Prior knowledge and complacency in new product learning
Open accessAbstract
Our research examines the role of prior knowledge in learning about really new products that make existing product knowledge obsolete. Those with higher prior knowledge incorrectly generalize from their knowledge of existing products in the same product market and assume that they already know most of what is necessary to use the new product properly. Three studies demonstrate that, compared to consumers with lower prior knowledge, those with higher prior knowledge learn less about a new product. Further, higher knowledge consumers are able to learn better but learn less due to motivational deficits. Study 1 shows that, when given a cue that the new product is truly different, those with higher prior knowledge learned more than those with lower prior knowledge. In Study 2, we demonstrate that inferior learning of new product information by those with higher prior knowledge is caused by inattention at encoding rather than to reconstructive errors at retrieval. When incentives for learning were provided after encoding but prior to retrieval, those with higher prior knowledge learned less than those with lower prior knowledge. The reverse was true when incentives were provided prior to encoding. We show that these results hold both when prior knowledge is manipulated experimentally (Studies 1 and 2) and when it is an individual difference factor (Study 3).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Prior knowledge interferes with appreciating the unique and novel distinctions of new situations.
“Other research shows that prior knowledge interferes with the ability to appreciate the unique, novel distinctions of new situations.”
From Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health (2010) · cites this paper as Wood & Lynch, 2002
Participants primed to feel knowledgeable about a product performed substantially worse on a test about a new product.
“People primed to be knowledgeable about the product did substantially worse on the test.”
From Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health (2010) · cites this paper as Wood & Lynch, 2002
Allergy sufferers performed worse than non-sufferers on a test about a new allergy medication.
“Similar to the experimental manipulation of knowledge, allergy sufferers did worse on the test about the new product.”
From Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health (2010) · cites this paper as Wood & Lynch, 2002
Consumers with greater pre-existing product knowledge are less likely to pay attention to and learn about a new product.
“For instance, researchers sought to determine whether consumers with greater pre-existing knowledge about products were less apt to pay attention to and learn about a new product (Wood & Lynch, 2002).”
From Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health (2010) · cites this paper as Wood & Lynch, 2002
Cites
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925 · see citing works
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.127 · Cited by 7,335 · see citing works
The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes
Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209158 · Cited by 2,070 · see citing works
Bettman, J. R., & Park, C. W. (1980) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/208812 · Cited by 1,344 · see citing works
Retrieval selectivity in memory-based impression judgments.
Lingle, J. H., & Ostrom, T. M. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.2.180 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health
Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001 · Cited by 3,054 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wood, S. L., & Lynch, J. G.
- Affiliations
- University of South Carolina (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 416-426
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W3122008902
- Cited by
- 279
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 13.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Consumer Research (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Market Behavior and Pricing
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
- Keywords
- prior knowledge, consumer learning, complacency, motivational deficits, inattention, encoding, individual differences, consumer information processing
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