Marketing Letters

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 327–335 | Cite as

The Breadth-Based Adjective Rating Task (BART) in consumer behavior



Consumer researchers have suggested that nonconscious processes may operate on consumer behavior. The goal of this research was to evaluate the Breadth-Based Adjective Rating Task (BART), an indirect measure of attitudes, in the consumer domain. In study 1, the BART was related to past Philadelphia Inquirer usage and was a significant predictor of prospective choice. In study 2, the BART was related to past Ben & Jerry’s purchase and was a marginal predictor of prospective choice. Overall, the BART added to the specificity of prediction of consumer behavior. The potentiality of the BART in consumer research is discussed


Indirect attitude Nonconscious Projective technique 


  1. Alba, J., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2000). Knowledge calibration: what consumers know and what they think they know. The Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 123–156. doi: 10.1086/314317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bargh, J. A. (2002). Losing consciousness: automatic influences on consumer judgment, behavior, and motivation. The Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 280–285. doi: 10.1086/341577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunel, F. F., Tietje, B. C., Collins, C. M., & Greenwald, A. G. (2004). Is the Implicit Association Test a valid and valuable measure of implicit consumer social cognition? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 385–404. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Donoghue, S. (2000). Projective techniques in consumer research. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 28, 47–53.Google Scholar
  5. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability and the validity of indirect questioning. The Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 303–315. doi: 10.1086/209351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Forehand, M. R., & Perkins, A. (2005). Implicit assimilation and explicit contrast: A set/reset model of response to celebrity voice-overs. The Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 435–441. doi: 10.1086/497555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gibson, B. (2008). Can evaluative conditioning change attitudes toward mature brands? New evidence from the implicit association test. The Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 178–188. doi: 10.1086/527341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haire, M. (1950). Projective techniques in marketing research. Journal of Marketing, 14, 649–656. doi: 10.2307/1246942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Karpinski, A., & von Hippel, W. (1996). The role of the linguistic intergroup bias in expectancy maintenance. Social Cognition, 14, 141–164.Google Scholar
  12. Karpinski, A., Steinberg, J. L., Versek, B., & Alloy, L. B. (2007). The Breadth-Based Adjective Rating Task (BART) as an indirect measure of self-esteem. Social Cognition, 25, 778–818. doi: 10.1521/soco.2007.25.6.778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kline, P. (1983). Personality: Measurement and theory. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  14. Klofper, W. G., & Taulbee, E. S. (1976). Projective tests. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 543–568. doi: 10.1146/ Scholar
  15. Maas, A., Milesi, A., Zabbini, S., & Stahlberg, D. (1995). Linguistic intergroup bias: Differential expectancies of in-group protection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 116–126. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maison, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Bruin, R. (2001). The implicit association test as a measure of implicit consumer attitudes. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 32, 1–9.Google Scholar
  17. McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J. M. (2001). Relations among the implicit association test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 435–442. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2000.1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Seechrest, L., Stickle, T. R., & Stewart, M. (1998). The role of assessment in clinical psychology (Vol. 4: Assessment). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  19. Will, V., Eadie, D., & MacAskill, S. (1996). Projective and enabling techniques explored. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 14, 38–43. doi: 10.1108/02634509610131144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentWidener UniversityChesterUSA
  2. 2.Temple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations