Joseph R. Priester

Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers

Research has not verified the theoretical or practical value of the brand attachment construct in relation to alternative constructs, particularly brand attitude strength. The authors make conceptual, measurement, and managerial contributions to this research issue. Conceptually, they define brand attachment, articulate its defining properties, and differentiate it from brand attitude strength. From a measurement perspective, they develop and validate a parsimonious measure of brand attachment, test the assumptions that underlie it, and demonstrate that it indicates the concept of attachment. They also demonstrate the convergent and discriminant validity of this measure in relation to brand attitude strength. Managerially, they demonstrate that brand attachment offers value over brand attitude strength in predicting (1) consumers’ intentions to perform difficult behaviors (those they regard as using consumer resources), (2) actual purchase behaviors, (3) brand purchase share (the share of a brand among directly competing brands), and (4) need share (the extent to which consumers rely on a brand to address relevant needs, including those brands in substitutable product categories).

The gradual threshold model of ambivalence : Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence

This research examined the relationship between the measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Studies 2 and 3) positive and negative bases of attitudes and the psychological experience of attitudinal ambivalence. On the basis of these studies, the gradual threshold model of ambivalence (GTM) was advanced. The GTM holds that: (a) ambivalence increases in a negatively accelerating manner as the number of conflicting reactions (whichever of the positive or negative reactions are fewer in number) increases, (b) ambivalence is a negative function of the extent of dominant reactions, and (c) as the number of conflicting reactions increases, the impact of dominant reactions on ambivalence gradually decreases such that at some level of conflicting reactions (i.e, the threshold), the number of dominant reactions no longer has an impact on subjective ambivalence.

The Influence of Spokesperson Trustworthiness on Message Elaboration, Attitude Strength, and Advertising Effectiveness

Recent research has shown that information presented by untrustworthy endorsers is likely to be thoughtfully elaborated, whereas information presented by trustworthy endorsers is likely to be unthinkingly accepted (Priester & Petty, 1995). Study 1 manipulated argument quality and assessed cognitive responses to demonstrate that this influence of trustworthiness on persuasion holds for familiar endorsers likely to be used in actual advertisements. Study 2 demonstrated that trustworthiness can be influenced by individuals endorsing too many products, with similar persuasion consequences (i.e., untrustworthy endorsers prompt greater scrutiny of product-related attributes than trustworthy endorsers). Study 2 also found that the attitudes that resulted from an untrustworthy endorser came to mind faster, even when those attitudes were equivalently positive—thus demonstrating that elaboration can influence attitude accessibility. This research provides evidence that attitude extremity may not be a sufficient indicator of advertising effectiveness, in that equally extreme attitudes can vary as to the bases by which they were formed, their underlying strength, and their effectiveness. Further, this research provides theoretical and strategic insight into the use of trustworthy and untrustworthy endorsers.

Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal ambivalence: interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension.

Researchers have conceptualized ambivalence as resulting from the conflicting positive and negative thoughts and feelings that a person holds toward an attitude object (intrapersonal discrepancy). The authors investigated the hypothesis that perceived interpersonal attitudinal discrepancies can also contribute to feelings of subjective ambivalence beyond that determined by intrapersonal discrepancy. Study 1 revealed that the perception of attitudinal discrepancy with ones parents was associated with greater feelings of ambivalence. Studies 2 and 3 found increased ambivalence as a function of manipulated interpersonal discrepancies. Study 4 replicated and reversed the effect, revealing that interpersonal attitudinal discrepancy with a disliked other was associated with less ambivalence. Together, these studies provide support for the proposition that, because of balance processes, interpersonal relationships influence feelings of subjective ambivalence.

The A2SC2 Model: The Influence of Attitudes and Attitude Strength on Consideration and Choice

This research investigates the influence of attitudes and attitude strength on consideration and choice. Three experiments provide support for the Attitude and Attitude Strength, Consideration and Choice (A2SC2) Model, which hypothesizes that (a) attitude strength moderates the influence of attitudes on consideration, such that attitudes guide consideration more for strongly held attitudes than for weakly held attitudes and (b) consideration of a brand mediates the influence of attitudes and attitude strength on choice. Copyright 2004 by the University of Chicago.

The Influence of Motor Processes on Attitudes Toward Novel Versus Familiar Semantic Stimuli

Recent research has suggested that the motor processes elicited by upper arm isometric flexion and extension can subtly influence attitudes. Specifically, ideographs evaluatively categorized while performing isometric upper arm flexion were subsequently preferred to ideographs evaluatively categorized while performing isometric upper arm extension. The present research sought to replicate this attitudinal effect with semantic stimuli and to examine a theoretical boundary condition posited by the elaboration likelihood model (ELM). Subjects categorized either neutral words or pronounceable nonwords while adopting the isometric positions. Results indicated that motor processes influenced subsequent attitudes toward stimuli with few associations (i.e., nonwords) more than toward stimuli with many associations in memory (i.e., familiar words). These results are consistent with a growing literature on the possible influence of nondeclarative (e.g., procedural) knowledge on attitudes.

Whence Univalent Ambivalence? From the Anticipation of Conflicting Reactions

The subjective experience of ambivalence results from possessing both positive and negative reactions. Why do individuals sometimes experience ambivalence when they possess only positive or only negative reactions (i.e., univalent attitudes)? This research advances and provides support for the notion that anticipated conflicting reactions underlie such ambivalence. Anticipated conflicting reactions occur when an individual possesses no, or only a few, manifest conflicting reactions and yet anticipates that there may exist conflicting information of which they are unaware. Support is provided by three experiments in which anticipated conflicting reactions mediated the influence of amount of univalent information on feelings of ambivalence.

The Impact of Attitude Accessibility on Elaboration of Persuasive Messages

Two experiments were conducted to examine the impact of attitude accessibility on elaboration of persuasive appeals. In Experiment 1, the accessibility of attitudes toward nuclear power was measured using response latencies. Participants were then presented with a persuasive message that contained either strong or weak arguments against the use of nuclear power. Argument quality had a greater impact on persuasion when attitudes were high in accessibility than when they were low in accessibility. In Experiment 2, the accessibility of attitudes toward vegetarianism was experimentally manipulated by varying the number of times participants expressed their attitudes toward vegetarianism. Participants then read a pro-vegetarianism persuasive message that contained either strong or weak arguments. Again, argument quality had a greater impact on persuasion when accessibility was high than when it was low. Taken together, both experiments suggest that increased message topic attitude accessibility leads to enhanced elaboration of persuasive messages on those topics.

When and Why the Background Contrast Effect Emerges: Thought Engenders Meaning by Influencing the Perception of Applicability

The Background Contrast Effect occurs when the trade-off value between attributes in a first choice influences subsequent choice. We explore the role of decision-making thoughtfulness in seeking to understand when and why this effect occurs. Experiments 1 and 2 provide evidence that the Background Contrast Effect emerges more under thoughtful than under nonthoughtful conditions. Experiment 3 reveals that thought influences perceptions of applicability of the trade-off values in the first choice to the second. Experiment 4 demonstrates that when the information from the first choice is manipulated to appear inapplicable, the Background Contrast Effect is reversed under thoughtful conditions. This research highlights the role of thought on perception of applicability as a process underlying when and why context is used to generate meaning in choice situations.

Understanding Data When Interactions Are Present or Hypothesized

The traditional approach to interpreting data when an interaction is present is to interpret cell means as reflecting a difference between differences An alternative is to interpret any main effects and separately interpret interaction residuals Interpretation of interaction residuals can sometimes lead to nonsensical conclusions Thus in deciding between the approaches, researchers should consider (a) the conceptual nature of the variables involved, (b) relevant theories and (c) the additional data that might be necessary to distinguish among competing plausible representations Issues have also arisen regarding how to best test a hypothesis that involves interaction variance Some researchers have argued that the use of a focused contrast designed to test a specific ordering of cell means (e g, a linear contrast) is often the best strategy We note potential problems with the use of such contrasts and discourage researchers from blanket use of contrasts that combine main effect and interaction variance