GET IT? GOT IT. GOOD! ENHANCING NEW PRODUCT ACCEPTANCE
BY FACILITATING RESOLUTION OF EXTREME INCONGRUITY
October 2010
Ji Hoon Jhang
Susan Jung Grant
Margaret C. Campbell
Ji Hoon Jhang is a doctoral candidate in marketing ([email protected]), Susan Jung Grant is
assistant professor of marketing ([email protected]), and Margaret C. Campbell is
associate professor of marketing ([email protected]) at the Leeds School of Business,
University of Colorado, Boulder. All three authors contributed equally to this project. The
authors would like to thank Alice M. Tybout, Brian Sternthal and John G. Lynch for their
feedback on previous versions of this manuscript.
2
ABSTRACT
Highly innovative products may offer consumers greater benefits than incrementally new
products, yet they have a higher failure rate. The present research addresses the challenge faced
by new products that are extremely different from existing offerings by drawing on theorizing
regarding the evaluation of schema incongruity. Specifically, the authors posit that consumers’
acceptance of extremely incongruent products will be increased by strategies that facilitate
cognitive flexibility and thereby the likelihood that consumers will be able to make sense of
incongruent new products. The authors examine the influence of three manipulations of
cognitive flexibility – positive affect, a future (vs. past) launch description, and a cognitive
flexibility prime – on evaluations of new products. Results from four experiments show that
these factors enhance participants’ evaluations of extremely incongruent new products by
facilitating ability to make sense of the new products. Results also indicate that understanding of
the benefits provided by extremely new products, rather than affect arising from resolution, leads
to higher evaluations of these products.
KEYWORDS: new products, incongruity, cognitive flexibility, innovation
3
Not only do new product launches have notoriously low rates of success – failure
estimates span 40% to 90%, depending on the product category (Gourville 2006) – innovations
that venture too far beyond expectations seem especially prone to failure. For example, recent
product flops such as Crystal Pepsi, Colgate Kitchen Entrees, and Premier smokeless cigarettes,
are remarkable for their incongruity with consumer expectations. Recent research supports the
idea of the problematic success of extremely different new products, finding that consumers were
four times more likely to choose an incrementally new product over a really new one (Alexander,
Lynch and Wang 2008). In fact, for consumers who reported an intention to buy a new product
(60% of the original 2,700 participants), an actual purchase was twice as likely for incrementally
new as compared to really new products. Overall, research suggests that the more extreme the
innovation, the more likely a new product is to fail.
With the acceleration of marketplace change and demand for innovation, there are
frequently strategic reasons for companies to introduce new products that deviate from
consumers’ expectations. For instance, a firm may leverage existing technologies to new product
categories to meet consumers’ needs, resulting in product attributes quite different from
expectations. Dyson, for example, recently employed the wind-tunnel engineering from their
bagless vacuum cleaners to launch a bladeless fan, thus introducing a highly unexpected point of
difference. Adopting extreme incongruity as a point of difference can also allow new entrants to
leapfrog incumbents and build awareness. Extreme incongruity is likely to attract attention to the
brand’s position, thus fueling word of mouth and other viral communications. Further, adopting
extremely incongruent innovations can contribute to a brand’s reputation for innovation.
Given marketplace desire for innovation and high failure rates of new products that
deviate from consumer expectations, it is important to gain insight into how to increase
4
consumer acceptance of such products. The literature on schema incongruity provides insight
into moderate incongruity, but is silent on the question of how to enhance consumer perceptions
of extreme incongruity. Theorizing by Mandler (1982) provides an understanding of the
challenges related to extreme incongruity. He proposed that the processing that results from
different degrees of congruity of a new item with an existing category schema influences
evaluation of the new item. He proposed that congruent items conform to expectations and thus
are not arousing, resulting in mildly positive evaluations due to familiarity (e.g., Tesser 1978).
Moderate incongruity, however, evokes arousal as the consumer elaborates in attempting to
resolve the incongruity. Because the moderately incongruent new item shares associations and
connections with existing schema, the consumer is able to resolve the incongruity; the process of
resolution is proposed to lead to stronger positive evaluation. Extreme schema incongruity,
however, conflicts with existing schema knowledge and thus is difficult to resolve. Because of
the lack of resolution, extremely incongruent items are less positively evaluated than moderately
incongruent options.
An implication of this theorizing is that new products that are extremely incongruent with
consumers’ expectations are likely to receive lower evaluations than new products that are
moderately incongruent with consumers’ expectations. Consumer research supports Mandler’s
theorizing, showing an inverted-U relationship such that moderately incongruent new products
are often evaluated more positively than either congruent or extremely incongruent options (e.g.,
Maoz and Tybout 2002; Meyers-Levy, Louie and Curren 1994; Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989;
Peracchio and Tybout 1996) unless other factors, such as risk, limit enjoyment of resolution (e.g.,
Campbell and Goodstein 1999). Though not the focal domain of the current research, a body of
work on brand extensions sounds a similar caveat: New products that depart more radically from
5
consumers’ notions of the parent brand – BMW camera, Frito-Lay cereal, Levi’s business suit –
are evaluated less favorably than extensions that are moderately incongruent – BMW
lawnmower, Frito-Lay crackers, Levi’s casual pants (Aaker and Keller 1990; Park, Milberg and
Lawson 1991). Overall, we see that new products that are extremely incongruent from
consumers’ expectations are unlikely to be positively evaluated.
Key to Mandler’s theorizing and the work that followed is the idea that the lower
evaluation of extremely incongruent as compared to the more positive evaluation of moderately
incongruent options is driven by ability to resolve the incongruity. Consumers evaluate
extremely incongruent products unfavorably because they are unable to resolve the departure
from expectations and evaluate moderately incongruent options positively when they are able to
resolve the incongruity (e.g., Campbell and Goodstein 1999; Maoz and Tybout 2002; Meyers-
Levy and Tybout 1989; Peracchio and Tybout 1996). Conceptualizing the problem of new
product acceptance within this schema-incongruity framework provides a theoretical foundation
for understanding how to overcome resistance to extremely incongruent new products. That is,
we propose that facilitating incongruity resolution can increase evaluations of extremely
incongruent new products. Specifically, we hypothesize that enhancing cognitive flexibility will
lead to higher evaluations of extremely incongruent products by boosting consumers’ ability to
resolve extreme incongruity. Our identification of how to increase evaluations of extremely
incongruent options offers important contributions to both the schema congruity and the new
product acceptance literatures.
In the following section, we discuss sources of incongruity in new products to clarify our
focus and contribution. We then discuss cognitive flexibility and how it can influence
evaluations of extremely incongruent new products. This leads to a discussion of factors that
6
increase cognitive flexibility. We employ three different manipulations of cognitive flexibility in
four studies in order to provide convergent evidence for our hypothesis that increased cognitive
flexibility leads to more positive evaluations of extremely incongruent new products.
