Familiarity Breeds Ambivalence

One goal of most corporate marketing strategies is to make stakeholders more familiar with the corporation. The implicit assumption behind these strategies is that familiarity leads to positive outcomes – particularly in the context of firm reputation. Although evidence for a positive effect of familiarity on reputation is inconclusive at best, the effect has remained part of the conventional wisdom in brand image research. This paper presents theory and research from business (eg, management, marketing, consumer research) and psychology (eg, judgment and decision making, cognitive, social, and industrial/organizational psychology), aimed at clarifying the theoretical connection between familiarity and firm reputation. We point to theoretical and empirical evidence that challenges the conventional wisdom of a positive effect of familiarity on firm reputation. We suggest that familiarity is often associated with ambivalence about organizations, and thus can be seen as both a blessing and a curse.

[1]  I. Katz.  Some Thoughts about the Stigma Notion , 1979 .

[2]  Alan J. Dubinsky,et al.  Effect of brand name on consumers' risk perceptions of online shopping , 2004 .

[3]  J. Downs,et al.  Why some are perceived as more confident and more insecure, more reckless and more cautious, more trusting and more suspicious, than others: Enriched and impoverished options in social judgment , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[4]  C. Fombrun,et al.  What's in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy , 1990 .

[5]  B. Monin.  The warm glow heuristic: when liking leads to familiarity. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  M. Zanna,et al.  Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: when and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  R. Zajonc.  Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[8]  D. Hebb.  Textbook of psychology , 1958 .

[9]  Larry L. Cummings,et al.  Organizational Climates for Creativity , 1965 .

[10]  C. J. Taylor,et al.  Factors affecting behavior toward people with disabilities. , 1998, The Journal of social psychology.

[11]  Michael G. Pratt,et al.  Transforming Work-Family Conflict into Commitment in Network Marketing Organizations , 2003 .

[12]  M. Zanna,et al.  Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. , 1995 .

[13]  Scott Highhouse,et al.  Familiarity, ambivalence, and firm reputation: is corporate fame a double-edged sword? , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[14]  N. Schwarz.  Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making , 2004 .

[15]  Robert P. Leone,et al.  Temporal Aggregation, the Data Interval Bias, and Empirical Estimation of Bimonthly Relations from Annual Data , 1983 .

[16]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  Effects of message Repetition on Argument Processing, Recall, and Persuasion , 1989 .

[17]  Steven P. Brown,et al.  Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common, Repeat-Purchase Product , 1990 .

[18]  K. Mcgraw,et al.  Ambivalence, Uncertainty, and Processes of Candidate Evaluation , 2003 .

[19]  Daniel M. Cable,et al.  Establishing the dimensions, sources and value of job seekers' employer knowledge during recruitment , 2001 .

[20]  V. Esses,et al.  Ambivalence and Response Amplification: A Motivational Perspective , 2002 .

[21]  A. Tesser.  Self-Generated Attitude Change , 1978 .

[22]  Maureen A. Scully,et al.  Crossroads Tempered Radicalism and the Politics of Ambivalence and Change , 1995 .

[23]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Attitudes as temporary constructions , 1992 .

[24]  J. Slaughter,et al.  ASSESSING COMPANY EMPLOYMENT IMAGE: AN EXAMPLE IN THE FAST FOOD INDUSTRY , 1999 .

[25]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[26]  P. Slovic.  The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

[27]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Compatibility in Cognition and Decision , 1995 .

[28]  R. Bornstein.  Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. , 1989 .

[29]  Grahame R. Dowling,et al.  Managing your corporate images , 1986 .

[30]  Daniel B. Turban,et al.  Organizational Attractiveness as an Employer on College Campuses: An Examination of the Applicant Population , 2001 .

[31]  J. Langlois,et al.  What Is Average and What Is Not Average About Attractive Faces? , 1994 .

[32]  A. Tversky,et al.  Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. , 1990 .

[33]  D. Bromley.  Reputation, image, and impression management , 1993 .

[34]  R. Petty,et al.  Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal ambivalence: interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  Mary A. Gowan,et al.  Corporate Image, Recruitment Image And Initial Job Choice Decisions , 1993 .

[36]  Frank M. Bass,et al.  Testing Distributed Lag Models of Advertising Effect , 1972 .

[37]  W. E. Baker,et al.  When Can Affective Conditioning and Mere Exposure Directly Influence Brand Choice , 1999 .

[38]  J. Rempel,et al.  Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. , 1988 .

[39]  C. Fombrun,et al.  USA: For Better or Worse — The Most Visible American Corporate Reputations , 2002 .

[40]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[41]  I. Chow,et al.  Organizational attractiveness of firms in the People's Republic of China: a person-organization fit perspective. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[42]  John M. T. Balmer,et al.  Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing ‐ Seeing through the fog , 2001 .

[43]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Mood and Persuasion: Affective States Influence the Processing of Persuasive Communications , 1991 .

[44]  N. Schwarz.  Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. , 1999 .

[45]  Eliot R. Smith.  Mental representation and memory. , 1998 .

[46]  D. Zohar.  Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications. , 1980, The Journal of applied psychology.