Trial Products
ROBERT E. SMITH and WILLIAM R. SWINYARD*
The role of direct versus indirect experience in the attitude-behavior consistency issue Is reviewed. Using a new communications model, the authors extend the direct/ indirect experience paradigm to a common marketing scenario: product trial versus product advertising. The specific contributions of attitude strength and typw of behavior are examined, and results show that when ottitudes are based on trial they predict purchase very well. When attitudes are based on advertising, however, attitude-behavior consistency is significantly reduced. Implications for when attitude models should be applied in marketing research and practice are discussed.
Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The Impact of Product Trial Versus Advertising
Do consumer attitudes predict consumer behaviors? According to traditional attitude theory the answer is "yes," consumers buy the brands and products they like best. However, mounting evidence indicates that attitudes are not very good predictors of overt behaviors. The purpose of the study reported here is to examine attitude-behavior (A-B) consistency in marketing situations. BACKGROUND The importance of the attitude concept dates back to the 1920s when behavioral scientists began the search for factors mediating between stimulus perception and overt behavior. Behavioralism, reinforcement, and genetic theories that implied a rudimentary S -^ R process were deemed unsatisfactory in fully explaining complex social behaviors. Investigating the "inner man" gained momentum from studies in human verbal leaming that showed important apperceptive skills (see for example Mead 1934). These phenomenological manipulations were seen as transforming primary perceptual units into verbal/symbolic units that mediated overt behavior (Anderson 1975). Such variables included cognitions, inferences, attitudes, and intentions, though early studies heavily emphasized the attitude concept. By 1954, All-
port (p. 45)
The role of direct versus indirect experience in the attitude-behavior consistency issue Is reviewed. Using a new communications model, the authors extend the direct/ indirect experience paradigm to a common marketing scenario: product trial versus product advertising. The specific contributions of attitude strength and typw of behavior are examined, and results show that when ottitudes are based on trial they predict purchase very well. When attitudes are based on advertising, however, attitude-behavior consistency is significantly reduced. Implications for when attitude models should be applied in marketing research and practice are discussed.
Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The Impact of Product Trial Versus Advertising
Do consumer attitudes predict consumer behaviors? According to traditional attitude theory the answer is "yes," consumers buy the brands and products they like best. However, mounting evidence indicates that attitudes are not very good predictors of overt behaviors. The purpose of the study reported here is to examine attitude-behavior (A-B) consistency in marketing situations. BACKGROUND The importance of the attitude concept dates back to the 1920s when behavioral scientists began the search for factors mediating between stimulus perception and overt behavior. Behavioralism, reinforcement, and genetic theories that implied a rudimentary S -^ R process were deemed unsatisfactory in fully explaining complex social behaviors. Investigating the "inner man" gained momentum from studies in human verbal leaming that showed important apperceptive skills (see for example Mead 1934). These phenomenological manipulations were seen as transforming primary perceptual units into verbal/symbolic units that mediated overt behavior (Anderson 1975). Such variables included cognitions, inferences, attitudes, and intentions, though early studies heavily emphasized the attitude concept. By 1954, All-
port (p. 45)