| Abstract: | Consumers often focus on the characteristics of one brand and consider insufficiently the characteristics of other brands. Singular evaluation processes often result in judgments of a focal brand that are more extreme than warranted. This research investigates the extent to which this extremity effect generalizes to a consideration set consisting of multiple brands. Three experiments show that a set of favorably regarded brands is perceived as more favorable than would be possible if the salience manipulation had no effect. In Experiment 1, participants overestimated the likelihood that the best brand in the market was included in the presented set. In Experiment 2, the average rank assigned to the brands in the presented set was inflated. Extreme judgments were observed regardless of whether the focal set of brands was offered by a specialty store with a high‐quality reputation or by a general merchandise store with a low‐quality reputation. In Experiment 3, extreme intentions to buy now from the focal store were reduced when a comparative (vs. singular) judgment task was performed, but only when the need for cognitive closure was low as opposed to high. The results suggest that singular evaluation processes lead to consideration set overvaluation regardless of which particular favorably regarded brands happen to be included in the set. |
