- Email: [email protected]
Promotions Spontaneously Induce a Positive Evaluative Response
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 16(3),295-305 Copyright O 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Promotions Spontaneously Induce a Positive Evaluative Response Rebecca Walker Naylor University of South Carolina
Rajagopal Raghunathan The University of Texas at Austin
Suresh Ramanathan University of Chicago
Research has suggested that conscious cognitive processes mediate positive responses to promotions. In contrast, we find that exposure to promotional stimuli evokes a positive evaluative reaction spontaneously and that this reaction generalizes to products that are evaluated subsequently. Three experiments support our predictions and rule out alternative possibilities. Specifically, we find that promotions spontaneously evoke positive evaluative responses and that these responses mediate liking for a target product. Our findings also identify conditions under which promotion-generated evaluative responses are transferred to products unrelated to the promotion and indicate the type of product categories that are likely to produce this effect. The theoretical and substantive implications of this research are discussed.
Sales promotions have attracted significant attention in recent years (e.g., Bagozzi, Baumgartner, & Yi, 1992; Chandon, Wansink, & Laurent, 2000; Heilman, Nakamoto, & Rao, 2002; Inman, McAlister, & Hoyer, 1990; Inman, Peter, & Raghubir, 1997; Wansink, Kent, & Hoch, 1998). Some of this work has established that consumers are notoriously susceptible to the influence of promotional stimuli. For example, placing a sale sign on an item leads to increased demand for that item even when its price is not actually lower (Inman et al., 1990).Furthermore, consumers tend to comply with signs that prompt them to behave in a certain manner (Wansink et al., 1998); for instance, signs that suggest buying "12 [Snickers bars] for your freezer" increase sales of that item. Many researchers have assumed that conscious cognitive processes mediate the increase in purchase likelihood generated by exposure to promotional stimuli. Inman et al. (1990), for instance, hypothesized that exposure to promotional stimuli increases the perceived monetary benefits from pro-
curing promoted items. Similarly, Wansink et al. (1998) suggested an anchoring and adjustment model of purchase behavior in which consumers obey behaviors suggested by in-store signs. Models proposed by other researchers (e.g., Bagozzi et al., 1992; Inman et al., 1997) are conceptually compatible with a cognitive mediation explanation. Even those who suggested a role for affect in the link between promotions and increased purchase likelihood (e.g., Chandon et al., 2000) explicitly or implicitly assumed that conscious cognitive processes (e.g., choosing to participate in a sweepstakes because doing so is entertaining) lead to the experience of affect. In this research, we suggest an alternative model based on the idea that exposure to promotional stimuli (e.g., a "Sale" sign, a "10% off' sign) generates a spontaneous evaluative response that is not mediated by conscious cognitive processes. This response is then used as information in evaluating products that are considered later, resulting in more posi-
Correspondence should be addressed to Rajagopal Raghunathan, McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station B6700, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: Raj.Raghunathan@ mccombs.utexas.edu
'To the best of our knowledge, only Heilman et al. (2002) proposed and demonstrated that promotional stimuli may evoke affect directly (without cognitive mediation). The differences between their model and the one presented in this research are highlighted in the general discussion section.
296
NAYLOR, RAGHUNATHAN, RAMANATHAN
tive evaluations of these products. A particularly intriguing aspect of our model is that exposure to promotional stimuli can increase liking not only for the promoted product but also for products unrelated to the promotion. Results of three experiments provide support for our thesis.
TWO-STAGE MODEL OF PROMOTION GENERATED POSITIVE EVALUATIONS Figure 1 details the processes by which exposure to promotional stimuli results in enhanced evaluations for target products. In the first stage, exposure to promotional stimuli is posited to spontaneously generate positive evaluative responses. Although affective reactions to some stimuli (e.g., babies, snakes) are relatively automatic, reactions to other stimuli (e.g., money, food to which one is allergic) often require some reflection (e.g., Bechara, Tranel, & Damasio, 2000; Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2002; Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999, 2002; see Damasio, 1994, and LeDoux, 1996, for reviews). Nevertheless, these reactions can also become relatively automatic through conditioning (e.g., Gorn, 1982; Shimp, 1991; Shimp, Stuart, & Engle, 1991). The results of several neurological studies are consistent with this proposal. For example, Bechara et al. (2000; see also LeDoux, 1996) indicated that exposure to dollar bills and to such abstract concepts as winning can spontaneously evoke a spike in the pleasantness response. This is because these stimuli have repeatedly been associated with positive outcomes in the past and, as such, positive affective responses are conditioned to be evoked on exposure to them. A similar mechanism may underlie the effects of exposure to promotional stimuli. Because consumers are likely to have repeatedly associated promotional stimuli with the type of positive outcomes outlined in previous research (e.g., Chandon et al., 2000; Inman et al., 1990) (e.g., monetary savings or the perception of oneself as a "smart shopper," etc.),
STAGE 1
positive evaluative responses may become conditioned to such stimuli. Thus: HI: Exposure to promotional stimuli will spontaneously evoke a positive evaluative response. As depicted in Stage 2 of our model, we posit that the positive evaluative responses evoked by exposure to promotional stimuli produce an enhanced evaluation of target products, in a manner similar to the use of affect as information in judging stimuli (cf. Schwarz & Clore, 1983; see also Gorn, Goldberg, & Basu, 1993; Pham, 1998; Raghunathan, Pham, & Corfman, 2006; Yeung & Wyer, 2004, 2005). In particular, exposure to promotional stimuli may produce more positive evaluations of not only the promoted product but also, under suitable conditions, products that are proximal to the promotional stimuli. According to an affect-as-information conceptualization (Schwarz & Clore, 1996), people make judgments by inspecting their feelings and interpreting what these feelings mean for the issue at hand. Thus, temporarily activated feelings can be transferred to a target product, resulting in affect-congruent evaluations of this product (e.g., Gorn et al., 1993; Pham, 1998; Raghunathan et al., 2006). As a result of this process, the affect generated by one source (e.g., finding a $10 bill) can often be misattributed to objectively unrelated target stimuli (e.g., one's television set) and, therefore, can influence evaluations of these stimuli. In the context used here, this implies that if promotional stimuli elicit a positive evaluative response, they might influence evaluations even of products unrelated to the promotional stimuli. In typical experiments, the relevance of one's feelings for evaluating a target product is varied by stimulating some participants to attribute their feelings to a source that was clearly unrelated to the object to be evaluated (e.g., Gorn et al., 1993; Pham, 1998; Raghunathan et al., 2006). In this regard, Stapel, Koomen, and Ruys (2002) found that when participants were
STAGE 2 r----------------------------------------------
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
: [
I I I I I
Exposure to Promotional Stimuli
L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
:
I I
b I
: I I I
Spontaneous Evaluative Response
-
j
I
I I I
Enhanced Target Product b Evaluations
I I I
1----------------------------------------------:
Relevance and Representativeness FIGURE 1 Two-stage model of promotion-generated evaluation transfer.
[ j
I I I
PROMOTIONS AND EVALUATIONS
exposed to affect-eliciting primes for a long duration, they were able to discriminate the features and object boundaries of their feelings, leading to more target-specific reactions. However, extremely short exposures to the affect-generating primes activated a more diffuse, unspecified, and free-floating affective reaction. Based on these arguments, we expect that: H2: As the duration of exposure to promotions decreases, the likelihood that reactions to promotion-related targets will generalize to promotion-unrelated targets will increase. Note that the implications of this hypothesis and the reasons underlying it conflict with the conceptualizations of promotion effects proposed by Inman et al. (1990) and Wansink et al. (1998). If the type of conscious cognitive mechanism outlined by these conceptualizations were the sole operational mechanism driving responses to promotions, then exposure to promotional stimuli should result in people consciously considering the benefits of the promoted products, leading to more positive evaluations for only those products that are related to the promotion and not to those that are unrelated to them. Three experiments provided support for our hypotheses. Experiments 1 and 2 relied on implicit process measures to provide evidence that exposure to promotional stimuli spontaneously evokes positive evaluative responses. Experiment 2 also showed that the promotion-generated evaluative responses are transferred to target products in the way suggested by H2. Experiment 3 used explicit measures to provide more direct evidence that affective reactions to promotional stimuli result in increased liking for the promoted product.
EXPERIMENT 1: IMPLICIT POSITIVE ASSOCIATIONS If exposure to promotional stimuli spontaneously evokes positive evaluative responses, it should spontaneously activate semantic concepts that pertain to these reactions (e.g., joy, happiness). The Implicit Association Test (IAT; cf. Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998), which has been used to test the strength of implicit associations between concepts (e.g., Brunel, Tietje, & Greenwald, 2004; Maison, Greenwald, & Bruin, 2004), was used to evaluate this possibility.
Method Participants and procedure. Sixty-one undergraduates participated in this experiment for extra course credit. Participants were told that we were interested in assessing their reactions to various types of stimuli, including marketing-
297
related stimuli and words from the English language. They were further told that their task was to correctly assign stimuli shown on a computer screen to an appropriate category. The experiment was run on IBM computers using MediaLab and Direct RT software. Participants completed a set of 180 categorization trials. On each trial, they classified a randomly presented stimulus into one of four categories. Stimuli were chosen from one of four categories: (a) pictures of in-store promotions (e.g., a "10% off' sign, a "Sale" sign), (b) pictures of other marketing material (e.g., a billboard, a shopping cart), (c) pleasant words (e.g., joy, delight), or (d) neutral words (e.g., regulal; flat). Each category consisted of six or more stimuli (see Appendix A for a complete listing of stimuli). The "other marketing material" category was included to demonstrate that exposure to promotional stimuli evokes a more positive evaluative response than do other types of marketing stimuli. On each trial, the computer screen provided categorization labels on the top left and top right of the screen. There were four (within-subjects) categorization label conditions: (a) pleasant versus neutral, (b) promotion versus other marketing, (c) pleasantlpromotion versus neutrallother marketing, and (d) neutrallpromotion versus pleasadother marketing. Thus, in Condition 1, the word pleasant appeared on one side of the computer screen and the word neutral on the other side. In Condition 2, the word promotion appeared on one side of the screen and other marketing on the other. In Condition 3 (congruent condition), both pleasant and promotion appeared on one side of the screen and both neutral and other marketing on the other side. Finally, in Condition 4 (incongruent condition), both pleasant and other marketing appeared on one side, and both neutral and promotion on the other. Participants were asked to categorize stimuli that appeared in the middle of the screen into the correct category. Thus, if the word joy was presented, the participants' task was to categorize this word into the pleasant (and not into the neutral) category. Likewise, if a "Sale" sign was displayed at the center of the screen, their task was to categorize the presented stimulus into the promotion (and not into the other marketing) category, and so on. (For obvious reasons, the promotion vs. other marketing labels were not used when the target stimulus was a word, and positive versus neutral labels were not used when the target stimulus was a marketing stimulus.) Participants were asked to respond as quickly as possible to the target stimulus by pressing the "Z" key if the correct category label was on the left side of the screen and the "r' key if the correct answer was on the right side of the screen. Response times were recorded from the onset of the target stimulus to its classification. If a participant responded correctly, the next target was presented on the screen. If a target was incorrectly classified, a red X appeared below the target, indicating an error, and remained on screen until the participant responded correctly.
298
NAYLOR, RAGHUNATHAN, RAMANATHAN
Participants completed seven blocks of trials, five of which were designed to familiarize participants with both the target stimuli and the category labels. The critical blocks for analysis were Block 4, in which promotional stimuli were displayed and the category labels were promotiodpleasant versus other marketinglneutral (congruent condition), and Block 7, in which promotional stimuli were displayed and the category labels were promotiodneutral and other marketinglpleasant (incongruent condition). A strong positive feeling toward sales promotions would be reflected in faster responses when promotional stimuli were to be categorized in the congruent condition than in the incongruent condition.
Data preparation. Following the revised IAT scoring algorithm (Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003), we collated the data according to the following criteria: (a) trial response latencies greater than 10,000 msec were eliminated (of the 4,960 responses, none was above this threshold), (b) participants whose response times were less than 300 msec on more than 10% of the trials were excluded (2 of the 61 participants were discarded using this criterion), and (c) all response latencies including those for false responses were included. To arrive at an index of association (Cohen's d), a difference score was computed between the two critical blocks of trials ([promotionslpleasant and other marketinglneutral] - [promotionslneutral and other marketinglpleasant]) and divided by the standard deviations of response latencies across both blocks (Cohen, 1977).
Results and Discussion Response latencies were significantly lower when promotional stimuli were presented in the congruent versus incongruent condition. The mean response time for the block pairing pleasant words with promotional stimuli was 763.6 msec, whereas that for the block pairing neutral words with promotional stimuli was 1,114.7 msec. The index of association based on this difference in response time was significant (D = 0.805, SD = .048, t[58] = 16.61, p < .0001, d = 1.54). Results from Experiment 1 are consistent with our thesis that exposure to promotional stimuli generates a positive evaluative response. The fact that participants responded significantly faster to promotional stimuli when the stimuli were to be categorized as promotiodpleasant versus other marketinglneutral suggests that consumers have a readily accessible association between promotional stimuli and semantic concepts related to positive feelings. Further, the finding that exposure to stimuli that are specifically promotional-as opposed to other types of marketing stimuli-evoked faster response times when paired with pleasant words supports our thesis that promotional stimuli have had a history of positive associations to a greater extent than have other marketing stimuli. Finally, the fact that our results were obtained using the IAT procedure indicates that the association between pron~otionalstimuli and positive feelings is implicit and, there-
fore, that exposure to promotional stimuli spontaneously evokes positive evaluative responses.
EXPERIMENT 2: EVALUATION TRANSFER AND INFORMATIONAL DISCOUNTING As some researchers (e.g., Brunel et al., 2004) have commented, the IAT procedure suffers from some limitations and it therefore is important to replicate the results of Experiment 1 using a different procedure. A second objective of Experiment 2 was to demonstrate that the positive evaluative responses to promotional stimuli are used as information in evaluating target products. As discussed earlier, findings from Stapel et al. (2002) indicate that whereas very short exposures to affect-laden stimuli evoke a diffuse and free-floating affective reaction, longer exposures to such stimuli evoke object-specific reactions that have more clearly defined boundaries. These findings suggest that at long durations of exposure to promotional stimuli, positive evaluations will be elicited for only the promoted brand and not for those unrelated to the promotion. However, very short durations of exposure to promotional stimuli will elicit positive evaluations for all brands, regardless of whether they were related to the promotion (H2). This experiment provided support for this prediction.
Method Overview. Participants took part in 72 experimental trials conducted on IBM computers. In each trial, participants were first exposed to either a promotional or a nonpromotional prime for either a short (subliminal, 28 msec) or a long (supraliminal, 350 msec) duration. The primes were presented along with one of six brands that were known to have moderately positive evaluations. Thus, each prime featured either a promotional or a nonpromotional cue, accompanied by one of six brands, making 12 prime--brand combinations in all. Then, participants were shown a target brand name on screen that either had accompanied the prime (related condition) or had not (unrelated condition). We thus crossed type of prime and relatedness of target within subjects while manipulating the time of exposure between subjects. Participants were told that their task was to enunciate the target brand name into a microphone (placed before them) as quickly as possible. The time it took for the participant to respond (from the onset of the brand name on the computer screen) was recorded and was the key dependent variable. This process was repeated for each of the subsequent trials of the experiment. Design and participants. The design of the study was a 2 (exposure duration: short vs. long) x 2 (stimulus prime: promotion vs. nonpromotion) x 2 (target: related vs. unrelated to promotion) factorial, with the latter two factors var-
PROMOTIONS AND EVALUATIONS
ied within subjects. Sixty-four undergraduate students at a large Midwestern university participated in the main experiment for a monetary compensation of $4. Data were excluded from four of the students because they did not meet our criterion for number of years lived in the United States, which was at least 10 years. Thirty-two of the participants were assigned to the short-exposure condition and the remaining 28 to the long-exposure condition.
Stimuli. Six pictures of coupons (created using Macromedia Fireworks software) that said either "$ off' or "% off' were used as promotional primes. Six similar stimuli with the same numerical value but instead signifying the volume or count of the brand were used as nonpromotional primes. Each prime appeared along with an image of one of six brand names. Thus, for example, a promotional prime for Minute Maid juice featured a picture of a 10 oz bottle of this brand along with the words 10% off in a bold, 36-point font and a border with dashed lines, typical of a coupon. The analogous nonpromotional prime condition featured the same brand with the words 10 oz. Examples of the promotional and nonpromotional primes are shown in Appendix B. Pretests. Two pretests were conducted to identify suitable brand names and promotional and nonpromotional primes for use in the main experiment. In the first pretest, which was conducted to identify brand names, 30 participants were shown the names of 15 brands across different product categories. Each brand name appeared on a large index card, and participants were asked to indicate how positive and how favorable they felt toward the brand along scales from 1 (very negative/unfavorable) to 7 (very positive/favorable). Participants also indicated their familiarity with the brand along a scale from 1 (very unfamiliar) to 7 (veryfamiliar). The brands we chose to use in the main experiment had a mean evaluation between 4 and 5 and a familiarity rating of 4.0 or greater. We chose brands with moderately positive evaluations to ensure that the brand names themselves did not serve as implicit cues about the valence of the targets (Bargh, Chaiken, Raymond, & Hymes, 1996). That is, brands that evoke extreme positive or negative evaluations may either prime an evaluative goal or signal to participants that the experiment had something to do with evaluating the brand, a factor that could lead to a confound, at least in the supraliminal condition. Based on these results, Dove, Taster's Choice, Brawny, Colgate, Minute Maid, and Suave were selected for use as the brands in this experiment. The second pretest was conducted to ensure that the promotional stimuli identified for use in the main experiment were indeed favorably evaluated. In this pretest, participants (n = 20) were either shown images of coupons with the words $2 off or 10% off or the words 2-pack or 10 oz. These were very similar to the stimuli used in the main experiment but appeared without the brand names. We used numerical controls for our main experiment because many shopping stimuli
299
often contain numerical cues such as pack sizes, with which people may be as familiar as they are with coupons, thus providing a natural check for a fluency-based alternative explanation for our predicted pattern of results. In addition, these cues provide a control for effects due to exposure to the numbers 2 and 10. Participants were then asked to report their feelings toward each stimulus along a scale from 1 (very negative) to 7 (very positive). Promotion-related stimuli were rated more highly than neutral ones (4.72 vs. 3.74, respectively), F(1, 18) = 29.80, p < .001, confirming that the primes worked as intended.
