Notes on Hoch & Ha (1986) – Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience

Paper: “Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (2), 221–33.

Main Topic or Phenomenon

This paper examines how advertising influences consumer learning from product experience, specifically focusing on the role of evidence ambiguity in determining when advertising will be effective. The central phenomenon is the interaction between advertising and product testing, where advertising can dramatically alter how consumers interpret physical product evidence.

Theoretical Construct

Hypothesis-Testing Framework: The paper adopts a model where consumers treat advertisements as tentative hypotheses about product performance that can be tested through product experience. Rather than believing ads outright, consumers use advertising as conjectures that require “proof” through direct experience.

Evidence Ambiguity: Defined as the extent to which product evidence allows multiple interpretations. Ambiguous evidence is characterized by: (1) low distinctiveness between products, and (2) potential for multiple interpretations of what constitutes quality. Operationally measured through low interjudge reliability in product evaluations.

Processing Types:

• Concept-driven (top-down) processing: Perception guided by expectations and prior knowledge
• Data-driven (bottom-up) processing: Perception guided by objective stimulus characteristics

Key Findings

1. Ambiguous Evidence: When product testing provides ambiguous evidence about quality, advertising has dramatic effects on quality perceptions. Consumers engage in confirmatory hypothesis testing, finding evidence to support ad claims.
2. Unambiguous Evidence: When product testing provides clear, unambiguous evidence, advertising has little to no effect on quality judgments. Consumers rely primarily on objective evidence.
3. Attention Allocation: Advertising causes consumers to spend disproportionately more time examining the advertised brand during product testing.
4. Encoding vs. Retrieval Effects: The advertising-evidence interaction occurs primarily at the encoding stage (when ads precede testing) rather than at retrieval (when ads follow testing), though some retrieval effects exist.
5. Three-way Interaction: Brand × Advertising × Product Testing interaction emerges only in ambiguous environments.

Boundary Conditions and Moderators

Primary Moderator - Evidence Ambiguity:

• Ambiguous conditions: Advertising influences product evaluation through assimilative processing
• Unambiguous conditions: Advertising has minimal impact; data-driven processing dominates

Timing Effects:

• Ad-before-testing: Strongest effect on product evaluations
• Ad-after-testing: Moderate effect through selective retrieval
• No-ad conditions: Evidence alone determines evaluations in unambiguous settings

Consumer Expertise/Perceived Diagnosticity: The paper identifies a 2×2 framework:

• Cell 1: Unambiguous evidence + High perceived diagnosticity = Effective learning
• Cell 2: Unambiguous evidence + Low perceived diagnosticity = Underutilization
• Cell 3: Ambiguous evidence + High perceived diagnosticity = Most problematic (confirmatory bias)
• Cell 4: Ambiguous evidence + Low perceived diagnosticity = Appropriate skepticism

Building on Previous Work

The paper extends Deighton’s (1984) two-step model of advertising effectiveness by:

• Identifying ambiguity as the critical boundary condition for advertising-evidence interactions
• Providing behavioral evidence of attention reallocation
• Distinguishing encoding from retrieval mechanisms
• Using real products rather than Consumer Reports data

It challenges the simple “confirmation bias” explanation by suggesting consumers may actually be trying to disconfirm advertiser claims but fail in ambiguous environments due to lack of diagnostic information.

Connects to broader psychological literature on:

• Hypothesis testing (Wason, Snyder & Swann)
• Schema theory (Bobrow & Norman)
• Assimilation vs. accommodation (Piaget)

Major Theoretical Contribution

The paper’s primary contribution is demonstrating that evidence ambiguity is the critical moderator determining when advertising will influence product experience. This resolves the paradox of why consumers say advertising is helpful but not believable - advertising provides hypotheses that consumers want to test, but the testing process itself can be biased in ambiguous environments.

The illusion of control concept explains why consumers overestimate their ability to learn from ambiguous product testing, leading to unjustified confidence in ad-influenced judgments.

Major Managerial Implication

Strategic Implications by Evidence Type:

Ambiguous Evidence Categories:

• Low-share brands: Actively encourage product testing through sampling, trial offers, demonstrations
• High-share brands: Discourage search, emphasize switching costs and risks of experimentation

Unambiguous Evidence Categories:

• Focus on distribution and trial facilitation rather than heavy advertising
• Advertising may be inefficient use of resources

Defensive Strategy: Market leaders in ambiguous categories should create “why change if it works” messaging to prevent competitive testing.

Unexplored Theoretical Factors

Several potential moderators were not examined:

Individual Differences:

• Need for cognition
• Tolerance for ambiguity
• Expertise level in product category
• Chronic skepticism toward advertising

Situational Factors:

• Time pressure during evaluation
• Social presence during testing
• Purchase risk/involvement level
• Competitive context (multiple brands advertised)

Message Characteristics:

• Claim specificity vs. generality
• Factual vs. emotional appeals
• Source credibility variations
• Claim extremeness

Temporal Factors:

• Delay between advertising exposure and testing
• Repeated exposure effects
• Learning over multiple product trials

Methodological Extensions:

• Cross-cultural differences in hypothesis testing
• Age-related changes in evidence processing
• Category-specific expertise effects on ambiguity perception

Reference

Hoch, Stephen J. and Young-Won Ha (1986), “Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (2), 221–33.