JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 11(2), 99–113

Copyright © 2001, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Promoting a Brand’s Emotion Benefits: The Influence of Emotion

Categorization Processes on Consumer Evaluations
Julie A. Ruth
School of Business
Rutgers University

Research in psychology has demonstrated that people have a shared knowledge of emotion
categories. Building on this research and our understanding of categorization processes, this
article proposes a mechanism by which consumers utilize information about a brand’s “emo-
tion benefits” in forming attitudes. The results of 2 experimental studies show that (a) consum-
ers’ processing of a brand’s emotion benefit information is consistent with categorization
processes such that emotion category congruity effects are large in basic—versus subordi-
nate—level conditions, (b) associating a brand with cetain emotions can influence brand and
ad attitudes without necessarily eliciting emotions during exposure to advertising, (c) emotion
category congruity “works” through attitude-toward-the-ad and emotion benefit beliefs in in-
fluencing brand attitudes, and (d) subjective product category knowledge moderates the
strength of these effects. Taken together, these results explicate the process by which a knowl-
edge-based consideration of a brand’s emotional benefits can influence consumers’ beliefs
about the brand and brand attitudes.

Emotion-laden experiences including “feelings, fantasy and brand attitude formation (Batra & Ray, 1986; Edell & Burke,
fun” have been recognized as an important part of consumer 1987; Holbrook & Batra, 1987). Alternatively, a number of
behavior (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). Not surprisingly, researchers have noted that mental or cognitive consideration
advertising often links brands to emotional benefits of prod- of the emotional consequences of one’s actions may influence
uct use (e.g., “Fight your fear with Fosomaxä, the first evaluations (Baron, 1992; Folkes, 1988; Petty, Cacioppo, &
non-hormonal treatment for osteoporosis proven to rebuild Kasmer, 1988).
bone”; General Foods offers “Coffee so enchanting, you’ll Building on the latter perspective, this research investi-
fall in love”). Some brands are positioned on the basis of emo- gates the proposition that emotion-oriented product informa-
tions (e.g., Pontiac automobiles and excitement, with various tion does not necessarily “work” only through eliciting the
slogans including “We build excitement” and “Pontiac promised emotion during information processing. More spe-
Sunfire is driving excitement”). Others explicitly link the cifically, this article investigates a mechanism consumers use
brand to emotional benefits through the brand name such as in processing messages with references to emotion associated
the “Worry-Free Handycamä Camcorder by Sony.” Despite with the brand and whether these effects can occur independ-
its prevalence, it is not clear how such references to prospec- ent of feelings evoked by advertising. Research has shown
tive emotion-laden experiences influence consumer evalua- that emotions are represented in memory as a type of cate-
tions of the brand and ad. gorical knowledge (Conway & Bekerian, 1987; Shaver,
One possible explanation for how references to emotional Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987). It is proposed here
benefits affect persuasion is that the emotions themselves are that consumers use this knowledge to process and understand
elicited during advertising exposure. Under this explanation, information regarding the emotion benefits or consequences
exposure stimulates consumer information processing in- of using the product or brand. Emotion benefit information is
cluding affective responses to the ad, which in turn influence considered to convey data about affect-laden experiences as-
sociated with a brand, or “how you feel when you buy, use, or
simply own the product” (Haley, 1985, p. 26). This definition
incorporates those instances where a brand is associated with
Requests for reprints should be sent to Julie A. Ruth, School of Business,
227 Penn Street, Rutgers University, Camden, NJ 08102. E-mail: emotion benefits through explicit semantic references to feel-
[email protected] ings (e.g., Pontiac is driving excitement). This definition also
100 RUTH

incorporates descriptions of emotions associated with a brand tion) and account for a sufficiently large but still distinct (e.g.,
(the terms emotions and feelings are used interchangeably). joy vs. affection) set of emotions. In contrast, subordinate-level
Research in psychology addressing the characteristics and emotions are members of their respective basic-level categories
processing of categories is used to develop hypotheses regard- but differ in intensity or quality as compared to the basic-level
ing emotion category congruity—the match between desir- category (Shaver et al., 1987). For example, fright is an in-
able emotion-based consequences of product category use and tensely experienced, subordinate-level representative of the ba-
the benefits associated with the brand of interest. Experiment 1 sic-level category of fear. This hierarchical category structure
tests the dual impact of emotion category congruity and cate- reflects individuals’ shared agreement on the characteristics
gory level (basic- vs. subordinate-level emotions) on brand generally associated with each emotion: (a) the types of situa-
and ad attitudes. Experiment 2 investigates the moderating im- tions that elicit certain emotions (Conway & Bekerian, 1987),
pact of product knowledge on the emotion category congru- (b) script-like descriptions of specific emotions (Shaver et al.,
ity–attitude relation. The results provide evidence regarding 1987), and (c) patterns of thoughts or cognitive appraisals that
categorization processes associated with emotion benefits, the accompany emotions (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988a,1988b; Smith
impact of basic- and subordinate-level categories on persua- & Ellsworth, 1985).
sion, and how product category knowledge moderates the con- It is important to note that research has shown that people
gruity effect. Furthermore, the results of step-down analysis of are able to name an emotion based on a description of its char-
variance procedures address the sequential relations among acteristics. For example, when an individual describes a nega-
emotion category congruity, ad-evoked feelings, attitudes-to- tive situation involving a high level of uncertainty and a
ward-the-ad, brand beliefs, and brand attitudes. perception of little control over anticipated negative out-
comes, this experience would be understood and identified as
fear. People are also able to “run the reverse” (Smith &
CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE AND Medin, 1981) by readily describing the emotion’s generally
KNOWLEDGE OF EMOTIONS agreed-on characteristics when prompted with its semantic
label. For example, if asked to describe the emotion fear, peo-
Consumer knowledge has generally been conceptualized as ple would typically describe situations and perceptions con-
consumer beliefs and familiarity with products and brands sistent with a negative, highly uncertain experience.
(Alba & Hutchinson, 1987; Sujan, 1985). This research pro-
poses that in addition to product- and brand-related knowledge,
consumers systematically utilize nonmarket types of knowl- Knowledge of Emotions and Processes
edge such as knowledge of emotions in evaluating products of Categorization
and prospective consumption experiences. This proposition is
founded in research showing that emotions are represented in The categorization approach posits that consumers store in-
memory as a type of categorical knowledge (Conway & formation in memory around a set of category expectations
Bekerian, 1987; Shaver et al., 1987). That is, people understand (Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975; Rosch et al., 1976).
the similarities and differences between emotion types (e.g., Empirical evidence suggests that information-processing ac-
joy vs. love) in a manner consistent with a prototype perspec- tivities are affected by the degree to which information is dis-
tive of categorical knowledge (Fehr & Russell, 1991). crepant from these category expectations. For instance, speed
Shaver et al. (1987) determined that individuals’knowledge and accuracy of identification and classification are greater
of emotions is structured hierarchically, similar to the categori- for more representative rather than less representative mem-
zation of natural objects (Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & bers of a category (Mervis & Rosch, 1981). When asked to
Boyes-Braem, 1976). In Shaver et al., one set of participants cite examples of a category, more representative examples are
rated the prototypicality of 213 emotions (e.g., love, bliss, ten- listed earlier than less representative members (Nedungadi &
derness, anxiety, dread, terror, etc.), and a second sample sorted Hutchinson, 1985; Rosch et al., 1976).
135 prototypical emotions into categories according to similar- Furthermore, consumers’ interpretation of information of-
ity or “which ones go together.” Average distance cluster analy- ten depends on the particular knowledge structures, or catego-
sis showed that two superordinate categories exist, positive and ries, that have been recently or are currently active (Herr, 1989;
negative emotions, and five basic-level categories exist—joy, Wyer & Srull, 1981). For example, Sujan (1985) studied infor-
affection, fear, anger, and sadness. It is important to note that the mation processing by experts and novices who were presented
basic emotions are those that are basic from the standpoint of the with product descriptions that matched or mismatched a cate-
primary information-processing tasks accomplished through gory label—35-mm and 110-instamatic cameras. For experts,
categorization—identification, reasoning, and cognitive econ- when the label and the camera descriptions matched (mis-
omy—rather than a physiological or biological perspective matched), the evaluation process appeared to be more (less)
(Izard, 1992; Ortony & Turner, 1990). The moderate level of ab- category based and faster (slower) evaluations resulted.
straction associated with basic emotions means they are neither Conway and Bekerian (1987) studied the effects of emotion
too abstract (e.g., positive emotion) nor too specific (e.g., ela- congruity on a series of lexical decision tasks. Using congru-
 PROMOTING A BRAND’S EMOTION BENEFITS 101

ent (incongruent) emotion category descriptions as primes, category congruity—relatively favorable brand evaluations
recognition of emotion words was facilitated (inhibited). They should result. This is expected because an emotion category de-
also observed congruity effects when situational attributes as- scription will be presented as a desired attribute of the product
sociated with a particular emotion category—descriptions of category experience, coupled with an emotion benefit specifi-
the emotion—were used as the prime. That is, recognition of cally associated with the advertised brand (i.e., semantic label).
the emotion word was facilitated (inhibited) in the presence of Similar to the findings of Conway and Bekerian (1987) in lexi-
congruent (incongruent) descriptions. cal decision settings, individuals will perceive the match or mis-
By extension, it is proposed that presentation of a brand’s match based on their categorical knowledge of emotions.
emotion benefit information accesses categorical knowledge Furthermore, individuals’ general preference for matching ex-
of the emotion and the types of experiences and conditions as- pectations (Mandler, 1982) implies that emotion category con-
sociated with it. For example, when told that the Pontiac gruity will yield relatively favorable brand attitudes. Thus, in
Sunfire is driving excitement, it is proposed that the consumer conditions where the brand is associated with the relevant and
accesses categorical knowledge linked with excitement (i.e., desirable target emotion, evaluations of the brand will be rela-
strongly positive with modest to high arousal) and associates tively more favorable as compared to conditions where the
it with the brand. Accessing this prior emotion knowledge brand is associated with a different or incongruent one.
provides a relatively quick and efficient way of understanding
the emotional consequences associated with a situation or, in H1: Emotion benefit congruity (incongruity) will be as-
this case, the brand. sociated with relatively more (less) favorable
brand attitudes.

Categorical Knowledge of Emotions and Thus, when a specific emotion benefit is conveyed as relevant
Effects on Attitudes and desirable for the product category, a brand will be evalu-
ated, in part, on the consumer’s perceptions that the brand sat-
How does the categorization of emotion, then, influence atti- isfies these expectations.
tude formation? What will determine whether a match between The effect of emotion benefit congruity will be moderated
an instance and the category results in favorable or unfavorable under certain category-level processing conditions. The supe-
evaluations of the brand? Category congruity leads to favorable riority of basic-level categories has been shown in a number of
evaluations because, all things being equal, people prefer ob- categorization studies (Mervis & Rosch, 1981). When people
jects and situations that conform to expectations (Mandler, are shown an object, there is tendency to name it at the basic
1982). In contrast, when presented with an object that is incon- level, and basic-level objects are recognized faster than either
gruent with categorical knowledge, greater elaboration and ef- subordinates or superordinates (Rosch et al., 1976). These ef-
fort is required to resolve the incongruity in some manner. fects occur because basic-level categories maximize
Whereas extreme incongruity yields relatively less favorable within-category similarity while minimizing the similarity be-
evaluations because the incongruity is difficult to resolve, some tween basic-level categories. Furthermore, subordinate-level
research has found that moderate incongruity is positively val- emotions are members of their respective basic-level catego-
ued because of the psychological reward of processing and re- ries but are less representative of the basic-level category be-
solving the moderate incongruity (Meyers-Levy & Tybout, cause they apply to a smaller range of category-related
1989). Although moderate incongruity is generally preferred, situations or may even share some characteristics with other
there are limits to this effect. When strong, certain (unambigu- categories (Shaver et al., 1987). For example, anger is per-
ous) affect is associated with the relevant category, this affect ceived to be the best representative of the basic category,
will “dominate that which may be obtained as a consequence of whereas frustration, although bearing category resemblance
the processing and elaboration prompted by different levels of to the basic category anger, is less representative of the entire
category congruity” (Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989, p. 40). category of anger-related experiences.
Similarly, Heckler & Childers (1992) demonstrated that con- Given these characteristics, particularly within- and be-
gruity is evaluated based on perceptions of relevance and expec- tween-category resemblance, the impact of emotion category
tancy. The degree to which information falls into some congruity will be most pronounced in basic-level conditions
predetermined pattern or structure of the category is consistent and will be attenuated by use of subordinate-level emotions
with “expectancy” (Heckler & Childers, 1992). Congruent in- associated with the brand.
formation is both relevant and expected; incongruent informa-
tion is relevant and unexpected. H2: The category level of the brand’s emotion benefit
By implication, a brand associated with a particular emotion (basic vs. subordinate) will interact with congruity
benefit should be evaluated favorably when it matches a rele- in its effect on attitudes such that the difference in
vant and desirable emotional consequence of the product. When attitudes will be relatively large (small) in ba-
a match occurs between the emotions relevant to product cate- sic-level (subordinate-level) conditions of cate-
gory use and in what this particular brand can deliver—emotion gory congruity.
102 RUTH

In other words, a brand’s basic-level emotion benefit is most EXPERIMENT 1

similar to or the best match when the product category’s rele-
vant and desired emotional consequences are also described An experiment was designed to investigate the hypothesized
at the basic level. In contrast, the subordinate, although a effects of emotion benefit congruity, category level, and
member of the basic-level category, is not as good a represen- hedonic tone on attitude toward the ad and brand. For this ex-
tative of the entire category. Therefore, an interaction is hy- periment, one product was used where each of several basic
pothesized because the magnitude of the congruity effect will emotions would be equally relevant and believable (Heckler
be dependent on the category level of the emotion benefit as- & Childers, 1992; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981) so that only the
sociated with the brand. emotion associated with the product—but not the prod-
Furthermore, most brand marketing situations would call uct—varied. Several pretests, described later, showed the
for describing positive emotional experiences (i.e., how the emotion benefits associated with camcorders and video-
brand will lead to positive emotions or avoidance of nega- recording were relevant and believable to the participant pop-
tive emotions, although some products and brands are de- ulation. Camcorders provide a visual and verbal representa-
sired for their vicarious negative emotional experiences tion of important events such as weddings, where family and
such as scary movies). The hedonic tone of the emo- friends are reminded of their love for one another and the joy
tion—whether describing a positive emotion or describing in marriage and the wedding party, yet where people can ex-
how to avoid a negative emotion through brand use—might perience fears that they may not be able to perform their roles
be expected to influence the favorability of attitudes. In adequately, perhaps even experiencing anger when things do
general, people prefer positive and pleasurable stimuli. Yet, not go as planned or desired.
the research on emotion knowledge is grounded in a grow-
ing body of psychological literature that views emotions as
functional and adaptive. The experience of emotion enables Procedure
an individual to cope with the environment, to orient toward
significant situations, and to appropriately approach posi- The participants were 151 staff members and graduate and
tive and avoid negative objects or events (Ellsworth & undergraduate students recruited via an advertisement placed
Smith, 1988a, 1988b; Lazarus, 1991). in the university newspaper. Participants were randomly as-
Thus, information about overcoming negative emo- signed to one of eight conditions in the between-participants
tion-inducing product situations could be just as rewarding 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design where emotion benefit congru-
and valued as the prospect of experiencing positive emo- ity (congruent vs. incongruent emotion benefits), category
tions. For example, ads for Louis Kemp Seafoods state, level (basic-level or subordinate-level words in the headlines
“Fear not. There’s nothing to it [cooking with seafood] with and tag lines), and hedonic tone (positive vs. negative emo-
new Louis Kempâ FAT FREE Scallops.” One could easily tion benefits) were manipulated. The experimental manipula-
envision an equally valued emotion benefit of “the joy of tions are summarized in Appendix A.
cooking” with this product. Thus, a null effect of hedonic Following Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann (1983), two
tone is postulated because experiencing positive emotions booklets were prepared for the experiment. The first booklet
or avoiding negative emotions can be equally relevant and contained the cover story and instructions to review a maga-
valued by consumers. zine containing articles and advertisements. This booklet in-
cluded an ad for a fictitious brand in the camcorder product
H3: Positive and negative emotional benefits will not category, the Vanguard Camcorder. To reduce primacy and
differ in their impact on brand attitudes. recency effects, this target ad was the third of four items (one
magazine article and two other filler ads).
In sum, emotion benefit congruity, category level, and After reviewing the magazine booklet at their own
hedonic tone will be important in understanding how atti- speed, participants turned to the second booklet containing
tudes toward the brand are influenced by a brand’s emotion the dependent measures and manipulation checks. The in-
benefit information. Furthermore, extensive research has troduction to the second booklet informed participants
shown that attitude-toward-the-ad (AAd) is an important me- that, in the interest of time, they would be questioned re-
diator of advertising processing’s effect on brand attitudes garding only two of the four items in the previous booklet.
(Brown, Homer, & Inman, 1998). By investigating the impact All participants were questioned about the Vanguard Cam-
of emotion benefit congruity, category level, and hedonic tone corder and the article to add to the study’s realism. Partici-
on ad attitudes and brand attitudes, this study will provide in- pants first provided open-ended responses to the ad and
sight on whether the categorical properties of emotion knowl- then completed measures of dependent variables of inter-
edge and emotion benefit information work through ad est. Following the experimental tasks, participants were
attitudes or influence brand attitudes directly. Furthermore, debriefed and paid $5 for their participation. The debrief-
we can determine whether and to what extent these effects ing process indicated that participants were unaware of the
work through emotions elicited in response to the ad itself. purpose of the experiment.
 PROMOTING A BRAND’S EMOTION BENEFITS 103

Independent Variables Pretests

Emotion benefit congruity. Emotion benefit congru- Several steps were involved in developing the stimuli. First,
ity consisted of two levels: congruent and incongruent. Fol- a generic description of camcorder use at a wedding was de-
lowing Sujan (1985), category congruity was manipulated by veloped. Second, the description was modified to capture
presenting an in-set description of an emotion a consumer had the key characteristics of each emotion. Third, these de-
experienced when using a competitor’s product and stating in scriptions were subjected to three pretests to ensure accu-
the headline and tagline that the Vanguard Camcorder was as- racy of description and equivalence in believability and
sociated with a particular emotion (e.g., “Capture memories relevance. In Pretest 1, 32 participants similar to the even-
of joy with the Vanguard Camcorder”). The emotions were ei- tual participant populations read the four emotion descrip-
ther members of the same emotion category or were in differ- tions and, from a list of the five basic emotions, identified
ent categories, but both were either positive or negative. the emotion described in each scenario. Aided recognition
When the brand’s emotion benefit was in the same category as was 71%. Based on particpants’ feedback, descriptions
the described emotion (e.g., a headline stating “Capture mem- were revised to improve categorization accuracy. In Pretest
ories of joy with high-quality pictures with Vanguard Cam- 2, 30 participants viewed the revised descriptions embedded
corder” coupled with a description of experiencing joy while in the experimental materials described previously. Just
using a camcorder), participants were in the congruent condi- prior to completion of the pretest, participants read the one
tion. When the brand’s emotion benefit was in a different cate- description they had seen earlier and identified the emotion.
gory than the described emotion (e.g., a headline stating Identification accuracy was 81%. Also, the participants
“Capture memories of joy” coupled with a description of ex- were asked to rate the passage for believability, complexity,
periencing affection while using a camcorder), participants relevance to camcorder usage, and ease of understanding
were in the incongruent condition. Thus, consistent with the (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). Analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
procedures used in lexical decision task research (Conway & indicated the descriptions did not differ on these four char-
Bekerian, 1987), the description served as the prime for set- acteristics (ps > .05). Pretest 3 was conducted with 22 par-
ting expectations about an emotion important to this product ticipants who rated the intensity of 30 emotions.
category, and the emotion term served as the benefit associ- Subordinate emotion terms were selected to ensure they did
ated with this particular brand. Although two basic-level posi- not differ in intensity from each other and their basic-level
tive emotions and three basic negative emotions have been counterpart (ps > .05).
identified in the literature, only two of the three negative emo-
tions, namely fear and anger, were selected to balance the
number of category congruity combinations for both positive Dependent Variables
and negative emotions. Other elements of the ad remained
constant including a discussion of product attributes that were The primary dependent variables were attitude-to-
selected from a Consumer Reports review of desirable cam- ward-the-brand (ABrand) and AAd. Drawn from previous re-
corder features. search, attitudes were measured on three 7-point semantic
differential scales including the extent to which participants
liked or disliked the brand or ad, had a favorable or unfavor-
Category level. Category level was manipulated in the able impression of the brand or ad, and a positive or negative
headline and tagline and consisted of two conditions: use of a evaluation of the brand or ad. The Cronbach alpha (a) coeffi-
basic-level or subordinate-level emotion term in the headline cients for ABrand and AAd were .94 and .83, respectively, in-
and tagline. Potential subordinates were selected from Shaver dicating a high degree of internal consistency.
et al. (1987). A pretest identified subordinates that were mem- Another dependent measure of interest was the
bers of their respective basic-level categories but that did not open-ended responses participants provided prior to the
differ significantly from the basic categories in pleasantness measures of ABrand and AAd. Following Batra and Ray
or intensity. (1986), participants were asked to list their thoughts and
feelings when reviewing the ad for the Vanguard Cam-
corder. After completing this task, participants were in-
Hedonic tone. Hedonic tone refers to whether an emo- structed to place to the left of each line a plus (+), minus
tion is perceived to be positive or negative (Russell, 1980). In (–), or zero (0) categorizing the thought or feeling as posi-
the context of this experiment, hedonic tone refers to experi- tive (+), negative (–), or neutral (0). Two independent cod-
encing a positive emotion or avoiding a negative emotion. ers who were unaware of the conditions categorized each
This factor had two levels: positive emotions (e.g., “Capture response as to whether it referred to feelings elicited at the
memories of joy”) and negative emotions stated positively point of contact with the ad and, if the participants failed to
(e.g., “Capture memories without anxiety”). For ease of dis- do so, whether the feelings were positive, negative, or neu-
cussion, the latter are referred to as negative emotion benefits. tral. Intercoder agreement was 84%, and disagreements
104 RUTH

were resolved through discussion. Proportions of positive maximize between-category differences, and, thus, the ef-
emotions-to-total responses and negative emotions-to-total fect of emotion category congruity was postulated to be
responses were calculated and used in the analysis. more pronounced in basic conditions. Figure 1 depicts this
Finally, just prior to completion of the experiment, partici- interaction effect. Also consistent with H3, hedonic tone
pants were presented with their target emotion description does not exert a statistically significantly effect on ABrand.
and were asked to name the emotion. Results showed an 89% That is, the presence of negative emotion benefit informa-
accuracy rate in aided identification. Eliminating participants tion did not yield less favorable brand attitudes.
who incorrectly identified the emotion did not alter the re- Although not formally hypothesized, Column B shows
sults. All participants’ data was retained for analysis. the factors’ effects on AAd. The Congruity × Level interac-
tion also influences AAd, F(1, 143) = 5.998, p < .01. A sig-
Results nificant simple main effect test shows that, within basic
conditions, AAd is more favorable in the congruent
To test the hypotheses presented formally (H1–H3), (Mcong,basic = 3.30) versus incongruent conditions (Minc,basic
ANOVA and simple main effects tests were used. Sequen- = 2.48), F(1, 78) = 13.227, p < .001. No difference is ob-
tial relations among dependent variables (feelings, AAd, served in the subordinate conditions. Moreover, AAd is
ABrand) were investigated with step-down ANOVA (Roy, more favorable when the brand is described as delivering
1958; see also Hastak & Olson, 1989; and Yi, 1990, for ex- positive (Mpos = 3.37) as compared to negative (Mneg = 2.75)
amples in consumer psychology). emotion benefits, F(1, 143) = 5.834, p < .001.
The results for brand attitudes are consistent with the hy- As discussed, an important question concerns whether
pothesized effects. Table 1 shows the F values associated the effect of emotion benefit congruity works through its
with the experimental factors and interactions (see Column impact on AAd or whether the congruity effect on ABrand
A). Appendix B contains the ABrand means for all 16 condi- persists when accounting for its impact on AAd. Stated
tions. Consistent with H1, emotion benefit congruity exerts somewhat differently, this question refers to whether and to
a significant positive impact on brand attitudes, F(1, 143) = what extent congruity influences ABrand directly and
4.653, p < .05. Moreover, a two-way interaction effect of whether AAd partially or fully mediates the effect of the
Congruity × Category Level is observed, F(1, 143) = 4.300, manipulations on ABrand. This question is investigated
p < .05, whereby the difference in the congruity effect in ba- through step-down ANOVA procedures (Roy, 1958; see
sic conditions is relatively large (Mcong,basic = 4.36 vs. Minc,ba- also Baron & Kenny, 1986, regarding mediation analysis in
sic = 3.57) compared to the effect in subordinate conditions regression). By examining dependent variables in a prede-
(M cong,sub = 4.33 vs. Minc,sub = 4.30). Following Keppel termined order, step-down analyses can assess the unique
(1973) and as expected, the simple main effect of emotion contribution of each variable as it is added to the model in a
benefit congruity in the basic condition is significant, F(1, theoretically supported, sequential fashion.
78) = 12.276, p < .001; but is not significant in the subordi- Step-down analyses are conducted beginning with the
nate condition, F(1, 71) = .001, ns. These results support H2, dependent variable occurring last in the sequential relations
where an interaction effect of congruity and category level (ABrand in Column A). Then, variables of interest are
on brand attitudes was postulated because basic categories added as covariates to account for the experimental factors’

TABLE 1
ANCOVA Results (F Values) of Mediating Responses on Attitudes Toward the Brand (Experiment 1)

Dependent Variables

Independen t Variables ABrand (A) AAd (B) ABrand (C) Positive Emotions a (D) Negative Emotionsa (E) AAd (F) ABrand (G)

Congruity (CONG) 4.653** .941 3.972** .720 .050 .476 3.817**

Category level (LEVEL) 3.249* 2.118 1.193 .213 2.869 .355 .561
Hedonic tone (HED) 2.851* 5.834*** .010 3.762** .215 3.249* .001
CONG × LEVEL 4.300** 5.998*** .359 .358 .967 5.052** .403
CONG × HED 1.530 1.442 .346 1.957 1.798 .144 .494
HED × LEVEL .027 .058 .183 .045 .002 .141 .192
CONG × LEVEL × HED .340 .015 .776 .030 2.458 .192 .390
Covariates
AAd 132.974*** 109.401***
Positive emotionsa 27.001*** .380
Negative emotionsa 13.433*** 4.704**

Note. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; ABrand = attitude-toward-the-brand; AAd = attitude-toward-the-ad .

aEmotions elicited in response to the ad.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .001.

 PROMOTING A BRAND’S EMOTION BENEFITS 105

(e.g., an emotion benefit that is a subordinate of the same or

different category), brand attitudes are relatively positive.
These results are consistent with the notion that subordi-
nates, sharing some characteristics or overlap with their
own and other basic-level categories, are moderately incon-
gruent (Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989) and result in gener-
ally favorable attitudes. When the emotion benefit of the
brand is clearly incongruent with expectations in the basic
conditions, ad and brand attitudes suffer. Furthermore, it is
important to note that these congruity effects stem from
FIGURE 1 Interaction of emotion benefit congruity and category
people’s knowledge associated with the description of the
level on attitudes toward the brand (Experiment 1). emotion as relevant to the product category combined with
the emotion explicitly associated with the brand (e.g., emo-
influence on variables shown to be mediators in the sequen- tion word used in the headline or tagline). Thus, the results
tial process. The model presented in Column C shows the are not merely due to semantic matching (word to word) but
impact of the experimental manipulations on ABrand when rather categorization matching (description to word), con-
their effects on AAd are first accounted for through the sistent with the research of Conway and Bekerian (1987) in
AAd covariate. That is, after controlling for the effects of nonevaluative settings.
the manipulations on AAd, the Congruity × Level effect is Second, emotion benefit congruity does not elicit emo-
no longer significant, but congruity still exerts a significant tions directly, as shown by the models in Columns D and E.
main effect on ABrand, F(1, 142) = 3.972, p < .05. This re- These results indicate that advertising does not necessarily
sult shows that emotion benefit congruity influences have to evoke the target emotion during exposure and suggest
ABrand both directly and indirectly, through its impact on that mental consideration of prospective emotional benefits
AAd (Column B) and AAd’s subsequent and significant im- may be sufficient to persuade. Nevertheless, feelings elicited
pact on ABrand (Column C). by the ads (but not by the manipulations themselves) influ-
To investigate a possible explanation that the manipula- ence AAd (Column F), a result consistent with past research
tions themselves elicit positive or negative emotions, which in (Batra & Ray, 1986; Edell & Burke, 1987; Holbrook & Batra,
turn influence attitudes, a similar mediation analysis was per- 1987). Thus, by replicating past research on ad-evoked feel-
formed. The models in Columns D and E assess the manipula- ings while hypothesizing and demonstrating a categorization
tions’ impact on the proportion of positive and negative process associated with emotion benefits, an alternative route
emotions elicited in response to the ad. For positive emotions through which emotions work in advertising and persuasion
(Column D), only hedonic tone influences the proportion of has been supported empirically.
positive emotions elicited (Mpos = .08 vs. Mneg = .04). None of Third, the Congruity × Level interaction influences ad atti-
the manipulations are related to the level of negative emotions tudes, and the impact of congruity on ABrand persists even
elicited (see Column E). For completeness, Column F shows when accounting for AAd’s known impact on ABrand
that positive and negative emotions are, indeed, significant (Column C) and when accounting for any possible direct or
predictors of AAd, F(1, 141) = 27.001, p < .001, and F(1, 141) indirect effects of positive and negative emotions and AAd
= 13.433, p < .001, and that the impact of Congruity × Level (Column G). Although consumers’ AAd reflects preferences
persists even when the elicited affective responses are in- for positive emotion benefit information, presentation of pos-
cluded. Furthermore, when all covariates are included (Col- itive versus negative emotion benefits does not necessarily
umn G), emotion benefit congruity still exerts a significant lead to more favorable brand attitudes. The pattern of these re-
impact on ABrand, as hypothesized. sults is distinct from ad-evoked emotions, where positive and
negative emotions typically have asymmetric results on atti-
Discussion tude constructs (Brown et al., 1998).
Taken together, these results indicate that feelings them-
First, the pattern of results shows that, as expected, emotion selves are not necessary for emotion benefits to work in per-
benefits systematically influence brand attitudes. Con- suasion, and that emotions can play two distinct roles in
sumers are sensitive to the degree to which the brand’s advertising effectiveness: as shown in the past, through feel-
promised emotion benefits are consistent with those that are ings elicited at the point of contact with advertising, and as
relevant and important to the product category as a whole. theorized and demonstrated here, through categorization pro-
In particular, the congruity effect is moderated by category cesses that show some sensitivity to category level of the
level, where only basic conditions show sensitivity to the emotions presented. Indeed, the congruity effects are present
emotion benefit match or mismatch. When the emotion only in basic-level conditions. Moreover, systematic elicita-
benefit promised by the brand is congruent or moderately tion of feelings is not required for emotion benefit congruity
incongruent with the emotion benefit promised in the copy to exert an effect on ad and brand attitudes.
106 RUTH

Additional Hypotheses effects will be relatively large (small) for ex-

perts (novices).
Building on these results, a second experiment was devel-
oped to examine the robustness of emotion benefit con- A second experiment was conducted to investigate the ex-
gruity, hedonic tone, and their impact on brand attitudes. tent to which brand attitudes are formed via beliefs about the
Although the first experiment indicates that congruity product’s positive and negative emotion benefits and the ex-
does not work through ad-evoked emotions, the process tent to which subjective product knowledge moderates the ef-
by which brand attitudes are influenced has not been fects of congruity in this setting.
fully revealed. That is, to say that congruity does not
work through emotional responses to the ad does not nec-
essarily demonstrate that it works through a cognitive EXPERIMENT 2
consideration of the emotion benefits of product usage.
Consistent with the recent discussion in the Journal of The participants were 188 graduate students, undergraduate
Consumer Psychology (Fishbein & Middlestadt, 1995; students, and staff members recruited via an ad placed in the
Haugtvedt & The Consumer Psychology Seminar, 1997; university newspaper. Participants were randomly assigned
Miniard & Barone, 1997), stronger evidence would come to one of four conditions corresponding to the 2 (Emotion
from investigating the impact of congruity on consumers’ Benefit Congruity: congruent vs. incongruent) × 2 (Hedonic
actual beliefs about the positive and negative emotion Tone: positive or negative emotion benefits) experimental
benefits of using this product. manipulations. A third variable, subjective product category
In addition, some consumers are more likely to respond knowledge, was measured with several items averaged to
to or be sensitive to the emotion benefits of product usage. form a scale, and then subjected to a median split, yielding
For example, past research has shown that consumers’ two levels: high and low subjective product category knowl-
level of product knowledge moderates information-pro- edge of camcorders.
cessing effects (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994; Haugtvedt & Similar to Experiment 1, two booklets were used. The
the Consumer Psychology Seminar, 1997). By analogy, ef- first booklet contained the cover story, excerpts from a
fectiveness of emotion benefit information may depend on magazine, and filler ads. The second booklet contained the
consumers’ level of product knowledge. Lack of product dependent measures and manipulation checks. All partici-
category knowledge means one lacks ability to process pants were provided with questions regarding the Van-
certain product- or brand-related information and “implies guard Camcorder and one of the articles. Following the
that knowledge structures necessary to perform more com- experimental tasks, participants were debriefed and were
plex operations either do not exist or cannot be accessed” paid $5 for their participation.
(MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989, p. 7). Experts tend to prefer
information provided in attribute statements, whereas nov-
ices tend to prefer information provided by benefit state- Independent Variables
ments (Walker, Celsi, & Olson, 1987). Because novices do
not have technical product-related knowledge, they are Emotion benefit congruity. This experimental factor
more likely to view the presentation of emotion benefits consisted of two levels of emotion benefit information: con-
more favorably than their more knowledgeable counter- gruent and incongruent. The same descriptions were used in
parts who prefer attribute information. Therefore, individ- Experiments 1 and 2. Because congruity effects were ob-
uals with low product knowledge are expected to view served in basic but not subordinate conditions in Experiment
emotion benefit information, irrespective of its congruity, 1, only basic-level congruity manipulations were used.
more favorably than those with high product knowledge.

H4: Low (high) product knowledge will be associated Hedonic tone. As in Experiment 1, hedonic tone ac-
with relatively more (less) favorable brand attitudes. counted for whether an emotion is characterized as positive or
negative stated positively.
Furthermore, because experts have had exposure to and
knowledge of the product category, they have the requisite
knowledge structures to understand and fully appreciate what Subjective product knowledge. To develop a mea-
the emotion benefit information is based on and would entail. sure of subjective product knowledge, each participant as-
Thus, more knowledgeable consumers are expected to be sessed, compared to others, their knowledge in the camcorder
more sensitive to emotion benefit congruity. product category (i.e., “as compared to other people: I have a
lot more or less knowledge about the camcorder product cate-
H5: Emotion benefit congruity and product cate- gory; I have a lot more or less expertise in the camcorder prod-
gory knowledge will interact such that the congruity uct category; I have a lot more or less knowledge of how cam-
 PROMOTING A BRAND’S EMOTION BENEFITS 107

corder brands really differ”). These 5-point Likert scale Congruity is also marginally associated with more favorable
items, 1 (a lot less) to 5 (a lot more than other people), were ABrand, F(1, 180) = 3.098, p < .07. Consistent with H5, the
summed to create a scale (a = .92). A median split (M = 2.38, two-way interaction of Congruity × Knowledge on ABrand is
SD = 1.08) provided two levels: high or low subjective knowl- significant, F(1, 180) = 4.179, p < .05. That is, the impact of
edge of camcorders. For ease of discussion, high-knowledge congruity on brand attitudes is pronounced for experts
participants are referred to as experts and low-knowledge par- (Mcong,exp = 4.52 vs. Minc,exp = 3.90), although there is virtually
ticipants are referred to as novices. no impact of congruity on novices’ brand attitudes (Mcong,nov
= 4.64 vs. Minc,nov = 4.74). This interaction is depicted in Fig-
ure 2. Brand attitude means are shown in Appendix C.
Dependent Variables With respect to AAd (Column B), a two-way interaction of
congruity and knowledge is also observed, F(1, 180) = 4.338,
Dependent variables included ABrand (a = .86) and AAd (a p < .05. Experts hold more favorable ad attitudes under con-
= .93). In addition, participants were asked to assess their be- gruent (Mcong,exp = 3.31) versus incongruent conditions
liefs about positive emotion benefits and negative emotion (Minc,exp = 3.03), whereas novices hold more favorable AAd
benefits. Beliefs about positive emotion benefits were mea- in incongruent conditions (Minc,nov = 3.69) versus congruent
sured by three 7-point Likert scales where participants indi- conditions (Mcong,nov = 3.32). When accounting for the impact
cated the extent to which they believed that the Vanguard of AAd on ABrand (Column C), the effects of congruity and
Camcorder brand records happy events, memories of love, knowledge are still significant, indicating that congruity and
and experiences of joy, 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (extremely knowledge do not work only on AAd but also influence
likely), a = .90. Beliefs about negative emotion benefits were ABrand directly.
measured by three 7-point Likert scales where participants in- The models presented in Columns D and E investigate
dicated the extent to which they believed that the Vanguard the postulation that congruity influences beliefs about the
Camcorder eliminates fear of poor product performance, an- emotion benefits delivered through brand usage. Positive
ger associated with poor product performance, anxiety asso- emotion benefit beliefs are influenced by knowledge, F(1,
ciated with poor product performance, 1 (extremely unlikely) 180) = 4.883, p < .03, and, marginally, by congruity, F(1,
to 7 (extremely likely), a = .89. 180) = 3.718, p < .06. Novices are hold stronger positive
beliefs than their more expert counterparts (Mnov = 5.24 vs.
Mexp = 4.79). Positive emotion benefit beliefs are more
Results likely under congruent versus incongruent conditions (Mcong
= 5.03 vs. Minc = 4.95). Negative emotion benefit beliefs are
Similar to Experiment 1, ANOVA and analysis of covariance influenced by the Congruity × Knowledge interaction, F(1,
(ANCOVA) were used to investigate the hypotheses (see Ta- 180) = 4.115, p < .05; knowledge, F(1, 180) = 7.392, p <
ble 2). As shown in Column A and consistent with H4, novice .01; and hedonic tone, F(1, 180) = 7.975, p < .01. The main
consumers like the brand more than their more knowledge- effect of knowledge provides evidence that, across all con-
able counterparts (Mnov = 4.69 vs. Mexp = 4.24), as indicated ditions, novices hold stronger negative benefit beliefs than
by the main effect of knowledge, F(1, 180) = 8.170, p < .01. experts (Mnov = 4.12 vs. Mexp = 3.71). Examining the nature
TABLE 2
ANCOVA Results (F Values) of Mediating Responses on Attitudes Toward the Brand (Experiment 2)

Dependent Variables

Positive Emotion Negative Emotion

Independen t Variables ABrand (A) AAd (B) ABrand (C) Benefit Beliefs (D) Benefit Beliefs (E) ABrand (F) ABrand (G)

Congruity (CONG) 3.098* .006 3.816** 3.718* 1.356 1.887 2.637

Knowledge (KNOW) 8.170*** 5.026** 4.275** 4.883** 7.392*** 2.763* 2.042
Hedonic tone (HED) .136 .009 .721 3.175* 7.975*** .500 1.236
CONG × KNOW 4.179** 4.338** 1.678 .887 4.115** 4.812** 2.929*
CONG × HED 1.221 .099 1.136 1.272 .028 .536 .458
HED × KNOW .541 .291 1.081 .532 .157 1.930 2.370
CONG × KNOW × HED 1.382 .002 1.663 .031 .086 2.342 2.454
Covariates
AAd 43.466*** 17.438***
Positive emotion benefit beliefs 40.408*** 43.707***
Negative emotion benefit beliefs 18.979*** 20.528***

Note. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; ABrand = attitude-toward-the-brand; AAd = attitude-toward-the-ad.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
108 RUTH

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Using categorization processes as the theoretical foundation,

this research demonstrates that individuals use their knowl-
edge of emotions to understand and assess emotion benefits
afforded by brands. Emotion benefit congruity— the extent to
which the brand matches relevant and valued emotion bene-
fits associated with the product category—influences atti-
tudes so that matches and mismatches yield differential brand
and ad attitude effects, particularly in basic emotion category
conditions. These findings have important implications for
our understanding of

1. Emotion’s role in brand advertising effectiveness.

FIGURE 2 Interaction of emotion benefit congruity and product
knowledge on attitudes toward the brand (Experiment 2). 2. Categorization processes and categorical knowledge
effects.
3. The nature of consumer knowledge.
of the Congruity × Knowledge interaction shows that nov- 4. Marketing practice.
ice or expert differences are more pronounced under incon-
gruent conditions. That is, under congruent conditions,
novices and experts show no differences in their negative Emotions and Brand Advertising
emotion benefit beliefs (Mcong,nov = 4.04 vs. Mcong,exp =
3.86). In contrast, under incongruent conditions, experts’ These results are consistent with an adaptive, functional view
belief ratings are much lower than their novice counterparts of emotions as a type of information that consumers use in un-
(Mexp = 3.53 vs. Mnov = 4.18; simple main effects, F(1, 93) derstanding the likely consequences of owning and using a
= 9.926, p < .01. Furthermore, individuals in the negative brand. The results show consumers perceive a difference in
hedonic tone conditions hold stronger negative emotion brands based merely on the categories of emotions associated
benefit beliefs than those in positive conditions (Mneg = 4.63 with them. Brands associated with relevant and valued emo-
vs. Mpos = 4.18). tion benefits are evaluated more favorably than those associ-
To complete the analysis, models presented in Columns ated with a different emotion. Categorization is the psycho-
F and G include positive and negative emotion benefit be- logical mechanism accounting for these effects because
liefs as covariates to assess the experimental factors’ impact consumers have to be able to recognize and use their under-
on ABrand when these beliefs are accounted for. The model standing of emotion knowledge to perceive category congru-
in Column F shows that, indeed, these beliefs exert a signif- ity, which, in turn, systematically influences attitudes.
icant impact on ABrand and that the Congruity × Knowl- A key finding is that presentation of positive versus nega-
edge interaction retains significance when AAd is not tive emotion benefits does not necessarily lead to more favor-
included as a covariate. In the model which fully accounts able brand attitudes, although AAd reflects preferences for
for the impact of AAd and beliefs on ABrand (Column G), positive emotion benefit information in Experiment 1. The re-
the experimental factors are no longer significant at the p < sults further show that emotion benefit congruity does not
.05 level. necessarily elicit emotions directly or systematically, but the
Overall, the results show that congruity influences emotions that are elicited do indeed influence AAd (Experi-
ABrand through both its impact on beliefs about the emotion ment 1) consistent with past research results. Thus, emotion
benefits of using the brand as well as its impact on AAd. Al- benefit congruity can influence attitudes independently of the
though Experiment 1 showed that emotion benefit informa- feelings elicited by advertising. Experiment 2 shows that be-
tion exerts systematic persuasion effects independent of liefs about the positive and negative emotion benefits of brand
ad-evoked feelings, the results of Experiment 2 go on to usage are directly affected by emotion benefit congruity. In
demonstrate that consideration of a brand’s emotion benefits turn, these beliefs mediate the influence of emotion benefit
influences persuasion through altering beliefs about the congruity on brand attitudes. Although explanations based on
brand. In sum, the models provide insight into a sequential moods or affective responses might suggest that positive
process, where emotion benefit congruity and knowledge in- emotion benefit information is preferred because it is “pleas-
fluence AAd and brand beliefs (Columns B, D, and E). ant,” the results rule out these rival explanations because
Moreover, brand beliefs and AAd fully mediate the manipu- brand attitudes do not differ under positive versus negative
lations’ effects on ABrand (Column G, where the covariates emotion benefit conditions.
are significant and none of the experimental factors retain In sum and taken together with extant research, the results
traditional levels of statistical significance). indicate that emotions can work in at least two ways in brand
 PROMOTING A BRAND’S EMOTION BENEFITS 109

advertising: through elicitation of feelings and, as hypothe- conditions did not differ from one another (Mcong,sub = 4.33 vs.
sized and demonstrated here, through knowledge-based con- Minc,sub = 4.30) or from ABrand in the congruent basic condi-
sideration of a brand’s emotion benefits, which then directly tion (Mcong,basic = 4.36). This result suggests that people per-
influences beliefs about the brand and brand attitudes. Given ceived a relation between the subordinate and the basic
the important role of emotions in psychological function- category, regardless of whether the subordinate was or was
ing—that emotions help individuals to orient and cope with not a member of that category. Consistent with the inclusion
important, attention-focused situations—the results show fallacy, these results may be due to the properties of subordi-
how marketing communications could be constructed to de- nate instances (Rosch et al., 1976). That is, although subordi-
liver an effective message on how to either overcome negative nates are perceived to be best represented by and hence a
emotions or experience positive emotions. member of a particular basic category (e.g., bliss is a member
of the joy category), subordinates are also more specific and
may share resemblance with other basic categories (e.g., bliss
Categorization Processes and Knowledge may share some characteristics commonly associated with
love; Shaver et al., 1987). Such effects may also arise out of
This research has demonstrated that consumers are sensitive people’s tendency to confirm relations when there is some de-
to the degree to which a brand’s promised emotion benefits gree of match between the instance and the category (e.g.,
are consistent with those relevant and important to using the both are positive emotions, even in the incongruent, subordi-
product. In order for the emotion benefit manipulations to af- nate conditions; Shafir, 1995). Only with basic-level incon-
fect brand attitudes, consumers have to access their knowl- gruence is the evidence against a match unavoidable, serving
edge of emotions, which has been shown to be shared across to lower brand evaluations (Minc,basic = 3.57).
people in a cultural group (Conway & Bekerian, 1987; Shaver
et al., 1987). Although categorical knowledge is shared, it is
not shared perfectly. For example, not everyone associates The Nature of Consumer Knowledge
sweaty palms with the emotion fear. To that end, the manipu-
lation of category congruity may be considered to be consis- Experiment 2 shows that low-product-knowledg e partici-
tent with Meyers-Levy and Tybout’s (1989) notion of moder- pants evaluated the brand more favorably than high-knowl-
ate incongruity versus extreme incongruity. edge participants, consistent with past research showing that
Furthermore, it is well known that basic categories enjoy a preference for benefit information differs by level of techni-
moderate level of abstraction, neither too abstract nor too spe- cal, feature-based product knowledge (Walker, Celsi, &
cific, so that they account for a large number of instances but Olson, 1987). In addition, however, low-knowledge partici-
also are maximally distinguished from other categories pants were insensitive, and high-knowledge participants were
(Rosch et al., 1976). Although the special qualities of ba- sensitive, to the emotion benefit congruity manipulation. It is
sic-level categories have been demonstrated in memory and well known that experts are more likely to have complex cog-
information-processing contexts (e.g., speed of judging nitive representations of products that may include emotion
whether the new stimulus is a member or not a member of the benefits. In contrast, novices are likely to have much more
category), this research represents a first demonstration of the simplistic cognitive representations that may not include
special role of basic categories in evaluation. emotion benefits (Schlegel & DiTecco, 1982). Thus, due to
Although it is apparent that basic emotions enjoy some these mental representational differences, emotional stimuli
special processing effects in this setting, it is also of interest may be relevant for experts’ evaluations but not for novices’
that subordinate emotions do not exhibit congruity effects. evaluations (Shafir, 1995).
Along these lines, one might consider indirect theoretical One commonality between the two experiments is that
support for these results stemming from the inclusion fallacy congruity effects are present under some conditions and not
(Shafir, Smith, & Osherson, 1990). The inclusion effect is the others, namely in basic but not subordinate category condi-
“counternormative phenomenon in which [a specific] prop- tions (Experiment 1) and for experts and not novices (Experi-
erty is more likely to be generalized to an entire category than ment 2). It may be the case that emotions at either the basic or
to a specific category (even within the general category)” subordinate level are not relevant to or cannot be easily incor-
(Joiner & Loken, 1998, p. 124). For example, Joiner and porated into novices’ product evaluations, whereas ba-
Loken found that people overgeneralized about all Gucci sic-level emotions are relevant to experts and can easily be
products, the general category, on learning that Gucci hand- evaluated in light of their existing knowledge base. Indeed,
bags are high quality, the more specific property. In the stud- perhaps those people with extremely high levels of expertise
ies presented here, people may have overgeneralized a might find subordinate-level emotions to be relevant to their
relation of the more specific subordinate emotions to the basic product evaluations. This would be consistent with Rosch’s
and more general category, whether or not the subordinate theory of categorization processes where expert versus nov-
was a member of the basic category. The pattern of results is ice differences would be most pronounced at the subordinate
consistent with this reasoning, where ABrand in subordinate level rather than the basic level (Mervis & Rosch, 1981), an
110 RUTH

issue that calls for future research. Nevertheless, these results intensity (Larsen, Diener, & Cropanzano, 1987) may be
suggest that, overall, basic-level emotions are more relevant helpful in identifying segments of consumers who prefer
to product evaluations than subordinate ones. and utilize emotion information in making judgments about
consumption choices. Furthermore, the measures of AAd
and ABrand used similar scale items. Because context ef-
Implications for Marketing Practice fects are sometimes observed when similar scales are used
to measure different constructs (Machleit & Sahni, 1992;
Emotion benefits and emotion knowledge have important Tourangeau & Rasinski, 1988), it would be helpful to repli-
implications for marketing practice, particularly with re- cate these studies using different individual difference char-
spect to advertising and brand equity issues. Clearly, ads do acteristics, scale items, and dependent variables such as
not necessarily have to elicit emotions in order for emotions attitude confidence and accessibility. Research along these
to be influential in brand and ad attitude formation. Cre- lines would be helpful in observing moderating conditions,
ating beliefs about a brand’s emotion benefits may, in a boundary conditions, or both for the information processing
sense, successfully substitute for an advertiser’s ability (or effects of emotion benefit information (see Haugtvedt &
lack thereof) to evoke emotions at the point of contact with The Consumer Psychology Seminar, 1997).
advertising. Also, favorable and meaningful brand associa- Finally, the stimuli in this research were tightly con-
tions are a foundation for building and enhancing brand eq- trolled to orient participants toward “cold” processing of af-
uity and for strategic options such as brand extensions fective information. There would be instances where
(Aaker, 1991; Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994). It is critical for emotion benefit information may be coupled with visual
brands to build emotion benefit associations to match cus- displays of emotion or with other communication elements
tomers’ product desires and their expectations about what it that would (attempt to) also evoke emotional responses.
is like to actually use and consume the product. Building on the foundation of research here, future research
Furthermore, one critically important implication of this should investigate the implications of the joint impact of
research is that, if consumers can perceive and use the congru- emotion benefit information and the affective responses
ity between emotional desires and promised emotion benefits elicited by such information.
in brand evaluations, consumers may also judge whether the
direct experience of a brand actually delivers these emotion
benefits (see Deighton, 1984; Hoch & Ha, 1986). The prom-
ised emotion benefit associated with a brand through adver- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
tising may provide a standard by which the actual product is
judged during trial or consumption (Stayman, Alden, & Financial support was provided by Grant 10–3614 from the
Smith, 1992). It becomes imperative, then, for brand manag- Graduate School Fund at the University of Washington.
ers to know the emotions sought by their consumer markets. This research was initiated while completing doctoral
Such an understanding can provide a context for building fa- work at the University of Michigan. I gratefully acknowledge
vorable emotion-focused brand associations in advertising the guidance offered by Richard Bagozzi, dissertation chair-
and facilitating the experience of these emotions during use. man, and committee members Rajeev Batra, Paula Caproni,
and Phoebe Ellsworth. Appreciation is also extended to
Frédéric Brunel, Susan Heckler, and Therese Louie for help-
Limitations and Future Research ful comments on earlier versions of the article.

To demonstrate the general effects of emotion benefit con-

gruity across emotion types and to control for possible dif- REFERENCES
ferences in relevance across products, this study utilized
only one product category. However, some products and Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a
brands are associated with specific emotions (Holbrook, brand name. New York: Free Press.
Lehmann, & O’Shaughnessy, 1983). In addition, here the Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411–454.
emotion deemed relevant to the product category was ma-
Baron, J. (1992). The effect of normative beliefs on anticipated emotions.
nipulated. Future research should go beyond a within-prod- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 320–330.
uct experimental setting to a multiproduct or multibrand Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable dis-
setting, where the natural (rather than manipulated) associa- tinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and sta-
tions between emotions, product category usage, and brands tistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
are incorporated.
Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Affective responses mediating acceptance of
As shown here with knowledge, some consumers may advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 234–249.
differ in their likelihood of using emotion benefit informa- Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand in
tion in attitude judgments. Individual differences in affect brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 214–228.
 PROMOTING A BRAND’S EMOTION BENEFITS 111

Brown, S. P., Homer, P. M., & Inman, J. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of rela- MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from ad-
tionships between ad-evoked feelings and advertising responses. Jour- vertisements: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing,
nal of Marketing Research, 35, 114–126. 53, 1–23.
Conway, M. A., & Bekerian, D. A. (1987). Situational knowledge and emo- Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In M. S.
tion. Cognition and Emotion, 1, 145–191. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The 17th annual Carne-
Deighton, J. (1984). The interaction of advertising and evidence. Journal of gie symposium on cognition (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Consumer Research, 11, 763–770. Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Edell, J. A., & Burke, M. C. (1987). The power of feelings in understandin g Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual
advertising effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 421–433. Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988a). From appraisal to emotion: Differ- Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for prod-
ences among unpleasant feelings. Motivation and Emotion, 12, uct evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 39–54.
271–302. Miniard, P. W., & Barone, M. J. (1997). The case for noncognitive determi-
Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988b) . Shades of joy: Patterns of ap- nants of attitude: A critique of Fishbein and Middlestadt. Journal of
praisal differentiating pleasant emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 2, Consumer Psychology, 6, 77–91.
301–331. Nedungadi, P., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1985). The prototypicality of brands:
Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a proto- Relationships with brand awareness, preference and usage. In E. C.
type perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, Hirschman & M. B. Holbrook (Eds.), Advances in consumer research
425–438. (pp. 498–503). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Fishbein, M., & Middlestadt, S. (1995). Noncognitive effects on attitude for- Ortony, A., & Turner, T. J. (1990). What’s basic about basic emotions? Psy-
mation and change: Fact or artifact? Journal of Consumer Psychology, chological Review, 97, 315–331.
4, 181–202. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and
Folkes, V. S. (1988). Recent attribution research in consumer behavior: A re- contemporary approaches . Dubuque, IA: Brown.
view and new directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 548–565. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kasmer, J. A. (1988). The role of affect in the
Haley, R. I. (1985). Developing effective communications strategy: A benefit elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In H. E. Sypher, L.
segmentation approach . New York: Wiley. Donohew, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Communication, social cognition and
Hastak, M., & Olson, J. C. (1989). Assessing the role of brand-related cogni- affect (pp. 117–146). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
tive responses as mediators of communication s effects on cognitive Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral
structure. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 444–456. routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement.
Haugtvedt, C. P., & The Consumer Psychology Seminar. (1997). Beyond fact Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–146.
or artifact: An assessment of Fishbein and Middlestadt’s perspectives Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of
on attitude change processes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6, Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233.
99–106. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblance: Studies in the inter-
Heckler, S. E., & Childers, T. L. (1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy nal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.
in memory for verbal and visual information: What is incongruency ? Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P.
Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 475–492. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8,
Herr, P. M. (1989). Priming price: Prior knowledge and context effects. Jour- 382–439.
nal of Consumer Research, 16, 67–75. Roy, J. (1958). Step-down procedure in multivariate analysis. Annals in
Hoch, S. J., & Ha, Y. W. (1986). Consumer learning: Advertising and the am- Mathematical Statistics, 29, 1177–1187.
biguity of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality
221–233. and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.
Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as medi- Schlegel, R. P., & DiTecco, D. (1982). Attitudinal structures and the atti-
ators of consumer responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Re- tude–behavior relationship. In M. Zanna, E. T. Higgins, & S. Herman
search, 14, 404–420. (Eds.), Consistency in social behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 2,
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of pp. 17–49). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
consumption : Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Con- Shafir, E. (1995). Compatibility in cognition and decision. In J. Busemeyer,
sumer Research, 9, 132–140. R. Hastie, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and moti-
Holbrook, M. B., Lehmann, D., & O’Shaughnessy, J. (1983). Using versus vation: Decision making from a cognitive perspective (Vol. 32, pp.
choosing: The relationship of the consumption experience to reasons for 247–274). New York: Academic.
purchasing. European Journal of Marketing, 20, 49–62. Shafir, E. B., Smith, E. E., & Osherson, D. N. (1990). Typicality and reason-
Izard, C. E. (1992). Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emo- ing fallacies. Memory & Cognition, 18, 229–239.
tion–cognition relations. Psychological Review, 99, 561–565. Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowl-
Joiner, C., & Loken, B. (1998). The inclusion effect and category-base d in- edge: Further explanation of a prototype approach. Journal of Personal-
duction: Theory and application to brand categories. Journal of Con- ity and Social Psychology, 52, 1061–1086.
sumer Psychology, 7, 101–129. Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in
Keppel, G. (1973). Design and analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813–838.
Hall. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge,
Larsen, R. J., Diener, E., & Cropanzano, R. S. (1987). Cognitive operations MA: Harvard University Press.
associated with individual differences in affect intensity. Journal of Per- Stayman, D. M., Alden, D. L., & Smith, K. A. (1992). Some effects of sche-
sonality and Social Psychology, 53, 767–774. matic processing on consumer expectations and disconfirmation judg-
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford, England: Oxford ments. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 240–255.
University Press. Sujan, M. (1985). Consumer knowledge: Effects on evaluation strategies me-
Machleit, K. A., & Sahni, A. (1992). The impact of measurement context on diating consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 12,
the relationship between attitude toward the ad and brand attitude for fa- 31–46.
miliar brands. In J. F. Sherry & B. Sternthal (Eds.), Advances in con- Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying
sumer research (pp. 279–283). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
Research. 299–314.
112 RUTH

Walker, B., Celsi, R., & Olson, J. (1987). Exploring the structural characteris- Yi, Y. (1990). Cognitive and affective priming effects of the context for print
tics of consumer’s knowledge. In M. Wallendorf & P. Anderson (Eds.), advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 19, 40–48.
Advances in consumer research (Vol. 14, pp. 17–21). Provo, UT: Asso-
ciation for Consumer Research.
Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1981). Category accessibility: Some theoretical
and empirical issues concerning the processing of social stimulus infor-
mation. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social
cognition: The Ontario symposium on personality and social psychol-
ogy (pp. 161–197). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Accepted by Frank Kardes.

APPENDIX A
Experimental Stimuli

Basic Emotions Experimental Stimuli: Descriptions of Basic Emotions

Joy “My first big experience with a camcorder was really fun. My cousin was getting married, and they had the ceremony and reception
videotaped. My cousin and I’ve always had a great time together, laughing and joking around. When the big day came around, the
whole thing was videotaped with a camcorder. The pictures were clear, and you know, video recordings seem pretty easy to make.
Seeing the videotape later reminded me of what a blast everyone had, including me! All of those people having fun and smiling
and laughing. Everybody was upbeat and positive. A fun time was had by all!”
Affection (love) “My first big experience with a camcorder reaffirmed the special, close relationship I have with my cousin. My cousin was getting
married and she put me in charge of video recording the wedding and reception. They wanted me to be an intimate part of their
special day because I am so close to both of them. Their relationship and my relationship with my cousin knows no limits, no dis-
tance, and no boundaries. When the big day came around, I recorded the whole thing with my camcorder. The pictures were clear,
and you know, video recordings are pretty easy to make. My heart was moved when they gazed into each other’s eyes and said “I
do.” Their demonstration of strong feelings for one another reminded me of my own warm feelings for my cousin.”
Fear “My first big test with a camcorder—I was feeling really nervous and uncertain about the whole thing. My cousin was getting married
and she put me in charge of video recording the wedding and reception. I’d had some experience with camcorders before but not
for something as important as her wedding! I kept thinking, what if the camcorder malfunctions? What if something goes wrong
and we end up with a lousy recording? The uncertainty of something disastrous happening with the camcorder was almost too
much for me. But, when the big day came around, I recorded the whole thing with my camcorder. The pictures were clear, and you
know, video recordings are pretty easy to make. No sweaty palms and no jitters for me on the big day!”
Anger “My first big test with a camcorder —my cousin was getting married and she put me in charge of video recording the wedding and re-
ception. I’d had some experience with camcorders before but not for something as important as her wedding! The only problem
was that the “On” bulb had burnt out. I just couldn’t believe it was letting me down like that! I was gritting my teeth, and trying not
to let it show that things had not turned out as planned. This was not how things were supposed to be, and I felt like tossing the
camcorder in the garbage! I did end up recording the whole thing. The pictures were clear, and you know video recordings are
pretty easy to make —it’s easier, though —when the “On” bulb is working.”
 APPENDIX B
Experimental Manipulations and ABrand Means: Experiment 1

Emotion Benefit Emotion Hedonic Category

Emotion Description Headline/ Taglinea Benefit Congruity Tone Level ABrand M

Joy Joy C + B 4.67

Joy Bliss C + S 4.11
Affection Joy I + B 3.30
Affection Bliss I + S 4.05
Affection Affection C + B 4.33
Affection Tenderness C + S 4.12
Joy Affection I + B 3.87
Joy Tenderness I + S 4.29
Fear Fear C – B 4.13
Fear Anxiety C – S 4.14
Anger Fear I – B 3.72
Anger Anxiety I – S 4.31
Anger Anger C – B 4.86
Anger Exasperation C – S 4.51
Fear Anger I – B 3.13
Fear Exasperation I – S 4.61

Note. ABrand = attitude-toward-the-brand; C = congruent; I = incongruent; B = basic; S = subordinate.

aFor positive emotions, headline was “Capture memories of (emotion) with high-quality pictures—with your Vanguard Camcorder!” The tagline was “Capture

those memories of (emotion).” For negative emotions, the headline was “Capture memories without (emotion) of/from low-quality pictures—with your Vanguard
Camcorder!” The tagline was “Capture those memories without (emotion) of/from low-quality pictures.”

APPENDIX C
Experimental Manipulations and ABrand Means: Experiment 2

Emotion Benefit Emotion Benefit

Emotion Description Headline/ Taglinea Congruity Hedonic Tone Knowledge ABrand M

Joy Joy C + High 4.33

Joy Joy C + Low 5.37
Affection Joy I + High 3.76
Affection Joy I + Low 4.57
Affection Affection C + High 4.53
Affection Affection C + Low 4.03
Joy Affection I + High 4.12
Joy Affection I + Low 4.54
Fear Fear C – High 4.59
Fear Fear C – Low 4.70
Anger Fear I – High 3.51
Anger Fear I – Low 4.91
Anger Anger C – High 4.45
Anger Anger C – Low 4.40
Fear Anger I – High 4.48
Fear Anger I – Low 4.61

Note. ABrand = attitude-toward-the-brand; C = congruent; I = incongruent .

aFor positive emotions, headline was “Capture memories of (emotion) with high-quality pictures—with your Vanguard Camcorder!” The tagline was “Capture

those memories of (emotion).” For negative emotions, the headline was “Capture memories without (emotion) of/from low-quality pictures—with your Vanguard
Camcorder!” The tagline was “Capture those memories without (emotion) of/from low-quality pictures.”

113