From a Brook to a Stream The Case

From a Brook to a Stream: The Case of Schema Research Ronald C. Goodstein Presentation to GMU December 2003

Road Map Schema Research Application (s 1) Extension (s 1 & s 2) Integration (s 2) Future Research

Basics of Schema Theory Stimulus Evoked Category Match Mismatch

Schema Triggered Affect (Fiske 1982, Fiske and Neuberg 1990, Fiske and Pavelchak 1986) “If relatively category-oriented processes are successful, then the perceiver goes no further toward more attribute-oriented processes. Match Category-based Category Affect Low motivation Target Mismatch Piecemeal Attribute Evaluation Target High motivation

Might This Describe Ad Processing? Consumers exposed to 2000 ads daily Develop heuristic to ease the processing load Observations are that default is to tune out, rather than to watch as we do in forced lab tests Motivation is needed to get consumers to process Incongruity is a motivating factor in processing.

Hypothesis 1 - Application When an ad is discrepant from category expectation, relative to when it is consistent, it will motivate more extensive processing.

Might There Be Reasons to Watch a “Typical” Ad? A variety of factors might attenuate the relationship between incongruity and evaluations (Mandler 1982) Strong Priors + Meyers-Levy & Tybout 1989 Goals = Keller 1991 Values -

Hypothesis 2 - Extension When an ad is consistent with category expectation, and as its category affect increases, it will motivate more extensive processing.

Hypothesis 3 - Extension When an ad is consistent with category expectation, and processing goals are brand, versus ad-oriented, it will motivate more extensive processing.

Methodology Pretest- Picking Ads Phase 1 - Ad Schema and Affect Phase 2 - 302 undergrads 6 ads – 3 typical/atypical Instructions – ad vs. brand Measures- Cognitive Responses; Catg. Responses; Affect Consistency; Evaluative Consistency; Time Watched; Recall

Results Hypothesis 1 – Atypical vs. Typical l More CRs; Fewer Catg. Resp; Less Affect Rltn. ; Lower Evaluative Rltn. ; Longer Viewing; Better Recall Hypothesis 2 – Typical: + vs. – l Less Affect Rltn. ; Lower Evaluative Rltn. ; Longer Viewing; Better Recall Hypothesis 3 – Typical: Brand vs. Ad l Longer Viewing; Better Recall

Discussion & Implications STA applies to advertising domain (CB) STA ignores “affect” as a motivator (Psych) Consumers’ reason for watching matters (CB) In dichotomous world, categorization leads to positive evaluations…but multiple levels may exist (Mandler 1982; Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989) Don’t adopt models as “gospel” (next paper)

What Happens to Moderately Incongruent Stimuli? Negative Evaluations Relationship e. g. , Carpenter and Nakamoto 1989; Ward and Loken 1987; Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998 Inverted-U e. g. , Mandler 1982; Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989; Peracchio and Tybout 1996

How Do We Reconcile the Differences? Back to Mandler (1982) l A variety of factors might attenuate the relationship between incongruity and evaluations (Mandler 1982) + Strong Priors Goals Values = -

How Might This Work? The process of resolving a moderate incongruity is seen as stimulating and enjoyable. l Alter ability l l Alter enjoyment l l Prior knowledge (Peracchio and Tybout 1996) Risk (Campbell and Goodstein 1997) Alter motivation

Integrating Risk into the Model Risk is central to consumers’ evaluations (Dowling 1999) High risk Brand names (Erdem 1998) High risk Less variety seeking (Inman et al. JMR) Risk Types – e. g. , Financial; Social; Performance; Psychological (Shimp and Bearden

Risk Moderates the Relationship Moderately incongruent stimuli are evaluated negatively when social risk is high. Low Risk High Risk

Summary of Study 1: 2 x 2 btw subjects l Risk Low = buy to have around the house High = buy to take to a dinner at a potential employer’s home (p <. 01) l Congruity Congruent = green, cylindrical Moderate = green, triangular (p <. 001) l Measures Product attitudes (a =. 95) Purchase intentions Manipulation checks (arisk =. 80; acongru =. 82) Category experience Age and gender

Results 5. 0 4. 0 Attd. 3. 0 4. 71 Low Risk 4. 58 3. 63; F<1, n. s. High Risk F = 6. 01, p <. 02 2. 56; F = 21. 36, p <. 001 2. 0 Congruent Moderately Incongruent

Summary of Study 2: 2 x 2 btw subjects l Risk Low = buy to have at home l High = buy to take to a picnic with friends of significant other. . . (p <. 01) l l Congruity … 9 point scale l l l Congruent = 12 oz. can (2. 90) Moderate = 12 oz. sports bottle (5. 01; F = 13. 80, p <. 001) Measures Product attitudes (a =. 94) Purchase intentions Manipulation checks (arisk =. 85; acongru =. 70) Covariates

5. 10 5. 0 4. 66 Results High Risk Low Risk 4. 0 4. 67; F<1, n. s. F = 4. 23, p <. 04 4. 00; F = 8. 82, p <. 004 Attd. 3. 0 2. 0 Congruent Moderately Incongruent

Discussion Congruent and moderately incongruent packages evaluated similarly under low risk. Congruent packages are preferred under high risk. No “moderate incongruity effect!” Tybout (1997)… “Did they resolve? ”

Alternate Rationales Congruity is unresolved Perhaps risk makes it too difficult to resolve the incongruity … ability (Tybout 1997) Consumer is overly stimulated Perhaps risk + novelty = too much, so cut off processing with risk … motivation (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1992) Conservatism prevails Reviewer Police Risk yields a preference for the norm … enjoyment (Erdem 1998)

Summary of Study 3: 3 x 2 btw subjects l Risk No = simple evaluation l Low = buy to have at home l High = buy to take to a picnic with friends of significant other. . . (p <. 01) l l Congruity … 9 point scale l l l Congruent = 12 oz. can (2. 90) Moderate = 12 oz. sports bottle (p <. 001) Measures Same… plus COGNTIVE RESPONSES

Results 5. 0 4. 0 Attd. 3. 0 4. 69 Low Risk 4. 50 4. 07 No Risk High Risk 5. 10; F = 3. 50, p <. 06 F = 2. 68, p <. 10 4. 57; F < 1, ns F = 11. 25, p <. 001 3. 54; F = 3. 11, p <. 08 2. 0 Congruent Moderately Incongruent

Cognitive Response Analysis Resolution a = p <. 01 b = p <. 05 c = p <. 10

Cognitive Response Analysis – Optimal Stimulation a = p <. 01 b = p <. 05 c = p <. 10

Cognitive Response Analysis Conservatism a = p <. 01 b = p <. 05 c = p <. 10

Summary of Study 4: 2 x 2 btw subjects l Risk No = simple evaluation l High = buy to take to a picnic with friends of significant other. . . (p <. 01) l l Congruity … 9 point scale l l l Congruent = 12 oz. can (2. 90) Moderate = 12 oz. sports bottle (p <. 001) Measures Same… plus preference for norm scales … Change Seeking Index

Results 4. 72; F = 3. 90, p <. 05 5. 0 4. 20 4. 0 Attd. 3. 0 No Risk 3. 64 High Risk 2. 97; F = 6. 43, p <. 01 2. 0 Congruent Moderately Incongruent

Process Analysis CSI … No Preference for norm… Yes, matched evaluation analyses. Views of Incongruity… No

Discussion Moderate incongruity effect found in packaging domain. Moderate incongruity effect occurs for judgment, but not choice. Reason… l Conservatism = Preference for the Norm

Conclusions “Mandler effect” may be accepted too liberally in consumer domain. Moderate incongruity effects are strongly attenuated by any social risk. Conservatism has the power to explain many CB effects e. g. , COO, brand preference, variety seeking Need to include purchase occasions in choice processes as this is an important positioning strategy.

What’s on the Horizon? Look for areas from psychology or marketing that integrate with the schema (fit) idea. Ethnicity in advertising (with Del Vecchio) l Thematic matching (with Kalra) l Cue consistency (with Miyazaki and Grewal) l Looking for new ideas!! l