How Consumers Are Affected by the Framingof Attribute Information Before and AfterConsuming the Product

IRWIN P. LEVINGARYJ.GAETH*

Consunners rated several qualitative attributes of ground beef that framed the beefas either "75% lean " or "25% fat." The consumers' evaluations were more favor-able toward ttie beef labeled "75% lean" than that labeled "25% fat." More impor-tantly, ttie magnitude of this information framing effect lessened when consumersactually tasted the meat. We discuss these results in terms of an averaging model,which suggests that a diagnostic product experience dilutes the impact of infonna-tion framing.

J udgment and decision making research identifiesvarious contexts or "framing" effects that have

important implications for consumer behavior the-ory development and application. Our present re-search explores an information framing effect bywhich consumers' product judgments vary as a func-tion ofthe verbal labels used to define specific productattributes (Johnson and Levin 1985; Levin et al.1985). For example, the judged likelihood of purchas-ing ground beef was found to be higher when theground beef was described (framed) in terms of itspercent-lean rather than its percent-fat (Levin et al.1985).

We used a more general operational definition offraming than used in earlier works based on Kahne-man and Tversky's Prospect Theory (Kahneman andTversky 1979; see also Puto 1987; Thaler 1985; Tver-sky and Kahneman 1981). These researchers definedframing effect in the context of choice under uncer-tainty, where the choice between two alternative ac-tions was shown to reverse, depending on whether at-tention was focused on the potential gain or the po-tential loss associated with each alternative. Thisdefinition applies to areas that require discretechoices between opposing courses of action that aretypically assessed by probabilities of gains and losses(e.g. Neale and Bazerman 1985). In contrast, the pres-ent study examines the effect of deterministic product

•Irwin P. Levin is Professor of Psychology, College of LiberalArts, and Gary J. Gaeth is Assistant Professor ofMarketing. Collegeof Business, both at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242.The authors wish to thank three anonymous reviewers for their use-ful suggestions, Ross Dickerson and Elizabeth Vera for their helpin conducting the research, and Ginny Parrish for her editorial as-sistance.

374

attribute framing on consumers' overall productjudgments.

To better understand this effect. Levin (1987)showed that favorable or unfavorable associationswith positively or negatively phrased attribute labelsmediate the evaluation of consumer goods. Differentgroups of subjects in that study were asked to evaluatea hypothetical purchase of ground beef that was alter-natively described as "75% lean" or "25% fat." Sub-jects' evaluations were made on several scales, such asgreasy/greaseless, good tasting/bad tasting, and highquality/low quality. More favorable associationswere produced on each scale when the beef was de-scribed in terms of percent-lean rather than per-cent-fat.

Exposure to externally generated product frames isbut one part of the consumer information process.Another critical part ofthe process that has been in-cluded in many of the recent descriptions of con-sumer behavior is personal product experience (seeAssael 1987; Bettman 1979; Bettman and Park 1980).Our present study examines the joint effects thatframed product attribute information and personalproduct experience have on consumer judgments.(See Deighton and Schindler 1988 for an assessmentofthe interaction of advertising and experience witha service.) To manipulate experience with the prod-uct, we gave subjects a taste of ground beef that wasalso described verbally to them as either percent-leanor percent-fat. This procedure allowed us to assesswhether the information frame affects consumerjudgments in addition to the effects of personal prod-uct experience.

We varied the order of the framing and samplingstages; some subjects tasted the meat before it was la-

© JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH • Vol. 15 • December 1988

FRAME AND PRODUCT EXPERIENCE 375

beled, whereas other subjects tasted the meat after theverbal label. We manipulated the order to reveal howthe framing of attribute information would affectconsumers' decisions in two typical sequences ofevents (i.e., when consumers are exposed to productinformation before they have any personal experi-ence with the product and when personal experiencewith the product precedes consumers' exposure toproduct information.) Considerable evidence in themarketing literature suggests that product labelingcan have an impact on consumers' decisions prior tofirsthand product experience. For example, in theirclassic study, Allison and Uhl (1964) show that con-sumers perceive beers differently depending onwhether the consumers are aware or unaware of thebrand of the beer. Similarly, Bettman and Sujan(1987) show that "priming" customers to use differ-ent decision criteria affected the consumers' differen-tial use of decision attributes.

Indeed, an argument can be made that a major roleof advertising is to frame the subsequent product ex-perience. Deighton suggests that "advertising arousesan expectation" and "the subject tends to confirm theexpectation upon exposure to more objective infor-mation (such as evidence or product experience)"(1984, p. 765). Deighton (1984; see also Darley andGross 1983) also shows that exposure to advertisinginfluenced consumer inferences drawn from objec-tive information provided later by an "unbiased"source (e.g.. Consumer Reports). Hoch and Ha (1986,Experiment 1) extend Deighton's work by demon-strating that advertising has its greatest influencewhen it precedes an ambiguous product experienceyet has very little impact when it succeeds an unam-biguous product experience. They also showed thatan ad that precedes product experience has a signifi-cant influence on product evaluation when comparedto a no ad control condition, whereas an ad that fol-lowed product experience was not significantlydifferent from the no ad control condition. In ourcontext, it seems reasonable to treat an advertisementas a frame. Hoch and Ha's (1986) research suggeststhat the framing effect will be strongest when theproduct experience is nondiagnostic (ambiguous)and it will be weakest (or overwhelmed) when theproduct experience is diagnostic (unambiguous).

To model the joint effects of frame and experience,we view the judgment process as a classic example of"integrating information from different sources. Infor-mation Integration Theory (Anderson 1981, 1986)provides methods for testing alternative algebraicmodels that describe the information integration pro-cess. Tests of adding versus averaging models haveproved particularly useful in understanding con-sumer behavior (Shanteau 1988; Troutman andShanteau 1976) and are especially relevant to thepresent study. An adding model predicts that theeffect of a given source of information will be inde-pendent of the number and nature of the other

sources with which it is combined. An averagingmodel, in contrast, predicts that the effect of anygiven source will be reduced with each piece of addedinformation. Thus, an averaging model, rather thanan adding model, predicts that the effect of an infor-mation frame will be reduced when the consumer hasfirsthand experience with the product.

METHOD

Design and Procedure

We asked subjects to rate ground beef on severalqualitative dimensions based on a sample taste ofthemeat and on a verbal description of a key attribute.The basic design consisted of the between-subjectsfactorial manipulation of two levels of label (positiveand negative) and two temporal orders (taste the beefafter receiving the label and taste the beef before re-ceiving the label).

Half of the subjects in the "taste after labeling"condition were told that they would be given a tasteof "75% lean ground beef" while the other half weretold that they would be given a taste of "25% fatground beef." After tasting the meat, they were givena response sheet for expressing their reactions. Sub-jects in the "taste before labeling" condition were nottold the "7o-lean/%-fat" information until after theytasted the ground beef. Half of these subjects werethen told that the meat they had just sampled was"75% lean" whereas the others were told that it was"25% fat." They then were given a response sheet.

We took several precautions during the tastingstage to minimize confounding effects. The study wasconducted on two separate evenings using the samefour consecutive half-hour periods per evening—onefor each cell ofthe experimental design. One randomorder of conditions was employed the first eveningand the reverse order was employed the second eve-ning. On each evening, all subjects received a l'/2ounce sample from the same skillet of freshly cookedground beef. (Actually, the meat was slightly morelean than the reported "75% lean/25% fat.")

The four rating scales that were on the responsesheets follow. Subjects were instructed to place an Xin one ofthe seven boxes on each scale. Note that theleft-right positions ofthe positive and negative polesvary across scales. These are the same scales used inthe Levin (1987) study.

Dgood

D

Dtasting

Dgreasy

DhighD

fat

Dquality

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

Dbad tastingDgreaselessDlow quality

Dlean

376 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 1

MEAN RATING SCORES ACROSS TASTE AND FRAMING CONDITIONS

Rating scale

Fat/leanLow quality/high qualityGreasy/greaselessBad taste/gcxx) taste

Label-oniy condition*

Positive

5.155.334.495.69

Negative

2.833.662.964.43

Difference"

2.32*i.6r1.53*1.26*

Positive

4.674.714.135.00

Taste after labeling

Negative

3.573.953.434.71

Difference

1.10*.76*.70*.29

Taste before labeling

Positive

4.054.433.675.00

Negative

3.454.093.055.09

Difference

.60=

.34

.62=-.09

• Data taken from Levin (1987).' Difference between mean rating score In positive and negative framing conditions.'p<0.10.'p<0.05.•p<0.01.

Subjects

Ninety-six students from introductory psychologyclasses at the University of Iowa signed up to partici-pate in the study the day before the actual session wasto be held. Twelve males and 12 females volunteeredfor each ofthe four evening sessions, though not allof those who signed up actually showed up for theirdesignated session. The final sample size in each ex-perimental condition was 21 in "positive frame tastebefore labeling," 24 in "negative frame taste beforelabeling," 22 in "positive frame taste after labeling,"21 in "negative frame taste after labeling."

RESULTSRatings on each scale ranged from one to seven,

with higher numbers representing more favorable re-sponses. Table 1 gives the mean rating score on eachscale for each experimental condition ofthe presentstudy and for the Levin (1987) study, which did notinclude a tasting phase. We found ratings to be higherin the positive framing condition than in the negativeframing condition, with one minor reversal. Differ-ences between framing conditions were tested for sig-nificance using a one-tailed /-test of the hypothesisthat the difference is greater than zero.

Although most, but not all, individual tests oftheframing effect were significant, we detected a clearpattern in the magnitude of the difference scores inTable 1. The largest framing effect was on the fat/leanscale, which is the scale most related to the framingmanipulation. The smallest effect was on the bad tast-ing/good tasting scale, which is the scale most relatedto the tasting experience. More importantly, compar-ing the values ofthe difference scores across columnsin Table 1 shows that the magnitude ofthe framingeffect within each scale was related to whether sub-jects actually tasted the ground beef and, to some ex-tent, when they tasted it. For each scale, the framingeffect tended to be largest when subjects did not actu-ally taste the meat, less large when subjects tasted the

meat after being given the label, and smallest whensubjects tasted the meat before being given the label.

To test the significance of these observed trends,ANOVA tests were performed on the data from thefour rating scales.' These results are summarized inTable 2. Framing condition accounted for the largestpercentage ofthe variance on each scale. Tasting con-dition—whether the subjects tasted the meat beforereceiving the label, after receiving the label, or did nottaste the meat at all (from Levin 1987)—was not asignificant source of variance. That is, whether andwhen subjects tasted the meat did not affect the over-all favorableness of their rating responses. However,the framing condition by tasting condition interac-tion was significant for three of the four scales,affirming that the magnitude ofthe framing effect var-ied across tasting conditions.

The two components ofthis interaction can be de-scribed as (1) the extent to which the framing effectdiffered between the "label-only" condition of theLevin (1987) study and the "taste plus labeling" con-ditions of the present study, and (2) the extent towhich the framing effect differed between the "tasteafter labeling" and "taste before labeling" conditionsofthe present study. Appearing at the bottom of Ta-ble 2 as subcomponents ofthe framing by taste inter-action, these two tests (1 df each) show that the firstcomponent was significant for all scales. This signifi-cance confirms that the framing effect, as predictedby the averaging model, was reliably reduced whensubjects tasted the meat as compared to when they didnot taste the meat. The second component, however,was not significant for any scale. Thus, the order of"the tasting and labeling phases did not significantlyaffect the magnitude ofthe framing effect.

'Note that the assumption or random assignment of subjects toconditions clearly has been violated in this between-experimenttest. However, the subjects who participated in both experimentsdid come from the same population.

FRAME AND PRODUCT EXPERIENCE 377

TABLE 2

ANOVA RESULTS FOR EACH RATING SCALE

Source

Framing condition (positive, negative)

Taste condition (label-only.* taste after lat)eling. tastebefore labeling)

Framing X taste"

Taste condition compared to no taste condition

Taste after label condition compared to taste beforelabel condition

df

1,184

2.184

2.184

1.184

1.184

Fat/lean

MS

128.10

2.23

12.51

24.30

.72

F

54.51*

.95

5.32*

10.34*

.31

Low quality/high quality

MS

63.37

1.61

7.37

13.87

.87

F

30.25*

.77

3.52^

6.62*

.42

Greasy/greaseless

MS F

61.68 27.28*

3.23 1.43

3.75 1.66

7.42 3.28«

.08 .04

Bad taste/good taste

MS

24.86

.91

8.36

15.91

.81

F

13.48*

.49

4.53"

8.63*

.44

• Data taken from Levin (1987)." Tbe 2 di framing x taste interaction was divided into two separate 1 iH tests, which are described tn the text.'p<0 .10 ."p<0.05.•p<0.01.

DISCUSSIONBecause our research deals with information fram-

ing effects, it seems only fitting that the present resultscan be stated in two different ways. On the one hand,the alternate labeling of a product attribute in posi-tive or negative terms did affect consumers' evalua-tions even when they actually consumed the product.On the other hand, the labeling or framing effect wasreduced when consumers sampled the product ascompared to when they did not.

The framing influence of attribute labels, evenwhen consumers can rely on their own experiences,serves to validate the information framing effectfound in previous studies in which subjects evaluatedhypothetical purchases (Bellizzi and Martin 1982;Levin et al. 1985). The general reduction ofthe fram-ing effect that occurs when consumers actually sam-pled the product is consistent with the averagingmodel of information integration (see Shanteau 1988for a similar model developed for combining tempo-ral sequences of visual and verbal information). Ac-cording to this model, the effect of any one source ofinformation is decreased when it is combined withanother source of information, because the twosources of information available to the judge are bal-anced in arriving at an integrated impression. Thepresent results (Tables 1 and 2) clearly show this pat-tern. Verbal labels and experiential information thusappear to be combined through an averaging pro-cess."

'For the present situation, an averaging model can be formulatedas follows: response = (My/+ w^)l(wf+ w,), where/and fare thesubjective scale values ofthe framed information and the personalexperience, respectively, and My and w, are the weights associatedwith these different sources of information. Two important features

Our results are also consistent with those of Hochand Ha (1986), who found that ads (frames) have aneffect on subsequent product evaluations only whenthe product experience is ambiguous. The question iswhether tasting hamburger is an ambiguous experi-ence. Examination of differences between ratingscales reveals post hoc support for the relationship be-tween ambiguity of experience and the frame (ad)effect proposed by Hoch and Ha (1986). One wouldexpect that the "taste experience" would be most rele-vant to the bad tasting/good tasting scale and hencemaximally reduce the framing effect, whereas thetaste experience would be less relevant to the otherscales. The results in Table 1 support this interpreta-tion by showing the taste-related scale to be least (andnonsignificantly) affected by the frame when subjectsactually tasted the meat.

The result from the Hoch and Ha (1986) study canbe viewed within the averaging model framework.Product experience, whether it precedes or followsproduct information, will have the greatest weightwhen it is diagnostic (unambiguous). According tothe balancing principle of the averaging model, wewould then expect to find stronger framing (advertis-ing) effects when the product experience is less diag-nostic, such as sampling perfume or cologne.

The averaging model provides a context for exam-ining a variety of factors (e.g., temporal effects) that

ofthis model should be noted. First, because the sum ofthe weightsis in the denominator, the effective weight of information frame iswjl(wf + w,). which is less than one if H', is not equal to zero. Thismeans that the effect of information frame is less when personalexperience is provided than when it is not. Second, the weight pa-rameters are allowed to vary with serial position (for example,which source of information is processed firist) and by the salienceorambiguity ofthe attribute (as in Hoch and Ha 1986).

378 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

would extend the current research. When varioussources of information are integrated serially, the rel-ative importance or weight of each source may de-pend upon its position within the sequence. The pres-ent trends suggest a primacy effect whereby the rela-tive importance of attribute labeling is greater whenit occurs before product consumption than when itoccurs afterwards. This effect is consistent with thedata reported by Hoch and Ha (1986), indicating thatthe impact of an ad presented before the product ex-perience tends to be greater than the impact of onepresented after. (As here, these differences supporteda primacy effect, but were not significant.) The reli-ability of temporal effects needs to be afiirmed in anexpanded experimental design. The averaging modelpredicts that the weight of a given piece of informa-tion decreases as the number of pieces of informationwith which it is combined increases. Thus, the greaterthe number of prior personal experiences with a prod-uct, the less should be the effect of subsequent attri-bute labeling.

Because information weighting has been shown tovary directly with the polarity ofthe information pre-sented (Levin et al. 1973), the quality ofthe personalexperience should also moderate the effect of theproduct information frame. Thus, if the ground beeftastes terrible, for example, it is unlikely that even apowerful positive frame will lead to a favorable evalu-ation. Future research designed to test these predic-tions and quantify the effects ofthe variables of inter-est would involve manipulating the pleasantness ofpersonal experiences with the product, as well as therelative number and temporal sequence of personalexperiences and framed descriptions. Such researchshould serve to enhance our understanding of howconsumers respond to advertisements and productexperiences in the marketplace (Goering 1985).

[Received March 1988. Revised July 1988.]

REFERENCESAllison, Ralph I. and Kenneth P. Uhl (1964), "Influence of

Beer Brand Identification on Taste Perception," Jour-nal of Marketing Research, 37 (April), 32-37.

Anderson, Norman H. (1981), Foundations of InformationIntegration Theory, New York: Academic Press.

(1986), "A Cognitive Theory of Judgment and Deci-sion," in New Directions in Research on Decision Mak-ing, eds. B. Brehmer, et al., Amsterdam, The Nether-lands: North-Holland, 63-108.

Assael, Henry (1987), Consumer Behavior and MarketingAction, Boston, MA: Kent.

Bellizzi, Joseph A. and Warren S. Martin (1982), "The In-fluence of National Versus Generic Branding on TastePerception," Journal of Business Research, 10 (Sep-tember), 385-396.

Bettman, James R. (1979), Information Processing Theoryof Consumer Choice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

—••— and C. Whan Park (1980), "Effects of Prior Knowl-edge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process

on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analy-sis," Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (December),234-248.

and Mita Sujan (1987), "Effects of Framing on Eval-uation of Comparable and Noncomparable Alterna-tives by Expert and Novice Consumers," Journal ofConsumer Research, 14 (September), 141-154.

Darley, John M. and Paget H. Gross (1983), "A Hypothesis-Confirming Bias in Labelling Effects," Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 44 (January), 20-33.

Deighton, John (1984), "The Interaction of Advertising&nd Evidence," Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (De-cember), 763-770.

and Robert M. Schindler (1988), "Can AdvertisingInfluence Experience?" Psychology & Marketing, 5(Summer), 103-115.

Goering, Patricia A. (1985), "The Effects of Product Trialon Consumer Expectations, Demand, and Prices,"Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June), 74-82.

Hoch, Stephen J. and Young-Won Ha (1986), "ConsumerLearning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of ProductExperience," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (Sep-tember), 221-233.

Johnson, Richard D. and Irwin P. Levin (1985), "MoreThan"Meets the Eye: The Effect ofMissing Informationon Purchase Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Re-search, 12 (September), 169-177.

Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1979), "ProspectTheory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," Econo-metrica, 47 (March), 263-291.

Levin, Irwin P. (1987), "Associative Effects of InformationFraming," Bulletin of the Psychonomics Society, 25(March), 85-86.

, Richard D. Johnson, Craig P. Russo, and Patricia J.Deldin (1985), "Framing Effects in Judgment Taskswith Varying Amounts of Information," Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(December), 362-377.-, Linda L. Wall, Jeanette M. Dolezal, and Kent L.

Norman (1973), "Differential Weighting of Positiveand Negative Traits in Impression Formation as aFunction of Prior Experience," Journal of Experimen-tal Psychology, 97 (January), 114-115.

Neale, M. and M. Bazerman (1985), "Perspectives for Un-derstanding Negotiation: Viewing Negotiation as aJudgmental Process," Journal of Conflict Resolution,29 (March), 33-55.

Puto, Christopher (1987), "The Framing of Buying Decx-%\ons" Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December),301-315.

Shanteau, James (1988), "Consumer Impression Forma-tion: The Integration of Visual and Verbal Informa-tion," in Nonverbal Communication in Advertising.eds. Sidney Hecker and David W. Stewart, Lexington,MA: D.C. Heath, 42-57.

Thaler, Richard (1985), "Mental Accounting and Con-sumer Choice," Marketing Science, 4 (Summer), 199-214.

Troutman, C. Michael and James Shanteau (1976), "DoConsumers Evaluate Products by Adding or AveragingAttribute Information?" Journal of Consumer Re-search, 3 (September), 101-106.

Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1981), "The Fram-ing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice," 5c/-ence.lW (September),453-458.