Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Speaking to the mind or the heart: effects of matching hedonic versus utilitarian arguments and products

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Message arguments influence beliefs about product benefits which influence overall product evaluations. Three studies show that matching hedonic versus utilitarian arguments and products enhance evaluations of utilitarian products, but not hedonic products. The results generalize across several argument manipulations and several product categories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As quality perceptions differed between the two stimuli (M hedonic = 4.64, M utilitarian = 4.14; t[162] = −2.76, p < 0.01), we controlled for this difference in the ANOVA and used marginal means in the further analyses (Tukey’s HSD test).

References

  • Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: the role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahluwalia, R., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2000). The effects of extensions on the family brand name: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 371–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. J., & Churchill, M. J., Jr. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(4), 538–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botti, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). The locus of choice: personal causality and satisfaction with hedonic and utilitarian decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1065–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health claims: lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 301–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A. (2004). The goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 141–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: the role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, T. (2008). Convergent products: what functionalities add more value to the base? Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 46–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, R. C. (1993). Category-based applications and extensions in advertising: motivating more extensive ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (1998). The effects of extensions on brand name dilution and enhancement. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 464–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A.F. (2012). PROCESS: a versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. White paper. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/

  • Heckler, S. E., & Childers, T. L. (1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: what is incongruency? Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 475–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The role of cognition and affect in the formation of customer satisfaction: a dynamic perspective. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johar, J. S., & Sirgy, M. J. (1991). Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: when and why to use which appeal. Journal of Advertising, 20(3), 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labroo, A. A., & Kim, S. (2009). The “instrumentality” heuristic: why metacognitive difficulty is desirable during goal pursuit. Psychological Science, 20(1), 127–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landwehr, J. R., Wentzel, D., & Herrmann, A. (2013). Product design for the long run: consumer responses to typical and atypical designs at different stages of exposure. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 92–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavine, H., & Snyder, M. (1996). Cognitive processing and the functional matching effect in persuasion: the mediating role of subjective perceptions of message quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32(6), 580–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 151–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, E. A. C., & Ang, S. H. (2008). Hedonic vs. utilitarian consumption: a cross-cultural perspective based on cultural conditioning. Journal of Business Research, 61(3), 225–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements: toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of in information processing: review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 473–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maheswaran, D., Mackie, D. M., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Brand names as a heuristic cue: the effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(4), 317–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maio, G. R., & Haddock, G. (2007). Attitude change. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 565–86). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melnyk, V., Klein, K., & Völckner, F. (2012). The double-edged sword of foreign brand names for companies from emerging countries. Journal of Marketing, 76(6), 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers-Levy, J., & Malaviya, P. (1999). Consumers’ processing of persuasive advertisements: an integrative framework of persuasion theories. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, M. J., & Millar, K. U. (1992). Attitude change as a function of attitude type and argument type. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 217–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittal, B. (1989). The role of affective choice mode in the consumer purchase of expressive products. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9(4), 499–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noseworthy, T. J., & Trudel, R. (2011). Looks interesting but what does it do? Evaluation of incongruent product form depends on positioning. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(6), 1008–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: implications for scrutiny of persuasive message. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(3), 227–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Increasing the effectiveness of communications to consumers: recommendations based on elaboration likelihood and attitude certainty perspectives. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 25(1), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavitt, S. (1990). The role of attitude objects in attitude functions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(2), 124–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavitt, S. (1992). Evidence for predicting the effectiveness of value expressive versus utilitarian appeals: a reply to Johar and Sirgy. Journal of Advertising, 21(2), 47–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavitt, S., Lowrey, T. M., & Han, S. (1992). Attitude functions in advertising: the interactive role of products and self-monitoring. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(4), 337–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, J. M. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprotta, D. E., & Shimp, T. A. (2004). Using product sampling to augment the perceived quality of store brands. Journal of Retailing, 80(4), 305–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. V., & Hamilton, R. W. (2006). The effects of information processing mode on consumers’ responses to comparative advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 530–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Janiszewski, C. (2012). A goal-based model of product evaluation and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 260–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Osselaer, S. M. J., Ramanathan, S., Campbell, M. C., Cohen, J. B., Dale, J. K., Herr, P. M., Janiszewski, C., Kruglanski, A. W., Lee, A. Y., Read, S. J., Russo, J. E., & Tavassoli, N. T. (2005). Choice based on goals. Marketing Letters, 16(3/4), 335–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in preference construction. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, S. C., Petty, R. E., & Bizer, G. Y. (2005). Self-schema matching and attitude change: situational and dispositional determinants of message elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 787–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, S. C., DeMarree, K. G., & Petty, R. E. (2008). A match made in the laboratory: persuasion and matches to primed traits and stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1035–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, K., Vallen, B., Block, L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2009). Vicarious goal fulfillment: when the mere presence of a healthy option leads to an ironically indulgent decision. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 380–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, C. W. M., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2004). Affect, appraisal, and consumer judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 412–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Franziska Völckner for her helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript and Danny Kummer for his help in the data collection of study 2.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing and Brand Management, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz 1, 50923, Cologne, Germany

    Kristina Klein

  2. School of Communication, Journalism and Marketing, Massey University, Albany Campus, Private Bag 102 904, North Shore Mail Centre, Albany Expressway (SH17), Auckland, 0745, New Zealand

    Valentyna Melnyk

Authors
  1. Kristina Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Valentyna Melnyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina Klein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klein, K., Melnyk, V. Speaking to the mind or the heart: effects of matching hedonic versus utilitarian arguments and products. Mark Lett 27, 131–142 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9320-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9320-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation