The Effect of Attribute Alignability on Service Evaluation: · PDF file · 2012-05-072012-05-07 · The Effect of Attribute Alignability on Service Evaluation: ... either before or

831

� 2012 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 39 ● December 2012All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2012/3904-0011$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/665983

The Effect of Attribute Alignability onService Evaluation: The ModeratingRole of Uncertainty

JIN SUNHEAN TAT KEHANGELA Y. LEE

Prior research suggests that consumers make trade-offs between two products byfocusing more on alignable differences (i.e., the values of the options on the sameattributes are different) than on nonalignable differences (i.e., the options havedifferent attributes). The present research applies the structural alignment modelto examine how uncertainty associated with the evaluation of services may leadto greater reliance on nonalignable attributes, especially for credence services.The results of three studies provide support for the uncertainty hypothesis. Spe-cifically, study 1 showed that consumers rely more on alignable attributes whenevaluating experience services, but shift their focus to nonalignable attributes whenevaluating credence services that are associated with greater uncertainty. Usingdifferent operationalizations of uncertainty, studies 2 and 3 provided further supportfor the uncertainty hypothesis by systematically varying the ambiguity of consumerreviews (study 2) and consumer confidence in their judgment (study 3).

Extant research on consumer information processing anddecision making has disproportionately focused on tan-

gible products, with little attention paid to how consumersmake decisions relating to services (Ariely 2000; Bettman,Johnson, and Payne 1991; Kahn 1995). As a result, we donot have a good understanding of how consumers makedecisions for services, despite the fact that distinctions be-

Jin Sun is associate professor of marketing, University of InternationalBusiness and Economics, Beijing 100029, China ([email protected]).Hean Tat Keh is professor of marketing, UQ Business School, Universityof Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia ([email protected]). An-gela Y. Lee is the Mechthild Esser Nemmers Professor of Marketing,Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL60208 ([email protected]). This article is based on a doc-toral dissertation by the first author, under the guidance of the second andthird authors. The authors acknowledge the helpful and insightful com-ments of the editor, the associate editor, and the reviewers. This researchwas funded by two grants from the National Natural Science Foundationof China awarded to Jin Sun (grant no. 71002006) and to Hean Tat Keh(grant no. 70872005), respectively. Please address all correspondence toJin Sun.

Mary Frances Luce served as editor and Frank Kardes served as associateeditor for this article.

Electronically published May 7, 2012

tween goods and services (e.g., intangibility, heterogeneity,inseparability, and perishability) are well documented in theliterature (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry 1985). Thereare good reasons to believe that consumers may engage indifferent decision-making processes while evaluating ser-vices. In particular, the intangibility of services often makesit difficult to assess the quality of services (Mittal 1999). Inpractical terms, while most products can be evaluated byactual experience, either before or after purchase, the samecannot be said of services. To illustrate, when an individualis trying to buy a car, he or she can actually experience theride of the car by taking it out for a test drive before makingthe purchase decision. But when one is deciding on, say, amedical service such as surgery, it is impractical, if notimpossible, to get a trial operation before making the de-cision to go with the surgeon; even after the actual surgery,it may be difficult to assess how successful the operationwas. Consequently, evaluating services is often perceivedto be associated with greater uncertainty and higher risksthan assessing tangible products (Murray and Schlacter1990).

However, not all services are as difficult to assess assurgery (Lovelock 1983). Services vary in terms of the easewith which they could be evaluated, depending on the mixof their experience and credence attributes (Darby and Karni1973; Keh and Pang 2010; Zeithaml 1981). Experience at-

mailto:[email protected]



832 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

tributes are those attributes that can be evaluated with actualexperience of the product or service, whereas credence at-tributes are difficult to evaluate even with experience—theyhave to be taken on faith. A relevant question that arises is:How do consumers evaluate services and make brand choicedecisions when service options vary in terms of their mixof experience and credence attributes? Our research aims toaddress this question by extending the structural alignmenttheory to examine how consumers make decisions regardingservice options.

Structural alignment theory makes the distinction betweentwo types of differences across options—alignable attributes(i.e., attributes that are shared but vary in value across op-tions) and nonalignable attributes (i.e., attributes that belongto only one option). Prior research suggests that while con-sumers usually make decisions based on alignable attributes,they may shift their focus to nonalignable attributes whenthey expend cognitive resources (Kivetz and Simonson2000). Our view is that consumers’ reliance on alignableversus nonalignable attributes may also vary depending onthe level of uncertainty associated with the evaluation—thegreater the uncertainty associated with the evaluation task,the more likely will consumers rely on nonalignable attrib-utes. We explore this uncertainty hypothesis in the contextof services because services involve intangible attributes,the assessment of which is often considered to be more riskyand uncertain than the assessment of products (Murray andSchlacter 1990); this is especially the case with credenceservices (Keh and Sun 2008; Mitra, Reiss, and Capella1999). Our hypothesis is that the higher uncertainty asso-ciated with credence (vs. experience) services leads to thegreater use of nonalignable attributes than alignable attrib-utes.

In the next section, we first review the relevant literaturethat forms the basis of our hypothesis that consumers placedifferent weights on alignable versus nonalignable attrib-utes, depending on the type of service options they are eval-uating. We further hypothesize that the differential weight-ing of attributes is driven by the extent of uncertaintyunderlying their decisions. We then report the results of twopilot tests and three studies designed to test the hypotheses.Specifically, the pilot studies investigated how people per-ceive alignable versus nonalignable attributes in terms oftheir differentiability and importance. Then study 1 exam-ined the differential weighting of alignable and nonalignableattributes in the evaluation of experience services and cre-dence services. The next two studies were designed to ex-amine the proposed mechanism of uncertainty that underliesthe differential weighting of these attributes. In study 2, wemanipulated uncertainty by varying the ambiguity of brandinformation and showed that uncertainty led to consumers’greater reliance on nonalignable versus alignable attributes.In study 3, we primed participants with confidence or doubtprior to presenting them with information of two serviceoptions and presented convergent evidence for the mediatingrole of uncertainty on consumers’ processing of services.

We conclude by discussing the theoretical and managerialimplications of the findings.

THE STRUCTURAL ALIGNMENT MODELConsumers make trade-offs on a daily basis. Often they

are faced with multiple options, with each option having acompetitive advantage on some attributes but a disadvantageon others. The structural alignment model of similarity sug-gests that whether the competitive advantage is based onalignable or nonalignable attributes has important implica-tions on consumers’ evaluation of the options and their finalchoice decision (Gentner and Markman 1997). Alignableattributes are common to both options, with each optionpossessing the attributes at different levels (e.g., the averageprice of an entree at restaurant A is $25, while the averageprice of an entree at restaurant B is $18), whereas nona-lignable attributes are unique to one option and absent inthe other (e.g., restaurant A offers a children’s menu, whilerestaurant B has live jazz music every Friday evening). Thatis, for any given attribute of an option, if consumers canfind a corresponding attribute in another option but at adifferent level, the attribute is an alignable difference. Ifthere is no corresponding attribute in the other option, thenthe attribute is a nonalignable difference (Zhang and Mark-man 2001).

The typical finding in prior research is that people relymore on alignable than on nonalignable differences whenmaking comparisons and choice decisions, mostly becauseprocessing nonalignable differences is more effortful. Toillustrate, it has been shown that alignable versus nonalign-able differences are cited more often as justifications fordecisions (Markman and Medin 1995); they are also betterremembered and mentioned more often in the evaluationprocess (Zhang and Markman 1998). Further, consumershave been reported to be more satisfied with the choiceprocess when choosing from an alignable choice set thanfrom a nonalignable choice set (Zhang and Fitzsimons1999). The general agreement is that people pay more at-tention to and rely more on alignable than nonalignabledifferences when comparing between different options.

Nonetheless, conditions under which people pay moreattention to nonalignable (vs. alignable) attributes in deci-sion making have also been documented. For example,Zhang, Kardes, and Cronley (2002) find that people’s needfor cognitive closure moderates their processing of non-alignable attributes—consumers with high need for cogni-tive closure (who presumably prefer clear-cut, easy-to-process information and avoid thinking about complex,ambiguous information) formed less favorable inferencesabout the more difficult to process nonalignable attributes,whereas those with low need for cognitive closure did notdemonstrate such bias in their processing. Further, Kivetzand Simonson (2000) find that consumers with high (vs.low) need for cognition pay more attention to missing in-formation when evaluating two options. These findings,showing that people are more likely to rely on nonalignableattributes when they are motivated to process information,

UNCERTAINTY AND ATTRIBUTE ALIGNABILITY 833

have important implications for understanding how custom-ers evaluate services.

THE RELATIVE WEIGHTING OFALIGNABLE AND NONALIGNABLE

ATTRIBUTES

While differences between products and services are welldocumented (Bolton and Alba 2006; Zeithaml et al. 1985),the one key difference that is relevant to the present researchis the intangibility of services. The implication of the in-tangible nature of services is that there is greater ambiguityand uncertainty related to evaluating services than to eval-uating products; this is especially true when consumers areevaluating credence services (Keh and Pang 2010; Keh andSun 2008; Ostrom and Iacobucci 1995). As a result of thegreater uncertainty, consumers often pay more attention andengage in greater deliberation when they are comparing be-tween different credence (vs. experience) service options.

Past research suggests that consumers rely on alignable(vs. nonalignable) attributes because they are unwilling toexpend cognitive resources to process the nonalignable at-tributes (Zhang and Fitzsimons 1999). The corollary is thatthey will shift their focus to nonalignable attributes whenthey are motivated to process information. Consistent withthis view, it has been shown that consumers who are mo-tivated to process information are more influenced by miss-ing values (Nowlis and Simonson 1997), and involved con-sumers tend to pay more attention to nonalignable thanalignable differences (Zhang and Markman 2001), as dothose who have high need for cognition (Kivetz and Si-monson 2000).

Relative to products, services and, in particular, credenceservices are typically associated with lower levels of con-sumer knowledge, higher risk perceptions, greater uncer-tainties of the outcome, and lower consumer confidence intheir ability to evaluate the quality of the service (Keh andSun 2008; Mitra et al. 1999; Murray and Schlacter 1990;Ostrom and Iacobucci 1995). Previous research indicatesthat high uncertainty and low confidence in judgment arelinked to sustained and increased information search efforts,as well as more thorough and systematic processing of avail-able information (Clarkson, Tormala, and Rucker 2008;Grant and Tybout 2008; Tiedens and Linton 2001; Urbany,Dickson, and Wilkie 1989). To the extent that services areassociated with greater uncertainty and hence demand morecognitive resource to evaluate than would products, it seemslikely that consumers would focus more on nonalignableattributes when evaluating services than when evaluatingproducts, especially in the case of credence services. Thus,we predict that consumers’ relative weighting of alignableversus nonalignable attributes would differ as a function ofthe type of services they are evaluating.

According to the heuristic-systematic dual model of per-suasion (Chaiken, Liberman, and Eagly 1989; Chaiken andMaheswaran 1994; Trope and Chaiken 1999), confidence isa fundamental driver of processing efforts in decision mak-

ing. When consumers feel they are not as confident in theirjudgment as they should be, they are motivated to engagein increased and sustained information search to reduce theuncertainty and will continue to search for and process in-formation until the desired level of confidence, referred toas the sufficiency threshold, is attained (Grant and Tybout2008; Tiedens and Linton 2001). Hence, the higher levelsof uncertainty associated with credence services shouldprompt people to expend more efforts when evaluating cre-dence service options. Prior research shows that people tendto focus more on alignable than nonalignable attributes be-cause alignable attributes are easier to process, but theyfocus more on nonalignable attributes when they expendcognitive resources on the decision-making task (Kivetz andSimonson 2000; Zhang and Fitzsimons 1999; Zhang andMarkman 2001). Thus, we predict that people would focuson nonalignable attributes when choosing between credenceservices, the processing and evaluation of which requiremore efforts than when choosing between experience ser-vices.

There are reasons to support the notion that people paymore attention to nonalignable versus alignable attributeswhen they expend more efforts. First, people are strategicin their allocation of cognitive resources in that they paymore attention to important and relevant information. Whenpresented with multiple alternatives, people pay more at-tention to attributes that differentiate between the variousoptions than those that are common across options (Mark-man and Medin 1995). While alignable differences may beeasier to process, nonalignable differences may be perceivedto be more differentiating (Nam, Wang, and Lee 2012, inthis issue) and hence would warrant more attention whenconsumers are motivated to process information. Further, ithas been suggested that the relative weight of an attributeincreases (decreases) as uncertainty heightens if the attributeis viewed as preserving (enhancing) the expected level ofutility of the option (Kahn and Meyer 1991). To the extentthat nonalignable attributes are unique to an option andhence more likely to be perceived as “preserving” attributesthat represent an integral part of the option, nonalignableattributes of credence services would be perceived as moreimportant than those of experience services. Thus, peopleare likely to focus more on nonalignable attributes whenevaluating credence services. More formally, we hypothe-size that:

H1: Consumers make greater use of alignable versusnonalignable attributes when comparing experi-ence services.

H2: Consumers make greater use of nonalignable ver-sus alignable attributes when comparing credenceservices.

Our view is that consumers rely more on nonalignableattributes when evaluating credence services because de-cisions that involve greater uncertainties warrant more at-tention. Uncertainty is generally considered to be a dynamicstate of discomfort that exists when people feel they cannot


predict what will happen (Grant and Tybout 2008). In aconsumption context, uncertainty often results from a lackof information or knowledge concerning the outcome of apurchase situation (Urbany et al. 1989) and may be mani-fested in terms of a lack of consumer confidence in theirability to evaluate the outcome of the service. When con-sumers feel uncertain, they will continue to search for andprocess information until they attain the sufficiency thresh-old (Chaiken and Maheswaran 1994; Trope and Chaiken1999). Under these circumstances, ease of processing is nolonger an important criterion for them to direct their atten-tion and cognitive efforts; they may instead focus on themore differentiating nonalignable attributes. Accordingly,we predict that the greater uncertainty associated with cre-dence (vs. experience) services underlies the differentialweighting of nonalignable (vs. alignable) attributes in theevaluation of the services. And the notion that the perceivedimportance of nonalignable attributes may increase as un-certainty heightens (Kahn and Meyer 1991) further lendssupport to the mediating role of uncertainty in the processingof nonalignable attributes. More formally, we hypothesizethat:

H3: The weighting of nonalignable (vs. alignable) at-tributes by consumers when evaluating credence(vs. experience) services is driven by the uncer-tainty related to the assessment of the services.

We tested these hypotheses in three studies by examininghow people compare between an option that boasts superioralignable differences and another that showcases superiornonalignable differences when evaluating different experi-ence and credence service options. Participants’ preferencefor the options would allow us to infer their relative weight-ing of alignable versus nonalignable attributes. But first, wereported the results of two pilot studies that examined theeffect of alignability on the perceived differentiability andimportance of the two types of attributes.

PILOT STUDIESOur hypothesis that people would focus more on non-

alignable attributes under uncertainty rests on the assump-tion that nonalignable attributes are considered to be moredifferentiating and more important than alignable attributes,even though they may be more difficult to process and un-derstand. We conducted two pilot studies to ascertain thedifference between alignable and nonalignable attributes interms of their differentiating and importance characteristics.Our prediction is that nonalignable attributes are perceivedto be more differentiating and more important than alignableattributes, especially when consumers are evaluating cre-dence services.

Method

Stimuli Development. Thirty-two students similar in pro-file to those in the main studies were asked to classify eightservices (i.e., restaurants, physicians, hotels, career devel-

opment agencies, airlines, dentists, hair salons, and financialinvestment companies) into experience and credence ser-vices in a pretest. Over 80% of the participants classifiedrestaurants as an experience service, while 78% categorizedphysicians as a credence service, consistent with prior find-ings (Ostrom and Iacobucci 1995). Thus, restaurants andphysicians were selected to represent experience and cre-dence services, respectively.

To develop the target profiles for the two services, wefirst generated two lists of 16 attributes, each representinga range of properties that restaurants and physicians mightpossess. Another 23 participants in a second pretest werepresented with these lists of attributes and were asked toindicate how important it would be for a restaurant or aphysician to possess each attribute (1 p not at all important;7 p very important). Based on the results, we selected nineattributes for each of the two services that had similar im-portance ratings. The nine attributes were then randomlydivided into three blocks of three attributes each (B1, B2,and B3). Importance ratings did not differ across the threeblocks of restaurant attributes (M1 p 6.10 vs. M2 p 6.29vs. M3 p 6.30; F(2, 66) p .48, p 1 .60), nor across thethree blocks of physician attributes (M1 p 5.97 vs. M2 p6.12 vs. M3 p 6.16; F(2, 66) p .29, p 1 .70).

We created two service options (A and B) for each servicetype using the three blocks of attributes: one block madeup the nonalignable attributes for brand A, a second blockcomprised the nonalignable attributes for brand B, and thethird block was the basis for the alignable attributes for thetwo brands. The assignment of the three blocks of attributesacross the two brands was determined using a Latin SquareDesign (see tables A1 and A2 for details of the brand pro-files). For both types of services (restaurants and physi-cians), brand A was better than brand B on the alignableattributes (i.e., A was the superior-alignable brand), whilebrand B outperformed brand A on the nonalignable attrib-utes (i.e., B was the superior-nonalignable brand).

Experimental Design. We used a 2 (service type: res-taurants vs. physicians) # 2 (brand: superior-alignable vs.superior-nonalignable) mixed design in the pilot study, withbrand as a within-participant factor. The assignment of thetwo brands was determined by a Latin Square Design torotate all the attributes. The attribute information of the twobrands was presented in two columns. We also counterbal-anced the presentation order of the attributes such that analignable and a nonalignable attribute appeared at the topof the list with equal frequency.

