Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer Decision Biases and Heuristics

Author(s): C. Whan Park and V. Parker Lessig

Source: Journal of Consumer Research , Sep., 1981, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Sep., 1981), pp. 223-231
Published by: Oxford University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2488834

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 support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Consumer Research

This content downloaded from

156.218.45.80 on Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:41:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer
Decision Biases and Heuristics

C. WHAN PARK
V. PARKER LESSIG*

The impact of familiarity on consumer decision biases and heuristics is examined.

Subjects at three different familiarity levels revealed interesting differences in per-
ceptual category breadth, usage of functional and nonfunctional product dimen-
sions, decision time, and confidence.

T wo major approaches are available for operationalizing ploy different criteria in assessing familiarity, thus making
and measuring product familiarity. One is to measure comparisons across subjects difficult. This assessment is,
product familiarity in terms of how much a person knows therefore, made using a common base defined in terms of
about the product; the other is to measure familiarity in the subject's perceived knowledge of those dimensions im-
terms of how much a person thinks slhe knows about the portant in the evaluation of the product.
product. According to the former, product familiarity may Although later material will discuss in detail how the
be examined with respect to the knowledge structure of an three levels of familiarity differ, to understand the ensuing
individual's long-term memory (LTM). According to the theory section it would be helpful to be aware of the nec-
latter, product familiarity is based on the person's self- essary conditions that were established for specifying a sub-
report of how much s/he knows about the product (Lich- ject's level of familiarity with the product, a microwave
tenstein and Fischhoff 1977). The former approach (amount oven. Specifically, in order to maximize the difference in
of knowledge) contributes to understanding the impact of self-assessed familiarity levels among subjects, the follow-
memory contents on the decision maker's evaluation and ing three prior behavioral considerations were specified:
choice decisions; the latter (self-assessed familiarity) pro- (a) microwave oven information search experience; (b)
vides information about decision makers' (DM) systematic microwave oven usage experience; and (c) microwave oven
biases and heuristics in choice evaluations and decisions. ownership status. A subject with no information-search ex-
The objective of the present study is to examine, in a perience, no product-usage experience, and nonownership
descriptive framework, decision (evaluation) biases and was defined to have low familiarity (LF). A subject defined
heuristics of consumers at different levels of familiarity,to have a moderate level of familiarity (MF) met conditions
with specific attention to the impact on such information- (a) and/or (b), but not (c). A subject classified as having
processing heuristics as (1) perceptual category breadth, high familiarity (HF) had search experience, usage expe-
(2) use of functional and nonfunctional product dimensions,rience, and was a microwave oven owner. For reasons to
(3) decision time, and (4) confidence in choice. be discussed later, subjects in the MF and the HF groups
were also provided with information (from Consumer Re-
ports and Consumer Buying Guides) that would influence
Construct of Product Familiarity their self-assessed knowledge of the product, microwave
ovens.
The conceptualization of product familiarity in this study When familiarity is defined subjectively, controlling
follows the DM's subjective familiarity assessment at three prior behavioral activities, it is treated as a "state" vari-
different levels. However, different individuals may em- able, and two points should be noted. First, the three fa-
miliarity groups are expected to differ in their information
about the product, their subjective judgment of cue selec-
*C. Whan Park is Associate Professor, Graduate School of Business tion and processing (i.e., confidence in choosing and pro-
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. V. Parker Lessig is As.
cessing product attributes for a choice decision task), and
sociate Dean and Professor, School of Business, University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance their organization of product information in long-term
of James R. Bettman. This research was supported by grants from the memory. Second, due to differences in prior behavioral
University of Kansas General Research Fund and from the University oi activities (prior interest in the product class), differences
Kansas School of Business Research Fund provided by the Fourth Nationa
among the three groups may be expected in their motiva-
Bank and Trust Company, Wichita.
tional involvement with the experimental task.

223
? JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH * Vol. 8 0 September 1981

This content downloaded from

156.218.45.80 on Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:41:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 224 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

THEORY ably is more capable of elaborate processing, she may em-

ploy categories less refined than those for which she is
Perceptual Category Breadth capable.

