked emotions, where positive and
negative emotions typically have asymmetric results on atti-
tude constructs (Brown et al., 1998).
Taken together, these results indicate that feelings them-
selves are not necessary for emotion benefits to work in per-
suasion, and that emotions can play two distinct roles in
advertising effectiveness: as shown in the past, through feel-
ings elicited at the point of contact with advertising, and as
theorized and demonstrated here, through categorization pro-
cesses that show some sensitivity to category level of the
emotions presented. Indeed, the congruity effects are present
only in basic-level conditions. Moreover, systematic elicita-
tion of feelings is not required for emotion benefit congruity
to exert an effect on ad and brand attitudes.
106 RUTH
Additional Hypotheses
Building on these results, a second experiment was devel-
oped to examine the robustness of emotion benefit con-
gruity, hedonic tone, and their impact on brand attitudes.
Although the first experiment indicates that congruity
does not work through ad-evoked emotions, the process
by which brand attitudes are influenced has not been
fully revealed. That is, to say that congruity does not
work through emotional responses to the ad does not nec-
essarily demonstrate that it works through a cognitive
consideration of the emotion benefits of product usage.
Consistent with the recent discussion in the Journal of
Consumer Psychology (Fishbein & Middlestadt, 1995;
Haugtvedt & The Consumer Psychology Seminar, 1997;
Miniard & Barone, 1997), stronger evidence would come
from investigating the impact of congruity on consumers’
actual beliefs about the positive and negative emotion
benefits of using this product.
In addition, some consumers are more likely to respond
to or be sensitive to the emotion benefits of product usage.
For example, past research has shown that consumers’
level of product knowledge moderates information-pro-
cessing effects (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994; Haugtvedt &
the Consumer Psychology Seminar, 1997). By analogy, ef-
fectiveness of emotion benefit information may depend on
consumers’ level of product knowledge. Lack of product
category knowledge means one lacks ability to process
certain product- or brand-related information and “implies
that knowledge structures necessary to perform more com-
plex operations either do not exist or cannot be accessed”
(MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989, p. 7). Experts tend to prefer
information provided in attribute statements, whereas nov-
ices tend to prefer information provided by benefit state-
ments (Walker, Celsi, & Olson, 1987). Because novices do
not have technical product-related knowledge, they are
more likely to view the presentation of emotion benefits
more favorably than their more knowledgeable counter-
parts who prefer attribute information. Therefore, individ-
uals with low product knowledge are expected to view
emotion benefit information, irrespective of its congruity,
more favorably than those with high product knowledge.
H4: Low (high) product knowledge will be associated
with relatively more (less) favorable brand attitudes.
Furthermore, because experts have had exposure to and
knowledge of the product category, they have the requisite
knowledge structures to understand and fully appreciate what
the emotion benefit information is based on and would entail.
Thus, more knowledgeable consumers are expected to be
more sensitive to emotion benefit congruity.
H5: Emotion benefit congruity and product cate-
gory knowledge will interact such that the congruity
effects will be relatively large (small) for ex-
perts (novices).
A second experiment was conducted to investigate the ex-
tent to which brand attitudes are formed via beliefs about the
product’s positive and negative emotion benefits and the ex-
tent to which subjective product knowledge moderates the ef-
fects of congruity in this setting.
EXPERIMENT 2
The participants were 188 graduate students, undergraduate
students, and staff members recruited via an ad placed in the
university newspaper. Participants were randomly assigned
to one of four conditions corresponding to the 2 (Emotion
Benefit Congruity: congruent vs. incongruent) × 2 (Hedonic
Tone: positive or negative emotion benefits) experimental
manipulations. A third variable, subjective product category
knowledge, was measured with several items averaged to
form a scale, and then subjected to a median split, yielding
two levels: high and low subjective product category knowl-
edge of camcorders.
Similar to Experiment 1, two booklets were used. The
first booklet contained the cover story, excerpts from a
magazine, and filler ads. The second booklet contained the
dependent measures and manipulation checks. All partici-
pants were provided with questions regarding the Van-
guard Camcorder and one of the articles. Following the
experimental tasks, participants were debriefed and were
paid $5 for their participation.
Independent Variables
Emotion benefit congruity. This experimental factor
consisted of two levels of emotion benefit information: con-
gruent and incongruent. The same descriptions were used in
Experiments 1 and 2. Because congruity effects were ob-
served in basic but not subordinate conditions in Experiment
1, only basic-level congruity manipulations were used.
Hedonic tone. As in Experiment 1, hedonic tone ac-
counted for whether an emotion is characterized as positive or
negative stated positively.
Subjective product knowledge. To develop a mea-
sure of subjective product knowledge, each participant as-
sessed, compared to others, their knowledge in the camcorder
product category (i.e., “as compared to other people: I have a
lot more or less knowledge about the camcorder product cate-
gory; I have a lot more or less expertise in the camcorder prod-
uct category; I have a lot more or less knowledge of how cam-
 PROMOTING A BRAND’S EMOTION BENEFITS 107

