In this study, researchers provide a comprehensive model of how consumers process, remember, and evaluate positive fair labor-related brand messages that are congruent/incongruent to their existing brand expectations using both psychophysiological and self-reported measures. Data were collected across two different studies. Results indicated that consumers paid more attention to and better remembered messages for incongruity than congruity. Also attitude toward message was highest for congruent messages, followed by incongruity resolution and lowest for incongruity nonresolution. The combined study findings bridge the gap in literature between human attitude and cognition, helping both brands and consumer researchers understand consumers’ reaction to brands schema-message congruity/incongruity and guide decisions when brands hope to revitalize or reinvent a brand’s image.
AbdiH. (2003). Factor rotations in factor analyses. In Lewis-BeckM.BrymanA.FutingT. (Eds.), Encyclopedia for research methods for the social sciences (pp. 792–795). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
BollsP. D.LangA.PotterR. F. (2001). The effects of message valence and listener arousal on attention, memory, and facial muscular responses to radio advertisements. Communication Research, 28, 627–651.
4.
BrownS. P.StaymanD. M. (1992). Antecedents and consequences of attitude toward the ad: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 34–51.
5.
BurtonS.LichtensteinD. R. (1988). The effect of ad claims and ad context on attitude toward the advertisement. Journal of Advertising, 17, 3–11.
6.
DahlénM.LangeF. (2004). To challenge or not to challenge: Ad-brand incongruency and brand familiarity. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 12, 20–35.
7.
DahlénM.LangeF.SjödinH.TörnF. (2005). Effects of ad-brand incongruence. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 27, 1–12.
8.
DicksonM. A. (2001). Utility of no-sweat labels for clothing consumers: Profiling label users and predicting their purchases. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35, 96–119.
GoodsteinR. C. (1993). Category-based applications and extensions in advertising: Motivating more extensive ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 87–99.
11.
HairJ. F.JrAndersonR. E.TathamR. L.BlackW. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12.
HutterR. R.LawtonR.PalsE.O’ConnorD. B.McEachanR. R. (2015). Tackling student binge drinking: Pairing incongruent messages and measures reduces alcohol consumption. British Journal of Health Psychology, 20, 498–513.
13.
HyllegardK. H.YanR. N.OgleJ. P.LeeK. H. (2012). Socially responsible labeling: The impact of hang tags on consumers’ attitudes and patronage intentions toward an apparel brand. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 30, 51–66.
14.
JarvisB. G. (2014). MediaLab(Version 2014.1) [Computer Software]. New York, NY: Empirisoft Corporation.
15.
KozarJ. M.Hiller ConnellK. Y. (2013). Socially and environmentally responsible apparel consumption: Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Social Responsibility Journal, 9, 315–324.
16.
LaneV. R. (2000). The impact of ad repetition and ad content on consumer perceptions of incongruent extensions. The Journal of Marketing, 64, 80–91.
17.
LangA. (2000). The information processing of mediated messages: A framework for communication research. Journal of Communication, 50, 46–70.
18.
LangA.BradleyS. D.ParkB.ShinM.ChungY. (2006). Parsing the resource pie: Using STRTs to measure attention to mediated messages. Media Psychology, 8, 369–394.
19.
LangP. J.GreenwaldM. K.BradleyM. M.HammA. O. (1993). Looking at pictures: Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology, 30, 261–273.
20.
LeeE. J.SchumannD. W. (2004). Explaining the special case of incongruity in advertising: Combining classic theoretical approaches. Marketing Theory, 4, 59–90.
21.
LeshnerG.BollsP.ThomasE. (2009). Scare’em or disgust’em: The effects of graphic health promotion messages. Health Communication, 24, 447–458.
22.
LeshnerG.BollsP.WiseK. (2011). Motivated processing of fear appeal and disgust images in televised anti-tobacco ads. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 23, 77–89.
23.
MackenzieS. B.LutzR. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 3, 48–65.
24.
MandlerG. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In ClarkM. S.FiskeS. T. (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The 17th annual Carnegie Symposium (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
PotterR. F.BollsP. (2012). Psychophysiological measurement and meaning: Cognitive and emotional processing of media. New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
ShapiroM. A. (1994). Signal detection measures of recognition memory. In LangA. (Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to media (pp. 133–148). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
SjödinH.TörnF. (2006). When communication challenges brand associations: A framework for understanding consumer responses to brand image incongruity. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 5, 32–42.
29.
SujanM. (1985). Consumer knowledge: Effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 16–31.
30.
ThorsonE.WicksR.LeshnerG. (2012). Experimental methodology in journalism and mass communication research. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 112–124.
31.
TörnF.DahlénM. (2008). Effects of brand incongruent advertising in competitive settings. European Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 234–239.
32.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2016). Compliance assistance-Wages and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Wage and Hour Division. Retrieved fromhttps://www.dol.gov/whd/flsa/
33.
VanhammeJ.SneldersD. (2001). The role of surprise in satisfaction judgments. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 14, 27–45.
