Effects of Inconsistent Attribute Information on the Predictive Value of Product Attitudes: Toward a Resolution of Opposing Perspectives

By Jaideep Sengupta, Gita V. Johar. 2002

234 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Marketing, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/263e48582b06c40afda3ae861e6f3ae26f939190

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Marketing

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

A Selective Hypothesis Testing Perspective on Price-Quality Inference and Inference-Based Choice (2005, background): “By contrast, inconsistency resolution requires effortful elaborative processing that is likely to occur at a later stage of information processing (Sengupta & Johar, 2002; Wyer & Srull, 1989).”
Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. (2006, background): “It is assumed that highly motivated individuals are able to integrate ambiguous information in a single evaluative dimension (Sengupta & Johar, 2002; Tesser & Cowan, 1977).”
The Handbook of Attitudes (2005, background): “43 24 /9 78 14 10 61 28 23 .c h3 I I 0 FABRIC;AR, r,L\CDONALD, \VEGENER Sengupta and Johar (2002) explored the apparent contradiction between Jonas et al. (1997) and other ambivalence studies.”
When Blemishing Leads to Blossoming: The Positive Effect of Negative Information (2012, background): “…likely—that extensive, severe, or central negatives (or negative information from a valued group member) after initial positive information would create difficult-to-reconcile inconsistencies that preempt the blemishing effect (e.g., Duhachek, Zhang, and Krishnan 2007; Sengupta and Johar 2002).”
The good, the bad, and the ugly: Influence of aesthetics on product feature judgments (2010, background): “Assuming that consumers possess the cognitive resources to recognize the inconsistency, they should be motivated to resolve it and, in so doing, elaborate on the conflicting, verbally described feature (Maheswaran & Chaiken, 1991; Sengupta & Johar, 2002).”
Categorization theory and research in consumer psychology: category representation and category-based inference (2008, background): “Multiple goals associated with a category may coexist within a single individual (Sengupta & Johar, 2002).”
Gender-related reactions to gratuitous sex appeals in advertising (2008, methodology): “Attitude ambivalence was measured by asking participants about their reactions to the ad on a set of three 11-point scales going from 0 (no indecision/no conflict/ completely one-sided reactions )t o 10 (a lot of indecision/a lot of conflict/completely mixed reactions; alpha=.81; Priester & Petty, 1”
Two Roads to Updating Brand Personality Impressions: Trait versus Evaluative Inferencing (2005, background): “In this case, additional information containing different evaluative implications from initial information may not lead to updating but rather increased ambivalence about the brand’s personality on the dimension in question (Sengupta and Johar 2002).”
Capitalizing on Content: Information Adoption in Two Online communities (2008, background): “Resolving inconsistencies between newly received information and previously held understandings and beliefs is a difficult cognitive task (Abelson, 1983) that entails systematic processing (Jain and Maheswaran, 2000, Sengupta and Johar, 2002).”