Alice M. Tybout

Designing Research for Application

Two distinct types of generalizability are identified in consumer research. One entails the application of specific effects, whereas the other entails the application of general scientific theory. Effects application and theory application rest on different philosophical assumptions, and have different methodological implications. A failure to respect these differences has led to much confusion, regarding issues such as the appropriateness of student subjects and laboratory settings. T here is always the expectation in conducting research that the findings ultimately will be useful in addressing situations beyond the one studied. Yet, there exists a concern that much of consumer research, and behavioral research in general, is not generalizable. It frequently is argued that research procedures, particularly the use of student subjects and laboratory settings, necessarily limit the application of findings. Underlying this contention is a failure to recognize that generalizability is not a single issue. Two distinct types of application may be identified in consumer research. The purpose of this paper is to examine the two types of application, and to specify their

Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation

Mandler theorized that the level of congruity between a product and a more general product category schema may influence the nature of information processing and thus product evaluations. Products that are moderately incongruent with their associated category schemas are expected to stimulate processing that leads to a more favorable evaluation relative to products that are either congruent of extremely incongruent. Data from three experiments conducted in new product contexts are consistent with Mandlers hypothesis and serve as a basis for theorizing about the process. Copyright 1989 by the University of Chicago.

The Concept of External Validity

Many researchers feel that external validity must be emphasized even in theoretical research. The argument for both a sophisticated and a common sense version of this contention is refuted in this paper. It is concluded that the very nature of progress in theoretical research argues against attempting to maximize external validity in the context of any single study.

The Moderating Role of Prior Knowledge in Schema-Based Product Evaluation

Recent evidence suggests that a new product is evaluated more favorably when its attributes are moderately incongruent with an activated product category schema than when its attributes are either congruent or extremely incongruent with the schema. We extend this finding by showing that it obtains when consumers have limited knowledge about the product category. When consumers possess elaborate knowledge about the category, their evaluations are unaffected by the level of congruity but rather are influenced by their schema-based associations to specific product attributes. These findings are discussed in terms of current theorizing related to schema congruity and schema-based inferencing. Copyright 1996 by the University of Chicago.

When Will a Brand Scandal Spill Over, and How Should Competitors Respond?

Three experiments identify conditions under which a brand scandal spills over and negatively affects attitudes and beliefs about the product category and about competing brands. The research also examines factors that may enhance or reduce the likelihood of spillover effects and strategies for responding to scandal spillover.

The Moderating Role of Involvement and Differentiation in the Evaluation of Brand Extensions

Two experiments qualify the previously observed finding that a moderately incongruent brand extension is evaluated more favorably than a congruent or extremely incongruent brand extension and reconcile this finding with other outcomes that have been reported in the brand extension literature. A congruent brand extension is judged more favorably than either a moderately incongruent extension or an extremely incongruent extension when involvement in the task is low. Apparently, incongruity per se does not always prompt the elaboration required to reconcile a moderately incongruent extension with the parent brand and, thereby, enhance evaluation of the moderately incongruent extension. Further, when involvement is high, a moderately incongruent brand extension may only be judged more favorably than a congruent one if the extension is undifferentiated. If the extension is differentiated, the differentiation may provide a basis for favorable evaluation irrespective of the level of congruity with the brand. Recall of information about the performance of the extension relative to competitive brands and measures of attitude toward the parent brand, fit between the extension and the parent brand, and task satisfaction provide insight into the processes that underlie these effects.

What Consumer Research Is

R esearchers frequently have explicitly or implicitly posed the question: What is consumer research? (Belk 1986; Jacoby 1975; Holbrook 1987). While a formal definition of consumer research may be of little value, since consumer research will ultimately be defined by what researchers achieve, there is a need for direction. We begin with the premise that consumer research, whatever form it might take, seeks to produce knowledge about consumer behavior. Although simple, this premise points up the fact that consumer research is a means to an end. Of course consumer research is about consumers and about behavior, but this is hardly limiting or even informative. After all, anything can be construed as the consumption of something and consumption must entail some kind of behavior. Emphasis should be on the knowledge produced: What possible kinds of knowledge could be created by consumer research?

Confirmatory versus Comparative Approaches to Judging Theory Tests

This article examines the widely held view that manipulation checks, measures of process, and repeated operationalizations in different settings are frequently essential for rigorous tests of theory. This Confirmatory Approach to theory testing is contrasted with the Comparative Approach, which asserts that any procedures are adequate if they serve in demonstrating the superiority of one explanation to its rivals. Our analysis favors the Comparative Approach. It is shown that manipulation checks, measures of process, and repeated operationalizations are not necessary nor always sufficient for rigorous tests. They have no special status in relation to other convergence procedures that are accepted by the Comparative Approach for producing rigorous theory tests.

A vision of theory, research, and the future of business schools

The authors have distinguished between two broad types of research: studies dedicated to development and testing of theoretical explanations and studies seeking to generalize observed effects to settings of interest. Winer (1999 [this issue]) argues that the goal of making research conducted by marketing academics more relevant can be served by coupling theory studies with effects studies. Outcomes observed in the former type of study would gain external validity from the latter. While this notion has much intuitive appeal, the authors believe it is flawed. Generalizing the effects obtained in theory testing research by conducting additional effects studies using realistic data, such as scanner data, fails to take into account that theoretical explanation is not inherent in any set of data. An alternative view is offered in this article in which theoretical explanation serves as the basis for solving real-world problems and is the appropriate focus of business school education.

Information accessibility as a moderator of judgments : The role of content versus retrieval ease

We hypothesize that the accessibility of task-relevant knowledge determines whether judgments reflect the substance of the information that is brought to mind or the ease of generating and retrieving such information. Our findings indicate that when relevant knowledge is highly accessible or not at all accessible, judgments are based on the content of the information considered. Between these extremes in knowledge accessibility, judgments are based on the perceived ease with which information can be retrieved. This perceived ease is a function of both the number of reasons requested and the wording of the retrieval request. (c) 2005 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..