In the present study, it is proposed that a decision

maker's level of product familiarity affects her perceptual Reliance on Price and Brand Name Information
category breadth. According to Bruner (1957), perceptual It is proposed that confidence in the utilization of brand
category breadth refers to a DM's viewing the various levels name and price information is a function of the DM's fa-
of a given dimension, e.g., size, as belonging to different miliarity level. Based upon previous discussion, it would
categories, e.g., small, medium, large. A dimension whose seem that a DM at LF would find it less difficult and be
levels are assigned to few categories, i.e., where there is more confident to extrapolate a product's utility from fa-
very little discrimination, is said to have broad category miliar concepts, such as the nonfunctional dimensions of
breadth, i.e., each category covers a large range of the price and brand name, than from unfamiliar product func-
dimension's levels (Bruner and Tajfel 1961; Pinson 1978). tional dimensions. This is consistent with Tversky and
Two factors are considered in examining category Kahneman's (1974) availability heuristic, which refers to
breadth-a cognitive capability and a psychological desire the ease with which relevant instances of an event can be
to differentiate among dimensional categories. In this study, brought to mind.
category breadth assumes that the DM has both the cog- The DM at HF is also expected to have high confidence
nitive ability to differentiate among dimensional categories in usage of brand name and price in the choice decision.
and utility differences across these categories. A DM at LF Due to her previous purchase experience and knowledge
(low familiarity) is expected to exhibit broad category about the brand that she owns, brand name and its price are
breadth with respect to the functional product dimensions expected to be placed very high on a dimensional salience
evaluated. The greater the number of categories created for hierarchy with high confidence. Due to her knowledge, the
the classification of a dimension's levels, i.e., the narrower DM at MF is not expected to find it as difficult or as am-
the category breadth, the more difficult is the assignment biguous to rely on the functional attributes as is the LF
of utility, because more classes exist that require evalua- DM. Nor is the MF DM expected to have biases toward
tion. With only indirect information or experience (based these dimensions that are as strong as those expressed by
on other product usage) to draw upon and with the absence
the HF DM. Given this and her ability to form utility
of a well-established dimensional salience hierarchy, the through information on functional dimensions, the DM at
assignment of utility to a large number of categories would MF would not feel as confident as LF and HF decision
be a difficult and frustrating task. One way of reducing makers in evaluating choice options through the use of
frustration and cognitive burden would be to broaden a brand name and price information. The DM at MF is thus
dimension's categories, i.e., reduce the number of percep- expected to have a higher confidence in functional dimen-
tual categories on that dimension.
sions than in price and brand-name dimensions.
The DM at MF (moderate familiarity) has relevant and
needed product information from previous usage experience
Decision Time
and/or from information material provided to them. How-
ever, this DM has rather fragmented information about the The time required to make a decision is an important
meaning of dimensions and their salience hierarchy. Al- process-tracing measure (Hansen 1972). A number of in-
though this information is less than desired, it does aid in vestigators have described the consumer's decision task as
the DM's constructive process of a choice decision, thus consisting of two general stages (Howard and Sheth 1969;
reducing the degree of complexity involved. The MF DM Park 1978; Payne 1976). In the first stage (choice reduc-
is, therefore, capable of processing greater amounts of, and tion), the consumer reduces the number of available alter-
more complex, information (Park and Lessig 1977). To natives to a smaller set consisting of those options consid-
facilitate the development of this complex processing, the ered to be acceptable. In the second stage (choice
MF DM is expected to have narrower category breadth, selection), the consumer decides which alternative among
i.e., more categories. those in the acceptable set is best. In the present study,
The HF DM is also expected to have a narrower category decision time is hypothesized to be a function of both the
breadth than the DM at LF. Based on previous purchase level of the consumer's product familiarity and the stage of
decision making and on usage experience, the HF DM has the decision process. Specifically, in the choice reduction
developed a relatively complex and rigidly fixed utility for state, the DM at MF is expected to require more time than
different levels of the various dimensions and their asso- either LF or HF decision makers.
ciated salience. This information, which is contained in This expectation is in line with Pollay's (1970) and Kies-
long-term memory, is well defined and effectively retrievedler's (1966) findings on the nonmonotonic relationship be-
for a specific choice decision task (Bettman 1979). Cate- tween decision time and the difficulty of the choice task.
gory breadth for the HF DM is not expected to differ from According to Pollay and Kiesler, decision time is expected
that of the MF DM. Although the HF DM has more ex- to increase as difficulty increases until the choice becomes
perience and knowledge than the DM at MF and presum- quite difficult, at which point decision time decreases. On

This content downloaded from

156.218.45.80 on Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:41:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 IMPACT OF FAMILIARITY 225

the other hand, the HF DM can achieve information search H2: There is a significant difference between a DM
and processing efficiency due to her high level of familiarity at a moderate level of familiarity and DMs at
(Sheth and Venkatesan 1968). This should result in the HF either a low or a high familiarity level with re-
DM requiring less decision time than the DM at MF. spect to the processing and utilization of the
Decision time at the choice selection stage is expected nonfunctional dimensions of brand name and
to exhibit a different pattern due to changed perception of price. Specifically:
the task's difficulty. Specifically, during the choice reduc-
H2a: A DM at a moderate level of familiarity feels
tion stage, the LF DM greatly simplified her choice task. less confident in relying on price and brand
This simplification now makes choice less difficult than at name than DMs at either a low or a high level
the reduction stage. The DM now feels motivated to select of familiarity.
the brand that will give her the greatest utility. This moti-
H2b: A DM at a low level of familiarity feels more
vation is expected to lead her to a careful and perhaps time-
confident in relying on the nonfunctional di-
consuming examination of additional information, due to
mensions of price and brand name than in re-
lack of familiarity. Furthermore, when the remaining alter- lying on functional dimensions.
natives are barely discriminable on those dimensions upon
which she heavily relied in the choice reduction state, the H2c: A DM at a moderate level of familiarity feels
less confident in relying on the nonfunctional
DM may be forced to consider additional information for
dimensions of price and brand name than in
which she is not an efficient information processor. On the
relying on functional dimensions.
other hand, the thoroughness of the choice reduction activ-
ities of the MF DM is likely to make her task simpler at H2d: A DM at a high level of familiarity feels as
the choice selection stage, although she is a careful infor- confident in relying on the nonfunctional di-
mation processor. This implies that the decision-making mensions of price and brand name as in relying
on functional dimensions.
time difference between a DM at LF and a DM at MF
would not be significant at the choice selection stage. H3a: In reducing the alternatives to a smaller set of
The HF DM is very efficient in processing information acceptable options, the decision time of a DM
due to her well-established cognitive structure relating to at a moderate level of familiarity is greater than
decision alternatives. Therefore, she is expected to need a that of DMs at either low or high levels of fa-
shorter decision time in her selection than is required by LF miliarity.
and MF decision makers.
H3b: In selecting the best alternative in the acceptable
set, the decision time of DMs at either low or
Choice Confidence
moderate levels of familiarity is greater than that
The degree of confidence that the DM places on the ap- of a DM at a high level of familiarity.
propriateness of the ultimate choice is viewed as being re-
H4: The DM at low familiarity feels less confident
lated to the DM's familiarity.' The LF DM is expected to
than moderate familiarity DMs, and the DM at
feel less confident than the MF DM, who has relevant
a moderate familiarity level feels less confident
knowledge for the decision-making task. The HF DM is
than the DM at high familiarity. This holds for
also expected to have higher confidence in the choice than
both the choice reduction and the choice selec-
the MF DM, due to the HF DM's greater product usage
tion stages.
experience and ownership. The confidence of the DM in
her choice is thus hypothesized to increase monotonically
with the level of her familiarity, for both the choice reduc-
tion stage and the choice selection stage. SUBJECTS
Data were obtained from 99 women living in a mid-
HYPOTHESES western college community.2 Each subject was contacted
by telephone and asked whether she had ever searched for

erate famil arity (MF), 29 subjects; and high famil arity

Based on the previous section, the following hypotheses
information about microwave ovens, had ever used a mi-
are proposed:
crowave oven, and currently owned a microwave oven. The
Hi: The perceptual category breadth on functional responses were used to assign the subject to one of three
dimensions of the DM at a low level of famil- familiarity groups: low familiarity (LF), 37 subjects; mod-
iarity is broader than that of DMs at either a
moderate or a high level of familiarity.

'The confidence refer ed to in this section deals with the DM's overal
confidence in the chosen brand. Confidence in the earlier set ing refer ed 2Eighty percent of the participants were randomly selected. The re-
to the DM's certainty that reliance on a particular product dimension wil maining 20 percent, although still representing a cross section of the com-
enhance her overall satisfaction. Similar distinctions have been made in munity, were selected through convenience, in an attempt to balance the
previous research (Bennett and Harrell 1975). number of subjects possessing different degrees of product familiarity.

This content downloaded from

156.218.45.80 on Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:41:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 226 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

(HF), 33 subjects. These three conditions

EXPERIMENTAL TASK wereAND DATA chosen to
maximally discriminate among familiarity groups. Due t
At the beginning of the interview, the subject indicated,
the absence of information search, product usage, and pro
through a five-point scale (ranging from "very familiar"
uct ownership, the product familiarity and knowledge of
coded as 5, to "unfamiliar" coded as 1), her opinion on
subjects in the LF group can clearly be differentiated fro
which microwave oven features would be important in mak-
those in the MF and HF groups. The MF subject, who had
ing a choice.5 The subject was then presented a matrix that
either search or usage experience (or both), but did not ow
described 15 models of microwave ovens in terms of ten
the product, was not expected to have as much knowledg
dimensions: brand, price, type of microwave distribution,
about dimensional importance as an individual who had
number of cooking levels, expanded scale timer, tempera-
prior purchasing experience and was a product user.
ture setting, browner, microwave leakage, safety start, and
All of the MF subjects had prior product usage experi-
usable oven capacity. Most of the descriptions accurately
ence, but very few had searched for information regarding
portrayed models available at the time. However, in a few
product attributes or differences among various brands.3 It
instances the description was altered to avoid such problems
was, therefore, believed desirable to provide the MF sub-
as dominance, and to assure that a subject could be attracted
jects with relevant information that could be used to further
to any given model depending on her choice criteria.
extend the subjective assessment of familiarity between the
The subject examined the product description matrix and
LF and MF groups. Furthermore, it was believed necessary
identified the options acceptable to her. She then indicated
to provide the HF subjects with the same information in
on a seven-point scale (extremely difficult to extremely
order to create among the MF and HF subjects common
easy) the difficulty of this choice reduction task. She also
definitional characterizations of the various microwave
indicated, on a five-point scale (extremely confident to not
oven attributes. Thus, possible dependent variable differ-
confident at all), her confidence in the selections made with
ences between the MF and HF subjects would not be at-
respect to her perceived certainty that the alternative(s) cho-
tributed to the information provided to the MF subjects.
sen will enhance her overall satisfaction. The options just
The information given to the MF and HF subjects con-
identified as being acceptable were then reevaluated to de-
tained answers to questions commonly asked about micro-
termine which would be her first choice. The perceived
wave ovens (e.g., What are microwaves? Why do foods
difficulty of this choice selection task was also measured.
cook so quickly?) and descriptions of the functional nature
The subject verbalized her thoughts (which were tape re-
of microwave oven attributes (e.g., What is an expanded
corded) while performing both the choice reduction and the
scale timer? What is a safety start?). No information con-
choice selection tasks; the time (rounded to the nearest
cerning price or brand name was given. The material was
minute) required to complete each task was also noted.
obtained from Consumer Reports, Consumer Buying Guide,
and literature published by manufacturers to increase the Also, for each of the ten microwave oven dimensions,
study's reality, as functional attribute information of this the subject indicated on a seven-point scale her confidence
that reliance on the dimension would enhance the satisfac-
type is available to the consumer.4 The MF and HF subjects
were asked to examine this material prior to the personal tion that she received from the oven chosen. Finally, for
interview and again prior to the experiment. each dimension, she indicated (using an 11-point scale) the
satisfaction she would receive from each of the dimension's
levels, e.g., for the dimension "browner," the satisfaction
associated with having and with not having a browner.

FINDINGS
3When the MF group was near its target size (approximately 90 percent
Verbal Protocol Examination
of the desired cell size), only two of these subjects had searched for
information regarding differences among microwave oven brands or for
Sixty-two of the tape-recorded protocols were transcribed
information on product attribute performance. For the remaining MF sub-
and divided into coded phrases;6 these 62 contained 24, 15,
jects, selected through a convenience method, the authors did not identify
how many had information search experience.
'The information on the functional aspects of each microwave oven
attribute was descriptive and provided both positive and negative infor-
mation. For example, the following information was provided on the at-
tribute "microwave leakage": "Microwave radiation is not the same as
X-ray or nuclear radiation. X-rays and nuclear radiation can create elec- 'As a check on the previously determined familiarity levels, the re-
trically charged (that is, ionized) molecules capable of damaging cells by sponses were compared across the familiarity groups through one-way
interfering with the process of cell division. In contrast, microwaves are ANOVA using Duncan's Multiple Range test. The average familiarities
nonionizing; any effect they may have is said to be thermal-the effect across groups were significantly different at the 0.05 level and in the
of heat on body tissue. The U.S. Bureau of Radiological Health has set anticipated direction. The mean perceived familiarity for the LF, MF, and
limits to prevent harmful levels of microwave exposure. The emission HF subjects were 1.89, 3.13, and 4.05, respectively.
standard for microwave ovens before sale sets a limit of one milliwatt of 6Twenty of the 99 protocols were deleted because verbalizations could
leakage per square centimeter (1 mWlcm2). After sale, a maximum of 5 not be understood or because decisions were made without verbalizing
mWlcm2 is permitted to allow for some deterioration of the oven over its their thoughts. Much to our distress, an additional 17 protocols were
lifetime." accidentally destroyed.

This content downloaded from

156.218.45.80 on Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:41:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 .IMPACT OF FAMILIARITY 227

and 23 subjects from the LF, MF, and HF groups, respec- familiarity groups. These hypotheses were tested using re-
tively. Two coders then independently examined each pro- sponses to how confident a subject was in relying on the
tocol statement to determine which product dimensions the particular dimension in maximizing her overall satisfaction.
subject had used in her choice task. For most of the 62 Significant differences (p < 0.05) are noted when Duncan's
protocols, the two coders agreed in their assessment. Where multiple range test is used to compare across familiarity
there was disagreement, the subject had recognized varia- groups, confidence in price, and confidence in brand name.
tion across models on the dimension, but did not use the For brand the average confidence scores were 5.38, 4.79,
dimension in making a choice; such a dimension was dis- and 5.85 for the LF, MF, and HF groups, respectively (7
carded. The coders decided that the attribute was used for = very confident, 1 = not confident at all). The LF, MF,
processing when examined in any of the following ways: and HF group averages for price were 5.19, 5.10, and 5.89,
attribute comparison process (e.g., attribute evaluation respectively. The DM at MF shows less confidence than
across brands), within-brand process (e.g., examining the DMs at either low or high familiarity levels in relying on
attributes of a particular brand), and use of prior knowledge brand-name information. This observation is consistent
for evaluating attributes.7 Based on this understanding, the with Hypothesis 2a. Also, as expected, when confidence
two coders agreed in their evaluation of all 62 protocols. in the usage of price information is examined, the DM at
Next, a third coder independently examined ten randomly MF shows significantly less confidence than the DM at HF
selected protocols; his evaluations agreed with those of the (p < 0.05); on the other hand, no significant difference is
other two.8 noted between the MF and the LF decision makers. These
observations are inconsistent with Hypothesis 2a. Perhaps
Perceptual Category Breadth the LF subjects do not perceive price as being as useful an
index of quality as is brand name (Park and Winter 1979).
The subject's satisfaction associated with each of the di- An examination of the confidence scores for brand name
mension's levels was used to measure perceptual category and for price, as compared to those for the functional di-
breadth-the number of different satisfaction scale values mensions, reveals that the LF DM places higher confidence
that the subject assigned to the dimension's levels. The on the nonfunctional dimensions (5.36 average score for
fewer the number of satisfaction categories used, the brand name and price) than on the functional dimensions
broader the breadth (Clayton and Jackson 1961). As the (4.59 average for the eight functional dimensions). This
eight functional dimensions examined in this study differ contrast is statistically significant (p < 0.003) and supports
in number of levels, the measure of breadth was standard- Hypothesis 2b. On the other hand, the MF DM placed less
ized by dividing the number of categories assigned to a confidence in her usage of price and brand name (mean
dimension by the number of levels of that dimension. score of 4.87) than on her usage of any of the functional
In analyzing perceptual category breadth, only the func- dimensions (average score is 5.43); this difference is also
tional dimensions identified as having been processed and significant (p < 0.02) and supports Hypothesis 2c. Finally,
utilized by the subject in her choice task were considered; the HF DM appears to place as much confidence on price
these dimensions were identified from the protocol data. A and brand name (average of 5.86) as on usage of the func-
subject's standardized breadth scores on these dimensions tional dimensions (average of 5.88).
were then averaged to measure her-total category breadth. Examination of Hypotheses 2b, 2c, and 2d reveals a sig-
Using ANOVA, these scores (for the 62 protocol subjects) nificant interaction (p < 0.008) between level of familiarity
were then compared across the three familiarity groups. and dimension type (but this does not assume independence
The mean values for the LF, MF, and HF groups were for the within-subject responses).
0.66, 0.76, and 0.76, respectively (the smaller the value,
the broader the breadth). As expected (Hypothesis 1), a
significant difference does not exist between the MF and
Decision Time
HF groups. It should also be noted that although not sig-
nificant (p < 0.16), the directional differences between LF
category breadth and that of MF and HF are as expected. Hypothesis 3a states that in the choice-reduction decision
stage, the MF DM would require a significantly longer time
Reliance on Price and Brand Name to complete the task than DMs at either LF or HF. An
ANOVA on the decision times for subjects in the three
Hypotheses 2 through 2d are concerned with the differ-
familiarity groups supports this hypothesis at the 0.01 level;
ence of confidence in price and brand name among the three
the mean decision times were 6.70, 9.38, and 7.72 for
subjects in the LF, MF, and HF groups, respectively.
Hypothesis 3b, on the other hand, states that LF and MF
decision makers will require significantly more time than
7For more specific information regarding specific subcategories on each
of these three general categories, see Bettman and Park (1980).
the HF DM in the choice selection decision stage. To test
8Unless otherwise indicated, the analyses reported are based on the
Hypothesis 3b, an adjustment in the data base was made
entire sample of 99 subjects. Although not reported, the same analyses
were performed on the reduced sample of 62 subjects, with identical find-to nullify (or standardize) the effect that differing numbers
ings. of choice options would have on decision time comparisons

This content downloaded from

156.218.45.80 on Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:41:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 228 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

across familiarity groups.9 As a result of this standardiza- the low and the moderate familiarity groups. This suggests
tion, when ANOVA (Duncan's Multiple Range test) is used that the LF group is perhaps more confident than they
to compare the subsets on the basis of decision time, dif- should be, and the MF group is less confident than they
ferences in decision time are a reflection of familiarity and should be.
not the number of options evaluated. The mean decision Unlike subjects in other familiarity groups, the LF sub-
time for the LF, MF, and HF subsets were 2.43, 2.14, and jects expressed greater confidence in their choice reduction
1.04, respectively (p < 0.08). Duncan's Multiple Range decision than in their decision at the choice selection stage.
test showed the differences between the low and the high Although this difference is not significant at the 0.05 level,
familiarity subsets and between the moderate and the high it seems to support the implications of previous discussion
familiarity subsets to be marginally significant (p < 0.10). on the LF DM's choice processes at the two different choice
No significant difference was found between the low and tasks, i.e., more elaborate processing at the choice selection
the moderate familiarity subsets. These findings marginally stage led the LF group to think that they chose the right
support Hypothesis 3b. brand no matter how low their perceived level of knowl-
These findings are further supported by an examination edge.
of the perceived difficulty of the decision task. ANOVA
across the three familiarity groups on the perceived diffi-
culty of the decision task at the choice reduction stage DISCUSSION
showed that the LF DM perceived the task to be more
difficult than did MF and HF decision makers (p < 0.002). The decision biases and heuristics revealed by the three
Because of her perceived task difficulty, the LF DM is groups of subjects may be close approximations of those
expected to greatly simplify her decision task, reducing the used by consumers at different stages of familiarity. Spe-
decision time from that which would be expected from cifically, the decision (evaluation) biases and heuristics re-
looking at perceived task difficulty only. vealed by the LF subjects are expected to be found among
However, ANOVA showed no significant difference consumers who do not have prior product-usage experience,
among the three groups in the level of task difficulty. are not equipped with relevant information about brand dif-
ferences and the functional product attributes (no infor-
mation search), and do not own the product. The MF sub-
Confidence in Decision
jects' evaluation biases and heuristics may be representative
Hypothesis 4 states that a DM's confidence in her choice of those who have some product-usage experience, possess
decision increases monotonically with her level of famil- relevant information, but do not currently own the product.
iarity in each of the two choice tasks. Subject responses on The HF subjects' evaluation and decision biases are ex-
confidence in the decision were analyzed through Duncan's pected to be found among consumers who currently own
Multiple Range test; the findings partially support the hy- the product and have relevant product knowledge.
pothesis. These generalizations should, however, be made with
Specifically, confidence increases monotonically with the some caution. Specifically, the present study and the study
level of familiarity. At the choice reduction stage, the mon- by Bettman and Park (1980), using the same design and
otonic increases in confidence between the LF and the MF subjects, were not able to address motivational differences
groups and between the LF and the HF groups are both among the three groups of subjects in terms of the degree
significant at the 0.05 level; no significant difference was of their prior interest in microwaves and the impact of this
noted between the MF and the HF groups. The monotonic interest on the study's findings. These questions are im-
increases in confidence with familiarity is also noted at the portant in view of the recent findings about the state-of-
choice selection stage with the difference between the low mind effect on utility formation and choice decision (Wright
and the high familiarity groups also significant at the 0.05 and Kriewall 1980).
level. No significant difference, however, is noted between It is highly likely that differences among the three groups
exist in the subjects' enduring involvement (Rothschild and
Houston 1980) or prior interest in the product. The LF
9This standardization was accomplished by comparing decision time
subjects would have a lower prior interest in the product
(at the choice-selection stage) across three subsets, one for each of the than the MF group who had some prior product-usage ex-
three familiarity groups. Each subset contained 21 subjects. The subsets perience and relevant product-attribute information; the MF
were constructed such that the number of subjects who evaluated "x"
interest may have been heightened through receiving rele-
choice options was the same for each of the subsets. Assume, for example,
vant information material. Similarly, the MF subjects
that four LF DMs, six MF DMs, and seven HF DMs evaluated three
microwave ovens at the choice-selection stage; the LF, MF, and HF de- would have a lower interest in the product than HF subjects
cision time subsets, then, would respectively contain all four of these LF who have actually purchased the product.
DMs, four of the six MF DMs (selected randomly), and four of the seven Did differences in enduring involvement (prior interest)
HF DMs. Through such a procedure, the composition of the three subsets
affect the situational involvement (involvement with the
were identical in terms of the number of subjects who evaluated a given
number of choice options. Equalizing across familiarity groups, the num- experimental task)? A concern of particular interest could
ber of subjects evaluating "x" choice options resulted in the exclusion of relate to the LF subjects. Could their low interest in the
36 of the 99 subjects from the standardized subsets. experimental task have affected the results (i.e., "I am not

This content downloaded from

156.218.45.80 on Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:41:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 IMPACT OF FAMILIARITY 229

interested in microwave ovens, thus I'm not really inter- The decision makers may also differ in their abilities (and
ested in this 'choose a microwave oven' task."). Several modes) to retrieve this information at a later point in time.
of the study's findings do not appear to support this possible
bias. If the LF subjects had little involvement in the ex- [Received January 1980. Revised April 1981.]
perimental task, they might simply have given up, using
significantly fewer attributes and requiring a substantially
shorter decision time than subjects in the MF and HF
groups. However, comparison of the number of dimensions
REFERENCES
used in the choice-reduction stage revealed no significant Bennett, Peter D., and Harrell, Gilbert D. (1975), "The Role of
difference among the three groups; the average number of Confidence in Understanding and Predicting Buyers' Atti-
dimensions used by the LF, MF, and HF subjects were tudes and Purchase Intentions," Journal of Consumer Re-
5.58, 6.60, and 6.04, respectively. Similarly, at the choice- search, 2, 110-7.
selection stage, no significant difference among the groups Bettman, James R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of
Consumer Choice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publish-
was noted; at this stage the average number of dimensions
ing Co.
used were 2.71, 2.58, and 2.68 for the LF, MF, and HF
, and Park, C. Whan (1980), "Effects of Prior Knowledge
groups, respectively. Also, careful examination of the pro-and Experience on Consumer Decision Processes: A Pro-
tocols revealed that most of the subjects in the LF groups tocol Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 234-48.
tried to infer the meaning of various product attributes based Bruner, Jerome S. (1957), "On Perceptual Readiness," Psycho-
on experience with other products, and lamented their lack logical Review, 64, 123-52.
of knowledge about microwave ovens (Bettman and Park , and Tajfel, Henri (1961), "Cognitive Risk and Environ-
1980). ment Change," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
Decision-time comparisons among the three groups also 62, 231-41.

do not appear to support the notion of a bias among the LF Clayton, M. A., and Jackson, D. N. (1961), "Equivalence Range,
Acquiescence and Overgeneralization," Educational and
subjects. Although there was a significant difference in de-
Psychological Measurement, 21, 371-82.
cision time at the choice-reduction stage between the LF
Edell, Julie A., and Mitchell, Andrew A. (1978), "An Informa-
and MF subjects, and between the MF and HF subjects,
tion Processing Approach to Cognitive Response," in Re-
there was no significant difference between subjects in the search Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions,
LF and the HF groups. Furthermore, at the choice-selection ed. S. C. Jain, Chicago: American Marketing Association,
stage, the LF group required the longest time to make a pp. 178-83.
decision, whereas the HF subjects required the least. If the Hansen, Flemming (1972), Consumer Choice Behavior: A Cog-
level of prior interest had influenced the subjects' decision nitive Theory, New York: The Free Press.
during the experimental task, the reverse decision time or- Howard, J. A., and Sheth, Jagdish A. (1969), The Theory of
der would have been expected. It should also be noted that Buyer Behavior, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kiesler, Charles A. (1966), "Conflict and Number of Choice
the MF subject's motivation with the task could have been
Alternatives," Psychological Reports, 18, 603-10.
higher than that of the LF and HF subjects. It could be
Lichtenstein, Sarah, and Fishhoff, Baruch (1977), "Do Those
argued that this motivation rather than the subject's per-
Who Know More Also Know More about How Much They
ceived knowledge systematically influenced the findings of Know?" Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
this study and the Bettman and Park (1980) paper, which 20, 159-83.
revealed more extensive processing by MF than by LF or Mitchell, Andrew A. (1980), "Cognitive Process Initiated by Ex-
HF subjects. However, an examination of the category posure to Advertising," in Information Processing Research
breadth, decision time, and confidence analyses show no in Advertising, ed. Richard Harris, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
evidence of a systematic bias. Erlbaum Associates.
Park, C. Whan (1978), "A Conflict Resolution Choice Model,"
Finally, given that there is no commonly accepted (or
Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 124-37.
even proposed) conceptual definition of product familiarity,
, and Lessig, V. Parker (1977), "Judgmental Rules and
the results of this study should be interpreted in accordance
Stages of the Familiarity Curve: Promotional Implications,"
with how the level of familiarity was operationalized. If,
Journal of Advertising, 6, 10-6.
for example, the level of the DM's familiarity is defined , and Winter, Frederick W. (1979), "Product Quality
differently, e.g., in terms of the amount of knowledge in Judgment: Information Processing Approach," Journal of
long-term memory, a different set of research questions the Market Research Society, 21, 211-7.
may be raised. To illustrate, investigation is needed into Payne, J. W. (1976), "Task Complexity and Contingent Pro-
the information-acquisition process of decision makers at cessing in Decision Making: An Information Search and
different familiarity levels. Particular attention needs to be Protocol Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human
placed on the cognitive processes that are initiated during Performance, 16, 366-87.
Pinson, Christian (1978), "Consumer Cognitive Styles," in Mar-
exposure to communication stimuli and to the content and
keting: Neue Ergebnisse aus Forschung und Praxis, ed. E.
organization of the information acquired after exposure
Topritzhofer, Dusseldorf, Germany: Westdeutscher, Verlag.
(Edell and Mitchell 1978; Mitchell 1980). Decision makers
Pollay, Richard W. (1970), "A Model of Decision Times in Dif-
at different familiarity levels may reveal differences in en- ficult Decision Situations," Psychological Review, 77,
coding strategies for which category breadth is only a part. 274-81.

This content downloaded from

156.218.45.80 on Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:41:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 230 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Rothschild, Michael L., and Houston, Michael J. (1980), "In- Tversky, A., and Kahneman, Daniel (1974), "Judgment and Un-
dividual Differences in Voting Behavior: Further Investiga- certainty: Heuristics and Biases," Science, 185, 1124-31.
tions of Involvement," in Advances in Consumer Research, Wright, Peter, and Kriewall, Mary Ann (1980), "State-of-Mind
Vol. 7, ed. Jerry C. Olson, San Francisco: Association for Effect on the Accuracy With Which Utility Functions Predict
Consumer Research. Marketplace Choice," Journal of Marketing Research, 17,
Sheth, Jagdish N., and Venkatesan M. (1968), "Risk-Reduction 277-93.
Processes in Repetitive Consumer Behavior," Journal of
Marketing Research, 5, 307-10.

-WANTED-
COPIES OF DECEMBER 1976 JCR

The Business Office of the Journal of Consumer Research would like to buy

back 50 copies (in good condition) of the December 1976 issue of JCR (Vol. 3, No.
3), and will pay $5.00 per copy.
Interested persons should contact the Managing Editor immediately by

phone or mail.

This content downloaded from

156.218.45.80 on Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:41:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 231

PUBLICATIONS RECEIVED
Assael, Henry, Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, Boston, MA: Kent Publishing Co.,
1981, 641 pp.

Berkman, Harold W., and Christopher Gilson, Consumer Behavior: Concepts and Strategies, 2nd
edn., Boston: Kent Publishing Co., 1981, 483 pp.

Corey, E. Raymond, Christopher H. Lovelock, and Scott Ward, editors, Problems in Marketing,
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981, 810 pp.

Frank, Ronald E., and Marshall G. Greenberg, The Public's Use of Television: Who Watches and
Why, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1980, 368 pp.

Kassarjian, Harold H., and Thomas S. Robertson, editors, Perspectives in Consumer Behavior,
3rd edn., Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1981, 538 pp.

Lutz, Richard J., editor, Contemporary Perspectives in Consumer Research, Boston: Kent Pub-
lishing Co., 1981, 466 pp.

Schultz, Randall L., and Andris A. Zoltners, editors, Marketing Decision Models, New York:
Elsevier North Holland, Inc., 1981, 298 pp.

Scotton, Donald W., and Ronald L. Zallocco, editors, Readings in Market Segmentation, Chicago;
American Marketing Association, 1980, 198 pp.

Sheth, Jagdish N., editor, Research in Marketing: A Research Annual, Vol. 4, Greenwich, CN:
JAI Press, Inc., 1981, 282 pp.

Woods, Walter A., Consumer Behavior: Adapting and Experiencing, New York: Elsievier-North
Holland, Inc., 1981, 485 pp.

PROFESSORS-DO YOUR GRADUATE STUDENTS KNOW ABOUT JCR?

To assist you in keeping your students at the forefront of research on consumer

behavior, we have introduced the following reduced rates:

* Subscriptions-$14.00 per year is our low introductory rate for students.

* Single copies-$4.00 per copy for bulk orders (10 copies or more) of any issue
of JCR.

So-bring JCR into your classroom, by taking advantage of either of the above. Sub-
scription blanks are inserted in this issue.

This content downloaded from

156.218.45.80 on Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:41:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms