der markt

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 148–162 | Cite as

Werbung mit irrelevanten Produktattributen

  • Heribert Gierl
  • Tina Großmann
Irrelevante Produktattribute


In this article we describe four types of so-called irrelevant attributes which are often used in marketing practice. First, we give some examples to illustrate these types. Then we present theories explaining the effects of these irrelevant attributes on product attractiveness. We give an overview of relevant studies published in literature and add findings from new experiments to the existing literature. The results show that there is neither a general positive nor a general negative effect of irrelevant attributes. Depending on the type of an irrelevant attribute and its valence a positive or a negative effect on product attractiveness can be observed.


Produktdifferenzierung Konversationsnormen Biased Hypothesis Testing Anchoring & Adjustment Schematheorie 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alba, J.W./Hasher, L. (1983): Is Memory Schematic? in: Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 93 (2), S. 203–231.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J.R. (1983): A Spreading Activation Theory of Memory, in: Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 22 (3), S. 261–295.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, H.H./Albrecht, C.-M./Neumann, M.M./Haber, T.E. (2007): Die Wirkung irrelevanter Attribute in der Markenkommunikation, in: Marketing ZFP, Vol. 29 (2), S. 73–89.Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, G.S./Glazer, R./Nakamoto, K. (1994): Meaningful Brands from Meaningless Differentiation: The Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 (3), S. 339–350.Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter, G.S./Nakamoto, K. (1987): Market Pioneering, Learning and Preferences, in: Houston, M.J. (Ed.): Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, S. 275–279.Google Scholar
  6. Chaiken, S. (1980): Heuristic versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source versus Message Cues in Persuasion, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39 (5), S. 752–766.Google Scholar
  7. Chaiken, S. (1987): The Heuristic Model of Persuasion, in: Zanna, M.P./Olson, J.M./Herman, C.P. (Eds.): Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 5, Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, S. 3–39.Google Scholar
  8. Chaiken, S./Liberman, A./Eagly, A.H. (1989): Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing within and beyond the Persuasion Context, in: Uleman, J.S./ Bargh, J.A. (Eds.): Unintended Thought. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, S. 212–252.Google Scholar
  9. Chaiken, S./Maheswaran, D. (1994): Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 66 (3), S. 460–473.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, A.M./Loftus, E.F. (1975): A Spreading Activation Theory of Semantic Processing, in: Psychological Review, Vol. 82 (6), S. 407–428.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, A.M./Quillian, M.R. (1969): Retrieval Time from Semantic Memory, in: Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 8 (2), S. 240–247.Google Scholar
  12. Eagly, A.H./Chaiken, S. (1993): The Psychology of Attitudes, Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Escalas, J.E./Bettman, J.R. (2003): You Are What They Eat: The Influence of Reference Groups on Consumers’ Connections to Brands, in: Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 (3), S. 339–348.Google Scholar
  14. Fiske, S.T. (1982): Schema-Triggert Affect: Applications to Social Perception, in: Clark, M.S./Fiske, S.T. (Eds.): Affect and Cognition in the Seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, Hillsdale, S. 55–78.Google Scholar
  15. Gardner, D.M. (1975): Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach, in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 (1), S. 40–46.Google Scholar
  16. Grice, H.P. (1975): Logic and Conversation, in: Cole, P./Morgan, J.L. (Eds.): Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Act, New York, NY: Academic Press, S. 41–58.Google Scholar
  17. Grice, H.P. (1980): Logik und Gesprächsanalyse, in: Kußmaul, P. (Hrsg.): Sprechakttheorie, Wlesbaden: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion.Google Scholar
  18. Grice, H.P. (1981): Presupposition and Conversational Implicature, in: Cole, P. (Ed.): Radical Pragmatics, New York, S. 183–198.Google Scholar
  19. Grice, H.P. (1991): The Conception of Value, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ha, Y.-M./Hoch, S.J. (1989): Ambiguity, Processing Strategy, and Advertising: Evidence Interactions, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 (3), S. 354–360.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, R.J./Monaco, G.E. (1978): Psychology of Pragmatic Implication: Information Processing between the Lines, in: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 107 (1), S. 1–22.Google Scholar
  22. Higgins, E.T./King, G. (1981): Accessibility of Social Constructs: Information-Processing Consequences of Individual and Contextual Variability, in: Cantor, N./ Kihlstrom, J.F. (Eds.): Personality, Cognition, and Social Interaction, Hillsdale; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, S. 69–121.Google Scholar
  23. Higgins, E.T./Rholes, W.S./Jones, C.R. (1977): Category Accessibility and Impression Formation, in: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 13 (2), S. 141–153.Google Scholar
  24. Higgins, T.E. (1996): Knowlegde Activiation: Accessibility, Applicability, and Salience, in: Higgins, T.E./Kruglanski, A.W. (Eds.): Social Psychology Handbook of Basic Principles, New York NY: Guilford Press, S. 133–168.Google Scholar
  25. Hoch, S.J./Ha, Y.-M. (1986): Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 (2), S. 221–233.Google Scholar
  26. Houston, D.A./Fazio, R.H. (1989): Biased Processing as a Function of Attitude Accessibility: Making Objective Judgments Subjectively, in: Social Cognition, Vol. 7 (1), S. 51–66.Google Scholar
  27. Jacowitz, K.E./Kahneman, D. (1995): Measuring of Anchoring in Estimation Tasks, in: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 21 (11), S. 1161–1166.Google Scholar
  28. Levinson, S.C. (2000): Pragmatik, 2. Aufl., Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  29. Loftus, E.F. (1975): Spreading Activation within Semantic Categories: Comments on Rosch’s “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories”, in: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 104 (3), S. 234–240.Google Scholar
  30. Lynch, J./Schuler, D. (1994): The Matchup Effect of Spokespersons and Product Congruency: A Schema Theory Interpretation, in: Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 11 (5), S. 417–445.Google Scholar
  31. Meyvis, T./Janiszewski, C. (2002): Consumers’ Beliefs about Product Benefits: The Effect of Obviously Irrelevant Product Information, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 (4), S. 618–635.Google Scholar
  32. Misra, S./Beatty, S.E. (1990): Celebrity Spokesperson and Brand Congruence — An Assessment of Recall and Affect, in: Journal of Business Research, Vol. 21 (2), S. 159–173.Google Scholar
  33. Mukherjee, A./Hoyer, W.D. (2001): The Effect of Novel Attributes on Product Evaluation, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 (3), S. 462–472.Google Scholar
  34. Mussweiler, T./Förster, J./Strack, F. (1997): Der Ankereffekt in Abhängigkeit ankerkonsistenter Information: Ein Modell selektiver Zugänglichkeit, in: Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, Vol. 44 (4), S. 589–615.Google Scholar
  35. Mussweiler, T./Strack, F. (1999): Hypothesis-Consistent Testing and Semantic Priming in the Anchoring Paradigm: A Selective Accessibility Model, in: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 35 (2), S. 136–164.Google Scholar
  36. Mussweiler, T./Strack, F. (2001): The Semantics of Anchoring, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 (2), S. 234–255.Google Scholar
  37. Nowlis, S.M./Simonson, I. (1996): The Effect of New Product Features on Brand Choice, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33 (1), S. 36–46.Google Scholar
  38. Petty R.E./Cacioppo, J.T. (1983): Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: Application to Advertising, in: Percy, L./Woodside, A. (Eds.): Advertising and Consumer Psychology, Lexington: Lexington Books, S. 3–23.Google Scholar
  39. Petty, R.E./Cacioppo, J.T. (1984): The Effects of Involvement on Responses to Argument Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 46 (1), S. 69–81.Google Scholar
  40. Petty, R.E./Cacioppo, J.T. (1986): Communication and Persuasion, Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Petty, R.E./Cacioppo, J.T./Goldman, R. (1981): Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-Based-Persuasion, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 41 (5), S. 847–855.Google Scholar
  42. Quillian, M.R. (1968): Semantic Memory, in: Minsky, M. (Ed.): Semantic Information Processing, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, S. 216–270.Google Scholar
  43. Schwarz, N./Strack, F./Hilton, D./Naderer, G. (1991): Base Rates, Representativeness and the Logic of Conversation: The Contextual Relevance of «Irrelevant» Information, in: Social Cognition, Vol. 9 (1), S. 67–84.Google Scholar
  44. Schwarz, N. (1996): Cognition and Communication: Judgmental Biases, Research Methods, and the Logic of Conversation, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  45. Simonson, I./Carmon, Z./O’Curry, S. (1994): Experimental Evidence on the Negative Effect of Product Features and Sales Promotions on Brand Choice, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 13 (1), S. 23–40.Google Scholar
  46. Snyder, M./Cantor, N. (1979): Testing Hypothesis about Other People: The Use of Historical Knowledge, in: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 15 (4), S. 330–342.Google Scholar
  47. Sperber D./Wilson, D. (1995): Relevance, Communication & Cognition, 2. Aufl., Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Srull, T.K./Wyer Jr. R.S. (1979): The Role of Category Accessibility in the Interpretation of Information about Persons: Some Determinants and Implications, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37 (10), S. 1660–1672.Google Scholar
  49. Tetlock, P.E./Lerner, J.S./Boettger, R. (1996): The Dilution Effect: Judgmental Bias, Conversational Convention, or a Bit of Both? in: European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 26 (6), S. 915–934.Google Scholar
  50. Till, D./Shimp, T.A. (1998): Endorsers in Advertising: The Case of Negative Celebrity Information, in: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27 (1); S. 67–82.Google Scholar
  51. Tversky, A./Kahneman, D. (1974): Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, in: Science, Vol. 185 (4157), S. 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  52. van Osselaer, S.M.J./Alba, J.W./Manchanda, P. (2004): Irrelevant Information and Mediated Intertemporal Choice, in: Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14 (3), S. 257–270.Google Scholar
  53. Venkatraman, M./Villareal, A. (1984): Semantic Processing of Information: An Exploratory Investigation, in: Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11 (1), S. 355–360.Google Scholar
  54. Wansink, B./Kent, R.J./Hoch, S.J. (1998): An Anchoring and Adjustment Model for Purchase Quantity Decisions, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 (1), S. 71–81.Google Scholar
  55. Wedell, D.H. (1990): Methods for Determining the Locus of Context Effects in Judgment, in: Caverni, J.-P./Fabre, J.-P./ Gonzalez, M. (Eds.): Cognitive Biases, Amsterdam: Northholland, S. 285–302.Google Scholar
  56. Wilson, T.D./Houston, C./Etling, K.M./Brekke, N. (1994): Anchoring versus Adjustment Errors in Judgment: The Generalizability of Anchoring Effects, Unpublished Working Paper, University of Virginia, zitiert in: Jacowitz, K.E./Kahneman, D. (1995): Measuring of Anchoring in Estimation Tasks, in: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 21 (11), S. 1161–1166.Google Scholar
  57. Wyer, Jr. R.S. (2002): Language and Advertising Effectiveness: Mediating Influences of Comprehension and Cognitive Elaboration, in: Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19 (7/8), S. 693–712.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heribert Gierl
    • 1
  • Tina Großmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre mit dem Schwerpunkt Marketing an der Universität AugsburgAugsburg

Personalised recommendations