POSITIONING AND SOURCES OF INCONGRUITY
Two important aspects of product positioning answer the questions: 1), “what is it?” by
providing a frame of reference; and 2) “what of it?” by providing a point of difference (Keller,
Sternthal and Tybout 2002). Both frame of reference and points of difference can be sources of
incongruity. We draw this distinction to clarify that, whereas much of the extant research on new
product acceptance focuses on the first question, examining category membership that is
incongruent with expectations, the focus of our research is the second question. Existing research
on really new products contributes important understanding of the first source of new product
failure and ways to enhance consumer acceptance. For example, research shows that when a new
product is difficult to categorize, consumer evaluations can be improved by facilitating
inferences from multiple categories (Gregan-Paxton et al. 2005) and analogical reasoning
(Gregan-Paxton et al. 2002; Moreau, Markman and Lehmann 2001; Roehm and Sternthal 2001),
and providing opportunities for mental simulation (Hoeffler 2003; Zhao, Hoeffler and Dahl
2009). These approaches facilitate category understanding and hence enhance evaluations of the
new product.
Our research focuses on the second aspect of new product positioning, complementing
the existing research by examining new product incongruity that arises from the novelty of a
differentiating benefit. While providing a point of difference is critical to new product success,
consumers often have difficulty appreciating the benefit provided by a product attribute that is
extremely incongruent from their expectations. In these cases, consumers may understand the
7
category membership, but have difficulty reconciling the extremely incongruent attribute. For
example, consumers understood that Crystal Pepsi was a soft drink, but the colorless nature of
the product was incongruent with expectations for a cola and many consumers had difficulty
understanding the benefit of the attribute. We contribute to the literature by exploring how to
increase consumer response to new products that include differentiating attributes that are
extremely incongruent with consumer expectations. Drawing from the literature showing that the
ability to resolve moderate incongruity leads to positive evaluations of moderately incongruent
products, we propose that consumer evaluation of a new product with an extremely incongruent
attribute or benefit can be increased by facilitating resolution of the incongruity. We next
propose that cognitive flexibility can lead to increased resolution of extreme incongruity.
COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY AND INCONGRUITY RESOLUTION
In order to positively evaluate a product with an incongruent attribute, a consumer needs
to achieve insight into the benefit provided by the attribute. When an attribute does not fit with
the consumer’s schema, the consumer must engage in processing that results in connections
between disparate schemata in order to understand the attribute and resolve the incongruity. We
thus propose that cognitive flexibility, such that a multiplicity of perspectives and information
can be considered and held in mind for judgment (e.g., Isen 2001), increases the probability of
resolution of extreme incongruity. The cognitive flexibility to consider multiple facets increases
the likelihood of making a connection such that the consumer can understand the extremely
novel attribute, reconciling it with the product schema. Cognitive flexibility facilitates the
consideration of associations that extend beyond concepts that are strongly linked to the product
category. We propose that increased cognitive flexibility enhances the ability to resolve
8
incongruity, leading to more positive evaluation of an extremely incongruent option than without
an increase in cognitive flexibility.
Prior research on moderate incongruity provides some support for our proposition.
Research shows, for example, that people who score high on dogmatism, tending to be closed to
new information and perspectives, are less likely to rate moderately incongruent options
favorably than less dogmatic people (Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989). Similarly, the positive
evaluation of moderately incongruent options does not appear when task involvement is low,
such that flexible processing of information is unlikely (Maoz and Tybout 2002). These results
suggest that some amount of cognitive flexibility is necessary to resolve even moderate
incongruity. This lends support to the idea that increasing cognitive flexibility can enhance
resolution of extreme incongruity, leading to more positive evaluations, Thus, we propose that
cognitive flexibility moderates the relationship between incongruity and evaluation such that
cognitive flexibility enhances evaluations of extremely incongruent new products. Proposition 1
formalizes our view on the role of cognitive flexibility.
P1: Cognitive flexibility moderates the effect of incongruity on product
evaluations such that evaluations of an extremely incongruent product will be
more favorable when the consumer is, versus is not, cognitively flexible.
Based on this proposition, we hypothesize that factors that foster cognitive flexibility can
heighten evaluation of products that introduce attributes perceived to be extremely incongruent
for the category. Identifying multiple ways of increasing cognitive flexibility and showing a
commensurate increase in evaluation of extremely incongruent new products will provide
convergent evidence for the proposed process underlying enhanced consumer evaluations. We
9
next discuss three factors that prior literature suggests increase consumers’ cognitive flexibility:
positive (vs. neutral) affect, a future (vs. past) frame and a prime (vs. no prime) to think broadly.
Positive Affect and Cognitive Flexibility
A significant body of research has documented that positive affect can facilitate cognitive
flexibility (e.g., Estrada et al. 1997; Isen 2001; Isen et al. 1985; Isen and Daubman 1984; Isen et
al. 1987). For example, Isen et al. (1987) showed that people in a positive affective state
performed better than people in a negative or neutral state on tasks that required creative
problem-solving involving the ability to see the relatedness in divergent stimuli and identify
connections in a purposeful way. Similarly, Isen and Daubman (1984) found that people
experiencing positive affect tended to categorize stimuli more inclusively. Evidence likewise
suggests that positive affect fosters greater openness to new information (Bakamitsos 2006;
Roehm and Sternthal 2001), reduces the tendency to anchor prematurely (Estrada et al. 1997),
enhances evaluations of brand extensions that depart from the parent brand (Barone, Miniard and
Romeo 2000), and broadens consideration sets (Kahn and Isen 1993). Positive affect additionally
leads to more relaxed and exploratory (Clore, Schwarz and Conway 1994) and more abstract,
higher-level (Labroo and Patrick 2009) processing. Based on the strong support that positive
affect can lead people to think more flexibly, increasing the likelihood of making novel
associations and the ability to relate divergent materials in a useful way, we hypothesize that
positive, relative to neutral, affect will increase the ability to resolve extreme incongruity,
leading to more favorable evaluation of an extremely incongruent product.
H1: Positive affect moderates the effect of incongruity on product evaluations
such that evaluations of an extremely incongruent product will be more favorable
when the consumer is experiencing positive versus neutral affect.
10
Temporal Frame and Cognitive Flexibility
Recent findings suggest a second factor can influence cognitive flexibility and the
breadth of information used in evaluations: whether the information is cast in the future versus
the past. Jung Grant and Tybout (2008) find that people contemplating a future event are more
likely to incorporate multiple sources of information than when thinking of a past event, in which
case evaluations tend to be based on a single, salient cue. This work suggests that a future frame
expands the information that receives consideration, leading to greater likelihood that the
commonalities among disparate exemplars will be taken into account. Thus, we hypothesize that,
by facilitating connections that lead to incongruity resolution, a future, relative to past, frame
will lead to more favorable evaluation of an extremely incongruent product.
H2: Temporal frame moderates the effect of incongruity on product evaluations
such that evaluations of an extremely incongruent product will be more favorable
when information is in a future versus past frame.
Priming Cognitive Flexibility
In addition to examining factors that give rise to cognitive flexibility (i.e., positive affect
and a future frame), we also prime cognitive flexibility. Although there is no single definition,
cognitive flexibility includes the ability to consider and hold in mind a multiplicity of
perspectives and alternatives (see Isen 2001 for a review; c.f., Murray et al. 1990). Drawing from
this, we propose that instructions to consider multiple aspects will engender more flexible
cognition, fostering resolution, and thus more positive evaluations of extreme incongruity.
H3: A cue to consider multiple perspectives moderates the effect of incongruity on
product evaluations such that evaluations of an extremely incongruent product
will be more favorable when the consumer is cued versus not cued.
