Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.

Understanding Consumer Evaluations of Mixed Affective Experiences

Author(s): Loraine Lau‐Gesk
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32, No. 1 (June 2005), pp. 23-28
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/429598 .
Accessed: 15/05/2012 02:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research.

http://www.jstor.org
Understanding Consumer Evaluations of Mixed
Affective Experiences
LORAINE LAU-GESK*

This research examines the influence of final trend, temporal proximity, and source
similarity on consumers’ overall retrospective evaluations of sequential mixed af-
fective experiences comprised of positive, negative, and neutral affective re-
sponses. Findings from the first experiment indicate that when consumers make
comparisons based on similarities among affective responses, evaluations tend to
be influenced by final trend. In contrast, when consumers make comparisons based
on differences, temporal proximity influences evaluations. A second experiment
shows that novelty of the experience attenuates these effects. This research is
discussed in view of research on sequential single as well as simultaneous mixed
affective experiences.

I magine eating three pieces of chocolate. Suppose you

find the first piece tastes terrible (e.g., nougat filling), the
second neutral (e.g., fruit filling), and the last piece delicious
(e.g., macadamia nut caramel filling). How would you rate
the overall consumption experience? Now imagine you ate
the neutral tasting fruit-filled chocolate last, after the deli-
cious tasting macadamia nut caramel piece. Would your
evaluation change? The present research addresses these
questions by investigating several characteristics of sequen-
tial mixed affective experiences that influence consumers’
retrospective evaluations and in so doing sheds light on some
inconsistencies found in two research streams, those on am-
bivalence and coping.
Recent research on ambivalence, defined as the experi-
ence of both positive and negative affect (Priester and Petty
1996), suggests that individuals would respond less favor-
ably to an experience wherein the chocolate pieces produc-
ing positive and negative affect are sampled closer (vs. far-
ther apart) in temporal proximity (Newby-Clark, McGregor,
and Zanna 2002). The underlying reason is that such mixed
affective experiences are more likely to be encoded and
stored together in memory and thus accessed jointly for
judgment (Tybout, Calder, and Sternthal 1981). Extant work
suggests the simultaneous accessing of positive and negative
affect often leads to feelings of discomfort (Williams and
*Loraine Lau-Gesk is assistant professor of marketing, University of
California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697 (llau@gsm.uci.edu). This article is
based on the author’s dissertation. The author acknowledges the helpful
input of the editor, associate editor, the reviewers, Meg Campbell, Curtis
Hardin, Tom Kramer, Joan Meyers-Levy, Rakesh Sarin, and committee
members Aimee Drolet and Shelley Taylor for comments on earlier drafts.
The author is especially grateful to her advisors Jennifer Aaker and Carol
Scott. The Marketing Studies Center at the University of California, Los
Angeles, funded this research.
23
Aaker 2002). In the chocolate example above, this research
stream would suggest that the first scenario (negative-nou-
gat, neutral-fruit, positive-macadamia nut) would be pre-
ferred to the latter (negative-nougat, positive-macadamia
nut, neutral-fruit).
There is other research, however, suggesting that positive
and negative affect may be preferred when experienced
closer (vs. farther apart) in temporal proximity. This distinct
stream of research, inspired by insights on coping mecha-
nisms, suggests that consumers sometimes cope with the
negative feelings associated with mixed affective experi-
ences (e.g., stress) by arranging positive and negative events
closer together in time (Linville and Fischer 1991). Here,
the positive event serves as a buffer for the negative event
(Rodin and Salovey 1989). In the domain of consumer psy-
chology, for example, consumers choose to experience both
a positive and negative event on the same day versus on
different days (Thaler 1985), suggesting that indeed positive
affect can help compensate for negative affect. This research
stream, highlighting the benefits of having a buffer, would
therefore suggest that the chocolate consumption experience
may be best enjoyed if the terrible-tasting nougat and de-
licious-tasting macadamia nut caramel piece were experi-
enced together. In the current research, it is argued that these
different predictions may be teased apart by examining the
degree to which consumers view the sources of different
affect responses as similar to one another—a variable re-
ferred to as perception of source similarity.
MODERATING ROLE OF AFFECT
SOURCE SIMILARITY
A close examination of the work on ambivalence reveals
that stimuli in these experiments tend to have a specific

䉷 2005 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 32 ● June 2005

All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2005/3201-0002$10.00
24
OVERALL RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION AND AFFECTIVE RESPONSE BY CONDITION IN EXPERIMENT 1
AS: Low
FT: Improve
TP: Farther TP: Closer TP: Farther
Overall retrospective
evaluation 4.33 5.40
Negative (popcorn) .47 ⫺.87
Neutral (cappuccino) 1.69 .52
Positive (orange) 3.73 4.18
NOTE.—AS p affect source similarity; FT p final trend; TP p temporal proximity.
characteristic: the positive affect and negative affect derive
from the same source (e.g., a person with positive and neg-
ative traits: Priester and Petty 1996; a single advertisement
evoking happiness and sadness: Williams and Aaker 2002).
This is not the case in the coping research. Here, multiple
and distinct sources are responsible for producing the mixed
experience (e.g., winning a $250 prize from a local store
and losing a $5 paperback novel: Linville and Fischer 1991).
One possible explanation, then, for the differing predictions
for our chocolate scenario has to do with perceived source
similarity. That is, when a consumption experience is viewed
as having derived from multiple sources, the lower the sim-
ilarity perceived across the affect sources. Since the sources
producing the mixed affective experiences are dissimilar,
feelings of discomfort are less likely to arise because of the
lack of conflicting emotions associated with dissimilar
sources. Instead, when the affect-producing sources are dis-
similar, the positive affect should serve as a buffer for the
negative affect. If this is the case, then the closer in temporal
proximity the two oppositely valenced affective responses
arise, the more likely consumers are to respond favorably
to mixed affective experiences.
In the current research, the above premise is tested by
manipulating source similarity within a consumption ex-
perience. It is posited that consumers focusing on similarities
across the affect sources should dislike experiencing neg-
ative and positive affect closer (vs. farther apart) in temporal
proximity because of the oppositely valenced affective re-
sponses arising simultaneously.
EXPERIMENT 1
For the experiment, 127 students (Mage p 22; female p
50%) from two large West Coast universities were recruited
and paid $3 to participate in a study on jelly bean sampling.
At the beginning, participants were asked to focus on either
the similarities across the three jelly beans to be tasted (high
source similarity), or their differences (low source similarity;
see Dube and Schmitt 1999; Mussweiler 2003). A sequential
mixed affective experience was ensured by separating the jelly
beans into three envelopes numbered according to randomly
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
TABLE 1
AS: High
FT: Decline FT: Improve FT: Decline
TP: Closer TP: Farther TP: Closer TP: Farther TP: Closer
4.42 5.50 5.79 5.16 3.30 4.41
⫺2.39 ⫺.07 ⫺1.07 ⫺.83 .44 .27
1.47 .01 1.06 .47 1.06 1.84
3.38 3.54 3.01 3.54 3.78 3.78
assigned sequential ordering. Participants sampled three jelly
bean flavors, each of which was pretested to arouse either a
positive (orange flavor), negative (popcorn flavor), or neutral
(cappuccino flavor) affective response (pretest details avail-
able from author for both experiments 1 and 2). The ordering
of the three distinct affective responses (i.e., positive, nega-
tive, neutral) was varied, thereby creating four experiential
patterns from which to examine the effects of temporal prox-
imity and final trend (see table 1 for patterns). Two differences
between the experiential patterns used in the present research
versus prior research are worthy of note (Ariely and Carmon
2000). First, the present research investigates patterns con-
sisting of sequences of positive, negative, and neutral (i.e.,
neither positive nor negative) affective outcomes. In contrast,
prior research examines patterns consisting of sequences of
single-valenced affective outcomes varying in intensity level
(e.g., from highly intense to less intense levels of pain or
pleasure). Second, whereas most previous research explores
continuous experiences that create the pattern, the current
research investigates experiential patterns created by a dis-
continuous series of separate affective responses.
After tasting the jelly beans, participants responded to a
set of questions assessing overall retrospective evaluations,
individual affective responses, potential covariate measures,
checks for source similarity, and demographic information.
Finally, participants were debriefed.
Results
The results are based on a 2 (source similarity: high vs.
low) by 2 (final trend: improving vs. declining) by 2 (tem-
poral proximity: closer vs. farther apart) between-subjects
ANOVA. Of note, with the exception of an increasing effect
of prior category liking on evaluations (t p 2.03, p ! .01),
the 2 # 2 # 2 ANOVAs yielded no significant covariates.
To begin, manipulation checks were assessed. First, the
full ANOVA was run on the source similarity index (similar
to each other, typical of each other, and represent one an-
other; anchors 1 p not at all, 7 p very; a p .86). Only a
significant main effect resulted; participants who were in-
structed to focus on similarities versus dissimilarities viewed
MIXED AFFECTIVE EXPERIENCES
the jelly beans as marginally more similar (M p 3.06 vs.
2.59; F(1, 119) p 3.76, p ! .08). Second, an analysis on the
general affective response index (pleasant, positive; reverse-
scored unpleasant, negative; a p .93 ) revealed that the se-
quential mixed affective experiences were experienced in
the sequence intended (table 1 for means; details available
by request).
Next we turned to hypothesis testing focused on the key
dependent variable, overall retrospective evaluations. A
2 # 2 # 2 ANOVA on the evaluation index (a p .93; see
above for items) yielded a three-way interaction
(F(1, 119) p 4.11, p ! .05; see table 1). Simple effects anal-
yses revealed a two-way interaction between final trend and
temporal proximity under high source similarity
(F(1, 120) p 3.11, p ! .02), and under low source similarity
(F(1, 120) p 2.99, p ! .03). Follow-up contrasts indicated
that as predicted, under conditions of low source similarity,
more favorable evaluations were found when the positive
affect source was in close (vs. farther apart) temporal prox-
imity to the negative affect source, suggesting that the pos-
itive experience indeed served as a buffer for the negative
experience. Specifically, the sequence when the negative-
tasting popcorn flavor and positive-tasting orange flavor
were experienced closer together lead to more favorable
evaluations than when they were experienced further apart,
a pattern that persisted when the trend was improving
(M p 5.40 vs. 4.33; F(1, 120) p 4.88, p ! .03) and declin-
ing (M p 5.50 vs. 4.82; F(1, 120) p 2.92, p ! .09). No fi-
nal trend differences were found between the closer temporal
proximity patterns (M p 5.40 vs. 5.50, F ! 1) or between
the farther apart temporal proximity patterns (M p 4.33 vs.
4.82, F ! 1).
The contrast involving conditions of high source simi-
larity revealed a different pattern. Here, there was a pref-
erence for the negative and positive affect sources to be
experienced further apart rather than closer together—an
effect that suggested final trend could be a more important
variable than temporal proximity when determining evalu-
ation. Specifically, contrasts showed that the improving
trend (negative-tasting popcorn, neutral-tasting cappuccino,
positive-tasting orange) was preferred over a declining trend
(orange, cappuccino, popcorn; M p 5.79 vs. 4.41;
F(1, 120) p 8.77, p ! .03). Moreover, the analysis finds a
marginal effect on evaluation for the farther apart (vs. closer)
temporal proximity experiential pattern reflecting final im-
provement (M p 5.79 vs. 5.16; F(1, 120) p 2.14, p ! .07;
one-tailed). For the patterns reflecting a decline in final
trend, analysis finds a marginal effect on evaluation for
closer (M p 5.36) versus farther apart (M p 4.41;
F(1, 120) p 3.30, p ! .07) temporal proximity. However,
no such difference was found between the closer temporal
proximity patterns (M p 5.16 vs. 5.36; F ! 1). Taken to-
gether, results indicate that final trend only becomes an im-
portant variable when positive and negative affect sources
are experienced further apart, not when they are experienced
closer together. Temporal proximity, then, influences eval-
25
uation and the extent to which the effect of final trend
emerges.
Discussion
As predicted, the results of experiment 1 indicate that the
effects of temporal proximity and final trend on overall ret-
rospective evaluations are moderated by source similarity.
Temporal proximity only influenced evaluations when
source similarity was low. However, when source similarity
was high, the effect of temporal proximity depended on the
final trend of the experience. Thus, experiencing the popcorn
jelly bean first and orange jelly bean last, with neutral cap-
puccino in the middle, led to favorable overall evaluations
when consumers focused on similarities across the jelly
beans. However, when focused on dissimilarities, consumers
preferred eating the popcorn and orange jelly beans right
after one another—an effect that is independent of the order
in which they are presented.
The premise underlying the moderating effect of per-
ceived source similarity is that individuals arrive at an over-
all evaluation of mixed affective experiences by cognitively
appraising and forming linkages across each of the affect
sources. These comparisons may be based on perceived sim-
ilarities or differences observed across the three sources
(Mussweiler 2003). A focus on similarities theoretically oc-
curs when common (as opposed to unique) attributes form
the basis of comparison; a focus on dissimilarities occurs
when unique (as opposed to common) attributes form the
basis of comparison (Loken and Ward 1990).
To gain greater confidence that perceptions of source sim-
ilarity indeed underlie the effects found in experiment 1
(vs., e.g., a different view of self that may be activated when
given such instructional goals; Aaker and Schmitt 2001),
we include a variable that increases the ability (rather than
motivation) to perceive similarities and differences across
sources in experiment 2. Drawing on the categorization lit-
erature, we rely on a measured variable, category expertise
(Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Gregan-Paxton and John 1997).
Extant work suggests that novices, relative to experts, typ-
ically lack the knowledge structures required to make sim-
ilarity- or differences-based judgments of information (Ma-
laviya, Kisielius, and Sternthal 1996; Meyers-Levy 1991).
Thus, novelty of the experience should play an important
role in moderating the effects found in experiment 1, thereby
shedding greater light on the proposed mechanism focused
on perceived source similarity. That is, if the effects found
in experiment 1 are indeed driven by perceived source sim-
ilarity, we should find that the effects documented above
only replicate when the experience is not considered novel
(when participants are able to make similarity and dissim-
ilarity judgments). And, they should be eliminated when the
experience is novel (when participants are not able to make
similarity and dissimilarity judgments).
26 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

EXPERIMENT 2
Experiment 2 involved 114 students (Mage p 21;
female p 44%) from an undergraduate marketing course at
a midwestern university, who were paid $4 to participate.
The procedure used in experiment 1 was replicated but with
three changes. First, measured novelty of the experience was
included for greater insight on the mechanism underlying
these effects. Second, since temporal proximity effects
served to discern between the patterns under low and high
source similarity, the final trend variable was dropped in the
design. Third and finally, to enhance robustness, a new cover
story and set of stimuli was used. Here, participants took
part in a simulated aromatherapy experience. With their eyes
closed, participants sampled three aromas contained in sep-
arate jars. Each aroma aroused either a positive (grapeseed),
negative (blue corn), or neutral (soy) affective response (see
author for details). All dependent measures remained the
same.
Results and Discussion
Unless otherwise stated, the results are based on an
ANOVA with source similarity (high vs. low), temporal
proximity (closer vs. farther apart), and novelty of experi-
ence as a continuous variable. An analysis based on the full
design yielded only a main effect of source similarity,
whereby participants who were instructed to focus on sim-
ilarities versus dissimilarities viewed the aromas as more
similar (M p 4.29 vs. 3.52; F(1, 96) p 4.03, p ! .04;
a p .83). And, as in the previous experiment, analyses on
the general affective response index (a p .86) revealed that
the sequential mixed affective experiences were experienced
in the intended sequence (see table 2 for means).
To test the hypotheses, an ANOVA on the evaluation
index (a p .93) found the predicted three-way interaction
(F(1, 97) p 5.37; p ! .02; novelty of experience run as con-
tinuous variable). Table 2 shows means for overall evalu-
ations for each experiential pattern by high and low source
similarity and by high and low novelty experiences (based
on a median split, Med. p 3.42). Simple effects analyses
by novelty group were conducted. For those who reported
high novelty with the experience, the results yielded no
significant effects. However, for those who reported that the
aromatherapy simulation was less novel, the findings
showed a significant source similarity # temporal prox-
imity interaction (F(1, 97) p 3.11; p ! .03), whereby an ef-
fect of temporal proximity occurred in conditions of low
source similarity condition as in experiment 1. Specifically,
when temporal proximity between positive and negative af-
fective responses is closer (vs. farther apart) under low
source similarity, evaluations were more favorable
(F(1, 97) p 6.64, p ! .01; M p 4.89 vs. 3.69). In contrast,
the results showed a marginally significant effect of temporal
proximity in conditions of high source similarity, whereby
more favorable evaluations occurred when temporal prox-
imity between positive and negative affect sources were
farther apart versus closer together (M p 4.40 vs. 3.58;
F(1, 97) p 2.32, p ! .07).
In sum, source similarity did not moderate the effects of
temporal proximity on overall evaluations when the expe-
rience was novel for participants. The pattern found in ex-
periment 1 was only replicated when the experience was
not novel for participants. These results are consistent with
the idea that individuals for whom an experience is novel
lack sufficient knowledge to judge on the basis of relations
mind-set.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
This research shows that source similarity influences the
degree to which temporal proximity and final trend are used
as a basis for overall retrospective evaluations, and in so
doing sheds insight on differing predictions on the prefer-
ence of mixed affective sequences from two distinct liter-
atures on ambivalence and coping. In experiment 1, we

TABLE 2

OVERALL RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION AND AFFECTIVE RESPONSES FOR IMPROVING FINAL TREND PATTERNS BY
CONDITION IN EXPERIMENT 2

EN: Low EN: High

AS: Low AS: High AS: Low AS: High
Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal
proximity: proximity: proximity: proximity: proximity: proximity: proximity: proximity:
Farther Closer Farther Closer Farther Closer Farther Closer

Overall retrospective
evaluation 3.69 4.89 4.40 3.58 4.79 4.40 4.45 4.98
Negative (blue corn) ⫺.30 .08 .90 ⫺.05 .00 ⫺.56 ⫺.04 .00
Neutral (soy) 1.23 2.08 1.60 .72 .375 1.19 .82 1.36
Positive (grapeseed) 3.72 3.67 3.90 3.18 2.50 3.69 3.00 4.50
NOTE.—EN p experiential novelty; AS p affect source similarity; TP p temporal proximity.
MIXED AFFECTIVE EXPERIENCES
found that individuals prefer to experience positive and neg-
ative affect close together, consistent with the buffering ex-
planation posed by the coping literature. However, this effect
only occurs when source similarity is low. When source
similarity is high, close proximity between negative and
positive affect leads to unfavorable evaluations. In such con-
ditions, final trend appears to take on a more important role,
whereby improving sequences are preferred to declining se-
quences. Experiment 2 provides a replication of these vary-
ing effects of temporal proximity, but only for individuals
for whom the experience is not novel. For novices of the
aromatherapy category (for whom similarities and differ-
ences across aromas are less likely to be perceived), these
effects were eliminated.
Both the contributions and limitations of this research
merit attention and afford directions for future work. One
needed direction is an empirical exploration of the process
mechanism underlying these effects. The current research
was based on the premise that when source similarity is
high, discomfort arises, thereby leading to unfavorable eval-
uations. However, measures of such discomfort are lacking
for these studies. Ongoing work is needed to both explicitly
tap this process and to dive deeper into alternative expla-
nations of this phenomenon. Future research might also op-
erationalize temporal proximity differently by directly ma-
nipulating the time between positive and negative affect and
excluding neutral affect. Doing so would enable researchers
to examine rate of change as an important variable under-
lying temporal proximity effects. However, this research
path would not allow more complicated, realistic experi-
ential patterns to be investigated or final trend effects to be
further explored. While final trend was not a main focus of
the present work, the results shed new light on the literature
by identifying additional boundary conditions for the gen-
eral preference for improving over declining sequences of
events (e.g., Chapman 2000; Loewenstein and Prelec 1993).
More generally, an assumption made in the current re-
search is that consumers undergo a process of comparison
across each affective source to determine the degree to
which the entire set contains interchangeable, as opposed
unique, attributes. However, the degree to which this is a
conscious, thoughtful process (relative to a more automatic
one) is unclear, as is the possibility that a more conscious
versus automatic process underlying such comparisons may
lead to different effects. Some preliminary evidence sheds
some light on this question. A follow-up study was con-
ducted to assess source similarity in a more indirect, ar-
guably more automatic, way. In this study, participants were
not directed to focus on similarities or dissimilarities, but
were simply asked to imagine a consumption experience
wherein the product category automatically elicited high
(grapes) versus low (chocolates) source similarity. The same
pattern of findings resulted, consistent with the current
theorizing.
Differences between present research and existing he-
donic psychological research also merit highlighting when
looking to integrate the current findings into the literature.
27
For example, in the work on hedonic psychology, the af-
fective experience derives from a single source (e.g., co-
lonoscopy, cup of water, television commercial). In the cur-
rent research, there are multiple affective sources producing
the affective responses (i.e., different jelly bean flavors), and
source similarity determines whether these three sources will
be viewed as multiple or single entities. Thus, it could be
argued that evaluative predictions may be based on a he-
donic psychological perspective under high source similarity
conditions. Indeed, recent findings in hedonic psychology
offers support for such a view whereby similar temporal
proximity and final trend effects have been found (Ariely
and Carmon 2000). However, unlike the present research,
past hedonic psychological research found no temporal
proximity (or final trend) effect under low source similarity
conditions (Ariely and Zauberman 2000). Rather, consumers
average each segment of an experience to come up with an
overall retrospective evaluation. Mixed and single affective
experiences clearly have their own unique qualities that in-
teract with other variables in different ways.
It is in this regard that the current research argues for a
theory based on consumer responses to positive and negative
affect arising at different times throughout the experience,
rather than on research focused only on single affective
experiences assessed at static points in time. In previous
research, because only a single type of affective response
arises from the same source during the experience, averaging
three of the same affective experiences only varying in in-
tensity level should be a relatively easy and natural eval-
uative process. In contrast, averaging may be less of a pos-
sibility in cases where both positive and negative affect
arises. Given that positive and negative affect belong to
separate systems in memory (e.g., Larsen, McGraw, and
Cacioppo 2001), averaging qualitatively different affective
responses may be a less likely process of evaluation. Future
research is needed to more directly test such accounts of
why temporal proximity and final trend affect consumer
evaluations of mixed affective experiences.
In closing, the current research hopes to contribute to the
consumer behavior and psychology literatures by offering
one resolution to an apparent inconsistency in the literature
about how consumers react to experiences wherein both
positive affect and negative affect become activated within
the same consumption experience. Indeed, the variable,
source similarity, appears to account for such differences.
In so doing, the present research bridges research that offers
different perspectives on the magnitude and direction of
impact for two characteristics of a mixed affective experi-
ence. For experiential marketing practitioners trying to cre-
ate an overall positive consumption experience, this research
suggests that the manner in which consumers compare each
part of an experience greatly influences how negative af-
fective responses, relative to positive and neutral affective
responses, might be effectively mitigated.
[Dawn Iacobucci served as editor and Joseph Priester
served as associate editor for this article.]
28
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer and Bernd Schmitt (2001), “Culture-Dependent
Assimilation and Differentiation of the Self,” Journal of Cross
Cultural Psychology, 32 (September), 561–76.
Alba, Joseph and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions of
Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13
(March), 411–54.
Ariely, Dan and Ziv Carmon (2000), “Gestalt Characteristics of
Experiences: The Defining Features of Summarized Events,”
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13 (April/June),
191–201.
Ariely, Dan and Gal Zauberman (2000), “On the Making of an
Experience: The Effects of Breaking and Combining Expe-
riences on Their Overall Evaluations,” Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 13 (April/June), 219–32.
Chapman, Gretchen (2000), “Preferences for Improving and De-
clining Sequences for Health Outcomes,” Journal of Behav-
ioral Decision Making, 13 (April/June), 203–18.
Dube, Laurette and Bernd Schmitt (1999), “The Effect of a Sim-
ilarity versus Dissimilarity Focus in Positioning Strategy: The
Moderating Role of Consumer Familiarity and Product Cat-
egory,” Psychology and Marketing, 16 (May), 211–24.
Gregan-Paxton, Jennifer and Deborah Roedder John (1997), “Con-
sumer Learning by Analogy: A Model of Internal Knowledge
Transfer,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (December),
266–84.
Larsen, Jeff T., Peter McGraw, and John T. Cacioppo (2001), “Can
People Feel Happy and Sad at the Same Time?” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (October), 684–96.
Linville, Patricia and Gregory Fischer (1991), “Preferences for
Separating or Combining Events,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60 (1), 5–23.
Loewenstein, George and Drazen Prelec (1993), “Preferences for
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Sequences of Outcomes,” Psychological Review, 100 (Janu-
ary), 91–108.
Loken, Barbara and James Ward (1990), “Alternative Approaches
to Understanding the Determinants of Typicality,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 17 (September), 111–126.
Malaviya, Prashant, Jolita Kisielius, and Brian Sternthal (1996),
“The Effect of Type of Elaboration on Advertising Processing
and Judgment,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (Novem-
ber), 410–21.
Meyers-Levy, Joan (1991), “Elaborating on Elaboration: The Dis-
tinction between Relational and Item Specific Elaboration,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (December), 358–67.
Mussweiler, Thomas (2003), “Comparison Processes in Social
Judgment: Mechanisms and Consequences,” Psychological
Review, 110 (3), 472–89.
Newby-Clark, Ian. R., Ian McGregor, and Mark P. Zanna (2002),
“Thinking and Caring about Cognitive Inconsistency: When
and For Whom Does Attitudinal Ambivalence Feel Uncom-
fortable?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82
(2), 157–66.
Priester, Joseph R. and Richard E. Petty (1996), “The Gradual
Threshold Model of Ambivalence: Relating the Positive and
Negative Bases of Attitudes to Subjective Ambivalence,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (3), 431–49.
Rodin, Judith and Peter Salovey (1989), “Health Psychology,” An-
nual Review of Psychology, 40, 533–79.
Thaler, Richard (1985), “Mental Accounting and Consumer
Choice,” Marketing Science, 4 (Summer), 199–214.
Tybout, Alice, Bobby Calder, and Brian Sternthal (1981), “Using
Information Processing Theory to Design Marketing Strate-
gies,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 73–79.
Williams, Patti and Jennifer Aaker (2002), “Can Mixed Emotions
Peacefully Co-exist?” Journal of Consumer Research, 28
(March), 636–49.