1

The Relevance of Irrelevancein Brand CommunicationCarmen-Maria Albrecht, Marcus M. Neumann,Tobias E. Haber, and Hans H. BauerUniversity of Mannheim, Germany

ABSTRACT

Brand managers strive to achieve an outstanding position in the psy-che of the user by differentiating the product and service. In order todo so, brands are now often promoted by communications that focuson a trivial attribute difference. The current study tests both how theuse of such an irrelevant attribute affects the perceptions of the con-sumer and how they rate the brand when the irrelevance of theattribute is previously revealed. The results of a controlled experi-ment (n � 894) show that the use of irrelevant attributes generallyhas a positive effect on buying behavior and that this effect isobtained even when the actual irrelevance is previously proven tothe consumer. Further, the results are consistent across a variety ofoutcome variables, including attention, perceived uniqueness, pricefairness, attitude toward the brand, and intention to buy the brand.© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

It has been observed for a fairly long time that firms successfully distinguishbrands by means of features that do not fulfill the criterion of having objectiverelevance. This is the way that La Prairie, for example, differentiates its facetreatment product Cellular Radiance Concentrate Pure Gold of the brand seriesThe Swiss Cellular De-Agers from competing brands through the addition ofmicro-particles of 24-karat gold extracts. The face serum really contains parti-cles of gold (La Prairie, 2008), but the addition of gold has no medically proveneffects on its performance, namely to nourish and treat the skin as well as tomaintain the moisture of the skin (Öko-Test, 2005.) Another example is Gold-well, which differentiates its shampoo brand Kerasilk through the addition of

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 28(1): 1–28 (January 2011)View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20378

ALBRECHT, NEUMANN, HABER, AND BAUERPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

2

silk proteins (Goldwell, 2008). However, it is not silk proteins that straightenhair and make it shine, but artificial additives like silicon (Öko-Test, 2005).

Features that, after cursory reasoning, appear to make a significant differ-ence but in reality are objectively insignificant for the performance of the prod-uct are characterized as irrelevant attributes (Broniarczyk & Gershoff, 2003; Carpenter, Glazer, & Nakamoto, 1994). As a result, an irrelevant attribute con-cerns either an objectively irrelevant feature that does not provide any physical-chemical-technical utility (pct-utility) or an attribute whose contribution to theproduct is so trivial or marginal that it must be regarded as irrelevant (Brown &Carpenter, 2000). The term irrelevant, however, does not mean that consumersascribe no meaning to the irrelevant attribute prior to and after the purchasedecision. Rather, the term refers to attributes that are irrelevant regarding theprovision of any pct-utility.

Although such features do not seem to offer any provable pct-utility, they areemployed by firms in order to highlight the superiority of their products (Carpenter, Glazer, & Nakamoto, 1994). Recent research on the effects of brandnames has shown that brand names generally elicit expectations as to the prod-uct’s attributes on the part of the recipients. Attribute performance is ratedmore favorably on dimensions congruent with brand name associations (Wänke,Herrmann, & Schaffner, 2007a, 2007b). Irrelevant attributes that are adver-tised with impressive-sounding slogans apparently prompt the recipient toascribe a positive effect to them due to this “preprogrammed” thought struc-ture (“gold glitters,” “silk shines”) (Carpenter, Glazer, & Nakamoto, 1994). Forconsumers it is practically impossible to verify the firm’s implicit claims regard-ing the application of the pct-utility caused by a feature (Hoch & Deighton,1989). Even after using the product, the consumer cannot tell to which pct-features an existing effect can be attributed. The only way to reveal the irrele-vance of a feature is to consult independent sources such as consumer protectionorganizations, experts, or test reports. As to the legal framework, firms areallowed to use irrelevant attributes in their brand communications as long asthey really integrate the advertised substances into the products. It does not mat-ter how consumers explain the performance or quality of a specific product as longas the product comes up to what the consumer expects from its performance orquality (see Appendix D for the legal framework in detail). Even though inde-pendent sources make objective information about the product performance avail-able to the consumer (e.g., Consumer Reports), the use of irrelevant attributes asan instrument for brand differentiation is constantly increasing in importancein marketing practice. Apparently, this feature makes the brand appear advan-tageous to the consumer because a subjectively perceived connection existsbetween the irrelevant attribute and the product quality. Although this form ofbrand differentiation is gaining in importance in managerial practice, studyapproaches are confined to specific research contexts. In the relevant literature, onlysingularly separated effects of irrelevant attributes on the brand choice behaviorof consumers are analyzed with the help of choice experiments (e.g., Carpenter,Glazer, & Nakamoto, 1994; Broniarczyk & Gershoff, 1997, 2003; Brown & Carpenter, 2000; Meyvis & Janiszewski, 2002). Appendix A neatly summarizesthe key findings of existing research on the effects of irrelevant attributeswithin the scope of choice experiments. It can be shown that it is the intentionof these studies to find out which brands are preferred by consumers within a choiceset of several brands that can have an irrelevant attribute. More precisely, prior

THE RELEVANCE OF IRRELEVANCE IN BRAND COMMUNICATIONPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

3

research has focused on the consumer’s judgment of brands that use and do notuse an irrelevant attribute by asking the consumer to indicate his or her mostand least preferred brand. Accordingly, the results of these studies are alwaysconfined to consumer-oriented choice situations that vary in relation to thebrands presented. Thus, the basic effect—that irrelevant attributes impact prod-uct judgments—has been established in prior choice experiments. Although thisapproach is of great managerial relevance, the findings in the context of choiceexperiments do not give any information as to why consumers have chosen a par-ticular brand. Thus, previous work so far has not looked at the psychologicalprocesses that take place prior to the consumer’s choice or purchase decision,respectively. But it is these psychological processes that finally explain whyconsumers respond to specific stimuli or not, that is, whether they choose or donot choose specific brands. Generally, psychological processes can, among otherthings, be characterized by attention, perception, understanding, and attitudeformation processes (Hoyer & MacInnis, 2007). The current study focuses on thisresearch gap regarding why consumers choose a brand that differentiates itselffrom competing brands with the use of an irrelevant attribute and provides con-siderable insight into this research field. In order to examine the effects of irrel-evant attributes in a well-differentiated way, the research interest of this studyconcentrates on the impact of irrelevant attributes on latent constructs thatare important prior to the actual buying decision and additionally reflect the con-sumer’s “psychological core” (Hoyer & MacInnis, 2007), namely the constructsof attention toward the brand, perceived uniqueness of the brand, perceivedprice fairness of the brand, attitude toward the brand, and, finally, intention tobuy the brand. Moreover, the effects of irrelevant attributes are comprehen-sively analyzed both in case of revelation of the irrelevance prior to the ratingof the brand and in case of nonrevelation of the irrelevance. To overcome sys-tematic biases that could arise from the use of several brands in the researchdesign, the current study uses only one fictitious brand as an object of investigation. Since the analyzed constructs are direct or indirect sources ofconsumer-oriented brand value (Aaker, 1996; Chaudhuri, 2002; Farquhar, 1989;Netemeyer et al., 2004), the implications of this study are significant for brandmanagers.

LITERATURE REVIEW ON THE EFFECTS OF IRRELEVANT ATTRIBUTES

Within the scope of a choice experiment where subjects have to rate brands ina choice set by indicating their least and most preferred brand, Carpenter,Glazer, and Nakamoto (1994) are able to show for the first time that the use ofan irrelevant product-related attribute induces an increased preference for thisbrand as opposed to the brands without this irrelevant attribute and that irrel-evant attributes continue having a positive effect on the preference even if theirrelevance of the attribute is revealed to consumers prior to their choice deci-sion. The insight into the consumers’ preference for a brand with an irrelevantattribute has been supported again in an empirical study by Brown and Carpenter (2000); the insight into the consumers’ preference for a brand withan irrelevant attribute whose irrelevance is previously revealed has also been sup-ported in studies by Broniarczyk and Gershoff (1997, 2003). Furthermore, in a

ALBRECHT, NEUMANN, HABER, AND BAUERPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

4

two-stage choice experiment, Broniarczyk and Gershoff (2003) show that brandswith an irrelevant attribute whose irrelevance has previously been revealed tothe consumers are still partially preferred to other brands without the irrele-vant attribute within the scope of the consumers’ second choice. This prefer-ence, however, is dependent on the brand equity.

Further studies conducted in different research contexts help to explain thecauses of the positive effects of irrelevant attributes. These studies do not focuson irrelevant attributes per se, but their results can nevertheless be drawn on forthe current research. Houston, Sherman, and Baker (1989, 1991), Houston andSherman (1995), and Dhar and Sherman (1996) show that in the decision process,consumers pay more attention to unique features of an alternative. In addition,the research results of Nowlis and Simonson (1996) as well as Mukherjee andHoyer (2001) show that the existence of new types of features favorably affectsproduct evaluation. The recognition that new types of information fundamen-tally receive a higher significance within the context of the perception processhas long been well established in perception psychology (Wyer, 1970).

Simonson, Nowlis, and Simonson (1993), on the other hand, provide evidencethat irrelevant attributes have a negative effect on brand choice. In their researchwork, more precisely, they examine the effects irrelevant preference argumentshave on the consumer’s choice probability of products. From their results it canbe assumed that the consumer interprets an irrelevant attribute as an indicatorthat the brand is inferior in other areas. Simonson, Carmon, and O’Curry (1994),too, show that the existence of a feature that possesses little or no value to the con-sumer presents the consumer with a clue that he or she is dealing with a lessattractive alternative. The use of such an attribute can lead to the so-called “dilu-tion effect” if the feature is rated negatively. The marginal or complete negativevalue that the consumer attaches to the attribute negatively distorts the alter-native’s overall rating and thus reduces the perceived advantageousness of thebrand (Meyvis & Janiszewski, 2002; Simonson, Carmon, & O’Curry, 1994; Tet-lock & Boettger, 1989). The dilution effect persists even if the consumers find outabout the irrelevance prior to their choice decision (Meyvis & Janiszewski, 2002).

The insights from the research review suggest that consumers use irrelevantattributes to make their decisions and that the existence of these attributes influ-ences the perception and decision behavior. However, the results concerning thedirection of the effects evoked by the existence of an irrelevant attribute arerather contradictory. Brown and Carpenter (2000) assume that a given irrelevantattribute, independent from the decision context, can be rated both positivelyand negatively. In a decision situation, consumers mostly choose the alternativethat is founded on easily justifiable, cognitively available arguments (Hsee, 1995;Kunda, 1990; Shafir, Simonson, & Tversky, 1993; Simonson, 1989). Ideally, thisprocess enables consumers to make up well-founded arguments that are basedon the existence of the relevant attribute and clearly makes a brand appear tobe favorable. If, however, this decision cannot be justified based on relevant fea-tures, consumers form arguments based on irrelevant attributes. This heuristicapproach is referred to as “instrumental reasoning” and clarifies that consumersalso rate an irrelevant attribute independently from the existence of other prod-uct attributes (Bastardi & Shafir, 1998; Fischer et al., 1999).

The decision problem and the usefulness of rating the irrelevant attribute aredetermined by the number of alternatives in the choice set and by the numberof alternatives in the choice set with an irrelevant attribute. If in a choice setof homogeneous brands only one is differentiated with an irrelevant attribute,

THE RELEVANCE OF IRRELEVANCE IN BRAND COMMUNICATIONPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

5

as in the experimental design of Carpenter, Glazer, and Nakamoto (1994), thena positive rating of the irrelevant attribute is more effective than a negativeone because the rating justifies the choice of exactly one brand. If, in contrast,only one brand in the choice set does not have the irrelevant attribute, then adevaluation of the irrelevant attribute seems reasonable in terms of decision sim-plification or justification.

If subjects are presented with only two brands, as in the experiment of Simonson,Nowlis, and Simonson (1993), both a positive and a negative rating help to solvethe decision problem. The search for a reason to prefer a brand will thereforedepend on whether the irrelevant attribute evokes positive or negative associa-tions. The experiments conducted by Brown and Carpenter (2000) provide empir-ical support for these assumptions. The context dependence of the effects ofirrelevant attributes, depending on the number of brands that have them, issupported by the studies of Broniarczyk and Gershoff (1997, 2003). Thus, thediverging results of the studies do not contradict each other, but rather merelyreveal the instrumental approach of consumers when they justify their decisions.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Attention

Attention is the basic requirement for any perceptual activity. It reduces anddirects the array of potential information that comes into contact with the organism.Only those stimuli that create attention—that is, they lead to a temporaryincrease in the activation of an individual—are selected and gain access to theinformation processing system (Ratneshwar et al., 1997). Numerous studiesconfirm the influence of novel (Mukherjee & Hoyer, 2001; Nowlis & Simonson,1996; Wyer, 1970), salient (Hutchinson & Alba, 1991; Ratneshwar, Mick, &Reitinger, 1990), and unique (Dhar & Nowlis, 1999; Dhar & Sherman, 1996;Houston & Sherman, 1995; Houston, Sherman, & Baker, 1989; Zhou &Nakamoto, 2007) product features on the evaluation and decision process of theconsumer. Since features that are perceived through attention have an increasedprobability of influencing the evaluation process, it can be assumed that theeffect of novel, salient, and unique product attributes originates from the atten-tion-triggering nature of these features.

A brand can differentiate itself from competing brands by having an irrele-vant attribute. In doing so, the irrelevant attribute can be a feature that iseither completely new for the consumer or new in the sense that it has not beenused before in conjunction with the product category. If the competing brandsin the situation do not exhibit this feature, then the irrelevant attribute is bothunique and salient in relation to the context. Thus, the following hypothesis isproposed:

H1a: The use of an irrelevant attribute in brand communications leads toincreased attention of the consumer.

Uniqueness of the Brand

The perceived uniqueness of a brand determines its position within a product cat-egory (Sujan & Bettman, 1989). It is defined as “the degree to which customers

ALBRECHT, NEUMANN, HABER, AND BAUERPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

6

feel the brand is different from competing brands—how distinct it is relative tocompetitors” (Netemeyer et al., 2004, p. 211). Its importance is due to the fact thatbrands take on an identification and self-portrayal function for the consumer(Aaker, 1997; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). The perception of personal unique-ness is extremely important for the concept of self. Research results show thatindividuals feel the need to differentiate themselves from others (Codol, 1987;Leyens, Yzerbyt, & Rogier, 1997; Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell, 2000).Since consumer activities provide an opportunity to express uniqueness, thisuniqueness also has an effect on buying behavior (Burns & Warren, 1995; Lynn &Harris, 1997a; Snyder, 1992). Tian, Bearden, and Hunter (2001) argue that con-sumers’ need for uniqueness, defined as an individual’s pursuit of differentia-tion through the acquisition and use of consumer goods, mirrors the process ofmaintaining both self-image and social image. Objects are suited for displayingone’s own self-concept because people consciously or unconsciously consider theirpossessions as part of themselves. According to Belk (1988), possessions of indi-viduals can be understood as “extended self.” Thus, a consumer strives for prod-ucts that are suitable for allowing the expression of his or her personal uniqueness(Lynn & Harris, 1997b). The symbolic use of unique brands communicates theunique personality and individuality of the consumer.

The differentiation of a brand from its competitors and the communicativeimplementation of uniqueness in the form of a Unique Selling Proposition (USP)(Lynn & Harris, 1997a, 1997b) offer the possibility of addressing the need foruniqueness because the judgment of a brand’s uniqueness is often inferred fromthe differentiating communication message (Netemeyer et al., 2004). An irrel-evant attribute concerns a feature that can be communicated and that otherbrands do not exhibit. Since the attribute dominance of even a single novel prod-uct feature can influence the formation of an overall impression, it can beexpected that the existence of an irrelevant attribute causes a differentiationeffect. Hence:

H2a: The use of an irrelevant attribute in brand communications leads to anincrease in perceived uniqueness of the brand.

Price Fairness

In academic literature, it is always emphasized that a brand’s differentiation fromits competition reduces the consumer’s price sensitivity and thereby provides thefirm with a “quasi-monopolistic” margin (Chaudhuri, 2002; Maxwell, 2002). As part of price perception, the concept of price fairness describes the subjectivefeeling of appropriateness and fairness of the pricing of the firm (Campbell,1999).

The most influential research on the construct of price fairness has been doneby Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler (1986a, 1986b). The authors specify thechange of the firm’s profit as a central determinant of the perceived price fair-ness. According to the Dual Entitlement Concept, the purchase of a product isthe result of a reference transaction that is characterized by a reference price(e.g., market prices, nonbinding recommended retail prices, or a price paid inthe past) and a referent profit of the firm (Kalapurakal, Dickson, & Urbany,1991). Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler (1986a, 1986b) show that cost-relatedprice increases that do not change the profit of a firm are perceived as fair bypotential consumers.

THE RELEVANCE OF IRRELEVANCE IN BRAND COMMUNICATIONPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

7

The most important explanation of how individuals form judgments aboutprice fairness is provided by the Equity Theory, which focuses on the perceivedfairness of social exchange relationships (Homans, 1961). The theory followsthe premise that individuals compare their own contributions in an exchangerelationship (input) and the result from it (output) to the contributions of inputand output of all parties concerned. Fairness then exists if the relationship ofinput and output between all parties concerned is perceived as equal (Homburg, Koschate, & Hoyer, 2005; Martins & Monroe, 1994). From the con-sumer’s perspective, the product price in particular indicates the input, whereasthe benefit of the product and its social effects indicate the output (Homans, 1961).

What has been said so far about the construct of price fairness shows that theconsumer always evaluates a product or service as a subjectively perceivedcost–benefit relationship. Since the consumer is usually not in a position tograsp the input and output due to asymmetric information, the differencebetween a subjectively perceived product value and the price demanded by thefirm is very important for his or her fairness judgment (Oliver & Swan, 1989a,1989b). If the consumer judges the price–benefit relationship to be good, he orshe will also attribute price fairness to the brand (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler,1986b). Netemeyer et al. (2004) show that the perceived relationship betweenbenefit and cost influences both the willingness to pay a price premium and thebuying behavior concerning the brand.

If these considerations about price fairness are carried over to the topic of thecurrent study, it is plausible to hypothesize that an irrelevant attribute alsopositively influences the perception of price fairness. The existence of an irrel-evant attribute, as opposed to its nonexistence, suggests higher manufacturingcosts to the potential consumer that have not been added into the product priceand thus inevitably reduce the firm’s profit. By analogy to the conclusions ofthe Dual Entitlement Concept, the product price is thus judged as fair. Accord-ing to the Equity Theory, the additional benefit gained from the use of an irrel-evant attribute should also have a positive effect on the equity relationship inthe exchange situation in the form of an increased output of the customer andincreased input of the firm. Thus, the following hypothesis is put forth:

H3a: The use of an irrelevant attribute in brand communications leads to anincrease in perceived price fairness.

Attitude Toward the Brand and Intention to Buy the Brand

Attitudes represent a consumer’s general value judgment with respect to a goodor service (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) and can be based on both cognitions andemotions (Hoyer & MacInnis, 2007). The promotional emphasis of an irrelevantattribute, in the form of a Unique Advertising Proposition (UAP) that is perceivedpositively by the consumer, can positively influence the attitude toward thebrand (Edell & Burke, 1987; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986; Mitchell & Olson,1981). In the context of the communication message, the irrelevant attribute canbe used to evoke positive affective reactions from the consumer by, for example,prompting associations of exclusivity. These associations, in turn, can put theconsumer in a positive mood through the connection of subjective experiencesand in this way affect his or her attitude formation. On a cognitive level, due toits uniqueness, the existence of an irrelevant attribute allows the consumer to

ALBRECHT, NEUMANN, HABER, AND BAUERPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

8

draw conclusions regarding the utility of the brand. Since the supplier of brandedgoods induces such conclusions through the communication of an irrelevantattribute, these conclusions are cognitively easily accessible to the consumer(Johar & Simmons, 2000). Broniarczyk and Gershoff (1997, 2003) are able to showempirically that consumers do indeed draw conclusions from irrelevant attributes.

Furthermore, research results suggest that consumers generally assume thatmarketers devise their communications in such a way as to improve the attitudetoward their products (Friestad & Wright, 1994). If this is correct, then theintroduction of a new, irrelevant attribute should be interpreted by the con-sumer as a signal for additional value of the attribute (Mukherjee & Hoyer,2001). It also seems plausible that irrelevant attributes give consumers a rea-son to draw on them as an explanation for better performance of the brand andmake attributions to that effect. According to Einhorn and Hogarth (1986) andMcGill (1989), unusual features in particular influence the consumer’s percep-tion. In this sense, the irrelevant attribute also serves as a heuristic for attitudeformation. According to the attitude–behavior hypothesis, attitudes influence theintention to buy (Miniard, Obermiller, & Page, 1983). These considerations leadto the following hypotheses:

H4a: The use of an irrelevant attribute in brand communications leads to amore positive consumer attitude toward the brand.

H5a: The use of an irrelevant attribute in brand communications leads to ahigher intention to buy the brand.

Effects when Irrelevance Is Previously Revealed

According to the normative decision theory, if the irrelevance of an attribute wereto be disclosed to consumers prior to their evaluation of the brand, they would rec-ognize that the irrelevant attribute provides no benefit and thus they would attach no value to it in their judgment of the brand (Carpenter, Glazer, &Nakamoto, 1994; Tversky & Kahneman, 1986). Research results indicate thatan irrelevant attribute is not ignored when a judgment or decision is made;however, the existence of such an attribute still continues to make the brand seemunique within a huge choice set of brands and therefore differentiates it fromother brands. Since in the consumer’s perception the differentiated brand stillhas a salient effect, it will continue to be favored when compared to other brands.The irrelevant attribute simplifies the decision situation despite its communi-cated irrelevance (Carpenter, Glazer, & Nakamoto, 1994).

This effect can be explained by a multitude of cognitive biases that arise inthe evaluation process. Gilovich (1981) shows that confrontation with irrele-vant information triggers the formation of associations that do not disappeardespite their irrelevance. Consistent with this finding, research results giveevidence for the existence of two more effects. The first effect, called the “hind-sight bias,” describes the biased judgment of past events after which informa-tion about the outcome is known (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 1999; Fischhoff, 1975;Hawkins & Hastie, 1990). The second effect, called the “anchor effect,” claimsthat the specification of an arbitrary number prompts people to orient themselvesaround this number if a numerical assessment is required (Strack & Mussweiler,

THE RELEVANCE OF IRRELEVANCE IN BRAND COMMUNICATIONPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

9

1997; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Both examples give evidence of the influ-ence of information that actually should not be considered. If these findings areadapted to the object of investigation in the current study, it can be assumed thatin the decision process, the consumer will also take an attribute into consider-ation that he or she recognizes as irrelevant.

According to the “perseverance effect,” individuals furthermore have a basictendency to cling to their beliefs and opinions. Previous studies have shownthat first impressions remain, even if new information does not confirm them(Asch, 1946; Kelley, 1950). More recent studies look into people’s reaction towardthe discrediting of original beliefs by reliable sources. The results confirm thatindividuals cling to their opinions, even if it is clearly proven that the originalbasis for their opinion is either incorrect or does not exist (Anderson, Lepper, &Ross, 1980; Lepper, Ross, & Lau, 1986; Ross, Lepper, & Hubbard, 1975). Thenegation of a piece of information thus does not lead to the abandonment of abelief; rather, it leads to the devaluation of the negative information.

Johar and Simmons (2000) demonstrate that the correction of false conclu-sions concerns a two-level process in which announced, informative, or correc-tive information is first encoded and then later used. The actual use of theencoded information, however, only takes place at very high processing inten-sity. Numerous studies (Gilbert, Krull, & Malone, 1990; Gilbert, Tafarodi, &Malone, 1993; Martin, Seta, & Crelia, 1990) have found support for the con-clusion that the correction of a judgment concerns a very complex process.

Johar and Simmons (2000) emphasize that conclusions—for example, aboutthe quality of a brand—are drawn intuitively from corresponding cues due totheir cognitive availability and that it is not easy to block them. This means thatsuch conclusions are made inevitably and independently of the knowledge athand about clarifying information. Thus, information that reveals an erroneousconclusion is not used as a heuristic for the judgment of a brand, but rather—if at all—it is used for later revision of false conclusions. Hutchinson and Alba(1991) show that the consumer’s analytical abilities are also influenced by theperceived salience of an attribute. If an irrelevant attribute is salient, it gets inthe way of the learning process and inhibits the necessary analytical processingof clarifying information (Broniarczyk & Gershoff, 1997; Carpenter, Glazer, &Nakamoto, 1994).

Based on these considerations, it can be plausibly reasoned that the exposureof information that reveals the irrelevance of an attribute is indeed recognizedby consumers, that is, they recognize that an irrelevant attribute possesses novalue. It is to be expected, however, that consumers do not fully integrate thisinformation into their judgment of the brand due to the lack of necessary pro-cessing capacity. As a result, it can be assumed that consumers also judge abrand differentiated by an irrelevant attribute more positively when they arepreviously made aware of the irrelevance of the differentiating attribute. For thisreason, by analogy to the considerations about the effect of an irrelevant attrib-ute without clarifying information, for this study the following hypotheses arederived for the selected constructs that analyze the effect of the irrelevant attrib-ute under the condition that the irrelevance is revealed to the consumers priorto their evaluation of the brand:

In brand communications, the use of an irrelevant attribute whose irrele-vance is revealed to the consumer prior to their evaluation of the brand leads

ALBRECHT, NEUMANN, HABER, AND BAUERPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

10

H1b: to increased attention of the consumer,

H2b: to an increase in perceived uniqueness of the brand,

H3b: to an increase in perceived price fairness for the brand,

H4b: to a more positive attitude toward the brand, and

H5b: to an increased intention to buy the brand.

EMPIRICAL STUDY

An experimental research design was used to test the hypotheses. The Internet-based experiment simulated the consumer’s confrontation with a brand thatdifferentiated itself from other brands by the addition of a fictitious irrelevantattribute. To avoid systematic biases that could arise from potential influencesof existing brands, a fictitious shampoo brand was used as the object of inves-tigation. Moreover, only one brand was integrated into the current researchdesign to avoid systematic biases that could be caused by the use of severalbrands. The choice of shampoo as the product was made not only because of theincreasing pervasiveness of the brand differentiation strategy of using an irrel-evant attribute in this product category (Broniarczyk & Gershoff, 2003) but alsobecause of the dominant position that this basic product holds within cosmet-ics and personal hygiene.

The experimental design was based on three treatments: the experimentalgroup 1 (IA), the experimental group 2 (IArevealed) and the control group 3 (IAwithout). In all treatments, the subjects were presented with a brand that wasadvertised in the media with a fixed price. The product price was set to €2.39due to the mean value of shampoo available in a leading commercial chain. Toenable the subjects to intuitively gain access to the product category used, thebrand that was advertised in the media was presented with a branded sham-poo packaging (see Figures 1 and 2).