Procedure. Participants, run individually, were seated in front of a computer to which a microphone was connected. The sensitivity of the microphone was preset so that when a participant enunciated a word louder than a particular level, the response would be registered by the software monitoring the input. Participants were informed that the experiment concerned how consumers pronounced brand names. They were told that the name of a brand would appear on the screen and their task was to pronounce the name as quickly as possible into the microphone. No specific instructions were given regarding the appearance of the primes. Participants were given 10 practice trials to ensure they understood the procedure. We created six blocks of 12 trials each. Six trials in each block were with promotion-related primes, and the other six were with neutral primes. A different brand was chosen as focal in each trial block, and the promotion and neutral primes in the block featured this brand. The trials on which the target and primed brand were identical were held constant (specifically, 4th and 10th) over the six trial blocks. The position of the target on the remaining 10 trials varied randomly. Over the six trial blocks, each brand served once as the focal brand. Block order was randomly varied across participants. Each prime was presented for 28 msec in short-exposure duration conditions and for 350 msec in long-exposure duration conditions. Each prime was preceded and followed by a forward mask and a backward mask, respectively, consisting of the same background and color but with crosshatched lines instead of the contents of the prime. The forward mask was presented for 500 msec and the backward mask for 200 msec. Target brand names were presented on the screen immediately after the backward mask. The resultant stimulus onset asynchrony was thus 228 msec for short-exposure trials and 550 msec for long-exposure trials. Each target brand name remained on the screen until the participant gave a response or 2,000 msec had elapsed. When a response was given, a delay of 500 msec occurred before the next trial. The response was recorded on the computer for each trial. After all 82 trials (10 practice plus 72 experimental) had been completed, the participant provided other background measures, including a funneled debriefing task (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000) that checked for awareness of the purpose of the study.
300
NAYLOR, RAGHUNATHAN, RAMANATHAN
Results The participants completed 4,320 responses on the pronunciation task. Following Bargh et al. (1996), we removed responses that were less than 300 msec (0.35%) and greater than 1,000 msec (0.42%). Short latencies were mostly due to extraneous sounds made by the participant that might have been recorded by the microphone as a response, whereas longer latencies were due to the participant speaking too softly into the microphone, forcing him or her to pronounce the word again to move to the next trial. The mean latency for pronunciation was 599 msec (SD = 125). The median latency was 586 msec. We hypothesized that although the promotion prime would facilitate reactions to only the promoted brand when presented for a long duration, it would facilitate reactions to all brands when presented for a short duration. Data relevant to this hypothesis are summarized in Table 1. Brand names were pronounced more quickly following promotional stimuli (M = 586 msec) than following nonpromotional stimuli (M = 61 1 msec), F (1,58) = 18.33,p < .01, and related target brands were pronounced more quickly than unrelated ones < (582 msec vs. 615 msec, respectively), F (1,58) = 2 0 . 9 9 , ~ .01. However, a three-way interaction of exposure duration, type of prime, and target relatedness was significant, F (1, 58) = 8.61, p < .01, and of the nature we hypothesized. As shown in Table 1, the faster pronunciation of target-related brands than of target-unrelated brands was only evident when participants were exposed to a promotional prime for a long duration (542 msec vs. 596 msec, respectively), F (1, 58) = 9.15, p < .O1. When primes were presented for a short duration, participants took less time to pronounce target brands following a promotional stimulus (M = 598 msec) than following a nonpromotional stimulus (M = 631 msec), but this difference did not depend on whether the brand was related or unrelated to the prime (596 vs. 601 msec., respectively). Subsequent funneled debriefing indicated that only 5 of the 32 participants in the short-exposure condition had a reasonable suspicion about the purpose of the experiment. However, even these participants were not able to connect the brand in the prime to the brand featured in the target. They only mentioned the fact that some pictures were flashing on screen that looked like sales coupons. In contrast, participants in the long-exposure condition could see the coupon,
the discount, and the brand featured quite clearly, and 12 of the 28 respondents even mentioned the fact that some brands featured in the coupons were the same as the ones they were pronouncing whereas others were different.
Discussion The results of this experiment provide a conceptual replication of Experiment 1. That is, participants responded faster to both related and unrelated targets when they had been subliminally exposed to promotional primes than when they were exposed to nonpromotional ones. Other research (Bargh et al., 1996; Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986) has shown that response latencies to valenced targets are faster when the targets are preceded by similarly valenced primes. Thus, in light of the fact that the brands used in this experiment were favorable (as indicated by our pretest), it seems reasonable to conclude that exposure to promotional stimuli evoked a positive evaluative response. Further, given that the exposure duration was insufficient to perform the type of cognitive conscious analysis suggested in previous research (e.g., Inman et al., 1990; Wansink et al., 1998), our findings indicate that these responses occurred spontaneously. In combination, therefore, the results of Experiments 1 and 2 confirm the spontaneous evaluative response aspect of our model (i.e., Stage 1, as shown in Figure 1). Experiment 2 also supported the evaluation transfer aspect of our model (Stage 2, as shown in Figure 1). Building on Stapel et al.'s (2002) finding, we predicted that whereas short exposures to promotional stimuli would elicit positive evaluations of target brands regardless of their relatedness to the promotion, longer exposures would elicit positive evaluations of only the brands that were being promoted. Our results confirmed this prediction. An alternative explanation of our findings should be considered. Participants who were exposed to promotional primes responded more quickly to related targets than to unrelated ones. Because the related target appeared along with the prime but the unrelated target did not, the faster response times to the related targets could be attributable to perceptual fluency (cf. Johnston, Dark, & Jacoby, 1985; Lee & Labroo, 2004) or familiarity (cf. Zajonc, 1980; see also Hawkins & Hoch, 1992). If such mechanisms were responsible for our results, however, participants in the nonpromotional prime
TABLE 1 Response Latencies (rnsec) in Pronunciation of Related and Unrelated Target Brand Names as a Function of Exposure to Promotional and Nonprornotional Stimuli-Experiment 2 Promotion Exposure Condition
Target-Related
Neutral Target-Unrelated
Long (supraliminal) Short (subliminal) Note. Means that do not share the same subscript differ at p < .O1 using the Sidak comparison.
Target-Related
Target-Unrelated
PROMOTIONS AND EVALUATIONS
conditions should also have responded more quickly to related primes than to unrelated ones. This was not the case. Therefore, this alternative interpretation of our findings seems untenable.
EXPERIMENT 3: EXPLICIT MEASURE OF AFFECT AND REPRESENTATIVENESS EFFECTS Experiments 1 and 2 provided evidence of evaluation transfer using implicit process measures. However, these measures provide only indirect evidence of the evaluativeresponse-generation aspect of our model. Moreover, the first two experiments do not indicate whether the evaluative response generated on exposure to promotional stimuli will be used as information in evaluating all products or only those that are hedonic (vs. utilitarian) in nature. Finally, the procedures used in the previous experiments are removed from how consumers interact with promotional stimuli in real life. Experiment 3 addressed these matters.
Method A mix of 136 undergraduates and acquaintances of the experimenters took part in the study. Participants were asked to imagine that they were in a grocery store during a routine shopping trip. They were then asked to make purchase decisions about one of two products commonly purchased by college students: shampoo or cold medicine. The first type of product was assumed to be evaluated on the basis of hedonic (i.e., affective) criteria, whereas the second was likely to be judged on the basis of utilitarian considerations. Therefore, consistent with our model and the findings of Pham (1998; see also Adaval, 2001; Yeung & Wyer, 2004), we expected that exposure to an affect-eliciting promotion would result in greater liking for the shampoo than for the cold medicine. Participants were told that a new brand of shampoo [cold medicine] was being introduced in the local marketplace. All participants read the same brief description of the new product (regardless of whether it was shampoo or cold medicine), in which they were told that the new brand had received favorable ratings in consumer testing and that it was regularly priced at $4.99. Roughly half the participants were then informed that, as part of a special promotion, a "coupon for $2.00 off one container of Brand X shampoo [cold medicine]" was being made available to them. The remaining participants were not exposed to any promotional information. Participants then indicated how much they liked the product along a scale from 1 (not a t all) to 9 (very much). Finally, to check for the presumed hedonic nature of the shampoo (vs. cold medicine) category, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which their "feelings and emotions play a role in deciding which brand of shampoo [cold medicine] to buy."
30 1
Results Five non-English-speaking participants were removed from analysis because they had had little exposure to promotional stimuli and thus were less likely to have been exposed to the type of associative learning that is necessary for promotional stimuli to evoke a positive affective response. Data from the remaining 131 participants were used in the analyses that follow.
Manipulation check. Participants reported that feelings played a greater role in making brand choice decisions about shampoo than about cold medicine (5.14 and 3.5 1, respectively), F(1, 127) = 15.75, p < .01, thus confirming that shampoo is considered a more hedonic category than is cold medicine.
Liking for product. Analyses of participants' liking for the product as a function of promotion (present vs. absent) and product type indicated that participants liked cold medicine better than shampoo (5.59 vs. 4.90, respectively), F(1, 127) = 8 . 2 9 , ~ < .O1, and generally liked products better when they were promoted than when they were not (5.61 vs. 4.83, respectively), F(1, 127) = 9.99, p < .01. Consistent with our expectation, however, the difference in liking for promoted relative to nonpromoted products was greater when the product was hedonic (shampoo; 5.50 vs. 4.29) than when it was utilitarian (cold medicine; 5.73 vs. 5.43). The interaction implied by this difference was marginally significant, F(1, 127) = 3.69, p < .06. Discussion Experiments 1 and 2 elicited implicit process measures to reveal that exposure to promotional stimuli evokes a positive evaluative response. Experiment 3 yielded similar conclusions using an explicit measure. In doing so, it revealed that the transfer of evaluative reactions from promotions to products is more likely to occur when products are hedonic in nature. Note that the type of conscious cognitive mechanism proposed by previous researchers (Inman et al., 1990; Wansink et al., 1998) to account for the effects of promotional stimuli should benefit all target products regardless of whether they are hedonic in nature. If, however, exposure to promotional stimuli induces a positive affective response that is used as a basis forjudgment, the effect of these stimuli should be restricted to products that are typically evaluated on the basis of affective criteria (cf. Pham, 1998; see also Adaval, 2001; Yeung & Wyer, 2004). This was in fact the case.
GENERAL DISCUSSION Extant findings suggest that promotions have an impact on purchase behavior through conscious cognitive processes
302
NAYLOR, RAGHUNATHAN, RAMANATHAN
(e.g., Inman et al., 1990; Wansink et al., 1998). In this research, we proposed an alternative model. Our model is based on the assumption that exposure to promotional stimuli spontaneously evokes a positive evaluative response that is used as information (cf. Schwarz & Clore, 1983) in evaluating the promoted item, resulting in more positive evaluations of the target product (see Figure 1). Experiments 1and 2 confirmed this assumption. In Experiment 1, in which the IAT (Greenwald et al., 1998) was used to measure implicit associations between stimuli, participants were more likely to associate pleasant words with promotional stimuli than with other marketing stimuli, suggesting a link between promotional stimuli and concepts associated with positive feelings. Experiment 2 revealed that participants who were exposed to promotional stimuli have a shorter response latency when pronouncing the names of brands toward which they have moderately positive feelings. Particularly interesting was the finding that short exposures to promotional (vs. nonpromotional) stimuli decreased response latencies even for brands that were unrelated to the promotion, suggesting that promotion-generated evaluative response can transfer to nonpromoted brands as well as promoted brands when the source of the evaluative response is not readily discernible. The results of Experiment 3 extended these findings using an explicit process measure. It showed that participants who are exposed to a promotion report greater liking for a brand that is typically evaluated on the basis of hedonic criteria (e.g., affective reactions; see Schwarz & Clore, 1996) but not for a brand that is judged on the basis of utilitarian considerations. These results suggest that exposure to promotional stimuli can lead to enhanced target product evaluations without the type of cognitive mediation outlined in previous research (e.g., Inman et al., 1990; Wansink et al., 1998). As mentioned earlier, research on the impact of promotions on behavior has suggested that any positive response to promotions is mediated by cognitive processes (e.g., Inman et al., 1990; Wansink et al., 1998). That is, these researchers have explicitly or implicitly assumed that any response to promotions necessarily occurs via cognitive processes, even if the result of the cognition is the experience of positive affect (e.g., Chandon et al., 2000). To our knowledge, only one set of researchers (Heilman et al., 2002) has proposed that exposure to coupons can evoke positive affect directly, without cognitive mediation. The focus of their research, however, was on surprise coupons (e.g., electronic shelf coupons), whereas our model applies to other promotional stimuli as well. Further, we propose and demonstrate that exposure to promotional material spontaneously evokes a positive evaluative response, a possibility that was neither proposed nor tested by Heilman et al. Although our findings indicate that the affective reactions evoked by discounts may transfer to the promoted item, it is arguable whether the increase in positive evaluations of the brand and liking for the product translate into increased sales.
Promotional stimuli may have a stronger impact on sales if the stimuli are presented at the point of purchase (e.g., through in-store dispensers, in-store sale signs) rather than at a time or place disconnected from the purchase occasion (e.g., through the mail or through newspaper inserts). This is because the positive affect evoked through promotional material is likely to be transitory, and temporal or spatial disconnectedness will lower the chances of the desired action taking place. Second, our results indicate that all types of promotional stimuli (coupons, discounts, sale signs, etc.) might evoke positive feelings. Therefore, managers may be better off offering promotions that are less expensive. For example, from a profit maximization perspective, a 10% discount may produce disproportionately larger profits than will a significantly deeper (e.g., 30%) discount. Finally, given that the generation of positive affect on exposure to promotional stimuli is contingent on consumers' having learned to associate positive outcomes with such stimuli, our model is likely to be qualified by whether this learning has occurred. For instance, our results are unlikely to be obtained in settings where promotional stimuli have not been used historically (e.g., in India, China). Further, it is also possible that in settings where promotional stimuli have been overused to an extent to which consumers no longer associate positive outcomes with the stimuli, the effects proposed by our model may disappear. These possibilities may be worth exploring.
REFERENCES Adaval, R. (2001). Sometimes it just feels right: The differential weighting of affect-consistent and affect-inconsistent product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28( 1), 1-1 7. Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, H., & Yi, Y. (1992). State versus action orientation and the theory of reasoned action: An application to coupon usage. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 505-5 18. Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., & Hymes, C. (1996). The automatic evaluation effect: Unconditional automatic attitude activation with a pronunciation task. JoumalofExperimenta1SocialPsychology, 32,104-1 28. Bargh, J. A,, & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis and C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253-285). New York: Cambridge University Press. Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (2000). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 123, 2189-2202. Bmnel, F., Tietje, B. C., & Greenwald, A. G. (2004). Is the Implicit Association Test a valid and valuable measure of implicit consumer social cognition? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 385-404. Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Jo~lrnalof Marketing, 64, 65-8 1. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, New York: Academic. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descarres'error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York: Putnam. Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C. & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,229-238.
PROMOTIONS AND EVALUATIONS Gorn, G. J. (1982). The effects of music in advertising on choice behavior: A classical conditioning approach. Journal of Marketing, 46, 94-101. Gorn, G. J., Goldberg, M. E., & Basu, K. (1993). Mood, awareness, and product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 237-256. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A,, & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216. Hawkins, S. A,, & Hoch, S. J. (1992). Low-involvement learning: Memory without evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 212-225. Heilman, C. M., Nakamoto, K., & Rao, A. G. (2002). Pleasant surprises: Consumer response to unexpected in-store coupons. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 242-252. Inman, J. J., McAlister, L., Hoyer, W. D. (1 990). Promotion signal: Proxy for a price cut. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 74-81. Inman, J. J., Peter, A. C., & Raghubir, P. (1997). Framing the deal: The role of restrictions in accentuating deal value. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 68-79. Johnston, W. A,, Dark, V. J., & Jacoby, L. L. (1985). Perceptual fluency and recognition judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 3-11. LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster. Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 151-165. Loewenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2002). Risk as feelings, Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-286. Maison, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Bruin, R. H. (2004). Predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test in studies of brands, consumer attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 405415. Pham, M. T. (1998). Representatives, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 144-157. Raghunathan, R., Pham, M. T., & Corfman K. P. (2006). Informational properties of anxiety and sadness, and displaced coping. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 596-602.
303
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 5 13-523. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1996). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Socialpsychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 433-465). New York: Guilford. Shimp, T. A. (1991). Neo-Pavlovian conditioning and its implications for consumer theory and research. In T. S. Robertson & H. H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 162-187). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Shimp, T. A,, Stuart, T .W., & Engle, R. W. (1991). A program of classical conditioning experiments testing variations in the conditioned stimulus and context. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 1-12. Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin. A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consunter Research, 26, 278-292. Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin. A. (2002). Spontaneous versus controlled influences of stimulus-based affect on choice behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 342-370. Stapel, D. A,, Koomen, W., & Ruys, K. I. (2002). The effect of diffuse and distinct affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 63-74. Wansink, B., Kent, R. J., & Hoch, S. J. (1998). An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decision. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 71-81. Yeung, C., & Wyer, R. S. (2004). Affect, appraisal, and consumerjudgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 41 2 4 2 4 . Yeung, C., & Wyer R. S. (2005). Does loving a brand mean loving its products? The role of brand-elicited affect in brand extension evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 495-506. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175. Zanna, M. P., & Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In D. Bar-Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology of knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Received: September 27,2004 Revision received: November 8, 2005 Accepted: January 1,2006
304
NAYLOR, RAGHUNATHAN, RAMANATHAN
APPENDIX A Experiment 1: Stimuli Used in IAT
I
Promotional Stimuli
I
Other Marketing Stimuli
I
I
Word List Pleasant
I
Neutral Light
Sale!