Participants and Procedure. A total of 300 participantswere randomly assigned to the experimental conditions. Af-ter reviewing information on the two brands, participantswere asked to identify the one attribute from the servicedescriptions that best differentiated between the two brands.Then they were asked to rank the six attributes of each brandin the order of importance by placing a number in front ofeach attribute, with 1 being the most important and 6 being


the least important. Thus, the smaller the number, the moreimportant was the attribute.

Results and Discussion

Differentiability. Across all participants, a nonalignableattribute was identified as the most differentiating attributebetween the two brands more often than an alignable at-tribute was (189 vs. 111; x2(1) p 20.28, p ! .001), andwhether they were reviewing experience or credence serviceoptions did not make a difference (x2 ! 1, p 1 .80).

Importance Ranking. Next, we examined the importanceranking of the attributes across the four brands. As predicted,a nonalignable attribute was more likely to be identified asthe most important attribute than an alignable attribute (72%vs. 28%), which is significantly different from the 50-50chance probability (x2(1) p 71.39, p ! .001). Separate anal-yses for each of the four brands showed that a nonalignableattribute was identified more often as the most importantattribute for the superior-alignable credence brand (74%;x2(1) p 35.77, p ! .001), the superior-nonalignable credencebrand (82%; x2(1) p 60.57, p ! .001), the superior-alignableexperience brand (68%; x2(1) p 18.60, p ! .001), as wellas for the superior-nonalignable experience brand (72%;x2(1) p 29.73, p ! .001).

Next, we conducted separate exploded logit regressionson the attribute-ranking data of the four brands to furtherexamine the effect of attribute type on the perceived im-portance of the attribute, with attribute type coded as 1 pnonalignable, 0 p alignable (Chapman and Staelin 1982).The result showed that the coefficient of attribute type wasnegative and significant (b p �.45; z p �5.27, p ! .001)for the superior-alignable credence service, suggesting thatnonalignable attributes are perceived to be more importantthan alignable attributes. Similar results were obtained forthe superior-nonalignable credence service (b p �.81; z p�9.29, p ! .001), the superior-alignable experience service(b p �.15; z p �1.84, p p .066), and the superior-non-alignable experience service (b p �.51; z p �6.08, p !

.001). Taken together, these results provide evidence thatnonalignable attributes are considered to be more differ-entiating and more important than alignable attributes.

Because participants first rated the differentiability of theattributes and then rank-ordered the attributes, it is possiblethat their importance rankings were influenced by their dif-ferentiability ratings. To rule out this alternative account forthe importance data, we conducted another pilot study inwhich 193 participants were asked to simply rank-order theattributes without evaluating the attributes on differentia-bility. Replicating earlier results, a nonalignable attributewas more likely to be selected as the most important attributethan an alignable attribute across the four brands (72% vs.28%), which is significantly different from the 50-50 chanceprobability (x2(1) p 71.30, p ! .001). Separate analyses foreach of the four brands showed that a nonalignable attributewas identified more often as the most important attributefor the superior-alignable credence brand (76%; x2(1) p

24.51, p ! .001), the superior-nonalignable credence brand(79%; x2(1) p 31.02, p ! .001), the superior-alignable ex-perience brand (68%; x2(1) p 5.34, p ! .05), and the su-perior-nonalignable experience brand (71%; x2(1) p 16.98,p ! .001). Replicating our earlier results, exploded logitregressions (Chapman and Staelin 1982) showed that thecoefficient of attribute type was negative and significant forthe superior-alignable credence service (b p �.60; z p�5.56, p ! .001), the superior-nonalignable credence service(b p �.68; z p �6.37, p ! .001), the superior-alignableexperience service (b p �.25; z p �2.44, p ! .02), andthe superior-nonalignable experience service (b p �.51;z p �6.08, p ! .001), providing further evidence that par-ticipants perceived nonalignable attributes to be more im-portant than alignable attributes.

These results show that consumers recognize the distinc-tive and important nature of nonalignable attributes relativeto alignable attributes, even though they may not use themin their brand choice decisions. The findings provide thebasis for our hypothesis that people would shift their atten-tion to the more important nonalignable attributes when theyengage in more elaborate processing under conditions ofhigh uncertainty.

STUDY 1

The objective of study 1 was to seek initial support forour hypotheses that consumers rely on alignable and non-alignable attributes to varying degrees when evaluating ex-perience versus credence services. Specifically, consumersare more likely to rely on alignable than on nonalignableattributes when they evaluate experience services; however,the greater uncertainties associated with credence servicesshould prompt a shift in their weighting toward nonalignableattributes. Thus, our prediction was that consumers wouldbe more confident when evaluating the experience servicesthan the credence services and that consumers would bemore favorable toward the brand that is superior on alignableattributes when evaluating experience services, but wouldprefer the brand that is superior on nonalignable attributeswhen evaluating credence services.

Method

Experimental Design. The experiment used a 2 (servicetype: restaurants vs. physicians) # 2 (brand: superior-align-able brand A vs. superior-nonalignable brand B) mixed de-sign, with brand being a within-participant factor. The brandstimuli were the same as in the pilot studies, with restaurantsand physicians selected to represent experience and credenceservices, respectively. The assignment of the three blocksof attributes across the two brands was determined using aLatin Square Design, and the left-right presentation orderof the two brands was counterbalanced. This design impliedthat any difference in preference observed between the su-perior-alignable brand and the superior-nonalignable brandcould not be attributed to the idiosyncratic differences ofthe individual attributes, or in the overall importance of the


attributes. Rather, participants’ preference for one brand overthe other could be unambiguously attributed to whether theywere focusing on the alignable or nonalignable differenceswhen evaluating the two options. The key dependent mea-sures were purchase likelihood, attitude confidence, andthought listing.

Participants and Procedure. A total of 173 universitystudents (mean age p 25.33; 87 females) were randomlyassigned to each of the experimental conditions. Participantsreceived a booklet containing the attribute descriptions ofeither two restaurants or two physicians. They were askedto read the information about the two brands carefully andto indicate their purchase likelihood for each of the twobrands on a 7-point scale (1 p not at all likely to buy; 7 phighly likely to buy). To gain insight into how participantsevaluated different types of services, we asked participantsto write down what they were thinking while evaluating theservices. Participants then indicated, using 7-point scales,how confident they felt about their decision (1 p not at allconfident, not at all certain; 7 p extremely confident, ex-tremely certain), how familiar they were with the service (1p very unfamiliar, know very little, have no idea; 7 pvery familiar, know a lot, have clear idea), and how attractiveeach attribute was (1 p extremely unattractive; 7 p ex-tremely attractive).

Results

Manipulations Checks. The construction of the brandsbased on their attribute attractiveness was found to be ap-propriate. Specifically, participants rated restaurant A’salignable attributes to be more attractive than those of res-taurant B (MA p 5.62 vs. MB p 3.98; t(86) p 9.70, p !

.001), but they perceived the nonalignable attributes of res-taurant B to be more attractive than those of restaurant A(MB p 5.70 vs. MA p 3.59; t(86) p 11.19, p ! .001).Similarly, participants rated physician A’s alignable attrib-utes to be more attractive than those of physician B (MA p5.78 vs. MB p 3.28; t(85) p 14.22, p ! .001), but theyrated the nonalignable attributes of physician B to be moreattractive than those of physician A (MB p 5.98 vs. MA p3.35; t(85) p 13.50, p ! .001).

Next, we examined whether the task of evaluating cre-dence services was associated with more uncertainty thanthe task of evaluating experience services. The two confi-dence items were averaged to form a confidence index foreach of the two services (arest. p .84, aphys. p .90). Asexpected, participants evaluating the credence services wereless confident in their judgment than those evaluating ex-perience services (Mrest. p 5.78 vs. Mphys. p 4.80; F(1, 171)p 32.69, p ! .001).

Purchase Likelihood. We used a 2 (service type) # 2(brand) mixed-design ANOVA to analyze participants’ pur-chase likelihood ratings, with brand as a within-participantfactor. The results showed that neither the main effect ofbrand (F(1, 171) p 2.21, p 1 .10) nor service type (F(1,

171) p 2.94, p 1 .10) was significant. Importantly, theexpected service type # brand interaction effect was sig-nificant (F(1, 171) p 123.46, p ! .001; see fig. 1A).

Planned contrasts showed that participants were morelikely to patronize the superior-alignable restaurant A thanthe superior-nonalignable restaurant B (MA p 5.24 vs. MB

p 3.42; t(86) p 10.61, p ! .001). However, they indicateda greater likelihood to consult physician B than to consultphysician A (MA p 3.98 vs. MB p 4.98; t(85) p �5.34,p ! .001). These results suggest that they relied more onalignable attributes when choosing between the two restau-rants, confirming hypothesis 1, but relied more on non-alignable attributes when choosing between the two phy-sicians, providing support for hypothesis 2.

Thought Listing. Responses in the thought-listing taskwere coded into three mutually exclusive categories by twoindependent raters who were blind to the hypotheses. Thesecategories were: (a) alignable differences (e.g., “the priceis lower in restaurant A than in restaurant B”), (b) non-alignable differences (e.g., “restaurant B offers a smokingarea”), and (c) neither (e.g., “I did not notice any differ-ence”). Overall, the interrater reliability was .91, and dif-ferences between the raters were resolved through discus-sion. The thought-listing data provided further support forour hypotheses. A 2 (service type) # 2 (attribute type)mixed-design ANOVA with attribute type as a within-par-ticipant factor showed that the effect of attribute type (F(1,171) p 3.51, p 1 .10) was nonsignificant. Central to thisresearch, the main effect of service type (F(1, 171) p 12.69,p ! .001) was qualified by the two-way interaction (F(1,171) p 91.74, p ! .001; see fig. 1B). Consistent with hy-pothesis 1, participants mentioned more alignable than non-alignable differences when evaluating the two restaurants(Malign. p 2.09 vs. Mnonalign. p 1.16; t(86) p 7.07, p ! .001).In contrast, they listed more nonalignable than alignabledifferences when evaluating the physicians (Mnonalign. p 2.70vs. Malign. p 1.31; t(85) p 6.80, p ! .001), providing supportfor hypothesis 2.

Our prediction was that participants’ lack of confidencewhile evaluating credence services would shift their focusto nonalignable attributes. Indeed, separate regression anal-yses showed that the more confident participants were intheir judgment, the more alignable thoughts they listed (bp .14, t(171) p 2.32, p p .02), and the less confident theywere in their judgment, the more nonalignable thoughts theylisted (b p �.38, t(171) p �4.60, p ! .001).

Mediation Analysis. We hypothesized that the increasedfocus on nonalignable attributes when evaluating credence(vs. experience) services was driven by the increased levelof uncertainty associated with credence services. To test this,we created a relative purchase likelihood index by dividingparticipants’ purchase likelihood rating of the superior-align-able brand by their rating of the superior-nonalignable brand.Service type was coded as a dummy variable (1 p credenceservice; 0 p experience service). Bootstrapping analyses(Preacher and Hayes 2004; Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010)


FIGURE 1

PREFERENCE FOR EXPERIENCE AND CREDENCE SERVICES AS A FUNCTION OF BRAND STRENGTHAND PURCHASE UNCERTAINTY (STUDY 2)

showed that while the direct effect of service type remainedsignificant (�.73, p ! .001), the indirect effect of confidenceon the purchase likelihood index was negative and signifi-cant (�.14, lower 95% CI p �.31, upper 95% CI p �.05).These results present evidence that the effect of service typeon purchase likelihood was partially mediated by attitudeconfidence, providing support for hypothesis 3.

Our hypothesis was that participants’ lack of confidencewhen evaluating credence services prompted them to paymore attention to nonalignable attributes; hence, they pre-ferred the nonalignable-superior physician B to the align-able-superior physician A. To examine how participants’elaboration of the attributes as driven by attitude uncertaintymay influence purchase likelihood, we first created a relativethought index by dividing participants’ alignable thoughtlistings by their nonalignable thought listings. Service typewas coded as a dummy variable (1 p credence service; 0

p experience service). Bootstrapping analyses revealed asignificant direct effect of service type (�.39, p ! .001) aswell as a significant indirect effect of thought listing (�.24,lower 95% CI p �.37, upper 95% CI p �.14), providingevidence for partial mediation. These results suggest thatthe greater uncertainty associated with credence servicesprompted participants to elaborate more on the nonalignableattributes of the physicians and in turn influenced their pur-chase likelihood.

Discussion

Study 1 showed that participants weighted alignable ver-sus nonalignable attributes differently when evaluating ex-perience versus credence services. They favored the su-perior-alignable over the superior-nonalignable experienceservice but preferred the superior-nonalignable to the su-


perior-alignable credence service. Their confidence ratingsand thought-listing data provided evidence that participants’lack of confidence when evaluating credence services ledto their greater elaboration of and reliance on nonalignableattributes when comparing the two credence service options.Consistent with prior findings, participants relied on align-able attributes when evaluating the two experience serviceoptions, but they focused more on nonalignable attributeswhen evaluating the two credence service options. In thisstudy, each attribute was an alignable and a nonalignableattribute for brand A and brand B an equal number of times.The Latin Square Design helped to rule out the potentialalternative explanation based on stimulus-specific charac-teristics. Rather, participants’ purchase likelihood ratings re-flected the types of attributes they focused on, as a functionof their confidence in their evaluation of the experienceversus credence services.

To test the robustness of the effect of service type on howpeople process brand information, we replicated the findingsin another study using hotels and dentists to represent ex-perience and credence services, respectively. In particular,participants preferred the alignable-superior hotel (MA p4.55 vs. MB p 3.80; t(91) p 8.95, p ! .001) but the non-alignable-superior dentist (MB p 5.20 vs. MA p 4.15; t(90)p 9.15, p ! .001). Bootstrapping analyses again showed asignificant direct effect of service type (�.36, p ! .001) anda significant indirect effect of confidence (�.04; lower 95%CI p �.07, upper 95% CI p �.01), providing evidencethat participants’ confidence in their judgment partially me-diated the effect of service type.

While study 1 provided preliminary evidence for the roleof uncertainty in the weighting of alignable versus non-alignable attributes, one limitation of these results was thatconfidence was a measured variable; hence, the inferredrelationship between confidence and the weighting of align-able versus nonalignable attributes was correlational in na-ture. To provide more unambiguous evidence of the influ-ence of confidence on brand evaluation, we systematicallyvaried uncertainty to observe its effect on consumers’ re-liance on alignable versus nonalignable attributes in the nexttwo studies.

STUDY 2In study 1, we showed that participants shifted their at-

tention from alignable attributes to nonalignable attributeswhen they felt less certain about their judgment. Uncertaintywas operationalized using service type—with credence ser-vice being associated with greater uncertainty than experi-ence service. Study 2 was designed to more directly examinethe role of uncertainty in people’s reliance on nonalignableversus alignable attributes when evaluating different serviceoptions. When uncertainty is low, consumers would likelynot expend much resource on their purchase decision andhence should focus more on alignable (vs. nonalignable)attributes. However, when uncertainty is high, consumersshould be more motivated to expend cognitive resource toevaluate the options and hence would focus on nonalignable

(vs. alignable) attributes. These predictions should hold re-gardless of whether their decision involves experience orcredence services. To test this hypothesis, we manipulateduncertainty in study 2 by presenting participants with ex-perience versus credence service options as in study 1 aswell as by varying the ambiguity of brand information.

Method

Stimuli Development. Based on the pretest results de-scribed in the pilot study, we selected hair salons (classifiedby 80% of the respondents as an experience service) andcareer development agencies (classified by 78% of the re-spondents as a credence service) as the target experienceand credence services, respectively. In another pretest, 32participants with the same profile as those in the main studywere presented with a range of properties that hair salonsand career development agencies might possess and wereasked to indicate how important it would be for a hair salonor a career development agency to possess each of the at-tributes (1 p not at all important; 7 p very important).Based on these results, we selected nine attributes for eachof the two services and then randomly divided the attributesinto three blocks of three attributes each. Importance ratingsdid not differ across the three blocks of hair salon attributes(M1 p 6.21 vs. M2 p 6.06 vs. M3 p 6.37; F(2, 62) p .95,p 1 .30), nor did they differ across the three blocks of careerdevelopment agency attributes (M1 p 6.53 vs. M2 p 6.44vs. M3 p 6.44; F(2, 62) p .38, p 1 .60).

We then created two brands of hair salon and two brandsof career development agency by randomly assigning thethree blocks of attributes to create alignable and non-alignable attributes for the two brands such that one brandis superior to the other brand along its alignable attributesbut inferior along its nonalignable attributes. We pretestedthese brands by asking four independent groups of partic-ipants to provide overall attractiveness ratings for the fourbrands (two hair salons and two career development agen-cies) using a 7-point scale (1 p extremely unattractive; 7p extremely attractive). The results showed no differencein attractiveness between the two hair salons (MA p 4.60vs. MB p 4.62; t(29) p �.19, p 1 .80), or between the twocareer development agencies (MA p 4.84 vs. MB p 5.04;t(29) p �1.42, p 1 .10). The detailed brand stimuli are intable A3.

Experimental Design. We used a 2 (service type: hairsalon vs. career development agency) # 2 (uncertainty: lowvs. high) between-participants design. The key dependentmeasure was brand preference.

Participants and Procedure. We recruited 241 under-graduate students (mean age p 20.46; 150 females) to par-ticipate in the study. They were randomly assigned to eachof the four conditions and followed a similar procedure asin study 1. Participants were first presented with informationabout the two service options, followed by 10 readers’ re-views of the two options. Specifically, participants in the


high-uncertainty condition were told that five readers pre-ferred one option and five readers preferred the other option,whereas in the low-uncertainty condition, participants weretold that nine readers preferred one option and one readerpreferred the other option, and the majority-favored optionwas counterbalanced between the superior-alignable and thesuperior-nonalignable brands. Participants were then askedto indicate their preference for the two service options byallocating 100 points between the two brands. They alsorated how confident they felt about their decision, how fa-miliar they were with the service, and how attractive eachattribute was using similar 7-point scales as in study 1.

Results

Manipulation Checks. We first examined the attractive-ness ratings for the two types of attributes. As expected,participants perceived the alignable attributes of hair salonA to be more attractive than those of hair salon B (MA p5.87 vs. MB p 3.88; t(119) p 20.69, p ! .001), but thenonalignable attributes of hair salon B to be more attractivethan those of hair salon A (MB p 5.39 vs. MA p 3.38;t(119) p 19.49, p ! .001). Similarly, they rated the alignableattributes of career development agency A to be more at-tractive than those of agency B (MA p 5.77 vs. MB p 3.95;t(120) p 16.21, p ! .001), but agency B’s nonalignableattributes to be more attractive than those of agency A (MB

p 5.96 vs. MA p 3.73; t(120) p 11.10, p ! .001). Inaddition, the overall attribute attractiveness ratings betweenhair salon A and hair salon B (MA p 4.62 vs. MB p 4.63;t(119) p �.15, p 1 .80) and between agency A and agencyB (MA p 4.75 vs. MB p 4.95; t(120) p 1.39, p 1 .10) didnot differ.

Participants’ responses to the attitude confidence itemswere examined next. A 2 (service type) # 2 (uncertainty)ANOVA on participants’ confidence index (asalon p .82,aagency p .75) revealed the predicted effect of service type(F(1, 237) p 4.44, p ! .05) such that participants were moreconfident when evaluating experience service than credenceservice options (Mexp. p 5.13 vs. Mcred. p 4.84). The effectof uncertainty was also significant (F(1, 237) p 15.75, p !

.001) such that participants expressed significantly lowerconfidence in the high-uncertainty condition than in the low-uncertainty condition (Mhigh p 4.71 vs. Mlow p 5.25), in-dicating that our manipulation of uncertainty was successful.The interaction was not significant (F(1, 237) p 1.54, p 1

.20).

Brand Preference. To gain insight into how participantsevaluated the different service options, we conducted a 2(service type) # 2 (uncertainty) ANOVA on the numberof points participants allocated to the superior-nonalignablebrand. The results showed that the interaction between ser-vice type and uncertainty was not significant (F ! 1). How-ever, as predicted, the main effects of service type (F(1,237) p 100.18, p ! .001) and uncertainty (F(1, 236) p29.38, p ! .001) were both significant. Participants allocatedmore points to the superior-nonalignable brand when they

were evaluating the credence services (MB p 59.82) thanwhen they were evaluating the experience services (MB p45.21). Participants also allocated more points to the su-perior-nonalignable brand under high than low uncertainty(Mhigh p 56.50 vs. Mlow p 48.55). Subsequent analysesconducted for each service type showed that for experienceservices, the number of points allocated to the superior-alignable brand was significantly above the 50-50 split base-line (MA p 58.82; t(59) p 6.28, p ! .001) when uncertaintywas low; however, when uncertainty was high, their allo-cation of points between the two brands were not signifi-cantly different from an even split of 50-50 (MA p 51.68;t ! 1; see fig. 2A). For the credence services, participantsallocated more points to the superior-nonalignable optioneven when uncertainty was low (MB p 55.92; t(59) p 3.32,p ! .005), and their preference for the superior-nonalignableoption was accentuated when uncertainty was high (MB p63.66; t(60) p 13.02, p ! .001). From a slightly differentperspective, participants evaluated the superior-nonalignablecredence service much more favorably when uncertaintywas high (Mhigh p 63.66) than low (Mlow p 55.92; F(1,119) p 14.14, p ! .001; see fig. 2B). Taken together, thesedata provided convergent evidence in support for hypothesis3 that uncertainty underlies the weighting of alignable versusnonalignable attributes in consumer decision making.

Discussion

In this study, participants were presented with exactly thesame attribute information on the two options across the twouncertainty conditions, and yet their judgment shifted infavor of the superior-nonalignable option when they re-ceived ambivalent reviews about the service options. Bysystematically manipulating uncertainty, this study offersmore direct evidence that uncertainty leads to greater reli-ance on nonalignable attributes than on alignable attributesin service evaluation. Study 1 showed that participants fo-cused more on alignable attributes when evaluating expe-rience services, but they focused more on nonalignableattributes when evaluating credence services that are as-sociated with a higher degree of uncertainty. The results ofstudy 2 showed that consumers would focus on nonalignableattributes even for experience services when they lack con-fidence in their evaluation.

In study 2, uncertainty was manipulated by varying theinformation related to the decision task, while keeping in-formation on the brands constant. To garner more confidencein the causal effect of uncertainty in the relative weightingof alignable and nonalignable attributes in the evaluation ofservices, we manipulated uncertainty using a different op-erationalization in the next study, while keeping all infor-mation related to the decision task invariant.

STUDY 3

We demonstrated the effect of uncertainty on the weight-ing of alignable versus nonalignable attributes in study 2 byvarying the ambiguity of the readers’ review information.


FIGURE 2

PREFERENCE FOR EXPERIENCE AND CREDENCE SERVICES AS A FUNCTION OF BRAND STRENGTHAND PURCHASE UNCERTAINTY (STUDY 2)

To further test the robustness of our hypothesis, we used aninternal, metacognitive manipulation of uncertainty in study3, while keeping information about the services constant.More specifically, we manipulated uncertainty by primingparticipants with confidence or doubt, as per Clarkson et al.(2008), before presenting them with information about theservices. And to further examine the causal role of uncer-tainty, participants were asked to list the information theyconsidered most important in forming their evaluations.While the study was self-paced, participants were not per-mitted to backtrack. We used hotels and dentists to representexperience and credence services, respectively.

Method

Stimuli Development. As in study 2, we selected nineattributes for each of the two services and then randomlydivided them into three blocks of three attributes each. Theresults of a pretest showed that the three blocks of hotel

attributes (M1 p 6.00 vs. M2 p 6.15 vs. M3 p 6.00; F(2,62) p .27, p 1 .70) and dentist attributes (M1 p 6.19 vs.M2 p 6.16 vs. M3 p 6.16; F(2, 62) p .03, p 1 .90) didnot differ on their importance ratings. We then created twohotel options and two dentist options such that one optionis superior to the other option along its alignable attributesbut inferior along its nonalignable attributes. Pretest resultsfurther showed that the two hotels did not differ in overallattractiveness (MA p 4.72 vs. MB p 4.94; F(1, 34) p 1.06,p 1 .30), nor did the two dentists (MA p 4.81 vs. MB p5.03; F(1, 34) p 1.88, p 1 .20). Thus, any difference inpreference between the superior-alignable brand and the su-perior-nonalignable brand could not be attributed to the at-tractiveness of the brands. The brand stimuli details are inthe table A4.

Experimental Design. We used a 2 (service type: hotelsvs. dentists) # 2 (uncertainty: high vs. low) # 2 (brand:superior-alignable vs. superior-nonalignable) mixed design,


with brand being a within-participant factor. The key de-pendent measures were brand evaluation and thought listing.

Participants and Procedure. We recruited 195 under-graduate students (mean age p 20.53; 99 females) to par-ticipate in the study. They were randomly assigned to eachof the four experimental conditions.

To induce different levels of uncertainty, all participantswere asked to recall five personal experiences in which theyfelt either confident or doubtful. More specifically, they weregiven the following instructions: “We would like you to listfive experiences you have had in which you felt a great dealof confidence or certainty (doubt or uncertainty). These ex-periences could reflect confidence (doubt) in thoughts youhave had, confidence (doubt) in decisions or predictionsyou’ve made, or even confidence (doubt) in your generalability to do something. In each of the five boxes that appearnext, please describe a different experience in which youfelt highly confident (doubtful) about something.” Uponcompletion of this task, participants were presented with thedescriptions of either two hotels or two dentists. Participantsreported their evaluations for the two brands, attitude con-fidence ratings, familiarity with the service, and attractive-ness rating of each attribute using similar 7-point scales asin study 1.

Results

Manipulation Checks. We first examined participants’attractiveness ratings for the different types of attributes.Participants perceived the alignable attributes of hotel A tobe more attractive than those of hotel B (MA p 6.13 vs.MB p 3.98; t(95) p 17.89, p ! .001). In contrast, theyperceived the nonalignable attributes of hotel B to be moreattractive than those of hotel A (MB p 5.26 vs. MA p 3.31;t(95) p 14.59, p ! .001). Similarly, they rated the alignableattributes of dentist A to be more attractive than those ofdentist B (MA p 5.54 vs. MB p 4.13; t(98) p 14.86, p !

.001), and dentist B’s nonalignable attributes to be moreattractive than those of dentist A (MB p 4.59 vs. MA p2.95; t(98) p 11.71, p ! .001). In addition, the overallattribute attractiveness ratings between hotel A and hotel B(MA p 4.72 vs. MB p 4.62; t(95) p 1.37, p 1 .10) andbetween dentist A and dentist B (MA p 4.24 vs. MB p4.36; t(98) p �1.48, p 1 .10) did not differ. We next sub-mitted participants’ attitude confidence index (ahotel p .96,adentist p .92) to a 2 (service type) # 2 (uncertainty)ANOVA. As expected, there was a significant main effectof uncertainty (F(1, 191) p 10.31, p ! .01) such that par-ticipants in the low-uncertainty condition reported higherconfidence than did those in the high-uncertainty condition(Mlow p 5.78 vs. Mhigh p 5.30). No other effects were sig-nificant (all F ! 1).

Brand Evaluation. The brand evaluation results repli-cated those of study 2 (ahotel p .75, adentist p .86). Resultsof a 2 (service type) # 2 (uncertainty) # 2 (brand) mixed-design ANOVA showed that none of the main effects were

significant (all F ! 1). However, the predicted brand #service-type interaction (F(1, 191) p 101.03, p ! .001) aswell as the brand # uncertainty interaction (F(1, 191) p29.94, p ! .001) were both significant. Follow-up contrastsshowed that participants in the experience service conditionhad more favorable attitudes toward the superior-alignablebrand (MA p 5.14 vs. MB p 4.59; F(1, 95) p 22.15, p !

.001), whereas those in the credence service condition hadmore favorable attitudes toward the superior-nonalignablebrand (MA p 4.33 vs. MB p 5.16; F(1, 98) p 82.72, p !

.001). Also as expected, participants in the low-uncertaintycondition evaluated the superior-alignable brand more fa-vorably than the superior-nonalignable brand (MA p 4.93vs. MB p 4.68; F(1, 95) p 4.08, p ! .05), whereas thereverse pattern was found in the high-uncertainty condition(MA p 4.54 vs. MB p 5.07; F(1, 98) p 19.39, p ! .001).

Although the three-way interaction was not significant (F! 1), we examined participants’ evaluations of the two op-tions in each of the service type # uncertainty conditionto gain a clearer picture of the data (Rosenthal and Rosnow1985). The results showed that for the experience services,low-uncertainty participants preferred the superior-alignablealternative (MA p 5.35 vs. MB p 4.42; F(1, 47) p 77.19,p ! .001; see fig. 3A), replicating prior research, whereashigh-uncertainty participants did not evaluate the superior-alignable and superior-nonalignable experience brands dif-ferently (MA p 4.93 vs. MB p 4.77; F ! 1, p 1 .30). Froma slightly different perspective, participants evaluated thesuperior-alignable experience alternative more favorably inthe low- than in the high-uncertainty condition (Mlow p 5.35vs. Mhigh p 4.93; F(1, 94) p 6.38, p ! .05), whereas theyevaluated the superior-nonalignable experience alternativemore favorably in the high- than in the low-uncertainty con-dition (Mhigh p 4.77 vs. Mlow p 4.42; F(1, 94) p 5.65, p! .05). For the credence services, the main effect of brand(F(1, 97) p 8.52, p ! .01) was qualified by a significantbrand # uncertainty interaction (F(1, 97) p 19.81, p !

.001). While participants preferred the superior-nonalignablecredence brand to the superior-alignable credence brandacross both uncertainty conditions, this preference wasgreater in the high-uncertainty (MB p 5.36 vs. MA p 4.17,difference p 1.19; F(1, 50) p 293.60, p ! .001) than inthe low-uncertainty condition (MB p 4.95 vs. MA p 4.49,difference p .46; F(1, 47) p 9.17, p ! .01; see fig. 3B).From a slightly different perspective, participants evaluatedthe superior-nonalignable credence alternative more favor-ably in the high- than in the low-uncertainty condition (Mhigh

p 5.36 vs. Mlow p 4.95; F(1, 97) p 6.19, p ! .05), whereasthey were more positive toward the superior-alignable cre-dence alternative in the low- than in the high-uncertaintycondition (Mlow p 4.49 vs. Mhigh p 4.17; F(1, 97) p 5.54,p ! .05). Thus, hypothesis 3 was further supported.

Thought Listing. Our prediction was that participantswould rely more on alignable attributes when uncertaintywas low but that they would rely more on nonalignableattributes when uncertainty was high. The information thatparticipants listed as most important to them in forming their


FIGURE 3

BRAND EVALUATION FOR EXPERIENCE AND CREDENCE SERVICES AS A FUNCTION OF BRAND STRENGTHAND PURCHASE UNCERTAINTY (STUDY 3)

evaluations was classified by two independent raters whowere blind to the research objective and hypotheses intothree categories: (a) alignable (e.g., “rating for the securitypersonnel’s responsibility is higher in hotel A than in hotelB”), (b) nonalignable (e.g., “dentist B offers up-to-dateequipment”), and (c) neither (e.g., “I am not very familiarwith dental services”). Interrater agreement was 93%, anddisagreements were resolved by discussion.

A 2 (service type) # 2 (uncertainty) # 2 (attribute type)mixed-design ANOVA with attribute type as a within-par-ticipant factor showed that the three-way interaction amongservice type, uncertainty, and attribute type was not signif-icant (F ! 1). As expected, the service type # attribute typeinteraction was significant (F(1, 191) p 225.91, p ! .001)such that participants listed more alignable than non-alignable attributes in the experience service condition(Malign. p 1.94 vs. Mnonalign. p 1.32; F(1, 95) p 31.68, p !

.001), but they listed more nonalignable than alignable at-

tributes in the credence service condition (Malign. p 1.00 vs.Mnonalign. p 2.33; F(1, 98) p 154.00, p ! .001). Also sig-nificant was the uncertainty # attribute type interaction(F(1, 191) p 30.81, p ! .001). Whereas participants in thelow-uncertainty condition listed an equal number of align-able and nonalignable attributes (Malign. p 1.68 vs. Mnonalign.

p 1.55; F(1, 95) p .69, p 1 .40), those in the high-uncer-tainty condition listed more nonalignable than alignable at-tributes (Mnonalign. p 1.94 vs. Malign. p 1.25; F(1, 98) p 23.2,p ! .001).

These thought-listing data offer further evidence that peo-ple pay more attention to and rely more on nonalignablethan alignable attributes as the basis for their evaluationwhen uncertainty was high.

GENERAL DISCUSSIONThe structural alignment model has been used to under-

stand how consumers make comparisons between available


alternatives. Past research provides overwhelming evidencethat the comparability between options has a strong influenceon individual decision making (Medin, Goldstone, andMarkman 1995). In particular, people find nonalignable at-tributes more difficult to process and hence assign moreweight to alignable attributes. The present research contrib-utes to the structural alignment literature by showing thatconsumers will shift their attention to nonalignable attributeswhen they are uncertain about their judgment. Across threestudies, using three different operationalizations ofuncertainty—credence versus experience service types(study 1), the ambivalence of consumer reviews (study 2),and a self-doubt versus self-confidence prime (study 3)—the hypothesized effect of uncertainty on how participantsprocess attribute information was consistently observed.

This research also contributes to the literature by deepeningour understanding of the differences in consumer risk per-ception between products and services (Murray and Schlacter1990) and its implication for consumer decision making. Theintangibility of services with the associated uncertainty oftenrenders services more difficult to assess than products, andthis uncertainty-related difficulty is exacerbated in the caseof credence services. The results of our pilot studies showthat people perceive nonalignable versus alignable attributesas more differentiating and important between competingbrands across both experience and credence services. How-ever, they focus on nonalignable attributes as the basis ofevaluation only for credence services, when their lack of con-fidence prompts them to expend resources to process the moredifficult nonalignable attributes. Across three studies, we pre-sented evidence that uncertainty related to credence servicesundermines consumers’ confidence and in turn influencestheir relative weighting of alignable versus nonalignable at-tributes when evaluating different service options. Specifi-cally, the thought-listing data in study 1 provided evidencethat consumers focused more on alignable attributes whenevaluating experience services but on nonalignable attributeswhen evaluating credence services, which accounted for theirpreference for the superior-alignable experience service op-tion and for the superior-nonalignable credence service op-tion. A separate follow-up experiment of study 1 furthercorroborated our view that people perceive alignable (non-alignable) attributes to be more diagnostic when evaluatingexperience (credence) services. By counterbalancing the as-signment of attributes as alignable and nonalignable using aLatin Square Design, we made sure that the effects observedwere not due to the inherent attractiveness or importance ofthe specific attributes, but to their alignability across the twooptions. Results of the mediation analyses provided addition-al support that participants’ relative weighting of the non-alignable attributes was partially driven by consumers’ atti-tude confidence.

By directly manipulating uncertainty as part of the de-cision task in study 2 and as an incidental metacognitiveexperience outside the task in study 3, we presented clearevidence for our prediction that the higher level of uncer-tainty associated with credence (vs. experience) services un-

derlies consumers’ reliance on nonalignable (vs. alignable)attributes. The information listing data in study 3 providedfurther support that consumers focus more on nonalignable(vs. alignable) attributes when they lack confidence in theirjudgment. Taken together, the results across the three studiesprovide new insights into the comparative decision-makingprocess by showing that uncertainty affects the relativeweighting of alignable versus nonalignable attributes in theconstruction of consumer preferences.

Beyond the theoretical contributions, the present researchalso offers important implications for managers in the ser-vice sector. In the face of intense competition and the chal-lenges of understanding consumer decision making, mar-keters are on the constant lookout for ways to position theirofferings to capture consumer attention and influence brandchoice. Our findings suggest that managers should take at-tribute alignability and uncertainty into consideration whendeveloping positioning and communication strategies, asconsumers make comparisons between alternatives all thetime, either with an explicit alternative (as in comparativeadvertising) or with an internal reference brand (Hsee andZhang 2004). Thus, it pays for firms to identify the strengthson which they could compete more successfully.

Our findings point to the different ways that service pro-viders can proactively create an environment to enhance theeffectiveness and persuasiveness of promotion strategies. Tothe experience service provider, say a retail bank, we suggestthat it builds on its alignable attributes, perhaps by providinglonger operating hours or offering more competitive interestrates. If an experience service provider does not have arelative advantage in terms of alignable attributes, it shouldhighlight the purchase uncertainty of the service, as highpurchase uncertainty will blunt consumer attention towardthe company’s weaknesses on the alignable attributes. Asfor the credence service provider such as an insurance com-pany, the dominant strategy would be to create innovativeand distinctive attributes, such as a personalized insuranceconsulting service or unique insurance products. For thosecredence service providers that do not have a dominant non-alignable attribute and are competing on alignable attributes,framing the service as a low-uncertainty purchase decisionmight render their offerings more attractive.

In the marketplace, many companies have benefited frominvesting in and leveraging the right kind of competitiveadvantage. For instance, in the airline industry, where busi-ness travelers can easily compare convenience and reliableservice among different choices of airlines, Singapore Air-lines has over the years invested a lot of their resources tobuild excellent service reliability (Reeves and Bednar 1994).And in courier services, where purchase uncertainty is typ-ically high, Federal Express was the first company to createnonalignable attributes such as the provision of a trackingservice so that consumers could use the Internet to locate apackage and determine when it would arrive at the finaldestination (Laroche et al. 2005). Along these lines, manyprivate hospitals are trying to win customers (i.e., attractpatients) by highlighting special features such as cutting-


edge research or the most sophisticated equipment in theirmessages to differentiate themselves from their competitors.

We note that while current research presents clear evi-dence that consumers pay more attention to nonalignableattributes when uncertainty is high, nonalignability of theattributes was operationalized by presenting participantswith unique attributes for both brands rather than by the useof missing information whereby participants are presentedwith attribute information only for one brand and receivedno mention of the attribute for the other brand (Zhang etal. 2002). It is possible that unique attributes are associatedwith greater levels of uncertainty than missing information;verification of the effects of service type on nonalignableattributes in the context of missing information awaits futureresearch.

Another potentially fruitful avenue of research involvesexamining gender as a moderator of the relative weightingof alignable versus nonalignable differences. In particular,past research indicates that men are often less persuadedthan women by ads containing complex information (Pu-trevu, Tan, and Lord 2004). Given that comparing non-alignable differences is a cognitively more complex taskthan comparing alignable attributes, it is possible that gendermay also moderate the processing of alignable versus non-alignable attributes.

Finally, drawing on temporal construal theory, Malkoc,Zauberman, and Ulu (2005) suggest that when consideringfuture events, individuals are more likely to construe a near

future event in terms of specific features and focus on align-able attributes. Conversely, when considering an event inthe distant future, individuals tend to construe the event moreabstractly and focus on nonalignable attributes. The cross-cultural literature suggests that Western consumers are morepresent-oriented, whereas Eastern consumers tend to havea temporally distant perspective (Chen, Ng, and Rao 2005).Thus, it is plausible that cross-cultural differences may existin the processing of the two types of attributes. A moresystematic investigation of how members of different cul-tures process alignable versus nonalignable attributes mayyield further insights into the consumer decision-makingprocess.

In conclusion, it is interesting to note that while consum-ers may consider a nonalignable attribute to be more dif-ferentiating and more important, the cognitive miser in themwould still base their product judgment and brand choiceon alignable attributes. And yet when consumers feel un-certain about their decision, instead of focusing their atten-tion on those alignable attributes that are easy to processand understand, they shift their attention to the nonalignableattributes that are more difficult to process and interpret.The implication is that people are strategic—they are cog-nitive misers only when they feel they could conserve cog-nitive resources and still make good decisions. They readilytake on the more demanding task when good judgment maybe at risk.

APPENDIX

TABLE A1

BRAND STIMULI FOR THE RESTAURANTS (PILOTS AND STUDY 1)

Restaurant A Restaurant B

First set

Alignable differences:Food with good quality Food with moderate qualityReasonable price Expensive priceNo billing error Occasional billing error

Nonalignable differences:Not all staff members are pleasant-looking Always provides the right kind of foodNot consistently friendly reception Clean and comfortable environmentPartitioned smoking area and charging extra fees Prompt service

Second set

Alignable differences:Pleasant-looking employees Not all employees are pleasant-lookingVery friendly reception Not very friendly receptionPartitioned smoking area Partitioned smoking area with additional charges

Nonalignable differences:Does not always provide the right kind of food Food with good qualityNot consistently clean and comfortable environment Reasonable priceNot very prompt service No billing error

Third set

Alignable differences:Always provides the right kind of food Does not consistently provide the right kind of foodClean and comfortable environment Moderately clean and comfortable environmentVery prompt service Not very prompt service

Nonalignable differences:Food with moderate quality All staff members are pleasant-lookingExpensive price Friendly receptionOccasional billing error Partitioned smoking area

TABLE A2

BRAND STIMULI FOR THE PHYSICIANS (PILOTS AND STUDY 1)

Physician A Physician B

First set

Alignable differences:Attentive when answering patient’s questions Moderately attentive when answering patient’s questionsClear explanations regarding the suggested medicine and its

side effectsNot consistently clear explanation regarding the suggested medi-

cine and its side effectsReasonable price for annual checkup Expensive price for annual checkup

Nonalignable differences:Not very prompt and efficient admission process Clear and complete explanation provided by doctor about your

health condition and treatmentNot very comfortable during the physical examination Clear explanation on how to care for your condition at homeSome personal attention received from the doctor Clean room

Second set

Alignable differences:Prompt and efficient admission process Not very prompt and efficient admission processComfortable physical examination Not very comfortable during the physical examinationHigh personal attention received from the doctor Some personal attention received from the doctor

Nonalignable differences:Not very clear explanation provided by doctor about your

health condition and treatmentAttentive when answering patient’s questions

Not very clear explanation on how to care for your conditionat home

Clear explanation regarding the suggested medicine and its sideeffects

The room is not consistently clean Reasonable price for annual checkup

Third set

Alignable differences:Clear and complete explanation provided by doctor about your

health condition and treatmentNot very clear explanation provided by doctor about your health

condition and treatmentClear explanation on how to care for your condition at home Not very clear explanation on how to care for your condition at

homeClean environment The environment is not consistently clean

Nonalignable differences:Moderately attentive when answering patient’s questions Prompt and efficient admission processDoes not always explain about the prescribed medicine and

its side effectsComfortable physical examination

Expensive price for annual checkup High personal attention received from the doctor

TABLE A3

BRAND STIMULI FOR THE HAIR SALONS AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES (STUDY 2)

Hair salon A Hair salon B

Alignable differences:Rating for courtesy of the staff: 9 points Rating for courtesy of the staff: 7 pointsReasonable price Expensive priceHundreds of different hairstyles to choose from Limited variety of hairstyles to choose from

Nonalignable differences:Moderate waiting time Clean environmentNot all facilities are up-to-date Clear explanation on the most appropriate styles to suit yourselfNot consistently efficient service delivery processes Very easy to obtain appointment

Career development agency A Career development agency B

Alignable differences:Rating for ease of obtaining appointment: 9 points Rating for ease of obtaining appointment: 7 points


Background of the counselor: highly experienced and qualified Background of the counselor: moderately experienced and quali-fied

Comfortable environment Moderately comfortable environmentNonalignable differences:

Not very adept at how to make you relaxed Clear explanation for options you can use to solve your problemsJust so-so communication skill Have up-to-date equipmentNot very convenient location High personal attention received from the counselor

TABLE A4

BRAND STIMULI FOR THE HOTELS AND THE DENTISTS (STUDY 3)

Hotel A Hotel B

Alignable differences:Rating for the security personnel’s responsibility: 9 points Rating for the security personnel’s responsibility: 7 pointsRating for quietness and comfort of the room: 8.5 points Rating for quietness and comfort of the room: 7 pointsPrompt service when you need help Not very prompt service when you need help

Nonalignable differences:Some hotel staff are not very friendly Good fire prevention systemNot very convenient reservation process Clean and tidy lobbyNot always accurate billing Efficient and quick check-in

Dentist A Dentist B

Alignable differences:Rating for ease of obtaining appointment: 9 points Rating for ease of obtaining appointment: 7 pointsQualification of the dentist: specialist Qualification of the dentist: generalComfortable environment Moderately comfortable environment

Nonalignable differences:Not very adept at how to make you feel relaxed Very clear explanation on the alternative treatment optionsNot always feel secure dealing with the dentist Have up-to-date equipmentModerate reputation Reasonable price

REFERENCES

Ariely, Dan (2000), “Controlling the Information Flow: Effects onConsumers’ Decision Making and Preferences,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 27 (September), 233–48.

