second order conditioning l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Second-Order Conditioning PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Second-Order Conditioning

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 60

Second-Order Conditioning - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded 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
Second-Order Conditioning
  • Pair CS1 with US
  • Pair CS2 with CS1
  • CS2 produces CR
  • CS1 serves as US for CS2
blair shimp 1992
Blair & Shimp (1992)
  • Unpleasant experience paired with music
  • Brand paired with music
  • 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
  • Article uses older terminology
    • Music as US, not CS1
  • Negative conditioning to brand in pre-conditioning group
  • Music acquired negative affect
  • Negative affect transferred to brand
  • 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
US Pre-exposure
  • Repeatedly present US
  • More difficult to subsequently condition CS
    • US occurs without predictive stimulus
second order classical
Second Order Classical
  • US is affective state, mood, etc.
  • CS1 is celebrity, expert, consumer, or TPO
  • CS2 is brand
  • Famous people
  • Associations
    • Popular
    • Rich
    • Attractive
  • 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
Third Party Organizations
  • Popular in advertising
  • Independent organizations
    • Rank, rate, or promote a product
  • Quality indicators
effectiveness of tpos
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
Social Learning Theory
  • Bandura
  • Observational learning
  • Attributes of model and learner










  • Observe
  • Reinforcement or punishment
  • Imitate with expectation
  • Generalized imitation
  • Important for
    • Celebrity endorsers
  • Less important (but not ignored) for
    • Experts, typical consumers
  • Can act as US itself
  • Innate predispositions
  • Evolved
    • Health, genotype
    • Evolutionary psychology
  • Mating, social interactions
nature vs nurture debate
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
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
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)
  • 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
Ohanian (1991)
  • Attractiveness, expertise, and trustworthiness
  • Use of product
    • For self or for gift
  • Male or female consumer
fictitious pairings
Fictitious Pairings
  • Celebrities and products
  • Madonna and designer jeans
  • John McEnroe and tennis rackets
  • Tom Selleck and men’s cologne
  • Linda Evans and perfume

  • Section 1
    • Familiarity with celebrity?
    • Demographic information
  • Section 2
    • Credibility scale
  • Section 3
    • Subject’s likeliness to purchase product
    • For self or for gift
  • Residential neighborhoods
  • Churches
  • Graduate and undergraduate students
  • 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
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
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
  • To be useful celebrity spokespersons should be
    • Knowledgeable
    • Experienced
    • Qualified to endorse the product
  • Virgin
  • Christina Aguilera
  • Virgin mobile phone
  • UK release
  • The devil makes work for idle thumbs. Keep yours busy. Text Virgin Mobile for 3P.
  • Commodore Vic 20
  • Priceline
  • William Shatner
  • From playing on Star Trek status to playing on Shatner status
  • Independence Air
  • Dennis Miller
  • Comedian
  • Started SNL in 1980s
  • Currently, talk radio show
  • Endorses conservative opinions, supports Republican candidates, pro military action
  • 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
  • Power drink
  • Arnold Schwarzenegger
  • Japanese commercial
  • Sometimes celebrity does cross cultures…but the ad might not
  • Nike
  • Tiger Woods
  • Use the product, be like the expert
  • Chesterfields
  • Opinion of a physician
  • Trusted
anti expert
(Anti-) Expert
  • BT information technology
  • Gordon Ramsay
  • Area of specialization
  • Ask an expert
  • Future Shop
  • Spoofing use of experts in ads
typical consumer40
Typical Consumer
  • Tide
  • Moroccan commercial, 1993
typical consumer41
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




Sony Mini Disk

Sales increase

No benefit

Does it Work?
  • Well… sometimes
prior associations
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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
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
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
  • Deceptive
    • Consumer unaware product is fake
  • Nondeceptive
    • Consumer is aware product is fake
    • Especially prevalent in luxury brand markets
reasons to purchase
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
  • 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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