ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802
Effect of Goals Salience and Goals Conflict on Typicality: the Case of "Health Food"
Hiba El Dahr, Universite Montpellier SupAgro, France
Fatiha Fort, Universite Montpellier SupAgro, France
The aim of this article is to highlight the role of consumer’s goals, in this case the « health » goal, in the cognitive representations and
perception of food products, in particular « health foods ». On the basis of the goal theories used in a categorical approach in
information processing, we show that the salience of health goals has a significant influence on the perceived typicality of the products
in the health food category. The consumption context and the overall hierarchy of the goals sought constitute moderating variables.
[to cite]:
Hiba El Dahr and Fatiha Fort (2008) ,"Effect of Goals Salience and Goals Conflict on Typicality: the Case of "Health Food"", in
NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 35, eds. Angela Y. Lee and Dilip Soman, Duluth, MN : Association for
Consumer Research, Pages: 282-288.
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/13344/volumes/v35/NA-35
[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
Effect of Goal Salience and Goal Conflict on Typicality: The Case of “Health Food”
Hiba El Dahr, IAM, UMR-MOISA Montpellier, France
Fatiha Fort, SupAgro, UMR-MOISA Montpellier, France
ABSTRACT
The aim of this article is to highlight the role of consumer’s
goals, in this case the “health” goal, in the cognitive representations
and perception of food products, in particular “health foods.” On the
basis of the goal theories used in a categorical approach in information processing, we show that the salience of health goals has a
significant influence on the perceived typicality of the products in
the health food category. The consumption context and the overall
hierarchy of the goals sought constitute moderating variables.
INTRODUCTION
For several years, following a trend already seen in North
America and Japan, “health” argument has provided an opportunity
to develop products on the French food market. The increasing
number of product launches claiming to be “healthy” illustrates
consumers’ interest in “alicaments” (medicated foods) and a growing awareness of better nutrition. Treating the question of diet as an
integral part of a general public health policy, awareness campaigns
are undertaken by the authorities to promote among the consumers
products with high nutritional value. Whether it is a matter of
individual worries (as a result of food safety crisis) or firms’
marketing concerns, the socio-economic context thus appears to
favour products with a strong health image. However, faced with
the profusion of supply on the one hand, and the diversity of
consumers’ expectations on the other (health, pleasure, well-being,
ethics, ecological concerns etc.), consumer’s choice is becoming
more and more complex. The increasing number of views on
nutrition provided by media, the medical profession and authorities
reinforce this trend, while messages concerning products “health”
value are often contradictory.
Therefore, it is worth examining how the consumer perceives
“health foods” according to his own motivations and personal
expectations. We should therefore pay particular attention to personal goals as individual determinants of food choices linked with
health. The interest in goals is justified not only by their cognitive
dimension directed towards action, but also by their motivational
and affective content whose role is supported by theoretical models
of health behaviour (Self-Regulation Models of Carver & Scheier,
1982; Cognitive Social Theory of Bandura, 2004).
In this article, we are concerned with the role of goals in mental
representations and in the organization of information about products (specifically health foods) in a category-based framework of
information processing. We propose therefore to define the mechanisms whereby personal goals (i.e. health goals) affect products’
perception within cognitive categories called “goal-derived categories” (Barsalou, 1983, 1991) depending on goals organization and
on goal salience. We will use the concept of typicality as a key
construct in categorization theory. Our purpose is to show that, in
the “health food” category:
–
–
with concrete products and behaviour. Within the theoretical accounts of categorization, typicality concept will be used in order to
introduce health goals salience as an antecedent of typicality in the
health food category (defined as a goal-derived category).
The results of a quantitative survey will then be presented in
order to test the research hypotheses.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDS
Goal theories assume that goals are organized within a hierarchical structure (Carver & Scheier, 1982) based on instrumentality
links. Goals of lower order, closely linked to action levels, constitute concrete means for reaching higher, more abstract and more
stable goals (Gutman, 1982). The closeness between goals and
behaviour appears at three levels: through goal structure; goal
accessibility and goal content.
In fact, the hierarchical structure defines different goal’s levels
of abstraction: abstract, central and operational (Bagozzi &
Dabholkar, 1994), which exert a driving role on behaviour by
guiding towards actions or towards concrete products which conform with goals.
Goal accessibility (Higgins & King, 1981; Wyer & Srull,
1981; Förster et al., 2005) or goal “salience” (Ratneshwar et al.,
2001) refers to the “level of awareness of the goal” through levels
of attention and intention of working memory (Austin and
Vancouver, 1996). Acting in a significant way on perception and
cognitive representations (Ratneshwar et al., 2001), goal salience is
a necessary condition for the commitment to behaviour, notably as
regards health. Previous studies show that goal salience depends on
motivation (Förster et al., 2005), on situation (Vallacher & Wegner,
1985; Ratneshwar et al., 2001), and on frequency and recency of
prior activations (Förster et al., 2005). The notion of content of
goals refers to classifications of outcomes or states that individuals
approach or avoid in their behaviour according to the origin of these
states (internal or external), their nature, or to their meaning.
Although the number of goals that an individual is able to pursue is
relatively limited (Austin & Vancouver, 1996), studies show that
the pursuit of multiple goals may lead to goals conflict when these
are of a contradictory or incompatible nature, which may have
many consequences on behaviour. Two possibilities may therefore
be envisaged as regards the use of goal theories in the field of
consumer behaviour:
– one is focused on motivation and its effect on behaviour,
– the other corresponds to knowledge about products organization in memory. This aspect has been particularly
developed by Barsalou (1991) who has shown that goals
influence products’ cognitive representations and form
“goal-derived categories” (example: category of products
to eat when dieting).
Goals will therefore be involved in categorization process and
thus in consumers’ choice.
the perception of product typicality is significantly influenced by health goals salience and by other competing
goals pursued by the consumer,
the influence of health goals salience on product typicality
varies according to the consumption context (Figure 1).
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Goal theories will be explored in order to highlight the hierarchical organization of goals in memory and their instrumental links
Typicality is a central concept in categorization theory. Cognitive psychology shows that, apart from its role in determining
object membership and positioning within a category (Mervis &
Rosch, 1981), there is a strong positive relationship between
282
Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 35, © 2008
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 35) / 283
FIGURE 1
The role of health goals in the health food category
typicality and attitude (Loken & Ward, 1987; Nedungadi &
Hutchinson, 1985), preferences, and the product choice within a
category (Changeur & Chandon, 1995). Typicality judgments are
very useful in understanding consumer’s choice. Much research has
been carried out on variables determining the level of perceived
typicality. Among these variables, the literature gives the following
determinants: familiarity (Loken & Ward, 1990), frequency of
instantiation (Barsalou, 1985), family resemblance, attributes structure (Loken & Ward, 1990), ideal (Barsalou, 1985) and coherence.
Behind of these determinants of typicality, we postulate in this
research that, in the case of goal-derived categories (Barsalou,
1991):
H1: Pursued goals salience, which represents the ideal of the
category determines products’ typicality.
Thus, in the “health food” categories, products’ level of
typicality is determined by the salience (and activation level) of
health goals. In fact, according to Barsalou (1991), the ideal of the
category influences both the category’s membership and its members’ typicality. Moreover, Förster et al. (2005) suggest that great
accessibility of goals and the constructs related to them make it
possible to detect the most effective environmental stimuli in the
pursuit of these goals, thus improving the probability of their
attainment. According to this point of view, goal salience seems to
be correlated with typicality, insofar as the most typical members
are, according to Barsalou (1983, 1991), those which best serve to
reach the goal sought.
In addition, cognitive psychology and marketing show that for
each consumption situation, there are corresponding goals sought
by the individual. The activation of situational goals occurs, according to Förster et al. (2005) under the effect of environmental
variables which automatically trigger the process of their pursuit
(Schwarz et al., 2003). Goals salience is thus influenced by the
context, which can make certain goals more accessible and more
prioritized than others. Furthermore, Ratneshwar et al. (1991;
1997) have shown that for each situational goal there are corresponding specific benefits which are rendered salient by situational
factors, for which specific products can be used in order to attain
fixed goals. Starting from the principle that, in a categorization
context, products which best satisfy the category goal are the most
typical, this suggests that typical products should correspond best
with the consumption context in order to respond to the category
objective. We therefore postulate that:
H2: The influence of goal salience on products’ typicality in
goal-derived categories is moderated by the appropriateness level of these products for the context.
