from a brook to a stream: the case of schema research ronald c. goodstein presentation to gmu...
TRANSCRIPT
From a Brook to a Stream:From a Brook to a Stream:The Case of Schema ResearchThe Case of Schema Research
Ronald C. Goodstein
Presentation to GMU
December 2003
Road MapRoad Map
Schema Research
Application (s1)
Extension (s1 & s2)
Integration (s2)
Future Research
Basics of Schema TheoryBasics of Schema Theory
Stimulus Evoked Category
Match Mismatch
Schema Triggered AffectSchema Triggered Affect (Fiske 1982, Fiske and Neuberg 1990, Fiske and Pavelchak 1986)
“If relatively category-oriented processes are successful, then the perceiver goes no further toward more attribute-oriented processes.
Match MismatchCategory-based Piecemeal
Low motivation High motivation
Category Affect
Target AttributeEvaluation
Target
Might This Describe Ad Might This Describe Ad Processing?Processing?
Consumers exposed to 2000 ads dailyDevelop heuristic to ease the processing loadObservations are that default is to tune out, rather than to watch as we do in forced lab testsMotivation is needed to get consumers to processIncongruity is a motivating factor in processing.
Hypothesis 1 - ApplicationHypothesis 1 - Application
When an ad is discrepant from category expectation, relative to when it is consistent, it will motivate more extensive processing.
Might There Be Reasons to Might There Be Reasons to Watch a “Typical” Ad?Watch a “Typical” Ad?
A variety of factors might attenuate the relationship between incongruity and evaluations (Mandler 1982)
Strong Priors Meyers-Levy & Tybout 1989
Goals Keller 1991
Values
+
=
-
Hypothesis 2 - ExtensionHypothesis 2 - Extension
When an ad is consistent with category expectation, and as its category affect increases, it will motivate more extensive processing.
Hypothesis 3 - ExtensionHypothesis 3 - Extension
When an ad is consistent with category expectation, and processing goals are brand, versus ad-oriented, it will motivate more extensive processing.
MethodologyMethodologyPretest- Picking Ads
Phase 1- Ad Schema and Affect
Phase 2- 302 undergrads
6 ads – 3 typical/atypical
Instructions – ad vs. brand
Measures- Cognitive Responses; Catg. Responses; Affect Consistency; Evaluative Consistency; Time Watched; Recall
ResultsResultsHypothesis 1 – Atypical vs. Typical
More CRs; Fewer Catg. Resp; Less Affect Rltn.; Lower Evaluative Rltn.; Longer Viewing; Better Recall
Hypothesis 2 – Typical:+ vs. – Less Affect Rltn.; Lower Evaluative Rltn.;
Longer Viewing; Better Recall
Hypothesis 3 – Typical: Brand vs. AdLonger Viewing; Better Recall
Discussion & ImplicationsDiscussion & Implications
STA applies to advertising domain (CB)
STA ignores “affect” as a motivator (Psych)
Consumers’ reason for watching matters (CB)
In dichotomous world, categorization leads to positive evaluations…but multiple levels may exist (Mandler 1982; Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989)
Don’t adopt models as “gospel” (next paper)
Negative Evaluations Inverted-U Relationship
What Happens to Moderately What Happens to Moderately Incongruent Stimuli?Incongruent Stimuli?
e.g., Carpenter and Nakamoto 1989; Ward and Loken 1987; Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998
e.g., Mandler 1982; Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989;Peracchio and Tybout 1996
How Do We Reconcile the How Do We Reconcile the Differences? Differences?
Back to Mandler (1982)A variety of factors might attenuate the
relationship between incongruity and evaluations (Mandler 1982)
Strong PriorsGoalsValues
+
=
-
How Might This Work? How Might This Work? The process of resolving a moderate incongruity is seen as stimulating and enjoyable. Alter ability
Prior knowledge (Peracchio and Tybout 1996)
Alter enjoyment Risk (Campbell and Goodstein
1997) Alter motivation
Integrating Risk into the ModelIntegrating Risk into the Model
Risk is central to consumers’ evaluations (Dowling 1999)
High risk Brand names (Erdem 1998)
High risk Less variety seeking (Inman et al. JMR)
Risk Types – e.g., Financial; Social; Performance; Psychological
(Shimp and Bearden 1982)
Risk Moderates the Relationship Risk Moderates the Relationship
Moderately incongruent stimuli are evaluated negatively when social risk is high.
Low Risk High Risk
Summary of Study 1Summary of Study 1Study 1: 2 x 2 btw subjects
RiskLow = buy to have around the house
High = buy to take to a dinner at a potential employer’s home (p < .01)
CongruityCongruent = green, cylindrical
Moderate = green, triangular (p < .001)
MeasuresProduct attitudes ( = .95)
Purchase intentions
Manipulation checks (risk = .80; congru = .82)
Category experience
Age and gender
ResultsResults 5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
4.71
3.63; F<1, n.s.
