Comparative advertising: Effects of structural alignability on target brand evaluations

Journal of Consumer Psychology

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 303-311

  Zhang, Shi ^a,d   Kardes, Frank R ^b   Cronley, Maria L ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

^c MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036416907     PISSN: 10577408     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/15327660260382342     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Belch, George E. (1981). An examination of comparative and noncomparative television commercials: The effects of claim variation and repetition on cognitive response and message acceptance. Journal, of Marketing Research, 18, 333-349.
2. Dröge, Cornelia, & Darmon, René Y. (1987). Associative positioning strategies through comparative advertising: Attribute versus overall similarity approaches. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 377-388.
3. Gentner, Dedre, & Markman, Arthur. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.
4. Golden, Linda L. (1979). Consumer reactions to explicit brand comparisons in advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 517-532.
5. Goodwin, Stephen, & Etgar, Michael. (1980). An experimental investigation of comparative advertising: Impact of message appeal, information load, and utility of product class. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 187-202.
6. Gorn, Gerald J., & Weinberg, Charles B. (1984). The impact of comparative advertising on perception and attitude: Some positive findings. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 719-727.
7. Grewal, Dhruv, Kavanoor, Sukumar, Fern, Edward P., Costley, Carolyn, & Barnes, James. (1997). Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 61, 1-15.
8. Hsee, Christopher. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 247-257.
9. Kivetz, Ran, & Simonson, Itamar. (2000). The effects of incomplete information onconsumer choice. Journal of Marketing Researchy, 37, 427-448.
10. Kruglanski, Arie W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases. New York: Plenum.
11. Kruglanski, Arie W., & Webster, Donna M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and "Freezing." Psychological Review, 103, 263-283.
12. Lindemann, Patrisha. G., & Markman, Arthur B. (1996). Alignability and attribute importance in choice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, San Diego, CA.
13. Markman, Arthur B., & Gentner, Dedre. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory and Cognition, 24, 235-249.
14. Markman, Arthur B., & Medin, Douglas L. (1995). Similarity and alignment in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 117-130.
15. Miniard, Paul W., Rose, Randall L., Barone, Michael J., & Manning, Kenneth C. (1993). On the need for relative measures when assessing comparative advertising effects. Journal of Advertising, 22, 41-57.
16. Pechmann, Cornelia, & Ratneshwar, S. (1991). The use of comparative advertising for brand positioning: Association versus differentiation. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 145-160.
17. Pechmann, Cornelia, & Stewart, David W. (1990). The effects of comparative advertising on attention, memory, and purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 180-191.
18. Rose, Randall L., Miniard, Paul W., Barone, Michael J., Manning, Kenneth C., & Till, Brian D. (1993). When persuasion goes undetected: The case of comparative advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 315-330.
19. Webster, Donna M., & Kruglanski, Arie W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062.
20. Wilkie, William L., & Farris, Paul W. (1975). Comparison advertising - Problems and potential. Journal of Marketing, 39, 7-15.
21. Zhang, Shi, & Fitzsimons, Gavan J. (1999), Choice-process satisfaction: The influence of attribute alignability and option limitation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77.3, 192-214.
22. Zhang, Shi, & Markman, Arthur B. (1998). Overcoming the early entrant advantage: The role of alignable and nonalignable features. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 413-426.
23. Zhang, Shi, & Markman, Arthur B. (2001), Processing product unique features: Alignability and involvement in preference construction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 13-27.