No abstract

Four experimental studies examine the differential effects of three signals—retailer reputation, perceived advertising expenses, and warranties—on consumer risk perceptions, across two (online and in-store) shopping conditions. The results of three studies suggest that for products with high non-digital attributes (e.g., shirts and jeans), consumers perceive higher risks in online than in in-store settings. Also, for these types of products, mainly due to the non-availability of other significant cues, consumers tend to rely more on signals as diagnostic cues in online shopping conditions. Effectively, the results of these three studies imply that signals are stronger risk reducers in online than in in-store shopping conditions for products high in non-digital attributes. The fourth study tests the boundary condition whereby the diagnostic effects of signals are diminished for products with high digital attributes (e.g., music CDs).

By integrating research from attitude challenge matching and consumer alignment and judgment revision, the authors explore how firms can position brands to insulate them from negative publicity and how consumers evaluate brands in reaction to such publicity. They introduce an important moderator of brand evaluation revision, prior brand attitude certainty, and propose that when negative publicity matches or “align”. with the basis of a brand attitude, certainty in that attitude interacts with the attitude, determining the affect of the negative publicity on brand evaluations. The results of two experiments suggest that prior brand attitudes held with high certainty tend to “insulat”. brands, even when negative publicity matches or aligns with the bases of brand attitudes, whereas brand attitudes held with low certainty may exacerbate the effects of negative event publicity. The results also show that multiplex positioning (positioning a brand with both performance and values-based attributes) may insulate brands more effectively from negative publicity.