University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The effects of a customer's comparative processing with positive and negative information on product choice

(USC Thesis Other)

The effects of a customer's comparative processing with positive and negative information on product choice

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE EFFECTS OF A CUSTOMER’S COMPARATIVE PROCESSING WITH POSITIVE
AND NEGATIVE INFORMATION ON PRODUCT CHOICE

by

Steven Eric Koppitsch

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION)

August 2013

Copyright 2013 Steven Eric Koppitsch

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Figures iii

Table of Tables iii

Abstract iv

The Effects of a Customer’s Comparative Processing with Positive and Negative
Information on Product Choice 1

Review of the Literature 2

Comparative and Selective Processing 2

The Effects of Measuring a Customer’s Intentions on Subsequent Choice 6

Study 1: The Effects of Comparative vs. Selective Processing and Reporting Category-
Level Sampling Likelihood on Customer Choice 9

Method 10

Pretest of Pollution Information 11

Main Study Procedure 12

Results 17

Discussion 21

Study 2: The Effects of Facilitating and Inhibiting Comparative Processing and of
Mitigating Information on Customer Choice of a Brand with Negative Attributes 25

Method 27

Results 30

Discussion 34

General Discussion 37

Research Implications 38

Limitations and Future Research 39

References 41

Appendix 1: Pretest of Study 1 Survey Materials 52

Appendix 2: Study 1 Survey Materials 62

Appendix 3: Study 2 Survey Materials 75

iii
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Flowchart of the Effects of Facilitating Comparative Processing and of
Mitigating Information on Product Choice 45

Figure 2. Predicted Effects On Choice By Presence of Mitigating Information and of
Comparative and Selective Processing 46

Figure 3. Percentage of Participants Choosing Most Polluting Brand in Study 2 47

Table of Tables
Table 1: Means for Comparative Processing vs. Distraction Main Effect in Study 1 48

Table 2: Means for Main Effect of Attitude Activation Question in Study 1 49

Table 3: Means for Effects of Comparative Processing vs. Distraction and Presence
vs. Absence of Mitigating Information in Study 2 50

Table 4: Means for Effect of Comparative Processing vs. Distraction in Study 2 51

iv
Abstract
As communication capabilities improve, customers are able to learn about a company’s
actions more easily. If a company engages in negative behavior such as pollution, the
company’s current and potential customers may think about how the negative behavior
influences their purchase decisions and about whether the negative actions are “worth it” in
regards to the quality of the product itself. Of interest to firms is how customers process this
information when making evaluative decisions.
My dissertation sheds light on the effect of comparative processing on brand choice. I
propose that how consumers process product information affects brand choice depending on
whether comparative processing is facilitated or inhibited. When engaging in comparative
processing, people examine a focal brand in the context of its competitors, whereas people
engaging in selective processing examine a focal brand without considering outside options
(Sanbonmatsu et al., 2011). I conducted two experiments to test my hypotheses. The first study
demonstrates that facilitating comparative processing influences product choice in a manner
similar to but distinct from the effect of mere measurement on purchase intentions. When
making a choice, participants with instructions to engage in comparative processing were less
focused on the positive aspects of the company’s product and expressed lower likelihood to
select the company’s product than participants who experienced cognitive limitations on their
comparative processing. The second study examined cognitive processing in the context of
additional mitigating information about the negative aspects of a firm. Participants engaged in
comparative processing were affected by mitigating information about the firm’s actions while
participants who experienced cognitive limitations on their ability to engage in comparative
processing were not. If a participant received mitigating information about a firm’s actions and
v
engaged in comparative processing, the likelihood of choosing that firm’s products increased
compared to those that did not receive the information or those that did not use comparative
processing.

1
The Effects of a Customer’s Comparative Processing with Positive and Negative Information on
Product Choice
The news is filled with negative stories about companies, including operating
sweatshops, engaging in insider trading or embezzlement, contaminating the environment
through pollution, and having dangerous products recalled. As consumers, we hear these news
stories. We may think about whether or not we want to purchase their products. We may focus
on whether the benefits of the product outweigh the negatives in the news stories. How does this
mixture of information influence purchases? Firms would benefit from being able to understand
how consumers process the information gained from news sources and knowing how these
stories impact our purchase patterns.
My research examined customers who have learned negative information about a
company to see how comparative and selective processing impacts their product choice.
Research on these types of processes has focused on the outcomes of these two types of
processing (Sanbonmatsu et al., 2011). In comparative processing, individuals give an
evaluation on one object based on how it compares to suitable alternative options. For example,
if a shopper is deciding whether to purchase a specific brand of cereal, the shopper engaged in
comparative processing would look at the benefits of the brand compared to other brands of
cereal available in the grocery aisle. In selective processing, individuals make judgments based
on an object’s own features while ignoring other options. In this case, the cereal shopper would
simply decide whether the specific brand of cereal would be a viable option without comparing it
to any of the other boxes of cereal in the aisle.
My dissertation explores consumer decision-making when comparative processing is
facilitated and inhibited, presents novel hypotheses that examine comparative processing, and
2
describes two studies to test those hypotheses. I show how processing types differentially
influence use of positive and negative information regarding a brand. My first study examines
how comparative processing influences choice and shows this effect is independent from the
mere measurement effect. The second study reveals that a change in the focus of comparative
processing can influence decisions and tests whether a change in the focus will influence how
additional information is processed. Study 2 also shows that when consumers receive positive
mitigating information about a brand’s negative features, that positive information influences
choice when the consumer engages in comparative processing and is thinking about the tradeoff
between positive and negative information.

Review of the Literature

The following sections review the literature on the cognitive processes behind
comparative and selective processing of information, as well as describing the mere
measurement effect. Each section also develops hypotheses based on each of these areas of
research.
Comparative and Selective Processing
Comparative and selective processing of information has been studied in determining
how individuals evaluate information. The two forms of processing differ in how the target is
evaluated relative to other options. Sanbonmatsu et al. (2011) define processes in which
individuals compare the target option to relevant alternatives as comparative processing and
those in which individuals judge an object only on its own features as selective processing.
3
The two types of processing have been analyzed in a variety of contexts. In a consumer
context, when consumers evaluate a brand extension, they tend to focus on selective processing
rather than comparative processing (Kapoor and Heslop, 2009). Because of this propensity for
selective processing, individuals tend to believe that brand extensions will be more successful
than they actually are. This happens because people focus on the familiarity of the brand name
being extended and put less emphasis on the competitive environment that the brand extension is
entering.
Research has also been conducted to determine when an individual may engage in one
type of process versus the other. Sanbonmatsu et al. (2011) found that cognitive capacity was
related to the propensity to engage in selective processing. People who were under time
constraint were more likely to focus on the target of an evaluation when compared to those who
were not time-constrained. Hence, limiting cognitive resources appears to decrease comparative
processing and favor selective processing.
Other research has focused on processing similar to selective processing and shown that
people tend to give weight to a single factor over others. Kahneman et al. (2006) referred to the
“focusing illusion” as the propensity for people to focus on a single factor in evaluating their
own well-being. This is similar to selective processing, with the individual focused only on one
thing; in selective processing it is the item being selected, while in the focusing illusion it is one
factor of happiness. In a brand choice context, the focusing illusion suggests that selective
processing may be the default processing mode because it is easier. Further, when people
engage in comparative processing, they need to incorporate information about several
alternatives. Based on the focusing illusion, individuals will instead focus their attention on the
attribute that is most salient to them at the time of the evaluation, even if it is not the most
4
important attribute in the evaluation. In a brand context, this means that customers can be
persuaded to focus on unimportant product features when making purchase decisions.
Even when instructed specifically to engage in comparative processing, people often
make decisions that suggest selective processing. Dunning, Meyerowitz, and Holzberg (1989)
looked at individuals comparing themselves with others. They found that people tend to give
more importance to their own strengths when comparing themselves to others than they give to
the strengths of the people they are comparing themselves to. This means that people tend to
believe they are better compared to others than they actually are. This leads to situations where
people believe they contribute to collaborations more than they actually do (Kruger and
Gilovich, 1999) and are more confident when engaging in competition (Plous, 1993). Kruger et
al. (2008) argued that this egocentrism occurs because people have more information about
themselves than others and therefore focus more on their own strengths when making
comparisons. Hence, it may be that the tendency to engage in selective processing would not
extend to judgments of other stimuli.
In general, these lines of research show that individuals tend to use selective processing
in their decision making and in their analysis of objects and situations. Although cognitive
ability is not needed to engage in comparative processing, it requires fewer cognitive resources
to use selective processing. The result of using selective processing is that many of the
evaluations individuals make are less than optimal because they neglect relevant information. If
individuals have the resources and motivation to engage in comparative processing, they can use
that to make evaluations that are more optimal.
In product evaluations, consumers have the option of evaluating a product based on its
own features or evaluating based on competitors and substitutes. When evaluating products,
5
consumers often have information about the product and the firm that developed the product.
Some of this information may be positive, while other information may be negative. When a
consumer is processing this information, whether the person is engaging in comparative or
selective processing will determine what information is ultimately used by the consumer in
making the product decision.
Research has shown that when people engage in selective processing, they have a
propensity to focus on positive information (Posavac et al., 2006). This positivity bias means
that people focus on the positive aspects of a product when making an evaluation while
discounting the value of negative information. Thus, when making a product evaluation that
involves both positive and negative information, consumers will tend to focus on the positive
aspects of the product more than if the person had engaged in comparative processing. This
suggests that individuals engaging in comparative processing will focus less on the positive
attributes and give more weight to the negative information than someone engaging in selective
processing. Further, the individual who is focusing less on the positive aspects is more likely to
have a negative evaluation of the product as a whole and is therefore less likely to select the
product than an individual who is engaging in selective processing.

H1: Engaging in comparative processing prior to choice decreases consumers’ choice of
a brand that has a negative attribute when compared to a customer whose cognitive
resources prevent engaging in comparative processing.

6
The Effects of Measuring a Customer’s Intentions on Subsequent Choice
Whereas my hypothesizing about brand choice is based on the literature on types of
processing, there is another literature that makes similar predictions, but for a different reason.
Research on the “mere measurement” effect suggests that consumers will be less likely to choose
a brand because measuring a consumer’s intention to purchase motivates consumers to weigh
negative information when constructing an attitude about a brand. This subsequently influences
their choice. In the following paragraphs, I elaborate on attitude construction, the mere
measurement effect on choice, and why the effects of comparative processing described above
are independent of the effects of measuring customers’ purchase intentions.
People can be motivated to construct attitudes in a consumer context (Feldman and
Lynch, 1988). Possibilities for this motivation include seeing a new advertisement for a product,
entering a store and seeing a product on a shelf, or trying to make a purchase decision. One
situation that has been studied previously is the completion of a customer survey (Borle et al.,
2007; Chandon, Morwitz, and Reinartz, 2005; Dholakia and Morwitz, 2002; Dholakia, Singh,
and Westbrook, 2010; Morwitz, Johnson, and Schmittlein, 1993). Firms often track their
performance and diagnose problems through customer surveys; however, the research on
customer surveys has found that the mere act of completing a survey influenced future purchase.
Prior research on the mere measurement effect (Feldman and Lynch, 1988; Morwitz,
Johnson, and Schmittlein, 1993) shows that measuring whether a customer will try a product that
the customer has negative information about will decrease the customer’s likelihood of
purchasing that product. This happens because when a person completes a survey, he or she
constructs attitudes based on information accessible at the time. If that information is negative,
the customer’s responses to the survey will be more negative than they otherwise would have
7
been. Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004) studied the effect of purchase-intention surveys on
subsequent purchase for products that participants viewed negatively and found that for these
negatively-viewed products, measuring intentions decreased subsequent purchase rates compared
to not measuring.
Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004) explained these findings as due to the “mere
measurement effect,” defined as the ability of the act of simply asking questions to influence
subsequent behavior (Morwitz, Johnson, and Schmittlein, 1993). This theoretical explanation
builds on self-generated validity theory, which suggests that people construct attitudes when they
are asked about the target of the attitude (Feldman and Lynch, 1988). An attitude has been
defined as “an evaluation of an object of thought” (Bohner and Dickel, 2011, p. 392) and the
target of the evaluation can be anything that the person is thinking of. Using a partially
constructionist view of attitudes, Feldman and Lynch (1988) argued that individuals, as a method
of optimizing cognitive functions, do not develop attitudes about an object unless they are
motivated to do so. They argued that a researcher’s questions provide sufficient motivation to
create those attitudes. Further, they suggested that even for those attitudes that do exist prior to
questioning, only a small subset of those will be accessible at the time of questioning. This
means that attitudes can be shaped at the time of questioning by the context of the questions
being asked, even for attitudes that had been held previously. As a result, if a firm measures its
customers’ purchase intentions, the customers will construct attitudes as a result of the simple
measurement of the intentions.
Self-generated validity (Feldman and Lynch, 1988) suggests that answering questions
about a product toward which the customer has a negative attitude would have a negative effect
on their subsequent attitudes toward the product. Measuring purchase intentions will motivate
8
the customer to construct the negative attitude that otherwise would not have been developed
(Fitzsimons and Morwitz, 1996; Sherman, 1980). These newly-constructed negative attitudes
will subsequently affect future purchase decisions (Morwitz and Fitzsimons, 2004). As a result,
the surveying of customers about a product that they hold a negative attitude toward would lead
to lower future purchase rates with the firm’s products compared to customers with a negative
attitude who were not surveyed.
Like Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004), I propose that when a firm measures how likely a
customer is to try a product class and the customer has recently learned negative information
about the company, it will have a negative effect on the customer’s subsequent choice compared
to someone whose choice likelihood is not measured. The motivation to construct the attitude
can come from measuring future category-level purchase intentions. In this case, the purchase
intention question will motivate the consumer who has learned negative information about a
company to construct attitudes that are influenced by that negative information. The person
surveyed will focus more on the negative information about the company rather than on the
product itself. This focus on the negative information will therefore make the customer’s
attitude more negative when compared to a when customer purchase intentions are not measured.
In addition, prior research on attitudes has shown that there is a relationship between
attitudes and behavior (Glasman and Albarracin, 2006; Greenwald et al., 2009). Specifically, as
attitudes are increasingly accessible, they are more predictive of behavior when compared to
less-accessible attitudes (Glasman and Albarracin, 2006). The correlation between attitudes and
behaviors suggests that the attitudes developed towards the firm following a service failure
should be predictive of subsequent behavior in relation to the firm. More specifically, as the
9
customer holds a more negative attitude towards the firm that caused the failure, the customer
will be less likely to want to make a purchase from the firm in the future.

H2: Answering a category sampling likelihood question prior to choice will decrease
customer choice of a brand that has a negative attribute compared with those who are not
asked a sampling likelihood question.

In the rest of my dissertation, I present two studies designed to test the hypotheses
described above. Study 1 tested whether a customer’s comparative processing in considering
purchasing a product that has both positive and negative aspects affects product choice (H1) and
whether measuring category-level intentions also influences choice (H2). Study 2 also examined
the effect of limiting cognitive resources on comparative processing but identified a moderator
for the effect. Study 2 examined whether limiting cognitive resources influences the extent to
which mitigating information influences choice when comparative processing is facilitated.

Study 1: The Effects of Comparative vs. Selective Processing and Reporting Category-
Level Sampling Likelihood on Customer Choice

The purpose of Study 1 was to test H1 and H2, testing whether facilitating or inhibiting
comparative processing as well as measuring category-level sampling intentions influences the
likelihood that consumers will choose a brand that they have received negative information
about.
10
Method
Study 1 used a 2x2 between-subjects factorial design in which (1) facilitating vs.
inhibiting comparative processing and (2) the presence or absence of a category-level sampling
intention question were manipulated. For the comparative processing manipulation, about half
of the participants were asked either to think about whether they would purchase candy bars
from each of the manufacturers. The remaining half experienced cognitive constraint, in that
they had to remember a 7-digit number.
Thinking about purchasing each of the candy bars was designed to engage participants in
comparative processing, examining the focal (high pollution) brand in the context of its
competitors. On the other hand, the cognitive constraint task should have inhibited comparative
processing. Prior research has used a time constraint to prompt selective processing
(Sanbonmatsu et al., 2011); the time constraint manipulation limited the amount of information
participants could process, leading to selective (vs. comparative) processing. The cognitive
constraint manipulation I used should have similarly limited the amount of information
participants were able to process, thus inhibiting comparative processing. For the completion of
a category-level sampling question manipulation, participants were either asked or not asked
how likely they would be to try a Latin American candy bar if it were available in the United
States; this manipulation was based on Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004).
In the study, participants were given information about three fictitious Latin American
candy bar manufacturers that they were told were planning on entering the United States market
as part of their expansion plans. Participants received information about the companies,
including information about the pollution levels at their plants in a matrix form, which should
have facilitated comparative processing. The matrix showed that one of the companies
11
reportedly had high pollution levels. I conducted a pretest, described below, to test whether the
inclusion of the pollution information would result in more negative perceptions of the polluting
company relative to non-polluting companies.
Pretest of Pollution Information
The purpose of the pretest was to determine whether information regarding a company’s
pollution levels relative to their competition would be seen as unfavorable information.
Participants were 21 undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory marketing course at
Bowling Green State University who volunteered to participate. The study materials are
presented in Appendix 1. Participants received a mock newspaper article describing the efforts
of three Latin American candy bar companies to enter the United States market followed by a
rating table that participants were told was from the Latin American branch of Consumer
Reports. The Consumer Reports table contained ratings for taste, fat content, calorie content,
shelf life, and pollution for each of the three candy bar companies. One of the three companies
had a higher level of pollution than the other two companies, which was designed to make
participants view that brand unfavorably.
Following the ratings, participants completed a series of questions about the three
companies named “Dac,” “Ket,” and “Gon.” Of these companies, Ket was the one with the high
pollution rating. Using 9-point scales anchored by “Not at all” (1) and “A great deal” (9),
participants were asked whether they were “Upset at,” “Angry at,” and “Outraged at” each of the
three companies. These items were combined into a single anger measure for each company
(Chronbach’s alpha = 0.83 for Dac, .091 for Ket, and 0.60 for Gon). Participants were also
asked, “How favorable would your attitude towards [brand] be,” “To what degree would you
think [brand] was good,” and “To what degree would you like [brand],” each of which was
12
anchored by “Not at all” and “Completely.” These measures were repeated for each of the three
brands and were combined into a favorability measure for each of the three brands (Chronbach’s
alpha = .86 for Dac, .80 for Ket, and .88 for Gon).
As intended, participants reported more anger and more unfavorable ratings in regard to
the polluting brand. A within-subjects one-way ANOVA on anger was significant (F(2, 40) =
59.01, p < .001). Using Bonferroni pairwise comparisons, Ket (M = 6.14) resulted in
significantly greater anger than either Dac (M = 1.87, p < .001) and Gon (M = 2.38, p <.001),
while Dac and Gon were not significantly different from each other. Anger towards Ket was
significantly greater than the midpoint of the 9-point scale (t(20) = 2.68, p < .05). For the
favorability measure, the within-subjects one-way ANOVA was also significant (F(2, 40) =
47.44, p < .001). Using a Bonferroni pairwise comparison, participants had a significantly more
favorable rating of Dac (M = 6.98) than either Ket (M = 2.98) or Gon (M = 4.52). Gon was
viewed significantly more favorably than Ket.
The results of this pretest show that the Ket brand, although being described as being the
best tasting candy bar, is viewed more unfavorably than either of its competitors due to its
pollution level. This will allow me to examine how consumers process negative information
about a product with positive attributes.
Main Study Procedure
Participants for Study 1 were 148 undergraduate students at Bowling Green State
University who received their choice of a candy bar in exchange for participation in the study.
Participants took part in the study in groups of 25-35 in a classroom setting. At the beginning of
the study, participants were told that they were going to receive information about several
companies and that they would be asked for their opinions about the companies. They were
13
given a survey packet (Appendix 2) and an envelope with the instructions to not open the
envelope until directed to do so.
The experimental procedure was modeled after Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004) in which
they examined the mechanism behind the mere measurement effect on product choice using the
selection of candy bars. In the current study, participants were given information about different
unfamiliar candy bars and then presented with the series of dependent variables.
At the beginning of the study, participants were presented with a mock article that they
were told was from a Mexico City newspaper that had been translated into English and that the
company names in the article had been changed. The names of the three candy bars were “Dac,”
“Ket,” and “Gon,” which were designed to be nonsense syllables with no associated meaning.
The mock news article explained that members of the Confectionery Manufacturers Association
of Latin America (CMALA) were planning on entering the United States market and explained
the companies’ expectations for the expansion. This differs from the approach of Morwitz and
Fitzsimons (2004) in that they used the actual names of real candy bars available for sale in
Canada. The rest of the description of the newspaper article and the companies entering the U.S.
market are the same between my study and theirs.
After reading the newspaper article, participants were given a set of ratings for three
brands of candy bars that were planning on entering the U.S. These ratings were described as
being from the Latin American branch of Consumer Reports and included a rating for taste and
information on fat and calorie content and the shelf life of each brand, much like Morwitz and
Fitzsimons (2004). For my study, I gave each brand a pollution rating, which was signified by a
scale using skull and crossbones icon (N), anchored by N (low pollution) and NNNN (high
pollution). Two of the candy bars (Dac and Gon) were rated low on pollution, while the third
14
brand (Ket) was given a high pollution rating. The third candy bar (Kem) also had the highest
rating in terms of taste. Ket, with its high taste score and high pollution level, was found to be
viewed less favorably by participants in the pretest than the other two candy bars.
After reading the ratings table, participants next received the two manipulations. The
first manipulated whether comparative processing was facilitated or inhibited. Each participant
was asked to open an envelope with further instructions. About half of the participants were
instructed to engage in comparative processing by asking them to think about the candy bars and
whether they would purchase each brand. The remaining participants had their cognitive
resources constrained and so were less able to engage in comparative processing. They were
given a cognitive load task in which they were asked to remember a 7-digit number and that they
would be asked to report the number later in the study. In sum, this manipulation was designed
to inhibit the participant’s ability to engage in comparative processing. Once participants had
either memorized the number or “taken a few moments to think about each of the candy bars,”
they returned the instruction sheet to the envelope and continued with the study.
Immediately following the first manipulation, participants were presented with the
second manipulation. This manipulation, modeled after Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004), was
used to detect the mere measurement effect. In terms of processing theory, the manipulation
encouraged comparative processing, but at the category level (for Latin American candy bars as
a category) rather than at the focal brand level. Specifically, about half of the participants were
asked to report their category-level) intention to sample one of the Latin American candy bars if
available in the U.S. These participants were asked “How likely or unlikely would you be to try
a Latin American candy bar if it was available in the United States?” This single-item question
was measured using a 9-point scale anchored by “Definitely would NOT try” (1) and “Definitely
15
would try” (9). Participants who were not asked to report their general intention to purchase
proceeded to the next page of the survey packet.
After the second manipulation, all participants were asked to make a judgment that
involved comparing brands (i.e., to engage in comparative processing). Participants were told
that the sponsors of the research had provided sample candy bars and that they would be allowed
to sample one of them. They were asked to tear off one of three coupons printed at the bottom of
the page to exchange for their chosen candy bar at the completion of the study. This selection of
candy bars was taken from Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004).
Next, participants were asked three questions to measure their attitudes towards each
brand (a task requiring only selective processing). Using a 9-point scale anchored by “Extremely
negative” (1) and “Extremely positive” (2), participants were asked “What is your attitude
towards Dac Candy Bars?” This procedure was repeated for Ket and Gon, the two other candy
bars. Next, all participants were asked to “Describe in a sentence or two why your attitude
towards Ket was positive or negative,” which was taken from Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004) as
a manipulation of attitude accessibility. The open-ended descriptions were later coded to
determine whether they mentioned pollution and/or taste.
Taken from Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004), the next measure was designed to measure
the purchase intentions for each of the candy bars. Participants will be asked to indicate their
relative likelihood of purchasing each of the five brands by allocating 100 points across the three
options (a task that favored comparative processing). They were told that higher numbers
suggested a greater likelihood of purchase and that they could enter “0” if they had no intention
to purchase a brand. Participants were told that the total among the three brands had to equal
100 points. At this point, those participants that were asked to remember a 7-digit number were
16
asked to report their memorized number. Six participants did not follow directions on the point
allocation task. These students either ranked the brands or gave each brand a percentage chance
of being chosen out of 100. These surveys were excluded from the analysis. After this task,
participants in the condition in which comparative processing was inhibited were asked to report
the number they had been requested to memorize. Four participants either did not report a
number or wrote that they did not remember the number. These participants’ surveys were also
excluded from the analysis. The remaining participants wrote down a number.
Participants were then asked a series of questions about their candy bar consumption,
about how pollution would impact their decision, and about their recall of the information given
for each brand. First, participants were asked “How frequently do you consume candy bars”
using a multiple choice question with options ranging from “I never consume candy bars” to
“More than once per day.” There was no difference between groups for the frequency of candy
bar consumption. Next, their intention to eat the candy bar they received was measured by
asking “Will you eat the candy bar you chose” using a 9-point scale anchored by “Definitely not”
(1) and “Definitely” (9).
To measure whether participants evaluated the negative attribute (pollution) differently,
participants were asked four questions using 9-point scales. The first two, “Does knowing that a
company’s manufacturing facility pollutes the environment make you angry at the company?”
and “Did the information about Ket being a polluter make you angry?” were anchored by “Not at
all” (1) and “Very angry” (9). The other two questions, “Do you consider a company that is a
polluter to be a morally bad company because they pollute?” and “Do you refuse to buy products
from companies that create a lot of pollution?” were anchored by “Not at all” (1) and
“Definitely” (9).
17
Finally, participants were asked to indicate their gender and their familiarity with Latin
American candy bars using a 9-point scale anchored by “Extremely unfamiliar” (1) and
“Extremely familiar” (9). Upon completion of the survey, participants were debriefed and given
their choice of familiar candy bars available in the United States.
Results
The results of Study 1 were analyzed using a 2x2 between-subjects ANOVA, except for
the binary measures, which were analyzed with binary logistic regression. The results support
the hypotheses that both the type of processing (Table 1) and the presence of a category-level
sampling question (Table 2) affect choice.
Comparative Brand Choice. For the main dependent variable of interest, the
percentage of participants who chose the polluting brand (Ket), there was a significant main
effect for comparative processing using a binary logistic regression (χ
2
(1, N = 119) = 5.28, p <
.05), with participants more likely to choose the target brand when they were under cognitive
constraint than when they were prompted to engage in comparative processing (M = 0.44 vs. M =
0.26). The choice of the brand with negative information also had a significant main effect for
the category-level sampling likelihood question (χ
2
(1, N = 119) = 3.87, p < .05), with participants
in the condition in which the likelihood was measured less likely to choose the polluting brand
than those in the condition in which the likelihood was not measured (M = 0.27 vs. M = 0.43).
Brand Attitudes. Participant attitude toward the brand they had negative information
about (Ket) showed two significant main effects. Participants had a more positive attitude
towards the company with high pollution levels when comparative processing was inhibited than
when comparative processing was facilitated (M = 4.63 vs. M = 3.81, F(1, 144) = 5.67, p < .05).
Participants also had a more favorable attitude towards the polluting brand when they did not
18
answer the category-level sampling likelihood question than when they did (M = 4.60 vs. M =
3.84, F(1, 144) = 4.95, p < .05).
For the second-best-tasting brand (Dac), there was a significant main effect for
comparative processing, with participants rating this brand more favorably when they were
prompted to engage in comparative processing than when they were not (M = 6.53 vs. M = 6.09,
F(1, 144) = 4.32, p < .05). There was no effect for the presence of the category-level sampling
likelihood question. There were also no effects for the lowest-rated candy bar (Gon).
When examining the brand preference scale in which participants allocated 100 points
among the three options, there was a significant main effect for comparative processing but not
for the presence of the sampling likelihood question. Participants who were under cognitive
constraint allocated significantly more points to the polluting brand than those who had
comparative processing facilitated (M = 32.96 vs. M = 21.98, F(1, 144) = 6.74, p < .05). There
was no difference between conditions for the amount of points given to the polluting brand based
on the presence of the sampling likelihood question (M = 24.5 vs. M = 30.5, F(1, 144) = 2.02,
n.s.). There were no significant effects for the number of points allocated to either of the other
two brands for either comparative processing or the sampling-likelihood question.
Negative and Positive Attributes in Free Response. The proportion of participants that
mentioned the positive attribute (taste) when explaining their attitude towards the polluting brand
(Ket) was greater for participants under cognitive constraint than for participants who were
prompted to engage in comparative processing (M = 0.67 vs. M = 0.49, F(1, 144) = 5.01, p <
.05). The proportion of participants that mentioned taste was lower among those where
category-level likelihood for trying a Latin American candy bar were measured when compared
19
to those where the likelihood was not measured (M = 0.44 vs. M = 0.72, F(1, 144) = 13.31, p <
.001).
Regressions were performed to examine the effect of mentioning the positive attribute
(taste) and the negative attribute (pollution) during the free response. A regression only on those
participants who received the category-level sampling likelihood question showed that the
mention of taste was a significant predictor of the choice of the target brand (β = 0.51, t(49) =
3.83, p < .001), while the mention of pollution was not (β = -0.13, t(49) = -0.96, n.s.) (adj R
2
=
0.32). When a regression was run only participants who did not receive the category-level
purchase likelihood question, both the mention of taste (β = 0.22, t(47) = 2.46, p < .05) and the
mention of pollution (β = -0.71, t(47) = -7.82, p < .001) were significant predictors of the choice
of the target brand (adj R
2
= 0.63), with the effect of the mention of pollution greater than the
effect of mentioning taste.
Reactions towards Polluting Companies. Participants prompted to engage in
comparative processing reported that they were more likely to refuse to buy a product from a
polluter than participants under cognitive constraint (M = 5.34 vs. M = 4.24, F(1, 144) = 7.92, p
< .01).
Those that answered the category-level question were also less likely to say they would
eat their chosen candy bar than those who did not (M = 6.25 vs. M = 7.00, F(1, 144), = 5.87, p <
.05). When the likelihood of trying a Latin American candy bar (i.e., the category-level intention
to try manipulation item) was measured, participants were less likely to state that they would be
willing to purchase a Latin American candy bar when they were engaged in comparative
processing compared to when they had cognitive resources constrained (M = 4.89 vs. M = 6.19,
t(71) = 2.33, p < .05).
20
A regression on the choice of the brand that had engaged in negative activities showed
that facilitating comparative processing (β = -0.18, t(146) = 2.32, p < .05, adj R
2
= 0.029) was a
significant predictor. Processing was also a significant predictor of participant refusal to buy
from a company that pollutes (β = 0.23, t(146) = 2.82, p < .01, adj R
2
= 0.045). When both
comparative processing and the refusal to buy from a polluter were included as predictors of the
choice of the negative brand, only the refusal to purchase was significant (β = -.50, t(145) = 6.79,
p < .001 for refusal and β = -0.08, t(145) = 1.04, n.s. for processing, adj R
2
= 0.258). This
suggests that the effect of facilitating comparative processing on the choice of the negative brand
is mediated by whether participants refuse to purchase from a company that create a lot of
pollution.
Brand Choice and Evaluation of Products. Overall, 52 out of the 148 participants
(35%) chose the polluting company’s product. Participants that chose that company were
significantly more likely to mention taste when discussing the reason for their attitude towards
the brand (88% vs. 42%, t(146) = 6.14, p < .001) and less likely to mention pollution (50% vs.
95%, t(146) = 7.46, p < .001) than those that did not choose the company. Not surprisingly, they
also reported a more positive attitude towards the polluting brand (M = 6.25 vs. M = 3.13, t(146)
= 11.82, p < .001) and allocated significantly more points towards the company (M = 55.71 vs.
12.29, t(146) = 15.83, p < .001) than those that did not choose it. Participants that chose the
brand they had received negative information about also reported less anger at companies that
pollute (M = 5.10 vs. M = 6.85, t(146) = 5.66, p < .001) and less anger about the information
about that brand’s pollution than those that did not choose it (M = 4.44 vs. M = 6.91, t(146) =
7.80, p < .001). Those that chose the polluting brand were also less likely to believe that a
polluter was a morally bad company (M = 5.25 vs. M = 6.16, t(146) = 2.55, p < .05) and less
21
likely to refuse to purchase from companies that pollute (M = 3.10 vs. M = 5.70, t(146) = 7.21, p
< .001) than participants that did not choose the company.
Discussion
Comparative and Selective Processing. The results of Study 1 show that facilitating
comparative processing as contrasted with inhibiting it influences brand choice, as well as
consumer focus on product attributes and attitude towards the product, supporting H1. When
asked to discuss the reasons behind their attitude towards the polluting candy bar, customers who
were prompted to engage in comparative processing mentioned the taste of the target company’s
products less frequently than those who were cognitively constrained, suggesting that
comparative processing had an impact on what attributes were thought about. Those asked to
engage in comparative processing also reported more negative attitudes towards the target
product and were less likely to choose the target brand than those in the cognitive constraint
condition.
The results were found despite the unfamiliarity of the brand names in the study. Kapoor
and Heslop (2009) argued that consumers use the familiarity of a brand name as a cue to predict
the future success of a brand. In their study, participants used brand names because they were
familiar and could be used to make assumptions about the quality. In the absence of familiar
brand names, participants in Study 1 used the information they found most relevant in making
their product decision. Those who engaged in comparative processing focused less on taste than
those who were in the distraction condition.
When consumers engage in comparative processing, they examine the target of their
evaluation in the context of other options they can choose from. This differs from selective
processing, which only focuses on the target brand and its features. When participants in Study 1
22
engaged in comparative processing, they were comparing the polluting brand that was
unfavorably rated in the pretest to the other two brands that were not rated unfavorably. The
negative information regarding pollution was compared to the pollution information of the other
two brands, resulting in a lower choice incidence of the polluting brand. Moreover, only 26% of
participants in the comparative processing condition chose the polluting brand, meaning 74%
rejected the brand with the higher Consumer Reports taste ratings because of the negative
pollution information.
Shafir (1993) found that when people are rejecting an item from a choice set, they are
likely to focus more heavily on negative information. In this case, the negative information is
the pollution information. The results show that this is what likely happened between the
processing conditions. When participants had comparative processing facilitated while deciding
between the different brands, they were less likely to choose the polluting brand. Examining
their free response showed that participants who had comparative processing facilitated were less
likely to mention the positive attributes of taste. Pollution was mentioned more frequently when
comparative processing was facilitated (82%) than when it was inhibited (76%); this difference
was not significant, although this may be due to a ceiling effect based on the high incidence of
mentioning pollution. Supporting the focus on the negative attitude for participants who engaged
in comparative processing is the fact that those participants were significantly more likely to
refuse to purchase products from polluters than those who were in the cognitive constraint
condition.
The attitude results were similar to the brand choice for the polluting brand. Participants
had a less favorable attitude towards the polluting brand when they engaged in comparative
processing than when they were under cognitive constraint. The results for attitude held for the
23
second-best-tasting brand, but not for the lowest taste rating. The brand with the second highest
rating was selected by 50% of participants overall, while the candy bar with the lowest taste
rating in the Consumer Reports table was selected by less than 15% of all participants. Based on
these choice ratios, the second-highest-rated brand was part of participant consideration sets,
while the lowest-rated brand was likely not. As a result, participants in the comparative
processing condition were evaluating the second-highest rated brand, but not the lowest-rated
brand when asked about their preference.
For the brand preference rating, in which participants allocated 100 points among the
three brands, the results were similar for the polluting brand, but not for the non-polluting brand.
The polluting brand received fewer points when participants engaged in comparative processing
than when comparative processing was inhibited. The increase for the second-highest-rated
brand that was seen for attitude was not significant for the point allocation. This is likely a
ceiling effect since participants in the comparative processing condition gave the second-highest-
rated brand almost 50 points, which is high considering there were three brands, one of which
was rated higher on taste.
Category-Level Sampling Likelihood Question. Asking a customer to answer a
category-level sampling likelihood question similar to Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004) also had
an effect on consumer focus on product attributes, as well as attitudes towards and choice of the
product, supporting H2. Measuring the likelihood of being sampled resulted in participants
focusing less on the attributes of the product; when asked to describe the reasons behind their
attitudes, participants in the condition in which category-level likelihood was measured were less
likely to mention taste and were less likely to purchase from polluters than participants who had
not had category-level likelihood measured. Participants who had purchase likelihood measured
24
also had more negative attitudes towards the negative candy bar and were less likely to choose
that brand than those who did not have purchase likelihood measured.
These results fit in with Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004), which showed that participants
that had negative attitudes towards a product were less likely to choose that product if category-
level sampling likelihood was measured when compared to those when it was not measured. The
results also help shed light on the process behind the mere measurement effect. In Morwitz and
Fitzsimons (2004), the mere measurement effect decreased the choice probability of a target
option that participants had a negative impression of. In my study, the product itself was the
most positively rated of the candy bar options, yet the choice probability of that brand decreased.
Participants were asked whether they would want try one of the Latin American candy bars.
This question mentioned trying the product rather than purchasing the product, which likely
focused participants on the taste ratings that would be more relevant to sampling a candy bar.
When participants were asked the purchase likelihood question, the choice of the target brand
was predicted by the mention of taste, but not the mention of pollution. Conversely, when
participants did not receive the sampling likelihood question, their choice of the target brand was
predicted by both the mention of pollution and of taste, with the effect of pollution greater than
the effect of taste.
The results of Study 1 show that when customers are faced with negative information
about a firm, the type of cognitive processing and whether the customer is asked whether he or
she would like to try a product in the company’s category have similar effects in that they change
the customer’s focus on the product’s properties and influence the customer’s attitudes towards
and choice of the product. In Study 1, comparative processing was tested by asking participants
to make a decision between the different brands. They were either asked to think about whether
25
they would purchase each brand or were given a cognitive load task. This cognitive load task
was designed to inhibit comparative processing by limiting the amount of cognitive resources
available for comparative processing in a similar manner to the time constraint used by
Sanbonmatsu et al. (2011). However, this procedure does not provide evidence that participants
actually did engage in comparative processing. Study 2 uses a different procedure that provides
direct evidence of comparative processing. Instead of explicitly asking participants to compare
brands, the focus of Study 2 asked participants to think about the tradeoff between the positive
and negative aspects of the polluting brand and to write down their thoughts.

Study 2: The Effects of Facilitating and Inhibiting Comparative Processing and of
Mitigating Information on Customer Choice of a Brand with Negative Attributes

In Study 1, participants were faced with a cognitive processing task that focused on the
purchase of one of the candy bar brands. When participants were engaged in comparative
processing, participants focused less on the taste of the candy bars, which resulted in more
negative attitudes and a lower choice percentage than those who were under cognitive constraint.
In Study 2, I manipulate comparative processing by asking participants to focus on the tradeoff
between the positive and negative attributes of the brands. Selective processing appears to be the
default option and requires little in the way of cognitive resources. Hence, limiting cognitive
resources decreases the likelihood of comparative processing, as shown in Study 1.
Further, limiting cognitive resources may influence choice when resources are required to
process additional information. Processing mitigating information that may have a positive
impact on a brand’s negative attribute requires the use of cognitive resources.
26
Study 1 focused on how consumers use available information about negative aspects of a
firm when constructing attitudes if the likelihood of trying a product in a category has been
measured. If consumers learn negative information about a firm, the firm itself can provide its
own information to consumers regarding steps it is taking to mitigate the negative information.
This would then also be available to consumers when constructing attitudes. Study 2 focuses on
how this mitigating information can be used by consumers in forming attitudes.
When a firm has done something negative, its customers are likely to have a more
negative reaction to the company’s actions if the consumers believe that the firm had control
over the problem when compared to customers who do not feel the failure was controllable by
the firm (Folkes, 1984). For example, if a firm has a poor history of emitting pollution as a result
of its manufacturing operations, customers will have a more negative view of the firm if they
believe that the firm has the means to control its pollution levels than if the firm has little control
over its emissions due to some external factor such as government regulations. In this case, if
the customers have negative perceptions about the controllability of the cause of the pollution
(i.e., they believe the firm can do something to address the problem), it stands that the customer’s
perceptions of the firm will be more negative than if those same customers believe that the firm
has tried to address the pollution issue but has been prevented from doing so.
One way that a firm can change customer perceptions about the controllability of an
aspect of its operations is to inform customers about its intentions to address that problem. In
this case, customers would receive information about the company’s actions that show that the
problem is not controllable. For example, if the polluting company had made plans to address
the cause of its pollution problem but its plans had been stopped due to government intervention,
customers would view the pollution problem as something uncontrollable by the firm.
27
Customers who receive this type of mitigating information about the cause of the action will
report a more positive attitude towards the firm and a higher selection rate of that firm’s products
compared to customers who do not receive any such mitigating information. This is because
consumers construct their attitudes about products as needed and will use the information
available to them at the time of attitude construction, but only if they have the cognitive
resources to do so (Feldman and Lynch, 1988). The mitigating information provided by the firm
is part of what is available to consumers when constructing attitudes.
A flow chart depicting the process of incorporating mitigating information is presented in
Figure 1. First, a customer receives negative information about a product that otherwise is
positive. At this point, the individual can be engaged in comparative processing, not only
comparing the focal brand to its competitors, but also focusing on the tradeoff between the
positive features of the brand and the new negative information. If the customer is not focused
on this tradeoff, the potential mitigating information will have no effect on choice because the
customer will have no context within which to process the new information. If the customer is
focused on the tradeoff and receives mitigating information, positive attitudes about the brand
will be constructed and the likelihood of selecting the target brand increases. Of course, if there
is no mitigating information, there will be no impact on choice. Figure 2 shows a graphical
representation of what will happen when mitigating information is provided to consumers.
Method
Study 2 had a 2x2 between-subjects factorial design in which the manipulated factors
were the ability to engage in comparative processing and whether participants received
mitigating information about the firm’s pollution. Comparative processing was manipulated in a
different way from Study 1. Based on Pedersen et al. (2011), participants either were asked to
28
(1) think about the tradeoff between the quality of the brands and the negative information
associated with the brands or (2) engage in a distraction task in which they were distracted and
not focused on the products. Similar to Study 1, the second condition was designed to limit
participants’ ability to engage in comparative processing and instead increase the likelihood of
engaging in selective processing. The second manipulated factor, the presentation of mitigating
information, used two levels: one in which the firm’s pollution activity was stated as being a
result of government intervention and one in which there was no mitigating information
provided.
Participants were 119 undergraduate business students at Bowling Green State University
who were given a candy bar in exchange for participating. The methodology was similar to that
of Study 1 except for the manipulations. Participants were given a survey packet that included
mock article they were told was taken from a Mexico City newspaper that had been translated
into English that described the intentions of members of the CMALA to enter the United States
market. Next, participants were shown a set of ratings that they were told was from the Latin
American branch of Consumer Reports, which included information on taste, fat content, caloric
content, shelf life, and pollution.
The mitigation manipulation presented to participants was included with the Consumer
Reports rating table and was whether or not they received mitigating information about the
firm’s pollution. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the
mitigating information condition, a footnote was included beneath the Consumer Reports table
stating that the company was aware of the pollution issue, but that the government of the
company’s country had not approved the permits necessary to upgrade the company’s
equipment. The footnote also mentioned that without the government permit and subsequent
29
upgrade, there was nothing the company could do to improve its pollution emissions. In the
second condition, there was no mention of the government’s influence over the firm’s pollution
levels.
Following the presentation of the ratings table and the first manipulation, participants
were asked to complete a writing task and were randomly assigned to one of two cognitive
processing conditions. This manipulation was modeled after manipulations used by Rusting and
Nolen-Hoeksema (1998) and Bushman et al. (2005). Participants assigned to the first condition
were given directions designed to have them think about the tradeoff between the taste of the
candy bars and the firm’s pollution. Specifically, participants were asked to write about whether
they would enjoy the candy bars and their thoughts on how the pollution would affect them. By
having participants focus on both the taste and the pollution, the instructions were designed to
have participants consider both aspects in their evaluation of the companies. As intended, of the
60 participants who were asked to think about the tradeoff between taste and pollution, 55
(91.7%) mentioned pollution and the candy bar’s taste or quality in their response. The
remaining 5 participants mentioned pollution, but not the candy bars themselves. Participants in
the distraction condition were asked to write about the layout of a store they have recently
visited. All of the participants in this condition did write about the layout of a store rather than
about anything related to the candy bars in the study.
After the second manipulation, participants were told that they would receive a candy bar
made by one of the manufacturers and were asked to tear off one of three coupons printed on the
bottom of the page to exchange for their chosen candy bar. Next, participants answered a series
of questions about the candy bars (the same as those asked in Study 1). These included questions
about their attitudes towards each brand, about their candy bar consumption, about how pollution
30
would impact their decision, and about their recall of the information given for each brand.
Participants were also asked for their preference for each brand by allocating 100 points to the
three brands and whether pollution impacts their purchase decisions. Seven participants in Study
2 completed the point allocation task incorrectly by either ranking the brands or giving each
brand a percentage chance of being chosen out of 100. As in Study 1, these surveys were
excluded from the analysis. Upon completion of the study, participants were debriefed and given
their choice of a candy bar available for purchase in the United States.
Results
The results of Study 2 support the hypotheses regarding the effect of the type of
processing used when evaluating the product and of the presentation of mitigating information
(Table 3 and Table 4).
Manipulation Check. A manipulation check was run by examining the free response
provided by participants in the comparative processing condition. Each response was examined
for whether it discussed multiple brands or mentioned a comparison between brands or only
focused on one brand. Overall, 49 of the 60 participants (82%) in the comparative processing
condition provided evidence that they engaged in comparative processing. These participants
either mentioned multiple brands by name or discussed comparing the different brands on taste
without mentioning brand names. The remaining participants mentioned Ket, either by name or
as the high polluter, without mentioning other brands or without mentioning a comparison
between brands. These results suggest that the manipulation was successful in encouraging
participants to engage in comparative processing.
Choice of Polluting Brand. Using a binary logistic regression, there were two
significant main effects (χ
2
(1, N = 119) = 8.44, p < .01 for mitigating information; χ
2
(1, N = 119)
31
= 8.98, p < .01 for processing) that were qualified by a significant interaction (χ
2
(1, N = 119) =
6.12, p < .05) (Figure 2). A Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test on choice of the negative brand’s
product also showed that choice differed between groups (χ
2
= 15.75, p < .001). Pairwise
comparisons showed that the condition in which participants received mitigating information
about pollution and were focused on the tradeoff between taste and pollution was significantly
greater than each of the other three groups and that none of the other groups significantly
differed from each other. These results differ from those of Study 1 in that a comparison of the
two conditions in which no mitigating information was provided shows no difference for
comparative processing while there was a decrease in choice of the negative brand when
engaging in comparative processing in Study 1. An explanation for this difference is explored in
the discussion section that follows.
A mediation analysis performed on participants that were prompted to engage in
comparative processing, focusing on the tradeoff between taste and pollution showed that the
relationship between whether participants received mitigating information about pollution and
the choice of the negative brand was mediated by their attitude towards the negative brand as
predicted by H3a. Using the Baron and Kenny (1986) methodology, a regression of the effect of
mitigating information on choice showed that the information was a significant predictor
(β = -0.42, t(58) = -3.57, p < .001; adj R
2
= 0.17). In a separate regression, mitigating
information was also a significant predictor of attitude towards the polluting brand (β = -0.64,
t(58) = -6.32, p < .001; adj R
2
= 0.40). When both mitigating information and attitude towards
the negative brand are included in a regression as predictors of the choice of the negative brand,
the effect of mitigating information is not significant (β = -0.02, t(57) = -0.17, n.s.), whereas the
effect of attitude is significant (β = 0.63, t(57) = 4.78, p < .001; adj R
2
= 0.39). These results
32
suggest that attitude fully mediates the relationship between the presence of mitigating
information and choice of the negative brand.
Brand Attitudes. For the participant attitudes towards each brand, there was a main
effect for mitigating information for attitudes towards the negative brand. Participants had a
more positive attitude towards the product when participants received mitigating information
about the company’s pollution than when there was no information (M = 6.13 vs. M = 4.53, F(1,
115) = 17.79, p < .001). The main effect was qualified by a significant interaction (F(1, 115) =
8.05, p < .01). Participants in the distraction condition did not differ in their attitude towards the
negative brand’s candy bar when comparing those who received mitigating information (M =
5.83) and those who did not (M = 5.31); however, there was a difference for those who engaged
in comparative processing that focused on the tradeoff, with participants having a more favorable
attitude towards the negative brand and its company if they had mitigating information (M =
6.43) than those who did not have the information (M = 3.77). Moreover, those that did not have
the mitigating information and were focused on the tradeoff had a more negative attitude towards
the negative brand than participants in any other condition. Attitudes towards the competing
brands (Dac and Gon) showed main effects for cognitive processing, with participants who
focused on the tradeoff and engaged in comparative processing having a more favorable attitude
towards each competitor than those in the distraction condition (M = 6.53 vs. M = 6.08, F(1, 115)
= 5.91, p < .05 for Dac; M = 5.58 vs. M = 4.53, F(1, 115) = 11.70, p < .001 for Gon).
When participants indicated their preference for each of the brands by allocating 100
points among the three options, the results had a different pattern than those for attitude towards
the negative brand. For attitude, there was a significant main effect for the presence of
mitigating information and a significant interaction for attitude towards the negative brand. For
33
the point distribution task, there was a significant main effect for cognitive processing for the
negative brand (Ket) (F(1, 115) = 7.34, p < .01), with participants allocating fewer points to the
brand if they were prompted to focus on the tradeoff between taste and pollution (M = 31.7) than
if they completed the distraction task (M = 42.3), replicating the results of Study 1 in which the
negative brand received fewer points when participants engaged in comparative processing vs.
when comparative processing was inhibited. There was also a significant main effect of
cognitive processing when looking at the points allocated towards one of the competing brands
(Dac) (F(1, 115) = 5.86, p < .05), with participants allocating more points to the competitor if
they thought about the tradeoff (M = 43.6) when compared to those who did not (M = 36.4).
Reactions towards Polluting Companies. There were significant main effects of the
presence of mitigating information on the two anger-related measures. Participants reported that
knowing that a firm pollutes would result in less anger if they were given mitigating information
about the pollution (M = 4.95) than if they were not given the information (M = 5.83; F(1, 115) =
6.51, p < .05). Similarly, if they received mitigating information about the pollution, participants
were less angry about the target brand being a polluter (M = 4.87 vs. M = 5.81, F(1, 115) = 5.99,
p < .05) and less likely to believe polluters were morally bad (M = 4.55 vs. 5.46, F(1, 115) =
5.63, p < .05) when compared to participants that did not receive mitigating information. There
were no other significant effects on these measures and no significant effects on whether
participants would refuse to purchase products from firms that pollute.
The Negative Attribute (Pollution) and the Positive Attribute (Taste) in Free
Response. An examination of participants’ open-ended responses about their attitude towards
the polluting brands was performed by coding the free responses for mentioning either pollution
or taste. Using a binary logistic regression on the mention of taste (Nagelkerke R Square =
34
.067), there was a significant main effect of mitigating information (χ
2
(1, N = 119) = 4.26, p <
.05) that was qualified by a marginally significant interaction (χ
2
(1, N = 119) = 3.20, p < .1).
Participants that were not given mitigating information and were asked to focus on the tradeoff
between taste and pollution were less likely to mention the positive attribute (taste) than
participants in the other three conditions. This supports the idea that when participants were
focused on the tradeoff between positive and negative aspects of the firm and its products, the
mitigating information led participants to focus less on the positive aspects of the product. There
were no significant effects for the mention of the firm’s negative attribute (pollution).
Discussion
Study 2 showed that receiving mitigating information about a possible resolution to
negative actions performed by a firm can have an effect on the likelihood that consumers choose
that company’s products over competitors’. This difference, however, only occurs when the
customer’s cognitive resources are not constrained. Those that were able to use comparative
processing and received mitigating information were more likely to choose the firm’s products
than people who either had comparative processing inhibited or did not receive mitigating
information. When focused on the tradeoff between the attributes and pollution, participants also
reported a more positive attitude towards the company when they received mitigating
information about the pollution than when they did not.
The point allocation task for Study 2 had different results than the choice task. Whereas
choice showed a significant interaction, the point allocation task only had a main effect for
comparative processing. When choosing a candy bar, participants who received mitigating
information had a greater likelihood of selecting the brand with the high pollution levels if they
engaged in comparative processing than if they did not. In the point allocation task, those
35
engaging in comparative processing allocated fewer points to the brand with the high pollution
levels than those with comparative processing inhibited. These results seem to be contradictory;
however, this could be a result of the difference in the question being asked. For participant
choice, participants were asked which candy bar they wanted to sample, while the point
allocation task asked them to think about purchasing a brand. When sampling a candy bar,
participants were willing to compare across brands and select the one that tasted best. Because
the question focused on sampling a candy bar, the focus of participant comparisons was on the
taste of the different options. The thought process was apparently different when participants
were thinking about actually purchasing a product. In this case, the comparative processing
seems to have made participants less willing to validate the polluting company’s actions through
purchase, thus resulting in fewer points being allocated towards the polluting brand.
Study 2 shows that what consumers are thinking about can potentially have a positive
impact on product choice. Here, consumers that had comparative processing facilitated were
focused on the tradeoff between the positive attributes of the product and the negative
information learned about the firm. Consumers in this case were more likely to select the target
brand than consumers who either did not receive mitigating information or who were distracted.
This effect was mediated by the consumer’s attitude towards the target brand. The positive
mitigating information received by the consumer improved consumer attitudes towards the target
product when consumers were focused on the tradeoff between the product features and negative
information. This change in attitude resulted in a greater likelihood of consumers selecting the
target product.
The results of Study 2 and Study 1 differ in the choice of the polluting brand. In Study 1,
there was a main effect for processing in which participants were less likely to select the target
36
brand if they engaged in comparative processing vs. selective processing. In Study 2, examining
the two conditions in which no mitigating information was provided showed that there was no
difference between comparative and selective processing. However, the same comparison
between conditions when looking at participant attitude towards the polluting brand shows that
attitudes were more negative in the comparative processing condition than in the distraction
condition, which does replicate Study 1.
The difference between the two studies could be due to how participants were instructed
to engage in comparative processing and in the nature of the questions being asked. In Study 1,
participants were asked to focus on whether they would purchase each of the brands. When
choosing the product in Study 1, Kahneman et al. (2006) would suggest that participants were
thinking about purchase and that both attitude and choice were related to this idea of purchase
instead of other factors. Because consumers are more likely to have a positive attitude and more
likely to purchase a product from a company with a good reputation vs. a poor reputation
(Lafferty and Goldsmith, 1999), both attitude towards the polluting brand and choice of the
polluting brand decreased when participants compared the brand to the other choices and were
able to examine products as a whole vs. when participants were distracted. In Study 2, however,
participants were instructed to examine the tradeoff between the negative information about
pollution and the enjoyment they would receive from eating each of the candy bars. When
examining this tradeoff, participants still had a more negative attitude towards the product than
when they were distracted because of the information provided. However, when they were asked
which candy bar they wanted to sample, there was no association with purchase. Here,
participants were not asked to support a polluting brand through potential purchase; instead, they
were able to decide whether the pollution levels were “worth it” in terms of the benefits enjoyed
37
from the candy bar in terms of taste. As a result, participant choice probabilities in Study 2 did
not differ between the two processing conditions when no mitigating information was provided.

General Discussion

My dissertation examines effects of comparative processing on product choice when
customers have both positive and negative information about the firm and its products. Prior
research has shown that consumers evaluate information differently depending on whether or not
they use comparative processing versus when they do not. Specifically, consumers engaging in
comparative processing evaluate a product in the context of its competitors while consumers that
are not using comparative processing are more likely to focus solely on the focal product and
ignore competitor offerings.
My dissertation advances the theory on comparative processing by exploring how
consumers process product information when they have access to both positive and negative
information about the product and its manufacturer. Selective processing of information in
which a person focuses on an object’s features in making judgments results in a bias towards
positive information about the target (Posavac et al., 2006). Because people focus on the
positive information, this means that selective processing (i.e., when people do not engage in
comparative processing) leads to greater likelihood of choice for a product when compared to
someone engaging in comparative processing. Comparative processing, on the other hand,
focuses attention away from the positive aspects of the product and includes more of a focus on
negative information compared to selective processing.
38
The difference in facilitating comparative processing and inhibiting comparative
processing is also evident in how additional information is incorporated into the evaluation.
When a person learns information that mitigates negative aspects of the target of the evaluation,
that information only makes a difference on subsequent choice when the person is engaged in
comparative processing. When a person is not engaged in comparative processing, additional
information that mitigates negative information has little effect on the subsequent choice. This is
because the evaluation is already being biased towards positive information and the person is
discounting the importance of the negative information. Thus, any mitigating information that
decreases the severity of negative information has no effect on choice because the negative
information that is being mitigated had little influence on the evaluative judgment.
Research Implications
As I mentioned at the beginning of this paper, many companies have had issues with
negative news stories and have had to deal with the ramifications of those stories. My results
provide some insight as to what managers can do to help reduce the negative impact of this type
of news story. Most obviously, firms can release mitigating information that helps reduce the
negative impact of these stories. Since there was a main effect for the presence of mitigating
information on attitude towards the brand in Study 2, providing this type of information will help
improve consumer attitude.
If the company does release mitigating information, the method for doing so can help
improve customer outcomes. Based on Study 2, a company who has had negative news released
will want to release mitigating information, either via advertising, press release, or some other
type of communication, which encourages consumers to focus on the tradeoff between the
negatives and positives of the product’s features. For example, the candy bar company that was
39
the focus of the studies could issue a release that not only acknowledges the issue (pollution) and
informs consumers about the steps being taken to correct the issue (apply for permits to upgrade
equipment), but also describes the original situation the company was in when it made the
decision. Here, the candy company could mention that the manufacturing facilities were high
quality when they originally opened and that they met prior emission standards.
Based on Study 2, this alone will not have a positive impact on product choice because
the positive effects on choice were only present when participants engaged in comparative
processing and the product choice was related to trying the product rather than purchasing it. To
encourage comparative processing, the company’s release would need to attempt to engage
potential consumers in that type of processing, potentially by highlighting the positive product
qualities that make the product better than the competition. Further, the company would want to
begin a promotion campaign that would include product sampling since the results of Study 2
suggest that sampling rates would be higher in this case.
Limitations and Future Research
There are some limitations to the research conducted in my dissertation. The first
limitation is that there is no proper manipulation check for inhibiting or facilitating comparative
processing in the two studies. In Study 2, the manipulation check was to test whether those in
the comparative processing condition were in fact engaging in comparative processing. The
issue, however, is that there was no way to test whether those in the inhibited condition were not
engaging in comparative processing. Although prior research has suggested that people typically
use selective processing rather than comparative processing due to the effort involved in the two
types (Dunning, Meyerowitz, and Holzberg, 1989; Kapoor and Heslop, 2009), the two studies
have no way of definitively showing that people in the facilitated comparative processing
40
condition actually engaged in comparative processing to a greater degree than those in the
distraction condition.
Another limitation is in the difference in results between Study 1 and Study 2 for product
choice and attitude towards the two brands when looking at the facilitated vs. inhibited
comparative processing conditions. In the discussion section, I explored reasons behind this
difference involving the differences in the questions being asked and in the comparative
processing instructions provided to participants. Future research could address this limitation by
examining the mental processes behind the different types of questions asked or to test the
different types of instructions and types of questions in a single study.
My current research only examines the facilitation and inhibition of comparative
processing and does not examine selective processing directly. Whereas comparative processing
involves a comparison between the focal brand and its competitors, selective processing would
involve consumers evaluating a focal brand without considering any of the brand’s competitors
(Sanbonmatsu et al., 2011). Future research could explore the facilitation of selective processing
rather than simply the inhibition of comparative processing.
One other possible avenue for future study is in the types of positive and negative
information evaluated. In the current research, the product itself is highly rated compared to its
competitors and the negative information is something not directly related to the quality of the
product. Future research could focus on different types of negative information and different
types of mitigating information such as a product that is not as highly rated as competitors but
has other qualities that consumers may find valuable that make the product worth purchasing.

41
References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Bohner, G., & Dickel, N. (2011). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology,
62, 391-417.
Borle, S., Dholakia, U. M., Singh, S. S., & Westbrook, R. A. (2007). The impact of survey
participation on subsequent customer behavior: An empirical investigation. Marketing
Science, 26(5), 711-726.
Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., Pedersen, W. C., Vasquez, E. A., & Miller, N. (2005). Chewing
on it can chew you up: Effects of rumination on triggered displaced aggression. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 969.
Chandon, P., Morwitz, V. G., & Reinartz, W. J. (2005). Do intentions really predict behavior?
self-generated validity effects in survey research. Journal of Marketing, , 1-14.
Dholakia, U. M., & Morwitz, V. G. (2002). The scope and persistence of Mere-‐Measurement
effects: Evidence from a field study of customer satisfaction measurement. Journal of
Consumer Research, 29(2), 159-167.
Dholakia, U. M., Singh, S. S., & Westbrook, R. A. (2010). Understanding the effects of post-
service experience surveys on delay and acceleration of customer purchasing behavior:
42
Evidence from the automotive services industry. Journal of Service Research, 13(4), 362-
378.
Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A., & Holzberg, A. D. (1989). Ambiguity and self-evaluation: The
role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1082.
Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement
on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421-435.
Fitzsimons, G. J., & Morwitz, V. G. (1996). The effect of measuring intent on brand-level
purchase behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, , 1-11.
Folkes, V. S. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional approach. Journal
of Consumer Research, , 398-409.
Glasman, L. R., & Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-
analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 778.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit
association test: I. an improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85(2), 197-216.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2006). Would you be
happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science, 312(5782), 1908-1910.
43
Kapoor, H., & Heslop, L. A. (2009). Brand positivity and competitive effects on the evaluation
of brand extensions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(3), 228-237.
Kruger, J., & Gilovich, T. (1999). ‘Naive cynicism’ in everyday theories of responsibility
assessment: On biased assumptions of bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76(5), 743-753.
Kruger, J., Windschitl, P. D., Burrus, J., Fessel, F., & Chambers, J. R. (2008). The rational side
of egocentrism in social comparisons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2),
220-232.
Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes
and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the
ad. Journal of business research, 44(2), 109-116.
Morwitz, V. G., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2004). The mere-measurement effect: Why does measuring
intentions change actual behavior? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1-2), 64-74.
Morwitz, V. G., Johnson, E., & Schmittlein, D. (1993). Does measuring intent change behavior?
Journal of Consumer Research, , 46-61.
Pedersen, W. C., Denson, T. F., Goss, R. J., Vasquez, E. A., Kelley, N. J., & Miller, N. (2011).
The impact of rumination on aggressive thoughts, feelings, arousal, and behaviour. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 281-301.
Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making McGraw-Hill New York.
44
Posavac, S., Jain, S., & Cronley, M. (2006). Selective assessment and positivity bias in
environmental valuation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12(1), 43-49.
Rusting, C. L., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1998). Regulating responses to anger: Effects of
rumination and distraction on angry mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 790-803.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Vanous, S., Hook, C., Posavac, S. S., & Kardes, F. R. (2011). Whither the
alternatives: Determinants and consequences of selective versus comparative judgemental
processing. Thinking & Reasoning, 17(4), 367-386.
Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than
others. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 546-556.
Sherman, S. J. (1980). On the self-erasing nature of errors of prediction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39(2), 211.

45

Figure 1. Flowchart of the Effects of Facilitating Comparative Processing and of Mitigating
Information on Product Choice

Consumer
learns
negative

information
about
company
No
impact
of
mitigating

information
on
choice
Mitigating
information
about
firm
provided
Focus
on
tradeoff
between
positive
and
negative
Yes
No
No
impact
of
mitigating

information
on
choice
Yes
No
Positive
attitudes
about
firm

constructed
Increased
likelihood
of

choice
of
target
product
46

Figure 2. Predicted Effects On Choice By Presence of Mitigating Information and of
Comparative and Selective Processing

Compara(ve
Processing
Selec(ve
Processing

Choice
of
Brand
with
Nega2ve
Informa2on

Mi(ga(ng
Informa(on

No
Informa(on

47

Figure 3. Percentage of Participants Choosing Most Polluting Brand in Study 2

87%

43%

47%

45%

Compara(ve
Processing
Selec(ve
Processing

Choice
of
Brand
with
Nega2ve
Informa2on

Mi(ga(ng
Informa(on

No
Informa(on

48
Table 1
Means for Comparative Processing vs. Distraction Main Effect in Study 1

Comparative
Processing
Distraction
ANOVA
F(1, 144)
Logistic
Regression
χ
2
(1,
N = 119)
Chose polluting/best tasting brand (Ket)
1
26% 44% - 5.28 *
Category-level sampling likelihood
2, 3
4.89 6.19 2.33 * -
Attitude towards polluting/best tasting brand (Ket)
2
3.81 4.63 5.67 * -
Attitude towards second best tasting brand (Dac)
2
6.53 6.09 4.32 * -
Attitude towards worst tasting brand (Gon)
2
5.41 5.09 1.26 -
Points allocated to polluting/best tasting brand (Ket)
2
22.0 33.0 6.74 * -
Points allocated to second best tasting brand (Dac)
2
46.6 41.0 2.49 -
Points allocated to worst tasting brand (Gon)
2
31.7 26.1 3.04 -
Knowing that a firm pollutes makes you angry at the
company
6.42 6.05 1.28 -
Information about polluting/best tasting brand (Ket)
made participant angry
6.36 5.73 3.02 -
Consider companies that pollute morally bad 5.79 5.88 0.07 -
Refuse to purchase products from polluters 5.34 4.24 7.92 ** -
Likelihood of eating candy bar chosen
2
6.42 6.83 1.66 -
Pollution mentioned in free response
2
82% 76% - 0.86
Taste mentioned in free response 49% 67% - 4.90 *
n 73 75

1
This item replicates the findings of Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004)
2
These items measured by Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004), but results not reported
3
For this item, the test statistic is based on t(71).
* Significant at p < .05

49
Table 2
Means for Main Effect of Attitude Activation Question in Study 1
Presented
Not
Presented
ANOVA
F(1, 144)
Logistic
Regression
χ
2
(1,
N = 119)
Chose polluting/best tasting brand (Ket)
1
27% 43% 3.87 *
Category-level sampling likelihood
2
5.55 - - -
Attitude towards polluting/best tasting brand (Ket)
2
3.84 4.60 4.95 * -
Attitude towards second best tasting brand (Dac)
2
6.19 6.43 1.28 -
Attitude towards worst tasting brand (Gon)
2
5.37 5.13 0.69 -
Points allocated to polluting/best tasting brand (Ket)
2
24.5 30.5 2.02 -
Points allocated to second best tasting brand (Dac)
2
45.7 41.9 1.19 -
Points allocated to worst tasting brand (Gon)
2
29.8 28.0 0.32 -
Knowing that a firm pollutes makes you angry at the
company
6.16 6.31 0.19 -
Information about polluting/best tasting brand (Ket)
made participant angry
5.97 6.11 0.14 -
Consider companies that pollute morally bad 5.70 5.97 0.65 -
Refuse to purchase products from polluters 4.55 5.01 1.42 -
Likelihood of eating candy bar chosen
2
6.25 7.00 5.87 * -
Pollution mentioned in free response
2
84% 75% 1.76
Taste mentioned in free response 44% 72% 16.86 ***
n 73 75

1
This item replicates the findings of Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004)
2
These items measured by Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004), but results not reported
* Significant at p < .05
** Significant at p < .01
*** Significant at p < .001

50
Table 3
Means for Effects of Comparative Processing vs. Distraction and Presence vs. Absence of
Mitigating Information in Study 2
Comparative Processing Distracted Processing

Mitigating
Information
No
Information
Mitigating
Information
No
Information
Chose polluting/best tasting brand (Ket) 87%
a
47%
b
43%
b
45%
b

Attitude towards polluting/best tasting brand (Ket) 6.43
a
3.77
b
5.83
ac
5.31
c

Attitude towards second best tasting brand (Dac) 6.57
a
6.50
a
5.87
b
6.31
ab

Attitude towards worst tasting brand (Gon) 5.30 5.87 4.27 4.79
Points allocated to polluting/best tasting brand (Ket) 34.9 28.4 44.7 39.8
Points allocated to second best tasting brand (Dac) 41.9 45.9 34.5 38.3
Points allocated to worst tasting brand (Gon) 23.2 25.7 20.8 21.9
Knowing that a firm pollutes makes you angry at the
company
4.87 5.70 5.03 5.97
Information about negative brand made participant
angry
5.00 6.00 4.73 5.62
Consider companies that pollute morally bad 4.73 5.53 4.37 4.73
Refuse to purchase products from polluters 4.50 3.97 3.67 4.07
Likelihood of eating candy bar chosen 7.63 7.13 7.53 6.41
Pollution mentioned in free response 67% 70% 83% 79%
Taste mentioned in free response 73% 47% 67% 72%
n 30 30 30 29

Note: Different superscripts in each row denote significant differences between conditions at
α = .05.
51
Table 4
Means for Effect of Comparative Processing vs. Distraction in Study 2

Comparative
Processing
Distraction
Chose polluting/best tasting brand (Ket) 67%
a
44%
b

Attitude towards polluting/best tasting brand (Ket) 5.10

5.58
Attitude towards second best tasting brand (Dac) 6.53
a
6.08
b

Attitude towards worst tasting brand (Gon) 5.58
a
4.53
b

Points allocated to polluting/best tasting brand (Ket) 31.67
a
42.31
b

Points allocated to second best tasting brand (Dac) 43.90
a
36.37
b

Points allocated to worst tasting brand (Gon) 24.43 21.32
Knowing that a firm pollutes makes you angry at the company 5.28 5.49
Information about negative brand made participant angry 5.50 5.17
Consider companies that pollute morally bad 5.13 4.86
Refuse to purchase products from polluters 4.23 3.86
Likelihood of eating candy bar chosen 7.38 6.98
Pollution mentioned in free response 68% 81%
Taste mentioned in free response 60% 69%
n 60 59

Note: Different superscripts in each row denote significant differences between conditions at
α = .05.

52
Appendix 1: Pretest of Study 1 Survey Materials
The following pages contain the full survey completed by participants in the pretest for
Study 1.
53

Thank
you
for
agreeing
to
participate
in
the
study.

The
following
study
will
ask
you
to

read
information
about
several
companies
and
then
ask
your
opinions
about
those

companies.

54

Please
read
the
following
news
article
from
a
Mexico
City
newspaper
that
has
been

translated
into
English.
The
article
discusses
plans
by
Latin
American
manufacturers
of

candy
bars
to
start
selling
their
candy
bars
in
the
United
States.

The
names
of
the

companies
have
been
changed
so
that
the
company
names
you
read
about
are
not
the

actual
company
names.
The
companies
that
you
will
read
about
have
been
renamed

“Ket,”
“Dac,”
and
“Gon.”

Latin
American
Candy
Manufacturers
to
Enter
the
U.S.
Market.

Members
of
the
Confectionery
Manufacturers
Association
of
Latin
America
(CMALA)

have
begun
plans
to
introduce
their
candy
bars
to
the
United
States.

This
marks

CMALA’s
first
major
push
into
the
U.S.
as
it
looks
to
increase
demand
for
its
members.

According
to
the
CEO
of
CMALA
member
company
Ket,
“This
joint
push
will
combine
our

companies’
expertise
and
brand
recognition
as
we
enter
the
U.S.,
maximizing
our

potential
for
success.”

The
companies
hope
to
start
their
marketing
campaign
this
fall,
primarily
targeting
Latin

American
communities.

If
the
initial
marketing
campaign
is
successful
in
Latin
American

communities,
the
members
of
CMALA
hope
to
expand
their
campaign
into
English-‐
speaking
communities
throughout
the
United
States.

55

The
Latin
American
branch
of
Consumer
Reports
has
done
tests
on
each
of
the
candy
bar

brands
that
are
planning
on
entering
the
U.S.

These
tests
measured
each
brand’s
taste,

fat
content,
calories,
and
shelf
life.

Each
company’s
factory
was
also
tested
to

determine
the
amount
of
air
and
water
pollution
being
released.

The
ratings
for
each

brand
are
shown
below.

(The
names
of
the
companies
have
been
changed.)

Dac Ket Gon
Taste 78 94 67
Grams of Fat 9.5 8.0 9.0
Calories 350 335 355
Shelf Life (in Days) 105 110 105
Pollution rating
N NNNN N

Note:
Taste
was
scored
on
a
scale
of
1
to
100,
with
1
representing
poor
taste
and
100

representing
excellent
taste.

The
pollution
rating
was
determined
by
calculating
the

amount
of
pollution
released
by
each
factory
per
year.

More
skull
and
crossbones
icons

(N)
means
the
factory
releases
more
pollution
per
year.

Pollution
ratings
range
from

N
to
NNNN.

56

Focus
on
Dac.

To
what
extent
would
you
feel
each
of
the
following?

Not

at
all

A

great

deal

Upset
at
Dac
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Happy
because
of
Dac
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Angry
at
Dac
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Outraged
at
Dac
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Glad
because
of
Dac
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Irritated
at
Dac
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Pleased
by
Dac
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

57

Focus
on
Ket.

To
what
extent
would
you
feel
each
of
the
following?

Not

at
all

A

great

deal

Upset
at
Ket
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Happy
because
of
Ket
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Angry
at
Ket
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Outraged
at
Ket
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Glad
because
of
Ket
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Irritated
at
Ket
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Pleased
by
Ket
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

58

Focus
on
Gon.

To
what
extent
would
you
feel
each
of
the
following?

Not

at
all

A

great

deal

Upset
at
Gon
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Happy
because
of
Gon
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Angry
at
Gon
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Outraged
at
Gon
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Glad
because
of
Gon
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Irritated
at
Gon
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Pleased
by
Gon
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

59

Think
for
a
moment
about
Dac.

How
favorable
would
your
attitude
towards
Dac
be?

Not
at
all

favorable

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

favorable

To
what
degree
would
you
think
Dac
was
good?

Not
good
at

all

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

good

To
what
degree
would
you
like
Dac?

Not
like
Dac

at
all

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

like
Dac

How
negatively
would
you
view
Dac?

Not
at
all

negatively

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

negatively

To
what
degree
would
you
think
Dac
was
bad?

Not
at
all

bad

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

bad

60

Think
for
a
moment
about
Ket.

How
favorable
would
your
attitude
towards
Ket
be?

Not
at
all

favorable

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

favorable

To
what
degree
would
you
think
Ket
was
good?

Not
good
at

all

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

good

To
what
degree
would
you
like
Ket?

Not
like
Ket

at
all

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

like
Ket

How
negatively
would
you
view
Ket?

Not
at
all

negatively

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

negatively

To
what
degree
would
you
think
Ket
was
bad?

Not
at
all

bad

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

bad

61

Think
for
a
moment
about
Gon.

How
favorable
would
your
attitude
towards
Gon
be?

Not
at
all

favorable

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

favorable

To
what
degree
would
you
think
Gon
was
good?

Not
good
at

all

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

good

To
what
degree
would
you
like
Gon?

Not
like
Gon

at
all

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

like
Gon

How
negatively
would
you
view
Gon?

Not
at
all

negatively

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

negatively

To
what
degree
would
you
think
Gon
was
bad?

Not
at
all

bad

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Completely

bad

62

Appendix 2: Study 1 Survey Materials
The following pages contain the full survey completed by participants in Study 1.
Manipulations are described within the context of the study.

63

Thank
you
for
agreeing
to
participate
in
the
study.

The
following
study
will
ask
you
to

read
information
about
several
companies
and
then
ask
your
opinions
about
those

companies.

64

Please
read
the
following
news
article
from
a
Mexico
City
newspaper
that
has
been

translated
into
English.
The
article
discusses
plans
by
Latin
American
manufacturers
of

candy
bars
to
start
selling
their
candy
bars
in
the
United
States.

The
names
of
the

companies
have
been
changed
so
that
the
company
names
you
read
about
are
not
the

actual
company
names.
The
companies
that
you
will
read
about
have
been
renamed

“Ket,”
“Dac,”
and
“Gon.”

Latin
American
Candy
Manufacturers
to
Enter
the
U.S.
Market.

Members
of
the
Confectionery
Manufacturers
Association
of
Latin
America
(CMALA)

have
begun
plans
to
introduce
their
candy
bars
to
the
United
States.

This
marks

CMALA’s
first
major
push
into
the
U.S.
as
it
looks
to
increase
demand
for
its
members.

According
to
the
CEO
of
CMALA
member
company
Ket,
“This
joint
push
will
combine
our

companies’
expertise
and
brand
recognition
as
we
enter
the
U.S.,
maximizing
our

potential
for
success.”

The
companies
hope
to
start
their
marketing
campaign
this
fall,
primarily
targeting
Latin

American
communities.

If
the
initial
marketing
campaign
is
successful
in
Latin
American

communities,
the
members
of
CMALA
hope
to
expand
their
campaign
into
English-‐
speaking
communities
throughout
the
United
States.

65

The
Latin
American
branch
of
Consumer
Reports

has
done
tests
on
each
of
the
candy
bar

brands
that
are
planning
on
entering
the
U.S.

These
tests
measured
each
brand’s
taste,

fat
content,
calories,
and
shelf
life.

Each
company’s
factory
was
also
tested
to

determine
the
amount
of
air
and
water
polluti on
being
released.

The
ratings
for
each

brand
are
shown
below.

( The
names
of
the
companies
have
been
changed. )

Dac Ket Gon
Taste 78 94 67
Grams of Fat 9.5 8.0 9.0
Calories 350 335 355
Shelf Life (in Days) 105 110 105
Pollution rating N N

N N N N

N

Note :
Taste
was
scored
on
a
scale
of
1
to
100,
with
1
representing
poor
taste
and
100

representing
excellent
taste.

The
pollution
rating
was
determined
by
calculating
the

amount
of
pollution
released
by
each
factory
per
year.

More
skull
and
crossbones
ic ons

( N )

means
the
factory
releases
more
pollution
per
year.

Pollution
ratings
range
from

N

to

N N N N .

You
may
now
open
the
envelope
you
were
given
with
the
study .

Follow
the
instructions
in
the
envelope
and
you
may
then

continue
with
the
survey .

Please
do
not
turn
back
to
this
page
as
you
complete
the
survey.

STOP

66
For the first manipulation (selective processing/constrained cognitive resources vs. comparative
processing), participants were given one of the two pages below in the provided envelope.

Selective processing/constrained cognitive resources condition:

Comparative processing condition:

Please
memorize
the
number
below.

At
the
end
of
the
study,
you
will
be
asked
for
the

number.

You
will
not
be
allowed
to
look
at
the
number
again
at
that
point.

Please
take
a
few
seconds
to
memorize
the
following
number:

7435831

Once
you
have
memorized
the
number,
please
put
this
sheet
back
in
the
envelope

provided
and
continue
with
the
survey.

Please
take
a
moment
to
think
about
each
of
the
candy
bars
rated
on
the
previous
page.

Without
looking
back,
think
about
whether
you
would
purchase
each
of
the
candy
bars.

Once
you
have
taken
a
few
moments
to
think
about
each
of
the
candy
bars,
please
put

this
sheet
back
in
the
envelope
provided
and
continue
with
the
survey.

67
For the second manipulation (presence of category-level intention to purchase question),
participants were either given the page below or continued to the following page without
receiving the page below.

How
likely
or
unlikely
would
you
be
to
try
a
Latin
American
candy
bar
if
it
was
available

in
the
United
States?

Definitely

would
NOT
try

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Definitely

would
try

68

The
sponsors
of
the
research
have
provided
sample
candy
bars.

Please
tear
off
one
of

the
three
coupons
below
corresponding
to
the
candy
bar
you
would
like
to
try.

After

you
hand
in
the
questionnaire,
you
will
be
able
to
exchange
the
coupon
for
a
candy
bar.

Please
tear
off
one
of
the
three
coupons.

DAC
KET
GON

69

What
is
your
attitude
towards
Dac
Candy
Bars?

Extremely

Negative

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Extremely

Positive

What
is
your
attitude
towards
Ket
Candy
Bars?

Extremely

Negative

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Extremely

Positive

What
is
your
attitude
towards
Gon
Candy
Bars?

Extremely

Negative

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Extremely

Positive

70

Describe
in
a
sentence
or
two
why
your
attitude
towards
Ket
was
positive
or
negative.

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

71

The
manufacturers
of
the
three
candy
bars
are
planning
on
entering
the
U.S.
market.

Assuming
the
candy
bars
are
available
for
purchase,
please
assign
a
numerical
value
to

each
of
the
brands
based
on
your
relative
intention
of
purchasing
each
of
them.

The

total
must
be
equal
to
100.

You
may
enter
a
value
of
zero
if
you
have
no
intention
of

purchasing
that
brand.

Please
make
sure
to
give
100
total
points.

Dac
________

Ket
________

Gon
________

72

Note: The first question on this page was only asked to participants who were in the cognitive
constraint condition.
Earlier
in
the
study,
you
were
asked
to
memorize
a
number.

What
was
that
number?

Please
do
not
refer
back
to
the
number.

__________________________

Finally,
we
would
like
to
know
some
information
about
your
candy
bar
consumption.

How
frequently
do
you
consume
candy
bars?

_____
More
than
once
per
day

_____
Once
per
day

_____
A
few
times
per
week

_____
Weekly

_____
Less
than
once
per
week

_____
I
never
consume
candy
bars

Will
you
eat
the
candy
bar
that
you
chose?

Definitely

not

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Definitely

73

Does
knowing
that
a
company’s
manufacturing
facility
pollutes
the
environment
make

you
angry
at
the
company?

Not
at
all
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Very
angry

Did
the
information
about
Ket
being
a
polluter
make
you
angry?

Not
at
all
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Very
angry

Do
you
consider
a
company
that
is
a
polluter
to
be
a
morally
bad
company
because
they

pollute?

Not
at
all
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Definitely

Do
you
refuse
to
buy
products
from
companies
that
create
a
lot
of
pollution?

Not
at
all
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Definitely

74

What
do
you
recall
about
the
information
given
about
each
brand’s
pollution?

What
do
you
recall
about
Dac?

________________________________________________________________________

What
do
you
recall
about
Ket?

________________________________________________________________________

What
do
you
recall
about
Gon?

________________________________________________________________________

How
familiar
are
you
with
Latin
American
candy
bars?

Extremely

Unfamiliar

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Extremely

Familiar

What
is
your
gender?

___________Male

__________Female

75
Appendix 3: Study 2 Survey Materials
The following pages contain the full survey completed by participants in Study 2.
Manipulations are described within the context of the study.

76

Thank
you
for
agreeing
to
participate
in
the
study.

The
following
study
will
ask
you
to

read
information
about
several
companies
and
then
ask
your
opinions
about
those

companies.

Please
read
the
following
news
article
from
a
Mexico
City
newspaper
that
has
been

translated
into
English.
The
article
discusses
plans
by
Latin
American
manufacturers
of

candy
bars
to
start
selling
their
candy
bars
in
the
United
States.

The
names
of
the

companies
have
been
changed
so
that
the
company
names
you
read
about
are
not
the

actual
company
names.
The
companies
that
you
will
read
about
have
been
renamed

“Ket,”
“Dac,”
and
“Gon.”

Latin American Candy Manufacturers to Enter the U.S. Market.

Members of the Confectionery
Manufacturers Association of Latin
America (CMALA) have begun plans
to introduce their candy bars to the
United States. This marks CMALA’s
first major push into the U.S. as it
looks to increase demand for its
members.
According to the CEO of CMALA
member company Ket, “This joint
push will combine our companies’
expertise and brand recognition as
we enter the U.S., maximizing our
potential for success.”
The companies hope to start their
marketing campaign this fall,
primarily targeting Latin American
communities. If the initial marketing
campaign is successful in Latin
American communities, the
members of CMALA hope to expand
their campaign into English-speaking
communities throughout the United
States.

77
For the first manipulation (mitigating information given or no information given),
participants were given either the page below or the one following.

The
Latin
American
branch
of
Consumer
Reports
has
done
tests
on
each
of
the
candy
bar

brands
that
are
planning
on
entering
the
U.S.

These
tests
measured
each
brand’s
taste,

fat
content,
calories,
and
shelf
life.

Each
company’s
factory
was
also
tested
to

determine
the
amount
of
air
and
water
pollution
being
released.

The
ratings
for
each

brand
are
shown
below.

(The
names
of
the
companies
have
been
changed.)

Dac Ket
1
Gon
Taste
2
78 94 67
Grams of Fat 9.5 8.0 9.0
Calories 350 335 355
Shelf Life (in Days) 105 110 105
Pollution rating
3
NN NNNN

N

Notes:

1. Ket
management
is
aware
of
the
pollution
issue.
The
company
has
applied
for

permit
to
upgrade
its
equipment,
but
the
government
has
refused
to
approve

the
application.
Without
the
approval
and
subsequent
upgrade
to
Ket’s
facilities,

there
is
nothing
Ket
can
do
to
improve
its
pollution
rating.

2. Taste
was
scored
on
a
scale
of
1
to
100,
with
1
representing
poor
taste
and
100

representing
excellent
taste.

3. The
pollution
rating
was
determined
by
calculating
the
amount
of
pollution

released
by
each
factory
per
year.

More
skull
and
crossbones
icons
(N)
means

the
factory
releases
more
pollution
per
year.

Pollution
ratings
range
from

N
to
NNNN.

78

The
Latin
American
branch
of
Consumer
Reports
has
done
tests
on
each
of
the
candy
bar

brands
that
are
planning
on
entering
the
U.S.

These
tests
measured
each
brand’s
taste,

fat
content,
calories,
and
shelf
life.

Each
company’s
factory
was
also
tested
to

determine
the
amount
of
air
and
water
pollution
being
released.

The
ratings
for
each

brand
are
shown
below.

(The
names
of
the
companies
have
been
changed.)

Dac Ket

Gon
Taste
1
78 94 67
Grams of Fat 9.5 8.0 9.0
Calories 350 335 355
Shelf Life (in Days) 105 110 105
Pollution rating
2
NN NNNN

N

Notes:

1. Taste
was
scored
on
a
scale
of
1
to
100,
with
1
representing
poor
taste
and
100

representing
excellent
taste.

2. The
pollution
rating
was
determined
by
calculating
the
amount
of
pollution

released
by
each
factory
per
year.

More
skull
and
crossbones
icons
(N)
means

the
factory
releases
more
pollution
per
year.

Pollution
ratings
range
from

N
to
NNNN.

79
For the second manipulation (comparative vs. selective processing), participants were
given a lined page with one of the two instructions below.

We
would
now
like
to
get
your
thoughts
on
your
own
candy
bar
habits.

In
the
space
below,
take
a
few
minutes
and
write
about
whether
you
believe
you
would

enjoy
the
different
candy
bars.

Describe
your
feelings
and
thoughts
about
how
the

pollution
would
affect
you.

As
part
of
the
study,
we
would
like
to
get
a
brief
sample
of
your
writing.

In
the
space
below,
take
a
few
minutes
and
write
about
the
layout
of
a
local
store
you

have
recently
visited,
such
as
a
grocery
or
department
store.

Describe
where
the

various
sections
are
located
and
how
you
proceed
through
the
store
when
shopping.

80

The
sponsors
of
the
research
have
provided
sample
candy
bars.

Please
tear
off
one
of

the
three
coupons
below
corresponding
to
the
candy
bar
you
would
like
to
try.

After

you
hand
in
the
questionnaire,
you
will
be
able
to
exchange
the
coupon
for
a
candy
bar.

Please
tear
off
one
of
the
three
coupons.

DAC
KET
GON

81

What
is
your
attitude
towards
Dac
Candy
Bars?

Extremely

Negative

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Extremely

Positive

What
is
your
attitude
towards
Ket
Candy
Bars?

Extremely

Negative

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Extremely

Positive

What
is
your
attitude
towards
Gon
Candy
Bars?

Extremely

Negative

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Extremely

Positive

82

Describe
in
a
sentence
or
two
why
your
attitude
towards
Ket
was
positive
or
negative.

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

83

The
manufacturers
of
the
three
candy
bars
are
planning
on
entering
the
U.S.
market.

Assuming
the
candy
bars
are
available
for
purchase,
please
assign
a
numerical
value
to

each
of
the
brands
based
on
your
relative
intention
of
purchasing
each
of
them.

The

total
must
be
equal
to
100.

You
may
enter
a
value
of
zero
if
you
have
no
intention
of

purchasing
that
brand.

Please
make
sure
to
give
100
total
points.

Dac
________

Ket
________

Gon
________

84

Finally,
we
would
like
to
know
some
information
about
your
candy
bar
consumption.

How
frequently
do
you
consume
candy
bars?

_____
More
than
once
per
day

_____
Once
per
day

_____
A
few
times
per
week

_____
Weekly

_____
Less
than
once
per
week

_____
I
never
consume
candy
bars

Will
you
eat
the
candy
bar
that
you
chose?

Definitely

not

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Definitely

85

Does
knowing
that
a
company’s
manufacturing
facility
pollutes
the
environment
make

you
angry
at
the
company?

Not
at
all
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Very
angry

Did
the
information
about
Ket
being
a
polluter
make
you
angry?

Not
at
all
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Very
angry

Do
you
consider
a
company
that
is
a
polluter
to
be
a
morally
bad
company
because
they

pollute?

Not
at
all
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Definitely

Do
you
refuse
to
buy
products
from
companies
that
create
a
lot
of
pollution?

Not
at
all
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Definitely

86

What
do
you
recall
about
the
information
given
about
each
brand’s
pollution?

What
do
you
recall
about
Dac?

________________________________________________________________________

What
do
you
recall
about
Ket?

________________________________________________________________________

What
do
you
recall
about
Gon?

________________________________________________________________________

How
familiar
are
you
with
Latin
American
candy
bars?

Extremely

Unfamiliar

Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο
Ο

Extremely

Familiar

What
is
your
gender?

___________Male

__________Female

Abstract (if available)

Abstract As communication capabilities improve, customers are able to learn about a company’s actions more easily. If a company engages in negative behavior such as pollution, the company’s current and potential customers may think about how the negative behavior influences their purchase decisions and about whether the negative actions are “worth it” in regards to the quality of the product itself. Of interest to firms is how customers process this information when making evaluative decisions. ❧ My dissertation sheds light on the effect of comparative processing on brand choice. I propose that how consumers process product information affects brand choice depending on whether comparative processing is facilitated or inhibited. When engaging in comparative processing, people examine a focal brand in the context of its competitors, whereas people engaging in selective processing examine a focal brand without considering outside options (Sanbonmatsu et al., 2011). I conducted two experiments to test my hypotheses. The first study demonstrates that facilitating comparative processing influences product choice in a manner similar to but distinct from the effect of mere measurement on purchase intentions. When making a choice, participants with instructions to engage in comparative processing were less focused on the positive aspects of the company’s product and expressed lower likelihood to select the company’s product than participants who experienced cognitive limitations on their comparative processing. The second study examined cognitive processing in the context of additional mitigating information about the negative aspects of a firm. Participants engaged in comparative processing were affected by mitigating information about the firm’s actions while participants who experienced cognitive limitations on their ability to engage in comparative processing were not. If a participant received mitigating information about a firm’s actions and engaged in comparative processing, the likelihood of choosing that firm’s products increased compared to those that did not receive the information or those that did not use comparative processing.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How product designs and presentations influence consumers’ post-acquisition decisions

PDF

Consumers' subjective knowledge influences evaluative extremity and product differentiation

PDF

The motivational power of beauty: how aesthetically appealing products drive purchase effort in consumers

PDF

Essays on information, incentives and operational strategies

PDF

How do acquirers govern the deal-making process? Three essays on U.S. mergers and acquisitions 1994 – 2017

PDF

The essays on the optimal information revelation, and multi-stop shopping

PDF

Modeling customer choice in assortment and transportation applications

PDF

Marketing strategies with superior information on consumer preferences

PDF

Essays on revenue management with choice modeling

PDF

Essays on consumer product evaluation and online shopping intermediaries

PDF

Powerful brand influentials: conceptualization, measurement, and distinctiveness of a brand’s influential consumers

PDF

Essays on the luxury fashion market

PDF

Manipulating consumer opinion on social media using trolls and influencers

PDF

The relationship of values and parenting styles on academic achievement and occupational choice among Jewish-Americans and Jewish-Iranian Americans

PDF

For the love of the game? ownership and control in the NBA

PDF

Essays on the role of entry strategy and quality strategy in market and consumer response

PDF

Examining the choice of business majors to participate in a short-term study abroad program using the gap analysis model

PDF

The effects of accounting performance and professional relationships on promotion, dismissal, and transfer decisions in a conglomerate

PDF

The social meaning of sharing and geocoding: features and social processes in online communities

PDF

Exploring the effects of Korean subject marking and action verbs’ repetition frequency: how they influence the discourse and the memory representations of entities and events

Asset Metadata

Creator Koppitsch, Steven Eric (author)

Core Title The effects of a customer's comparative processing with positive and negative information on product choice

School Marshall School of Business

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Business Administration

Publication Date 07/15/2013

Defense Date 05/13/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag comparative processing,mere measurement,negative information,OAI-PMH Harvest,positive information,product choice

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Folkes, Valerie S. (committee chair), Cody, Michael J. (committee member), Kim, Kyu (committee member), Priester, Joseph R. (committee member)

Creator Email skoppitsch@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-290300

Unique identifier UC11287949

Identifier etd-KoppitschS-1779.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-290300 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KoppitschS-1779.pdf

Dmrecord 290300

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Koppitsch, Steven Eric

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA