TITLE: “Salience Can Make Positive Information More Influential Than Negative Information”

AUTHORS: Meng Zhu, Joachim Vosgerau & Ajay Kalra

CONTACT INFORMATION: Meng Zhu (mzhu@andrew.cmu.edu) is a doctoral candidate in Marketing, and Joachim Vosgerau (vosgerau@andrew.cmu.edu) is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. Tel: (412) 268 4787, Fax: (412) 268 7357. Ajay Kalra (ajay.kalra@rice.edu) is Professor of Marketing at Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Management, Rice University, 1600 Main Street, Texas, 77005 Tel: (713) 348 2387, Fax:(713)348 6296.

APPENDIX 1A

THE “HIGH” INTELLIGENCE PROFILES USED IN STUDY 1 AND STUDY 2

Note: Numbers next to each exemplar behavior are the mean and standard deviation from the pretest, in which participants rated the items on a 7-point intelligence scale anchored by “1 = very stupid” and “7 = very intelligent”.

APPENDIX 1B

THE “LOW” INTELLIGENCE PROFILES USED IN STUDY 1 AND STUDY 2

Note: Numbers next to each exemplar behavior are the mean and standard deviation from the pretest, in which participants rated the items on a 7-point intelligence scale anchored by “1 = very stupid” and “7 = very intelligent”.

APPENDIX 1C

THE “HIGH” HONESTY PROFILES USED IN STUDY 1 AND STUDY 2

Note: Numbers next to each exemplar behavior are the mean and standard deviation from the pretest, in which participants rated the items on a 7-point honesty scale anchored by “1 = very dishonest” and “7 = very honest”.

APPENDIX 1D

THE “LOW” HONESTY PROFILES USED IN STUDY 1 AND STUDY 2

Note: Numbers next to each exemplar behavior are the mean and standard deviation from the pretest, in which participants rated the items on a 7-point honesty scale anchored by “1 = very dishonest” and “7 = very honest”.

APPENDIX 2A

THE SIX-RATING CHOICE SETS USED IN STUDY 3

The “6- Rating, Inconsistency- Negative” Restaurant Set

Restaurant A Average Rating: 15 out 30 0 = very poor, 30 = excellent	Restaurant B Average Rating = 15 out 30 0 = very poor, 30 = excellent
Rating 1: 20	Rating 7: 15
Rating 2: 3	Rating 8: 16
Rating 3: 22	Rating 9: 14
Rating 4: 21	Rating 10: 15
Rating 5: 5	Rating 11: 16
Rating 6: 19	Rating 12: 14

The “6- Rating, Inconsistency- Positive” Restaurant Set

Restaurant A Average Rating: 15 out 30 0 = very poor, 30 = excellent	Restaurant B Average Rating = 15 out 30 0 = very poor, 30 = excellent
Rating 1: 8	Rating 7: 15
Rating 2: 27	Rating 8: 16
Rating 3: 9	Rating 9: 14
Rating 4: 10	Rating 10: 15
Rating 5: 25	Rating 11: 16
Rating 6: 11	Rating 12: 14

APPENDIX 2B

THE TEN-RATING CHOICE SETS USED IN STUDY 3

The “10- Rating, Inconsistency- Negative” Restaurant Set

Restaurant A Average Rating: 15 out 30 0 = very poor, 30 = excellent	Restaurant B Average Rating = 15 out 30 0 = very poor, 30 = excellent
Rating 1: 19	Rating 11: 15
Rating 2: 3	Rating 12: 16
Rating 3: 21	Rating 13: 14
Rating 4: 17	Rating 14: 15
Rating 5: 18	Rating 15: 16
Rating 6: 5	Rating 16: 14
Rating 7: 19	Rating 17: 15
Rating 8: 7	Rating 18: 16
Rating 9: 20	Rating 19: 14
Rating 10: 21	Rating 20: 15

The “10- Rating, Inconsistency- Positive” Restaurant Set

Restaurant A Average Rating: 15 out 30 0 = very poor, 30 = excellent	Restaurant B Average Rating = 15 out 30 0 = very poor, 30 = excellent
Rating 1: 11	Rating 11: 15
Rating 2: 27	Rating 12: 16
Rating 3: 9	Rating 13: 14
Rating 4: 13	Rating 14: 15
Rating 5: 12	Rating 15: 16
Rating 6: 25	Rating 16: 14
Rating 7: 11	Rating 17: 15
Rating 8: 23	Rating 18: 16
Rating 9: 10	Rating 19: 14
Rating 10: 9	Rating 20: 15