However typicality does not depend only on personal goal
salience but also on the accessibility of the other goals in the
hierarchy. Decision theories postulate that the individual gives
more attention and subjective value to products capable to satisfy a
need or a given goal as long as this need is active (Lewin, 1935;
Klinger, 1975; Förster et al., 2005). From this point of view,
attention to and usefulness of products vary according to the
intensity or the importance of goals, which they serve (Brendl et al.,
2003).
Studies have focused on the influence of active goals on the
attractiveness of products or behaviour related to these goals
(Klinger, 1975; Brendl & Higgins, 1996; Ratneshwar et al., 1997;
Ratneshwar et al., 2000; Brendl et al., 2000). Theses works suggest
that the level of goal salience has an influence on product preference, and that a “devaluation effect” may be driven by products that
are perceived as irrelevant as regards active goal (Brendl et al.,
2003; Förster, et al., 2005). Moreover, the effect of active goals is
reinforced by their protection against environmental stimuli which
do not compete with their attainment (Brendl et al., 2000; Brendl et
al., 2003; Förster, et al., 2005). Among these factors, we suggest
that competing goals could affect main goal’s effect in the evaluation of products according to their level of importance or intensity.
If we assume that, in goal-derived categories typicality is
influenced by goal salience level, and by taking into account that a
given individual is able to pursue several consumption goals
simultaneously, we assume that:
H3.a: The effect of goal salience on typicality is significant
when competing goals are not highly rated
H3.b: The effect of goal salience on typicality is not significant when at least one of the competing goals is highly
rated
If we take the case of health goals as an example, their effect
(assumed to be significant) on typicality can be seen as follows
(Figure 2).
METHODOLOGY
To test these hypotheses, we have chosen the health food
category. The interest in food products is justified by their close link
284 / Effect of Goals Salience and Goals Conflict on Typicality: The Case of “Health Food”
FIGURE 2
Conceptual model and research hypothesis
TABLE 1
Products retained for the final experiment
BREAKFAST
Chocolate croissant1, Organic
wholemeal bread, Orange, Pure fruit
juice, Butter
SPORT
High-energy bars, Kiwi fruit,
Chocolate bar, Fruit juice, Soda
SNACKING
Granola bar, Apple, Chocolate bar,
Chips, Hamburger
1French pastry containing strips of chocolate
with health goals and by the diversity of objectives, which underlie
their consumption (biological, cultural, economic, social and psychological).
An exploratory qualitative study was made as a first step
among 22 individuals in order to identify perceptions of health
foods. A lexical analysis showed that health goal could be broken
down into three main subordinates goals: the need for a balanced
diet, the prevention of illness and the desire for food security (in
terms of health risks). The analysis also revealed 3 consumption
contexts in which health goals were particularly salient: breakfast,
sport and snacking context. Associated with these 3 situations, a list
of 145 products was submitted to 3 judges to select products
belonging to the health food category. 44 products were selected
unanimously by the 3 judges to be used in a quantitative study in
order to test our research hypotheses. 15 out of these products
(Table 1) were retained for the final experiment (5 products per
situation).
404 participants took part in the 2nd phase of the survey (the
quantitative phase), spread uniformly over 3 experimental groups
according to the usual socio-demographic criteria (sex, age, educational level and size of housing area).
As a first step, the salience of health goals was evaluated in
order to understand how this variable could influence food perception and product classification into categories. Thus, we submitted
the participants to a product categorization task based on the work
of Murphy and his colleagues (1999, 2001, 2003) and Berger &
Bonthoux (2000) in cognitive psychology. This task succeeded in
defining the nature of associations made among the products and in
distinguishing the nutritional and health links (e.g. calcium and
milk) of the taxonomic categorizations (e.g. milk and cheese).
Another task, suggested by the work of Ratneshwar et al. (2001),
was given to the participants in order to evaluate the degree of
similarity between products pairs (on a 7-point scale (from “very
different” to “very similar”). The authors had checked that perceived similarity between health-related products were correlated
with health goal salience. Thus, when products sharing few common traits were judged similar as regards a given goal, this shows
a high level of goal salience in the consumer’s cognitive representations.
We also included in the measurement of health goals salience
a motivational dimension which, according to Higgins et al. (1981),
is an important determinant of goal accessibility which has been
excluded from earlier research. We evaluated motivation in the
tasks linked to health foods by way of a 7-point scale adapted from
Maheswaran (1994), also used by Odou (2000), ranging from
“don’t agree at all” to “agree completely”:
“When I choose health foods:
I read carefully the information on the pack
I am keen to read the product description
I am keen to find out more about the product”
Finally, a score for health goals salience is obtained by the
average of the measurements of motivation, similarity and associations between products.
The suitability of products in the consumption context was
measured on a scale adapted from Jean (2000) going from 1 (not at
all suitable) to 7 (completely suitable) in response to the following
question: “Please indicate to what extent each of the following
products seems to you suitable for [context]’.
In order to measure the hierarchy of goals pursued by consumers, we have made use of goal theories where objects and concrete
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 35) / 285
TABLE 2
Results of linear regressions of health goals salience as antecedent of the typicality in different contexts
R2
t
β
Breakfast
55.44 %
1.97
0.209*
Sport
15.88 %
0.52
0.159
Snacking
21.76 %
2.45
0.449*
* significant at 5% level
goals represent means of reaching abstract goals. So we have used
some criteria sought in food products consumption in general,
which reflect higher pursued goals, including “health”, namely:
price, taste, freshness, origin, packaging, respect for the environment, ease of preparation, label and health. For each of the 3 studied
contexts, we established a classification of these criteria according
to their perceived importance by the participants. This variable
(importance) was measured using an Osgood scale with 7 points,
ranging from “not at all important” to “very important” in response
to the following question: “Can you indicate to what extent you
attach importance to each of the following criteria in your choice
of foods?”
Typicality was evaluated by the way of the representativeness
of products as regards health food category. A 7-point scale ranging
from 1 (not at all representative) to 7 (completely representative)
was used in response to the following question: “In your opinion, to
what extent is each of these products representative of the health
food category?”
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 2 shows results of linear regressions of health goals
salience as an antecedent of typicality in the 3 studied contexts. The
regression model was as follows:
Typicality=constant+salience+conformity+coherence+attributes
structure+sharing of attributes+subjective
expertise1+E
where “salience” is the variable which describes the salience of
health goals; “conformity” is the conformity of the products with
the ideal of the category (Barsalou, 1985) or the degree to which
products permit health goals attainment; “coherence” describes
perceived coherence between products and category (Dawar &
Anderson, 1994); “attributes structure” describes the degree to
which products possess the category attributes (Odou, 2000);
“sharing of attributes” describes the difference between products
and category in the degree of possession of these attributes; “subjective expertise” refers to the perception that the individual has of
his level of competence in the health food category.
Although the prediction quality is lower in sport and snacking
than in breakfast situation (where R2=55.68 %), a large part of
typicality is correctly predicted by health goals salience.
1
According to our results expertise variable has no significant
influence on typicality. The other variables used in the regression
model are the classical typicality determinants in marketing and
psychological literature.
Regression coefficients are all positive but not significant in
all contexts, notably in sport context (p=0.605). Hence, we find that
health goal salience is not a significant determinant of typicality in
every situation. Consequently, (H1) is only partially supported by
theses findings.
To test the moderating effect of products adequacy for the
context, we first tested the distribution normality of this variable
before dividing observations into two groups. Actually, it is assumed that normally distributed variables can be transformed into
nominal variables with a threshold effect around the mean (obtained for the variable context adequacy). ANOVA analysis is then
used to compare typicality effects in the two groups (Group 1, has
considered products as inappropriate for the situation, and Group 2
as appropriate). ANOVA results (Table 3) show that the differences
in typicality evaluation in the two groups were significant at the 5%
level threshold in the 3 situations (p=0.05; 0.007 et 0.000 respectively). This result confirms that context adequacy of products has
a moderating effect on their typicality in health food category,
which partly explains the variability in the effect of health goal
salience on typicality.
In order to analyze the influence of goals conflict in the
hierarchy, we established a classification of the different product
criteria sought by participants in the 3 studied contexts (Table 4).
We selected health competing factors according to their “perceived
importance” ratings. Thus, we assumed as competing with health
factors those that obtained a greater “importance” rating.
According to this classification, we notice that, in breakfast
situation, “taste” and “freshness” get better ratings (first and second
position respectively) and thus seem to be more valued than health
considerations (3rd position). They are therefore considered as
competing with health concerns. By introducing “taste” and “freshness” concerns with health in the regression model, we were able to
study the combined effects of all these factors on typicality.
Table 5 shows that, in breakfast situation, “taste” and “freshness” variables has not a statistically significant influence on
product typicality. However, health factor has a significant influence at the 5% threshold (p=0.030). Therefore, our (H3.a) hypothesis is consistently supported.
Actually, sport situation allows us to analyze the influence of
health criterion with interaction with highly valued competing
criteria which have significant influence on the dependent variable
(typicality). Table 5 shows that in this situation (sport), taste,
freshness, environmental aspects and price are more valued than
health goals (more highly rated by participants). Whereas health
contribution is not significant in sport situation (p=0.881), taste
variable (p=0.050) and respect for the environment (p=0.002) are
significant at the 5% threshold. Freshness and price variables have
286 / Effect of Goals Salience and Goals Conflict on Typicality: The Case of “Health Food”
TABLE 3
Differences in typicality ratings according to context adequacy (on 7-point scale)
Adequacy Mean
Typicality Mean
ANOVA
Group 1
Group 2
Group 1
Group 2
Sum of squares
ddl
F test
Breakfast
3.86
5.99
4.94
5.24
2.80
1
p=0.050
Sport
4.16
5.59
4.94
5.24
4.87
1
p=0.007
Snacking
4.18
5.95
4.19
4.78
10.54
1
p=0.000
TABLE 4
Classification of criteria sought in food consumption according to their perceived importance
Breakfast
Sport
Snacking
Row
Criterion
Mean
Criterion
Mean
Criterion
Mean
1
Taste*
6.22
Taste*
6.02
Taste*
6.27
2
Freshness*
6.03
Freshness*
5.71
Freshness*
6.14
3
Health
5.12
Environment*
4.85
Health
5.23
4
Price
4.99
Price*
4.81
Environment
5.10
5
Environment
4.67
Health
4.64
Price
4.91
* Higher-order factors compared with health
TABLE 5
Combined effects of the different food requirements sought on typicality
β
t
Health
0.209*
1.94
Taste
0.028
1.12
Freshness
0.025
1.19
Health
0.013
0.15
Taste
0.175*
1.94
Freshness
0.091
0.95
Respect for the environment
0.293*
3.18
Price
0.116
1.38
Health
0.489*
1.54
Taste
0.130
1.18
Freshness
0.098
1.33
CRITERIA CLASSIFICATION
Breakfast
Sport
Snacking
* significant at 5% level
no significant influence on typicality. These findings show that
taste and respect for the environment factors may have an inhibitory
effect on health considerations. Introduced into the regression
model, they contribute significantly to explain typicality variance.
The hypothesis (H3.b) is supported by these results. In snacking
situation, table 5 shows that health dimension influences typicality
(p=0.006) whereas the competing criteria, i.e. taste and freshness,
do not contribute in the same way. Their influence on typicality is
in fact not significant (p=0.240 and 0.739 respectively).
Considered as a whole, we have therefore validated the hypothesis (H1) and shown that salient health goals influence perceived typicality in health food category in certain situations.
Theses findings are particularly relevant when goal-related products are assumed to match the consumption context (H2). This
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 35) / 287
influence of health goal salience is more important as health
competing goals are less influential. (H3.a). Once other goals of the
hierarchy are valued compared with health criteria (when the
individual considers other criteria in his food choice), health goals
influence on typicality becomes less important (H3.b).
CONCLUSION
The main conclusion of this research offers evidence and
insights on how goals impact categorization process and health
food evaluation by way of two dimensions: goal hierarchy and goal
salience.
Our findings offer additional evidence that the consumer does
not pursue a health goal alone, but that there may be interactions
between different goals according to individual priorities and
context. These goals interferences may influence product judgments. Our findings are consistent with psychological literature
(Abraham & Sheeran, 2003), which suggests that goal theories
consider the possibility of goals conflicts, and the influence of
salient goals. Moreover, the theory of action identification (Vallacher
and Wegner, 1985) emphasizes that context is able to alter the
salience of certain goals in a given situation. Ratneshwar and his
colleagues (1997, 2001) support these findings and show that,
according to situational factors, different goals may take priority,
thus affecting products perception and representations. Our results
are congruent with these assumptions in the sense that, for each
situation there is a different hierarchy of goals and a different
perception of products typicality in health food category. These
results may have important implications in consumer behaviour
research.
First, by manipulating health situational factors (by means of
ads for example) it is possible to activate (or inhibit) other goals,
which would lead to different product evaluations according to
health competing goals. On the operational level, notably that of
product management, typicality concept could be used to respond
to consumer needs. To improve a product “health” image, it is
possible to reinforce its perceived typicality as regards health food
category or specific goals sought by the consumer. This could be
done for example by devaluating its perceived typicality as regards
goals that compete with health. Such a strategy favours a better
positioning, especially when products serve double needs: nutrition
and pleasure, health and “terroir”, health and naturality etc. This
research accentuates the need to consider different consumer concerns specially those to which he gives priority. Since, for example,
for one consumer pleasure is the main motive in food consumption,
to lessen products typicality as regards health goals seems to be a
prudent strategy by reinforcing enjoyment image, taste and flavour
instead of product medicinal aspects.
Finally, although analyzing consumer behaviour using goal
theories may appear a deterministic and functionalist approach, this
study shows that it is possible to guide consumer choice through
marketing by using the concept of “goal salience”. By encouraging
a suitable nutritional discourse and by controlling the actual “food
cacophony”, the consumer can be guided towards a balanced diet,
favorable both to his health and to his various expectations.
Some limits can be drawn at the end of this research and open
doors to further investigations:
Analyzing food behaviors as being determined by goals can
rise some interrogations as for the rigidity of this deterministic
and functionalist approach. In order to understand the reality
of food consumption and the consumer as a socialized individual, it would be interesting to include into the model the
ecological variables underlining the role of the agents of
influence, the culture or the social environment which can
have as much influence on perceptions and choices (Steptoe et
al., 1995; Pliner & Mann, 2004) as personal motivations.
Another limit concerns the experimental procedure and the
categorization task in particular which, in our case, requires
reasoning in terms of products and “ health food “ rather than
of “healthy eating”. However, healthy behavior analysis requires to think food not only in terms of combinations of
products but in terms of balance, preparation process and
consumption, which could make difficult the task of products
evaluation in our experimentation and limit the external validity of the results. It would be useful, in a future research, to
associate with the categorization tasks, others aspects, as for
example, the origin of the products, their mode of preparation
or their consumption.
In our research, we focused on the intrinsic attributes of the
products related to their functionality and their degree of conformity to health goals. While being conscious that other extrinsic
attributes can influence the evaluation of the products, it would be
interesting to study the categorization schemes privileged by the
consumer that can be related to the goal, the brand, the product
category or the area of origin.
REFERENCES
Abraham, C. and P. Sheeran (2003). “Implications of goal
theories for the theories of reasoned action and planned
behaviour.” Current psychology: developmental, learning,
personality, social. Autumn 2003, 22(3): 264-280
Austin, J. T. and J. B. Vancouver (1996). “Goal constructs in
psychology: structure, process, and content.” Psychological
Bulletin. 120(3): 338-375.
Bagozzi, R. P. and P. A. Dabholkar (1994). “Consumer recycling
goals and their effect on decisions to recycle: a means-end
chain analysis.” Psychology & marketing. July-august 1994,
11 (4): 313-340.
Bandura, A. (2004). “Health Promotion by Social Cognitive
Means.” Health Education & Behavior. 31 (2): 143-164.
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). “Ad-hoc categories.” Memory and
cognition. 11(3): 211-227.
Barsalou, L. W. (1985). “Ideals, central tendency, and frequency
of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in
categories.” Journal of experimental psychology: learning,
memory and cognition. October 1985, 11(4): 629-654.
Barsalou, L. W. (1991). “Deriving categories to achieve goals.”
The psychology of learning and motivation. 27: 1-64.
Berger, C. and F. Bonthoux (2000). “Accès aux catégories par
les propriétés: influence de la tâche et des connaissances chez
le jeune enfant.” Psychologie française. (45): 123-130.
Brendl, C. M. and E. T. Higgins (1996). “Principles of judging
valence: what makes events positive or negative.” Advances
in experimental social psychology. 28: 95–160.
Brendl, C. M., A. B. Markman, et al. (2000). “La comptabilité
mentale comme autorégulation: représentativité pour les
catégories dirigées par un but.” Recherche et applications en
marketing. 15(1): 81-96.
Brendl, C. M., A. B. Markman, et al. (2003). “The devaluation
effect: activating a need devalues unrelated objects.” Journal
of consumer research. March 2003, 29: 463-473.
Carver, C. and M. Scheier (1982). “Control theory: a useful
conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and
health psychology.” Psychological Bulletin. 92 (1): 111-135.
288 / Effect of Goals Salience and Goals Conflict on Typicality: The Case of “Health Food”
Changeur, S. and J. L. Chandon (1995). “Le territoire-produit:
étude des frontières cognitives de la marque.” Recherche et
applications en marketing. 10(2): 31-52.
Dawar, N. and P. Anderson (1994). “The effects of order and
direction on multiple brand extensions.” Journal of business
research. New York, 30: 119-129
Förster, J., N. Liberman, et al. (2005). “Accessibility from active
and fulfilled goals.” Journal of experimental social psychology. (41): 220-239.
Gutman, J. (1982). A Means-End Chain Model Based on
Consumer Categorization Processes. Journal of Marketing,
46 (2), Spring 1982, 60-72.
Higgins, E. T. and G. A. King (1981). Accessibility of social
constructs: Information-processing consequences of
individual and contextual variability. In: N. Cantor and J.
Kihlstrom. Personality, cognition and social interaction.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 69-122.
Jean, S. (2000). Un modèle intégrateur des effets de l’ordre
d’entrée sur la prise en considération des marques.
Université Montpellier II. IAE.Montpellier, 316.
Klinger, E. (1975). “Consequences of commitment to and
disengagement from incentives.” Psychological review.
January 1975, 82: 1-25.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: selected
papers. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Lin, E. et G. L. Murphy (2001). “Thematic relations in adults’
concepts.” Journal of experimental psychology: General.
130(1): 3-28.
Loken, B. and J. Ward (1987). “Measures of the attribute
structure underlying product typicality.” Advances in
consumer research. 14: 22-26.
Loken, B. and J. Ward (1990). “Alternative approaches to
understanding the determinants of typicality.” Journal of
consumer research. September 1990 (17): 111-126.
Maheswaran, D. (1994). “Country of Origin as a Stereotype:
Effects of Consumer Expertise and Attribute Strength on
Product Evaluations.” Journal of Consumer Research.
September, 21: 354-365.
Mervis, C. B. and E. Rosch (1981). “Categorization of natural
objects.” Annual review of psychology. (32): 89-115.
Nedungadi, P. and W. Hutchinson (1985). “The Prototypicality
of Brands: Relationships with Brand Awareness, Preference
and Usage.” Advances in Consumer Research. 12: 498-503.
Nguyen, S. P. and G. L. Murphy (2003). “An apple is more than
just a fruit: cross classification in children’s concepts.” Child
development. 74(6): 1783-1806.
Odou, P. (2000). L’utilisation des schémas catégoriels dans le
processus dévaluation d’un produit: une application aux
catégories associées au pays d’un produit. Thèse de doctorat
de Sciences de gestion. Université du Littoral Côte d’Opale,
391
Plier, P. and N. Mann (2004). Influence of social norms and
palatability on amount consumed and food choice. Appetite.
(42): 227-237.
Ratneshwar, S. and A. D. Shocker (1991). “Substitution in use
and the role of product usage context in product category
structures.” Journal of marketing research. August 1991, 28:
281-295.
Ratneshwar, S., L. Warlop, et al. (1997). “Benefit salience and
consumers’ selective attention to product features.” International Journal of research in marketing. (14): 245-259.
Ratneshwar, S., D. Mick, et al. (2000). Introduction: The ‘Why’
of Consumption. In: S. Ratneshwar, D. Mick and C.
Huffman. The Why of Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires. London,
Routledge, 1–35.
Ratneshwar, S., L. W. Barsalou, et al. (2001). “Goal-derived
categories: the role of personal and situational goals in
category representations.” Journal of consumer psychology.
10(3): 147-157.
Ross, C. E. and G. L. Murphy (1999). “Food for thought: CrossClassification and category organization in a complex realworld domain.” Cognitive psychology. (38): 495-553
Schwarz, N., H. Bless, et al. (2003). Accessibility Revisited. In:
G. V. Bodenhausen and A. J. Lambert. Foundations of Social
Cognition: A Festschrift in Honor of Robert S. Wyer, Jr.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 51-77.
Steptoe, A., T. Pollard and J. Wardle (1995). Development of a
measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the
food choice questionnaire. Appetite. 25: 267–284.
Vallacher, R. and D. Wegner (1985). A theory of action
identification. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wyer, R. and T. Srull (1981). Category accessibility: Some
theoretical and empirical issues concerning the processing of
social stimulus information. In: E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman
and M. Zanna. Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. I, 161-198.