corder brands really differ”). These 5-point Likert scale
items, 1 (a lot less) to 5 (a lot more than other people), were
summed to create a scale (a = .92). A median split (M = 2.38,
SD = 1.08) provided two levels: high or low subjective knowl-
edge of camcorders. For ease of discussion, high-knowledge
participants are referred to as experts and low-knowledge par-
ticipants are referred to as novices.
Dependent Variables
Dependent variables included ABrand (a = .86) and AAd (a
= .93). In addition, participants were asked to assess their be-
liefs about positive emotion benefits and negative emotion
benefits. Beliefs about positive emotion benefits were mea-
sured by three 7-point Likert scales where participants indi-
cated the extent to which they believed that the Vanguard
Camcorder brand records happy events, memories of love,
and experiences of joy, 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (extremely
likely), a = .90. Beliefs about negative emotion benefits were
measured by three 7-point Likert scales where participants in-
dicated the extent to which they believed that the Vanguard
Camcorder eliminates fear of poor product performance, an-
ger associated with poor product performance, anxiety asso-
ciated with poor product performance, 1 (extremely unlikely)
to 7 (extremely likely), a = .89.
Results
Similar to Experiment 1, ANOVA and analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) were used to investigate the hypotheses (see Ta-
ble 2). As shown in Column A and consistent with H4, novice
consumers like the brand more than their more knowledge-
able counterparts (Mnov = 4.69 vs. Mexp = 4.24), as indicated
by the main effect of knowledge, F(1, 180) = 8.170, p < .01.
TABLE 2
ANCOVA Results (F Values) of Mediating Responses on Attitudes Toward the Brand (Experiment 2)
Congruity is also marginally associated with more favorable
ABrand, F(1, 180) = 3.098, p < .07. Consistent with H5, the
two-way interaction of Congruity × Knowledge on ABrand is
significant, F(1, 180) = 4.179, p < .05. That is, the impact of
congruity on brand attitudes is pronounced for experts
(Mcong,exp = 4.52 vs. Minc,exp = 3.90), although there is virtually
no impact of congruity on novices’ brand attitudes (Mcong,nov
= 4.64 vs. Minc,nov = 4.74). This interaction is depicted in Fig-
ure 2. Brand attitude means are shown in Appendix C.
With respect to AAd (Column B), a two-way interaction of
congruity and knowledge is also observed, F(1, 180) = 4.338,
p < .05. Experts hold more favorable ad attitudes under con-
gruent (Mcong,exp = 3.31) versus incongruent conditions
(Minc,exp = 3.03), whereas novices hold more favorable AAd
in incongruent conditions (Minc,nov = 3.69) versus congruent
conditions (Mcong,nov = 3.32). When accounting for the impact
of AAd on ABrand (Column C), the effects of congruity and
knowledge are still significant, indicating that congruity and
knowledge do not work only on AAd but also influence
ABrand directly.
The models presented in Columns D and E investigate
the postulation that congruity influences beliefs about the
emotion benefits delivered through brand usage. Positive
emotion benefit beliefs are influenced by knowledge, F(1,
180) = 4.883, p < .03, and, marginally, by congruity, F(1,
180) = 3.718, p < .06. Novices are hold stronger positive
beliefs than their more expert counterparts (Mnov = 5.24 vs.
Mexp = 4.79). Positive emotion benefit beliefs are more
likely under congruent versus incongruent conditions (Mcong
= 5.03 vs. Minc = 4.95). Negative emotion benefit beliefs are
influenced by the Congruity × Knowledge interaction, F(1,
180) = 4.115, p < .05; knowledge, F(1, 180) = 7.392, p <
.01; and hedonic tone, F(1, 180) = 7.975, p < .01. The main
effect of knowledge provides evidence that, across all con-
ditions, novices hold stronger negative benefit beliefs than
experts (Mnov = 4.12 vs. Mexp = 3.71). Examining the nature

Dependent Variables

Positive Emotion Negative Emotion

Independen t Variables ABrand (A) AAd (B) ABrand (C) Benefit Beliefs (D) Benefit Beliefs (E) ABrand (F) ABrand (G)

Congruity (CONG) 3.098* .006 3.816** 3.718* 1.356 1.887 2.637

Knowledge (KNOW) 8.170*** 5.026** 4.275** 4.883** 7.392*** 2.763* 2.042
Hedonic tone (HED) .136 .009 .721 3.175* 7.975*** .500 1.236
CONG × KNOW 4.179** 4.338** 1.678 .887 4.115** 4.812** 2.929*
CONG × HED 1.221 .099 1.136 1.272 .028 .536 .458
HED × KNOW .541 .291 1.081 .532 .157 1.930 2.370
CONG × KNOW × HED 1.382 .002 1.663 .031 .086 2.342 2.454
Covariates
AAd 43.466*** 17.438***
Positive emotion benefit beliefs 40.408*** 43.707***
Negative emotion benefit beliefs 18.979*** 20.528***

Note. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; ABrand = attitude-toward-the-brand; AAd = attitude-toward-the-ad.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
108 RUTH
FIGURE 2 Interaction of emotion benefit congruity and product
knowledge on attitudes toward the brand (Experiment 2).
of the Congruity × Knowledge interaction shows that nov-
ice or expert differences are more pronounced under incon-
gruent conditions. That is, under congruent conditions,
novices and experts show no differences in their negative
emotion benefit beliefs (Mcong,nov = 4.04 vs. Mcong,exp =
3.86). In contrast, under incongruent conditions, experts’
belief ratings are much lower than their novice counterparts
(Mexp = 3.53 vs. Mnov = 4.18; simple main effects, F(1, 93)
= 9.926, p < .01. Furthermore, individuals in the negative
hedonic tone conditions hold stronger negative emotion
benefit beliefs than those in positive conditions (Mneg = 4.63
vs. Mpos = 4.18).
To complete the analysis, models presented in Columns
F and G include positive and negative emotion benefit be-
liefs as covariates to assess the experimental factors’ impact
on ABrand when these beliefs are accounted for. The model
in Column F shows that, indeed, these beliefs exert a signif-
icant impact on ABrand and that the Congruity × Knowl-
edge interaction retains significance when AAd is not
included as a covariate. In the model which fully accounts
for the impact of AAd and beliefs on ABrand (Column G),
the experimental factors are no longer significant at the p <
.05 level.
Overall, the results show that congruity influences
ABrand through both its impact on beliefs about the emotion
benefits of using the brand as well as its impact on AAd. Al-
though Experiment 1 showed that emotion benefit informa-
tion exerts systematic persuasion effects independent of
ad-evoked feelings, the results of Experiment 2 go on to
demonstrate that consideration of a brand’s emotion benefits
influences persuasion through altering beliefs about the
brand. In sum, the models provide insight into a sequential
process, where emotion benefit congruity and knowledge in-
fluence AAd and brand beliefs (Columns B, D, and E).
Moreover, brand beliefs and AAd fully mediate the manipu-
lations’ effects on ABrand (Column G, where the covariates
are significant and none of the experimental factors retain
traditional levels of statistical significance).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Using categorization processes as the theoretical foundation,
this research demonstrates that individuals use their knowl-
edge of emotions to understand and assess emotion benefits
afforded by brands. Emotion benefit congruity— the extent to
which the brand matches relevant and valued emotion bene-
fits associated with the product category—influences atti-
tudes so that matches and mismatches yield differential brand
and ad attitude effects, particularly in basic emotion category
conditions. These findings have important implications for
our understanding of
1. Emotion’s role in brand advertising effectiveness.
2. Categorization processes and categorical knowledge
effects.
3. The nature of consumer knowledge.
4. Marketing practice.
Emotions and Brand Advertising
These results are consistent with an adaptive, functional view
of emotions as a type of information that consumers use in un-
derstanding the likely consequences of owning and using a
brand. The results show consumers perceive a difference in
brands based merely on the categories of emotions associated
with them. Brands associated with relevant and valued emo-
tion benefits are evaluated more favorably than those associ-
ated with a different emotion. Categorization is the psycho-
logical mechanism accounting for these effects because
consumers have to be able to recognize and use their under-
standing of emotion knowledge to perceive category congru-
ity, which, in turn, systematically influences attitudes.
A key finding is that presentation of positive versus nega-
tive emotion benefits does not necessarily lead to more favor-
able brand attitudes, although AAd reflects preferences for
positive emotion benefit information in Experiment 1. The re-
sults further show that emotion benefit congruity does not
necessarily elicit emotions directly or systematically, but the
emotions that are elicited do indeed influence AAd (Experi-
ment 1) consistent with past research results. Thus, emotion
benefit congruity can influence attitudes independently of the
feelings elicited by advertising. Experiment 2 shows that be-
liefs about the positive and negative emotion benefits of brand
usage are directly affected by emotion benefit congruity. In
turn, these beliefs mediate the influence of emotion benefit
congruity on brand attitudes. Although explanations based on
moods or affective responses might suggest that positive
emotion benefit information is preferred because it is “pleas-
ant,” the results rule out these rival explanations because
brand attitudes do not differ under positive versus negative
emotion benefit conditions.
In sum and taken together with extant research, the results
indicate that emotions can work in at least two ways in brand

advertising: through elicitation of feelings and, as hypothe-
sized and demonstrated here, through knowledge-based con-
sideration of a brand’s emotion benefits, which then directly
influences beliefs about the brand and brand attitudes. Given
the important role of emotions in psychological function-
ing—that emotions help individuals to orient and cope with
important, attention-focused situations—the results show
how marketing communications could be constructed to de-
liver an effective message on how to either overcome negative
emotions or experience positive emotions.
Categorization Processes and Knowledge
This research has demonstrated that consumers are sensitive
to the degree to which a brand’s promised emotion benefits
are consistent with those relevant and important to using the
product. In order for the emotion benefit manipulations to af-
fect brand attitudes, consumers have to access their knowl-
edge of emotions, which has been shown to be shared across
people in a cultural group (Conway & Bekerian, 1987; Shaver
et al., 1987). Although categorical knowledge is shared, it is
not shared perfectly. For example, not everyone associates
sweaty palms with the emotion fear. To that end, the manipu-
lation of category congruity may be considered to be consis-
tent with Meyers-Levy and Tybout’s (1989) notion of moder-
ate incongruity versus extreme incongruity.
Furthermore, it is well known that basic categories enjoy a
moderate level of abstraction, neither too abstract nor too spe-
cific, so that they account for a large number of instances but
also are maximally distinguished from other categories
(Rosch et al., 1976). Although the special qualities of ba-
sic-level categories have been demonstrated in memory and
information-processing contexts (e.g., speed of judging
whether the new stimulus is a member or not a member of the
category), this research represents a first demonstration of the
special role of basic categories in evaluation.
Although it is apparent that basic emotions enjoy some
special processing effects in this setting, it is also of interest
that subordinate emotions do not exhibit congruity effects.
Along these lines, one might consider indirect theoretical
support for these results stemming from the inclusion fallacy
(Shafir, Smith, & Osherson, 1990). The inclusion effect is the
“counternormative phenomenon in which [a specific] prop-
erty is more likely to be generalized to an entire category than
to a specific category (even within the general category)”
(Joiner & Loken, 1998, p. 124). For example, Joiner and
Loken found that people overgeneralized about all Gucci
products, the general category, on learning that Gucci hand-
bags are high quality, the more specific property. In the stud-
ies presented here, people may have overgeneralized a
relation of the more specific subordinate emotions to the basic
and more general category, whether or not the subordinate
was a member of the basic category. The pattern of results is
consistent with this reasoning, where ABrand in subordinate
PROMOTING A BRAND’S EMOTION BENEFITS 109
conditions did not differ from one another (Mcong,sub = 4.33 vs.
Minc,sub = 4.30) or from ABrand in the congruent basic condi-
tion (Mcong,basic = 4.36). This result suggests that people per-
ceived a relation between the subordinate and the basic
category, regardless of whether the subordinate was or was
not a member of that category. Consistent with the inclusion
fallacy, these results may be due to the properties of subordi-
nate instances (Rosch et al., 1976). That is, although subordi-
nates are perceived to be best represented by and hence a
member of a particular basic category (e.g., bliss is a member
of the joy category), subordinates are also more specific and
may share resemblance with other basic categories (e.g., bliss
may share some characteristics commonly associated with
love; Shaver et al., 1987). Such effects may also arise out of
people’s tendency to confirm relations when there is some de-
gree of match between the instance and the category (e.g.,
both are positive emotions, even in the incongruent, subordi-
nate conditions; Shafir, 1995). Only with basic-level incon-
gruence is the evidence against a match unavoidable, serving
to lower brand evaluations (Minc,basic = 3.57).
The Nature of Consumer Knowledge
Experiment 2 shows that low-product-knowledg e partici-
pants evaluated the brand more favorably than high-knowl-
edge participants, consistent with past research showing that
preference for benefit information differs by level of techni-
cal, feature-based product knowledge (Walker, Celsi, &
Olson, 1987). In addition, however, low-knowledge partici-
pants were insensitive, and high-knowledge participants were
sensitive, to the emotion benefit congruity manipulation. It is
well known that experts are more likely to have complex cog-
nitive representations of products that may include emotion
benefits. In contrast, novices are likely to have much more
simplistic cognitive representations that may not include
emotion benefits (Schlegel & DiTecco, 1982). Thus, due to
these mental representational differences, emotional stimuli
may be relevant for experts’ evaluations but not for novices’
evaluations (Shafir, 1995).
One commonality between the two experiments is that
congruity effects are present under some conditions and not
others, namely in basic but not subordinate category condi-
tions (Experiment 1) and for experts and not novices (Experi-
ment 2). It may be the case that emotions at either the basic or
subordinate level are not relevant to or cannot be easily incor-
porated into novices’ product evaluations, whereas ba-
sic-level emotions are relevant to experts and can easily be
evaluated in light of their existing knowledge base. Indeed,
perhaps those people with extremely high levels of expertise
might find subordinate-level emotions to be relevant to their
product evaluations. This would be consistent with Rosch’s
theory of categorization processes where expert versus nov-
ice differences would be most pronounced at the subordinate
level rather than the basic level (Mervis & Rosch, 1981), an
110 RUTH
issue that calls for future research. Nevertheless, these results
suggest that, overall, basic-level emotions are more relevant
to product evaluations than subordinate ones.
Implications for Marketing Practice
Emotion benefits and emotion knowledge have important
implications for marketing practice, particularly with re-
spect to advertising and brand equity issues. Clearly, ads do
not necessarily have to elicit emotions in order for emotions
to be influential in brand and ad attitude formation. Cre-
ating beliefs about a brand’s emotion benefits may, in a
sense, successfully substitute for an advertiser’s ability (or
lack thereof) to evoke emotions at the point of contact with
advertising. Also, favorable and meaningful brand associa-
tions are a foundation for building and enhancing brand eq-
uity and for strategic options such as brand extensions
(Aaker, 1991; Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994). It is critical for
brands to build emotion benefit associations to match cus-
tomers’ product desires and their expectations about what it
is like to actually use and consume the product.
Furthermore, one critically important implication of this
research is that, if consumers can perceive and use the congru-
ity between emotional desires and promised emotion benefits
in brand evaluations, consumers may also judge whether the
direct experience of a brand actually delivers these emotion
benefits (see Deighton, 1984; Hoch & Ha, 1986). The prom-
ised emotion benefit associated with a brand through adver-
tising may provide a standard by which the actual product is
judged during trial or consumption (Stayman, Alden, &
Smith, 1992). It becomes imperative, then, for brand manag-
ers to know the emotions sought by their consumer markets.
Such an understanding can provide a context for building fa-
vorable emotion-focused brand associations in advertising
and facilitating the experience of these emotions during use.
Limitations and Future Research
To demonstrate the general effects of emotion benefit con-
gruity across emotion types and to control for possible dif-
ferences in relevance across products, this study utilized
only one product category. However, some products and
brands are associated with specific emotions (Holbrook,
Lehmann, & O’Shaughnessy, 1983). In addition, here the
emotion deemed relevant to the product category was ma-
nipulated. Future research should go beyond a within-prod-
uct experimental setting to a multiproduct or multibrand
setting, where the natural (rather than manipulated) associa-
tions between emotions, product category usage, and brands
are incorporated.
As shown here with knowledge, some consumers may
differ in their likelihood of using emotion benefit informa-
tion in attitude judgments. Individual differences in affect
intensity (Larsen, Diener, & Cropanzano, 1987) may be
helpful in identifying segments of consumers who prefer
and utilize emotion information in making judgments about
consumption choices. Furthermore, the measures of AAd
and ABrand used similar scale items. Because context ef-
fects are sometimes observed when similar scales are used
to measure different constructs (Machleit & Sahni, 1992;
Tourangeau & Rasinski, 1988), it would be helpful to repli-
cate these studies using different individual difference char-
acteristics, scale items, and dependent variables such as
attitude confidence and accessibility. Research along these
lines would be helpful in observing moderating conditions,
boundary conditions, or both for the information processing
effects of emotion benefit information (see Haugtvedt &
The Consumer Psychology Seminar, 1997).
Finally, the stimuli in this research were tightly con-
trolled to orient participants toward “cold” processing of af-
fective information. There would be instances where
emotion benefit information may be coupled with visual
displays of emotion or with other communication elements
that would (attempt to) also evoke emotional responses.
Building on the foundation of research here, future research
should investigate the implications of the joint impact of
emotion benefit information and the affective responses
elicited by such information.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial support was provided by Grant 10–3614 from the
Graduate School Fund at the University of Washington.
This research was initiated while completing doctoral
work at the University of Michigan. I gratefully acknowledge
the guidance offered by Richard Bagozzi, dissertation chair-
man, and committee members Rajeev Batra, Paula Caproni,
and Phoebe Ellsworth. Appreciation is also extended to
Frédéric Brunel, Susan Heckler, and Therese Louie for help-
ful comments on earlier versions of the article.
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a
brand name. New York: Free Press.
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411–454.
Baron, J. (1992). The effect of normative beliefs on anticipated emotions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 320–330.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable dis-
tinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and sta-
tistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Affective responses mediating acceptance of
advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 234–249.
Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand in
brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 214–228.

Brown, S. P., Homer, P. M., & Inman, J. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of rela-
tionships between ad-evoked feelings and advertising responses. Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 35, 114–126.
Conway, M. A., & Bekerian, D. A. (1987). Situational knowledge and emo-
tion. Cognition and Emotion, 1, 145–191.
Deighton, J. (1984). The interaction of advertising and evidence. Journal of
Consumer Research, 11, 763–770.
Edell, J. A., & Burke, M. C. (1987). The power of feelings in understandin g
advertising effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 421–433.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988a). From appraisal to emotion: Differ-
ences among unpleasant feelings. Motivation and Emotion, 12,
271–302.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988b) . Shades of joy: Patterns of ap-
praisal differentiating pleasant emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 2,
301–331.
Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a proto-
type perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
425–438.
Fishbein, M., & Middlestadt, S. (1995). Noncognitive effects on attitude for-
mation and change: Fact or artifact? Journal of Consumer Psychology,
4, 181–202.
Folkes, V. S. (1988). Recent attribution research in consumer behavior: A re-
view and new directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 548–565.
Haley, R. I. (1985). Developing effective communications strategy: A benefit
segmentation approach . New York: Wiley.
Hastak, M., & Olson, J. C. (1989). Assessing the role of brand-related cogni-
tive responses as mediators of communication s effects on cognitive
structure. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 444–456.
Haugtvedt, C. P., & The Consumer Psychology Seminar. (1997). Beyond fact
or artifact: An assessment of Fishbein and Middlestadt’s perspectives
on attitude change processes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6,
99–106.
Heckler, S. E., & Childers, T. L. (1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy
in memory for verbal and visual information: What is incongruency ?
Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 475–492.
Herr, P. M. (1989). Priming price: Prior knowledge and context effects. Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 16, 67–75.
Hoch, S. J., & Ha, Y. W. (1986). Consumer learning: Advertising and the am-
biguity of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13,
221–233.
Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as medi-
ators of consumer responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 14, 404–420.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of
consumption : Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 9, 132–140.
Holbrook, M. B., Lehmann, D., & O’Shaughnessy, J. (1983). Using versus
choosing: The relationship of the consumption experience to reasons for
purchasing. European Journal of Marketing, 20, 49–62.
Izard, C. E. (1992). Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emo-
tion–cognition relations. Psychological Review, 99, 561–565.
Joiner, C., & Loken, B. (1998). The inclusion effect and category-base d in-
duction: Theory and application to brand categories. Journal of Con-
sumer Psychology, 7, 101–129.
Keppel, G. (1973). Design and analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Larsen, R. J., Diener, E., & Cropanzano, R. S. (1987). Cognitive operations
associated with individual differences in affect intensity. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 53, 767–774.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Machleit, K. A., & Sahni, A. (1992). The impact of measurement context on
the relationship between attitude toward the ad and brand attitude for fa-
miliar brands. In J. F. Sherry & B. Sternthal (Eds.), Advances in con-
sumer research (pp. 279–283). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research.
PROMOTING A BRAND’S EMOTION BENEFITS 111
MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from ad-
vertisements: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing,
53, 1–23.
Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In M. S.
Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The 17th annual Carne-
gie symposium on cognition (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual
Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for prod-
uct evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 39–54.
Miniard, P. W., & Barone, M. J. (1997). The case for noncognitive determi-
nants of attitude: A critique of Fishbein and Middlestadt. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 6, 77–91.
Nedungadi, P., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1985). The prototypicality of brands:
Relationships with brand awareness, preference and usage. In E. C.
Hirschman & M. B. Holbrook (Eds.), Advances in consumer research
(pp. 498–503). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Ortony, A., & Turner, T. J. (1990). What’s basic about basic emotions? Psy-
chological Review, 97, 315–331.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and
contemporary approaches . Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kasmer, J. A. (1988). The role of affect in the
elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In H. E. Sypher, L.
Donohew, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Communication, social cognition and
affect (pp. 117–146). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral
routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement.
Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–146.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblance: Studies in the inter-
nal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P.
(1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8,
382–439.
Roy, J. (1958). Step-down procedure in multivariate analysis. Annals in
Mathematical Statistics, 29, 1177–1187.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.
Schlegel, R. P., & DiTecco, D. (1982). Attitudinal structures and the atti-
tude–behavior relationship. In M. Zanna, E. T. Higgins, & S. Herman
(Eds.), Consistency in social behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 2,
pp. 17–49). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Shafir, E. (1995). Compatibility in cognition and decision. In J. Busemeyer,
R. Hastie, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and moti-
vation: Decision making from a cognitive perspective (Vol. 32, pp.
247–274). New York: Academic.
Shafir, E. B., Smith, E. E., & Osherson, D. N. (1990). Typicality and reason-
ing fallacies. Memory & Cognition, 18, 229–239.
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowl-
edge: Further explanation of a prototype approach. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 52, 1061–1086.
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in
emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813–838.
Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Stayman, D. M., Alden, D. L., & Smith, K. A. (1992). Some effects of sche-
matic processing on consumer expectations and disconfirmation judg-
ments. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 240–255.
Sujan, M. (1985). Consumer knowledge: Effects on evaluation strategies me-
diating consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 12,
31–46.
Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying
context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
299–314.
112 RUTH

Walker, B., Celsi, R., & Olson, J. (1987). Exploring the structural characteris- Yi, Y. (1990). Cognitive and affective priming effects of the context for print
tics of consumer’s knowledge. In M. Wallendorf & P. Anderson (Eds.), advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 19, 40–48.
Advances in consumer research (Vol. 14, pp. 17–21). Provo, UT: Asso-
ciation for Consumer Research.
Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1981). Category accessibility: Some theoretical
and empirical issues concerning the processing of social stimulus infor-
mation. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social
cognition: The Ontario symposium on personality and social psychol-
ogy (pp. 161–197). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Accepted by Frank Kardes.

APPENDIX A
Experimental Stimuli

Basic Emotions Experimental Stimuli: Descriptions of Basic Emotions

Joy “My first big experience with a camcorder was really fun. My cousin was getting married, and they had the ceremony and reception
videotaped. My cousin and I’ve always had a great time together, laughing and joking around. When the big day came around, the
whole thing was videotaped with a camcorder. The pictures were clear, and you know, video recordings seem pretty easy to make.
Seeing the videotape later reminded me of what a blast everyone had, including me! All of those people having fun and smiling
and laughing. Everybody was upbeat and positive. A fun time was had by all!”
Affection (love) “My first big experience with a camcorder reaffirmed the special, close relationship I have with my cousin. My cousin was getting
married and she put me in charge of video recording the wedding and reception. They wanted me to be an intimate part of their
special day because I am so close to both of them. Their relationship and my relationship with my cousin knows no limits, no dis-
tance, and no boundaries. When the big day came around, I recorded the whole thing with my camcorder. The pictures were clear,
and you know, video recordings are pretty easy to make. My heart was moved when they gazed into each other’s eyes and said “I
do.” Their demonstration of strong feelings for one another reminded me of my own warm feelings for my cousin.”
Fear “My first big test with a camcorder—I was feeling really nervous and uncertain about the whole thing. My cousin was getting married
and she put me in charge of video recording the wedding and reception. I’d had some experience with camcorders before but not
for something as important as her wedding! I kept thinking, what if the camcorder malfunctions? What if something goes wrong
and we end up with a lousy recording? The uncertainty of something disastrous happening with the camcorder was almost too
much for me. But, when the big day came around, I recorded the whole thing with my camcorder. The pictures were clear, and you
know, video recordings are pretty easy to make. No sweaty palms and no jitters for me on the big day!”
Anger “My first big test with a camcorder —my cousin was getting married and she put me in charge of video recording the wedding and re-
ception. I’d had some experience with camcorders before but not for something as important as her wedding! The only problem
was that the “On” bulb had burnt out. I just couldn’t believe it was letting me down like that! I was gritting my teeth, and trying not
to let it show that things had not turned out as planned. This was not how things were supposed to be, and I felt like tossing the
camcorder in the garbage! I did end up recording the whole thing. The pictures were clear, and you know video recordings are
pretty easy to make —it’s easier, though —when the “On” bulb is working.”
 APPENDIX B
Experimental Manipulations and ABrand Means: Experiment 1

Emotion Benefit Emotion Hedonic Category

Emotion Description Headline/ Taglinea Benefit Congruity Tone Level ABrand M

Joy Joy C + B 4.67

Joy Bliss C + S 4.11
Affection Joy I + B 3.30
Affection Bliss I + S 4.05
Affection Affection C + B 4.33
Affection Tenderness C + S 4.12
Joy Affection I + B 3.87
Joy Tenderness I + S 4.29
Fear Fear C – B 4.13
Fear Anxiety C – S 4.14
Anger Fear I – B 3.72
Anger Anxiety I – S 4.31
Anger Anger C – B 4.86
Anger Exasperation C – S 4.51
Fear Anger I – B 3.13
Fear Exasperation I – S 4.61

Note. ABrand = attitude-toward-the-brand; C = congruent; I = incongruent; B = basic; S = subordinate.

aFor positive emotions, headline was “Capture memories of (emotion) with high-quality pictures—with your Vanguard Camcorder!” The tagline was “Capture

those memories of (emotion).” For negative emotions, the headline was “Capture memories without (emotion) of/from low-quality pictures—with your Vanguard
Camcorder!” The tagline was “Capture those memories without (emotion) of/from low-quality pictures.”

APPENDIX C
Experimental Manipulations and ABrand Means: Experiment 2

Emotion Benefit Emotion Benefit

Emotion Description Headline/ Taglinea Congruity Hedonic Tone Knowledge ABrand M

Joy Joy C + High 4.33

Joy Joy C + Low 5.37
Affection Joy I + High 3.76
Affection Joy I + Low 4.57
Affection Affection C + High 4.53
Affection Affection C + Low 4.03
Joy Affection I + High 4.12
Joy Affection I + Low 4.54
Fear Fear C – High 4.59
Fear Fear C – Low 4.70
Anger Fear I – High 3.51
Anger Fear I – Low 4.91
Anger Anger C – High 4.45
Anger Anger C – Low 4.40
Fear Anger I – High 4.48
Fear Anger I – Low 4.61

Note. ABrand = attitude-toward-the-brand; C = congruent; I = incongruent .

aFor positive emotions, headline was “Capture memories of (emotion) with high-quality pictures—with your Vanguard Camcorder!” The tagline was “Capture

those memories of (emotion).” For negative emotions, the headline was “Capture memories without (emotion) of/from low-quality pictures—with your Vanguard
Camcorder!” The tagline was “Capture those memories without (emotion) of/from low-quality pictures.”

113