Second order conditioning
1 / 60

Second-Order Conditioning - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Updated On :

Second-Order Conditioning. Pair CS 1 with US Pair CS 2 with CS 1 CS 2 produces CR CS 1 serves as US for CS 2. Blair & Shimp (1992). Unpleasant experience paired with music Brand paired with music. Design. Pre-conditioning phase Subjects listen to theme music

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Second-Order Conditioning' - richard_edik

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Second order conditioning l.jpg
Second-Order Conditioning

  • Pair CS1 with US

  • Pair CS2 with CS1

  • CS2 produces CR

  • CS1 serves as US for CS2

Blair shimp 1992 l.jpg
Blair & Shimp (1992)

  • Unpleasant experience paired with music

  • Brand paired with music

Design l.jpg

  • 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 l.jpg

  • Article uses older terminology

    • Music as US, not CS1

Results l.jpg

  • Negative conditioning to brand in pre-conditioning group

  • Music acquired negative affect

  • Negative affect transferred to brand

Implications l.jpg

  • 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 l.jpg
US Pre-exposure

  • Repeatedly present US

  • More difficult to subsequently condition CS

    • US occurs without predictive stimulus

Second order classical l.jpg
Second Order Classical

  • US is affective state, mood, etc.

  • CS1 is celebrity, expert, consumer, or TPO

  • CS2 is brand

Celebrities l.jpg

  • Famous people

  • Associations

    • Popular

    • Rich

    • Attractive

Experts l.jpg

  • Known or unknown

    • e.g., scientist, doctor, lawyer, mechanic, etc.

  • Associations

    • Knowledge

    • Authorities

Typical consumer l.jpg

  • Average shopper

    • Real or fake

  • Association

    • Nothing to gain (leads to trust)

    • Credibility

Third party organizations l.jpg
Third Party Organizations

  • Popular in advertising

  • Independent organizations

    • Rank, rate, or promote a product

  • Quality indicators

Effectiveness of tpos l.jpg
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 l.jpg
Social Learning Theory

  • Bandura

  • Observational learning

  • Attributes of model and learner

Characteristics l.jpg












Operant l.jpg

  • Observe

  • Reinforcement or punishment

  • Imitate with expectation

  • Generalized imitation

Attractiveness l.jpg

  • Important for

    • Celebrity endorsers

  • Less important (but not ignored) for

    • Experts, typical consumers

Attractiveness18 l.jpg

  • Can act as US itself

  • Innate predispositions

  • Evolved

    • Health, genotype

    • Evolutionary psychology

  • Mating, social interactions

Nature vs nurture debate l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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


Cognitive factor l.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 l.jpg

  • 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 l.jpg
Ohanian (1991)

  • Attractiveness, expertise, and trustworthiness

  • Use of product

    • For self or for gift

  • Male or female consumer

Fictitious pairings l.jpg
Fictitious Pairings

  • Celebrities and products

  • Madonna and designer jeans

  • John McEnroe and tennis rackets

  • Tom Selleck and men’s cologne

  • Linda Evans and perfume

Questionnaires l.jpg

  • 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 l.jpg

  • Residential neighborhoods

  • Churches

  • Graduate and undergraduate students

Results27 l.jpg

  • 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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg

  • To be useful celebrity spokespersons should be

    • Knowledgeable

    • Experienced

    • Qualified to endorse the product

Celebrity l.jpg

  • Virgin

  • Christina Aguilera

  • Virgin mobile phone

  • UK release

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

Celebrity32 l.jpg

  • Commodore Vic 20

  • Priceline

  • William Shatner

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

Celebrity33 l.jpg

  • Independence Air

  • Dennis Miller

  • Comedian

  • Started SNL in 1980s

  • Currently, talk radio show

  • Endorses conservative opinions, supports Republican candidates, pro military action

Celebrity34 l.jpg

  • 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

Celebrity35 l.jpg

  • Power drink

  • Arnold Schwarzenegger

  • Japanese commercial

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

Expert l.jpg

  • Nike

  • Tiger Woods

  • Use the product, be like the expert

Expert37 l.jpg

  • Chesterfields

  • Opinion of a physician

  • Trusted

Anti expert l.jpg
(Anti-) Expert

  • BT information technology

  • Gordon Ramsay

  • Area of specialization

Expert39 l.jpg

  • Ask an expert

  • Future Shop

  • Spoofing use of experts in ads

Typical consumer40 l.jpg
Typical Consumer

  • Tide

  • Moroccan commercial, 1993

Typical consumer41 l.jpg
Typical Consumer

  • Salem's cigarettes

  • Supposedly average couple

  • Note music score

  • Gives performance information

Co branding l.jpg

  • 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 l.jpg




Sony Mini Disk

Sales increase

No benefit

Does it Work?

  • Well… sometimes

Prior associations l.jpg
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 l.jpg

  • 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 l.jpg

  • 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 l.jpg

  • 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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg

  • Deceptive

    • Consumer unaware product is fake

  • Nondeceptive

    • Consumer is aware product is fake

    • Especially prevalent in luxury brand markets

Reasons to purchase l.jpg
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 l.jpg

  • 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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg

  • 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