Studies examining message framing effects on persuasion have produced mixed results. Some studies show positively framed messages, which specify attributes or benefits gained by using a product, to be more persuasive than negatively framed messages, which specify attributes or benefits lost by not using a product. Reverse outcomes have been obtained in other studies. The authors explore a theoretical explanation for such findings by investigating whether differences in the degree to which people engage in detailed message processing account for the mixed results. The findings support the view that positively framed messages may be more persuasive when there is little emphasis on detailed processing, but negatively framed messages may be more persuasive when detailed processing is emphasized.

Previous research on brand name utilization in consumer judgments has yielded mixed results. In this study, we attempted to understand brand name effects within the framework of the heuristic‐systematic model. Subjects read a message that portrayed a new product as possessing either important or unimportant attributes, and the product was associated with either a favorable brand name or an unfavorable brand name. Brand name valence was thus either congruent or incongruent with attribute importance. Accuracy motivation was also manipulated by varying the importance of subjects' processing task. Results show that low‐task importance subjects' evaluations were influenced only by brand name valence. High‐task importance subjects' evaluations were affected only by attribute importance in the incongruent conditions, whereas both attribute importance and brand name valence influenced evaluations in the congruent conditions. The findings indicate that both consumers' level of motivation, and the extent to which brand name based expectations are confirmed by subsequent processing of attribute information moderate brand name utilization. Also, the results extend previous research relevant to the heuristic‐systematic model's additivity and attenuation assumptions.

AbstractA growing stream of research has examined emotions and decision‐making based on the appraisal tendencies associated with emotions. This paper outlines two general approaches that can lead to further our understanding of the variety of ways emotions affect decision‐making and information processing. Specifically, future research can examine the nature of emotional appraisals or investigate the nature of decision contexts and underlying psychological processes influenced by emotions. To understand the nature of emotional appraisals, scholars could examine the interaction of two appraisal dimensions or identify novel appraisal tendencies. To understand the decision‐making contexts and psychological processes influenced by emotions, scholars could examine how emotions interact with contextual influences to shape judgments through a variety of processes such as providing information, priming goals, or activating mindsets. These approaches to the study of emotions and decision‐making will contribute to more nuanced theory development around emotions, nurture new empirical work, and encourage interest in exploring a broader set of emotions.

Low-fit brand extensions, while often presenting profitable opportunities for existing brands, are known to meet with varying levels of consumer acceptance. This research identifies conditions in which low-fit extensions can succeed. Specifically, the authors show that the extent to which consumers consider the context in forming judgments (i.e., they are context dependent) determines their acceptance of low-fit extensions. Across four studies, the authors examine the combined effects of context (in)dependence and type of information. Context-dependent consumers form their evaluations on the basis of the type of brand extension information provided, such that providing benefit-based information enhances the evaluations of low-fit extensions, whereas providing attribute-based information leads to a reliance on extension fit and subsequent unfavorable evaluations of low fit extensions. In contrast, context-independent consumers are more likely to base their judgments on extension fit regardless of whether they receive attribute- or benefit-based information. Acceptance of high-fit extensions is unaffected by context (in)dependence and type of information. These findings provide a two-step strategy (i.e., sensitize consumers to context and providing benefit-based extension information) to managers for launching low-fit extensions and leveraging existing parent brand equity.