Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

How Naive Theories Drive Opposing Inferences from the Same Information

Hélène Deval, Susan P. Mantel, Frank R. Kardes and Steven S. Posavac
Journal of Consumer Research
Vol. 39, No. 6 (April 2013), pp. 1185-1201
Published by: Oxford University Press
DOI: 10.1086/668086
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668086
Page Count: 17
  • Download ($14.00)
  • Cite this Item
Item Type
Article
References
If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
How Naive Theories Drive Opposing Inferences from the Same Information
Preview not available

Abstract

Consumers often make inferences to fill in gaps in knowledge when they do not have complete information regarding products. Eight experiments show that consumers often have contradictory naive theories about the implications of common market phenomena and that they draw different conclusions as a function of which naive theory is primed, even when available information is held constant. Results indicate that conflicting naive theories about pricing, sales promotion, product popularity versus scarcity, and technical language drive product evaluation. Consumers who have expertise in a given product category are less susceptible to the priming of a naive theory. This research contributes to more precise understanding of how consumers will respond to different levels of key marketing variables and how marketing tactics can backfire.

Page Thumbnails