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

2. Road Map Schema Research Application (s1) Extension (s1 & s2) Integration (s2) Future Research

3. Basics of Schema Theory Stimulus Evoked Category Match Mismatch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. Integrating Risk into the Model Risk is central to consumers’ evaluations (Dowling 1999) High risk Brand names (Erdem 1998) High risk Less variety seeking (Inman et al. JMR) Risk Types – e.g., Financial; Social; Performance; Psychological (Shimp and Bearden 1982)

17. Risk Moderates the Relationship Moderately incongruent stimuli are evaluated negatively when social risk is high. L ow R isk H igh R isk

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

19. Results 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.71 3.63; F<1, n.s. 4.58 2.56; F = 21.36, p <.001 Attd. Congruent Moderately Incongruent F = 6.01, p <.02 Low Risk High Risk

20. Summary of Study 2 Study 2: 2 x 2 btw subjects Risk Low = buy to have at home High = buy to take to a picnic with friends of significant other... (p <.01) Congruity …9 point scale Congruent = 12 oz. can (2.90) Moderate = 12 oz. sports bottle (5.01; F = 13.80, p <.001) Measures Product attitudes (  =.94) Purchase intentions Manipulation checks (  risk =.85;  congru =.70) Covariates

21. 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.664.67; F<1, n.s. 5.10 4.00; F = 8.82, p <.004 Attd. Congruent Moderately Incongruent F = 4.23, p <.04 Low Risk High Risk Results

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

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

24. Study 3: 3 x 2 btw subjects Risk No = simple evaluation Low = buy to have at home High = buy to take to a picnic with friends of significant other... (p <.01) Congruity …9 point scale Congruent = 12 oz. can (2.90) Moderate = 12 oz. sports bottle (p <.001) Measures COGNTIVE RESPONSES Same… plus COGNTIVE RESPONSES Summary of Study 3

25. 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.50 4.07 5.10; F = 3.50, p <.06 4.69 4.57; F < 1, ns 3.54; F = 3.11, p <.08 Attd. Congruent Moderately Incongruent F = 2.68, p <.10 F = 11.25, p <.001 No Risk Low Risk High Risk Results

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

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

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

29. Study 4: 2 x 2 btw subjects Risk No = simple evaluation High = buy to take to a picnic with friends of significant other... (p <.01) Congruity …9 point scale Congruent = 12 oz. can (2.90) Moderate = 12 oz. sports bottle (p <.001) Measures Same… plus preference for norm scales … Change Seeking Index Summary of Study 4

30. 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.20 3.64 4.72; F = 3.90, p <.05 2.97; F = 6.43, p <.01 Attd. Congruent Moderately Incongruent No Risk High Risk Results

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

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

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

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