In experimental groups 1 and 2, the product illustration contained a referenceto the fictitious ingredient Kurkumin. While the subjects in the first groupreceived no information about the irrelevant attribute, the subjects in the sec-ond group were confronted with an informative text that revealed the irrele-vance of the attribute (see Appendix B). The branded shampoo packaging waspresented without the irrelevant attribute to the subjects in the control group.With the exception of the integration of the irrelevant attribute, the visual andtextual design was identical across all three treatment groups. The ingredientKurkumin thus constituted the independent variable of the experiment. Dueto the chosen research design, which did not focus on preference ratings of several brands, the current study did not ask subjects to simultaneously rate sev-eral alternatives.

The course of the experiment took place in three stages (see Figure 3). Aftera short introductory text and the questionnaire that contained sociodemographicquestions, the subjects were randomly assigned to the groups. In the secondphase, subjects were first presented with the shampoo packaging of the fictitiousbrand “Suprema X.” A fictitious brand was chosen to a priori exclude spillover

THE RELEVANCE OF IRRELEVANCE IN BRAND COMMUNICATIONPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

11

effects due to the subjects’ past experiences with a brand. The time span of thepresentation of the stimulus in the experimental design was fixed to one minutein order to prevent the subjects from experiencing negative responses due tofatigue.

After one minute, the subjects in experimental group 2 received an extractfrom a test report that revealed the irrelevance of the attribute. In the thirdphase, the subjects of all groups were transferred to the second questionnaire,which contained questions about the latent constructs (see Appendix C for thesurvey instrument used in the study).

Five-point Likert scales (1 � strongly disagree; 5 � strongly agree) were usedto measure the model constructs. In a pretest with 31 subjects, the reliability of all measures was verified. Cronbachs a, the item-to-total correlation, the empirical correlation matrix, and an exploratory factor analysis taking the

Figure 1. Shampoo with irrelevant attribute.

TRANSLATION

Text Beside the Package

Suprema X Shampoo with Kurkumin is optimal for your hair care. The combination of speciallyselected care components builds up your hair in an effective and concerted way over a long periodof time. This intensive care product strengthens your hair and makes it noticeably resistant. Yourhair gets visibly sleeker and incredibly supple.Suprema X Shampoo with Kurkumin is particularly mild and it gently cleanses your hair and scalp.The smooth care formula is ideally suited to daily hair washing.

Text on the Package

Suprema XIntensive Hair Care with KurkuminCare Shampoofor normal hair or damaged hair

12

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) criterion into account served as an orientation aidfor the evaluation of the reliability and validity of the construct measurement.Table 1 shows that all scales exhibit excellent values, which infers a high pre-cision for the measurements used (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). Discriminantvalidity was assessed on the basis of the criteria that Fornell and Larcker (1981)propose. The results did not show any violations.

The online experiment was carried out from July 28 to October 28, 2004. Some894 subjects completed the entire experiment. Of these, 415 (46.4%) of the partici-pants were female and 479 (53.6%) were male. The mean age of the subjects was29.7 years, with an age range between 18 and 73 years. Randomization led to equiv-alent group sizes in the three experimental groups (n1 � 298; n2 � 296; n3 � 300).A comparison of the three groups showed that these did not significantly differ fromeach other with respect to the characteristics of gender, age, and highest level

ALBRECHT, NEUMANN, HABER, AND BAUERPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Figure 2. Shampoo without irrelevant attribute.

TRANSLATION

Text Beside the Package

Suprema X Shampoo is optimal for your hair care. The combination of specially selected care com-ponents builds up your hair in an effective and concerted way over a long period of time. This inten-sive care product strengthens your hair and makes it noticeably resistant. Your hair gets visiblysleeker and incredibly supple.Suprema X Shampoo is particularly mild and it gently cleanses your hair and scalp. The smoothcare formula is ideally suited to daily hair washing.

Text on the Package

Suprema XIntensive Hair CareCare Shampoofor normal hair or damaged hair

THE RELEVANCE OF IRRELEVANCE IN BRAND COMMUNICATIONPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

13

of education reached (p � 0.4). This was determined by conducting the U-test forcomparing nonparametric, independent samples (Hair et al., 2006).

The hypotheses were verified with the help of the MANOVA method (multi-variate analysis of variance) to confirm their validity. Subsequently, the post-hoc test was applied. The independent factor “treatment” contained the threefactor levels “with irrelevant attribute (IA),” “with irrelevant attribute andrevealed irrelevance (IArevealed),” and “without irrelevant attribute (IAwithout).”The constructs “attention,” “perceived uniqueness,” “perceived price fairness,”“attitude toward the brand,” and “intention to buy” represented the dependentvariables. All conditions precedent to the implementation of the MANOVA werefulfilled (Hair et al., 2006).

Figure 3. Experimental design.

Table 1. Operationalization of the Constructs.

No. of VarianceConstruct Source Items a KMO Explained

Attention toward Following Laczniak & 4 0.942 0.916 71.57%the brand Muehling (1993)

Perceived Netemeyer et al. (2004) 4 0.920 0.838 75.72%uniqueness

Perceived price Following Bearden, Carlson, & 4 0.955 0.976 67.22%fairness Hardesty (2003)

Attitude toward Following Sujan & Bettman 4 0.909 0.922 75.33%the brand (1989); Zinkhan, Locander, &

Leigh (1986)Intention to buy Following Dodds, Monroe, & 4 0.909 0. 901 69.41%

Grewal (1991)

ALBRECHT, NEUMANN, HABER, AND BAUERPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

14

A manipulation check was executed, which proved that the irrelevant attrib-ute was actually irrelevant for the subjects of the treatment group IArevealed.The results of a t-test for mean value differences showed that the subjects in thegroup with revealed irrelevance recognized this irrelevance and attached a sig-nificantly lower importance to this attribute (t � 5.448; p � 0.001).

The analyses of the multivariate tests within the scope of the MANOVA showedthat the results for Wilks’ lambda (F � 3.569; p � 0.001), for Pillai’s trace crite-rion (F � 3.547; p � 0.001), for Hotelling’s T2 (F � 3.591; p � 0.001), as well asfor Roy’s gcr (greatest characteristic root) criterion (F � 6.670; p � 0.001) werehighly significant. Thus, the interpretation of the following results can be accepted.

Due to the significant results of the variance analysis, for all dependent vari-ables it can be reasoned that a significant difference exists. From the result ofthe F-test, it can be assumed that the group mean values do not turn out to beequivalent. This does not necessarily mean, however, that all mean values sig-nificantly differ from one another. In order to find out between which groups asignificant mean value difference exists, a multiple comparison test with theScheffé test was conducted, which analyzed the separate groups in pairs forpossible mean value differences. The results of this post-hoc test between theexperimental groups and the control group were all significant across all the outcome variables (see Table 2); hence, all postulated hypotheses about theeffect of an irrelevant attribute are supported.

In addition, tests were performed for differences between the groups IA (withirrelevant attribute) and IArevealed, where the irrelevance of the attribute wasproven to the consumers. The Scheffé test showed no significant differencesbetween the groups (p � 0.4), so it can be assumed that it does not make a dif-ference if the consumers know about the irrelevance of the attribute or not.

Table 2. Mean Values of the Constructs.

Mean Values

IArevealed

Group with IAwithout

IA Group with Irrelevant Group WithoutIrrelevant Attribute and Irrelevant Level of

Construct Attribute Revelation Attribute F Significance

Attention 3.08a 3.10a 2.69 8.127 p � 0.01**towardthe brand

Perceived 2.62a 2.65a 2.12 15.457 p � 0.01**uniqueness

Perceived price 4.30a 4.29a 3.88 4.335 p � 0.05*fairness

Attitude toward 3.67a 3.61a 3.35 5.643 p � 0.01**the brand

Intention 3.25a 3.15a 2.81 7.451 p � 0.01**to buy

a Significantly different from control group (IAwithout), p � 0.05.

Theoretical scale range: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

* Significant at the p � 0.05 level.

** Significant at the p � 0.01 level.

THE RELEVANCE OF IRRELEVANCE IN BRAND COMMUNICATIONPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

15

CONCLUSION

Theoretical and Managerial Implications

The current study supports the increasing importance of brand differentiationby the use of irrelevant attributes in managerial practice and offers a look intodifferent psychological processes of perception and decision making of consumersthat explain the effect of irrelevant attributes. The results of the study thusmake a contribution to the explanation of the brand differentiation strategy ofincorporating irrelevant attributes that until now has been given little scientificattention, and they provide a basis for a more in-depth scientific study of this topic.

The results of the current study have to be interpreted in consideration of thespecific research design: An unknown brand was deliberately used in the exper-iment to prevent spillover effects of a “strong” brand. Moreover, it was assumedthat there was no brand to compare the unknown brand to. The revelation of theirrelevance took place prior to the buying decision.

