Second-Order Conditioning

• Pair CS1 with US

• Pair CS2 with CS1

• CS2 produces CR

• CS1 serves as US for CS2

Blair & Shimp (1992)

• Unpleasant experience paired with music

• Brand paired with music

Design• Pre-conditioning phase

– Subjects listen to theme music

– Sessions during bad weather

– Usually, music induces mood, so US

– But, here treat music as CS1 and bad weather as US

• Conditioning phase– Fictitious sportswear brand paired with theme music

– Brand is CS2

• Control group– Random pairing of CS2 and CS1

• Test– Measure affect toward brand

Terminology

• Article uses older terminology– Music as US, not CS1

Results

• Negative conditioning to brand in pre-conditioning group

• Music acquired negative affect

• Negative affect transferred to brand

Implications

• Music choice in advertising significant• May have previously conditioned

connotations– Enhance or impede intended effect– Transfer to brand

• Overshadowing effects– Popular music– More salient than brand (ignore CS)

US Pre-exposure

• Repeatedly present US

• More difficult to subsequently condition CS– US occurs without predictive stimulus

Second Order Classical

• US is affective state, mood, etc.

• CS1 is celebrity, expert, consumer, or TPO

• CS2 is brand

Celebrities

• Famous people

• Associations– Popular– Rich– Attractive

Experts

• Known or unknown– e.g., scientist, doctor, lawyer, mechanic,

etc.

• Associations– Knowledge– Authorities

“Typical”Consumer

• Average shopper– Real or fake

• Association– Nothing to gain (leads to trust)– Credibility

Third Party Organizations

• Popular in advertising

• Independent organizations– Rank, rate, or promote a product

• Quality indicators

Effectiveness of TPOs

• Work through credibility vector

• Indicate quality– TPO won’t want to lose public opinion– Won’t endorse a poor product

• Good for– Products of high financial value and low

psychological risk

Social Learning Theory

• Bandura

• Observational learning

• Attributes of model and learner

Characteristics

• Model– Rewardingness– Authority– Dominance– Similarity– Sincerity

• Learner– Uncertainty– Age– Sex

Operant

• Observe

• Reinforcement or punishment

• Imitate with expectation

• Generalized imitation

Attractiveness

• Important for– Celebrity endorsers

• Less important (but not ignored) for– Experts, typical consumers

Attractiveness

• Can act as US itself

• Innate predispositions

• Evolved– Health, genotype– Evolutionary psychology

• Mating, social interactions

Nature vs. Nurture Debate

• Is attractiveness/beauty learned or innate?

• Until early 1980s, common consensus was learned

• Langlois and collegues– Infant gaze studies– Tips to innate predispositions (with

subsequent learning)

Attractiveness as US

• With actors and celebrities, usually attractive– Both the recognition of the individual and

association with specific traits– Innate attractiveness

• Consider– Antonio Banderas– Danny DeVito

www.banderas-mall.com/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Danny_DeVito_2008.jpg

Cognitive Factor

• Attention and recall

• Celebrities, experts

• Associated with specific aspect of product– Athlete with sports car (fast)– Ex-drug addict with anti-drug campaign

(credibility)

Appropriateness

• Any celebrity/expert for any product?• Achieving a match• Changes in celebrity/expert’s status?

– e.g., O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, Madonna, Kate Moss, etc.

– Associated with brand

• Change in brand status?– e.g., tobacco

Ohanian (1991)

• Attractiveness, expertise, and trustworthiness

• Use of product– For self or for gift

• Male or female consumer

Fictitious Pairings

• Celebrities and products

• Madonna and designer jeans

• John McEnroe and tennis rackets

• Tom Selleck and men’s cologne

• Linda Evans and perfume

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Madonna-Material-Girl-333295.jpgespn.go.com/classic/biography/s/McEnroe_John.htmltomselleck.tv-website.com/www.geocities.com/lindaevans9/

Questionnaires

• Section 1– Familiarity with celebrity?– Demographic information

• Section 2– Credibility scale

• Section 3– Subject’s likeliness to purchase product– For self or for gift

Subjects

• Residential neighborhoods

• Churches

• Graduate and undergraduate students

Results

• Age and gender

• No significant impact on evaluation of celebrities’ attractiveness, trustworthiness, or expertise

• Nor on likelihood to purchase a product promoted by the celebrity

Celebrity Differences

• John McEnroe– Least attractive and trustworthy– High levels of perceived expertise with sports

gear

• Linda Evans– High attractiveness and trustworthiness

ratings– Only average perceived expertise with

perfume

Celebrity Attractiveness and Trustworthiness

• Generally perceived as important by advertisers, but:

• Minimal impact on subjects’ intention to purchase product– Most celebrities are attractive; minimal

range, so no differentiation– Celebrities are paid for their endorsements,

so not perceived as trustworthy– Expertise the determinant of intention to

purchase

Conclusions

• To be useful celebrity spokespersons should be– Knowledgeable– Experienced– Qualified to endorse the product

Celebrity

• Virgin

• Christina Aguilera

• Virgin mobile phone

• UK release

• The devil makes work for idle thumbs. Keep yours busy. Text Virgin Mobile for 3P.

Celebrity

• Commodore Vic 20

• Priceline

• William Shatner

• From playing on Star Trek status to playing on Shatner status

Celebrity

• Independence Air• Dennis Miller• Comedian• Started SNL in 1980s• Currently, talk radio show• Endorses conservative opinions,

supports Republican candidates, pro military action

Celebrity

• 7/11

• S.H.E.– Selina Ren, Hebe Tian, Ella Chen

• Taiwanese girl band

• 10 albums, $4.5 million sales since 2001, multiple TV roles

Celebrity

• Power drink

• Arnold Schwarzenegger

• Japanese commercial

• Sometimes celebrity does cross cultures…but the ad might not

Expert

• Nike

• Tiger Woods

• Use the product, be like the expert

Expert

• Chesterfields

• Opinion of a physician

• Trusted

(Anti-) Expert

• BT information technology

• Gordon Ramsay

• Area of specialization

Expert

• Ask an expert

• Future Shop

• Spoofing use of experts in ads

Typical Consumer

• Tide

• Moroccan commercial, 1993

Typical Consumer

• Salem's cigarettes

• Supposedly average couple

• Note music score

• Gives performance information

Co-Branding

• Higher order conditioning association

• Two brands are deliberately paired

• Favourable attitude to second brand due to positive attitude to first brand

• MI

Does it Work?

• Well… sometimes

BMW Z3

Sales increase

+

Sony Mini Disk

No benefit

+

Prior Associations

• First brand should be: familiar, popular• Coca-Cola

– Celebrities, characters, Olympics, concepts, music, even colour

– Not an ideal co-branding candidate

• Change the context– Present familiar brand in different context,

causing increased attention & processing

Belongingness

• See Rescorla & Furrow (1977); classic study on 2nd order stimulus similarity increasing learning rate

• Similar to product-model match• Need to find some way to link two

brands• Worked: Bill Cosby and Jello• Failed: Bill Cosby and E.F. Hutton

Similarity

• Too much similarity can work against brand– E.g., see Rescorla & Gillan (1980), exp. 2

• Mistake other brands for co-brand• Salem cigarettes

– Freshness positioning– Other brands followed this– Consumers made association to more familiar

Salem ads, benefiting Salem

Bidirectional?

• Associative conditioning could work both ways• Familiar brand (CS1) can be influenced by targeted

brand (CS2)• Negative affect from targeted brand• Greater attention paid to familiar brand; more

processing• Erosion (additional associations weaken those initially

created)

Changing CS1 Post 2nd Order Conditioning

• Rescorla (1973), Holland & Rescorla (1975a,b)• 2nd order conditioning

– Tone & light as CSs, food as US– Devalue US via satiation or rapid rotation; extinction of CS1

• Reduced CR for CS1 but not for CS2• Subsequently restoring US returns some CR for CS1

(not a repairing of CS1-US here)

Brand Counterfeiting

• Illegally made products resembling genuine product

• Traditionally lower quality– Starting to shift for some counterfeits– Outsourced factories run extra “fake” shift– Sometimes shifts counterfeiters into legitimacy

• Becoming a serious problem– Over $600 billion in sales

Types

• Deceptive– Consumer unaware product is fake

• Nondeceptive– Consumer is aware product is fake– Especially prevalent in luxury brand

markets

Reasons to Purchase

• See: Eisend & Schuchert-Guler (2006)• Person

– Demographic and psychological issues– E.g., purchasers often of lower social status

• Aspects of product– Price, uniqueness, availability– E.g., likelihood of purchase negatively related to price

• Social and cultural– Cultural norms to shopping environment– E.g., consumer more likely to purchase counterfeit if

shopping experience more appetitive

Attitudes

• Social-adjustive attitude (SAA)– Purchase motivated by effort to improve

individual’s approval level in social situations– “Status-symbol”

• Value-expressive attitudes (VEA)– Purchase demonstrate’s consumer’s central

beliefs, attitudes, values– “Self-expression”

• Luxury brand purchases may serve both these functions

Ad-Consumer Interaction

• See: Snyder & DeBono (1985)

• If holding SAA, more favourable to product appeals showcasing social validation goals

• If motivated by VEA, consumer more favourable to ads highlighting intrinsic aspects (“product function” appeals)

Luxury Items & Counterfeits

• VEA will motivate purchase for product function (quality-related reasons)– Less likely to purchase luxury counterfeits

• SAA will motivate purchase of counterfeit luxury items (aim is to make social statement)– More likely to purchase luxury counterfeits

Brand Identifiability

• Recognizable logo/brand characteristic

• Easier higher-order conditioning vector

• Real product already paired with celebrity, sports figure, social class, etc.

• Logo serves as CS2 for idealized trait

High Recognition Brand Counterfeits

• Counterfeit gives same association, but for less money

• Appearance of social elite…even if you aren’t

• Actual quality irrelevant for social validation vector

• “Surface” level analysis

Quality-Driven Luxury Brands• Often non-explicit logo, characteristics, etc.

– Luxury detail based on subtle quality distinctions– “If you have to ask”…

• Not ideal items for counterfeit– VEA-driven, not SAA-driven

• 2nd order conditioning just not there to begin with– Salience on identifying these luxury items is low

Consumer Personality Traits

• Moral/ethics re: counterfeit– Lower on scale more

likely to purchase

• High-self monitors– More likely to adopt SAA

• Low-self monitors– More likely to adopt VEA

Anti-Counterfeiting Campaigns

• Difficult to police• Negative publicity to designer brands

– E.g., Louis Vuitton

• Fashion industry appeals– Hurts designers

– Appealing to those who can already afford high-end luxury items

• Negative ad framing– Might highlight loss in social status if

counterfeit detected

Knock-offs

• Technically, not counterfeits

• Inspired by more innovative, higher-end brands– E.g., GAP, H&M

• Lacks the same moral/ethical objections to purchase Kim Kardashian Knock off