Love
Regular
Delight
Flat
Wonderful
Inclined
Pleasure
Round
Nice
Square
PROMOTIONS AND EVALUATIONS
APPENDIX B Experiment 2: Examples of printing stimuli
305
Promotions Spontaneously Induce a Positive Evaluative Response Rebecca Walker Naylor University of South Carolina
Rajagopal Raghunathan The University of Texas at Austin
Suresh Ramanathan University of Chicago
Research has suggested that conscious cognitive processes mediate positive responses to promotions. In contrast, we find that exposure to promotional stimuli evokes a positive evaluative reaction spontaneously and that this reaction generalizes to products that are evaluated subsequently. Three experiments support our predictions and rule out alternative possibilities. Specifically, we find that promotions spontaneously evoke positive evaluative responses and that these responses mediate liking for a target product. Our findings also identify conditions under which promotion-generated evaluative responses are transferred to products unrelated to the promotion and indicate the type of product categories that are likely to produce this effect. The theoretical and substantive implications of this research are discussed.
Sales promotions have attracted significant attention in recent years (e.g., Bagozzi, Baumgartner, & Yi, 1992; Chandon, Wansink, & Laurent, 2000; Heilman, Nakamoto, & Rao, 2002; Inman, McAlister, & Hoyer, 1990; Inman, Peter, & Raghubir, 1997; Wansink, Kent, & Hoch, 1998). Some of this work has established that consumers are notoriously susceptible to the influence of promotional stimuli. For example, placing a sale sign on an item leads to increased demand for that item even when its price is not actually lower (Inman et al., 1990).Furthermore, consumers tend to comply with signs that prompt them to behave in a certain manner (Wansink et al., 1998); for instance, signs that suggest buying "12 [Snickers bars] for your freezer" increase sales of that item. Many researchers have assumed that conscious cognitive processes mediate the increase in purchase likelihood generated by exposure to promotional stimuli. Inman et al. (1990), for instance, hypothesized that exposure to promotional stimuli increases the perceived monetary benefits from pro-
curing promoted items. Similarly, Wansink et al. (1998) suggested an anchoring and adjustment model of purchase behavior in which consumers obey behaviors suggested by in-store signs. Models proposed by other researchers (e.g., Bagozzi et al., 1992; Inman et al., 1997) are conceptually compatible with a cognitive mediation explanation. Even those who suggested a role for affect in the link between promotions and increased purchase likelihood (e.g., Chandon et al., 2000) explicitly or implicitly assumed that conscious cognitive processes (e.g., choosing to participate in a sweepstakes because doing so is entertaining) lead to the experience of affect. In this research, we suggest an alternative model based on the idea that exposure to promotional stimuli (e.g., a "Sale" sign, a "10% off' sign) generates a spontaneous evaluative response that is not mediated by conscious cognitive processes. This response is then used as information in evaluating products that are considered later, resulting in more posi-
Correspondence should be addressed to Rajagopal Raghunathan, McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station B6700, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: Raj.Raghunathan@ mccombs.utexas.edu
'To the best of our knowledge, only Heilman et al. (2002) proposed and demonstrated that promotional stimuli may evoke affect directly (without cognitive mediation). The differences between their model and the one presented in this research are highlighted in the general discussion section.
296
NAYLOR, RAGHUNATHAN, RAMANATHAN
tive evaluations of these products. A particularly intriguing aspect of our model is that exposure to promotional stimuli can increase liking not only for the promoted product but also for products unrelated to the promotion. Results of three experiments provide support for our thesis.
TWO-STAGE MODEL OF PROMOTION GENERATED POSITIVE EVALUATIONS Figure 1 details the processes by which exposure to promotional stimuli results in enhanced evaluations for target products. In the first stage, exposure to promotional stimuli is posited to spontaneously generate positive evaluative responses. Although affective reactions to some stimuli (e.g., babies, snakes) are relatively automatic, reactions to other stimuli (e.g., money, food to which one is allergic) often require some reflection (e.g., Bechara, Tranel, & Damasio, 2000; Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2002; Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999, 2002; see Damasio, 1994, and LeDoux, 1996, for reviews). Nevertheless, these reactions can also become relatively automatic through conditioning (e.g., Gorn, 1982; Shimp, 1991; Shimp, Stuart, & Engle, 1991). The results of several neurological studies are consistent with this proposal. For example, Bechara et al. (2000; see also LeDoux, 1996) indicated that exposure to dollar bills and to such abstract concepts as winning can spontaneously evoke a spike in the pleasantness response. This is because these stimuli have repeatedly been associated with positive outcomes in the past and, as such, positive affective responses are conditioned to be evoked on exposure to them. A similar mechanism may underlie the effects of exposure to promotional stimuli. Because consumers are likely to have repeatedly associated promotional stimuli with the type of positive outcomes outlined in previous research (e.g., Chandon et al., 2000; Inman et al., 1990) (e.g., monetary savings or the perception of oneself as a "smart shopper," etc.),
STAGE 1
positive evaluative responses may become conditioned to such stimuli. Thus: HI: Exposure to promotional stimuli will spontaneously evoke a positive evaluative response. As depicted in Stage 2 of our model, we posit that the positive evaluative responses evoked by exposure to promotional stimuli produce an enhanced evaluation of target products, in a manner similar to the use of affect as information in judging stimuli (cf. Schwarz & Clore, 1983; see also Gorn, Goldberg, & Basu, 1993; Pham, 1998; Raghunathan, Pham, & Corfman, 2006; Yeung & Wyer, 2004, 2005). In particular, exposure to promotional stimuli may produce more positive evaluations of not only the promoted product but also, under suitable conditions, products that are proximal to the promotional stimuli. According to an affect-as-information conceptualization (Schwarz & Clore, 1996), people make judgments by inspecting their feelings and interpreting what these feelings mean for the issue at hand. Thus, temporarily activated feelings can be transferred to a target product, resulting in affect-congruent evaluations of this product (e.g., Gorn et al., 1993; Pham, 1998; Raghunathan et al., 2006). As a result of this process, the affect generated by one source (e.g., finding a $10 bill) can often be misattributed to objectively unrelated target stimuli (e.g., one's television set) and, therefore, can influence evaluations of these stimuli. In the context used here, this implies that if promotional stimuli elicit a positive evaluative response, they might influence evaluations even of products unrelated to the promotional stimuli. In typical experiments, the relevance of one's feelings for evaluating a target product is varied by stimulating some participants to attribute their feelings to a source that was clearly unrelated to the object to be evaluated (e.g., Gorn et al., 1993; Pham, 1998; Raghunathan et al., 2006). In this regard, Stapel, Koomen, and Ruys (2002) found that when participants were
STAGE 2 r----------------------------------------------
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
: [
I I I I I
Exposure to Promotional Stimuli
L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
:
I I
b I
: I I I
Spontaneous Evaluative Response
-
j
I
I I I
Enhanced Target Product b Evaluations
I I I
1----------------------------------------------:
Relevance and Representativeness FIGURE 1 Two-stage model of promotion-generated evaluation transfer.
[ j
I I I
PROMOTIONS AND EVALUATIONS
exposed to affect-eliciting primes for a long duration, they were able to discriminate the features and object boundaries of their feelings, leading to more target-specific reactions. However, extremely short exposures to the affect-generating primes activated a more diffuse, unspecified, and free-floating affective reaction. Based on these arguments, we expect that: H2: As the duration of exposure to promotions decreases, the likelihood that reactions to promotion-related targets will generalize to promotion-unrelated targets will increase. Note that the implications of this hypothesis and the reasons underlying it conflict with the conceptualizations of promotion effects proposed by Inman et al. (1990) and Wansink et al. (1998). If the type of conscious cognitive mechanism outlined by these conceptualizations were the sole operational mechanism driving responses to promotions, then exposure to promotional stimuli should result in people consciously considering the benefits of the promoted products, leading to more positive evaluations for only those products that are related to the promotion and not to those that are unrelated to them. Three experiments provided support for our hypotheses. Experiments 1 and 2 relied on implicit process measures to provide evidence that exposure to promotional stimuli spontaneously evokes positive evaluative responses. Experiment 2 also showed that the promotion-generated evaluative responses are transferred to target products in the way suggested by H2. Experiment 3 used explicit measures to provide more direct evidence that affective reactions to promotional stimuli result in increased liking for the promoted product.
EXPERIMENT 1: IMPLICIT POSITIVE ASSOCIATIONS If exposure to promotional stimuli spontaneously evokes positive evaluative responses, it should spontaneously activate semantic concepts that pertain to these reactions (e.g., joy, happiness). The Implicit Association Test (IAT; cf. Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998), which has been used to test the strength of implicit associations between concepts (e.g., Brunel, Tietje, & Greenwald, 2004; Maison, Greenwald, & Bruin, 2004), was used to evaluate this possibility.
Method Participants and procedure. Sixty-one undergraduates participated in this experiment for extra course credit. Participants were told that we were interested in assessing their reactions to various types of stimuli, including marketing-
297
related stimuli and words from the English language. They were further told that their task was to correctly assign stimuli shown on a computer screen to an appropriate category. The experiment was run on IBM computers using MediaLab and Direct RT software. Participants completed a set of 180 categorization trials. On each trial, they classified a randomly presented stimulus into one of four categories. Stimuli were chosen from one of four categories: (a) pictures of in-store promotions (e.g., a "10% off' sign, a "Sale" sign), (b) pictures of other marketing material (e.g., a billboard, a shopping cart), (c) pleasant words (e.g., joy, delight), or (d) neutral words (e.g., regulal; flat). Each category consisted of six or more stimuli (see Appendix A for a complete listing of stimuli). The "other marketing material" category was included to demonstrate that exposure to promotional stimuli evokes a more positive evaluative response than do other types of marketing stimuli. On each trial, the computer screen provided categorization labels on the top left and top right of the screen. There were four (within-subjects) categorization label conditions: (a) pleasant versus neutral, (b) promotion versus other marketing, (c) pleasantlpromotion versus neutrallother marketing, and (d) neutrallpromotion versus pleasadother marketing. Thus, in Condition 1, the word pleasant appeared on one side of the computer screen and the word neutral on the other side. In Condition 2, the word promotion appeared on one side of the screen and other marketing on the other. In Condition 3 (congruent condition), both pleasant and promotion appeared on one side of the screen and both neutral and other marketing on the other side. Finally, in Condition 4 (incongruent condition), both pleasant and other marketing appeared on one side, and both neutral and promotion on the other. Participants were asked to categorize stimuli that appeared in the middle of the screen into the correct category. Thus, if the word joy was presented, the participants' task was to categorize this word into the pleasant (and not into the neutral) category. Likewise, if a "Sale" sign was displayed at the center of the screen, their task was to categorize the presented stimulus into the promotion (and not into the other marketing) category, and so on. (For obvious reasons, the promotion vs. other marketing labels were not used when the target stimulus was a word, and positive versus neutral labels were not used when the target stimulus was a marketing stimulus.) Participants were asked to respond as quickly as possible to the target stimulus by pressing the "Z" key if the correct category label was on the left side of the screen and the "r' key if the correct answer was on the right side of the screen. Response times were recorded from the onset of the target stimulus to its classification. If a participant responded correctly, the next target was presented on the screen. If a target was incorrectly classified, a red X appeared below the target, indicating an error, and remained on screen until the participant responded correctly.
298
NAYLOR, RAGHUNATHAN, RAMANATHAN
Participants completed seven blocks of trials, five of which were designed to familiarize participants with both the target stimuli and the category labels. The critical blocks for analysis were Block 4, in which promotional stimuli were displayed and the category labels were promotiodpleasant versus other marketinglneutral (congruent condition), and Block 7, in which promotional stimuli were displayed and the category labels were promotiodneutral and other marketinglpleasant (incongruent condition). A strong positive feeling toward sales promotions would be reflected in faster responses when promotional stimuli were to be categorized in the congruent condition than in the incongruent condition.
Data preparation. Following the revised IAT scoring algorithm (Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003), we collated the data according to the following criteria: (a) trial response latencies greater than 10,000 msec were eliminated (of the 4,960 responses, none was above this threshold), (b) participants whose response times were less than 300 msec on more than 10% of the trials were excluded (2 of the 61 participants were discarded using this criterion), and (c) all response latencies including those for false responses were included. To arrive at an index of association (Cohen's d), a difference score was computed between the two critical blocks of trials ([promotionslpleasant and other marketinglneutral] - [promotionslneutral and other marketinglpleasant]) and divided by the standard deviations of response latencies across both blocks (Cohen, 1977).
Results and Discussion Response latencies were significantly lower when promotional stimuli were presented in the congruent versus incongruent condition. The mean response time for the block pairing pleasant words with promotional stimuli was 763.6 msec, whereas that for the block pairing neutral words with promotional stimuli was 1,114.7 msec. The index of association based on this difference in response time was significant (D = 0.805, SD = .048, t[58] = 16.61, p < .0001, d = 1.54). Results from Experiment 1 are consistent with our thesis that exposure to promotional stimuli generates a positive evaluative response. The fact that participants responded significantly faster to promotional stimuli when the stimuli were to be categorized as promotiodpleasant versus other marketinglneutral suggests that consumers have a readily accessible association between promotional stimuli and semantic concepts related to positive feelings. Further, the finding that exposure to stimuli that are specifically promotional-as opposed to other types of marketing stimuli-evoked faster response times when paired with pleasant words supports our thesis that promotional stimuli have had a history of positive associations to a greater extent than have other marketing stimuli. Finally, the fact that our results were obtained using the IAT procedure indicates that the association between pron~otionalstimuli and positive feelings is implicit and, there-
fore, that exposure to promotional stimuli spontaneously evokes positive evaluative responses.
EXPERIMENT 2: EVALUATION TRANSFER AND INFORMATIONAL DISCOUNTING As some researchers (e.g., Brunel et al., 2004) have commented, the IAT procedure suffers from some limitations and it therefore is important to replicate the results of Experiment 1 using a different procedure. A second objective of Experiment 2 was to demonstrate that the positive evaluative responses to promotional stimuli are used as information in evaluating target products. As discussed earlier, findings from Stapel et al. (2002) indicate that whereas very short exposures to affect-laden stimuli evoke a diffuse and free-floating affective reaction, longer exposures to such stimuli evoke object-specific reactions that have more clearly defined boundaries. These findings suggest that at long durations of exposure to promotional stimuli, positive evaluations will be elicited for only the promoted brand and not for those unrelated to the promotion. However, very short durations of exposure to promotional stimuli will elicit positive evaluations for all brands, regardless of whether they were related to the promotion (H2). This experiment provided support for this prediction.
Method Overview. Participants took part in 72 experimental trials conducted on IBM computers. In each trial, participants were first exposed to either a promotional or a nonpromotional prime for either a short (subliminal, 28 msec) or a long (supraliminal, 350 msec) duration. The primes were presented along with one of six brands that were known to have moderately positive evaluations. Thus, each prime featured either a promotional or a nonpromotional cue, accompanied by one of six brands, making 12 prime--brand combinations in all. Then, participants were shown a target brand name on screen that either had accompanied the prime (related condition) or had not (unrelated condition). We thus crossed type of prime and relatedness of target within subjects while manipulating the time of exposure between subjects. Participants were told that their task was to enunciate the target brand name into a microphone (placed before them) as quickly as possible. The time it took for the participant to respond (from the onset of the brand name on the computer screen) was recorded and was the key dependent variable. This process was repeated for each of the subsequent trials of the experiment. Design and participants. The design of the study was a 2 (exposure duration: short vs. long) x 2 (stimulus prime: promotion vs. nonpromotion) x 2 (target: related vs. unrelated to promotion) factorial, with the latter two factors var-
PROMOTIONS AND EVALUATIONS
ied within subjects. Sixty-four undergraduate students at a large Midwestern university participated in the main experiment for a monetary compensation of $4. Data were excluded from four of the students because they did not meet our criterion for number of years lived in the United States, which was at least 10 years. Thirty-two of the participants were assigned to the short-exposure condition and the remaining 28 to the long-exposure condition.
Stimuli. Six pictures of coupons (created using Macromedia Fireworks software) that said either "$ off' or "% off' were used as promotional primes. Six similar stimuli with the same numerical value but instead signifying the volume or count of the brand were used as nonpromotional primes. Each prime appeared along with an image of one of six brand names. Thus, for example, a promotional prime for Minute Maid juice featured a picture of a 10 oz bottle of this brand along with the words 10% off in a bold, 36-point font and a border with dashed lines, typical of a coupon. The analogous nonpromotional prime condition featured the same brand with the words 10 oz. Examples of the promotional and nonpromotional primes are shown in Appendix B. Pretests. Two pretests were conducted to identify suitable brand names and promotional and nonpromotional primes for use in the main experiment. In the first pretest, which was conducted to identify brand names, 30 participants were shown the names of 15 brands across different product categories. Each brand name appeared on a large index card, and participants were asked to indicate how positive and how favorable they felt toward the brand along scales from 1 (very negative/unfavorable) to 7 (very positive/favorable). Participants also indicated their familiarity with the brand along a scale from 1 (very unfamiliar) to 7 (veryfamiliar). The brands we chose to use in the main experiment had a mean evaluation between 4 and 5 and a familiarity rating of 4.0 or greater. We chose brands with moderately positive evaluations to ensure that the brand names themselves did not serve as implicit cues about the valence of the targets (Bargh, Chaiken, Raymond, & Hymes, 1996). That is, brands that evoke extreme positive or negative evaluations may either prime an evaluative goal or signal to participants that the experiment had something to do with evaluating the brand, a factor that could lead to a confound, at least in the supraliminal condition. Based on these results, Dove, Taster's Choice, Brawny, Colgate, Minute Maid, and Suave were selected for use as the brands in this experiment. The second pretest was conducted to ensure that the promotional stimuli identified for use in the main experiment were indeed favorably evaluated. In this pretest, participants (n = 20) were either shown images of coupons with the words $2 off or 10% off or the words 2-pack or 10 oz. These were very similar to the stimuli used in the main experiment but appeared without the brand names. We used numerical controls for our main experiment because many shopping stimuli
299
often contain numerical cues such as pack sizes, with which people may be as familiar as they are with coupons, thus providing a natural check for a fluency-based alternative explanation for our predicted pattern of results. In addition, these cues provide a control for effects due to exposure to the numbers 2 and 10. Participants were then asked to report their feelings toward each stimulus along a scale from 1 (very negative) to 7 (very positive). Promotion-related stimuli were rated more highly than neutral ones (4.72 vs. 3.74, respectively), F(1, 18) = 29.80, p < .001, confirming that the primes worked as intended.
Procedure. Participants, run individually, were seated in front of a computer to which a microphone was connected. The sensitivity of the microphone was preset so that when a participant enunciated a word louder than a particular level, the response would be registered by the software monitoring the input. Participants were informed that the experiment concerned how consumers pronounced brand names. They were told that the name of a brand would appear on the screen and their task was to pronounce the name as quickly as possible into the microphone. No specific instructions were given regarding the appearance of the primes. Participants were given 10 practice trials to ensure they understood the procedure. We created six blocks of 12 trials each. Six trials in each block were with promotion-related primes, and the other six were with neutral primes. A different brand was chosen as focal in each trial block, and the promotion and neutral primes in the block featured this brand. The trials on which the target and primed brand were identical were held constant (specifically, 4th and 10th) over the six trial blocks. The position of the target on the remaining 10 trials varied randomly. Over the six trial blocks, each brand served once as the focal brand. Block order was randomly varied across participants. Each prime was presented for 28 msec in short-exposure duration conditions and for 350 msec in long-exposure duration conditions. Each prime was preceded and followed by a forward mask and a backward mask, respectively, consisting of the same background and color but with crosshatched lines instead of the contents of the prime. The forward mask was presented for 500 msec and the backward mask for 200 msec. Target brand names were presented on the screen immediately after the backward mask. The resultant stimulus onset asynchrony was thus 228 msec for short-exposure trials and 550 msec for long-exposure trials. Each target brand name remained on the screen until the participant gave a response or 2,000 msec had elapsed. When a response was given, a delay of 500 msec occurred before the next trial. The response was recorded on the computer for each trial. After all 82 trials (10 practice plus 72 experimental) had been completed, the participant provided other background measures, including a funneled debriefing task (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000) that checked for awareness of the purpose of the study.
300
NAYLOR, RAGHUNATHAN, RAMANATHAN
Results The participants completed 4,320 responses on the pronunciation task. Following Bargh et al. (1996), we removed responses that were less than 300 msec (0.35%) and greater than 1,000 msec (0.42%). Short latencies were mostly due to extraneous sounds made by the participant that might have been recorded by the microphone as a response, whereas longer latencies were due to the participant speaking too softly into the microphone, forcing him or her to pronounce the word again to move to the next trial. The mean latency for pronunciation was 599 msec (SD = 125). The median latency was 586 msec. We hypothesized that although the promotion prime would facilitate reactions to only the promoted brand when presented for a long duration, it would facilitate reactions to all brands when presented for a short duration. Data relevant to this hypothesis are summarized in Table 1. Brand names were pronounced more quickly following promotional stimuli (M = 586 msec) than following nonpromotional stimuli (M = 61 1 msec), F (1,58) = 18.33,p < .01, and related target brands were pronounced more quickly than unrelated ones < (582 msec vs. 615 msec, respectively), F (1,58) = 2 0 . 9 9 , ~ .01. However, a three-way interaction of exposure duration, type of prime, and target relatedness was significant, F (1, 58) = 8.61, p < .01, and of the nature we hypothesized. As shown in Table 1, the faster pronunciation of target-related brands than of target-unrelated brands was only evident when participants were exposed to a promotional prime for a long duration (542 msec vs. 596 msec, respectively), F (1, 58) = 9.15, p < .O1. When primes were presented for a short duration, participants took less time to pronounce target brands following a promotional stimulus (M = 598 msec) than following a nonpromotional stimulus (M = 631 msec), but this difference did not depend on whether the brand was related or unrelated to the prime (596 vs. 601 msec., respectively). Subsequent funneled debriefing indicated that only 5 of the 32 participants in the short-exposure condition had a reasonable suspicion about the purpose of the experiment. However, even these participants were not able to connect the brand in the prime to the brand featured in the target. They only mentioned the fact that some pictures were flashing on screen that looked like sales coupons. In contrast, participants in the long-exposure condition could see the coupon,
the discount, and the brand featured quite clearly, and 12 of the 28 respondents even mentioned the fact that some brands featured in the coupons were the same as the ones they were pronouncing whereas others were different.
Discussion The results of this experiment provide a conceptual replication of Experiment 1. That is, participants responded faster to both related and unrelated targets when they had been subliminally exposed to promotional primes than when they were exposed to nonpromotional ones. Other research (Bargh et al., 1996; Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986) has shown that response latencies to valenced targets are faster when the targets are preceded by similarly valenced primes. Thus, in light of the fact that the brands used in this experiment were favorable (as indicated by our pretest), it seems reasonable to conclude that exposure to promotional stimuli evoked a positive evaluative response. Further, given that the exposure duration was insufficient to perform the type of cognitive conscious analysis suggested in previous research (e.g., Inman et al., 1990; Wansink et al., 1998), our findings indicate that these responses occurred spontaneously. In combination, therefore, the results of Experiments 1 and 2 confirm the spontaneous evaluative response aspect of our model (i.e., Stage 1, as shown in Figure 1). Experiment 2 also supported the evaluation transfer aspect of our model (Stage 2, as shown in Figure 1). Building on Stapel et al.'s (2002) finding, we predicted that whereas short exposures to promotional stimuli would elicit positive evaluations of target brands regardless of their relatedness to the promotion, longer exposures would elicit positive evaluations of only the brands that were being promoted. Our results confirmed this prediction. An alternative explanation of our findings should be considered. Participants who were exposed to promotional primes responded more quickly to related targets than to unrelated ones. Because the related target appeared along with the prime but the unrelated target did not, the faster response times to the related targets could be attributable to perceptual fluency (cf. Johnston, Dark, & Jacoby, 1985; Lee & Labroo, 2004) or familiarity (cf. Zajonc, 1980; see also Hawkins & Hoch, 1992). If such mechanisms were responsible for our results, however, participants in the nonpromotional prime
TABLE 1 Response Latencies (rnsec) in Pronunciation of Related and Unrelated Target Brand Names as a Function of Exposure to Promotional and Nonprornotional Stimuli-Experiment 2 Promotion Exposure Condition
Target-Related
Neutral Target-Unrelated
Long (supraliminal) Short (subliminal) Note. Means that do not share the same subscript differ at p < .O1 using the Sidak comparison.
Target-Related
Target-Unrelated
PROMOTIONS AND EVALUATIONS
conditions should also have responded more quickly to related primes than to unrelated ones. This was not the case. Therefore, this alternative interpretation of our findings seems untenable.
EXPERIMENT 3: EXPLICIT MEASURE OF AFFECT AND REPRESENTATIVENESS EFFECTS Experiments 1 and 2 provided evidence of evaluation transfer using implicit process measures. However, these measures provide only indirect evidence of the evaluativeresponse-generation aspect of our model. Moreover, the first two experiments do not indicate whether the evaluative response generated on exposure to promotional stimuli will be used as information in evaluating all products or only those that are hedonic (vs. utilitarian) in nature. Finally, the procedures used in the previous experiments are removed from how consumers interact with promotional stimuli in real life. Experiment 3 addressed these matters.
Method A mix of 136 undergraduates and acquaintances of the experimenters took part in the study. Participants were asked to imagine that they were in a grocery store during a routine shopping trip. They were then asked to make purchase decisions about one of two products commonly purchased by college students: shampoo or cold medicine. The first type of product was assumed to be evaluated on the basis of hedonic (i.e., affective) criteria, whereas the second was likely to be judged on the basis of utilitarian considerations. Therefore, consistent with our model and the findings of Pham (1998; see also Adaval, 2001; Yeung & Wyer, 2004), we expected that exposure to an affect-eliciting promotion would result in greater liking for the shampoo than for the cold medicine. Participants were told that a new brand of shampoo [cold medicine] was being introduced in the local marketplace. All participants read the same brief description of the new product (regardless of whether it was shampoo or cold medicine), in which they were told that the new brand had received favorable ratings in consumer testing and that it was regularly priced at $4.99. Roughly half the participants were then informed that, as part of a special promotion, a "coupon for $2.00 off one container of Brand X shampoo [cold medicine]" was being made available to them. The remaining participants were not exposed to any promotional information. Participants then indicated how much they liked the product along a scale from 1 (not a t all) to 9 (very much). Finally, to check for the presumed hedonic nature of the shampoo (vs. cold medicine) category, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which their "feelings and emotions play a role in deciding which brand of shampoo [cold medicine] to buy."
30 1
Results Five non-English-speaking participants were removed from analysis because they had had little exposure to promotional stimuli and thus were less likely to have been exposed to the type of associative learning that is necessary for promotional stimuli to evoke a positive affective response. Data from the remaining 131 participants were used in the analyses that follow.
Manipulation check. Participants reported that feelings played a greater role in making brand choice decisions about shampoo than about cold medicine (5.14 and 3.5 1, respectively), F(1, 127) = 15.75, p < .01, thus confirming that shampoo is considered a more hedonic category than is cold medicine.
Liking for product. Analyses of participants' liking for the product as a function of promotion (present vs. absent) and product type indicated that participants liked cold medicine better than shampoo (5.59 vs. 4.90, respectively), F(1, 127) = 8 . 2 9 , ~ < .O1, and generally liked products better when they were promoted than when they were not (5.61 vs. 4.83, respectively), F(1, 127) = 9.99, p < .01. Consistent with our expectation, however, the difference in liking for promoted relative to nonpromoted products was greater when the product was hedonic (shampoo; 5.50 vs. 4.29) than when it was utilitarian (cold medicine; 5.73 vs. 5.43). The interaction implied by this difference was marginally significant, F(1, 127) = 3.69, p < .06. Discussion Experiments 1 and 2 elicited implicit process measures to reveal that exposure to promotional stimuli evokes a positive evaluative response. Experiment 3 yielded similar conclusions using an explicit measure. In doing so, it revealed that the transfer of evaluative reactions from promotions to products is more likely to occur when products are hedonic in nature. Note that the type of conscious cognitive mechanism proposed by previous researchers (Inman et al., 1990; Wansink et al., 1998) to account for the effects of promotional stimuli should benefit all target products regardless of whether they are hedonic in nature. If, however, exposure to promotional stimuli induces a positive affective response that is used as a basis forjudgment, the effect of these stimuli should be restricted to products that are typically evaluated on the basis of affective criteria (cf. Pham, 1998; see also Adaval, 2001; Yeung & Wyer, 2004). This was in fact the case.
GENERAL DISCUSSION Extant findings suggest that promotions have an impact on purchase behavior through conscious cognitive processes
302
NAYLOR, RAGHUNATHAN, RAMANATHAN
(e.g., Inman et al., 1990; Wansink et al., 1998). In this research, we proposed an alternative model. Our model is based on the assumption that exposure to promotional stimuli spontaneously evokes a positive evaluative response that is used as information (cf. Schwarz & Clore, 1983) in evaluating the promoted item, resulting in more positive evaluations of the target product (see Figure 1). Experiments 1and 2 confirmed this assumption. In Experiment 1, in which the IAT (Greenwald et al., 1998) was used to measure implicit associations between stimuli, participants were more likely to associate pleasant words with promotional stimuli than with other marketing stimuli, suggesting a link between promotional stimuli and concepts associated with positive feelings. Experiment 2 revealed that participants who were exposed to promotional stimuli have a shorter response latency when pronouncing the names of brands toward which they have moderately positive feelings. Particularly interesting was the finding that short exposures to promotional (vs. nonpromotional) stimuli decreased response latencies even for brands that were unrelated to the promotion, suggesting that promotion-generated evaluative response can transfer to nonpromoted brands as well as promoted brands when the source of the evaluative response is not readily discernible. The results of Experiment 3 extended these findings using an explicit process measure. It showed that participants who are exposed to a promotion report greater liking for a brand that is typically evaluated on the basis of hedonic criteria (e.g., affective reactions; see Schwarz & Clore, 1996) but not for a brand that is judged on the basis of utilitarian considerations. These results suggest that exposure to promotional stimuli can lead to enhanced target product evaluations without the type of cognitive mediation outlined in previous research (e.g., Inman et al., 1990; Wansink et al., 1998). As mentioned earlier, research on the impact of promotions on behavior has suggested that any positive response to promotions is mediated by cognitive processes (e.g., Inman et al., 1990; Wansink et al., 1998). That is, these researchers have explicitly or implicitly assumed that any response to promotions necessarily occurs via cognitive processes, even if the result of the cognition is the experience of positive affect (e.g., Chandon et al., 2000). To our knowledge, only one set of researchers (Heilman et al., 2002) has proposed that exposure to coupons can evoke positive affect directly, without cognitive mediation. The focus of their research, however, was on surprise coupons (e.g., electronic shelf coupons), whereas our model applies to other promotional stimuli as well. Further, we propose and demonstrate that exposure to promotional material spontaneously evokes a positive evaluative response, a possibility that was neither proposed nor tested by Heilman et al. Although our findings indicate that the affective reactions evoked by discounts may transfer to the promoted item, it is arguable whether the increase in positive evaluations of the brand and liking for the product translate into increased sales.
Promotional stimuli may have a stronger impact on sales if the stimuli are presented at the point of purchase (e.g., through in-store dispensers, in-store sale signs) rather than at a time or place disconnected from the purchase occasion (e.g., through the mail or through newspaper inserts). This is because the positive affect evoked through promotional material is likely to be transitory, and temporal or spatial disconnectedness will lower the chances of the desired action taking place. Second, our results indicate that all types of promotional stimuli (coupons, discounts, sale signs, etc.) might evoke positive feelings. Therefore, managers may be better off offering promotions that are less expensive. For example, from a profit maximization perspective, a 10% discount may produce disproportionately larger profits than will a significantly deeper (e.g., 30%) discount. Finally, given that the generation of positive affect on exposure to promotional stimuli is contingent on consumers' having learned to associate positive outcomes with such stimuli, our model is likely to be qualified by whether this learning has occurred. For instance, our results are unlikely to be obtained in settings where promotional stimuli have not been used historically (e.g., in India, China). Further, it is also possible that in settings where promotional stimuli have been overused to an extent to which consumers no longer associate positive outcomes with the stimuli, the effects proposed by our model may disappear. These possibilities may be worth exploring.
REFERENCES Adaval, R. (2001). Sometimes it just feels right: The differential weighting of affect-consistent and affect-inconsistent product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28( 1), 1-1 7. Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, H., & Yi, Y. (1992). State versus action orientation and the theory of reasoned action: An application to coupon usage. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 505-5 18. Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., & Hymes, C. (1996). The automatic evaluation effect: Unconditional automatic attitude activation with a pronunciation task. JoumalofExperimenta1SocialPsychology, 32,104-1 28. Bargh, J. A,, & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis and C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253-285). New York: Cambridge University Press. Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (2000). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 123, 2189-2202. Bmnel, F., Tietje, B. C., & Greenwald, A. G. (2004). Is the Implicit Association Test a valid and valuable measure of implicit consumer social cognition? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 385-404. Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Jo~lrnalof Marketing, 64, 65-8 1. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, New York: Academic. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descarres'error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York: Putnam. Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C. & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,229-238.
PROMOTIONS AND EVALUATIONS Gorn, G. J. (1982). The effects of music in advertising on choice behavior: A classical conditioning approach. Journal of Marketing, 46, 94-101. Gorn, G. J., Goldberg, M. E., & Basu, K. (1993). Mood, awareness, and product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 237-256. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A,, & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216. Hawkins, S. A,, & Hoch, S. J. (1992). Low-involvement learning: Memory without evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 212-225. Heilman, C. M., Nakamoto, K., & Rao, A. G. (2002). Pleasant surprises: Consumer response to unexpected in-store coupons. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 242-252. Inman, J. J., McAlister, L., Hoyer, W. D. (1 990). Promotion signal: Proxy for a price cut. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 74-81. Inman, J. J., Peter, A. C., & Raghubir, P. (1997). Framing the deal: The role of restrictions in accentuating deal value. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 68-79. Johnston, W. A,, Dark, V. J., & Jacoby, L. L. (1985). Perceptual fluency and recognition judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 3-11. LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster. Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 151-165. Loewenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2002). Risk as feelings, Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-286. Maison, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Bruin, R. H. (2004). Predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test in studies of brands, consumer attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 405415. Pham, M. T. (1998). Representatives, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 144-157. Raghunathan, R., Pham, M. T., & Corfman K. P. (2006). Informational properties of anxiety and sadness, and displaced coping. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 596-602.
303
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 5 13-523. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1996). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Socialpsychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 433-465). New York: Guilford. Shimp, T. A. (1991). Neo-Pavlovian conditioning and its implications for consumer theory and research. In T. S. Robertson & H. H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 162-187). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Shimp, T. A,, Stuart, T .W., & Engle, R. W. (1991). A program of classical conditioning experiments testing variations in the conditioned stimulus and context. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 1-12. Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin. A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consunter Research, 26, 278-292. Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin. A. (2002). Spontaneous versus controlled influences of stimulus-based affect on choice behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 342-370. Stapel, D. A,, Koomen, W., & Ruys, K. I. (2002). The effect of diffuse and distinct affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 63-74. Wansink, B., Kent, R. J., & Hoch, S. J. (1998). An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decision. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 71-81. Yeung, C., & Wyer, R. S. (2004). Affect, appraisal, and consumerjudgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 41 2 4 2 4 . Yeung, C., & Wyer R. S. (2005). Does loving a brand mean loving its products? The role of brand-elicited affect in brand extension evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 495-506. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175. Zanna, M. P., & Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In D. Bar-Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology of knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Received: September 27,2004 Revision received: November 8, 2005 Accepted: January 1,2006
304
NAYLOR, RAGHUNATHAN, RAMANATHAN
APPENDIX A Experiment 1: Stimuli Used in IAT
I
Promotional Stimuli
I
Other Marketing Stimuli
I
I
Word List Pleasant
I
Neutral Light
Sale!
Love
Regular
Delight
Flat
Wonderful
Inclined
Pleasure
Round
Nice
Square
PROMOTIONS AND EVALUATIONS
APPENDIX B Experiment 2: Examples of printing stimuli
305