IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v47y2020i1p56-78..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumers Make Different Inferences and Choices When Product Uncertainty Is Attributed to Forgetting Rather than Ignorance
[Is Memory Schematic?]

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel J Walters
  • Hal E Hershfield
  • J Jeffrey Inman
  • Rebecca K Ratner

Abstract

When a consumer realizes that information relevant to a consumption decision is missing, such uncertainty can be attributed to ignorance (i.e., the information has never been observed and is unknown) or to memory failure (i.e., the information has been observed and is forgotten). Although research has examined inferences about unknown attributes, no prior work has examined inferences about forgotten attributes. Across six experiments in the lab and in the field, we find that when uncertainty is attributed to ignorance, consumers often make inferences about unknown attributes based on existing correlational evidence (e.g., a brand comparison sheet that could indicate a positive or negative correlation between the unknown attribute and observable attributes). However, when uncertainty is attributed to memory failure, consumers tend to ignore such existing correlational evidence and instead make inferences about forgotten attributes that tend to be positively correlated with known attributes. This process occurs partly because when consumers believe that an attribute was forgotten, they falsely retrieve an impression about the attribute that tends to be consistent with their overall product evaluation. Overall, believing that an attribute is forgotten and believing that it is unknown can lead to opposite inferences and choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel J Walters & Hal E Hershfield & J Jeffrey Inman & Rebecca K Ratner, 2020. "Consumers Make Different Inferences and Choices When Product Uncertainty Is Attributed to Forgetting Rather than Ignorance [Is Memory Schematic?]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 47(1), pages 56-78.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:47:y:2020:i:1:p:56-78.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucz053
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ross, William T, Jr & Creyer, Elizabeth H, 1992. "Making Inferences about Missing Information: The Effects of Existing Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(1), pages 14-25, June.
    2. Itamar Simonson & Ziv Carmon & Suzanne O'Curry, 1994. "Experimental Evidence on the Negative Effect of Product Features and Sales Promotions on Brand Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 23-40.
    3. Ford, Gary T & Smith, Ruth Ann, 1987. "Inferential Beliefs in Consumer Evaluations: An Assessment of Alternative Processing Strategies," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(3), pages 363-371, December.
    4. Kardes, Frank R, 1986. "Effects of Initial Product Judgments on Subsequent Memory-Based Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, June.
    5. Kardes, Frank R, 1988. "Spontaneous Inference Processes in Advertising: The Effects of Conclusion Omission and Involvement on Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(2), pages 225-233, September.
    6. Dick, Alan & Chakravarti, Dipankar & Biehal, Gabriel, 1990. "Memory-Based Inferences during Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 17(1), pages 82-93, June.
    7. Ravi Mehta & Joandrea Hoegg & Amitav Chakravarti, 2011. "Knowing Too Much: Expertise-Induced False Recall Effects in Product Comparison," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(3), pages 535-554.
    8. Johnson, Richard D & Levin, Irwin P, 1985. "More than Meets the Eye: The Effect of Missing Information on Purchase Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(2), pages 169-177, September.
    9. Braun, Kathryn A, 1999. "Postexperience Advertising Effects on Consumer Memory," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(4), pages 319-334, March.
    10. Simmons, Carolyn J & Lynch, John G, Jr, 1991. "Inference Effects without Inference Making? Effects of Missing Information on Discounting and Use of Presented Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 17(4), pages 477-491, March.
    11. John, Deborah Roedder & Scott, Carol A & Bettman, James R, 1986. "Sampling Data for Covariation Assessment: The Effect of Prior Beliefs on Search Patterns," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(1), pages 38-47, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ainslie E. Schultz & Kevin P. Newman & Scott A. Wright, 2023. "The Negative Effect of Low Belonging on Consumer Responses to Sustainable Products," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(3), pages 473-492, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lee, Dong Hwan & Olshavsky, Richard W., 1997. "Consumers' use of alternative information sources in inference generation: A replication study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 257-269, July.
    2. Gunasti, Kunter & Ross, William T., 2015. "The effects of compensatory inferences for attributes on the choice of incomplete product options," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1136-1144.
    3. Simonson, Itamar & Kivetz, Ran, 2000. "The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice," Research Papers 1609, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    4. Wu, Fang & Swait, Joffre & Chen, Yuxin, 2019. "Feature-based attributes and the roles of consumers' perception bias and inference in choice," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 325-340.
    5. Davies, Antony & Cline, Thomas W., 2005. "A consumer behavior approach to modeling monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 797-826, December.
    6. Marc Jekel & Andreas Glockner & Arndt Broder & Viktoriya Maydych, 2014. "Approximating rationality under incomplete information: Adaptive inferences for missing cue values based on cue-discrimination," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(2), pages 129-147, March.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:2:p:196-204 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Shih-Chieh Chuang & Danny Tengti Kao & Yin-Hui Cheng & Chu-An Chou, 2012. "The effect of incomplete information on the compromise effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(2), pages 196-204, March.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:2:p:129-147 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Sanjay K. Dhar & Claudia González-Vallejo & Dilip Soman, 1999. "Modeling the Effects of Advertised Price Claims: Tensile Versus Precise Claims?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 154-177.
    11. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    12. repec:dau:papers:123456789/12755 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Fabrice Larceneux & Florence Benoît-Moreau & Valérie Renaudin, 2012. "Why Might Organic Labels Fail to Influence Consumer Choices? Marginal Labelling and Brand Equity Effects," Post-Print hal-00656485, HAL.
    14. Sanbonmatsu, David M. & Kardes, Frank R. & Posavac, Steven S. & Houghton, David C., 1997. "Contextual Influences on Judgment Based on Limited Information," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 251-264, March.
    15. Moon, Junyean & Tikoo, Surinder, 1997. "Consumer Use of Available Information for Making Inferences about Missing Information," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 135-146, June.
    16. Larceneux, Fabrice & Carpenter, Marie, 2008. "Third party labeling and the consumer decision process," HEC Research Papers Series 891, HEC Paris.
    17. Fabrice Larceneux & Florence Benoit-Moreau & Valérie Renaudin, 2012. "Why Might Organic Labels Fail to Influence Consumer Choices? Marginal Labelling and Brand Equity Effects," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 85-104, March.
    18. Thomas Kramer & Caglar Irmak & Lauren Block & Veronika Ilyuk, 2012. "The effect of a no-pain, no-gain lay theory on product efficacy perceptions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 517-529, September.
    19. Kirmani, Amna & Lee, Michelle P. & Yoon, Carolyn, 2004. "Procedural priming effects on spontaneous inference formation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 859-875, December.
    20. Bianca Grohmann & H. Bodur, 2015. "Brand Social Responsibility: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Outcomes," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 375-399, October.
    21. Haryanto, Jony Oktavian & Moutinho, Luiz & Coelho, Arnaldo, 2016. "Is brand loyalty really present in the children's market? A comparative study from Indonesia, Portugal, and Brazil," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4020-4032.
    22. Anna M. Cianci & Satoris S. Culbertson, 2010. "The Impact of Motivational and Cognitive Factors on Optimistic Earnings Forecasts," Chapters, in: Brian Bruce (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Finance, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    23. Ordonez, Lisa D., 1998. "The Effect of Correlation between Price and Quality on Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 258-273, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:47:y:2020:i:1:p:56-78.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.