Advertisement

Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 439–447 | Cite as

The role of situational involvement in consumers' attitude polarization

  • Ruth Ann Smith
Research Notes

Abstract

This investigation examines the effect of consumers' situational involvement on attitude polarization. The level of involvement of subjects with well-developed restaurant schemas was manipulated, and evaluations of a group of restaurants were obtained on three different occasions under conditions favorable to attitude polarization. Contrary to expectations, the evaluations exhibited no tendency toward greater extremity, even when situational involvement was high. Although inconsistent with some previous findings about attitude polarization, the results are explained in terms of schema complexity and structure. Managerial implications are discussed.

Keywords

Social Psychology Social Issue Managerial Implication Attitude Polarization Schema Complexity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text.Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177–220.Google Scholar
  2. Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction.Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 491–504.Google Scholar
  3. Clary, E. G., Tesser, A., & Downing, L. L. (1978). Influence of a salient schema on thought-induced cognitive change.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 39–43.Google Scholar
  4. Hoch, S. J., & Ha, Y. (1986). Consumer learning: Advertising and the ambiguity of product experience.Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 221–233.Google Scholar
  5. Houston, M. J., & Rothschild, M. L. (1977). A paradigm for research on consumer involvement. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin, Graduate School of Business, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  6. Houston, M. J., & Rothschild, M. L. (1978). Conceputal and methodological perspectives on involvement. In S. C. Jain (Ed.),1978 educators' proceedings (pp. 184–187). Chicago: American Marketing Association.Google Scholar
  7. John, G., & Whitney, J. C., Jr. (1982). An empirical investigation of the serial structure of scripts. In B. J. Walker, W. O. Bearden, W. R. Darden, P. E. Murphy, J. R. Nevin, J. C. Olson, & B. A. Weitz (Eds.),An assessment of marketing thought and practice (pp. 75–79). Chicago: American Marketing Association.Google Scholar
  8. Judd, C. M., & Lusk, C. M. (1984). Knowledge structures and evaluative judgments: Effects of structural variables on judgmental extremity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1193–1207.Google Scholar
  9. Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement.Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 349–356.Google Scholar
  10. Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles.Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 41–53.Google Scholar
  11. MacKenzie, S., & Mick, D. (1987, October).The moderating effect of product knowledge and style of processing on the attitude polarization process. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Consumer Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Olshavsky, R. W., & Granbois, D. H. (1979). Consumer decision making—fact or fiction?Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 93–100.Google Scholar
  13. Richins, M. H., & Bloch, P. H. (1986). After the new wears off: The temporal context of product involvement.Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 280–285.Google Scholar
  14. Rothschild, M. L. (1979). Advertising strategies for high and low involvement situations. In J. Maloney & B. Silverman (Eds.),Attitude research plays for high stakes (pp. 74–93). Chicago: American Marketing Association.Google Scholar
  15. Sadler, O., & Tesser, A. (1973). Some effects of salience and time upon interpersonal hostility and attraction during social interaction.Sociometry, 36, 99–112.Google Scholar
  16. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977).Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.).Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 289–338). NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Tesser, A., & Conlee, M. C. (1975). Some effects of time and thought on attitude polarization.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 262–270.Google Scholar
  19. Tesser, A., & Cowan, C. L. (1977). Some attitudinal and cognitive consequences of thought.Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 216–226.Google Scholar
  20. Tesser, A., & Leone, C. (1976). Cognitive schemas and thought as determinants of attitude change.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 340–356.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruth Ann Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations