Familiarity, ambivalence, and firm reputation: is corporate fame a double-edged sword?

This research questioned the proposition that corporate familiarity is positively associated with firm reputation. Student images of familiar and unfamiliar Fortune 500 corporations were examined in 4 experiments. The results suggested that, consistent with behavioral decision theory and attitude theory, highly familiar corporations provide information that is more compatible with the tasks of both admiring and condemning than less familiar corporations. Furthermore, the judgment context may determine whether positive or negative judgments are reported about familiar companies. The notion that people can simultaneously hold contradictory images of well-known firms may help to explain the inconsistent findings on the relation between familiarity and reputation.

[1]  P. Linville,et al.  The complexity–extremity effect and age-based stereotyping. , 1982 .

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

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

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

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

[6]  C. W. Park,et al.  Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer Decision Biases and Heuristics , 1981 .

[7]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  The disruptive effects of explaining attitudes: The moderating effect of knowledge about the attitude object , 1989 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[16]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Memory and cognition , 1977 .

[17]  K. Kaplan.  On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. , 1972 .

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

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

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

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

[22]  John J. Skowronski,et al.  Trait memory and behavior memory: the effects of alternative pathways on impression judgment response times. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[24]  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.

[25]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  Relying on the Information of Interested Parties , 1985 .

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

[27]  Kimihiko Yamagishi.  Proximity, Compatibility, and Noncomplementarity in Subjective Probability , 2002 .

[28]  D. Turban,et al.  Corporate Social Performance And Organizational Attractiveness To Prospective Employees , 1997 .

[29]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  Dynamics of Competitive Strategy , 1992 .

[30]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[31]  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.

[32]  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.

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

[34]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

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

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