11
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDIES
The present research takes two approaches to exploring the proposition that cognitive
flexibility increases evaluation of extreme incongruity. The first is a consumer-driven approach
entailing interventions that enhance consumers’ cognitive flexibility so that they can make sense
of extreme incongruity, leading to more positive evaluations. Thus, the first two studies test the
role of positive affect (measured in Study 1 and manipulated in Study 2) in providing the
cognitive flexibility that facilitates greater favorability toward extremely incongruent products.
The second study also examines whether the resolution of the extreme incongruity mediates the
effect of positive affect on the favorable evaluation of the extremely incongruent product. In
Study 3, we manipulate temporal frame to examine the extent to which a future frame stimulates
cognitive flexibility, thereby enhancing extremely incongruent product evaluations.
The second approach is message-driven; ad copy provides a rationale for the incongruent
attribute. This enables examination of whether higher evaluations stem from the enjoyment that
results from resolving the incongruity, as previously theorized, or whether they are due to the
persuasive impact of gaining insight into the incongruity. Therefore, we vary the availability of a
benefit rationale for the extreme incongruity and test whether the presence or absence of a
rationale affects evaluations when participants have been primed to think flexibly versus not
primed.
STUDY 1
The purpose of the first study was to examine whether positive affect moderates the
impact of incongruity on new product evaluations. Evidence that respondents experiencing
positive affect provide more favorable evaluations of an extremely incongruent product would
12
support our notion that positive affect facilitates incongruity resolution. We manipulated new
product congruity and measured affect to examine the effects of these variables on evaluations.
Stimuli Development
Following Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989), we developed three variations of a digital
alarm clock with increasingly distant attributes. The congruent clock had an easy-to-read LED
display, a snooze function, and adjustable volume. The moderately incongruent clock included
an automatic Daylight Savings Time change function, a perpetual calendar, and a one-week
weather forecast. The extremely incongruent clock was described as having voice-recognition
technology, in addition to the Daylight Savings Time function and weather forecast.
Participants and Procedure
Sixty undergraduates in two sections of a marketing class read one of three product
descriptions and evaluated it on three 9-point scales anchored by unfavorable/favorable,
unappealing/appealing, and bad/good, with higher values indicating more positive evaluation (
= .93). Participants then rated the perceived incongruity of the product on two items anchored by
atypical/typical and unusual/usual ( = .94), with higher values indicating greater perceived
congruity. Affect was measured by having participants rate 10 unfamiliar words (e.g., “ianthine,”
“solferino”) on 7-point scales anchored by unpleasant/pleasant and averaging the ratings;
positive affect leads to higher ratings of unfamiliar words (Isen et al. 1985). The class section
factor did not interact with any variables, so we collapsed across the sections for the analyses.
Results
Product evaluation. As expected, analysis yielded a main effect of product incongruity on
evaluations (F(2, 57) = 13.28, p < .01). Replicating existing research, contrasts showed that the
moderately incongruent clock was evaluated more favorably (M = 7.76) than both the congruent
13
(M = 5.60; F(2, 57) = 26.43, p < .01) and the extremely incongruent clock (M = 6.58; F(2, 57)
= 7.71, p < .01).
[Insert Table 1 around here]
A marginal two-way interaction of product incongruity and affect (β = -1.27, t = -1.75, p
= .08) qualified the main effect. Importantly, participants with higher affect scores rated the
extremely incongruent product more favorably than did participants with lower scores. To
explore the nature of the interaction, we compared evaluations of moderately and extremely
incongruent products using a spotlight analysis at plus and minus one standard deviation from
the mean of the affect score (Aiken and West 1991). This analysis revealed higher evaluations of
the extremely incongruent product when affect was higher (β = 1.85, t = 2.76, p = .01). As
expected, this difference did not emerge for evaluations of the moderately incongruent product (β
= .58, t = 1.59, n.s.). Of note, higher affect participants rated the extremely incongruent product
as favorably as the moderately incongruent one (β = .60, t = 1.14, n.s.). Participants with lower
affect scores rated the moderately incongruent product more favorably than either the congruent
(β = 2.07, t = 4.01, p < .01) or the extremely incongruent product (β = - 2.01, t = - 3.64, p = .01),
replicating the inverted U-pattern observed in prior research.
[Insert Figure 1 around here]
Perceived schema incongruity. We next examined participants’ ratings of the perceived
incongruity of the new products. There were two reasons for this analysis. First, we wanted to
confirm that the new product descriptions manipulated perceived incongruity as intended.
Second, we wanted to explore a potential alternative explanation for the observed pattern of
evaluations. We propose that positive affect increases consumers’ flexible thinking, enhancing
their ability to resolve extreme incongruity. Consumers perceive that the new product is
14
incongruent but are able to make sense of the new product. An alternative explanation that could
produce the same pattern of evaluations is that positive affect signals that the environment is
benign, allowing people to broaden their perspectives and pay attention to “the big picture”
(Labroo and Patrick 2009). The big-picture view could increase categorization breadth by
focusing attention on superordinate features, enhancing perceptions of similarity (Isen and
Daubman 1984). If this were the case, perceptions of schema incongruity would be influenced by
positive affect such that perceived incongruity would decrease as positive affect increased.
We thus conducted a regression analysis with perceived schema incongruity as the
dependent variable and product incongruity and affect as independent variables to examine the
effects of the manipulations of incongruity and positive affect on the perception of incongruity,.
Our analysis yielded only a main effect of product incongruity (β = -2.07, t = -10.29, p < .01)
with no interaction. Contrasts revealed that the congruent product was rated as more congruent
(M = 7.84) than the moderately incongruent product (M = 5.29), which was rated as more
congruent than the extremely incongruent product (M = 3.92; all βs > |1.59|, all ts > |2.71|, all ps
< .01), supporting our congruity manipulation. Furthermore, contrasts at each level of product
incongruity showed that perceived schema incongruity did not differ as a function of affect (all
ps > .1). Taken together, our data suggest that perceived incongruity was successfully
manipulated and that positive affect did not change perceptions of schema incongruity.
Discussion
Study 1 provides preliminary support for our primary hypothesis, demonstrating that
affect moderated the effect of product incongruity on evaluations. Participants who were not
experiencing positive affect evaluated the moderately incongruent product more favorably than
either the congruent product or the extremely incongruent product, replicating the inverted-U
15
pattern found in prior research. Participants who were experiencing positive affect, however,
evaluated the extremely incongruent product as favorably as the moderately incongruent product;
positive affect attenuated the inverted-U pattern. Participants feeling positive affect evaluated the
extremely incongruent product more favorably than did participants feeling less positive affect.
Overall the results provide initial support that positive affect fosters cognitive flexibility,
facilitating the resolution of extreme incongruity, and thus leading to higher ratings of the
extremely incongruent product. The results also rule out a possible rival account. We find that
positive affect does not influence ratings of perceived incongruity, a pattern that is incompatible
with a big-picture explanation for the evaluations.
While supportive of the proposed process, the data from Study 1 do not allow
examination of the underlying resolution that we propose accounts for the increased evaluations
of the extremely incongruent option. Therefore, the next study includes process-level measures.
Additionally, because Study 1 measures rather than manipulates affect, we are unable to
determine whether positive affect facilitated resolution or whether a successful resolution
contributed to positive affect, a relationship first suggested by Mandler (1982). We manipulate
affect in our next experiment to provide a cleaner test of the hypothesized causal relationship.
STUDY 2
The primary objective of Study 2 is to provide evidence regarding the process by which
positive affect leads to more favorable evaluation of extremely incongruent new products.
Drawing on schema research (e.g., Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989; Peracchio and Tybout 1996),
we propose that resolution requires elaboration to reconcile the relationship between incongruent
aspects of the product and active schema to make sense of the incongruity. In Study 2, we thus
measure incongruity resolution by the participants’ ability to “make sense” of the new product
16
and examine whether our measure of resolution plays a mediational role in how manipulated
positive affect enhances evaluation.
Stimuli development. To increase ability to generalize, we developed and pretested new
product stimuli (Appendix A). Participants (N=59) rated one of three products on two 7-point
items anchored by atypical/typical and unusual/usual ( = .96); vitamin-fortified orange juice
was perceived to be congruent (M = 5.71), vitamin-fortified coffee to be moderately incongruent
(M = 3.71), and vitamin-fortified vodka to be extremely incongruent (M = 2.00). Differences
among incongruity levels were significant (all ps < .01).
Affect manipulation. Following a procedure used by Wright and Mischel (1982), affect
was manipulated by asking participants to recall and write for 10 minutes about either an event
that made them happy (positive affect condition) or one that made them bored (neutral condition).
A pretest (N = 45, with 22 in the positive affect condition) verified the affect manipulation.
Participants showed expected differences in feelings on four measures of positive affect
(positive, exhilarated, good, happy, all Fs > 13, all ps < .01) and four neutral measures (bad,
bored, unhappy, and neutral, all Fs > 11, all ps < .01).
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 125 undergraduates from an introductory marketing class in partial
fulfillment of a course requirement. We conducted the experiment using a 2 (affect: positive vs.
neutral) × 2 (product incongruity: moderate vs. extreme) between-subjects design. (Because
Study 1 successfully replicated and moderated the inverted-U across three levels of incongruity
and our theoretical interest is in improving evaluations of extreme relative to moderate
incongruity, we did not include congruent options in any of the rest of our studies.) Participants
first wrote for 10 minutes about an event that made them either happy or bored as part of a study
17
of college students’ personal experiences. Then, as an ostensibly separate study, participants read
a description of a new product and evaluated it on the same three 9-point items as used in Study
1 ( = .91). Perceived schema incongruity of the product was measured on the two pretest items
( = .82). Then participants were asked to what extent the new product made sense to them on a
7-point scale, anchored by “makes no sense” and “makes sense.”
Results
Perceived schema incongruity. Examination of rated product incongruity with a 2 (affect)
× 2 (incongruity) analysis of variance yielded only a main effect of incongruity (F(1, 121) =
15.43, p < .01), indicating that the incongruity manipulation worked as intended. Participants
rated the moderately incongruent product, vitamin-fortified coffee, as more congruent (M = 3.44)
than the extremely incongruent, vitamin-fortified vodka (M = 2.55; F(1, 123) = 15.27, p < .01).
Importantly, there were no differences in perceived incongruity between the neutral and positive
affect conditions across levels of product incongruity. Ratings of the incongruity of vitamin-
fortified coffee (M = 3.72) and vitamin-fortified vodka (M = 2.48) were no different for neutral
than positive-affect respondents (Mcoffee = 3.17; F(1, 121) = 2.84, p = .09; Mvodka = 2.62; F(1,
121) =.19, p = .66; see Table 1). Note that while the contrast for the moderately incongruent
product approaches significance, the direction of the comparison is opposite to what would be
predicted by the big-picture account; the moderately incongruent product was perceived as
directionally less congruent in the positive affect condition. As in Study 1, the adequacy of the
big-picture explanation (Labroo and Patrick 2009) to account for our results appears unpromising.
Product evaluation. Our analysis revealed the predicted interaction of product
incongruity and affect on evaluation (F(1, 121) = 6.15, p = .02). Consistent with our hypothesis,
vitamin-fortified vodka was evaluated more favorably in the positive-affect condition (M = 6.95)
18
than in the neutral-affect condition (M = 5.19; F(1, 121) = 12.38, p = .01). For vitamin-fortified
coffee, however, there was no effect of affect (Mpositive = 6.19, Mneutral = 6.19; F < 1).
Furthermore, in the positive-affect condition, the moderately incongruent (M = 6.19) and the
extremely incongruent products (M = 6.95) were equally favored (F(1, 121) = 2.35, p = .13). In
the neutral-affect condition, the moderately incongruent coffee (M = 6.19) was rated more
favorably than the extremely incongruent vodka (M = 5.19; F(1, 121) = 3.91, p = .05; see Table
1), replicating earlier research. Taken together, these data support H1.
Mediated moderation. To understand the underlying process, we examined whether the
incongruity x affect effect on product evaluation was mediated by incongruity resolution.
Following the procedure outlined in Muller et al. (2005), we tested whether the moderated effect
was mediated by the makes-sense measure. (See equations below and least squares regression
results in Table 2).
(1) DV = β10 + β11 IV + β12 MO + β13 IV*MO + ε1
(2) ME = β20 + β21 IV + β22 MO + β23 IV*MO + ε2
(3) DV = β30 + β31 IV + β32 MO + β33 IV*MO + β34 ME + β35 ME*MO + ε3
Note: DV(dependent variable) = product evaluation, IV(independent variable) = product incongruity,
MO(moderator) = affect, ME(mediator) = makes-sense
[Insert Table 2 here]
Results from the first equation replicated the ANOVA results, showing a main effect of
product incongruity qualified by a two-way interaction of product incongruity and affect. The
second equation supported the same pattern of effects for the makes-sense measure. There was a
main effect of product incongruity qualified by a two-way interaction of product incongruity and
affect. In the third equation, the coefficient for the product incongruity × affect interaction was
not significant and was reduced from equation 1 (from 1.75 to .82) while makes-sense
significantly predicted product evaluation. Further, examination of the coefficients reveals that
19
the effect of product incongruity on makes-sense depends on affect (23 ≠ 0, and the average
partial effect of makes-sense on evaluation (i.e., 34 is nonzero; see Figure 2).
[Insert Figure 2 here]
We also used a bootstrap analysis to assess the indirect effect of product incongruity x
affect (using the INDIRECT SPSS macro; Preacher and Hayes 2008). This revealed a positive
(.87) and significant mean indirect effect, with a 95% confidence interval excluding zero (.146 to
1.71). The results indicate that the moderation (by affect) of the residual direct effect of product
incongruity on evaluation is mediated by incongruity resolution (i.e., makes sense).
Discussion
In summary, our results replicate Study 1, showing that affect moderates the relationship
between incongruity and new product evaluations; positive affect increased the evaluation of an
extremely incongruent product relative to neutral affect. Furthermore, the results of Study 2
provide process-level insight into the role of incongruity resolution in mediating the relationship
between positive affect and new product evaluations. By manipulating affect in Study 2, we were
also able to rule out the possibility that incongruity resolution elevated participants’ affect, rather
than affect affecting resolution. These results strengthen our view that cognitive flexibility
facilitates incongruity resolution, leading to more positive evaluations of an extremely
incongruent product. To further test that the effects are due to cognitive flexibility – as opposed
to some other aspect of affect – we investigate two additional cognitive flexibility manipulations
in the next two studies to test for convergent evidence.
STUDY 3
Study 3 examined a second variable that increases cognitive flexibility to test whether the
effects of positive affect observed in Studies 1 and 2 converge with an additional manipulation of
20
cognitive flexibility. Recent findings suggest that people use information more comprehensively
when they evaluate a future rather than a past event (Jung Grant and Tybout 2008). Thus, we
expect that a future frame will increase cognitive flexibility, helping consumers draw on more
information to resolve the extreme incongruity, and thereby enhancing evaluations. A past frame
fosters a narrow focus, and is not expected to encourage flexible thinking nor boost evaluations.
Similar results for temporal frame as found for affect would support our interpretation that
cognitive flexibility is the construct at work.
Method
In Study 3, 149 undergraduates participated in partial fulfillment of a course requirement.
The experiment was a 2 (temporal frame: future vs. past) × 2 (product incongruity: moderate vs.
extreme) between-subjects design. We used the same product stimuli as in Study 2 and
manipulated temporal frame by describing the product launch as a past or future event (adapted
from Jung Grant and Tybout 2008). Participants evaluated the product ( = .91), rated the
product’s perceived schema incongruity and indicated their ability to make sense of the product
on the same measures as Study 2.
Results
Perceived schema incongruity. Participants perceived vitamin-fortified coffee as more
congruent (M = 3.51) than vitamin-fortified vodka (M = 2.59; F(1, 147) = 15.93, p < .01). There
were no differences in perceived schema incongruity as a function of temporal frame across
either moderate (Mpast = 3.55 vs. Mfuture = 3.46; F(1, 145) < 1, n.s.) or extreme (Mpast = 2.57 vs.
Mfuture = 2.61; F(1, 145) < 1, n.s.) incongruity. Thus, the incongruity manipulation was successful.
Product evaluation. A 2 (temporal frame) × 2 (product incongruity) ANOVA yielded a
main effect of temporal frame (F(1,145)=7.16, p<.01), which was qualified by a two-way
21
interaction (F(1, 145) = 8.44, p < .01), indicating that temporal frame moderates the impact of
product incongruity on evaluation. As expected, vitamin-fortified vodka was evaluated more
favorably when the launch was in the future (M = 7.11) than the past (M = 5.51; F(1, 145) =
15.68, p < .01), whereas vitamin-fortified coffee was rated similarly in the future (M = 6.25) as
in the past (M = 6.32; F(1, 145) < 1, n.s.). Though not anticipated, in the future condition, the
extremely incongruent vodka was evaluated more positively (M = 7.11) than the moderately
incongruent coffee (M = 6.25; F(1, 145) = 4.39, p < .05). In the past condition, the moderately
incongruent product was rated more favorably (M = 6.32) than the extremely incongruent (M =
5.51; F(1, 145) = 4.05, p < .05; see Table 1). In sum, this pattern conceptually replicates Study 2.
Mediated moderation. In order to gain insight into the underlying process, we tested
mediated moderation with the three equations (Muller et al. 2005) and bootstrapping (Preacher
and Hayes 2008) methods described in Study 2 (see Table 2). The results show that the makes-
sense measure mediates the interaction of product incongruity and temporal frame. Specifically,
1) the effect of product incongruity on product evaluation is moderated by temporal frame
(equation 1), 2) the effect of product incongruity on makes-sense is moderated by temporal
frame (equation 2), and 3) the product incongruity × temporal frame effect on evaluation is
reduced while makes-sense is highly significant (equation 3). Further, examination of
coefficients revealed that temporal frame moderates the path from product incongruity to makes-
sense. Finally, the bootstrap test of the indirect effect of product incongruity x temporal frame
was positive (.74) and significant, with a 95% confidence interval excluding zero (.17 to 1.60).
These analyses demonstrate that the temporal frame moderation of the residual direct effect of
product incongruity on evaluation is mediated by incongruity resolution.
Discussion
22
Drawing on theorizing that predicts differences in cognitive flexibility by temporal frame,
we find that evaluations of an extremely incongruent product are enhanced when it is described
as a future (versus past) launch. Similar to positive affect, the future frame manipulation
facilitated resolution, yielding more favorable evaluations. Together, Studies 1-3 support our
hypothesis that cognitive flexibility, whether arising from positive affect or a future frame,
increases the likelihood that consumers will resolve extreme incongruity leading to enhanced
evaluations. Cognitive flexibility affects the ability to reconcile an innovation that does not fit
with existing schema, and resolution, in turn, increases evaluations.
Having established that cognitive flexibility affects the ability to resolve extreme
incongruity and that resolution results in more favorable evaluations of extremely incongruent
new products, we now turn to the question of why resolution of the extremely incongruent new
product results in more favorable judgments. Prior literature on moderate incongruity suggests
that positive affect from the process of resolution (i.e., enjoyment) lifts attitudes and subsequent
evaluation (Mandler 1982; Maoz and Tybout 2002; Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989; Peracchio
and Tybout 1996). However, to our knowledge, there is no strong evidence that resolution
produces positive affect that drives evaluations. Peracchio and Tybout (1996) examine “pretaste
affect” and “posttaste affect,” but these are, in fact, evaluation, measured by how appealing, tasty,
desirable, high quality, and appetizing the subjects perceived the stimulus (cake) to be. Maoz and
Tybout (2002) provide directional evidence that levels of incongruity and involvement influence
task satisfaction but do not show mediation. Furthermore, when participants’ thoughts were
analyzed, no difference in positive and negative thoughts (e.g., Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989;
Peracchio and Tybout 1996) suggests that affect valence may not differ by resolution.
23
We propose that a second way in which resolution could lead to more positive
evaluations is by a more cognitive route. The outcome of resolution is insight into or
understanding of the new product benefits. That is, making sense of the incongruity results in
understanding; this insight alone could drive higher ratings. We propose that insight into why an
incongruent product makes sense, rather than the rewarding feelings from resolution, drives more
favorable evaluations.
To compare the two accounts, we manipulate cognitive flexibility and vary the presence
of a benefit rationale in advertising copy for an extremely incongruent new product. We present
the benefit rationale as advertising copy, giving participants a reason for the extreme incongruity
such that they gain insight into why the new product attribute makes sense without personally
experiencing resolution. Because each account makes different predictions for effects of benefit
rationale, this design allows us to explore the two ways in which resolution could lead to more
positive evaluations.
The existing process-satisfaction account predicts that positive affect from resolution
drives more positive evaluations. This suggests that cognitively flexible consumers, who are able
to resolve on their own, will rate the product less favorably when ad copy presents a benefit
rationale, than when no such rationale is provided; this is because giving a benefit rationale to
cognitively flexible consumers deprives them of the pleasure of the process of resolving.
Furthermore, providing people who are not cognitively flexible with the “answer” would not
increase evaluations because they would not gain affect arising from experienced resolution.
The proposed insight-based account predicts a different pattern of effects such that
evaluations of cognitively flexible consumers will not be affected by the presence or absence of a
benefit rationale. Whether they make sense of the product by thinking flexibly or by having the
24
insight provided by a rationale, cognitively flexible consumers will evaluate the extremely
incongruent product relatively favorably. Evaluations by consumers who are not cognitively
flexible will be increased by the presence of a benefit rationale. As in the first three studies,
consumers who are not cognitively flexible will not resolve the extreme incongruity, and thus
evaluate the extremely incongruent product relatively unfavorably. The presence of a benefit
rationale will provide insight, allowing cognitively inflexible consumers to make sense of the
extreme incongruity. Thus, we propose that cognitively inflexible consumers will evaluate an
extremely incongruent product more favorably in the presence, relative to absence, of a benefit
rationale in the advertising copy. Proposition 2 formalizes the insight-based account.
P2: The effect of cognitive flexibility on evaluation of an extremely incongruent product
is moderated by the presence of a benefit rationale. With cognitive flexibility, evaluation
of an extremely incongruent product will be relatively positive regardless of the presence
or absence of a benefit rationale. Without cognitive flexibility, evaluation of an extremely
incongruent product will be higher when a benefit rationale is present versus absent.
STUDY 4
The primary goal of Study 4 is to examine whether resolution facilitates more favorable
evaluations due to process satisfaction or due to insight per se. In addition, we primed cognitive
flexibility to further corroborate that it is cognitive flexibility that drives the effects of the
psychological variables of positive affect and temporal frame found in the previous studies.
Method
As part of a course requirement, 134 undergraduates participated in a 2 (cognitive
flexibility: no prime vs. flexible prime) x 2 (advertising copy: benefit rationale absent vs. benefit
rationale present) between-subjects study. Given that cognitive flexibility includes the ability to
25
consider multiple sources of information and alternatives, we asked participants to think of either
one explanation (no cognitive-flexibility prime) or multiple possible explanations (cognitive-
flexibility prime) for an ambiguous situation. Participants read a short story adapted from a
flexible thinking exercise in which a can of cola explodes inside a car on a hot day. Participants
in the no cognitive-flexibility condition rated the likelihood of one given explanation for the
explosion. In the cognitive-flexibility condition, participants generated as many explanations for
the explosion as they could. Next, in an ostensibly unrelated study, all participants read about an
extremely incongruent new product, vitamin-fortified vodka (same description as in Studies 2
and 3). While this was all that participants in the benefit rationale-absent condition read, those in
the benefit rationale-present condition, also read the following additional ad copy, “Why produce
a vitamin-fortified vodka? Vodka is dehydrating; replacing lost vitamins can help people feel
better.” Participants then completed the same measures used in prior studies for product
evaluation ( = .89), perceived schema incongruity ( = .89), and the extent to which the new
product made sense. Lastly, participants responded to five 7-point measures of affect anchored
by cheerful/depressed, sad/joyful, annoyed/pleased, happy/unhappy, and good/bad ( = .88).
Results and Discussion
Perceived schema incongruity. As expected, a 2 (cognitive flexibility) × 2 (advertising
copy) ANOVA of the manipulation check yielded no significant differences. Likewise, none of
the contrasts was significant, indicating that neither the cognitive flexibility prime (Mflexible =
2.66 vs. Mnot flexible = 2.47; F(1, 130) < 1) nor the rationale (Mpresent = 2.54 vs. Mabsent = 2.57; F(1,
130) < 1) impacted participants’ perceptions of the vitamin-fortified vodka’s incongruity. The
low means and lack of effects support successful manipulation of extreme incongruity.
26
Product evaluation. Evaluations were examined with a 2 (cognitive flexibility) × 2
(advertising copy) ANOVA, revealing a main effect of cognitive flexibility (F(1, 130) = 3.83, p
= .05) qualified by an advertising copy × cognitive flexibility interaction (F(1, 130) = 4.18, p
= .04; Figure 3). In support of P2, when participants were primed to think flexibly, evaluations of
the vitamin-fortified vodka were equally positive regardless of the rationale’s presence (M =
6.71) or absence (M = 6.86; F(1, 130) < 1). Participants without the cognitive flexibility prime,
however, evaluated the vitamin-fortified vodka more favorably in the presence (M = 6.74) than
absence (M = 5.70; F(1, 130) = 7.04, p < .01) of a rationale. The low evaluation of the extremely
incongruent new product provided by the non-cognitively flexible participants in the no-rationale
condition replicates prior studies–without a rationale, those who are not primed to think flexibly
do not resolve the extreme incongruity–while insight provided by the rationale led to higher
evaluations. Also consistent with our interpretation, when there was no rationale, flexible
thinking led to higher evaluations of the vitamin-fortified vodka (M = 6.86) than when flexible
thinking was not primed (M = 5.70; F(1, 130) = 7.69, p < .01). In the presence of a rationale,
however, the vitamin-fortified vodka was equally favored, regardless of cognitive flexibility
(Mflexible = 6.71 vs. Mnot flexible = 6.74; F(1, 130) < 1).
[Insert Figure 3 here]
Affect. Participants’ rated affect was also examined. Consistent with our insight-based
account, a 2 (cognitive flexibility) × 2 (advertising copy) analysis yielded no significant results.
We found none of the contrasts to be significant, indicating that participants’ affect was not
influenced by the presence or absence of the benefit rationale (Mflexible-rationale = 4.23, Mnot flexible-
rationale = 4.12, Mflexible-no rationale = 4.17, Mnot flexible-no rationale = 4.11, all Fs <1).
27
Mediated moderation. Given that affect from the resolution process does not explain the
evaluation results, we tested whether making sense of the product, whether through own
resolution or a rationale provided in the copy, mediated the interaction between cognitive
flexibility and ad copy, following the same methods described in the previous studies.
Regression results (see Table 2) showed: 1) an effect of cognitive flexibility on product
evaluation moderated by advertising copy (equation 1); 2) an effect of cognitive flexibility on
makes-sense moderated by ad copy (equation 2); and 3) that the effect of the cognitive flexibility
× ad copy interaction on evaluation was reduced while makes-sense significantly predicted
product evaluation (equation 3). Further, the bootstrap test revealed a negative (-.62) and
significant indirect effect, with a 95% confidence interval excluding zero (-1.37 to -.08). Taken
together, the analyses provide strong evidence that the moderation of the residual direct effect of
product incongruity on evaluation is mediated by incongruity resolution. In summary, the results
provide additional support that cognitive flexibility, in this study manipulated with a prime
instruction, facilitates resolution, leading to more positive evaluations of extremely incongruent
new products. By using an instruction to consider multiple possibilities, this study provides
convergent evidence that positive affect (Studies 1 and 2) and future frame (Study 3) facilitated
resolution by increasing cognitive flexibility. Importantly, Study 4 results further demonstrate
that insight, not positive affect generated from the resolution process, drives the more positive
evaluations.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Our findings extend work on schema incongruity by moving beyond positive evaluation
of moderately incongruent and negative evaluation of extremely incongruent options, to identify
conditions under which extremely incongruent options can be evaluated positively. Like Meyers-
28
Levy and Tybout (1989) and many others, we find relative preference for moderately
incongruent new products and disfavor for extremely incongruent ones under typical processing
conditions. Additionally, we propose and demonstrate that increasing cognitive flexibility
enables consumers to make sense of incongruity, which results in more positive evaluations of
extremely incongruent new products. Specifically, eliciting cognitive flexibility by positive
affect (Studies 1 and 2), a future frame (Study 3), and prior generation of multiple explanations
for a situation (Study 4), increased participants’ ability to resolve extreme incongruity such that
extremely incongruent new products were evaluated more favorably than when participants
experienced less positive affect, focused on a past frame, or did not consider alternatives. In fact,
under each manipulation of cognitive flexibility, participants rated the extremely incongruent
products at least as favorably as the moderately incongruent ones. This work is the first to show
ways to increase evaluations of extremely incongruent new products.
This work provides additional clarification of the role of resolution in the evaluation of
incongruent new products. First, we demonstrate that participants’ ability to make sense of, or
resolve, incongruity systematically influences product evaluations. Second, we offer evidence in
Study 4 that the understanding provided by resolution, whether self-generated or provided by the
marketer, is critical to fostering acceptance. This finding sheds light on a question raised in prior
work. Existing literature surmises that incongruity resolution is rewarding and that positive affect
arising from the resolution process contributes to the favorableness of product evaluation. On the
contrary, findings from Study 4 show that external provision of a benefit rationale resulted in
equally positive evaluations of an extremely incongruent product, even though the insight was
achieved without the process of resolving for oneself. It is the insight that the resolution yields,
rather than positive affect arising from resolution that influences favorableness. Additionally, our
29
demonstration of the mediational role of incongruity resolution rules out the possibility that
enhanced evaluations result because positive affect or future frame alters perceptions of extreme
incongruity so that it is regarded as moderate incongruity; this limits the plausibility of a rival
explanation drawn from the big-picture theory.
Although our results indicate that process-based affect did not provide an incremental
benefit to evaluations of extreme incongruity, care should be taken in generalizing this finding.
Research shows that the affect generated by meta-cognitive experience serves as the primary
basis for judgments in some instances (e.g., Tybout et al. 2005; Wanke, Bless and Biller 1996)
and that the big-picture theory accounts for some evaluations (Labroo and Patrick 2009).
Furthermore, Tybout et al. (2005) suggest that people are less likely to base evaluations on
process-based affect when relevant knowledge is inaccessible. It is plausible that relevant
knowledge is less accessible when consumers reflect on extremely incongruent innovations, as
compared to moderately incongruent new products. Thus, favorable evaluations of moderate
incongruity could be based on affect, whereas positive judgments of extreme incongruity could
be driven by content. This idea merits further testing.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
This research has important implications for marketing managers. While innovation and
new product introduction are important to business success, new products have a notoriously
high failure rate. This research offers multiple potential methods for increasing new product
acceptance. Demonstrating that positive affect, future frame, consideration of multiple
alternatives and a benefit rationale increase evaluations of really new products suggests that
managers should consider influencing each of these when introducing new products. First,
managers might adopt marketing communications with positive emotional appeals, rather than
30
purely cognitive ones, when introducing incongruent new products. The ads that Apple used to
introduce the iPod, for example, featured dancing silhouettes against brightly colored
backgrounds with upbeat music focused on creating positive affect. Second, launch pre-
announcements, such that processing of a new product is in a future frame, could benefit the
company when extreme incongruity is involved. Third, marketing communications for a new
product launch could encourage consideration of multiple alternatives and perspectives such that
consumers are more cognitively flexible as they consider the new product. Lastly, it appears that
providing consumers with a benefit rationale could be a powerful tool for fostering more
favorable evaluations. When launched in 1992, Crystal Pepsi announced its superiority without a
benefit rationale. Advertising referenced taste, uniqueness, and modernity, but it did not provide
a rationale that could help consumers resolve the incongruity. When Dyson launched the Air
Multiplier, the firm offered the rationale that, unlike fans with blades, bladeless fans do not cause
unpleasant air buffeting. Importantly, our research suggests that providing a compelling benefit
rationale in communications about a new, incongruent product, is likely to increase consumer
acceptance overall.
This research offers guidance to firms pursuing growth through innovation. Instead of
focusing on new product categorization (what is it?) and consumer learning, as many have, the
present research addresses product innovations that involve an incongruent differentiated benefit
(what of it?). Scant research has focused on the second of these important questions. Our work
leverages the schema-congruity framework to provide increased understanding of the question of
how to gain acceptance of new products that are counter to consumers’ expectations.
31
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. and Kevin Lane Keller (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,”
Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), 27-41.
Aiken, Leona S. and Stephen G. West (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.
Alexander, David L., John G. Lynch Jr., Qing Wang (2008), “As Time Goes By: Do Cold Feet
Follow Warm Intentions for Really New Versus Incrementally New Products?” Journal of
Marketing Research, 45 (June), 307-19.
Bakamitsos, Georgios A. (2006), “A Cue Alone or a Probe to Think? The Dual Role of Affect in
Product Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (December), 403-12.
Barone, Michael J., Paul W. Miniard, and Jean B. Romeo (2000), “The Influence of Positive
Mood on Brand Extension Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (March), 386-400.
Campbell, Margaret C. and Ronald Goodstein (1999), “The Moderating Effect of Perceived Risk
on Consumers’ Evaluations of Product Incongruity: Preference for the Norm,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 28 (December), 439-49.
Clore, Gerald L., Norbert Schwarz, and Michael Conway (1994), “Affective Causes and
Consequences of Social Information Processing,” in Handbook of Social Cognition, Vol. 1: Basic
32
Processes; Vol. 2: Applications, Robert S. Wyer, Jr. and Thomas K. Srull, eds. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 323-417.
Estrada, Carlos A., Alice M. Isen, and Mark J. Young (1997), “Positive Affect Facilitates
Integration of Information and Decreases Anchoring in Reasoning Among Physicians,”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72 (1), 117-35.
Gourville, John T. (2006), "Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers: Understanding the Psychology of
New-Product Adoption." Harvard Business Review 84, no. 6 (June).
Gregan-Paxton, Jennifer, Steve Hoeffler, and Min Zhao (2005), “When Categorization is
Ambiguous: Factors that Facilitate the Use of a Multiple Category Inference Strategy,” Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 15 (Spring), 127-40.
___, Jonathan D. Hibbard, F. Frederic Brunel, and Pablo Azar (2002), “So That's What That Is:
Examining the Impact of Analogy on Consumers’ Knowledge Development for Really New
Products,” Psychology & Marketing, 19 (June), 533-50.
Hoeffler, Steve (2003), “Measuring Preferences for Really New Products,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 40 (November), 406-20.
Isen, Alice M. (2001), “An Influence of Positive Affect on Decision Making in Complex
Situations: Theoretical Issues With Practical Implications,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11
(September), 75-85.
33
___ and Kimberly A. Daubman (1984), “The Influence of Affect on Categorization,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (December), 1206-17.
___, ___ and Gary P. Nowicki (1987), “Positive Affect Facilitates Creative Problem Solving,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (June), 1122-31.
___, Mitzi M. Johnson, Elizabeth Mertz, and Gregory F. Robinson (1985), “The Influence of
Positive Affect on the Unusualness of Word Associations,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48 (June), 1413-26.
Jung Grant, Susan and Alice M. Tybout (2008), “The Effect of Temporal Frame on Information
Considered in New Product Evaluation: The Role of Uncertainty,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 34 (April), 897-913.
Kahn, Barbara E. and Alice M. Isen (1993), “The Influence of Positive Affect on Variety
Seeking Among Safe, Enjoyable Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (September) 257-
70.
Keller, Kevin L., Brian Sternthal, and Alice M. Tybout (2002), “Three Questions You Need to
Ask About Your Brand,” Harvard Business Review, 80 (September), 80-86.
Labroo, Aparna A. and Vanessa M. Patrick (2009), “Psychological Distancing: Why Happiness
Helps You See the Big Picture,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (February), 800-09.
34
Mandler, George (1982), “The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste,” in Affect and
Cognition: The 17th
Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, Margaret S. Clark and Susan T.
Fiske, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-36.
Maoz, Eyal and Alice M. Tybout (2002), “The Moderating Role of Involvement and Differentiation
in the Evaluation of Brand Extensions,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (2), 119-31.
Meyers-Levy, Joan, Therese A. Louie, and Mary T. Curren (1994), “How Does the Congruity of
Brand Names Affect Evaluations of Brand Name Extensions?” Journal of Applied Psychology,
79 (February), 46-53.
Meyers-Levy, Joan and Alice M. Tybout (1989), “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product
Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June), 39-54.
Moreau, C. Page, Arthur Markman, and Donald Lehmann (2001), “What Is It? Categorization
Flexibility and Consumers’ Responses to Really New Products,” Journal of Consumer Research,
27 (March), 489-98.
Muller, Dominique, Charles Judd, and Vincent Yzerbyt (2005), “When Moderation is Mediated
and When Mediation is Moderated,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852-63.
Murray, Noel, Harish Sujan, Edward R. Hirt and Mita Sujan (1990), “The Influence of Mood on
Categorization: A Cognitive Flexibility Hypothesis,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58 (September), 411-25.
35
Park, C. Whan, Sandra Milberg, and Robert Lawson (1991), “Evaluation of Brand Extensions:
The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 18 (September), 185-93.
Peracchio, Laura P. and Alice M. Tybout (1996), “The Moderating Role of Prior Knowledge in
Schema-Based Product Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (December), 177-92.
Preacher, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. Hayes (2008), “Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for
Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models,” Behavior Research
Methods, 40 (3), 879–91.
Roehm, Michelle and Brian Sternthal (2001), “The Moderating Effect of Knowledge and
Resources on the Persuasive Impact of Analogies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28
(September), 257-72.
Tesser, Abraham (1978), “Self-Generated Attitude Change,” in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 289-338.
Tybout, Alice M., Brian Sternthal, Prashant Malaviya, Georgios A. Bakamitsos, and Se-Bum
Park (2005), “Information Accessibility as a Moderator of Judgments: The Role of Content
versus Retrieval Ease,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June), 76-85.
Wanke, Michaela, Herbert Bless, and Barbara Biller (1996), “Subjective Experience versus
Content of Information in the Construction of Attitude Judgments,” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22 (November), 1105-13.
36
Wright, Jack and Walter Mischel (1982), “Influence of Affect on Cognitive Social Learning
Person Variables,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (November), 901-14.
Zhao, Min, Steve Hoeffler and Darren W. Dahl (2009), “The Role of Imagination-Focused
Visualization on New Product Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (February) 44-65.
38
FIGURE 2
Mediated moderation model
Product
Incongruity
Makes
Sense
Product
Evaluation
Positive
Affect
39
39
FIGURE 3
Results of Study 4: Evaluation of Vitamin-Fortified Vodka
as a Function of Benefit Rationale and Cognitive Flexibility
Higher values indicate more favorable overall evaluation on 1-9 scale.
40
40
TABLE 1
Summary of evaluation means by condition from Studies 1-3
Congruent
Moderately
Incongruent
Extremely
Incongruent
Study 1 Positive affect (measured) 5.82 8.1 7.5
Neutral affect (measured) 5.38 7.46 5.46
Study 2 Positive affect (manipulated) - 6.19 6.95
Neutral affect (manipulated) - 6.19 5.19
Study 3 Future frame - 6.25 7.11
Past frame - 6.32 5.51
Higher values indicate more favorable overall evaluation on 1-9 scale.
41
41
TABLE 2
Least Squares Regression Results for Mediated Moderation in Studies 2-4
Equation 1
(criterion PE)
Equation 2
(criterion MS)
Equation 3
(criterion PE)
Predictors β t β t β t
Study 2 PI -.991
(β11)
-1.976* -1.517
(β21)
-3.600** .049
(β31)
.107
A 7.321E-15
(β12)
.000 -.133
(β22)
-.312 .568
(β32)
.496
PI x A 1.752
(β13)
2.478** 1.338
(β23)
2.254* .819
(β33)
1.317
MS .686
(β34)
5.651**
MS x A -.085
(β35)
-.453
Study 3 PI -.807
(β11)
-2.011* -1.000
(β21)
-3.031** -.089
(β31)
-.264
TF -.066
(β12)
-.162 .298
(β22)
.892 -.483
(β32)
-.486
PI x TF 1.665
(β13)
2.904** 1.009
(β23)
2.141* .941
(β33)
1.990*
MS .718
(β34)
7.021**
MS x TF .036
(β35)
.213
Study 4 CF 1.159
(β11)
2.774** .645
(β21)
1.787 .877
(β31)
2.367*
AC 1.039
(β12)
2.654** .950
(β22)
2.810** -.950
(β32)
-.990
CF x AC -1.185
(β13)
-2.044* -1.087
(β23)
-2.171* -.584
(β33)
-1.142
MS .438
(β34)
3.578**
MS x AC .284
(β35)
1.614
PE = product evaluation, PI = product incongruity, A = affect, MS = makes sense, TF = temporal frame, CF = cognitive
flexibility, AC = advertising copy, * p < .05. ** p < .01.
42
42
APPENDIX A
PRODUCT DESCRIPTIONS USED IN STUDIES 2-4
Vitamin-Fortified Orange Juice [a congruent product]
Founded over half a century ago, this respected company follows an uncompromised
passion for the highest quality. The company is introducing a specially-formulated
beverage. This enhanced orange juice is fortified with extra vitamins and omega-3.
Made with the freshest oranges, this juice maintains world-class taste while including
vitamins A and D and is a rich source of omega-3 EPA and DHA.
Vitamin-Fortified Coffee [a moderately incongruent product]
Founded over half a century ago, this respected company follows an uncompromised
passion for the highest quality. The company is introducing a specially-formulated
beverage. This enhanced coffee is fortified with extra vitamins and omega-3. Made
from expertly roasted coffee beans, this coffee maintains world-class taste while
including vitamins A and D and is a rich source of omega-3 EPA and DHA.
Vitamin-Fortified Vodka [an extremely incongruent product]
Founded over half a century ago, this respected company follows an uncompromised
passion for the highest quality. The company is introducing a specially-formulated
beverage. This enhanced vodka is fortified with extra vitamins and omega-3. Made
from European potatoes, this vodka maintains world-class taste while including
vitamins A and D and is a rich source of omega-3 EPA and DHA.