The Moderating Influence of Depth of Processing on Order of Entry Framing Effects

Karen H. Smith, University of Texas at Austin
ABSTRACT - Recent work in the pioneering literature has examined the competitive advantage created by the framing of consumer perceptions about a new product category. This paper proposes that order of entry framing effects are moderated by consumers' depth of information processing. The preference asymmetry resulting from the framing of category perceptions is posited to result from category-based, rather than attribute-based, brand comparisons. If consumers tend to or can be induced to make attribute-level brand comparisons, differentiation may be unnecessary for consumers to consider the purchase of later entering brands. Further, differentiation may fail to attract consumers who make category-level, rather than attribute-level, brand comparisons. Ten propositions that describe the moderating influence of depth of information processing on order of entry framing effects are presented. Methodological considerations in testing the propositions are also discussed.
[ to cite ]:
Karen H. Smith (1993) ,"The Moderating Influence of Depth of Processing on Order of Entry Framing Effects", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 20, eds. Leigh McAlister and Michael L. Rothschild, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 219-223.

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 20, 1993      Pages 219-223

THE MODERATING INFLUENCE OF DEPTH OF PROCESSING ON ORDER OF ENTRY FRAMING EFFECTS

Karen H. Smith, University of Texas at Austin

ABSTRACT -

Recent work in the pioneering literature has examined the competitive advantage created by the framing of consumer perceptions about a new product category. This paper proposes that order of entry framing effects are moderated by consumers' depth of information processing. The preference asymmetry resulting from the framing of category perceptions is posited to result from category-based, rather than attribute-based, brand comparisons. If consumers tend to or can be induced to make attribute-level brand comparisons, differentiation may be unnecessary for consumers to consider the purchase of later entering brands. Further, differentiation may fail to attract consumers who make category-level, rather than attribute-level, brand comparisons. Ten propositions that describe the moderating influence of depth of information processing on order of entry framing effects are presented. Methodological considerations in testing the propositions are also discussed.

Pioneering firms have been shown to achieve greater profitability and maintain higher market shares than their later rivals in a product category (Lieberman and Montgomery 1988; Robinson and Fornell 1985; Urban, Carter, Gaskin, and Mucha 1986). Lieberman and Montgomery (1988) review the mechanisms by which pioneering firms obtain these advantages and classify them into three groups: leadership in technology, preemption of assets, and development of tangible or intangible buyer switching costs. More recent work has focused on creating intangible switching costs via framing of consumer perceptions about a new product category. It has been proposed that a pioneer can influence the formation of consumer ideal points by defining the attributes perceived as being important (Carpenter and Nakamoto 1988, 1989). Using this mechanism, a pioneer may actually create the most attractive niche, rather than merely filling it. The essential element of a strong first-mover advantage is the creation of an asymmetry in preferences between the pioneer and later entrants which is very resistant to change.

An important factor that has not been considered in the framing literature is the depth of information processing used by consumers in making brand comparisons. Pursuit of a "me-too" strategy by later entrants has been successful in certain markets (e.g., IBM-compatible PCs, private label brands of clothing), while in other markets, differentiation has been the only successful strategy against the pioneer (Schnaars 1986; Carpenter and Nakamoto 1989, 1990). Depth of processing may account for some of the differences in the success of copy cats vs differentiated brands across product categories.

This paper contributes to the stream of research on pioneering advantage in two ways. First, it builds on the literature of pioneering advantage by further exploring the psychological basis of preference asymmetry due to framing. Drawing on additional findings from the categorization and elaboration likelihood literatures, it is proposed that the level of processing used in forming brand evaluations moderates order of entry framing effects on consumer preferences. Second, it sets forth testable propositions regarding this relationship and suggests some ways in which consumer segments likely to process the differentiated attributes of later entrants can be identified. Methodological considerations in testing the propositions are also discussed.

BACKGROUND LITERATURE AND PROPOSITIONS

Pioneering Advantage via the Framing Mechanism

Carpenter and Nakamoto (1988) suggest that rather than choosing the best position in the attribute space, a pioneer can create it by framing consumer perceptions about a new product category. These authors postulate that product categories are more similar to ad hoc or goal-derived categories as described by Barsalou (1983, 1985) than to natural categories as traditionally studied in the categorization literature (e.g., Rosch, 1978). Upon encountering an unfamiliar product category, a consumer has poorly informed expectations about brands and product attributes and develops category knowledge gradually through direct experience.

In the case of a new product, most consumer learning about the product category may occur when only one brand is available. Therefore, the initial experiences with the pioneer frame the consumer's perceptions about the category, establishing the defining features and category ideals. The order of consumer learning creates a context effect in which the pioneer is perceived as highly representative of the category and is viewed as the category prototype (Carpenter and Nakamoto 1988, 1989). Because of the goal-derived nature of the product category, representativeness is closely linked to brand preference (Loken and Ward 1990; Barsalou 1983, 1985). The prototype becomes the standard to which later entrants are compared, creating an asymmetry in preferences between the pioneer and later entrants. The result of this asymmetry is that later entering brands positioned near the pioneer are less preferred, even though they are also near the ideal point (Carpenter and Nakamoto 1989, 1990). Furthermore, these preferences will tend to be long-lived due to the persistence of category and brand expectations (Fiske 1982).

In addition to greater preference for the pioneer, Kardes and Kalyanaram (1992) have found additional framing effects due to order of entry. Sequential exposure to brand information tends to increase learning about the pioneer and decrease learning about later entrants. The authors found that recall of attributes was much lower for later entrants than for the pioneer, regardless of whether these attributes were shared with the pioneer or unique to later entrants. The authors concluded that shared attributes of later entrants are overlooked because they are considered redundant, while unique features fail to gain attention due to a truncated search process. The authors also found that preferences toward the pioneer were more extreme and held with more confidence than preferences toward other brands.

Therefore, the pioneer enjoys several advantages due to the framing of perceptions: (1) influencing the values consumers place on different attributes and the ideal attribute combination, (2) becoming the standard or prototype for the category resulting in a competitive distinctiveness, (3) influencing what attributes are learned and remembered by consumers, (4) enhancing the extremity of consumer preferences, and (5) enhancing consumers' confidence in their preferences.

However, some consumers may begin using the product only after several brands become available. Their preferences will be less likely to exhibit the asymmetry due to framing since most category learning was not focused on the pioneer alone. Kardes and Kalyanaram (1992) found that simultaneous exposure to all brands can eliminate order of entry effects on learning and preference. Thus framing effects will be stronger for consumers who acquired most of their category knowledge when the pioneer was the only brand on the market. This leads to the first proposition:

P1: Order of entry framing effects will be stronger for consumers who began learning about the product when the pioneer was the only brand available, relative to consumers who began learning about the product when several brands were available.

Even if most category learning does occur prior to the availability of later entrants, the strength and persistence of the framing effect may vary across consumers. Therefore, the next two sections examine the categorization and elaboration likelihood literatures for suggestions regarding the types of consumers who are more likely to attend to and process information about later entrants. As a result, propositions are set forth regarding the ways in which depth of processing moderates the framing effect on consumer perceptions.

Categorization and Heuristic Processing

Categorization conserves cognitive resources by allowing one to structure information in memory, thereby increasing the amount of data that can be assimilated with a given amount of effort (Rosch 1978). Category knowledge is a pattern of expectations about the category, that is, a set of hypotheses about what attributes go together, what constitutes typical configurations of attributes and what performance levels can be expected from various attribute combinations (Sujan 1985).

Development of heuristics based on category knowledge saves cognitive effort in decision making (Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Sherman and Corty 1984). Within a product category, later entry is difficult because consumers tend to know and favor the pioneering brand. They have no reason to experiment with later entering brands, resulting in a truncation of the search process (Schmalensee 1982; Kardes and Kalyanaram 1992). This suggests that consumers may use the brand name of the pioneer as an heuristic in decision making, allowing them to make a sound choice with little cognitive effort. Thus, consumers may compare new brands to the pioneer using holistic or category-based processing, without exerting the effort necessary to process brand information at the attribute level. On the other hand, if consumers make attribute-level brand comparisons, they may know that later entrants have the same attributes as the pioneer and evaluate them similarly.

These findings suggest that preference asymmetry may be enhanced by category-based processing. If some consumers tend to (or can be induced to) process information at the attribute level, then the pioneer's competitive advantage may be weakened even without differentiation, as in the case of IBM compatible PCs. Thus:

P2: Order of entry framing effects on preference are moderated by depth of processing. The effects will be stronger for consumers who form brand evaluations about later entering brands via category-based processes, relative to consumers who form brand evaluations via attribute-based processes.

In empirical tests of recall, features of a category member that are consistent with the category are often better remembered than inconsistent features because activation of general category knowledge makes such features readily available without reference to specific knowledge about a particular member (Fiske 1982). Inconsistent features may be perceived as irrelevant and, therefore, ignored, so that they are never encoded into memory. However, if a less typical member is made salient in some way or if the individual is given sufficient time to process an incongruent feature, this inconsistency often has a favorable impact in terms of attention, evaluation, and memory (Fiske 1982).

In a product evaluation context, it has been shown that a mismatch between a brand's characteristics and category expectations can lead to greater information processing by the consumer as he attempts to assimilate or accommodate the inconsistency with prior knowledge (Sujan 1985; Sherman and Corty 1984). For some products, differentiation via an extremely discrepant attribute or via several salient attributes may be required to stimulate processing. Elaboration on inconsistent features can result in a more favorable attitude toward the product if the distinctive attributes are favorable (Fiske and Pavelchak 1986) or if the incongruity can be resolved in a way favoring the distinctive product (Mandler 1982; Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989). While some brands resort to differentiation based on some unimportant or irrelevant attribute that fails to convince consumers of its superiority, these "meaningless" attributes have been shown to be effective in some cases (Carpenter, Glazer, and Nakamoto 1992). Thus, a differentiated later entrant may receive a more favorable evaluation than a "me-too" brand:

P3: Differentiation diminishes order of entry framing effects by inducing attribute-level processing by consumers.

However, some consumers may continue to use heuristics in decision-making even when new brands are differentiated because the unique attributes of later entrants fail to gain their attention (Kardes and Kalyanaram 1992). Use of heuristics by consumers is more likely with high time pressure, when the cognitive processing system is overloaded, or with low involvement. Novices tend to use heuristics more often than experts since they lack the necessary knowledge structures for attribute-level processing. However, experts may also use heuristics since greater knowledge about a category can induce automaticity, that is, automatic invocation of learned rules, as long as they feel that the heuristic is performing well (Sherman and Corty 1984).

Urbany, Dickson, and Wilkie (1989) distinguish between knowledge uncertainty (what information is important in making a choice) and choice uncertainty (which brand to choose). They found that some subjects were certain about which brand they would choose even though they were uncertain about what attributes were important, and this group engaged in the least amount of information search. Urbany, et. al., concluded that "high knowledge uncertainty/low choice uncertainty consumers were more likely to engage quickly a simple, satisficing choice heuristic that overrode any consideration of alternative evaluation" (Urbany, Dickson, and Wilkie 1989, p. 213). Another important finding was that the low knowledge uncertainty/low choice uncertainty group also engaged in very little information search. Thus, even knowledgeable consumers may stay with the brand they have always used.

This suggests that many consumers use simple heuristics in decision-making, where they make brand comparisons via holistic, category-based processes without considering the specific attributes of later entrants. Thus:

P4: Differentiation will be less effective in diminishing order of entry framing effects for consumers who form brand evaluations about later entering brands via category-based processes, relative to consumers who form brand evaluations via attribute-based processes.

If differentiation fails to enhance information processing, it is unlikely to be successful. Hence, consumers who process brand information at the attribute level will be more likely to try to accommodate differentiated attributes of later entering brands that are incongruent with category expectations, and they may be more likely to consider purchasing these later entering brands. The next section discusses the primary individual difference variables that have been found to influence the level of processing.

Elaboration Likelihood: Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability

MacInnis and Jaworski (1989) define level of processing as depth of understanding about a brand brought about by greater attention allocated to the brand and greater cognitive capacity allocated to brand analysis. Consumers with greater motivation, opportunity, and/or ability (MOA) to process have been found to process brand information more deeply (Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983; Alba and Hutchinson 1987; MacInnis and Jaworski 1989).

Motivation is defined as the desire to process brand information encountered. It requires goal-directed arousal, where the object of motivation is to evaluate the brand. The relevance of brand information to activated needs is the mechanism that stimulates processing (Bettman 1979; MacInnis and Jaworski 1989).

An essential component of motivation is product involvement, which has been defined as "bridging experiences" between an individual's own life and the stimulus (Krugman 1965). Involvement is a necessary, though not sufficient, element to induce arousal or desire to process brand information (MacInnis and Jaworski 1989). For example, a consumer may be highly involved in sports cars, thus attending to and processing a lot of information he encounters about the product category. However, if he is actually going to purchase one, he is more highly motivated to process information which enables him to distinguish among the brands available to meet his consumption needs:

P5: Consumers who are highly motivated to distinguish among brands in the product category will be more likely to process information about the differentiated attributes of later entrants, relative to consumers who are less motivated.

Ability is defined as skill or proficiency in interpreting brand information. Lack of ability implies that knowledge structures necessary to perform more complex operations either do not exist or cannot be accessed (MacInnis and Jaworski 1989). In choosing among competing brands, consumers may not have sufficient knowledge to determine optimal attribute levels.

Expertise has been found to influence information search and decision-making. Prior knowledge generally makes it easier to search for and assimilate information. In addition, experts tend to weight functional product information more heavily, while novices may rely on peripheral cues such as brand name or a spokesperson's traits (Alba and Hutchinson 1987). Carpenter and Nakamoto (1989) manipulated ambiguity by either providing or omitting objective information on important attributes. Giving the subjects this information is, in a way, providing them with "expertise" in the product category. Those who were given objective information showed less preference for the pioneering brand. Thus, research on level of knowledge suggests that:

P6: Consumers with greater knowledge about the product category will be more likely to process information about the differentiated attributes of later entrants, relative to consumers with less category knowledge.

In addition to motivation and ability, the consumer must have an opportunity to process. Opportunity to process is defined as "the extent to which circumstances evidenced during exposure to brand information are favorable for brand processing" (MacInnis and Jaworski 1989, p. 7). Analytic processing is inhibited by such factors as time pressure, interference from other tasks or information about other products, and information overload (Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Celsi and Olson 1988).

P7: Consumers with greater opportunity to process will be more likely to process information about the differentiated attributes of later entrants, relative to consumers with less opportunity.

Because those engaged in holistic, category-level processing will tend to rely on heuristics in decision-making, such as brand name of the pioneer, they may not attend to the distinctive attributes of later entrants. Therefore, order of entry will have a greater effect on preference for consumers processing holistically. Alternatively, consumers who are more likely to process attribute-level information about later entrants will exhibit less preference for the pioneer. Thus:

P8: The impact of differentiation on order of entry framing effects is moderated by depth of processing. Consumers with greater motivation, ability, and/or opportunity to process the differentiated attributes of later entrants will exhibit less preference for the pioneer, relative to consumers with less motivation, ability, and/or opportunity.

While studies have indicated a relationship between typicality and attitude, it is likely that those who process more deeply may not prefer the prototypical brand because of greater consideration of unique attributes of other brands. For example, some consumers may consider McDonald's to be the prototypical fast-food restaurant, yet prefer Burger King because its food is not prepared in advance. Therefore:

P9: Consumers who process the differentiated attributes of later entrants will exhibit less preference for the pioneer, even when they continue to perceive it as the prototype.

However, consumers with greater expertise and involvement often continue to rely on heuristics in choice. For these consumers, advertising cues that induce deeper processing may be required for them to re-evaluate the decision heuristic they generally use for that product category (MacInnis, Moorman, and Jaworski 1991). Such cues include providing a use context which relates product use to the consumer's self-image or arouses the curiosity of the consumer (MacInnis, Moorman, and Jaworski 1991). Since many consumers treat brand information as tentative hypotheses to be tested through experience (Hoch and Ha 1986), free samples which encourage trial of new brands may also lessen the pioneer's advantage. If the product is of a technical nature, free seminars on learning how to use it or how to enhance its usefulness may increase actual trial. Therefore:

P10: Differentiation will be more effective in diminishing order of entry framing effects when combined with advertising cues designed to increase attribute-level processing.

CONCLUSIONS AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Some consumers may make attribute-level comparisons of new brands relative to the pioneer, rather than forming brand evaluations holistically. Consumers who process the differentiated attributes of later entrants may require a greater number of dimensions to describe the perceptual space representing their ideal point and how they perceive brands to be positioned. The greater number of dimensions in representing the relationships among brands may help break down the preference asymmetry effect by allowing consumers to compare brands along several dimensions. Thus, preference asymmetry with respect to the pioneering brand may result only for consumers who compare brands to the pioneer using a category-based process. This may explain why me-too brands have been successful in certain markets.

In the categorization literature, it has been shown that the degree of match between a brand and its product category tends to influence the level of processing (Sujan, 1985). A me-too brand may be perceived as a good match to the category, so that consumers evaluate it holistically. They may perceive it as being inferior to the pioneering brand, rejecting the claim that it has the same attributes as the pioneer. On the other hand, a differentiated brand represents a mismatch with category-based expectations. Depending on the degree of mismatch, consumers may process brand information more deeply, evaluating the distinctive attributes of a later entrant. Therefore, differentiation may be a more effective way of competing against the pioneer because it tends to foster attribute-level processing.

However, some consumers may be unable or unwilling to expend the cognitive effort necessary to critically evaluate information about distinctive attributes of new brands. They may continue to compare even differentiated brands to the pioneer in a holistic manner. The literature on elaboration likelihood suggests that consumers with higher levels of motivation, opportunity, and/or ability to process will be more likely to attend to, process, and remember brand information encountered (Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983; MacInnis and Jaworski 1989). These consumers will be more likely to consider claims made by later entrants about the superiority of their differentiated attributes. In addition, cues in advertising messages can induce deeper processing by enhancing the consumer's motivation, opportunity, and/or ability as suggested by MacInnis, Moorman, and Jaworski (1991). For differentiation to be effective, level of processing may also need to be considered.

Although lists of consumers with greater expertise and involvement are not available per se, surrogates for these variables may help target such groups. Subscribers of magazines or members of organizations focusing on the product category are often easy to obtain and may include individuals who have greater expertise and/or involvement in certain areas. Of course, if the product is totally new, this expertise/involvement may involve the more superordinate product class. For example, if the product is a new class of software, those who read PC Magazine may be generally very knowledgeable about using and evaluating software, even though they have no prior knowledge about the particular software being introduced.

Knowledge and involvement tend to be highly correlated, and reinforcing, constructs. It is not always feasible to separate them. In testing the propositions presented here, it may be desirable to combine the two, segregating consumers with high knowledge and involvement from those who are low on both. Although, for common, repeat-purchase products (e.g., skin care products, household items), it may possible to isolate the effects of knowledge by holding involvement at a constant, low level. Opportunity is fairly straight-forward to manipulate in an experimental setting by enforcing time constraints for making brand evaluations or by creating interference from unrelated information.

Another way to test the influence of processing would be to segregate a group of consumers who are low on both knowledge and involvement and manipulate the use of advertising cues designed to enhance processing. This procedure would allow an assessment of the effectiveness of such cues and the extent to which framing effects of the pioneer are reduced.

In summary, this paper extends previous work on pioneering by further investigating the psychological basis of order of entry framing effects and setting forth testable propositions regarding this relationship. Depth of processing may be a crucial factor in diminishing the framing effects created by a market pioneer. Differentiation by a later entrant often prompts attention and critical evaluation of attributes as consumers attempt to reconcile the incongruity with category knowledge. However, for some products a consideration of individual difference variables and/or advertising cues that enhance processing may be as important as differentiation in moderating the effects of framing.

REFERENCES

Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), "Dimensions of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), 411-454.

Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1983), "Ad hoc Categories," Memory and Cognition, 11 (3), 211-227.

Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1985), "Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of Instantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure in Categories," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11 (October), 629-654.

Bettman, James R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Carpenter, Gregory S., Rashi Glazer, and Kent Nakamoto (1992), "Meaningful Brands from Meaningless Differentiation: The Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes," unpublished working paper.

Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto (1988), "Market Pioneering, Learning, and Preference," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15.

Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto (1989), "Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage," Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (August), 285-298.

Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto (1990), "Competitive Strategies for Late Entry into a Market with a Dominant Brand," Management Science, 36 (October), 1268-1278.

Celsi, Richard L. and Jerry C. Olson (1988), "The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 210-224.

Fiske, Susan T. (1982), "Schema-triggered Affect: Applications to Social Perception," in Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, eds. Margaret S. Clarke and Susan T. Fiske, Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 55-78.

Fiske, Susan T. and Mark A. Pavelchak (1986), "Category-based versus Piecemeal-based Affective Responses: Developments in Schema-Triggered Affect," in Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, eds. R. M. Sorrentino and E. Tory Higgins, New York: Guilford Press.

Hoch, Stephen J. and Young-Won Ha (1986), "Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 221-233.

Kardes, Frank R. and Gurumurthy Kalyanaram (1992), "Order-of-Entry Effects on Consumer Memory and Judgment: An Information Integration Perspective," Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 343-357.

Krugman, Herbert E. (1965), "The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning without Involvement," Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Fall), 349-356.

Lieberman, Marvin B. and David B. Montgomery (1988), "First-Mover Advantages," Strategic Management Journal, 9, 41-58.

Loken, Barbara and James Ward (1990), "Alternative Approaches to Understanding the Determinants of Typicality," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 111-126.

MacInnis, Deborah J. and Bernard J. Jaworski (1989), "Information Processing from Advertisements: Toward an Integrative Framework," Journal of Marketing, 53 (October), 1-23.

MacInnis, Deborah J., Christine Moorman, and Bernard J. Jaworski (1991), "Enhancing and Measuring Consumers' Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads," Journal of Marketing, 55 (October), 32-53.

Mandler, George (1982), "The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste," in Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, eds. Margaret S. Clark and Susan T. Fiske, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Meyers-Levy, Joan and Alice Tybout (1989), "Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June), 39-54.

Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann (1983), "Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135-146.

Robinson, William T. and Claes Fornell (1985), "Sources of Market Pioneer Advantages in Consumer Goods Industries," Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (August), 305-17.

Rosch, Eleanor (1978), "Principles of Categorization," in Cognition and Categorization, eds. Eleanor Rosch and B. Boyd, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schmalensee, Richard (1982), "Product Differentiation Advantages of Pioneering Brands," American Economic Review, 72 (3), 349-365.

Schnaars, Steven P. (1986), "When Entering Growth Markets, Are Pioneers Better than Poachers?" Business Horizons, 29 (March-April), 27-36.

Sherman, Steven J. and Eric Corty (1984), "Cognitive Heuristics," in Handbook of Social Cognition, vol. 1, eds. Robert S. Wyer, Jr. and Thomas K. Srull, 190-286.

Sujan, Mita (1985), "Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June), 31-46.

Urban, Glen L., Theresa Carter, Steven Gaskin, and Zofia Mucha (1989), "Market Share Rewards to Pioneering Brands: An Empirical Analysis and Strategic Implications," Management Science, 32 (June), 645-659.

Urbany, Joel E., Peter R. Dickson, and William L. Wilkie (1989), "Buyer Uncertainty and Information Search," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (September), 208-215.

----------------------------------------