This research examines the impact of field dependency on the way people structure brand information in memory. The authors propose that a person's level of field dependency is an important determinant of the way information is stored in memory. Specifically, the authors argue that field independents are more likely to extract and integrate episodic information to form overall brand beliefs, while field dependents tend to store more detailed, episodic information in memory and are less likely to generalize information across product categories. The authors further propose that this effect is moderated by level of expertise and that such differences have important implications for how people evaluate marketing communications. The results from five studies support their propositions.
AakerDavid A., and KellerKevin L., (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,”Journal of Marketing, 54(January), 27–41.
2.
AikenLeona S., and WestStephen G., (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
3.
AlbaJoseph W., and HutchinsonWesley J., (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March), 411–54.
4.
BarsalouLawrence, W., (1992), Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
BerryJohn, W., (1991), “Cultural Variations in Field Dependence: Independence,” in Field Dependence: Independence, WapnerSeymour, and DemickJack, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 289–308.
6.
BroniarczykSusan M., and AlbaJoseph W., (1994), “The Importance of the Brand in Brand Extension,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31(May), 214–28.
7.
ChristensenGlenn L., and OlsonJerry C., (2002), “Mapping Consumer Mental Models with ZMET,”Psychology and Marketing, 19(6), 477–501.
8.
CohenJoel B., and BasuKunal, (1987), “Alternative Models of Categorization: Toward a Contingent Processing Framework,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March), 455–72.
9.
CowleyElizabeth, and MitchellAndrew A., (2003), “The Moderating Effect of Product Knowledge on the Learning and Organization of Product Information,”Journal of Consumer Research, 30(December), 443–54.
10.
DurandRichard M., and LambertZarrel V., (1983), “Construct and Object Complexity in Cognitive Structures: Some Conceptual Issues,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, BagozziRichard P., and TyboutAlice M., eds. Ann Abor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 559–64.
11.
FazioRussell, H., (1990), “A Practical Guide to the Use of Response Latency in Social Psychological Research,” in Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology, HendrickClyde, and ClarkMargaret S., eds. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 74–97.
12.
GoodenoughDonald R., OltmanPhilip K., SnowDania, CoxPatricia W., and MarkowitzDavid, (1991), “Field Dependence–Independence and Embedded Figures Performance,” in Field Dependence–Independence: Cognitive Styles Across the Life Span, WapnerSeymour, and DemickJack, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 131–48.
13.
HuffmanCynthia, and HoustonMichael J., (1993), “Goal-Oriented Experiences and the Development of Knowledge,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20(September), 190–207.
14.
JohnDeborah R., and WhitneyJohn C., (1986), “The Development of Consumer Knowledge in Children: A Cognitive Structure Approach,”Journal of Consumer Research, 12(March), 406–417.
15.
KanwarRajesh, OlsonJerry C., and SimsLaura S., (1981), “Toward Conceptualizing and Measuring Cognitive Structures,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, MonroeKent B., ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 122–27.
16.
KellerKevin, L., (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,”Journal of Marketing, 57(January), 1–22.
17.
KellerKevin, L., (2003), “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge,”Journal of Consumer Research, 29(March), 595–600.
18.
KühnenUlrich, HannoverBettina, RoederUte, ShahAshiq Ali, SchubertBenjamin, UpmeyerArnold, and ZakariaSaliza, (2001), “Cross-Cultural Variations in Identifying Embedded Figures: Comparisons from the United States, Germany, Russia, and Malaysia,”Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 365–71.
19.
LawsonRobert, (2002), “Consumer Knowledge Structures: Background Issues and Introduction,”Psychology and Marketing, 19(6), 447–56.
20.
LokenBarbara, JoinerChristopher, and PeckJoann, (2002), “Category Attitude Measures: Exemplars as Inputs,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 149–61.
21.
LunaDavid, and PeracchioLaura A., (2002), “Uncovering the Cognitive Duality of Bilinguals Through Word Association,”Psychology and Marketing, 19(6), 457–76.
22.
MandlerGeorge, (1985), Cognitive Psychology: An Essay in Cognitive Science.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23.
MarkusHazel, and ZajoncRobert B., (1985), “The Cognitive Perspective in Social Psychology,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, 3d ed., GardnerLinzey, and AronsonElliot, eds. New York: Knopf, 137–230.
24.
MillerJeff, O., (1991), “Reaction Time Analysis with Outlier Exclusion: Bias Varies with Sample Size,”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 43(4), 907–912.
25.
MitchellAndrew A., and DacinPeter A., (1996), “The Assessment of Alternative Measures of Consumer Expertise,”Journal of Consumer Research, 23(December), 219–39.
26.
NgSharon, and HoustonMichael J., (2006), “Exemplars or Beliefs? The Impact of Self-View on the Nature and Relative Influence of Brand Associations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 32(March), 519–29.
27.
NisbettRichard E., PengKaiping, ChoiIncheol, and NorenzayanAra, (2001), “Culture and Systems of Thought: Holistic vs. Analytical Cognition,”Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310.
28.
RatneshwarS., and ShockerAllan D., (1991), “Substitution in Use and the Role of Usage Context in Product Category Structures,”Journal of Marketing Research, 18(August), 281–95.
29.
RidingRichard, and CheemaIndra, (1991), “Cognitive Style: An Overview and Integration,”Education Psychology, 11(34), 193–215.
30.
ScottWilliam A., Wayne OsgoodD., and PetersonChristopher, (1979), Cognitive Structure: Theory and Measurement of Individual Differences.Washington, DC: Winston.
31.
SolomonKaren Olseth, (1998), “The Spontaneous Use of Perceptual Representations During Conceptual Processing,” in Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 58 (7B), 3942.
32.
SolomonKaren Olseth, and BarsalouLawrence W., (2001), “Representing Properties Locally,”Cognitive Psychology, 43(2), 129–69.
33.
SpenceMark T., and BrucksMerrie, (1997), “The Moderating Effects of Problem Characteristics on Experts’ and Novices’ Judgments,”Journal of Marketing Research, 34(May), 233–47.
34.
StewartTracie L., DoanKelly A., GringrichBryan E., and SmithEliot R., (1998), “The Actor as Context for Social Judgments: Effects of Prior Impressions and Stereotypes,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1132–54.
35.
Van BaarenRick B., HorganTerry G., ChartrandTanya L., and DijkmansMarit, (2004), “The Forest, the Trees, and the Chameleon: Context Dependence and Mimicry,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 453–59.
36.
WitkinHerman A., and GoodenoughDonald R., (1981), Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins: Psychological Issues: Monograph 51.New York: International Universities Press.
37.
WitkinHerman, DonaldA., GoodenoughR., and OltmanPhilip K., (1979), “Psychological Differentiation: Current Status,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(7), 1127–45.
38.
WyerRobert S.Jr., and SrullThomas K., (1989), Memory and Cognition in Its Social Context.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39.
ZinkhanGeorge M., and BiswasAbhijit, (1988), “Using the Repertory Grid to Assess the Complexity of Consumers’ Cognitive Structures,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, HoustonMichael J., ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 493–97.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
