Evaluation? ELIZABETH COWLEY EUNIKA JANUS* University of New South Wales. School of Marketing Working Paper 03/2

1 Is Memory Reconstruction about Changing Memory for a Fact or a Consumer-Generated Evaluation? ELIZABETH COWLEY EUNIKA JANUS* University of New South Wales School of Marketing Working Paper 03/2

2 ABSTRACT It has recently been demonstrated that exposure to advertising after consumption can change consumers' memory such that they remember tasting a better product (Braun 1999). This research investigates whether advertising can change consumers' memory such that they remember tasting a different product. The results reveal that less familiar consumers blend their memory for the consumption experience with their memory for the advertisement, and are, therefore, less able to recognize the product after seeing the ad. More familiar consumers are actually more likely to recognize the product after seeing the ad; it appears they use the ad to remember what the product was not.

3 INTRODUCTION Marketers have acknowledged for some time that advertising before consumption can affect consumers' product experiences by creating expectations to be confirmed or disconfirmed by trying the product (Deighton 1984). Recent evidence reports that advertising seen after consumption can reshape memory for the event, causing consumers to remember a more favorable experience (Braun 1999). Braun found that when consumers tasted a diluted orange juice laced with vinegar and salt, and then read advertisements claiming the juice was fresh, sweet and pure, they altered their memory of the juice taste to be more like the juice described in the advertising. By investigating whether a bad product experience can be remembered as being good after viewing positive misinformation, Braun (1999) was examining a change in memory for an evaluation: whether misinformation could make participants remember a better tasting juice. Thus, the study was a departure from the misinformation effect paradigm where exposure to post-experience information causes people to remember different items than originally seen, such as a screwdriver instead of a hammer (Belli 1989), or a yield instead of a stop sign (Loftus, Miller, and Burns 1978); or remembering new items, such as a barn on a landscape when none existed (Loftus 1979a). In these studies the incorrectly recognized item was either different or not seen at all in the original episode. The research reported here tests whether advertising can change memory for a fact, that is the type of juice consumed earlier, without necessarily altering memory for a judgment of quality or preference. In other words, we attempt to replicate Braun's (1999) findings when the target and foils vary with regard to the presence of an attribute as opposed to the evaluated goodness. We also test for the moderating effect of familiarity. MEMORY RECONSTRUCTION In her 1999 study, Braun showed that advertising-consistent memory distortion occurred using a recall test, a recognition test, a number of confidence measures and an overall evaluation of the juice. She designed the study to test for the occurrence of both memory substitution and blending, by including 5 different quality levels in her recognition test, ranging from very bad to very good tasting. Memories are substituted when misinformation,

4 in this case misleading advertising, replaces the memory of the actual event. Memories are blended when memory for the experience is combined with misinformation into a single memory. Braun (1999) also incorporated Tulving's (1985) Remember/ Know/ Guess (R/K/G) distinction to ascertain whether participants really did remember having tasted the juice described in the advertising. The results reveal that participants in the ad condition were much more likely than control participants to recognize a juice that was better than the one initially sampled. Braun explains the results with blending because participants in the ad condition say they remembered a better juice, and generated more favorable comments about the juice than those in the no advertising condition. The Substitution and Blending Explanations Post-experience memory distortion has been studied extensively, particularly in the domain of eyewitness testimony using a misinformation paradigm (e.g. Belli 1989; Loftus 1977; Loftus et al. 1978). The misinformation paradigm tests for memory errors when participants have been presented with misinformation after witnessing an event. Research supporting the substitution explanation demonstrates that subjects exposed to the misinformation often indicate that they remember seeing the falsely suggested item as part of the original event (e.g. Belli 1989; Loftus 1979a; Loftus et al. 1978; Tversky and Tuchin 1989; Weingardt, Loftus and Lindsay 1995). The substitution explanation asserts that participants form a representation of the initial event in memory, and when misinformation is presented later, the original memory is overwritten. A competing explanation is that the trace for the original experience and the misinformation coexist in memory and when a memory test is given the event is reconstructed from all of the relevant information in memory, some of which is false (Loftus et al. 1978). There are two reasons why memory for an advertisement could be blended with memory for the taste experience. First, the advertisements might ask consumers to "imagine the taste of fresh squeezed orange juice it s sweet, pulpy and pure ". Imagining an experience or event can sometimes make the imaginer believe that the event actually happened (Garry, Manning,

5 Loftus, and Sherman 1996). Second, vocabulary for perceptual memories is limited, therefore it can be difficult to recall a sensory or perceptual experience and describe taste in words (Melcher and Schooler 1996). Advertising can help provide consumers with a readily available and easily accessible vocabulary by which to describe and remember their consumption experiences, which can overshadow, and alter memories of the taste (Braun 1999). Memory for a fact versus memory for an evaluation By misinforming the participants about the quality of the juice they experienced not the type of juice, it is memory for a self-generated evaluation of the juice, not memory for what was experienced that was altered. Therefore, neither the substitution nor blending explanation of memory for the experience can be tested. The first hypothesis posits that exposure to misleading post-experience advertising can affect memory for an attribute of the product consumed. H1: Memory for an advertisement presented after consumption of a similar, but different product, will be blended with the memory for the experience such that consumers exposed to the misinformation in an advertisement will: a] recall more ad related words, b] recall more ad-consistent and fewer experience-consistent thoughts about the product, c] recognize a blend of the experienced and advertised product with confidence, and d] evaluate the experienced product as being higher in ad-consistent attributes, and lower in experience-consistent attributes. PRODUCT CATEGORY FAMILIARITY Individuals with less organized knowledge structures and more fragmented memory are more susceptible to misleading post-experience information (see Ceci and Bruck 1993 for review). Familiarity provides consumers with a superior ability to accumulate, integrate and judge the relevance of product information, resulting in more sophisticated memory schema (Alba and

6 Hutchinson 1987) which can reduce suggestibility (Hoch and Deighton 1989) and the susceptibility to memory distortion caused by exposure to post-experience misinformation. Familiar consumers are better able to categorize products below the basic or general level, thus making finer discriminations between similar products (Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Melcher and Schooler 1996). For example, after tasting a beverage, an unfamiliar consumer may classify it as a fruit juice. A familiar consumer, on the other hand, could provide a classification below this general level, identifying the beverage as a reconstituted orange juice. Categorizing a product at a more general level results in an increased vulnerability to suggestion by misinformation, particularly if the post-experience information misinforms at a more specific category level. For instance, memory errors may be common if the consumer categorizes any juice containing orange juice in the orange juice category, and the misinformation suggests the juice was orange-mango instead of orange-pineapple. Also, familiar participants are more likely to know when a product is typical of its class, and can better detect inconsistencies or incongruities between a product and its class (Alba and Hutchinson 1987). H2: Less familiar consumers exposed to post-consumption misinformation, in the form of an advertisement, will be more susceptible to the misinformation effect, and therefore: a] recall more ad related words, b] recall more ad-consistent and fewer experience-consistent thoughts about the product, c] recognize a blend of the experienced and advertised product with confidence, and d] evaluate the experienced product as being higher in ad-consistent attributes, and lower in experience-consistent attributes.

7 METHOD Participants One hundred twenty nine undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory marketing course participated in the study for course credit 1. Participants were randomly assigned to ad exposure condition (ad, no ad). Familiarity was measured by self report. Familiarity Two broad types of familiarity measures have been identified in the literature: experience and knowledge measures (Brucks 1985). Experience measures relate to frequency of use of a particular product, usage of different brands or product forms and using the product in different situations (Ariely, Hoeffler, and West 2001), as well as purchase, ownership and information search (Park and Lessig 1981). In this study, an experience based familiarity measure is used because orange juice is a fast moving consumer good which does not require a sophisticated vocabulary, and does not have the range of specific terminology. Both the depth (weekly juice consumption) and breadth of experience (trial and regular consumption of five forms of juice: freshly squeezed, fresh refrigerated (in cartons), reconstituted, concentrated and orange drink) were measured. Participants placed check marks beside existing brands for both trial and regular consumption. The measures were summed for an overall familiarity score. The score was mean-centered to reduce multi-co linearity. Stimuli Juice. Grapefruit juice was chosen because it is different than orange juice, but not so radically different that participants would immediately recognize the impossibility of the juice being orange. Grapefruit juice was also appropriate because it is has similar levels of pulp. The presence of different levels of pulp between juices could have biased respondents in the recognition test, leading participants to rely on texture cues instead of taste. The orange juice samples used in the recognition test were made in accordance with the recipe used by Pechman and Ratneshwar (1992), and Braun (1999). The good orange juice was 1 The sample size was determined with a calculation specifically developed for replication studies (Gillett 1996).

8 slightly diluted (190 ml of the orange juice removed, 375 ml of water added). The medium orange juice was more diluted (375 ml of juice was removed, 560 ml of water added). The bad orange juice was even more diluted and made bitter with salt and vinegar (560 ml of juice removed, 750 ml of water added, ¼ of a teaspoon of salt added, 1 teaspoon of vinegar added). The grapefruit juice was also slightly diluted (190 ml of grapefruit juice removed, 375 ml of water added). Finally, the blend was equal parts of the slightly diluted orange and grapefruit juice. The five juices were pre-tested to ensure that they were perceptually distinct. Thirty-seven undergraduate students tasted a 30ml sample of each juice. Participants rated each of the juices on the attributes used in Braun s (1999) study, taste, sweetness, consistency, freshness, ingredient, and quality, as well as two attributes relevant to this study, bitterness and orangeyness. Participants were also asked to describe each juice in their own words. The good orange juice had the highest overall rating (4.44 based on the six original attributes), followed by the medium juice (4.19), the blend (3.93), the bad orange juice (3.12) and the grapefruit juice (2.56). The overall average of the five juices were significantly different (F(4, 175) = 23.66, p <.0001). Post hoc tests revealed that the bad orange juice was significantly different than the medium and good juices, and the grapefruit juice differed from all of the other juices. Ratings of bitterness and orangey-ness were also used as dependent variables in two ANOVA s. The juices significantly differed on both attributes (bitterness (F(4.175) = 42.16, p <.0001); orangey-ness (F(4, 175)= 17.90, p <.0001)). Post hoc tests revealed that the grapefruit juice significantly differed from all of the other juices. The Advertisements. Two color print advertisements created by Braun (1999) were used. One explaining the tradition, family-oriented roots of the company and describing the sweet, pulpy and pure taste of the juice. The other ad emphasized the short distribution chain and superior freshness.

9 Procedure Participants were told that the purpose of the study was to provide evaluations for a new brand of juice that would soon be available in the local market. Participants were asked to sample 30mls of the grapefruit juice through a black straw from a white cup with an opaque lid, so that they could not use the color of a juice as a recognition cue. They were told that the evaluation of the juice would take place later in the session. A 15-minute filler task requiring participants to mentally fold shapes followed. Participants in the ad condition spent five minutes evaluating the effectiveness of the advertisements. All participants completed the familiarity measure. The recall, recognition and recognition confidence tasks followed. The recall test required participants to describe the juice and to provide three words that best described their memory of the juice. In the recognition test, participants were asked to identify the juice they tasted earlier from five samples of juice including the target and four foils (good, medium, and bad orange juice and an orange grapefruit blend). After identifying the juice they tasted at the beginning of the study, participants were asked to report whether they remembered the taste, knew it was the juice they had tasted earlier, or were simply guessing (R/K/G). Respondents rated their confidence on a 100mm scale anchored with not at all sure and very sure and were asked if they were willing to wager any or all of a notional $5.00 payment. Finally, participants rated the juice on the eight seven-point scales used in the pretest. RESULTS Hypothesis 1 was tested with the main effect of ad condition in a series of regression analyses. Hypothesis 2 was tested with the interaction between ad condition and familiarity. Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1a predicts that participants in the ad condition would use more ad related words to describe the juice. To test the hypothesis we counted the number of ad related words among the three words description and the free recall description of the flavor of the juice. Examples of ad words are refreshing, pulpy and pure. Participants in the ad condition did use significantly more ad related words (M ad = 0.62) than participants in the no ad condition (M no ad = 0.38) in the three word recall description of the flavor of the juice (t =

10 2.15, p <.05), but not in the free recall task (see table 1 for cell means). Hypothesis 1a is partially supported. Hypothesis 1b asserts that participants in the ad condition would use more orange juice (or advertising) consistent words and fewer grapefruit juice (or experience) consistent words. To test the hypothesis we ran a logistic regression on the use of the word orange in the description and in the recall test. Participants in the ad condition were more likely to use the word orange in the three word recall description (Wald = 3.77, p <.05), and in the free recall description (Wald = 6.52, p <.01). Descriptions of the grapefruit juice were coded as grapefruit-consistent based on pre-test descriptions of the juices. The words grapefruit, sour and bitter were included in this variable. Grapefruit consistent words were not used more in the no-ad condition either in the three word or free recall descriptions. Exposure to the ad appears to have encouraged the use of orange juice consistent words, but not to have reduced the number of grapefruit consistent words. Hypothesis 1b is partially supported. Insert Table 1 about here Hypothesis 1c predicts that participants in the ad condition will be more likely to recognize the blend of experienced and advertised juice. Participants had five juices from which to identify the juice previously tasted. Results are displayed in Table 2. A logistic regression run on recognition accuracy does not reveal a significant effect for advertising condition (Wald = 0.54 p >.10). Hypothesis 1c is not supported. Hypothesis 1d states that participants in the ad condition will rate the juice as higher in ad consistent attributes. Ratings on the scales measuring taste, sweetness, consistency, freshness, ingredients and quality were combined to form an overall evaluation. Advertising exposure had no effect on the overall evaluation (t = 1.08, p >.10). There were no significant differences between ad and control participants evaluations of the juice in terms of each individual attribute, or their rating of orangey-ness (t = 1.26, p >.10) and bitterness (t = -0.91, p >.10) which were not included in Braun s study. There is no support for Hypothesis 1d. The absence of significant effects for the evaluation of the juice between conditions is

11 important because Braun (1999) found significant effects for advertising exposure on overall evaluations. The null effects found here for advertising exposure may be a result of the lack of opportunity of participants to use their liking for the juice as a cue during recognition. As expected, there was no relationship between accuracy and R/K/G judgements in the advertising condition, 64.44% of the accurate participants and 52.38% of the inaccurate participants reported remember judgments. Also, as expected, there were no differences between ad and no ad participants in their confidence on the recognition test (M ad = 82.79, M no ad = 83.98), nor in how much money they would bet on their accuracy (M ad = $3.71, M no ad = $3.87). The data does not present any indication of differences between accurate memory of the juice experience and memory affected by exposure to advertising. Hypothesis 2. Less familiar participants were expected to be more susceptible to the effects of misleading post-experience misinformation. The interaction between familiarity and ad exposure was significant for the three word recall task, as familiarity decreased, participants in the ad condition recalled more ad words (t = -3.90, p <.001). The interaction is also significant for the free recall task, but, in this case, as familiarity increased participants used more ad related words in the free recall description (t = 2.74, p <.01). In nearly all cases more familiar participants used the word to describe what the juice was not. For example, "tasted more like a lemon juice than an orange juice" "didn t taste like orange juice" "no wholesome orange juice taste doesn t taste the way it claimed to on the ads", illustrate this point. Not orange juice comments were coded. A logistic regression revealed a significant interaction, as familiarity increased the frequency of not orange juice comments increased (Wald = 10.55, p <.001). Hypothesis 2b asserted that less familiar participants in the ad condition would use more ad consistent words (about orange juice) and use fewer experience consistent words (about grapefruit juice). As familiarity decreased the use of the word orange in the ad condition increased, the interaction between familiarity and ad condition is significant for the three word recall (Wald = 9.06, p >.01) and for the free recall description (Wald = 4.44, p >.05). Also, as familiarity decreased the use of grapefruit consistent words in the ad condition decreased, the interaction between familiarity and ad condition is significant in the three word

12 recall (t = 4.23, p >.001), and in the free recall description (t = 3.06, p >.01). There is support for Hypotheses 2a and 2b. Hypothesis 2c states that less familiar participants will be more susceptible to the misinformation effects and recognize the blended juice more often in the ad condition. A logistic regression of recognition accuracy reveals a significant interaction of familiarity and ad exposure (Wald = 7.58, p <.01). Familiarity and the interaction between familiarity and accuracy did not explain R/K/G responses. Also, there were no significant differences in confidence regardless of recognition accuracy, familiarity, or ad exposure. H2c is supported. Insert Table 2 about here Finally, Hypothesis 2d asserts that less familiar participants in the ad condition will rate the juice as higher in ad consistent attributes. A regression run on the ad consistent ratings of perceived orangey-ness did reveal an interaction of advertising exposure and familiarity (t = - 3.04, p <.01), revealing that as familiarity decreases participants were more likely to remember the juice as more orangey after exposure to the ad. There was also a significant interaction for the bitterness ratings and familiarity (t = 4.13, p <.01). As familiarity decreases participants were less likely to remember the juice as bitter after exposure to the ad. Hypothesis 2d is supported. DISCUSSION The recognition test results do not support Hypothesis 1. Participants in the ad condition were no more likely than participants in the no ad condition to select the orange and grapefruit juice blend. The absence of blending found in Braun s (1999) research may have occurred because she provided a flavor scale of sorts. She reported that participants changed their evaluation of the juice significantly after exposure to the ad. Their evaluation may have been used as a cue for recognition. In the research reported here, participants did not change their evaluation for the juice after exposure to the ad, and therefore did not have a preference cue to use during recognition.

13 Although there is some support for Hypothesis 1 in the recall data, overall it appears that the advertising misinformation effect found when the juice is advertised as better (Braun 1999), is not found when the juice is advertised as different than the flavor experienced. Taking the recognition and recall results together, the advertisement may not have altered memory for the juice, but provided participants with a consumption vocabulary (West, Brown, and Hoch 1996) to describe the taste of the juice. Both the recall and the recognition results revealed that less familiar participants appeared to blend their juice memories, assimilating the taste experience and the advertising information by shifting toward a more orange taste. They also used less grapefruit-consistent terminology, and more orange juice consistent words to describe their memory of the taste of the juice. Finally, although less familiar participants in the ad condition were less accurate in the recognition test, they still claimed to remember having tasted the blend of orange and grapefruit juice, and were as confident as accurate participants. These results are similar to those reported by Hoch and Ha (1986) where consumers assimilated advertising with experience only when the experience was ambiguous. Advertising had the opposite effect on highly familiar participants. The behavior of more familiar participants is consistent with the reaction to blatantly misleading information provided after an experience that has been demonstrated to improve memory (Loftus 1979b). More familiar participants may have been reminded of what the juice was not. Comments made by the more familiar participants illustrate the use of the ad as a contrast to their experience. In summary, familiarity has been shown to moderate the effects of advertising on memory of a product experience. After exposure to advertising, participants low in familiarity are more likely to reconstruct memories in the direction of a message advertising a similar, but different product. Highly familiar participants appear to use the ad as a contrast to the consumption experience. LIMITATIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS

14 Whether memory distortion can be claimed using a misinformation paradigm has been the subject of some debate because a memory trace for the original experience may coexist in memory with a trace for the misinformation, but not be accessible at test (McCloskey and Zaragoza 1985, Loftus et al. 1978). Although the accessibility explanation can not be precluded here, the pattern of results for less familiar consumers is highly consistent with memory distortion results reported in the literature using a wide variety of tests and stimuli. In this study participants read and evaluated the advertisement for five minutes. It would be interesting to investigate how lower levels of concentration and attention might affect the degree of memory distortion. Limitations aside, the study reported here contributes to a new and important area consumer research. A recognition test that closely follows the traditional 'misinformation effect' paradigm was used in this study to identify a significant moderating effect on advertising s influence on consumer memory. The finding that familiarity moderates the effect of postexperience information on memory has not been previously reported in the consumer research or the misinformation literature.

15 REFERENCES Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), Dimensions of Consumer Expertise, Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), 411-454. Ariely, Dan, Steve Hoeffler and Pat West (2001), Evolution & Development of Preferences: Discovering or Acquiring Taste? paper presented at the Advances in Consumer Research Conference, Austin, TX. Belli, Robert F. (1989), Influences of Misleading Postevent Information: Misinformation Interference and Acceptance, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 72-85. Braun, Kathryn A. (1999), Postexperience Advertising Effects on Consumer Memory, Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (March), 319-334 Brucks, Merrie (1985), The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June), 1-16. Ceci, Stephen J. and Maggie Bruck (1993), Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis, Psychological Bulletin, 113 (3), 403-439. Deighton, John (1984), The Interaction of Advertising and Evidence, Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (December), 763-770. Garry, Maryanne, Charles G. Manning, Elizabeth F. Loftus and Steven J. Sherman (1996) Imagination Inflation: Imagining a Childhood Event Inflates Confidence That It Occurred, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3 (2), 208-214. Gillett, Raphael (1996), Sample Size Determination in a Chi-squared T-test given Information from an Earlier Study, Journal of Educational & Behavioral Statistics, 21 (3), 230-246.

16 Hoch, Stephen and Young-Won Ha (1986), Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience, Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (2), 221-233. and John Deighton (1989), Managing What Consumers Learn from Experience, Journal of Marketing, 53 (2), 1-20. Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1977), Shifting Human Color Memory, Memory and Cognition, 5, 696-699. (1979a), The Malleability of Human Memory, American Scientist, 67 (May- June), 312-320. (1979b), Eyewitness Testimony, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press., David G. Miller and Helen J. Burns (1978), Semantic Integration of Verbal Information into a Visual Memory, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4 (1), 19-31., Jonathan W. Schooler and Willem A. Wagenaar (1985), The Fate of Memory: Comment on McCloskey and Zaragoza, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114 (3), 375-380. McCloskey, Michael and Maria Zaragoza (1985), Misleading Postevent Information and Memory for Events: Arguments and Evidence Against Memory Impairment Hypotheses, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 1-16. Melcher, Joseph M. and Jonathan W. Schooler (1996) The Misrememberance of Wines Past: Verbal and Perceptual Expertise Differentially Mediate Verbal Overshadowing of Taste Memory, Journal of Memory & Language, 35 (2), 231-245.

17 Park, C. Whan and V. Parker Lessig (1981), "Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer Decision Biases and Heuristics," Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (September), 223-230. Pechman, Cornelia and S. Ratneshwar (1992), "Consumer Covariation Judgments: Theory or Data driven?," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (3), 373-386. Tulving, Endel (1985), Memory and Consciousness, Canadian Psychologist, 26 (January), 1-12. Tversky, Barbara and Michael Tuchin (1989), A Reconciliation of the Evidence on Eyewitness Testimony: Comments on McCloskey and Zaragoza (1985) Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 86-91. Weingardt, Kenneth R., Elizabeth F. Loftus and D. Stephen Lindsay (1995), Misinformation Revisited: New Evidence on the Suggestibility of Memory, Memory & Cognition, 23 (1), 72-82. West, Patricia M., Christina L. Brown and Stephen J. Hoch (1996), Consumption Vocabulary and Preference, Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (September), 120-135.

18 Main effect TABLE 1 FREE RECALL ANALYSIS Interaction between ad exposure and familiarity Dependent measure Ad No Ad ß ad ß interact Interpretation Ad words in three word description 0.62 0.38 + 0.18* 0.33*** As familiarity decreases words from the ad are used more often in the ad condition (H2a). Orange (misinformation) 0.32 0.13 + 0.27* 0.52*** As familiarity decreases the word orange is used more often in the ad condition (H2b). Grapefruit (experience) 1.25 1.23 0.01 + 0.35*** As familiarity decreases fewer words consistent with the experience are used in the ad condition (H2b). Ad words in free recall description 1.42 1.40 + 0.00 + 0.24** As familiarity decreases fewer words from the ad are used in the ad condition (H2a). Orange (misinformation) 0.33 0.13 + 0.33** 0.28* As familiarity decreases the word orange is used more often in the ad condition (H2b). Not orange juice 0.37 0.22 + 0.15 + 0.45*** As familiarity decreases fewer comments are made about the inconsistency of experience and ad in the ad condition (H2b). Grapefruit (experience) 1.59 1.40 + 0.06 + 0.26** As familiarity decreases fewer words consistent with the experience are used in the ad condition (H2b). Overall Evaluation 4.05 3.86 + 0.10 0.01 There is no effect for ad or interaction with familiarity (H2d). Orangey-ness rating 4.14 3.79 + 0.11 0.26** As familiarity decreases orange ratings increase in the ad condition (H2d). Bitterness rating 5.31 5.09 0.07 + 0.34*** As familiarity decreases bitterness ratings decrease in the ad condition (H2d). Note.- Asterisks indicate significance of regression coefficients: * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001.

19 TABLE 2 - RECOGNITION RESULTS Sample identified Total Less Familiar More Familiar No Ad Ad No Ad Ad No Ad Ad Good Orange Juice -- -- -- -- -- -- Medium Orange juice 1 -- 1 -- -- -- Bad Orange Juice -- -- -- -- -- -- Blend 22 21 9 17 13 4 Grapefruit Juice 40 45 21 16 19 29 Note.- high and low in familiarity designations are determined with a median split. The means are presented for comparison to the original article only, all analyses presented in the text are based on regression.