4.58
2.56; F = 21.36, p < .001
Attd.
Congruent Moderately Incongruent
F = 6.01, p < .02
Low Risk
High Risk
Summary of Study 2Summary of Study 2Study 2: 2 x 2 btw subjects
Risk Low = buy to have at home High = buy to take to a picnic with friends of significant other... (p < .01)
Congruity …9 point scale Congruent = 12 oz. can (2.90) Moderate = 12 oz. sports bottle (5.01; F = 13.80,
p < .001)Measures
Product attitudes ( = .94)Purchase intentions
Manipulation checks (risk = .85; congru = .70)Covariates
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
4.66 4.67; F<1, n.s.
5.10
4.00; F = 8.82, p < .004
Attd.
Congruent Moderately Incongruent
F = 4.23, p < .04Low Risk
High Risk
ResultsResults
DiscussionDiscussion
Congruent and moderately incongruent packages evaluated similarly under low risk.
Congruent packages are preferred under high risk.
No “moderate incongruity effect!” Tybout (1997)…Tybout (1997)…
““Did they resolve?”Did they resolve?”
Alternate RationalesAlternate RationalesCongruity is unresolved
Perhaps risk makes it too difficult to resolve the incongruity … ability (Tybout 1997)
Consumer is overly stimulatedPerhaps risk + novelty = too much, so cut off
processing with risk … motivation (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1992)
Conservatism prevails Risk yields a preference for the norm …enjoyment (Erdem 1998)
Reviewer Police
Study 3: 3 x 2 btw subjectsRisk
No = simple evaluation Low = buy to have at home High = buy to take to a picnic with friends
of significant other... (p < .01)
Congruity …9 point scale Congruent = 12 oz. can (2.90) Moderate = 12 oz. sports bottle (p < .001)
MeasuresSame… plus COGNTIVE RESPONSESCOGNTIVE RESPONSES
Summary of Study 3Summary of Study 3
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
4.504.07
5.10; F = 3.50, p < .06
4.69
4.57; F < 1, ns
3.54; F = 3.11, p < .08Attd.
Congruent Moderately Incongruent
F = 2.68, p < .10
F = 11.25, p < .001
No Risk
Low Risk
High Risk
ResultsResults
Congruent c Moderatec
No Risk Unresolved .10 .19
Low Risk
Unresolved .07 .12
High Risk
Unresolved .00 .07
a = p < .01b = p < .05c = p < .10
Cognitive Response Analysis - Cognitive Response Analysis - ResolutionResolution
Congruent Moderate
No Risk Totalc 1.56 1.47
Curious .30 .44a
Low Risk
Totala, c 1.79 1.71
Curiousb .39b .20a, b
High Risk
Totala 1.34 1.35
Curiousb .19 .07
a = p < .01b = p < .05c = p < .10
Cognitive Response Analysis Cognitive Response Analysis – Optimal Stimulation– Optimal Stimulation
a = p < .01b = p < .05c = p < .10
Congruent Moderate
No RiskConservative .03 .00
Low Riska
Conservative .04a .05a
High Riska
Conservative .52a, b .66a, b
Cognitive Response Analysis - Cognitive Response Analysis - ConservatismConservatism
Study 4: 2 x 2 btw subjectsRisk
No = simple evaluation High = buy to take to a picnic with friends
of significant other... (p < .01)
Congruity …9 point scale Congruent = 12 oz. can (2.90) Moderate = 12 oz. sports bottle (p < .001)
MeasuresSame… plus preference for norm scales
… Change Seeking Index
Summary of Study 4Summary of Study 4
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
4.20
3.64
4.72; F = 3.90, p < .05
2.97; F = 6.43, p < .01
Attd.
Congruent Moderately Incongruent
No Risk
High Risk
ResultsResults
Process AnalysisProcess Analysis
CSI … No
Preference for norm… Yes, matched evaluation analyses.
Views of Incongruity… No
DiscussionDiscussion
Moderate incongruity effect found in packaging domain.
Moderate incongruity effect occurs for judgment, but not choice.
Reason… Conservatism = Preference for
the Norm
ConclusionsConclusions“Mandler effect” may be accepted too liberally in consumer domain.Moderate incongruity effects are strongly attenuated by any social risk.Conservatism has the power to explain many CB effects e.g., COO, brand preference, variety seekingNeed to include purchase occasions in choice processes as this is an important positioning strategy.
What’s on the Horizon?What’s on the Horizon?Look for areas from psychology or marketing that integrate with the schema (fit) idea.Ethnicity in advertising (with Del
Vecchio)Thematic matching (with Kalra)Cue consistency (with Miyazaki
and Grewal)Looking for new ideas!!