Marketing Letters

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 131–142 | Cite as

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

Article

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.

Keywords

Hedonic and utilitarian products Information processing Goal congruency 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chernev, A. (2004). The goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 141–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: the role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gill, T. (2008). Convergent products: what functionalities add more value to the base? Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodstein, R. C. (1993). Category-based applications and extensions in advertising: motivating more extensive ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (1998). The effects of extensions on brand name dilution and enhancement. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 464–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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/Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Labroo, A. A., & Kim, S. (2009). The “instrumentality” heuristic: why metacognitive difficulty is desirable during goal pursuit. Psychological Science, 20(1), 127–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements: toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of in information processing: review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 473–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyers-Levy, J., & Malaviya, P. (1999). Consumers’ processing of persuasive advertisements: an integrative framework of persuasion theories. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mittal, B. (1989). The role of affective choice mode in the consumer purchase of expressive products. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9(4), 499–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shavitt, S. (1990). The role of attitude objects in attitude functions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(2), 124–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sirgy, J. M. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in preference construction. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yeung, C. W. M., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2004). Affect, appraisal, and consumer judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 412–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marketing and Brand ManagementUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.School of Communication, Journalism and MarketingMassey University, Albany CampusAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations