knowledge product utilization_rao

8/3/2019 Knowledge Product Utilization_Rao

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/knowledge-product-utilizationrao 1/13

Journal of Consumer Research Inc.

The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product EvaluationsAuthor(s): Akshay R. Rao and Kent B. MonroeReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Sep., 1988), pp. 253-264Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489530 .

Accessed: 17/11/2011 18:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489530?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489530?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress



T h e Moderating E f f e c t o f P r i o r Knowledge o n

C u e utilization in Product Evaluati n s

AKSHAYR. RAOKENTB. MONROE**

This article examines the dissimilar use of product informationcues in product eval-uations by differentiallyfamiliar subjects. Specifically, the use of price cues andintrinsic product cues for the assessment of product quality is hypothesized todepend on prior knowledge. For a product with a positive quality-priceassociationin the marketplace, the study shows that low-familiarand highly familiarsubjectstend to perceive a stronger price-quality relationship than do moderately familiarsubjects. Moreover, as subjects' product familiarity ncreases, the use of intrinsiccues for product qualityassessments tends to become relatively stronger.

H ow consumers use information to evaluateproducts has attracted considerable empirical

research attention since Leavitt (1954) examined theuse of price in assessing product quality. Under therubric of "price-quality" or "price-perceived qual-ity" research,studies have examinedconsumers' ten-dencyto use priceand otherproduct-related nforma-tion to impute quality to consumer and industrialproducts. More recently, studies on informationsearch (Punj and Staelin 1983), recall (Johnson andRusso 1984), and use (Park and Lessig 1981) suggestthat priorproductknowledge (or familiaritywith theproduct) influences the extent to which consumerssearch for, recall, and use information in judgments

of product quality andin productchoice.The purposeof this article is to examinethe moder-

ating effect of priorproductknowledgeor familiarityon the degree to which price (an extrinsic cue) andintrinsic product information (physical and perfor-

mance attributes)are used to assess product quality.The relative use of these different nformation cues inassessing product quality should vary depending onthe extent of buyers' prior product knowledgeand theactualrelationship betweenthe cue and productqual-ity for a specific productclass.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This review examines relevant literature on theprice-perceivedquality researchstreamand the issueof priorknowledge.

Price-Perceived Quality

Conceptually, the economic and behavioral para-digms that have been used to study the price-productpurchasedecision relationship suggest that price mayplay multiple roles in this choice process. In tradi-tional economic theory, since higher prices have anegative impact on consumers' budgets, price isviewed as having a negativeinfluence on choice. But,from a behavioral perspective,price may also be per-ceived as a product quality cue (Monroe and Krish-nan 1985).Therefore, price may be viewed as an indi-cator of sacrifice,or as a qualitycue, or both.

Attempts to validate the price-qualityrelationshiphave proceededalong two differentapproaches.One

approachhas been to test whether a positive correla-tion between actual product quality and price exists.As noted by Scitovsky (1945), the tendency to useprice as an indicatorof quality merely implies the be-lief that priceis set by the competitive interplayof theforcesof supplyand demand.A higher pricemaythusbe an indicator of more expensive input in terms offactorsof production,thus suggestinga higherqualityend product.To determinewhetherthis belief isjusti-

*Thisarticle was a cowinner of the 1987 RobertFerber Awardfor ConsumerResearchcompetition for the best interdisciplinaryarticlebasedon a recentdoctoraldissertation.The award s cospon-sored by the Associationfor ConsumerResearch and the Journalof ConsumerResearch.

**AkshayR. Rao is AssistantProfessorof Marketing,TheCurtisL. CarlsonSchool of Management,Universityof Minnesota,Min-neapolis, MN 55455. Kent B. Monroe is the Robert 0. Goody-koontz Professorof Marketing,R.B. PamplinCollegeof Business,

VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,VA 24061. TheMarketingScience Institute,Cambridge,MA,par-tially funded this study through a doctoral dissertationproposalcompetitive awardto the first author. The authorswould like toacknowledge he technical advice of Joann Boles in the develop-ment of theknowledge caleandexperimental timuli.The authorswould also like to acknowledgenumerous helpful comments onearlierdraftsof this articleby TerryChilders,Michael Houston,Deborah RoedderJohn, R. Krishnan,BarbaraLoken, Ivan Ross,andOrvilleWalker.

253? JOURNALOFCONSUMER ESEARCH Vol. 15* September988



254 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

fied, studies have used some "objective" criteria toexamine whether higher-priced options are of betterquality than lower-pricedoptions (Riesz 1978, 1979;Sproles 1977). Recently, Gerstner(1985) assessedthedegree of positive correlation between quality andprice for 145 products and concluded that the rela-tionship between quality and price appeared to beproduct-specificand generallyweak.His findings sug-gest that some products display a positive quality-price association in the marketplace, but othersdo not.

Beginning with Leavitt's (1954) study, a second ap-proach has been to attempt to verify that buyers doperceive a positive price-quality relationship. Al-though the statistical significance of the various re-search efforts has been inconsistent, integrative re-views of this researchstream ndicate a positive price-perceived qualityrelationship (Monroeand Krishnan1985; Rao and Monroe 1987).

One key difference between the economic and be-havioralconceptualizations on the use of pricein pur-chase decisions is the assumption of perfect informa-tion. Although the classical economists' assumptionof complete information has been relaxed in the in-formationsignaling iterature(e.g., Farrel1980;Wol-insky 1983), the assumption that consumers are per-fect information processors remains. However, theassumption that consumers are rational,deliberativeagents, completely cognizant of their own utilityfunctions, who perceive information cues accuratelyhas been challenged as unrealistic (Monroe 1979;Schmalensee 1978;Wilkie 1974).

This assumptionof perfectinformation processing

is analogous to the notion of familiarity based onpriorknowledgein consumer research.Acknowledg-ing that consumers often are not completely familiarwith products and product alternatives, several re-searchers have suggestedthat consumer expertise orfamiliarity may mediate the effect of priceon percep-tions of quality (Jacoby, Olson, and Haddock 1971;Rao 1971; Scitovsky 1945; Shapiro 1968). Indeed,re-searchexamining the effect of priorpurchase/useex-perience on the price-perceivedquality relationshipsupportsthe argumentthat knowledgeor familiaritydoes influence the impact of price on buyers'qualityassessments (Enis and Stafford 1969a, 1969b; Mon-roe 1976; Raju 1977; Valenzi and Eldridge 1973;Venkataraman 1981; Wheatley, Walton, and Chiu1977). Novice or unfamiliarbuyerstend to use priceas an indicator of quality to a greaterextent than ex-pertor familiarbuyers.However,these priorresearcheffortshave not presenteda conceptual framework oexplain why differential knowledge or familiaritymoderatesthe use of price as an indicator of productquality. This article develops such a framework in alater section.

PriorKnowledgeThe impact of prior knowledge or familiarity on

consumers'informationprocessinghasbeen a featureof traditional(Howard and Sheth 1969) as well as re-cent (Bettman 1979) information processing theories

of consumerchoice. Conceptually, it has been arguedthat priorknowledgefacilitatesthe acquisitionof newinformationas well as the use of existinginformation(ParkandLessig 1981).This section reviewssome rel-evant conceptual and empirical issues on priorknowledgeand consumerinformation searchand usestrategies.

Impact of PriorProductKnowledgeon InformationUse. Hayes-Roth (1977) and Marks and Olson(1981 argue that increasedfamiliarity leads to betterdeveloped knowledgestructuresor "schema"about aproduct. These well-developed schema often includeevaluativecriteria and rules, and any relevantstimu-lus maytriggerassociations in the schemaresulting n

the use of the evaluative criteria and rules forproductassessments. Based on this logic, Park and Lessig(1981) proposed that differentiallyfamiliarconsum-ers have differentially developed schema, and thuswould use different information in product evalua-tions. Also, as familiarity increases, priorknowledgeis enhanced qualitatively and quantitatively in thatincreasinglyfamiliarconsumers aremoreknowledge-able about a greaternumberof attributes.Examiningthree levels of perceived familiarity,they found thatsubjects in the low familiaritycondition selected ex-trinsic information such as brand name as the onlyproduct attribute of significance, but subjects in thehigh familiarity condition needed only brand infor-mation to generate a complex schema that includedinformation about other product attributes.Thus, inproduct evaluations, low- and highly familiar sub-jects used the same (brand) information, but fordifferent reasons. However, moderatelyfamiliarsub-jects who had the basicdegreeof familiaritynecessaryto assess the importance of attributes, but were notfamiliarenough to use brand name alone, were mostconfident when using intrinsic cues in their productevaluations.

Definition of Prior Product Knowledge. In thepast, researchershave used the terms familiarity,ex-pertise, and experience interchangeablywhen refer-

ringto priorknowledge.However, Alba and Hutchin-son (1987) suggestthat consumer knowledgehas twocomponents: familiarityand expertise.Familiarityisdefined as the numberof product-relatedexperiencesaccumulatedby a consumer,and expertiseis the abil-ity to'perform product-relatedtasks successfully. Ingeneral, product experience is a necessary but in-sufficientcondition forconsumerexpertise.

Operationally, prior product knowledge has beendefined either in terms of what people perceive they



PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND CUE UTILIZATION 255

know about a product or product class (subjectiveknowledge) orin terms of what knowledgeanindivid-ual has stored in memory (objective knowledge;Brucks 1985). However, what people perceive theyknow is likely to depend on what they actually know

as well as their self-confidencein the amount and typeof knowledgeheld in memory (Parkand Lessig 1981).Thus, for this research, prior product knowledge isdefined to encompass the amount of accurate infor-mation held in memory about product alternatives aswell as buyers' self-perceptionsof this product knowl-edge (i.e., what they believe they know).

Linking Prior Product Knowledge to Use ofPrice as an Indicator of Product Quality

Building on Cox's (1962) dichotomy of informa-tion cues, Olson (1973) proposed that any productcue could be derivedfromthe actualphysical product

(intrinsic cue) or from product-related attributesapart from the physical product (extrinsic cue). Tothe extent that consumers have learned through ac-quisition of product knowledge that price (an extrin-sic cue) is an accurate predictor (signal) of quality,they will look for shortcuts in decision-making andusepricesto assess relativeproduct quality. However,if through acquisition of product knowledge, con-sumers learn that price is not an accurate predictor(signal)of quality, then they morelikelywill use otherintrinsic or extrinsic cues to assess product quality.The specifics of this argument are developed next.

As previously suggested,the degreeof prior knowl-edge consumers have about a product will influence

the cues used to make product quality assessments.Unfamiliar or low-familiar consumers will be morelikely to use extrinsic cues such as price in productquality assessments, because they have relatively lit-tle intrinsic product information in memory and aless-developed schema, making processing intrinsicinformation more difficult. However, as consumersbecome more familiar with the product, their abilityto assessproduct quality basedon their knowledgeofintrinsic attributesthat areinformativeabout qualityimproves. Thus, as consumers achieve a moderatelevel of familiarity,their better knowledge structureincreases their ability to examine intrinsic informa-tion successfully. Consequently, the relative reliance

of moderately familiar consumers on extrinsic cuessuchasprice to evaluate product qualitywill decreasein favor of using intrinsic cues.

As consumers achieve a high degree of familiaritywith the product, they continue to be able to assessproduct quality through an examination of intrinsiccues. However, what distinguishes highly familiarconsumers from moderately familiar consumers ishighly familiar consumers' knowledge of market-based information about the product class that also

allows them to relate extrinsicinformation to productquality. Therefore, as consumers proceed along thefamiliarity continuum from low to moderate, theydevelop the ability to relate intrinsic cues to productquality, as such cues are reliable andthereforewill be

learned first. As consumers achieve relatively higherfamiliarity,the ability to relate intrinsic cues to qual-ity is augmented by the ability to relate surrogates(suchas price)to productattributes,andthus to qual-ity. Note that the abilityof highly familiarconsumersto relateintrinsic cues to productquality is not neces-sarily higher than that of moderately familiar con-sumers.

Thus, low-familiar consumers are more likely touse price ratherthan intrinsic cues as an indicator ofproduct quality. Moderately familiar consumers areless likely to use price as an indicator of quality andinstead wouldtend to use intrinsic cues forsuch infer-ences. However, highly familiar consumers can use

either price or intrinsic cues as indicators of quality.They are more likely to use price if they know thereis an actual price-qualityrelationshipin the product-market, because price information is easier to inter-pretand processthan intrinsic information.

Since highly familiar consumers are capableof us-ing intrinsic andextrinsic cues to assessproduct qual-ity, their use of intrinsic cues (or both extrinsic andintrinsic cues) will depend on the diagnostic value ofthe extrinsic information.Specifically,if a product isknown to exhibit a positive price-qualityassociationin the marketplace, then highly familiar consumerswill be aware of such an association and will be con-fident that prices are reliable predictors (signals) of

product quality. Hence, they will be more likely torely on price as a signal of product quality. Con-versely, if a product's price-quality association isweak, then highly familiar consumers, awareof thisassociation, will not be confident that prices arereli-able predictors (signals) of product quality. There-fore, they will be more likely to use cues other thanpriceto assessproductquality. Based on this concep-tual argument, specificoperationalhypothesesto pre-dict when buyersareexpected to perceive price as anindicator of productqualityaredeveloped next.

HYPOTHESES

In quality assessments, highly familiar consumerswill exercise their discriminating ability and use in-formation they are confident is diagnostic aboutproduct quality, but moderately familiarconsumerswill primarilyuse intrinisic information and low-fa-miliarconsumers,extrinsicinformation. Therefore:

Hl: For a product exhibiting a positive price-quality association in the marketplace,thepositive effect of price on perceptions of




productquality is greater orhighly familiarsubjects than for moderately familiar sub-jects.

Further, since low-familiar consumers are morelikely to rely on price information than

moderatelyfamiliarconsumers:

H2: Regardlessof whether a product exhibits apositive price-quality association in themarketplace,the positive effect of price onperceptions of product quality is greater forlow-familiar subjects than for moderatelyfamiliarsubjects.

As a consequence of their betterdevelopedschemata,moreknowledgeableconsumersarelikelyto be betterable to comprehendand thus evaluate intrinsic cues.Therefore, the followinghypotheses were developed.

H3: Given the greaterability of increasinglyfa-miliar consumers to assessthe quality con-notations of intrinsic cues, the positiveeffect of intrinsic cues on perceptions ofproductquality is greaterformoderately fa-miliar subjects than for low-familiar sub-jects.

H4: Given the greaterability of increasinglyfa-miliar consumers to assess the quality con-notations of intrinsic cues, the positiveeffect of intrinsic cues on perceptions ofproductquality is greater orhighly familiarsubjectsthan for low-familiarsubjects.

Note that no hypothesis is proposed for intrinsiccue-perceivedqualityeffectsbeingdifferentforhighlyfamiliat and moderatelyfamiliarsubjects.As arguedearlier,these groupsare conceptualized to differnoton intrinsic cue knowledgeorusage,but on the degreeand accuracy of market-based(extrinisic) informa-tion. Hence, the qualitative dimension of the differ-ence betWeen he two groupsallows forhypothesesofdifferentialextrinsic cue usage,and not of differentialintrinsic cue usage.

Finally, highly familiarconsumers are likely to beawareof an absence of an actualquality-priceassocia-tion in the marketplaceand thus would not be likely

to perceive price as an indicator (signal) of quality.Because this predictionwas not specificallyexaminedin this study, it is statedas a proposition:

P1: For aproductthatdisplays little or no associ-ation betweenprice and quality in the mar-ketplace, the positive effect of price on per-ceptions of product quality will be weakerfor highly familiarconsumers than for low-familiarconsumers.

METHOD

Product SelectionTwo principle considerations guided the selection

of a product to be used in the study: (1) the product

should exhibit a strong positive price-quality associa-tion in the marketplace;and (2) the product shouldbe appropriatefor use as a stimulus on a populationof availablesubjectssuch that three differentiallyfa-miliar groups of subjects could be identified for theproduct.Traderepresentativeswerecontactedto pro-vide an initial list of products that did and did notexhibitprice-qualityassociations in the marketplace.Comparing this initial set to Gerstner's(1985) list ofproducts manifestitig positive price-quality associa-tions produced three potential product categories:women's clothing, electronic products, and bicycles.Finally, given the possibility of identifying threedifferentially familiar groups of subjects (men,

women, and experts in clothing and textiles). Thecategoryof women's blazers was selected as the testproduct.

Knowledge Measure

Previous studies investigatingthe impact of differ-ential knowledge or information on the price-per-ceived quality relationshiphave used either previouspurchase/use experience or a manipulation of avail-able information to explain differentialresults. How-ever, individual subject'sactualpriorproduct knowl-edge held in memory was neither measured norcontrolled. Additionally, previous purchase/use ex-

perience influences behavior only to the extent thatsuch experiencesresult in differentinformation heldin memory by differentconsumers.Thus, since previ-ous price-quality researchhas neither measured normanipulated the actual amount of subjects' priorproductknowledge,developingameasure of this con-struct was critical for this research.

As arguedearlier,objective and subjective knowl-edge, although conceptually distinct, empiricallyarehighlycorrelated,and arethusdifficult o separateop-erationally. Clearly, subjective knowledge dependson the level of objective knowledge.Therefore,as theconceptualization did not predict any differencesbased on subjective or objective knowledge, a com-

posite multiitem scalecombiningan assessmentof in-formation in memory with self-assessedperceptionsof familiaritywas used to measurepriorknowledge.

Brucks (1986) suggests that a measure for priorknowledge or familiarityshould include eightdimen-sions that help in discriminating among people'sknowledgestructures.Using the taxonomy suggestedby her as well as advice from experts in clothing andtextiles, a scale was developed to measure subjects'familiarity with women's blazers. This scale com-




prised 13 objective knowledge-based questions thatassessed subjects' knowledge of brand names, storenames, technical terms, and appropriateusage situa-tions. Further,a five-point scale for self-assessedfa-miliarity was included. Questions were weighted ac-

cording to expert opinion on degreeof difficulty,re-sulting in a maximum achievable score of 45. (TheAppendix, which contains the familiarity scale, andExhibit 3, which contains the grading scheme, are lo-cated at the end of the article.)

Thirty-fivecollegestudentsparticipated n apretestto determinethe cutoffpoints for the threefamiliarityconditions on the knowledgescaleandto select levelsof independent variables.Of these 35 subjects,a pri-ori, 10 males were considered low-familiar, 13 fe-males (who were not clothing and textiles majors)were considered moderately familiar,and 12clothingand textile majors were considered highly familiar.(This procedure s similarto that used by Sujan 1985

in her categorizationof novices and experts for cam-eras.)On the knowledge scale, low-familiar subjects

(males) scoredan averageof 10.8 (witha standardde-viation of 4.5), moderatelyfamiliarsubjects (femaleswho were not clothing and textiles majors) scored21.8 (witha standarddeviation of 4.5), and highly fa-miliarsubjects(clothingand textile majors)scored29(with a standard deviation of 8.2). Based on this evi-dence andan inspection of the frequencydistributionof familiarityscores, 15 and 26 were chosen as cutoffpoints forthe threefamiliarityconditions.

Design

Based on pretest results, two intrinsic cue levels(HarrisTweedfor the high quality and virgin wool forthe low quality) were crossed with four levels of priceinformation ($49, $99, $149, and $199) in a 4 X 2factorialbetweensubjects experiment. The label Har-ris Tweedrepresented he high intrinsic cue level andincluded information on collars and shoulders. Sim-ilarly, the low intrinsic cue level, labeled virgin wool,includeda description of the lining. Thus, the two ex-perimental descriptions comprised several elementsthat collectively represented either a high or low levelof quality for the intrinsic cue manipulation (see Ex-hibits 1and 2).

Analytically, there were three separatebut identical

experimentsfor the low-, moderate-, and high-famil-iarity subjects. As the assignment of subjects to thethree familiarityconditions was not random, this de-sign is not viewed as a 3 X 4 X 2 design but rather asa comparisonof results from three 4 X 2 designs.

Sampleand ExperimentalProcedures

Responses were collected from 196 subjects ran-domly selected from a pool of students enrolled in

marketingprinciples classes and junior- and senior-level clothing and textile classes at a state univeristyin the Southeastern United States. In each experi-ment, subjectswere assigned randomly to one of theeighttreatment conditions and wererequestedto rate

on the dimensions of workmanship, quality, and du-rability on seven-point scales descriptionsof a wom-an's blazer in comparison with a standard Shetlandwool blazer priced at $124. (Subjects performed acomparison task, because otherwise, low-familiarsubjectswould have hadlittle basis on which to makeevaluations.) Multiple indicatorsof qualitywere usedto permit an assessment of the reliability of the per-ceived qualitymeasure. The specific dimensions wereselected from a list of items used in past research hatwere considered appropriate for blazers. Product de-scriptions were based on standard catalog descrip-tions and experts on clothing and textiles examinedthem to validate their authenticity.

The knowledge scale preceded the stimulus in thequestionnaire to ensure that subjects were not ex-posed to the stimulus before the knowledge scale wasadministered, thus guarding against potential con-tamination.

ANALYSIS

Sixty-eightlow-familiarsubjects scored an averageof 10.4 (with a standard deviation of 3.4), 70 moder-atelyfamiliarsubjectsscored an averageof 20.5 (witha standard deviation of 2.7), and 58 highly familiarsubjectsscoredan averageof 32 (witha standarddevi-ation of 3.6) on the familiarity scale. The standard-

ized item alpha for this scale was 0.78. Based onscores on the knowledge scale, responses were ana-lyzed in one of the three 4 X 2 experimental designs.Cell sample sizes rangedfrom a low of six to a highof 13 across all three experiments. This unbalanceddesign necessitated the use of the General LinearModels procedureavailable on SAS as prescribed byPerreaultand Darden( 1975).

Plan of Analysis

First,the reliabilityof the threedependent measureindicators was computed (a = 0.81). The interitemcorrelationsrangedfrom 0.49 to 0.72. Therefore,the

arithmetic mean of the responseswas computed as acomposite measure of perceived quality.

Effect Sizes. An effect size provides an index ofassociation between variables, and in its simplestform is the differencebetween treatment and controlgroup means weighted by the inverse of an estimate oferrorvariance. This study pittedsimilarexperimentalscenariosagainsteach other, and since systematicer-ror was the same in all three conditions, support for




EXHIBITI

SAMPLE STIMULUS MATERIAL

Instructions

PLEASE READ THE INFORMATIONPROVIDEDBELOW VERY CAREFULLY.You are being requested to respond to certain questions andstatements about Product B, a woman's blazer. Please assume that you are genuinely interested in purchasing a woman's blazer, if not foryourself, for a friend.

Product A: Classic feminine wool blazer constructed of Product B: Classic English blazer inauthentic handwoven100% Shetland wool. Finely tailored with a HarrisTweed. Precisely tailored withdistinctive texture. Linedwith a 60% handsewn collars and hand-pressedpolyester and 40% cotton fabric. Dry shoulders. Fully nylon lined with two besomcleaning is recommended. Styled with 3" pockets and one inside shell pocket. Drylapels, and two convertible flapped waist cleaning is recommended.pockets. Price: $49Price: $124

For the products described above, please respond to the following statements by circling the number corresponding to the scales below thestatements that best express your feelings.

1. In comparison to Product A, the workmanship of Product B appears to be:

1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7

very moderately slightly neither slightly moderately veryhigh high high high nor low low low

low

2. Incomparison to Product A, Product B appears to be of:

1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 6 : 7very good moderately slightly neither slightly moderately veryquality good good good nor poor poor poor

quality quality poor quality quality qualityquality

3. Product B appears more durable than Product A.

1 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7strongly moderately slightly neither slightly moderately stronglyagree agree agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree

disagree

the hypotheseswas assessedby examiningthe relativemagnitude of effects.When systematicerror s equiv-alent across different experiments, comparing stan-dardizedindices of responsevariation to identical in-dependent variablevariations is reasonable. Specifi-cally, the empirical issue is whether the degree towhich effectsdifferfrom the null hypothesisacrossfa-miliarity conditions reflects the relationships pre-dicted by the hypotheses.

Examining Contrasts. The hypotheses proposedspecifictrends in the response variablefor each levelof familiarity. For instance, for the low-familiar andhighly familiarsubjects, perceptions of quality wereexpected to increase with increasing levels of price;such a trend was not expected for the moderatelyfa-miliargroup.Focusedcontrastanalyses,morepower-fulthan omnibustests (Rosenthaland Rosnow 1984),wereperformedto examine suchtrends.

As the price factor had three degrees of freedom,three sets of orthogonalcontrastcoefficients werede-terminedto assessthe degreeof linearity, quadracity,

and cubicity in the trend described by the responsevariable means. The hypotheses for price effects didnot predict quadraticor cubic trends, but did predictthe presence or absence of linear trends; therefore,only the linear contrast results were compared. Thisprocedureallowed for greaterpower as the numeratorin the F-test had only one degree of freedom. Morespecifically,when the contribution of nonlinear con-trast components to the overall sums of squares ismarginal relative to the accompanying degrees offreedom, the overall F-test is less powerful. Conse-

quently, focused tests are appropriate when specifichypotheses can be predictedby theory.

The intrinsic cue factor had only one degreeof free-dom. Therefore,only the one linear contrastis possi-ble and is equivalent to a computation of the maineffect.

Although this study is not viewed as a familiarityX price X intrinsic cue design, the mean square errorterm from the largerthree factor design was used inthe computation of the F statistic for each effect(MSE




EXHIBIT

SAMPLE STIMULUS MATERIAL

Instructions

PLEASE READ THE INFORMATIONPROVIDED BELOW VERY CAREFULLY.You are being requested to respond to certain questions and

statements about Product B, a woman's blazer. Please assume that you are genuinely interested in purchasing a woman's blazer, if not foryourself, for a friend.

Product A: Classic feminine wool blazer constructed Product B: Classic blazer in 100% virgin wool. Expertlyof 100% Shetland wool. Finely tailored constructed with clean lines and a slimwith a distinctive texture. Lined with a silhouette. Lined with a synthetic acetate60% polyester and 40% cotton fabric. fabric and styled with 3" apels and twoDry cleaning is recommended. Styled patch pockets. Dry cleaning iswith 3" lapels, and two convertible recommended.flapped waist pockets. Price: $49Price: $124

For the products described above, please respond to the following statements by circling the number corresponding to the scales below thestatements that best express your feelings.

1. Incomparison to Product A, the workmanship of Product B appears to be:

1 : 2 3 : 4 5 6 7very moderately slightly neither slightly moderately veryhigh high high high nor low low low

low

2. Incomparison to Product A, Product B appears to be of:

1 2 : 3 4 : 5 6 : 7very good moderately slightly neither slightly moderately veryquality good good good nor poor poor poor

quality quality poor quality quality qualityquality

3. Product B appears more durable than Product A.

1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7strongly moderately slightly neither slightly moderately stronglyagree agree agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree

disagree

= 1.10). This is the more conservative approach, asthe mean square errorterm from the largerdesign isa better estimate of y2-

RESULTS

The results of the study are presentedin two parts:anexamination of the hypothesized relationships anda discussionof some interesting findingsfromanalyz-ing the interactions between price and intrinsic cueacross familiarity conditions.

Hypothesized Relationships

Table 1 shows mean responses for each cell. Thehypotheses predicted specific patterns of effects forthe three groupsfor price and intrinsic cue. The fol-lowing sections assess support for the hypotheses.

Price Effects. Hypothesis 1 states that highly fa-miliarconsumers display strongerpositive price-per-ceived quality effects than do moderately familiar

consumers.Hypothesis2 states that low-familiarcon-sumers display stronger positive price-perceivedquality effects than do moderately familiarconsum-ers. The results supportboth hypotheses. As Table 2indicates, highly familiarsubjectsdisplayed a moder-ate effect (0.08), low-familiar subjects displayed alarge effect (0.20), and moderately familiar subjectsdisplayeda nonsignificantsmall effect (0.03).' Theseresults suggestdifferentprice-perceivedquality slopesfor each of the groups.

Intrinsic Cue Effects. Hypotheses 3 and 4 statethat moderately and highly familiar consumers dis-play stronger positive intrinsic cue-perceived qualityeffectsthan do low-familiar consumers. Both hypoth-

'Cohen (1977, pp. 284-288) providesguidelinesforthe interpre-tation of the magnitudeof associationbetween variables. In gen-eral, 0.059 < 02 < 0.14 indicates a moderate effect. Values lowerthan 0.059 indicate small effects and those greater han 0.14 indi-cate largeeffects.




TABLE 1

CELLMEANS

Price evel

Intrinsicue level $49 $99 $149 $199

Low-familiarroupHarris weed 4.28 (1.05) 4.61 (1.41) 4.91 (1.08) 5.38(0.91)virginwool 3.17 (0.80) 4.78 (0.83) 4.56 (0.97) 4.85 (0.79)

Moderatelyamiliargroup

Harris weed 4.54 (1.51) 4.91 (1.05) 5.05(0.93) 5.37 (0.54)virginwool 4.04(1.21) 3.70(1.14) 4.44(0.96) 3.93 (1.10)

Highlyamiliar roupHaris Tweed 4.94(0.57) 5.05 (1.21) 5.52(0.88) 5.00(1.19)virginwool 3.67 (1.13) 3.38(1.27) 4.52 (1.16) 4.93(1.04)

NOTE: iguresnparenthesesare standarddeviations.Meansare on a seven-point cale,withone being ow and seven beinghigh.

esesweresupported.2Low-familiarsubjectsdisplayeda small effect (0.05), but moderately familiar (0.18)and highly familiar subjects (0.20) displayed largeandsignificanteffects(Table 2). This resultis not sur-prising, as increased knowledge should provide agreaterabilityto interpretintrinsic information.

Interactions

Apart from the hypothesized main effects, the in-teraction between price and intrinsic cue for eachlevel of familiarity was examined. Specifically, thedifferentialuse of price when combined with differ-entially informative intrinsic cues was assessed for

each level of familiarity. Linear contrasts within thesimple effects (simple contrasts) were comparedacrossfamiliaritylevels in this analysis.

Overall,none of the interaction terms was statisti-cally significant.However, as Table 3 indicates, thelinear contrasts reveal a pattern of relatively largeprice effects for the virgin wool level of intrinsic cuefor highly familiarand low-familiarsubjects and forthe HarrisTweed level of intrinsic cue for the low-familiarsubject.

Just ascertain productsexhibit strongprice-qualityassociations in the marketplaceand others do not,different ntrinsic attributesare also likely to exhibitdifferentialprice-qualityassociations. Forinstance, ifwe assume that durabilityis one indicator of qualityand find that high speed silicon chips exhibit highdurability-priceassociations in the marketplaceand

TABLE

EFFECT IZESX2) FORLINEAR ONTRASTS

Familiarityevel

Independent ariable Low Moderate High

Price .20a (60) .03d (62) .08b (50)

Intrinsiccue .05c (60) .18a(62) .20a (50)

ap < 0.001.

bp < 0.05.

Cp < 0.10.d Not significant.

NOTE: q2= (F X dfb)V[FX dfb) + df,]. Figures in parentheses are dfe.

low speed chips exhibit low durability-priceassocia-tions, experts in electronics are likely to be aware ofthis fact. As a consequence, highly familiar consum-ers would exhibit different price main effectson per-ceived durabilityfor each level of chip speed (intrin-sic cue) when evaluating differentiallypriced comput-ers that use high- or low-speed chips. In essence, ifthe levels of the intrinsic cue exhibit different price-quality associations in the marketplace,given highlyfamiliarconsumers' ability to evaluate both types ofinformation successfully, they arelikely to displaythestrongestinteraction of the three groups.The resultssupport this contention. Specifically, in the virginwool condition, a U-shaped relationship between fa-miliarityand use of price as an indicatorof quality isapparent, because the quality of blazers constructedfrom virgin wool varies with price. However, forHar-ris Tweed, the knowledge about tight quality stan-dards in Scotland for this fabric seems to result inhighly familiarbuyersin the study not using price asan indicatorof quality.

Table 3 also reportsthe simple linear effects of in-trinsic cue across differentprice levels foreach famil-

TABLE 3

EFFECT IZES X2)FORSIMPLE INEAR ONTRASTS

Familiarity evel

Source Low Moderate High

Price in HarrisTweed .15C(30) .09d (27) .01 (25)Price invirginwool .24a (30) *00d (35) .22b (25)Intrinsiccue in $49 .23c (19) .06d (15) .30b (12)Intrinsiccue in $99 _.01 d (10) .26c (16) .42b (12)

Intrinsicue in$149 ,03d (14) .09d (14) .20c (16)

Intrinsicue in$199 .06d (17) .34a (17) .00d (10)

ap < 0.025.bp <0.01.

p < 0.06.d Not significant.

NOTE:X2 = (F X dfb)I[(FX dfb) + dfe] Figures in parentheses are dfe.

2Unfortunately,given the current state of statisticaltest theory,it is notpossibleto test forsignificanceof differencesbetween effectsizes,as theirdistributionsareunknown. For ourpurposes,supportfor our hypothesesis providedby the significance (or lack of sig-nificance)associatedwith each effect size as well as the associatedmagnitudeof the effectsize.




iarity condition. Only the one simple effect was sig-nificant for low-familiar subjects, but two were sig-nificant for moderately familiar subjects, and threewere significantfor the highlyfamiliarsubjects.

In general,the perception of superiorityof Harris

Tweed blazers over virgin wool blazers seems to in-crease as familiarity increases for a specific level ofprice.An exception occurs in the $199, high-familiar-ity condition wherequalityperceptionswerenot sub-stantively different.One interpretationfor this resultis thatthe $199 pricecue forvirginwool substantiallyaffectedquality perceptions.

The results of the post hoc analysis are interestingand in consonance with the theoretical rationalethatmotiVatedthis study. That is, when product cues areinformative, they will be usedto make productevalu-ations, not otherwise.This resultdoes lead to anotherpredictionthat is integral to the theory and is relatedto Proposition 1.Essentially,the proposition suggests

the absence of a priceandintrinsiccue interactiononperceived quality for all three differentiallyfamiliargroups, if the different intrinsic cues do not displayobjective quality-price associations in the market-place.

P2: For a product that displays little or nodiference in the association betweenpriceand quality in the marketplace or differentlevels of intrinsiccue, the positive effectsofprice on perceptions of product quality willbe the same for the different evels of intrin-sic cue. This similarity will be manifestedby low-familiar, moderately familiar, andhighly familiarconsumers.

CONCLUSIONS

Summaryof ResultsThis study provides additional understanding of

factorsthat may influence informationutilization byconsumers in product quality assessments. In partic-ular,an attempt has been made to reconcile opposingperspectiveson the use of price information in prod-uct quality assessments. This article argues that fa-miliarity with the product is likely to mediate theprice-perceived quality effect. It was hypothesizedthat for a productthat displaysa positive price-qual-

ity relationship in the marketplace,low-familiar andhighly familiar buyers display a stronger positiveprice-perceivedquality effect than do moderately fa-miliar buyers. Moderatelyfamiliarand highly famil-iar buyers were expected to rely more on intrinsiccues to assessproductquality than were low-familiarbuyers.

Overall, the evidence suggests that, for a productcategorythat exhibits a generalprice-qualityassocia-tion in the marketplace,the tendency to use price as

an indicatorof productquality decreasesandthen in-creaseswithfamiliarity (aU-shapedcurve). However,the post hoc analyses clearly indicate that this phe-nomenon occurredonly for the product (virginwoolblazers) known to have relativelywiderquality varia-

tions in the marketplace. For a product known notto have significantquality variations due to industrystandards (Harris Tweed blazers), the use of price inproduct qualityassessmentstends to decreasewith fa-miliarity.Thisprovidessome supportforthe proposi-tion that, for a product that does not exhibit qualityvariations in the marketplace, the use of price as anindicator of productqualitydecreasesmonotonicallyas buyers' familiarity with the product increases(Proposition 1). These findings are consistent withScitovsky's( 1945) argument thatusing priceas an in-dicator of quality is rational behavior and reflectsalearned belief about price-qualityassociations in themarketplace.

Limitations

Consistent with recent studies involving priorknowledge or familiarity (Brucks 1985; Sujan 1985),subjects' expertise was not experimentally manipu-lated. Thus, potential confounds suchas involvementand motivation cannot be ruledout as rivalhypothe-ses. However, a motivational explanation would pre-dict a reduction in extrinsic cue usage as familiarityincreased.Therefore, if motivation covariedwith fa-miliarity,it would bereasonableto expect areductionin price-perceivedqualityeffect sizesas familiarity n-creasedforboth intrinsic cue levels. However,this re-

lationship was not observed. Hence, the results aremore consistent with the conceptual argument pre-sented in this article.

A second potential criticism is that statisticallynonsignificant results could have been the conse-quence of low power. However, the notion of poweris a moot point since sample sizes were equivalentacross the three experiments. Therefore, if power todetect an effect was sufficient n one experiment,thenpower to detect an effect of the same magnitude orlargerwas sufficientin all three. Becausepower is di-rectlyrelated to sample size, the experimentwith thelowest sample size should have generated the statisti-cally nonsignificantresults.However, the high-famil-

iar group (n = 58) exhibited a statistically significantprice main effect (p < 0.05), and the moderately fa-miliargroup (n = 70) exhibited a statistically nonsig-nificanteffect(p > 0.25).

Significanceand Future Research

That three differentially familiar groups of con-sumersexhibitdifferent nformationuse strategies ordifferent reasons is a new and important finding.




EXHIBIT

GRADINGCHEME ORFAMILIARITYCALE

Question Acceptableanswers Pointsawarded

1. Accurate tore names Onepointper name upto a maximum f four2. Accurate ituations One pointper situationup to a maximum f three3. "Yes" Four4. "Yes" One5. Accuratebrandnames One pointper brandname up to a maximum f four6. "India" r "Pakistan" Two

"Orient" r"Asia" OneAnyof the British sles or"Europe" TwoAnyof the British sles,"Europe" r "Australia" Two"Anywhere" r equivalent Two

7. Threereasonableattributes One8. "Sometimes" One9. "Yes" One

10. "Button,""Flap," Patch," Two"Besom," "Welt,""Slash,""Slit," Two"Fake,""in-Seams,""Mock," Two"Hidden," Set-In,""Applied," Two"Breast" One

11. "Nylon" Three12. "DryClean" One13. "DryClean"or "MachineWash" Two

"Handwash" r "Woolite" Two14. Dependingon categorychecked Zero hrough our

Totalachievablepoints 45

NOTE: nQuestion2 andQuestion7, theaccuracy/reasonablenessf responses was evaluatedbased on expert opinion.See theAppendixor the familiaritycaleitems.

Low-familiarconsumers are more likely to use extrin-sic information based on their belief that a quality-extrinsic cue relationship exists in the marketplace.

However, highly familiar consumers use extrinsic in-formation based on their knowledge hata quality-ex-trinsic cue association exists in the marketplace.

The results of this study support an assertion madeby Johnson and Russo (1984) that familiarity pro-vides a useful segmentation technique. For instance,it may be inappropriate o attempt to use a high priceto enhance quality perceptionsif amajorityof poten-tial consumers are moderatelyfamiliar with the prod-uct. Further,if the product categoryexhibits a weakquality-price association, only low-familiar consum-ers are likely to respond favorablyto a price-qualitymarketing strategy. This last issue was not unequivo-cally answered n this study;additional researchcom-

paring the effect of price on quality perceptions fordifferentially familiar groups using a product thatdoes not manifest a quality-price association in themarketplace will further clarify highly familiar con-sumers' information use strategies.

Another potentially interestingquestion for futureresearch s whether objective or subjective knowledgeis the construct of interest that mediates consumer in-formation search and use strategies. Although ad-dressing hat questionwas not the purpose of this arti-

cle, ascertaining whether self-confidence (a personal-ity trait) or objective knowledge determines theinformation sought seems important.

APPENDIX

1. In the (name of town) area, please name all thestores that you can think of that carry women'sblazers.

2. Please list all of the social situations in which youthink it would be appropriate for a woman toweara blazer.

3. Have you everpurchaseda women's blazer?Please circle one: Yes / No

4. Do you presently own a blazer (men's or wom-

en's)?Please circle one: Yes / No

5. Please list all the brands of women's blazers thatyou know.

6. Women's blazers are traditionally constructedfrom wool of a mixture of wool and other fabrics.Belowarelisted some types of wool-please fill inthe country of their origin in the space provided.If you do not know the answer, please fill in




"Don't Know"-please do not guess.CashmereHarris Tweed

Shetlandvirgin wool

7. Please list, in their orderof importance, the attri-butes you think are important when evaluatingwomen's blazers.

8. AreAmerican-madewomen's blazersbetter thanthose madeabroad?Pleasecircle one:Yes / Sometimes / No / Don't Know

9. Are higher priced women's blazers better thanlowerpricedones?Pleasecircle one:Yes / Sometimes / No / Don't Know

10. List four kinds of pockets women's blazers may

have.11. Qianais abrandname for what fiber?

12. What is the most inexpensive procedure forcleaning a silk-lined gaberdine blazer that willnot spoil the garment?

13. What is the most inexpensive procedure forcleaning a nylon-lined corduroy blazer that willnot spoil the garment?

14. Regardingwomen's blazers,would you consideryourself (Pleasecheck one):

completely unfamiliar,unfamiliar,

neither familiar nor unfamiliar,familiar,extremely familiar.

[ReceivedFebruary1987. Revised March 1988.]

REFERENCES

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

Bettman, James R. (1979), An InformationProcessingThe-ory of ConsumerChoice,Reading,MA: Addison-Wes-ley.

Brucks, Merrie (1985), "The Effects of Product ClassKnowledge on InformationSearchBehavior,"Journalof ConsumerResearch, 12(June), 1-16.

(1986), "A Typology of Consumer KnowledgeCon-tent," in Advances in ConsumerResearch,Vol. 13, ed.RichardJ.Lutz,Provo,UT: AssociationforConsumerResearch,58-63.

Cohen,Jacob C. (1977), Statistical PowerAnalysis For theBehavioralSciences, New York:AcademicPress.

Cox, Donald F. (1962), "The Measurementof InformationValue: A Study in Consumer Decision-Making," in

Emerging Concepts in Marketing, ed. William S.Decker, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Associa-tion, 413-42 1.

Enis, Ben M. and James E. Stafford 1969a), "Influence ofPrice and Store Information Upon Product QualityPerception," Southern Journal of Business, 4 (April),90-99.

and JamesE. Stafford 1969b), "Consumer Percep-tions of Product Quality as a Function of Various In-formationalInputs,"in Proceedings,ed. Philip P. Mc-Donald, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Associa-tion, 340-344.

Farrel, Joseph V.R. (1980), "Pricesas Signals of Quality,"unpublished dissertation, Brasnose College, OxfordUniversity, Oxford, EnglandOX1 4AJ.

Gerstner,Eitan (1985), "Do Higher Prices Signal HigherQuality?"Journal of MarketingResearch, 22 (May),209-2 15.

Hayes-Roth, Barbara (1977), "Evaluation of CognitiveStructuresand Processes," Psychological Review, 84(May),260-278.

Howard,John A. and JagdishN. Sheth (1969), The Theoryof Buyer Behavior,New York:John Wiley.

Jacoby, Jacob, Jerry C. Olson, and Rafael A. Haddock(197 1), "Price, BrandName andProduct CompositionCharacteristics sDeterminantsof PerceivedQuality,"Journal of Applied Psychology, 55 (December), 570-579.

Johnson, EricJ. and J. EdwardRusso(1984), "ProductFa-miliarity and Learning New Information," Journal ofConsumerResearch, 11(June), 542-5 50.

Leavitt,HaroldJ. (1954), "A Note On Some ExperimentalFindings About the Meaningof Price,"JournalofBusi-ness, 27 (July),205-2 10.

Marks,LawrenceJ. andJerryC. Olson (1981), "TowardsaCognitiveStructureConceptualizationof ProductFa-miliarity,"in Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 8,ed. Kent B. Monroe, Ann Arbor, MI: Association forConsumerResearch,145-150.

Monroe, Kent B. (1976), "The Influence of Price Differ-ences and Brand Familiarityon Brand Preferences,"Journalof ConsumerResearch,3 (June),42-49.

(1979), Pricing: Making ProfitableDecisions, NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

andR. Krishnan 1985), "TheEffectof Price on Sub-jective Product Evaluations," in Perceived Quality:How Consumers View Stores and Merchandise, eds.Jacob Jacoby and Jerry C. Olson, Lexington, MA:Lexington,209-232.

Olson, Jerry C. (1977), "Price as an Informational Cue:

Effectson ProductEvaluations,"in Consumerand In-dustrialBuying Behavior,eds. Arch G. Woodside et al.,New York:North-Holland,267-286.

Park,C. Whan and V. ParkerLessig (1981), "FamiliarityandItsImpacton Consumer Decision Biasesand Heu-ristics,"Journalof ConsumerResearch,8 (September),223-230.

Perreault,William D., Jr. and William R. Darden (1975),"UnequalCellSizes in MarketingExperiments:Use ofthe GeneralLinearHypothesis,"JournalofMarketingResearch, 12(August),333-342.




Punj, Girish N. and Richard Staelin (1983), "A Model ofConsumerInformationSearchBehaviorfor New Auto-mobiles," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 9 (March),366-380.

Raju, P.S. (1977), "ProductFamiliarity,BrandName andPriceInfluences on ProductEvaluation,"in Advancesin ConsumerResearch,Vol. 4, ed. William D. Perre-ault, Jr., Atlanta, GA: Association for Consumer Re-search,64-7 1.

Rao, AkshayR. and Kent B. Monroe (1987), "The Effectsof Price, BrandName andStore Name on Buyers'Sub-jective ProductAssessments:An IntegrativeReview,"working paper, Marketing Department, CarlsonSchool ofManagement,Universityof Minnesota,Min-neapolis,MN 55455.

Rao, VithalaR. (1971), "Salienceof Price in the Perceptionof ProductQuality:A MultidimensionalMeasurementApproach,"in Proceedings,ed. Fred C. Allvine, Chi-cago,IL:AmericanMarketingAssociation,571-577.

Riesz, PeterC. (1978), "Price VersusQualityin the Market-place, 1961-1975," Journal of Retailing, 54 (Winter),15-28.

(1979), "Price-QualityCorrelationsfor PackagedFood Products," Journal of Consumer Affairs, 13(Winter),236-247.

Rosenthal,Robertand RalphL. Rosnow(1984), Essentialsof BehavioralResearch: Methods and Data Analysis,New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schmalensee,Richard 1978), "AModel of AdvertisingandProductQuality,"Journal ofPolitical Economy,86 (3),485-503.

Scitovsky, Tibor(1945), "SomeConsequencesof the Habitof Judging Quality by Price," The Reviewof EconomicStudies, 12(32), 100-105.

Shapiro, Benson P. (1968), "The Psychology of Pricing,"HarvardBusinessReview,46 (July/August),14-25.

Sproles, George B. (1977), "New Evidence on Price andProduct Quality," Journal of Consumer Affairs, 11(Summer),63-77.

Sujan, Mita (1985), "Consumer Knowledge: Effects onEvaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judg-ments," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12(June),31-46.

Valenzi, Enzo R. andLarryEldridge 1973), "Effectof PriceInformation, Composition Differences, Expertise andRating Scales on Product QualityRating," in Proceed-ings, 81st Annual Conference, Washington, D.C.:American Psychological Association, 829-830.

Venkataraman,V.K. (i 981), "The Price-QualityRelation-ship in an ExperimentalSetting,"JournalofAdvertis-ing Research,21 (August),49-52.

Wheatley,John J., RichardG. Walton,and John S.Y. Chiu

(1977), "The Influence of Prior Product Experience,Price and Brandon Quality Perception,"in Advancesin ConsumerResearch,Vol. 4, ed. William D. Perre-ault, Jr., Atlanta, GA: Association for Consumer Re-search,72-77.

Wilkie, William L. (1974), "Analysis of Effectsof Informa-tion Load," Journal of MarketingResearch, 11 (No-vember), 462-466.

Wolinsky, Asher (1983), "Prices As Signals of ProductQuality," Review of Economic Studies, 50 (October),647-658.

knowledge product utilization_rao

Documents