The analysis of the effect of irrelevant attributes by means of an experimentalstudy revealed that this increases the consumer’s attention and leads to an increasein the perception of uniqueness of the brand. It could further be shown that theirrelevant attribute causes the perception of an increased price fairness of thebrand. It has a positive effect on the attitude toward the brand and leads to a sig-nificantly higher intention to buy the brand. Moreover, the current study pro-vides evidence that the positive effects of the irrelevant attribute even appearwhen the irrelevance of the attribute is previously revealed. Despite the knowl-edge of the irrelevance, the brand differentiated by this attribute is rated more pos-itively. In this respect, yet another decision anomaly can be considered as verified.

For managerial practice, it can be recommended that the targeted use of anirrelevant attribute provides the brand’s firm with an effective instrument fordifferentiating its own brand from its competitors. Through the correspondingpromotional emphasis of an irrelevant attribute, all of the constructs tested inthe context of this research paper can be positively influenced. These addition-ally represent direct or indirect sources of consumer-oriented brand value (Aaker,1996; Chaudhuri, 2002; Farquhar, 1989; Netemeyer et al., 2004). The additionof an irrelevant attribute consequently serves to increase the consumer-ori-ented brand value. Furthermore, the perception of the irrelevant attribute asan additional benefit and the assumed influence on the perceived price fairnessof the brand expand the branding firm’s price margin. The results imply thatthe irrelevant attribute can lead to an observed differentiation of the brandfrom the consumer’s perspective, although in reality no significant differenceexists. Finally, and yet importantly, this creates a competitive advantage for abrand that differentiates itself with an irrelevant attribute because the differ-entiation incurs only comparatively low costs on the part of the firm.

It is, however, uncertain if this competitive advantage can be sustained long-term. With respect to this point, it is of interest that consumers primarily updatetheir original preferences by testing the brand (Carpenter & Nakamoto, 1989). In doing so, due to the confirmatory bias that leads to the confirmation of originalbeliefs, it can be assumed that the preference and therefore the competitive advan-tage for the brand will most likely be strengthened rather than eroded (Hoch & Ha, 1986; Hutchinson & Alba, 1991). Not even information about the irrelevanceof the attribute eliminates its positive effect. Examples from real life confirm the

ALBRECHT, NEUMANN, HABER, AND BAUERPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

16

enduring success of this brand differentiation strategy (e.g., Kerasilk shampoo, Sunsilk shampoo). Long-term success, however, can only occur if the consumer issatisfied with the brand.

It is to be expected that a successful brand differentiation strategy inducesimitations from the competitor side. The reactions of the competitors can reducethe influence of an irrelevant attribute because, for example, the introduction ofdifferent irrelevant attributes from competing brands reduces the salience of one’sown irrelevant attribute. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that over timepotential wear-out effects appear, reducing the influencing potential of irrelevantattributes. A constant re-emphasis of the irrelevant attribute therefore seems tobe necessary. For this reason, the positive results of the irrelevant attributeobserved in this study cannot be taken for granted for marketing success.

Limitations and Future Research

Although this research supports the increasing importance of brand differenti-ation by the use of irrelevant attributes in managerial practice, the study hassome limitations. However, these limitations provide avenues for future research.One limitation of the current study is that only one product category was used.Although this approach was likely to enhance the internal validity of the find-ings, it limited generalizability. Further research should integrate several prod-uct categories when researching the effect of irrelevant attributes.

In the current study only one irrelevant attribute was presented to the consumers. From a strategic perspective, the answer to the question of how con-sumers react to different irrelevant attributes has a particularly high signifi-cance. Moreover, future research studies should include the situation wheresubjects rate the brand prior to and after the revelation of the irrelevance bymeans of a longitudinal study. Thus, the importance of the irrelevant attributemay vary in consumers’ perception.

Furthermore, it would be interesting to show what impact the revelation of theirrelevance after the rating has on behavioral patterns, as for instance on word-of-mouth. When revealing the irrelevance prior to the rating, constructs should be con-sidered that focus on potential disappointment on the part of the consumer.

Since the positive results for the irrelevant attribute observed in this studycannot be taken for granted for marketing success, there is need for researchregarding the long-term effect of irrelevant attributes when including the com-petition. The long-term success of this brand differentiation strategy, however,can only occur if the consumer is satisfied with the brand. A product weaknessrelated to actually relevant features cannot be compensated with the irrelevantattribute (Broniarczyk & Gershoff, 1997). The effects that the irrelevant attrib-ute has on the consumer’s satisfaction with the brand and the potentially result-ing brand loyalty should be, therefore, one further goal of research efforts.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34,

347–356.

THE RELEVANCE OF IRRELEVANCE IN BRAND COMMUNICATIONPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

17

Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: Therole of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037–1049.

Asch, S. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290.

Bastardi, A., & Shafir, E. (1998). On the pursuit and misuse of useless information. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 19–32.

Bearden, W. O., Carlson, J. P., & Hardesty, D. M. (2003). Using invoice price informationto frame advertised offers. Journal of Business Research, 56, 355–366.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,139–167.

Brehm, S. S., Kassin, S. M., & Fein, S. (1999). Social psychology, 4th ed. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.

Broniarczyk, S. M., & Gershoff, A. D. (1997). Meaningless differentiation revisited.Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 223–228.

Broniarczyk, S. M., & Gershoff, A. D. (2003). The reciprocal effects of brand equity andtrivial attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 161–175.

Brown, C. L., & Carpenter, G. S. (2000). Why is the trivial important? A reasons-basedaccount for the effects of trivial attributes on choice. Journal of Consumer Research,26, 372–385.

Burns, D. J., & Warren, H. (1995). Need for uniqueness: Shopping mall preferences andchoice activity. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 23, 4–13.

Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: Antecedents and consequences.Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 187–199.

Carpenter, G. S., & Nakamoto, K. (1989). Consumer preference formation and pioneer-ing advantage. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 285–298.

Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R., & Nakamoto, K. (1994). Meaningful brands from meaning-less differentiation: The dependence on irrelevant attributes. Journal of MarketingResearch, 31, 339–350.

Chaudhuri, A. (2002). How brand reputation affects the advertising-brand equity link.Journal of Advertising Research, 42, 33–43.

Codol, J. P. (1987). Comparability and incomparability between oneself and others: Meansof differentiation and comparison reference points. European Journal of CognitivePsychology, 7, 1–19.

Dhar, R., & Nowlis, S. M. (1999). The effect of time pressure on consumer choice defer-ral. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 369–384.

Dhar, R., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). The effect of common and unique features in con-sumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 193–203.

Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store infor-mation on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 307–319.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.

Edell, J. A., & Burke, C. M. (1987). The power of feelings in understanding advertisingeffects. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 421–433.

Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin,99, 3–19.

Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing brand equity. Marketing Research, 1, 24–33.Fischer, G. W., Carmon, Z., Ariely, D., & Zauberman, G. (1999). Goal-based construction

of preferences: Task goals and the prominence effect. Management Science, 45,1057–1075.

Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight � foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgmentunder uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-formance, 1, 288–299.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

ALBRECHT, NEUMANN, HABER, AND BAUERPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

18

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope withpersuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1–31.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale developmentincorporating undimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research,25, 186–192.

Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Someproblems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 59, 601–613.

Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can’t not believe everythingyou read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 221–233.

Gilovich, T. (1981). Seeing the past in the present: The effect of associations to familiarevents on judgments and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,797–808.

Goldwell. (2008). Kerasilk Rich Care Shampoo. Retrieved July 29, 2008, fromhttp://www.goldwellusa.com/products/haircare/kerasilk.asp.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Mul-tivariate data analysis, 6th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Hawkins, S. A., & Hastie, R. (1990). Hindsight: Biased judgment of past events afterthe outcomes are known. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 311–327.

Hefermehl, W., & Baumbach, A. (2001). Wettbewerbsrecht: Gesetz gegen den unlauterenWettbewerb [Law on competition: Acts against unfair competition], 22nd ed. Munich:Beck.

Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience.Journal of Marketing, 53, 1–20.

Hoch, S. J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1986). Consumer learning: Advertising and the ambiguity of prod-uct experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 221–223.

Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption:Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132–140.

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace& World.

Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2005). Do satisfied customers really paymore? A study of the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay.Journal of Marketing, 69, 84–96.

Houston, D. A., & Sherman, S. J. (1995). Cancellation and focus: The role of shared andunique features in the choice process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31,357–378.

Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1989). The influence of unique featuresand direction of comparison on preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-ogy, 25, 121–141.

Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Feature matching, unique features,and the dynamics of the choice process: Predecision conflict and postdecision satis-faction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 411–441.

Hoyer, W. D., & MacInnis, D. (2007). Consumer behavior, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hsee, C. K. (1995). Elastic justification: How tempting but task-irrelevant factors influ-ence decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 330–337.

Hutchinson, J. W., & Alba, J. W. (1991). Ignoring irrelevant information: Situationaldeterminants of consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 325–345.

Johar, G. V., & Simmons, C. J. (2000). The use of concurrent disclosures to correct invalidinferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 307–322.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986a). Fairness and the assumptions of eco-nomics. Journal of Business, 59, 285–300.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986b). Fairness as a constraint on profitseeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76, 728–741.

THE RELEVANCE OF IRRELEVANCE IN BRAND COMMUNICATIONPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

19

Kalapurakal, R., Dickson, P. R., & Urbany, J. E. (1991). Perceived price fairness anddual entitlement. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 788–793.

Kelley, H. H. (1950). The warm-cold variable in first impressions of persons. Journal ofPersonality, 18, 431–439.

Köhler, H., & Piper, H. (2002). Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb [Acts againstunfair competition], 3rd ed. Munich: Beck.

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case of motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.Laczniak, R. N., & Muehling, D. D. (1993). The relationship between experimental manip-

ulations and tests of theory in advertising message involvement context. Journal ofAdvertising, 22, 59–74.

La Prairie. (2008). Cellular Radiance Concentrate Pure Gold. Retrieved July 23, 2008,from http://www.laprairie.com/lpint/deager_detail.aspx?pid�1951.

Lepper, M. R., Ross, L., & Lau, R. R. (1986). Persistence of inaccurate beliefs about theself: Perseverance effects in the classroom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 482–491.

Leyens, J., Yzerbyt, V., & Rogier, A. (1997). Personality traits that distinguish you andme are better memorized. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 511–522.

Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997a). Individual differences in the pursuit of self-uniquenessthrough consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1861–1883.

Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997b). The desire for unique consumer products: A new individualdifferences scale. Psychology & Marketing, 14, 601–616.

MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the adas mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal ofMarketing Research, 23, 130–143.

Martin, L. L., Seta, J. J., & Crelia, R. A. (1990). Assimilation and contrast as a functionof people’s willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 27–37.

Martins, M., & Monroe, K. B. (1994). Perceived price fairness: A new look at an old con-struct. Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 75–78.

Maxwell, S. (2002). Rule-based price fairness and its effect on willingness to purchase.Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 191–212.

McGill, A. L. (1989). Context effect in judgments of causation. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 57, 189–200.

Meyvis, T., & Janiszewski, C. (2002). Consumers’ belief about product benefits: The effectof obviously irrelevant product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28,618–635.

Miniard, P. W., Obermiller, C., & Page, T. J., Jr. (1983). A further assessment of meas-urement influences on the intention-behavior relationship. Journal of MarketingResearch, 20, 206–212.

Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator ofadvertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 318–323.

Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2001). The effect of novel attributes on product evalua-tion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 462–472.

Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J., &Wirth, F. (2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-basedbrand equity. Journal of Business Research, 57, 209–224.

Nowlis, S., & Simonson, I. (1996). The effect of new product features on brand choice. Jour-nal of Marketing Research, 32, 36–46.

Öko-Test. (2005). Große Versprechen: Mehr Schein als Sein [Big promises: Keeping upappearances]. Öko-Test, 100–109.

Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989a). Consumer perception of interpersonal equity and sat-isfaction in transactions: A field survey approach. Journal of Marketing, 53, 21–35.

Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989b). Equity and disconfirmation perceptions as influenceson merchant and product satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 372–383.

ALBRECHT, NEUMANN, HABER, AND BAUERPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

20

Ratneshwar, S., Mick, D. G., & Reitinger, G. (1990). Selective attention in consumerinformation processing: The role of chronically accessible attributes. Advances in Con-sumer Research, 17, 547–553.

Ratneshwar, S., Warlop, L., Mick, D. G., & Seeger, G. (1997). Benefit salience and con-sumers’ selective attention to product features. International Journal of Research inMarketing, 14, 245–259.

Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and socialperception: Biased attributional process in debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 32, 880–892.

Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49, 11–36.Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and comprise effects.

Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158–174.Simonson, I., Carmon, Z., & O’Curry, S. (1994). Experimental evidence on the negative

effect of product features and sales promotions on brand choice. Marketing Science,13, 23–40.

Simonson, I., Nowlis, S. M., & Simonson, Y. (1993). The effect of irrelevant preference argu-ments on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 287–306.

Snyder, C. R. (1992). Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction: A consumercatch-22 carousel. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 9–24.

Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanismsof selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437–446.

Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. R. (1989). The effects of brand positioning strategies on con-sumers’ brand and category perceptions: Some insights from schema research. Jour-nal of Marketing Research, 26, 454–467.

Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilutioneffect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 388–398.

Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Scaledevelopment and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 50–66.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Science, 185, 1124–1131.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Jour-nal of Business, 59, 251–278.

UWG §3 [Acts Against Unfair Competition §3].Vignoles, V. L., Chryssochoou, X., & Breakwell, G. M. (2000). The distinctiveness prin-

ciple: Identity, meaning, and the bounds of cultural relativity. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 4, 337–354.

Wänke, M., Herrmann, A., & Schaffner, D. (2007a). Brand name influences on brandperception. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 1–24.

Wänke, M., Herrmann, A., & Schaffner, D. (2007b). Brand name influences on brandperception: Errata. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 1–24.

Wyer, R. S. (1970). Information redundancy, inconsistency, and novelty and their role inimpression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 111–127.

Zhou, K. Z., & Nakamoto, K. (2007). How do enhanced and unique features affect newproduct preference? The moderating role of product familiarity. Journal of the Acad-emy of Marketing Science, 35, 53–62.

Zinkhan, G. M., Locander, W. B., & Leigh, J. H. (1986). Dimensional relationships ofaided recall and recognition. Journal of Advertising, 15, 38–46.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Carmen-Maria Albrecht, Mar-keting Department II, University of Mannheim, Schloss, D-68131 Mannheim, Germany(carmen-maria.albrecht@bwl.uni-mannheim.de).

Au

thor

(s)

Res

earc

h F

ocu

sC

har

acte

rist

ics

of E

mpi

rica

l Stu

dyK

ey F

indi

ngs

AP

PE

ND

IX A

Sel

ecte

d P

rior

Res

earc

h o

n I

rrel

evan

t A

ttri

bu

tes

Car

pen

ter,

Gla

zer,

&N

akam

oto

[CG

N]

(199

4)

Pos

itiv

e ra

tin

g of

a b

ran

d w

ith

IA

(pre

fere

nce

rat

ing)

Pos

itiv

e ra

tin

g of

a b

ran

d w

ith

IA

(pre

fere

nce

rat

ing)

, eve

n if

irre

leva

nce

has

pre

viou

sly

been

rev

eale

d

Gen

eral

ly, h

igh

er p

rice

s fo

r br

ands

lead

to

a m

ore

posi

tive

rat

ing

of I

A

Reg

ardl

ess

of t

he

reve

lati

on, a

br

and

wit

h I

Aat

a h

igh

pri

ce is

pos

-it

ivel

y va

lued

(pr

efer

ence

rat

ing)

Abr

and

wit

h I

Aat

a p

rem

ium

pri

ceis

val

ued

pos

itiv

ely

only

if t

he

irre

le-

van

ce is

not

rev

eale

d (p

refe

ren

cera

tin

g)

Reg

ardl

ess

of t

he

reve

lati

on, a

br

and

wit

h I

Aat

a lo

w p

rice

is n

otva

lued

(pr

efer

ence

rat

ing)

Exp

erim

ent

1:P

rodu

ct c

ateg

ory:

dow

n ja

cket

s

4 at

trib

utes

, 2 le

vels

: 8 b

rand

s to

be

eval

u-at

edin

th

e co

nte

xt o

f a

choi

ce e

xper

imen

t

2 (p

rese

nce

/abs

ence

of

IA)

�2

(pre

sen

ce/

abse

nce

of

attr

ibu

te in

form

atio

n)

betw

een

-su

bjec

ts d

esig

n

n�

99 (

stu

den

t co

nve

nie

nce

sam

ple)

Exp

erim

ent

2:P

rodu

ct c

ateg

orie

s: c

ompa

ct d

isc

play

ers,

pa

sta,

dow

n ja

cket

s

Pri

ce a

s ad

diti

onal

att

ribu

te

8 ou

t of

16

bran

ds t

o be

rat

ed

3 (l

ow/h

igh

/pre

miu

m p

rice

) �

2 (p

rese

nce

/ab

sen

ce o

f IA

) be

twee

n-s

ubj

ects

des

ign

n�

128

(stu

den

t co

nve

nie

nce

sam

ple)

Rat

ing

of b

ran

ds w

ith

IA

inco

ntr

ast

to b

ran

ds w

ith

out

IA

Rat

ing

of b

ran

ds w

ith

IA

in

con

tras

t to

bra

nds

wit

hou

t IA

wh

en t

he

irre

leva

nce

has

bee

nre

veal

ed p

rior

to

the

choi

cede

cisi

ons

(Con

tin

ued

)

Bro

nia

rczy

k &

Ger

shof

f (1

997)

Bro

wn

&C

arpe

nte

r (2

000)

Infe

ren

ces

rega

rdin

g th

e va

lue

of

the

un

iqu

e at

trib

ute

dep

end

on t

he

attr

acti

ven

ess

of it

s la

bel a

nd

its

corr

espo

nde

nce

wit

h t

he

reve

lati

onof

th

e ir

rele

van

ce

Ch

oice

con

text

aff

ects

th

e in

fere

nce

sth

at c

onsu

mer

s dr

aw r

egar

din

g IA

Str

onge

st e

ffec

t of

bra

nd

diff

eren

tiat

ion

stra

tegy

wit

h I

Aw

hen

th

ere

is n

om

ean

ingf

ul d

iffe

ren

tiat

ion

bet

wee

nal

tern

ativ

e br

ands

Pos

itiv

e ra

tin

g of

IA

in t

he

choi

cese

t co

ndi

tion

wit

h 3

bra

nds

(pr

efer

ence

rati

ng)

Neg

ativ

e ra

tin

g of

IA

in t

he

choi

ce

set

con

diti

on w

ith

2 b

ran

ds n

ot s

ig-

nif

ican

t (p

refe

ren

ce r

atin

g)

Con

firm

atio

n o

f th

e ef

fect

s on

pre

fer-

ence

rat

ings

of

bran

ds w

ith

IA

inth

e co

ntex

t of t

he s

tudy

by

CG

N (1

994)

Con

sum

ers

are

flex

ible

in t

he

rati

ng

of I

A:

Pos

itiv

e ra

tin

g in

cas

e of

1 I

A(w

hen

3

bran

ds c

an b

e ch

osen

) fo

r bo

th t

he

prom

otio

nal

an

d pr

odu

ct-r

elat

ed I

A

Neg

ativ

e ra

tin

g in

cas

e of

2 I

A(w

hen

3 br

ands

can

be

chos

en)

wh

en p

rodu

ct-

rela

ted

and

prom

otio

nal

IA

are

con

sid-

ered

tog

eth

er

Exp

erim

ent

1:2

(hig

h/lo

w a

ttra

ctiv

enes

s) �

2(h

igh

/low

cor

resp

onde

nce

) �

2(r

evel

atio

n/n

onre

vela

tion

) be

twee

n-

subj

ects

des

ign

Pro

duct

an

d at

trib

ute

s li

ke t

he

ones

CG

N (

1994

) u

sed

n�

240

(stu

den

t co

nve

nie

nce

sam

ple)

Exp

erim

ent

2:2

(in

feri

or/id

enti

cal c

hoi

ce-c

onte

xt) �

2(h

igh

/low

cor

resp

onde

nce

) be

twee

n-s

ubj

ects

desi

gn

n�

32 (

stu

den

t co

nve

nie

nce

sam

ple)

Exp

erim

ent

1:4

(dow

n ja

cket

s/co

ffee

/CD

pla

yer/

colo

gne

as p

rodu

ct c

ateg

orie

s) �

2 (2

or

3 br

ands

inth

e ch

oice

set

) �

2 (w

ith

or

wit

hou

t IA

)re

peat

ed-m

easu

res

desi

gn

Pro

duct

cat

egor

y as

wit

hin

-su

bjec

t-re

peat

edfa

ctor

Siz

e of

th

e ch

oice

set

an

d IA

as b

etw

een

-su

bjec

t de

sign

n�

33 (

stu

den

t co

nve

nie

nce

sam

ple)

Exp

erim

ent

2:4

(dow

n ja

cket

s/co

ffee

/CD

pla

yer/

colo

gne

as p

rodu

ct c

ateg

orie

s) �

4 (n

o IA

, 1 I

A, 2

IA

, 3

IA)

betw

een

-su

bjec

t de

sign

Ch

oice

exp

erim

ent:

ch

oice

of

a br

and

and

wri

tten

rem

ark

wh

y a

bran

d w

as c

hos

en b

ya

subj

ect

Foc

us

on p

rodu

ct-r

elat

ed a

nd

prom

otio

n-

rela

ted

IA

Mod

erat

ing

effe

cts

of t

he

attr

acti

vene

ss o

f the

att

ribu

te’s

labe

l an

d it

s co

rres

pon

den

cew

ith

the

irre

leva

nce

reve

lati

onon

mea

ning

less

dif

fere

ntia

tion

IAas

a c

oun

term

easu

re f

or a

wea

knes

s on

a r

elev

ant

attr

ibu

te

Foc

us

on h

igh

invo

lvem

ent

situ

atio

ns

Eff

ects

of

the

choi

ce s

et s

ize

on t

he

rati

ng

(pos

itiv

e or

n

egat

ive)

of

IA

Eff

ects

of a

cha

nge

in t

he r

at-

ing

of I

A(f

rom

neg

ativ

e to

pos

itiv

e)de

pen

din

g on

th

e n

um

ber

ofbr

ands

wit

h I

A

AP

PE

ND

IX A

(Con

tin

ued

)

Au

thor

(s)

Res

earc

h F

ocu

sC

har

acte

rist

ics

of E

mpi

rica

l Stu

dyK

ey F

indi

ngs

Mey

vis

&Ja

nis

zew

ski (

2002

)

Bro

nia

rczy

k &

Ger

shof

f (2

003)

Th

e n

egat

ive

effe

ct is

sig

nif

ican

t w

ith

pr

omot

ion

al I

Aan

d n

ot s

ign

ific

ant

wit

h p

rodu

ct-r

elat

ed I

A

Obv

iou

sly

irre

leva

nt

info

rmat

ion

has

an

egat

ive

effe

ct o

n c

onsu

mer

s’pr

odu

ctra

tin

gs

Th

e ad

diti

on o

f ir

rele

van

t in

form

atio

nto

su

ppor

tive

ben

efit

info

rmat

ion

wea

ken

s co

nsu

mer

s’be

lief

s in

th

epr

odu

ct’s

abi

lity

to

deli

ver

the

ben

efit

Th

e di

luti

on e

ffec

t is

inde

pen

den

t of

the

orde

r in

wh

ich

th

e in

form

atio

n is

pres

ente

d an

d in

depe

nde

nt

of t

he

way

of m

easu

rin

g th

e co

nsu

mer

’s b

elie

f

Th

e di

luti

on e

ffec

t ev

en p

ersi

sts

wh

enth

e ir

rele

van

ce h

as b

een

pre

viou

sly

reve

aled

to

the

con

sum

er, w

hen

th

e co

nsu

mer

bel

ieve

s th

at t

he

info

rmat

ion

has

bee

n r

ando

mly

sel

ecte

d, a

nd

wh

enth

e ir

rele

van

t in

form

atio

n m

ade

the

prod

uct

des

crip

tion

mor

e si

mil

ar t

o th

ede

sire

d pr

odu

ct

In t

he

abse

nce

of

the

reve

lati

on o

f th

eir

rele

van

ce o

f th

e IA

, bot

h h

igh

an

dlo

w e

quit

y br

ands

ben

efit

fro

m a

n I

Aas

opp

osed

to

thei

r co

mpe

tito

rs

Wh

en r

evea

lin

g th

e ir

rele

van

ce o

f th

eIA

prio

r to

th

e ra

tin

g, o

nly

th

e lo

w-t

ier

bran

d be

nef

its

from

a s

har

ed c

onte

xt

Wh

en r

evea

lin

g th

e ir

rele

van

ce o

f th

eIA

prio

r to

th

e ra

tin

g a

hig

h-t

ier

bran

d

n�

448

(stu

den

t co

nve

nie

nce

sam

ple)

10 e

xper

imen

ts:

n�

22 t

o 11

2 (s

tude

nt

con

ven

ien

ce s

ampl

e);

17 d

iffe

ren

t pr

odu

ct c

ateg

orie

s

e.g.

, Exp

erim

ent

1

2 (t

ype

of in

form

atio

n) �

8 (p

rodu

ct r

eplic

ates

)

Exp

erim

ent

1:2

(low

/hig

h e

quit

y ti

er b

ran

d) �

2(p

rere

vela

tion

/non

reve

lati

on)

�2

(un

iqu

e/sh

ared

dec

isio

n c

onte

xt)

betw

een

-su

bjec

tsde

sign

Pro

duct

an

d at

trib

ute

s li

ke t

he

ones

CG

N(1

994)

use

d

Ch

oice

exp

erim

ent:

ch

oice

of

one

out

of t

hre

ebr

ands

(pr

efer

ence

rat

ing)

Eff

ects

of

irre

leva

nt

info

rma-

tion

on t

he

con

sum

er’s

con

vic-

tion

wh

eth

er a

pro

duct

fu

lfil

lsit

s pe

rfor

man

ce

Eff

ect

of b

ran

d eq

uit

y on

th

era

tin

g of

IA

Eff

ect

of a

dif

fere

nti

atio

nst

rate

gy w

ith

IA

on b

ran

deq

uit

y

Exa

min

atio

n o

f th

e ro

bust

-n

ess

of a

sh

ared

con

text

for

IA

rati

ng

(Con

tin

ued

)

Au

thor

(s)

Res

earc

h F

ocu

sC

har

acte

rist

ics

of E

mpi

rica

l Stu

dyK

ey F

indi

ngs

is m

ore

like

ly t

han

a lo

w-t

ier

bran

d to

con

tin

ue

ben

efit

ing

from

a u

niq

ue

con

text

In t

he

abse

nce

of

the

reve

lati

on o

f th

eir

rele

van

ce o

f th

e IA

, bot

h h

igh

an

dlo

w e

quit

y br

ands

ben

efit

fro

m a

n I

Aas

opp

osed

to

thei

r co

mpe

tito

rs

Rev

elat

ion

of

irre

leva

nce

pri

or t

o th

ech

oice

tas

k:

Alo

w e

quit

y br

and

incr

ease

d it

s ch

oice

shar

e w

hen

it s

har

ed t

he

IAw

ith

ah

igh

equ

ity

bran

d

Wit

hou

t re

vela

tion

of

the

irre

leva

nce

:B

oth

low

an

d h

igh

equ

ity

bran

ds w

ith

IAin

crea

sed

thei

r ch

oice

sh

are

in c

on-

tras

t to

th

eir

com

peti

tors

Rev

elat

ion

of

the

irre

leva

nce

aft

er t

he

choi

ce t

ask:

Re-

choi

ce o

f th

e br

ands

depe

nds

on

bra

nd

equ

ity.

Low

equ

ity

bran

ds lo

se c

hoi

ce s

har

e; h

igh

equ

ity

bran

ds r

etai

ned

th

eir

shar

e

Mor

eove

r, r

atin

g of

fam

ilia

rity

, tru

st,

man

ufa

ctu

rin

g ex

pert

ise,

an

d th

e li

keli

hoo

dth

at t

he

subj

ect

beli

eves

th

at t

he

man

ufa

c-tu

rer

inte

nds

to

attr

act

atte

nti

on im

prov

epr

odu

ct p

erfo

rman

ce o

r ta

ke a

dvan

tage

of

the

con

sum

er w

ith

th

e IA

I�

344

(stu

den

t co

nve

nie

nce

sam

ple)

Exp

erim

ent

1a:

2 (p

rere

vela

tion

/non

reve

lati

on) �

2(l

ow/h

igh

equ

ity

tier

bra

nd)

bet

wee

nsu

bjec

ts d

esig

n

Foc

us

on s

har

ed c

onte

xt

n�

113

Exp

erim

ent

2:2

(low

/hig

h e

quit

y ti

er b

ran

d) �

2(p

rere

vela

tion

/pos

trev

elat

ion

) be

twee

n-

subj

ects

des

ign

2 ch

oice

sce

nar

ios

that

tak

e pl

ace

one

afte

ran

oth

er (

prod

uct

cat

egor

y: d

own

jack

ets,

fl

eece

jack

ets)

Log

it m

odel

n�

233

(stu

den

t co

nve

nie

nce

sam

ple)

Not

e:IA

�Ir

rele

van

t at

trib

ute

.

AP

PE

ND

IX A

(Con

tin

ued

)

Au

thor

(s)

Res

earc

h F

ocu

sC

har

acte

rist

ics

of E

mpi

rica

l Stu

dyK

ey F

indi

ngs

THE RELEVANCE OF IRRELEVANCE IN BRAND COMMUNICATIONPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

25

APPENDIX B:

Text Revealing the Irrelevance of the Attribute (in Text Form)

Original Text

Bitte lesen Sie folgenden Bericht in Ihrer Tageszeitung:

Schönheit von außen

Jeder macht es mindestens einmal wöchentlich: Naßmachen, Einschäumen,Ausspülen. Den wenigsten ist allerdings bewusst, dass Shampoos komplexaufgebaute Produkte sind, die aus bis zu 30 verschiedenen Bestandteilen zusam-mengemixt werden.

Alle Shampoos bestehen aus ca. 80 Prozent Wasser. Hinzu kommen Tenside,die für die Reinigungskraft sorgen. Heute werden verstärkt Pflegestoffe wieConditioner und so genannte Restrukturanten (z.B. Proteine) in Shampooseingesetzt. Alle folgen demselben Prinzip: Eine dünne Schicht legt sich um dasHaar und bleibt auch nach dem Ausspülen dort haften. Sie glättet die Haarober-fläche und macht sie glänzend und geschmeidig. Diese Pflegestoffe haben allerd-ings lediglich die Funktion von Klebstoff. Grundlegend verbessern lässt sichdamit kein einziges Härchen, es kann weder vollständig repariert noch ernährtwerden. Des Menschen liebster Kopfschmuck ist nämlich nichts weiter als eineAnsammlung von toten Hornfäden. Und die bleiben so, wie sie aus der Haut her-ausgewachsen sind – nichts kann sie noch von innen stärken, was auch dieWerbung verspricht. Vitamine oder sonstige Wirkstoffe können während einerkurzen Haarwäsche auch nicht in die Haarwurzel eindringen.

Quelle: Stiftung Warentest

Translation of the Original Text

Please read the following newspaper report:

Beauty the way you can see it

Everybody does it at least once a week: washing their hair. However, only a fewpeople know that a shampoo is a highly complex product which can contain upto 30 different ingredients.

All types of shampoos consist of about 80% water. Part of the remaining 20% issurfactants that clean your hair. Moreover, today shampoos are increasinglyenriched with conditioners and restructuring substances (e.g., proteins). Allthese ingredients are based on the same principle: A thin layer of these ingre-dients which you cannot remove even by rinsing your hair encloses each indi-vidual hair, smoothes the hair surface, and makes it sleek and supple. But theseingredients offer no advantage to hair care; they just work like glue. The struc-ture and the quality of your hair cannot fundamentally be improved. Sincehuman hair is nothing but an accumulation of dead hair fibers, they can neither

ALBRECHT, NEUMANN, HABER, AND BAUERPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

26

be completely repaired nor nourished. And human hair remains the way it growsout of the scalp. Nothing can strengthen the hair from inside—no matter whatadvertising promises. Vitamins and other agents in the shampoo cannot pene-trate into the roots of your hair.

Source: Stiftung Warentest*

* Stiftung Warentest is the leading German consumer protection organization, publishing reviewsand comparisons of products and services based on results from its in-house testing laboratory.It is known for its independence and impartiality.

THE RELEVANCE OF IRRELEVANCE IN BRAND COMMUNICATIONPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

27

APPENDIX C

The Survey Instrument Used in This Study

Attention toward the brand When I saw the presentation of the brand, Following Laczniak & Muehling (1993) I felt the information . . .

. . . might be worth remembering.

. . . might be interesting to me.

. . . might be of value to me.

. . . might be worth paying attention.

Perceived uniqueness The brand shown . . .Netemeyer et al. (2004) . . . is distinct from other brands.

. . . really stands out from other brands.

. . . is different from other brands.

. . . is unique from other brands.

Perceived price fairness Overall, the price for the brand shownFollowing Bearden, Carlson, & seems fair to me.Hardesty (2003) The price of the brand seems fair to me.

The price for the brand shown represents afair price.The price offered seems fair to consumers.

Attitude toward the brand The brand shown I find . . .Following Sujan & Bettman (1989); . . . good.Zinkhan, Locander, & Leigh (1986) . . . pleasant.

. . . positive.

. . . valuable.

Intention to buy The likelihood of purchasing this productFollowing Dodds, Monroe, & is. . .Grewal (1991) If I were going to buy this product, I would

consider buying this brand at the priceshown.At the price shown, I would consider buy-ing the brand.My willingness to buy the product is . . .

ALBRECHT, NEUMANN, HABER, AND BAUERPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

28

APPENDIX D

Legal Framework in Germany

The facts of deception are grounded in the Acts Against Unfair Competition(UWG §3). Under this act it is prohibited to give deceptive information about thecomposition, the origin, and the manufacturing method of individual goods.Advertising claims are said to be deceptive if the ideas a potential consumerhas about the significance of any claim are not in line with the objective condi-tion of the goods (Hefermehl & Baumbach, 2001; UWG §3). There are variousforms of deception, such as deception through objectively false claims, throughobscure and general information, or through disguising and incomplete infor-mation (Köhler & Piper, 2002; UWG §3). Irrelevant attributes can be categorizedinto the group of obscure and general information. In the case of this informa-tion, the potential consumer has no clear idea of the meaning of an advertisingclaim or of a term used in this claim. Advertising with information like this isonly deceptive if the potential consumer erroneously takes qualities for grantedthat are missing from what is commonly expected of the goods offered. An irrel-evant attribute makes the consumer believe in a certain qualitative exclusivityof the product. As long as the production of the goods in the broadest sense isin accordance with the assumptions the consumer makes about the perform-ance or quality of the products, a deception can be excluded. The decision of theFederal Supreme Court (BGH) serving as a guideline to lower courts is: If acertain term whose essential characteristics cannot be clearly defined is usedin advertising, it depends—as far as the legal framework of competition is con-cerned—on whether these characteristics in which the potential consumer seesthe advantage of a particularly favorable offer are absent. If the term used in the offer is really in accordance with advantages expected by the potential con-sumer, the general public will not have to be protected by the law by prohibit-ing the use of this term, only because part of the public sees the cause of theadvantages in circumstances which are not in line with reality. It is irrelevanthow potential consumers explain the performance or quality of products as longas the product meets the assumptions the consumer makes about the perform-ance or quality of the product.