Three experiments investigate the evaluative effect of revealing previously omitted information. In short, attributes were weighed more heavily when omitted-then-revealed (versus not omitted). Additionally, this revelation effect was mediated by changes in affect toward the product and bounded to those open (versus resistant) to change. The implications are discussed

Frank Kardes

Joshua Clarkson

Scott Wright

CiteSeerX

 
 
 
 
 
ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH 
 
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802 
 
 
The Effects of Omitting-Then-Revealing Product Attribute Information:  an Information Revelation Effect
Scott Wright,  Providence College, USA 
Joshua Clarkson, University of Cincinnati, USA 
Frank Kardes, University of Cincinnati, USA 
 
Three experiments investigate the evaluative effect of revealing previously omitted information. In short, attributes were weighed
more heavily when omitted-then-revealed (versus not omitted). Additionally, this revelation effect was mediated by changes in affect
toward the product and bounded to those open (versus resistant) to change. The implications are discussed.
 
 
[to cite]:
Scott Wright, Joshua Clarkson, and Frank Kardes (2015) ,"The Effects of Omitting-Then-Revealing Product Attribute
Information:  an Information Revelation Effect", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 43, eds. Kristin Diehl  and
Carolyn Yoon, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 742-743.
 
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1019727/volumes/v43/NA-43
 
[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/.
742 
Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 43, ©2015
The Effects of Omitting-Then-Revealing Product Attribute Information:  
An Information Revelation Effect
Scott Wright, Providence College, USA
Joshua Clarkson, University of Cincinnati, USA
Frank Kardes, University of Cincinnati, USA
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
When evaluating products, consumers frequently rely on pre-
sented information and neglect vital missing or unknown informa-
tion; thus, increasing the likelihood of forming biased and resistant 
judgments (Sanbonmatsu et al., 1991). The present research investi-
gates the effectiveness of a supposed debiasing technique designed to 
increase sensitivity to omissions. Specifically, we test the hypothesis 
that revealing previously omitted information: (1) increases sensitiv-
ity to the missing information, and (2) leads to overweighing and 
thus overcorrection. 
This hypothesis is based on research demonstrating that con-
sumers place greater weight on highly salient information (Gardner, 
1983). Revealing a previously omitted attribute should increase its 
salience. According to Veitch and Griffitt (1976), when individuals 
process novel information that is positively (negatively) valenced 
they experience positive (negative) affect, subsequently affecting 
judgment. That is, the more individuals weigh a positive (negative) 
attribute, the more positivity (negativity) they should feel about the 
product. 
Research shows that consumers vary in their willingness to 
consider new information (Oreg, 2003), and those unwilling to re-
evaluate the product (i.e., those highly resistant to change) should not 
even attempt to correct for the revealed information.
Study 1
Study 1 served to demonstrate the information revelation ef-
fect. We hypothesized that omitting positive attribute information at 
initial evaluation and then revealing the information would increase 
purchase intentions, whereas revealing previously omitted, negative 
attribute information would decrease purchase intentions (H1). 
Participants (N = 220) were randomly assigned to conditions 
in a 2 (Information Presentation: Omit-then-reveal or Never Omit) 
× 2 (Information Valence: Positive or Negative) between-subjects 
design.
Participants’ formed two separate evaluations of the same prod-
uct (a vacation package). Across conditions, the description of the 
vacation featured the same information about six product attributes. 
Three additional attributes were also presented, though the valence of 
this information was intentionally varied and pretested. After view-
ing the product, participants indicated their anticipated satisfaction 
with the product on 7-point scales anchored from 1 (very unhappy/
unsatisfied) to 7 (very happy/satisfied) (α = .93).
In the never omit condition, the omitted information was pre-
sented alongside the other six attributes. Whereas, in the omit-then-
reveal condition, the information was revealed after participants 
had completed their initial evaluation of the vacation. Following the 
initial evaluation, participants indicated how much their purchase 
intentions had changed on three 11-point scales anchored at much 
worse—much better, more unfavorable—more favorable, and less 
positive—more positive (α = .98).
All analyses were submitted to the same two-way ANOVAs. 
An ANOVA of initial evaluations revealed no significant main or in-
teractive effects (all ps > .4), thus initial evaluations did not vary 
according to condition. By contrast, an ANOVA on perceived change 
in purchase intentions revealed a main effect of information valence 
(F(1, 219) = 57.33, p < .001), and the expected two-way interaction 
effect (F(1, 219) = 42.55, p < .001). In support of H1, in the positive 
valence condition, participants demonstrated a significant increase in 
purchase intentions when the calorie information was omitted-then-
revealed relative to when it was never omitted (t(112) = 4.89, p < 
.001). In the negative valence condition, participants demonstrated a 
significant decrease in purchase intentions when the calorie informa-
tion was omitted-then-revealed relative to when it was never omitted 
(t(104) = -4.35, p < .001). 
Study 2
Study 2 sought to offer insight into the process underlying this 
information revelation effect. Specifically, we proposed that consum-
ers would perceive revealed information as more diagnostic, and di-
agnosticity will drive the evaluative differences observed in Study 1 
(H2). The same Study 1 design, procedure, and measures were used. 
The only difference is that participants indicated the perceived value 
of the omitted information on 9-point scales anchored at not at all 
helpful—very helpful, not at all useful—very useful, not at all valu-
able—very valuable, and not at all beneficial—very beneficial (α = 
.98).
In support of H1, the results of an ANOVA on change in pur-
chase intentions replicated the effects observed in Study 1. To deter-
mine whether this effect is mediated by affect, a mediated modera-
tion analysis was conducted (Hayes 2012). As hypothesized (H2), 
the perceived diagnosticity of the omitted attribute explained why 
participants provided higher intentions to purchase the product when 
a negatively valenced attribute was omitted-then-revealed (95% CI: 
-.38, -.03), and when a positively valenced attribute was omitted-
then-revealed (95% CI: .15, .62).  
Study 3
Study 3 sought to explore whether the information revelation 
effect is bounded to those open (versus closed) to re-evaluate their 
decision (H3). This study implemented the same procedure, design, 
and stimuli as described in Study 1. The only differences are that a 
different product was used, and dispositional resistance to change 
was assessed using the individual difference measure developed by 
Oreg (2003). 
The results of a linear regression showed a significant main ef-
fect of information presentation (β = -.55, t = -3.5, p = .001), along 
with the predicted two-way interaction between information revela-
tion and information valence (β = .8, t = 3.59, p < .001). Most impor-
tantly, however, the analysis revealed a significant three-way interac-
tion between the factors (β = -.49, t = -2.2, p = .03).
A spotlight analysis revealed that when resistance to change 
was low, the results replicated the findings reported in Studies 1 and 
2, as there was a significant interaction between information presen-
tation and information valence (β = 1.28, t = 4.06, p < .001). By 
contrast, when resistance to change was high, there was no longer a 
significant interaction between information presentation and infor-
mation valence (β = .31, t = .98, p = .33). 
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 43) / 743
Discussion
Considered together, the results of three experiments provide 
strong evidence for the information revelation effect, and identify 
information diagnosticity as the mechanism and resistance to change 
as an important boundary condition. These findings are important 
because prior research shows that consumers are frequently insensi-
tive to omissions and are often unable to fully appreciate the implica-
tions of missing information even when it is detected (Sanbonmatsu 
et al. 1991). For example, the overlooked information used in this 
investigation included important nutritional details for a breakfast 
cereal and the fees associated with a vacation package. In a broader 
sense, given the alarming rates of obesity and financial debt around 
the world and their negative consequences, techniques that can en-
hance the attention and weight given to such information in subse-
quent decision-making have strong implications for consumers and 
policy-makers.
REFERENCES
Aiken, Leona S., and Stephen G. West (1991), Multiple Regression: 
Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Sage.
Alba, Joseph W., and Amitava Chattopadhyay (1986), “Salience 
Effects in Brand Recall,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23 
(4), 363-369.
Anderson, Norman H. (1981), Foundations of Information 
Integration Theory.
Berlyne, Daniel E. (1960), Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity.
Gardner, Meryl Paula (1983),  “Advertising Effects on Attributes 
Recalled and Criteria used for Brand Evaluations,” Journal of 
Consumer Research, 10 (3), 310-318.
Haugtvedt, Curtis P., and Duane T. Wegener (1994), “Message 
Order Effects in Persuasion: An Attitude Strength 
Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 205-218.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2012), “PROCESS: A Versatile Computational 
Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and 
Conditional Process Modeling.”
Hogarth, Robin M., and Hillel J. Einhorn. (1992), “Order Effects 
in Belief Updating: The Belief-Adjustment Model,” Cognitive 
Psychology, 24 (1), 1-55
Kardes, Frank R., Steven S. Posavac, David Silvera, Maria L. 
Cronley, David M. Sanbonmatsu, Susan Schertzer, Felicia 
Miller, Paul M. Herr, and Murali Chandrashekaran (2006), 
“Debiasing Omission Neglect,” Journal of Business Research, 
59 (6), 786-792.
Kruglanski, Arie W., and Donna M. Webster (1996), “Motivated 
Closing of the Mind:” Seizing” and” Freezing,” Psychological 
Review, 103 (2), 263.
Litman, Jordan (2005), “Curiosity and the Pleasures of Learning: 
Wanting and Liking New Information,” Cognition & Emotion, 
19 (6), 793-814.
Oreg, Shaul (2003), “Resistance to Change: Developing an 
Individual Differences Measure,” Journal of Applied 
Psychology, 88 (4), 680.
Petty, Richard E., Curtis P. Haugtvedt, and Stephen M. Smith 
(1995), “Elaboration as a Determinant of Attitude Strength: 
Creating Attitudes that are Presistant, and Predictive of 
Behavior,” Attitude strength: Antecedents and Consequences, 
4, 93-130.
_______, and John T. Cacioppo (1986), “The Elaboration 
Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” Advances in Experimental 
Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
Sanbonmatsu, David M., Frank R. Kardes, and Carol Sansone 
(1991), “Remembering Less and Inferring More: Effects of 
Time of Judgment on Inferences about Unknown Attributes,” 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (4), 546.
Schwarz, Norbert, and Gerald L. Clore (1983), “Mood, 
Misattribution, and Judgments of Well-being: Informative 
and Directive Functions of Affective States,” Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (3), 513.
Veitch, Russell, and William Griffitt (1976), “Good News-Bad 
News: Affective and Interpersonal Effects,” Journal of Applied 
Social Psychology, 6 (1), 69-75.


The Effects of Omitting-Then-Revealing Product Attribute Information: an Information Revelation Effect

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=75A252531324A9F1352E79C8AA71165B?doi=10.1.1.1055.2072&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The Effects of Omitting-Then-Revealing Product Attribute Information: an Information Revelation Effect

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CiteSeerX