The Role of Direction of Comparison, Attribute-Based Processing, and Attitude-Based Processing in Consumer Preference

Preference formation involves comparing brands on specific attributes (attribute-based processing) or in terms of overall evaluations (attitude-based processing). When consumers engage in an attribute-based comparison process, the unique attributes of the focal subject brand are weighed heavily, whereas the unique attributes of the less focal referent brand are neglected. This is because the attributes of the subject are mapped onto the attributes of the referent, rather than vice versa. This direction-of-comparison effect is reduced when consumers engage in attitude-based processing or when high involvement increases motivation to process accessible attributes more thoroughly and systematically. The present research investigates a personality variable, need for cognition, that increases the likelihood of attribute-based (i.e., high need for cognition individuals) versus attitude-based processing (i.e., low need for cognition individuals) and therefore, also affects the magnitude of the direction-of-comparison effect. The direction-of-comparison effect is observed only when attribute-based processing is likely (i.e., when need for cognition is high) and when thorough and systematic processing is unlikely (i.e., when involvement is low). Mediational analyses involving attribute recall and a useful new measure of analytic versus intuitive processing support this dual-process model.

[1]  K. Lewin.  Field theory in social science , 1951 .

[2]  R. Kirk.  Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences , 1970 .

[3]  Daryl J. Bem,et al.  ON PREDICTING SOME OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME: THE SEARCH FOR CROSS-SITUATIONAL CONSISTENCIES IN BEHAVIOR , 1974 .

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

[5]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[6]  J. P. Peter.  Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing Practices , 1981 .

[7]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Methods , 1982 .

[8]  Girish N. Punj,et al.  An Interaction Framework of Consumer Decision Making , 1983 .

[9]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring ☆ , 1983 .

[10]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement , 1983 .

[11]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. , 1983 .

[12]  M. Sujan,et al.  Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments , 1985 .

[13]  T. K. Srull,et al.  Associative storage and retrieval processes in person memory. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  J. Zaichkowsky.  Measuring the Involvement Construct , 1985 .

[15]  Stephen J. Hoch,et al.  Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience , 1986 .

[16]  Frank R. Kardes,et al.  Effects of Initial Product Judgments on Subsequent Memory-Based Judgments , 1986 .

[17]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Communication and persuasion , 1986 .

[18]  Peter H. Bloch,et al.  After the New Wears Off: The Temporal Context of Product Involvement , 1986 .

[19]  R. Hastie,et al.  The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line , 1986 .

[20]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Dimensions of Consumer Expertise , 1987 .

[21]  Richard L. Celsi,et al.  The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes , 1988 .

[22]  David W. Gerbing,et al.  An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment , 1988 .

[23]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Choices from Sets Including Remembered Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations , 1988 .

[24]  Stephen J. Hoch,et al.  Ambiguity, Processing Strategy, and Advertising-Evidence Interactions , 1989 .

[25]  T. K. Srull,et al.  Memory and Cognition in Its Social Context , 1989 .

[26]  Steven J. Sherman,et al.  The influence of unique features and direction of comparison of preferences , 1989 .

[27]  Steven L. Neuberg,et al.  A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation , 1990 .

[28]  Wayne D. Hoyer,et al.  Promotion Signal: Proxy for a Price Cut? , 1990 .

[29]  R. Fazio,et al.  The role of attitudes in memory-based decision making. , 1990, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[30]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  Involvement and Persuasion: Tradition Versus Integration , 1990 .

[31]  H. Arkes.  Costs and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for debiasing. , 1991 .

[32]  Bryan Gibson,et al.  The role of attribute knowledge and overall evaluations in comparative judgment , 1991 .

[33]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Ignoring Irrelevant Information: Situational Determinants of Consumer Learning , 1991 .

[34]  S. Ratneshwar,et al.  The Effect of Cultural Orientation on Persuasion , 1997 .

[35]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. , 1992 .

[36]  R. Dhar,et al.  The Effect of the Focus of Comparison on Consumer Preferences , 1992 .

[37]  Edward F. McQuarrie,et al.  How Enduring and Situational Involvement Combine to Create Involvement Responses , 1992 .

[38]  Curtis P. Haugtvedt,et al.  Need for Cognition and Advertising: Understanding the Role of Personality Variables in Consumer Behavior , 1992 .

[39]  William R. Swinyard,et al.  The Effects of Mood, Involvement, and Quality of Store Experience on Shopping Intentions , 1993 .

[40]  F. Kardes,et al.  Direction of comparison, expected feature correlation, and the set-size effect in preference judgment , 1993 .

[41]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[42]  R. Petty,et al.  Elaboration as a Determinant of Attitude Strength: Creating Attitudes That Are Persistent, Resistant, and Predictive of Behavior , 1995 .

[43]  Steven J. Sherman,et al.  Cancellation and focus: the role of shared and unique features in the choice process , 1995 .

[44]  Yong Zhang,et al.  Responses to Humorous Advertising: The Moderating Effect of Need for Cognition , 1996 .

[45]  W. Mischel.  Personality and Assessment , 1996 .

[46]  I. Simonson,et al.  Attribute–Task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals: , 1997 .

[47]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  DISPOSITIONAL DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE MOTIVATION : THE LIFE AND TIMES OF INDIVIDUALS VARYING IN NEED FOR COGNITION , 1996 .