Bettman, James, Eric J. Johnson, and John W. Payne (1991), “Con-sumer Decision Making,” in Handbook of Consumer Behav-ior, ed. Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian, En-glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 50–84.

Bolton, Lisa E., and Joseph W. Alba (2006), “Price Fairness: Goodand Service Differences and the Role of Vendor Costs,” Jour-nal of Consumer Research, 33 (September), 258–65.

Chaiken, Shelly, Akiva Liberman, and Alice H. Eagly (1989),“Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing within andbeyond the Persuasion Context,” in Unintended Thought, ed.James S. Uleman and John A. Bargh, New York: Guilford,212–52.

Chaiken, Shelly, and Durairaj Maheswaran (1994), “Heuristic Pro-cessing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of SourceCredibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance onAttitude Judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 66 (3), 460–73.

Chapman, Randall G., and Richard Staelin (1982), “ExploitingRank Ordered Choice Set Data within the Stochastic UtilityModel,” Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (August), 288–301.

Chen, Haipeng, Sharon Ng, and Akshay R. Rao (2005), “CulturalDifferences in Consumer Impatience,” Journal of MarketingResearch, 42 (August), 291–301.

Clarkson, Joshua, Zakary L. Tormala, and Derek Rucker (2008),“A New Look at the Consequences of Attitude Certainty: The

Amplification Hypothesis,” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 95 (4), 810–25.

Darby, Michael R., and Edi Karni (1973), “Free Competition andthe Optimal Amount of Fraud,” Journal of Law and Eco-nomics, 16 (1), 67–88.

Gentner, Dedre, and Arthur B. Markman (1997), “Structural Align-ment in Analogy and Similarity,” American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56.

Grant, Susan Jung, and Alice M. Tybout (2008), “The Effect ofTemporal Frame on Information Considered in New ProductEvaluation: The Role of Uncertainty,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 34 (April), 897–913.

Hsee, Christopher, and Jiao Zhang (2004), “Distinction Bias: Mis-prediction and Mischoice Due to Joint Evaluation,” Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (5), 680–95.

Kahn, Barbara E. (1995), “Consumer Variety-Seeking amongGoods and Services: An Integrative Review,” Journal of Re-tailing and Consumer Services, 2 (3), 139–48.

Kahn, Barbara E., and Robert J. Meyer (1991), “Consumer Multi-attribute Judgments under Attribute-Weight Uncertainty,”Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), 508–22.

Keh, Hean Tat, and Jun Pang (2010), “Customer Reactions toService Separation,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (2), 55–70.

Keh, Hean Tat, and Jin Sun (2008), “The Complexities of PerceivedRisk in Cross-Cultural Services Marketing,” Journal of In-ternational Marketing, 16 (1), 120–46.

Kivetz, Ran, and Itamar Simonson (2000), “The Effects of Incom-plete Information on Consumer Choice,” Journal of Market-ing Research, 37 (November), 427–48.

Laroche, Michel, Zhiyong Yang, Gordon H. G. McDougall, andJasmin Bergeron (2005), “Internet versus Bricks-and-Mortar


Retailers: An Investigation into Intangibility and Its Conse-quences,” Journal of Retailing, 81 (4), 251–67.

Lovelock, Christopher H. (1983), “Classifying Services to GainStrategic Marketing Insights,” Journal of Marketing, 47 (3),9–20.

Malkoc, Selin A., Gal Zauberman, and Canan Ulu (2005), “Con-suming Now or Later? The Interactive Effect of Timing andAttribute Alignability,” Psychological Science, 16 (5), 411–17.

Markman, Arthur B., and Douglas L. Medin (1995), “Similarityand Alignment in Choice,” Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Decision Processes, 63 (2), 117–30.

Medin, Douglas L., Robert L. Goldstone, and Arthur B. Markman(1995), “Comparison and Choice: Relations between Simi-larity Processes and Decision Processes,” Psychonomic Bul-letin and Review, 2 (March), 1–19.

Mitra, Kaushik, Michelle C. Reiss, and Louis M. Capella (1999),“An Examination of Perceived Risk, Information Search andBehavioral Intentions in Search, Experience and CredenceServices,” Journal of Services Marketing, 13 (3), 208–32.

Mittal, Banwari (1999), “The Advertising of Services: Meeting theChallenge of Intangibility,” Journal of Service Research, 2(1), 98–116.

Murray, Keith B., and John L. Schlacter (1990), “The Impact ofServices versus Goods on Consumers’ Assessment of Per-ceived Risk and Variability,” Journal of the Academy of Mar-keting Science, 18 (1), 51–65.

Nam, Myungwoo, Jing Wang, and Angela Y. Lee (2012), “TheDifference between Differences: How Expertise Affects Di-agnosticity of Attribute Alignability,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 39 (December), 736–50.

Nowlis, Stephen M., and Itamar Simonson (1997), “Attribute-TaskCompatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Re-versals,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (May), 205–18.

Ostrom, Amy, and Dawn Iacobucci (1995), “Consumer Trade-offsand the Evaluation of Services,” Journal of Marketing, 59(January), 17–28.

Preacher, Kristopher J., and Andrew F. Hayes (2004), “SPSS andSAS Procedures for Estimating Indirect Effects in SimpleMediation Models,” in “Web-Based Archive of Norms, Stim-uli, and Data: Part 2,” special issue, Behavior Research Meth-ods, Instruments and Computers, 36 (4), 717–31.

Putrevu, Sanjay, Joni Tan, and Kenneth R. Lord (2004), “ConsumerResponses to Complex Advertisements: The Moderating Role

of Need for Cognition, Knowledge, and Gender,” Journal ofCurrent Issues and Research in Advertising, 26 (1), 9–24.

Reeves, Carol A., and David A. Bednar (1994), “Defining Quality:Alternatives and Implications,” Academy of Management Re-view, 19 (3), 419–45.

Rosenthal, Robert, and Ralph L. Rosnow (1985), Contrast Anal-ysis: Focused Comparisons in the Analysis of Variance, Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tiedens, Larissa Z., and Susan Linton (2001), “Judgment underEmotional Certainty and Uncertainty: The Effects of SpecificEmotion on Information Processing,” Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 81 (December), 973–88.

Trope, Yaacov, and Shelly Chaiken (1999), Dual-Process Theoriesin Social Psychology, New York: Guilford.

Urbany, Joel E., Peter R. Dickson, and William L. Wilkie (1989),“Buyer Uncertainty and Information Search,” Journal of Con-sumer Research, 16 (September), 208–15.

Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1981), “How Consumer Evaluation ProcessesDiffer between Goods and Services,” in Marketing of Ser-vices, ed. James H. Donnelly and William R. George, Chi-cago: American Marketing Association, 186–90.

Zeithaml, Valarie A., A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry(1985), “Problems and Strategies in Services Marketing,”Journal of Marketing, 49 (Spring), 33–46.

Zhang, Shi, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (1999), “Choice-Process Sat-isfaction: The Influence of Attribute Alignability and OptionLimitation,” Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 77 (3), 192–214.

Zhang, Shi, Frank R. Kardes, and Maria L. Cronley (2002), “Com-parative Advertising: Effects of Structural Alignability on Tar-get Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(4), 303–11.

Zhang, Shi, and Arthur B. Markman (1998), “Overcoming theEarly Entrant Advantage: The Role of Alignable and Non-alignable Differences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35(November), 413–26.

——— (2001), “Processing Product Unique Features: Alignabilityand Involvement in Preference Construction,” Journal of Con-sumer Psychology, 11 (1), 13–27.

Zhao, Xinshu, John G. Lynch Jr., and Qimei Chen (2010), “Re-considering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Me-diation Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (Au-gust), 197–206.

Copyright of Journal of Consumer Research is the property of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

The Effect of Attribute Alignability on Service Evaluation: · PDF file · 2012-05-072012-05-07 · The Effect of Attribute Alignability on Service Evaluation: ... either before or