Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Feature Interactions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal versus Pictorial Presentations

Holbrook, Morris B., Moore, William L.·1981·Journal of Consumer Research
DOI 10.1086/208846
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In consumer judgments of product designs, the numbers of additive and configural feature effects are apt to differ between verbal and pictorial stimulus presentations. A study of judgmental responses to sweater designs suggests the significant occurrence of feature interactions, a tendency for pictorial (versus verbal) displays to evoke more main effects, and a tendency for pictorial displays to promote cue configurality when one controls for type of information-processing strategy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/208846

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 267

Metadata

Authors
Holbrook, M. B., & Moore, W. L.
Venue
Journal of Consumer Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1981-06
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
103
ISSN
  • 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5277
DOI
10.1086/208846
OpenAlex
W2034880664
Cited by
267
References
0
FWCI
4.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Feature Interactions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal versus Pictorial Presentations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/208846
The paper
Holbrook, M. B., & Moore, W. L. (1981). Feature Interactions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal versus Pictorial Presentations. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/208846

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.