.png){kind=logo}
ISSN : 1229-8778
This study investigates how trivial attributes are perceived when they are included as information about the target product presented alone (study 1) and how trivial attributes affect attitude toward and choice of the target product presented with the competing product (study 2). Also the moderating role of benefit expectation for the trivial attribute effect is explored. In study 1, trivial attributes were perceived more important when they are presented as information about the target product than when they are not presented (positivity effect). This effect, however, was not found when participants were manipulated to expect specific benefit from the product. In study 2, the target product consisting of important attributes and trivial attributes (large set-size product) was preferred to and chosen more than the competing product consisting only of important attributes (small set-size product). The set-size effect, however, was not found when participants were manipulated to expect specific benefit from the product. The results indicate that trivial attributes are perceived as important when the target product is evaluated alone and they affect attitude toward the product and choice when the target product is presented jointly with the competing product. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.
Anderson, N. H. (1967). Averaging model analysis of set-size effect in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75 (2), 158-165.
Bagozzi, R. P. & Dholakia, U. (1999). Goal setting and goal striving in consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special issue), 19-32.
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11 (May), 211-227.
Broniarczyk, S. M. & Gershoff, A. D. (1997). Meaningless differentiation revisited. in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24, ed. Merrie Brucks and Deborah J. MacInnis, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 223-228.
Broniarczyk, S. M. & Gershoff, A. D. (2003). The reciprocal effects of brand equity and trivial attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, XL (May), 161-175.
Brown, C. L. & Carpenter, G. S. (2000). Why is the trivial important? A reasons-based account for the effects of trivial attributes on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (March), 372-385.
Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R. & Nakamoto, K. (1994). Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: The dependence on irrelevant attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (August), 339-350.
Davidson, A. R., Yantis, S., Norwood, M. & Montano, D. E. (1985). Amount of information about the attitude object and attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1184-1198.
Hoch, S. J. & Ha, Y. (1986). Consumer learning: Advertising and the ambiguity of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 221-233.
Hsee, C. K. & Leclerc, F. (1998). Will products look more attractive when presented separately or together? Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (September), 175-186.
Kardes, F. R. & Sanbonmatsu, D. M. (1993). Direction of comparison, expected feature correlation, and the set-size effect in preference judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (1), 39-54.
McAllister, A. H. & Bregman, N. J. (1986). Set size effects in self-disclosure. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126 (3), 337-343.
Meyvis, T. & Janiszewski, C. (2002). Consumers' beliefs about product benefits: The effect of obviously irrelevant product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(March), 618-635.
Posavac, E. J. & Pasko, S. J. (1973). Risk taking and the set-size effect in interperson attraction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 90, 137-140.
Posavac, S. S., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. R. & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2004). The brand positivity effect: When evaluation confers preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(December), 643-651.
Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., Sanbonmatsu, D. M. & Fitzsimons, G. J.. (2005). Blissful insingularity: When brands are judged in isolation from competitors. Marketing Letters, 16 (2), 87-97.
Ratneshwar, S., Pechmann, C. & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Goal-derived categories and the antecedents of across-category consideration. Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (December), 240-250.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. R. & Herr, P. M. (1992). The role of prior knowledge and missing information in multiattribute evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 76-91.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. R., Houghton, D. C., Ho, E. A. & Posovac, S. S. (2003). Overestimating the importance of the given information in multiattribute consumer judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 289-300
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R. & Mantel, S. P. (1998). Selective hypothesis testing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5 (June), 197-220.
Simonson, I., Nowlis, S. M. & Simonson, Y. (1993). The effect of irrelevant preference arguments on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (3), 287-306.
Simonson, I., Carmon, Z. & O' Curry, S. (1994). Experimental evidence on the negative effect of product features and sales promotions on brand choice. Marketing Science, 13 (Winter), 23-41.
Strack, F., Schwarz, N. & Wanke, M. (1991). Semantic and pragmatic aspects of context effect in social and psychological research. Social Cognition, 9, 111-125.
van Osselaer, S. M. J. & Alba, J. W. (2003). Locus of equity and brand extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 539-550.
van Osselaer, S. M. J., Alba, J. W. & Manchanda, P. (2004). Irrelevant information and mediated intertemporal choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (3), 257-270.
Yamagishi, T. & Hill, C. T. (1981). Adding versus averaging models revisited: A test of a path-analytic integration model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (1), 13-25.
Yamagishi, T. & Hill, C. T. (1983). Initial impression versus missing information as explanations of the set-size effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (5), 942-951.