Evoked set size—Personality correlates and mediating variables

  • V. Kanti Prasad


A study is reported which presents some positive results in investigating the usefulness of a cognitive variable— ‘need for cognitive clarity,’ in explaining variations in evoked set magnitude among consumers when the mediating effects of consumer perceptions of performance risk and specific self-confidence were taken into account.


Product Category Product Class American Market Association Brand Awareness Clarity Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brody, R., and Cunningham, S. “Personality Variables and the Consumer Decision Process,” Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (February, 1968), 50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell, B. “The Existence of Evoked Set and Determinants of Its Magnitude in Brand Choice Behavior,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1969.Google Scholar
  3. Cox, D. F. “The Influence of Cognitive Needs and Styles on Information Handling in Making Product Evaluations,” in Cox, D. F. (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  4. Engel, J. F., Kollat, T., and Blackwell, R. F. Consumer Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968, 156–162.Google Scholar
  5. Howard, J. and Sheth, J. The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1969.Google Scholar
  6. Jarvis, L., and Wilcox, J. “Evoked Set Size—Some Theoretical and Empirical Evidence,” Paper presented at the 1973 Fall Conference of the American Marketing Association, August, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. Kelman, H. C., and Cohler, J. “Reactions to Persuasive Communications as a Function of Cognitive Needs and Styles,” Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Association Meetings, Atlantic City, April, 1959.Google Scholar
  8. Kelman, H. C. “Process of Opinion Change,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (1961), 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Miller, G. A. “The Magic Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information,” The Psychological Review, 63 (March, 1965). 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Oslund, L. E., “Evoked Set Size: Some Empirical Results,” Paper presented at the 1973 Fall Conference of the American Marketing Association, August, 1973.Google Scholar
  11. Pettigrew, T. F. “The Measurement and Correlates of Category Width as a Cognitive Variable,” Journal of Personality, 26 (December, 1956). 532–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., and Nebergall, R. E. Attitude and Attitude Change, Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1965.Google Scholar
  13. Wallace, A. F. C. “On Just Being Complicated Enough,” Anthropology, 47 (April, 1969), 458–464.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Academy of Marketing Science 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Kanti Prasad
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations