TUGAS FINAL REVIEW ARTIKEL

“The Effects Of The Subjective-Experiential Knowledge Gap On

Consumers Information Search Behavior And Perceptions Of
Consumption Risk”

SEMINAR PEMASARAN

Dosen Pengampu: Dr. Juharsah, S.E, M.Si.

OLEH:

AZMAN B1B120101

JURUSAN MANAJEMEN

FAKULTAS EKONOMI DAN BISNIS

UNIVERSITAS HALU OLEO

TAHUN 2023
 REVIEW ARTIKEL
Judul Artikel The Effects Of The Subjective-Experiential Knowledge Gap On Consumers Information
Search Behavior And Perceptions Of Consumption Risk (Efek dari kesenjangan pengetahuan
pengalaman-subjektif pada perilaku pencarian informasi konsumen dan persepsi risiko
konsumsi)

Penulis Saeed Tajdini

Nama Jurnal Journal of Business Research

Tahun, halaman 135 (2021) Pages 66–77

Fenomena Pengetahuan konsumen sebagai konsep sentral dalam pencarian informasi konsumen dan
pengambilan keputusan penting dan bukan hal baru dalam riset konsumen). Mungkin salah
Permasalahan satu alasan pentingnya konsep ini adalah pencarian informasi merupakan tahap awal dan
Awal konsekuensial dalam proses pengambilan keputusan konsumen. Secara khusus, produk yang
tidak berhasil diakui sepenuhnya pada tahap ini akan memiliki peluang yang buruk untuk
mendarat di tahap selanjutnya dari proses pengambilan keputusan perangkat pertimbangan
konsumen dan akhirnya keranjang belanja

Tujuan Penelitian Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengkaji bagaimana Subjective-Experiential Knowledge
Gap (SEKG) mempengaruhi persepsi risiko konsumsi dan pentingnya pencarian informasi
eksternal

Hipotesis Hipotesis 1: Keterlibatan berkorelasi positif dengan SEKG.

Hipotesis 2: Pendidikan berkorelasi positif dengan SEKG.
Hipotesis 3: Individu dengan SEKG tinggi.
Hipotesis 4: Efek risiko konsumsi pada pentingnya pencarian eksternal berbeda secara
signifikan pada individu dengan SEKG rendah dan tinggi
Kerangka
Pemikiran

Populasi dan Populasindengan menggunakan Amazon MTtruk membayar biaya tambahan untuk
Sampel menggunakan fitur Amazon MTurk yang membatasi responden hanya untuk mereka yang
telah mengikuti setidaknya 1.000 survei di platform,,506 responden direkrut di Amazon
MTurk. Data yang diperoleh dari Amazon MTurk setidaknya dapat diandalkan seperti yang
diperoleh melalui metode tradisional. mengambil beberapa tindakan ex-ante tambahan untuk
lebih memastikan kualitas dari data.

Metode Pertama, dalam uraian tugas yang menjelaskan survei kepada calon peserta, kami meminta
Pengambilan agar survei hanya dilakukan oleh mereka yang berpengalaman dengan kelas produk yang
Sampel sedang dipertimbangkan. Kedua, kami membayar biaya tambahan untuk menggunakan fitur
Amazon MTurk yang membatasi responden.
Hanya untuk mereka yang telah mengikuti setidaknya 1.000 survei di platform, dengan
peringkat persetujuan setidaknya 99% dari peneliti sebelumnya. Ketiga, kami menyematkan
beberapa jebakan perhatian dalam survei (misalnya, pertanyaan pilihan ganda yang menguji
perhatian “Tentang apa survei ini?” atau “Harap pilih [salah satu opsi]”). Enam belas
responden yang jatuh ke dalam perangkap tersebut dikeluarkan dari sampel.

Metode Penelitian Responden diminta untuk menjawab pertanyaan sambil mempertimbangkan kelas produk
(misalnya lemari es) yang dipilih secara acak dari daftar 14 kelas produk (penerbangan, mobil,
ponsel, kosmetik, deterjen, instrumen, internet, jeans, perhiasan, jus, film, lemari es, sampo,
dan universitas). Daftar ini dibuat untuk memasukkan berbagai macam barang dan jasa
dengan berbagai karakteristik, untuk meningkatkan generalisasi temuan

Hasil dan Bahasan Menunjukkan hasil analisis Keterlibatan bertanda positif signifikan, mendukung hipotesis 1.
Seperti yang dihipotesiskan, pendidikan juga memiliki tanda positif tetapi pengaruhnya tidak
signifikan, tidak mendukung hipotesis 2. hipotesis 3, dilakukan independent sample t-test,
yang mengungkapkan bahwa ada perbedaan yang signifikan antara pentingnya pencarian
eksternal pada kelompok SEKG tinggi (M = 18,304, SD = 6,172) dan kelompok SEKG rendah
( M =16.897, SD = 5.013); t(485), p = 0,006. Dengan demikian, hipotesis 3 didukung.
meskipun risiko konsumsi berkorelasi positif dengan pentingnya pencarian eksternal pada
kelompok SEKG tinggi, hubungan ini terputus pada kelompok SEKG rendah. Oleh karena
itu, hipotesis 4 didukung
Kesimpulan Penemuan menunjukkan bahwa keterlibatan dengan suatu produk berkorelasi positif dengan
SEKG. Selain itu, mengamati bukti SEKG yang lebih tinggi di antara wanita dan individu
yang lebih muda. Kami juga menemukan bahwa pentingnya pencarian eksternal berbeda
secarasignifikan antara individu dengan SEKG rendah dan tinggi.
 Journal of Business Research 135 (2021) 66–77

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

The effects of the subjective-experiential knowledge gap on consumers’

information search behavior and perceptions of consumption risk
Saeed Tajdini
School of Business, Indiana University Southeast, 4201 Grant Line Road, New Albany, IN 47150, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This research examines how the Subjective-Experiential Knowledge Gap (SEKG) influences perceptions of con­
Consumer knowledge sumption risk and the importance of external information search. Guided by information processing theories, we
Consumer information search behavior identify some determinants of SEKG and show that the perceived importance of external information search is
Risk perception
significantly different across levels of SEKG. Motivated by this, we then investigate the moderating role of SEKG
Metacognition
Information processing
in relationships among consumption risk, its determinants, and the importance of external information search.
Structural equation modeling Results show that individuals low and high on SEKG differ in what product characteristics they view as sources of
consumption risk. Moreover, only in the high-SEKG group, increased consumption risk leads to an increased
importance placed on external information search. This research expands our understanding of what determines
SEKG and how this metacognitive construct affects perceptions of consumption risk and information search.
Businesses and public policymakers can increase the receptiveness toward their communications by leveraging
SEKG.

One who knows and knows that he knows may surely reach the peak
of prosperity;
One who knows but does not know that he knows will die of thirst
despite living by a river;
One who does not know and knows that he does not know can reach
the destination, albeit limping;
But one who does not know and does not know that he does not know
is damned to eternal oblivion.
-Translation of a poem by Ibn Yamin, a Persian poet
1. Introduction
Consumer knowledge as a central concept in consumer information
search and decision-making is important (Flynn & Goldsmith, 1999) and
not new to consumer research (Pillai, Brusco, Goldsmith, & Hofacker,
2015). Perhaps one reason for the importance of this concept is that
information search is an early and consequential stage in the consumer
decision-making process. In particular, products that are not success­
fully recognized in this stage will have poor chances at landing in the
next stages of the decision process—the consumer’s consideration set
and ultimately shopping cart.
But one’s knowledge is not perfect, as suggested by the poem above.
Surrounded by imperfect knowledge and an overload of information,
consumers resort to cues and heuristics that allow for convenient deci­
sion making (Lavoie, 2004), which may involve judging how much they
know about the decision situation—metacognitive judgments whose
accuracy is only as valid as those cues and heuristics are (Koriat, 2007).
As such, taking these shortcuts can lead to a variety of metacognitive
and knowledge-related biases. Some of these biases may be intentional
(Golman, Hagmann, & Loewenstein, 2017) and rooted in “tendencies to
ignore relevant aspects of decision-making” (Barrafrem, Västfjäll, &
Tinghög, 2020, p. 28). As such, individuals who intentionally decide not
to pursue or use information have been called “homo ignorans” (Hertwig
& Engel, 2016) or specific sub-species of them such as “financial homo
ignorans” (Barrafrem et al., 2020). At other times though, the bias may
be less intentional and instead result from consumers’ inaccurate but
honest self-perceived knowledge of a consumption situation (Alba &
Hutchinson, 2000). As a result, researchers distinguish between 1)
objective knowledge—what consumers actually know about a product
class, 2) subjective knowledge—what they think that they know, and 3)
what can be called experiential knowledge—what they have learned by
actually using the product class (Brucks, 1985).
It must be noted that the bias under consideration here—resulting
from the gap between subjective and experiential knowledge—is
distinct from passive avoidance of information (see Sweeny, Melnyk,

E-mail address: stajdini@ius.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.025
Received 12 December 2020; Received in revised form 8 June 2021; Accepted 10 June 2021
Available online 19 June 2021
0148-2963/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
S. Tajdini
Miller, and Shepperd (2010) for a thorough discussion on information
avoidance). While passive avoidance refers to the neglect of additional
information on a topic not favored for some reason, the subjective-
experiential knowledge gap relates to individuals’ neglect of addi­
tional information simply because they do not feel the need for it.
Referring to the poem by Ibn Yamin in the opening of the paper, these
are the individuals who do not know and do not know that they do not
know.
While researchers have examined the effects of consumer knowledge
on a variety of consumer phenomena (Alba & Hutchinson, 2000; Dodd,
Laverie, Wilcox, & Duhan, 2005; Lind et al., 2020; Packard & Wooten,
2013), much less is known about the relationships among information
users’ knowledge and different sources of information (Ratchford,
2001). In fact, researchers have been advised to consider “a wider, ho­
listic view of the information user” in the study of information search
behavior (Wilson, 1981, p. 10). Specifically, the dynamics between in­
formation users’ self-perceived and actual knowledge deserve more
consideration (Vigar-Ellis, Pitt, & Berthon, 2015).
Despite their merits, even the studies that have focused on this
phenomenon suffer from two major shortcomings: they often do not
simultaneously include all sources of external information and they
examine only a limited set of product classes (e.g., Babić Rosario, Sotgiu,
De Valck, & Bijmolt, 2016; Huang, Lurie, & Mitra, 2009; Moon, Bergey,
& Iacobucci, 2010; Zhu & Zhang, 2010). The first drawback to this
practice is based on the observation that different information sources
may be correlated (Dhar & Chang, 2009; Ratchford, Lee, & Talukdar,
2003; Simonson & Rosen, 2014). Therefore, not simultaneously incor­
porating these information sources in analyses may lead to biased re­
sults. Moreover, given the evidence that consumers’ reliance on
different information sources varies from one product class to the next
(Klein & Ford, 2003), examining a small set of product classes may raise
generalizability concerns.
To fill these voids, the current study sets its goal to 1) investigate the
individual-level characteristics that determine the subjective-
experiential knowledge gap (SEKG) from an information processing
perspective, and 2) investigate the effects of SEKG on consumers’
perceived1 importance of external information search. In its examina­
tion of these phenomena, the current study covers a wide range of
product classes and all three major types of external information sources
to circumvent the pitfalls mentioned previously. Section two of the
paper addresses the first goal, and section three addresses the second
goal.
2. The Subjective-Experiential knowledge gap (SEKG): Its
definition, antecedents, measurement, and relationship with
external information search
2.1. Conceptual background
When making purchase decisions, individuals go through a process
called the consumers’ decision-making process. This process includes
five stages (Solomon, 2009): 1) Need or problem recognition—which is
stimulated by a comparison between the ideal and status-quo situations,
2) information search—defined as retrieving knowledge from memory
or external sources, 3) evaluation of alternatives—which involves
evaluating rival options, 4) purchase decision—which is about pur­
chasing the chosen option, and 5) post-purchase evaluation—which
includes re-evaluating the chosen option based on its performance. This
study centers on the second stage—the information search stage. Spe­
cifically, this study focuses on the gap between what consumers think
1
For the sake of brevity, we will refrain from always prefixing the word
“perceived” in reference to the importance of information search and con­
sumption risk constructs throughout the paper. However, every such reference
should imply the consumer’s perceptions of these constructs.
67
Journal of Business Research 135 (2021) 66–77
that they know (subjective knowledge) and what they may know via
their experience with a product class (experiential knowledge) (Brucks,
1985).
Consumers use two general categories of information sources: in­
ternal and external (Murray, 1991). Over time, consumers store infor­
mation in their memory about their past purchases, including
experiences in a product class and previous learning about the envi­
ronment. Consumers’ memories can act and be referred to as the internal
source of information (Bettman, 1979). Consumers generally begin their
information search with the internal search, and they may conduct no
further search if they find the internal information sufficient. However,
if they realize that the internal information at their disposal is insuffi­
cient or that it is contradictory with itself, they may resort to external
information search (Choi, 1993). In the external search, consumers seek
additional information from sources such as advertisements and news
from various media, public relations, family, friends, package labels,
marketing material, etc. Broadly speaking, these external sources can be
put into three categories: 1) marketers, 2) personal others (whom they
personally know), and, 3) impersonal others (whom they do not
personally know) (Engel, Blackwell, & Miniard, 1986).
While there have been different approaches to the study of consumer
information search, the psychological approach has been an especially
useful one (Schmidt & Spreng, 1996). This approach is pertinent to the
current study since individuals’ assessment of their judgments may have
a trait-like quality (Alba & Hutchinson, 2000). Moreover, the literature
on metacognition underscores the individual-level intricacies in infor­
mation search behavior (Blummer & Kenton, 2014). The psychological
approach postulates about the psychological and motivational processes
driving consumer information search behavior and information pro­
cessing. This approach revolves around three major constructs: moti­
vation, involvement, and knowledge (Kim & King, 2009). One of the
most frequently referenced theories in the psychological approach is the
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981), which
pertains to individuals’ use of different information processing modes.
As such, ELM can be particularly illuminative to the study of SEKG—a
cognitive bias—since cognitive biases are idiosyncratic and depend on
individuals’ specific modes of information processing (Alba & Hutch­
inson, 2000).
ELM suggests that individuals may take one of two distinct routes to
information processing. One route is called the central route, which
involves effortful cognitive endeavors in which individuals carefully
peruse all of the information presented. Using the central route, in­
dividuals contemplate the contents of the received information and
actively generate positive and/or negative thoughts toward it (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1979). Alternatively, individuals might process information
through the peripheral route, using simple cues and heuristics with
minimum elaboration (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983; Petty, Wegener, Fab­
rigar, Priester, & Cacioppo, 1993).
The reason that ELM has been extensively used to study consumer
information search is that this model can explain consumers’ choice of
information sources based on their motivation and ability, which is also
congruent with the theorizations of Bettman and Park (1980). In other
words, ELM asserts that when consumers are motivated and able to take
the central route and elaborate on the information, they may opt for
sources that can provide them with detailed and rich information. On
the other hand, consumers may suffice to use the more simplistic, su­
perficial, and readily accessible kinds of information if they lack moti­
vation and/or ability to engage in effortful elaboration. Contextualized
to this study, ELM suggests that individuals low on SEKG—who on
average have more experience with a product class—may not have the
motivation or ability to reach external information sources, which
arguably may provide more detailed and rich information than one can
humanly hold in memory (Maity, Dass, & Kumar, 2018). Nevertheless,
in the absence of motivation and ability to activate their central pro­
cessing route, low-SEKG individuals may not pursue external informa­
tion to the same degree as high-SEKG individuals do.
S. Tajdini
Researchers have represented motivation by a variety of factors,
most dominantly by involvement (Celsi & Olson, 1988; Maheswaran &
Sternthal, 1990). There has been evidence that involvement influences
consumers’ cognitive and behavioral patterns during the decision-
making process (Chakravarti & Janiszewski, 2003; Kokkinaki, 1999).
While involvement may have different conceptualizations, in the current
context, it reflects the personal relevance of a product class to the con­
sumer (Richins & Bloch, 1986; Judith Lynne Zaichkowsky, 1985).
Several studies have established a positive relationship between
involvement and external information search efforts (Beatty & Smith,
1987; Dholakia, 2001). Therefore, we argue that individuals who are
more involved with a product class are more likely to engage in external
search, leading to increased subjective knowledge, and, by that,
increased SEKG. In other words, as involvement with a product class
increases, individuals may gain more confidence about their knowledge
of the product since they are motivated to spend more time thinking
about it, carefully read package labels, ask friends and family about their
experiences with the product, or read in-depth expert reviews on the
product. It must be noted that since SEKG is operationalized as subjec­
tive knowledge minus actual knowledge, for increased involvement to
lead to increased SEKG as proposed here, the resulting increase in sub­
jective knowledge must be greater than the potential resulting increase
in actual knowledge. Perhaps the phenomenon of window shopping is a
good example of this. Involved shoppers may spend time window
shopping, potentially increasing their self-perceived knowledge of the
products on the other side of the window, perhaps without ever laying a
hand on the product (actual knowledge). Supporting evidence for this
assumption comes from Flynn and Goldsmith (1999) who documented a
stronger correlation between involvement and subjective knowledge
than involvement and actual knowledge. Besides, it stands to reason that
involvement, as a psychological state, be more strongly related to per­
ceptions of knowledge rather than actual knowledge. Against this
backdrop, we put forth the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Involvement is positively correlated with SEKG.
Besides motivation, the ability to search is another factor that in­
fluences search behavior, according to ELM. Schmidt and Spreng (1996)
defined the ability to search as the perceived cognitive capability of
searching for and processing information. These authors used education
as one proxy for the ability to search and posited a positive relationship
between education and external information search. Accordingly, we
argue that individuals who are more educated are more engaged and
efficient in external search (Bhatnagar & Ghose, 2004; Klein & Ford,
2003) leading to increased subjective knowledge, and, through that,
increased SEKG. For example, individuals with higher education can
digest technical articles on products that are not readily digestible by
those with lower levels of education. Complementary to this, it stands to
reason to argue that highly educated individuals may also develop some
kind of intellectual hubris that leads to inflated perceptions of subjective
knowledge. Via the joint effect of these two parallel forces, highly
educated individuals may have higher SEKG than less-educated
individuals.
Similar to what was said previously with regards to the effects of
involvement on SEKG, since SEKG is operationalized as subjective
knowledge minus actual knowledge, for increased education to lead to
increased SEKG as argued here, the resulting increase in subjective
knowledge must be greater than the potential resulting increase in
actual knowledge. This assumption is warranted here since highly
educated individuals may grow confident (Heath & Tversky, 1991;
Jansen, Curşeu, Vermeulen, Geurts, & Gibcus, 2013), or perhaps over­
confident, in their knowledge of a product class as they engage in
extensive and high-skilled external information search. However, this
search in itself does not necessarily constitute any new experiential
learning. Under these circumstances, as subjective knowledge increases
but experiential knowledge remains unchanged or increases to a lesser
degree, SEKG has no alternative but to increase. Accordingly, we
conceive the following hypothesis:
68
Journal of Business Research 135 (2021) 66–77
Hypothesis 2: Education is positively correlated with SEKG.
As mentioned previously in this section, consumers use two main
types of information sources: internal and external. One of the main
tenets of information processing theories is that consumers start their
search with internal sources and resort to external sources only if the
former fails to satisfy their information needs (Choi, 1993). In light of
this, one could argue that SEKG is conceptually related to the external
search. Specifically, high-SEKG individuals—whose experiential
knowledge relative to their subjective knowledge is poorer—may deem
their internal information insufficient and seek external information.
This is because internal information source is constructed on previous
experiences with a product class and, by definition, high-SEKG in­
dividuals have less experience to rely on. Therefore, they may
compensate for it by more heavily relying on external information
sources than their low-SEKG counterparts do who, by definition, have
more experience with the product class to nullify the need to rely as
heavily on external information search. Accordingly, we put forth the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: High-SEKG individuals put significantly more impor­
tance on external information sources than low-SEKG individuals do.
Following the literature, we also control for income, age, and gender
(Barrafrem et al., 2020; Tinghög et al., 2016). Moreover, social desir­
ability bias was measured and controlled for since respondents may wish
to report their knowledge in a socially desirable way. Fig. 1 shows the
proposed antecedents of the SEKG, its relationship with external search,
as well as the control variables in the model.
2.2. Method
2.2.1. Data
After an a priori RMSEA-based power analysis (MacCallum, Browne,
& Cai, 2006) as well as an examination of traditionally accepted lower
bounds of sample size for SEM models with comparable structure (Kline,
2015; Nunnally, 1994; Westland, 2010), 506 respondents were recruited
on Amazon MTurk. “The data obtained from Amazon MTurk are at least
as reliable as those obtained via traditional methods.” (Buhrmester,
Kwang, & Gosling, 2016, p. 3). Given this, it is not surprising that an
increasing number of researchers have been utilizing this source (Etkin,
2016; Garinther, Mayorga, Västfjäll, & Slovic, 2019). Nonetheless, we
took several additional ex-ante measures to further ascertain the quality
of the data. First, in the task description that explained the survey to
would-be participants, we asked that only those with experience with
the product class under consideration take the survey. Second, we paid
extra fees to use an Amazon MTurk’s feature that limits the respondents
to only those who had taken at least 1,000 surveys on the platform, with
at least 99% approval rating from the previous researchers. Third, we
embedded in the surveys some attention traps (e.g., the attention-testing
multiple-choice questions “What was this survey about?” or “Please only
choose [one of the options]”). Sixteen respondents who fell into those
traps were excluded from the sample. Besides, three responses that were
completed too quickly (determined by a post hoc visual inspection of the
boxplot of the completion time) but had passed the attention traps were
eliminated. After implementing these quality control measures, 19 re­
sponses were removed, leading to a usable sample of 487 responses.
Appendix A shows the demographic characteristics of the sample.
Respondents were told to answer the questions while considering a
product class (e.g., refrigerators) that was randomly selected from a list
of 14 product classes (airline, automobile, cellphone, cosmetics, deter­
gent, instrument, Internet, jeans, jewelry, juice, movie, refrigerator,
shampoo, and university). This list was constructed to include a wide
variety of goods and services with varying characteristics, to increase
the generalizability of the findings.
2.2.2. Variables and measures
Involvement and subjective knowledge were measured by scales
developed by Novak, Hoffman, and Yung (2000) and Flynn and
S. Tajdini
Controls:
• Age
• Gender
• Income
• Social Desirability Bias
Involvement
Subjective-
Experiential-
Knowledge
Gap (SEKG)
Education
Fig. 1. The individual-level antecedents of Subjective-Experiential-Knowledge Gap (SEKG), its relationship with external search, and the control variables.
Goldsmith (1999), respectively. For experiential knowledge, we used
two questions that measured the respondents’ level of actual experience
with the product class under consideration. One question measured the
cumulative level of experience and the other measured frequency of
experience.
To compute the SEKG as a continuous variable to be used in the test
of the first two hypotheses, we first standardized the subjective and
experiential knowledge scores and calculated an individual’s SEKG
score as his/her average subjective knowledge minus average experi­
ential knowledge. This way, the greater the excess of individuals’ sub­
jective knowledge over their experiential knowledge is, the greater their
SEKG scores will be.
To test hypothesis 3, we dichotomized SEKG for ease of analysis and
communication clarity (Iacobucci, Posavac, Kardes, Schneider, &
Popovich, 2015), following similar studies (Fellner & Maciejovsky,
2007). Dichotomization was done using SEKG’s median value as the cut
point. However, to ensure that this arbitrarily-set cut point will not lead
to spurious findings (Cohen, 1983), we replicated our analyses with
different cut points. Specifically, this time we categorized SEKG using
the 33rd and 67th percentiles as cut points to create three categories of
equal size. We then discarded the middle group and repeated the anal­
ysis with the lowest- and highest-SEKG groups. The conclusions of our
analyses remained intact. Thus, we proceeded with the original median-
split SEKG variable with two categories since it exploited the entire
sample.
As will be further discussed in the limitations section, this oper­
ationalization of SEKG has the shortcoming of classifying as low-SEKG
all individuals high or low on both subjective and experiential knowl­
edge, without distinguishing between the two subgroups. As such, it
cannot be claimed that all members of the low-SEKG group have more
experience than all members of the high-SEKG group. Instead, the two
groups must be compared on an average basis, as is done throughout this
paper.
To compute the importance of external search, we summated the
importance scores of the three main external information sources
(marketers, personal others, and impersonal others). Income, gender,
age, and education were measured by traditional demographic items.
Following Steenkamp, De Jong, and Baumgartner (2010), social
69
Journal of Business Research 135 (2021) 66–77
Importance of
H3 External
Search
desirability bias was measured by a summated variable composed of 10
items of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) (D. L.
Paulhus, 1988) to keep the overall scale parsimonious. Additionally,
since the current study is a cross-sectional study with self-reported data,
Common Method Variance (CMV) may confound the relationships
among the constructs (Chang, Van Witteloostuijn, & Eden, 2010).
Following Zeugner-Roth, Žabkar, and Diamantopoulos (2015), an item
unrelated to the model constructs was included in the survey to be later
used to check for the presence of CMV.
The importance of information sources was measured on a 0–10 scale
to increase the variability in the dependent variable. All of the other
scales used 7-point Likert items, anchored at the endpoints with strongly
disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). All of the scales used in this study are
produced in appendix B.
2.2.3. Analysis
In many economics studies, regression is an appropriate method for
objectively-measured data that can convincingly grant regression’s no
measurement error assumption. However, in studies like the current
one, it is widely accepted that questionnaire data do suffer from mea­
surement errors (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 2000). Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM), on the other hand, can handle measurement error and
thus is particularly useful in social sciences (Westland, 2010). SEM acts
as a two-step procedure: first, it invokes a measurement model, and then
it imputes a structural model, thus accounting for possible measurement
error in the estimation of the structural model (Bagozzi, 1983). As such,
we use SEM and the software AMOS version 24 for testing the model.
Before relying on SEM results, however, its assumptions need to be
checked. These assumptions include sampling adequacy, absence of
extreme multicollinearity, and normality (Joseph F. Hair, Black, Babin,
Anderson, & Tatham, 1998). Sampling adequacy was ascertained by a
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of 0.750 (Baek, Kim, & Yu, 2010).
Moreover, an examination of Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values
suggested no threatening levels of multicollinearity since no VIF value
was close to the upper threshold of 5 (Joe F. Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt,
2011). The third assumption—joint normal distribution of the observed
variables—was not satisfied, as is frequently the case in practice
(Hwang, Malhotra, Kim, Tomiuk, & Hong, 2010; Micceri, 1989). Thus,
S. Tajdini
following Stevens (2012), we examined kurtosis values for individual
variables. Kurtosis values larger than three in magnitude may suggest
that a variable is not normally distributed (Westfall & Henning, 2013),
which was not the case for any of the variables in our model. As a result,
we proceeded with the traditional type of SEM (CB-SEM). Finally, in
evaluating our models, we use not only the chi-square test but also a
variety of non-normed, absolute, and comparative fit indices, which
must make our overall conclusions less sensitive to non-normality (Lei &
Lomax, 2005).
2.3. Results
Before attempting to interpret the SEM results, some preliminary
analyses are due. First, to check for the potential confounding effects of
social desirability bias, the correlations between the BIDR scale and each
of the constructs in the model were analyzed. Although some of the
correlations turned out to be significant, the magnitude of the correla­
tion coefficients was smaller than the upper threshold of 0.20 in all cases
(Steenkamp et al., 2010), suggesting that social desirability bias is not a
significant threat to the validity of the findings. Second, we performed
Harman’s one-factor test to check for common method variance (CMV)
(Harman, 1976; N. P. Podsakoff, 2003). EFA identified multiple factors
with eigenvalues larger than one in the non-rotated factor structure,
with none of the factors explaining more than 50% of the variance,
suggesting that CMV is not an issue (P. M. Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).
Finally, with regards to the model’s performance, the fit indices indi­
cated reasonable fit with the data (χ2 = 86.650, degrees of freedom =
24; CMIN/DF = 3.610; CFI = 0.950; TLI = 0.906; RMSEA = 0.073,
HOELTER (α = 0.05) = 205). While the RMSEA of 0.073 reflects only a
reasonable fit and does not reach the “good fit” threshold, we concluded
the fit to be acceptable based on a collective view of the fit indices.
Moreover, the p of Close Fit (PCLOSE) of the model is greater than 0.05,
suggesting that the fit of the model is “close,” after taking into account
possible sampling error and the traditionally-positive bias of the RMSEA
metric (Kenny, 2020). Table 1 shows the results of the analysis.
Involvement has a significant positive sign, supporting hypothesis 1.
As hypothesized, education also has a positive sign but its effect is not
significant, not supporting hypothesis 2.
To test hypothesis 3, an independent samples t-test was conducted,
which revealed that there is a significant difference between the
importance of external search in the high-SEKG group (M = 18.304, SD
= 6.172) and the low-SEKG group (M = 16.897, SD = 5.013); t(4 8 5), p
= .006. As such, hypothesis 3 is supported.
2.4. Discussion
The results suggest that ELM has been successful in identifying
motivation- and ability-related determinants of SEKG. Specifically, re­
sults show that more involved individuals are significantly higher on
SEKG, meaning that their subjective knowledge exceeds their
Table 1
The SEM results for the dependent variable Subjective-Experiential Knowledge Gap (SEKG).
Panel A. Dependent Variable: Subjective-Experiential Knowledge Gap (SEKG)
Independent Variable StandardizedCoefficient
Involvement 0.487
Education 0.025
Age − 0.197
Gender (Male: 1; Female: 2) 0.084
Income 0.054
Socially desirable responding − 0.064
Panel B. Dependent Variable: The Importance of External Information Search
Independent Variable StandardizedCoefficient
SEKG 0.093
70
Journal of Business Research 135 (2021) 66–77
experiential knowledge of a product class to a greater extent than less
involved individuals. This may be explained by highly-involved in­
dividuals’ higher willingness to spend more resources to search for in­
formation on the product class (Bloch, 1981; Judith L. Zaichkowsky,
1986), which may result in a feeling of familiarity with the product class
and thus an overestimation of knowledge of it.
Additionally, results showed that SEKG is positively related to the
importance of external information search. This may be explained by the
fact that high-SEKG individuals are relatively lower on actual experience
with a product class on average. As a result, they may have a more
limited internal information source than low-SEKG individuals. Thus,
realizing that their internal information may not be sufficient for the
consumption situation, they may be more likely to resort to external
information in a compensatory reaction (Choi, 1993).
Finally, with regards to the control variables, we did not find any
significant effects of income on SEKG. Perhaps, in this day and age of
diminishing costs of information, income does not determine levels of
knowledge in the context of this study. Socially desirable responding
(SDR) did not show any significant relationship with SEKG either.
However, results show that females are more likely to overestimate their
knowledge of a product class relative to their experiential knowledge,
compared to males. Lastly, the results suggest that as individuals grow
older, their SEKG levels shrink perhaps due to accumulating more
experiential knowledge.
3. Exploring the causal link between the Subjective-Experiential
knowledge gap (SEKG) and the importance of external
information search
In section two of the paper, we developed the metacognitive
construct of SEKG and a simple measure for it. Guided by the Elabora­
tion Likelihood Model, we then showed that SEKG can be well predicted
using only two individual-level predictors while controlling for a few
more. Moreover, we provided evidence of the relationship between
SEKG and the importance of external information search. Motivated by
this finding, section three investigates the causal links in this
relationship.
3.1. Conceptual background
What potential mechanism may explain the relationship between
SEKG and the importance of external information search that was found
in section two? Consumers may feel the need to go beyond the internal
search and engage in the external search for a variety of reasons. One
such reason that may facilitate external search is the perceived risk of
consumption (Murray, 1991). That is, the higher the risk of consuming a
product, the higher the extent of the external search. Moreover, we
argue that consumption risk is positively correlated to SEKG since in­
dividuals with more hands-on experience with a product class—which is
the case with low-SEKG individuals on average—may underestimate the
UnstandardizedCoefficient S.E. P-Value
0.435 0.038 0.000
0.024 0.039 0.538
− 0.193 0.041 0.000
0.194 0.099 0.049
0.031 0.024 0.187
− 0.012 0.008 0.116
UnstandardizedCoefficient S.E. P-Value
0.464 0.226 0.040
S. Tajdini
risks associated with consuming the product as a result of growing more
and more comfortable with the product class and potentially blind to its
risks. The union of the last two sentences leads to the following hy­
pothesis, guided by the findings of previous studies (e.g., Gursoy, 2019;
Sharifpour, Walters, Ritchie, & Winter, 2014; Z. Zhang & Hou, 2017).
Hypothesis 4: The effects of consumption risk on the importance of
external search are significantly different across low- and high-SEKG
individuals. That is, SEKG moderates the consumption risk-external
search importance relationship.
But what constitutes consumption risk? While we can imagine a
myriad of individual-level and situational factors that influence con­
sumption risk, this study focuses on product characteristics that
constitute consumption risk. The advantage of this approach is the
managerial applicability of it. That is, while managers may not conve­
niently possess data on consumers’ individual-level and situational de­
terminants of consumption risk, they know about the characteristics of
their own products. For example, while managers may not know a
customer’s personality traits or if a product is purchased for self-
consumption or gift-giving, they naturally know the product’s charac­
teristics such as purchase size, history, rate of obsolescence, etc.
Through a comprehensive review of the literature, we identified four
specific product characteristics that may best constitute consumers’
consumption risk of a product: obsolescence rate, purchase size, product
variety, and public consumption. We purposely selected these charac­
teristics so as to tap into all of the four types of risk associated with the
consumption of a product—namely, financial, performance, physical,
and convenience risks (Peter & Tarpey, 1975), among others.
The obsolescence rate refers to how quickly a product becomes
Product’s
Public
Consumption
Product Variety
Consumption
Risk
Purchase Size
Product
Obsolescence
Rate
Fig. 2. The moderating effects of SEKG on the relationships among the product characteristics, consumption risk, and importance of external search.
71
Journal of Business Research 135 (2021) 66–77
obsolete. The more quickly obsolescence happens, the more frequently
the product needs to be replaced, thus leading to financial, time, and
convenience risks. Individuals may also feel social pressure when using
outdated products, leading to convenience risk. Moreover, obsolete
products may lack up-to-date safety features and pose physical risk to
the consumer. The next characteristic—purchase size—is self-
explanatory. This factor is directly related to the financial risk associ­
ated with consumption. Product variety may also influence the
perceived financial and performance risks in the sense that more variety
may increase purchase uncertainty as individuals may feel confused by
all the differences among product alternatives and fear making the
wrong choice. Lastly, public consumption refers to the degree to which a
product is used in a public setting (e.g., a car) or a private setting (e.g., a
toothbrush). The argument here can be that public consumption in­
creases the perceived risk since individuals use consumption as a
signaling mechanism (Price & Dawar, 2002; Warren & Mohr, 2019) and
the wrong product choice may send the wrong signal about the indi­
vidual to the public, constituting social/performance risk. In light of
these arguments, we put forth the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: The effects of product characteristics on consumption
risk are significantly different across low- and high-SEKG individuals.
That is, SEKG moderates the product characteristics-consumption risk
relationships.
Fig. 2 summarizes the conceptual model in section three of the study.
Moderator:
Subjective-Experiential-
Knowledge Gap (SEKG)
Importance
of External
Search
S. Tajdini
3.2. Method
3.2.1. Data, variables, measurements, and analysis
The data source and participants used in this section are identical to
those used in section two of the paper (see appendix A for de­
mographics). So, we do not repeat all of the details for the sake of
brevity. To measure the four product characteristics and consumption
risk, we borrowed scales from the literature, as shown in appendix B.
Multi-group SEM in AMOS 24 was used for the analysis, with the
median-split SEKG as the grouping variable. As explained in Section
2.2.2, we ensured that this arbitrary cutpoint does not lead to statistical
artifacts by affirming that the conclusions stay intact even if other
categorization cutpoints were used. Lastly, the statistical assumptions
were checked and affirmed in the manner explained in section two, and
will not be rehashed here for the sake of brevity.
3.3. Results
The fit indices indicated a good fit with the data (χ2 = 445.869,
degrees of freedom = 190; CMIN/DF = 2.347; CFI = 0.949; TLI = 0.936;
RMSEA = 0.053; HOELTER (α = 0.05) = 244). Table 2 shows the results
of the SEM analysis.
As can be seen in Table 2, there are several significant relationships
among the product characteristics, consumption risk, and importance of
external search, and some of these relationships are asymmetrical across
the low- and high-SEKG groups, interestingly. In particular, in panel A,
we can see that only in the high-SEKG group, purchase size has a sig­
nificant positive effect on consumption risk. Besides, only in the low-
SEKG group, public consumption and product variety have positive ef­
fects on consumption risk. As such, hypothesis 5 is essentially supported.
Looking at panel B, we can see that while consumption risk is positively
correlated to the importance of external search in the high-SEKG group,
this relationship is broken for the low-SEKG group. Therefore, hypoth­
esis 4 is supported.
3.4. Discussion
Results showed that for high-SEKG individuals, as purchase size in­
creases, the consumption risk increases, too. An explanation for this
relationship can be that high-SEKG individuals, who are less experi­
enced with a product class on average, consider its price ticket as a signal
of risk. For example, a higher ticket product may come with all sorts of
complex features that may be difficult to correctly understand, use and
maintain, leading to a fear of unknown outcomes (Holak & Lehmann,
1990). Moreover, a higher purchase size simply means higher financial
risk. On the contrary, for low-SEKG individuals, who are more experi­
enced with a product class on average, purchase size is not significantly
related to consumption risk. Interestingly, for these individuals, public
consumption is significantly and positively related to consumption risk.
Table 2
The differential effects of SEKG on the relationships among the product characteristics, consumption risk, and importance of external search.
Panel A. Dependent Variable: Consumption Risk
Low-SEKG group
Independent Variable Coefficient S.E.
Product variety 0.280 0.112
Public consumption 0.146 0.053
Purchase size 0.018 0.058
Rate of obsolescence 0.102 0.069
Panel B. Dependent Variable: The Importance of External Information Search
Low-SEKG group
Independent Variable Coefficient S.E.
Consumption risk − 0.027 0.225
72
Journal of Business Research 135 (2021) 66–77
What this means is that these individuals perceive the fact that the
product is consumed publicly as a significant source of consumption
risk, in line with previous evidence on the effects of social considerations
on information search behavior (Blummer & Kenton, 2014).
Perhaps more importantly, as seen in panel B, consumption risk is
significantly and positively correlated to the importance of external
search but only in the high-SEKG group. (The substantial difference
between the p-values across the two groups is especially noteworthy
here.) In other words, individuals who are less accurate in their self-
assessment of knowledge with a product class place more importance
on external information as consumption risk increases. That is, despite
their inflated subjective knowledge, their relatively limited first-hand
experience with a product class on average may make these in­
dividuals more risk-aware (Lawson, Gleim, Perren, & Hwang, 2016),
especially in light of larger purchase sizes and looming financial risks.
Under such circumstances, these individuals may place more impor­
tance on external information as a compensatory and risk-mitigating
mechanism, suggesting the existence of some kind of metacognitive
awareness of their flawed knowledge self-assessment. We also know
from table 1 that the high-SEKG group is more involved with the product
class. This higher involvement may also contribute to the increased
perceived risk in this group (Celsi & Olson, 1988; Chaudhuri, 2000). On
the contrary, low-SEKG individuals do not view increased consumption
risk as an impetus to engage in more external search perhaps because of
their higher levels of actual experience with the product class on
average. In this sense, these individuals can be called Risk Homo Ignorans
as their experience with a product class may have blinded them to the
need for an increased external search in presence of increased con­
sumption risk.
As a note for completeness, while some studies suggest a quadratic
relationship between experience and information search levels (e.g.,
Beatty & Smith, 1987), we did not find evidence of such a relationship in
our analyses.
4. General discussion and implications
This study introduced the metacognitive construct of subjective-
experiential knowledge gap (SEKG). Section two of the study showed
some of the individual-level determinants of SEKG. Moreover, it moti­
vated section three of the study by revealing that low- and high-SEKG
groups are significantly different in their perceived importance of
external information search. Section three should be generally inter­
preted as just one illustrative example of the nomological significance of
SEKG as it was demonstrated to moderate various relationships between
important behavioral variables. But specifically, this section examined
the moderating role of SEKG in the relationships between 1) consump­
tion risk and its product-related determinants, and 2) consumption risk
and the importance of external information search. In both cases, we
found substantial moderating effects of SEKG. In particular, for all of the
High-SEKG group
P-Value Coefficient S.E. P-Value
0.012 0.039 0.056 0.485
0.006 0.055 0.029 0.057
0.761 0.141 0.051 0.006
0.141 0.020 0.044 0.651
High-SEKG group
P-Value Coefficient S.E. P-Value
0.905 1.664 0.410 0.000
S. Tajdini
product characteristics with significant effects on consumption risk,
their effects were asymmetrical across the low- and high-SEKG groups.
Moreover, the consumption risk-external search importance relation­
ship held only in the high-SEKG group.
While the distinction between consumers’ subjective and experien­
tial knowledge has been previously recognized, to our best knowledge, it
has never been operationalized like it was in this research, studied as a
predictor of external search importance, as well as a moderator in the
relationships among consumption risk, its product-related determinants,
and external search importance. As such, the current study contributes
to literature both on consumption risk and information search, espe­
cially by viewing these phenomena through a metacognitive lens, as
recommended by Mothersbaugh, Feick, and Park (1995).
In addition, the current study provides another window to view the
consequences of human overconfidence and metacognitive flaws in
critical behavioral outcomes such as perceiving risks and pursuing risk-
mitigating information. In particular, this study painted a comprehen­
sive picture of how some product characteristics lead to perceived risk,
which in turn leads to the perceived importance of external information
search, and how the whole relationship is moderated by the gap between
individuals’ self-perceived and experience-based knowledge. In this
sense, the study sheds light on a wide section of the business value chain,
with implications for different business functions ranging from backend
product development to communications and brand management in the
forefront of the market. Additionally, the current study offers the liter­
ature a very simple way of measuring SEKG, using five survey items
modified from the literature.
From a managerial perspective, it is imperative to understand and
manage the levels of SEKG in consumers since, as evidence from the
current and previous studies shows, SEKG can be linked to important
business outcomes such as consumers’ risk perceptions, receptiveness
toward marketing messages, tendency to seek and spread word-of-
mouth to other consumers (Keller & Berry, 2003), and reliance on on­
line reviews, among others. In simple terms, if businesses wish their
messages to be seen and heard, they first need to understand what fac­
tors open their customers’ eyes and ears. This study shows SEKG to be
such a factor as it influences consumers’ perceived importance of mar­
keting messages. As such, leveraging SEKG as a tool to advance mar­
keting goals may require the development and implementation of
metacognitive interventions by marketers to manage customers’ sub­
jective and experiential knowledge perceptions.
Understanding the determinants of the external information search is
critical for businesses, if not for anything else, at least for one simple
reason: the internet, an external information source, is implicated here.
Given that a vast portion of the population uses the internet as a source
of information and mode of communication (Klobas & Clyde, 2000), the
internet has impacted the way businesses view and manage the flow of
information (Y. Zhang, 2005). This study offers businesses a view of how
the gap between individuals’ perceived and experiential knowledge may
influence their reliance on external information sources including the
internet. The clear implication here is that businesses need to manage
this gap and, thus, consumers’ risk perceptions if they wish to enhance
the reception and perception of their internet communications.
As alluded to above, this study links product characteristics to risk
perception and external search. As such, it not only has implications for
marketing but also for R&D departments. Specifically, this study shows
that purchase size, product variety, and public consumption influence
risk perceptions and, through that, external search. This finding calls for
closer cooperation between marketing and R&D departments to create
and market products that lead to desired qualities in consumers’ risk
perceptions and information search behavior.
Additionally, it has been shown that individuals with inflated sub­
jective knowledge are more likely to spread word-of-mouth about
products and brands (Keller & Berry, 2003). As such, this study, by
investigating the determinants of such inflated subjective knowledge
relative to actual knowledge, can help businesses identify potential
73
Journal of Business Research 135 (2021) 66–77
word-of-mouth spreaders to act as ambassadors and influencers for the
business, with prescriptions on the role of involvement, education, age,
gender, income, and tendency to appear socially desirable. Given the
importance of word-of-mouth to the business community (Bughin,
Doogan, & Vetvik, 2010), this practical contribution of the study may be
noteworthy.
Relatedly, this study has implications for public policy, too. One
example relates to the spread of false information and its consequences.
Based on the evidence from Keller and Berry (2003) and the findings of
the current study, we can conclude that individuals higher on SEKG may
be more willing to spread false information and create undesired social
trends. Leveraging the evidence on what leads to high SEKG values in
the current study, public policymakers can better predict the potential
spread(ers) of false information. As we have witnessed recently, the
spread of false information can have detrimental societal consequences,
for example concerning political elections or pandemics.
5. Conclusions, limitations and further research
This research focused on the metacognitive construct of subjective-
experiential knowledge gap (SEKG). Guided by the Elaboration Likeli­
hood Model, we investigated how motivation and ability to engage in
external search determine individuals’ level of SEKG. Specifically, we
found that involvement with a product is positively correlated with
SEKG. In addition, we observed evidence of higher SEKG among females
and younger individuals. We also found that the importance of external
search is significantly different between low- and high-SEKG
individuals.
Inspired by these findings, we embarked on a follow-up analysis to
learn more about this relationship. Guided by the literature on con­
sumption risk and information search, we tested a model of relationships
among consumption risk, its product-related determinants, and the
importance of external search, and the moderating effects of SEKG on
these relationships. We discovered that different product characteristics
constitute consumption risk across low- and high-SEKG individuals
distinctively. Specifically, we found that while high-SEKG individuals
consider product purchase size as a source of risk, low-SEKG individuals
do not recognize this relationship, and instead consider public con­
sumption and variety of a product as sources of risk. Additionally, and
perhaps more critically, we found that while high-SEKG individuals
place increasing importance on external search in presence of increasing
consumption risk, this link is broken in low-SEKG individuals.
Finally, the current research examined the phenomenon in the
context of a large number of product classes and all of the three major
types of external information sources, producing more generalizable
results that are also less likely to suffer from omitted variable biases,
unlike many of the previous related studies (e.g., Babić Rosario et al.,
2016; Huang et al., 2009; Moon et al., 2010; Zhu & Zhang, 2010).
The current research comes with its own limitations though. First, it
viewed the make-up of SEKG only from the lens of the Elaboration
Likelihood Model. We encourage the application of different theories to
identify other predictors of the construct. Second, we considered the role
of consumption risk as a mechanism tying SEKG to the importance of
external information search. While this was guided by the literature,
there may be other mechanisms at play. We encourage attempts to
discover potential alternative mechanisms. Moreover, we focused on the
role of product characteristics as determinants of consumption risk. We
encourage future research to investigate potentially differential effects
of SEKG on the relationships between consumption risk and its other
types of determinants, especially individual- and situation-dependent
determinants.
Next, while the operationalization of SEKG as the difference between
subjective and experiential knowledge availed us methodological,
interpretive, and communicative ease, it also came with the disadvan­
tage of not discriminating between different combinations of subjective
and experiential knowledge levels that determine membership in each of
S. Tajdini Journal of Business Research 135 (2021) 66–77

the low- and high-SEKG groups. Notably, this study classified all in­
dividuals high or low on both subjective and experiential knowledge as
low-SEKG. Thus, the results of this study may be insufficient for a more
granular inspection of the dynamics between subjective and experiential
knowledge as they affect consumers’ risk perceptions and information
search behavior. As such, the conclusions of this study must be inter­
preted in light of the fact that though the low-SEKG group is significantly
more experienced than the high-SEKG group on average (Mhigh-SEKG =
12.6, Mlow-SEKG = 36.9, p < .000), membership in the low-SEKG group
does not necessarily mean high levels of experience.
One of the findings of this study was that low- and high-SEKG in­
dividuals have very different perceptions of what product characteristics
constitute consumption risk. While this study did not investigate the
why of this observation, it may form a worthwhile impetus for a future
study. Lastly, research suggests that individuals engage in more infor­
mation search when searching on behalf of others (Liu, Polman, Liu, &
Jiao, 2018). Thus, we recommend the extension of the current study to
the context of information search for others. It may be enlightening to
examine how the perceptions of information search and consumption
risk may be affected differently by one’s self-assessment of knowledge
when the search is not for self but for others.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The data collection for this research was funded by a Dodson
Research Grant I received from the University of Texas at El Paso.

Appendix A. The demographics of the sample (N ¼ 487)

Demographic variables Count % Demographic variables Count %

Age Race
20–24 15 3.1 White/Caucasian 373 76.6
25–34 174 35.7 African American 23 4.7
35–44 136 27.9 Hispanic 28 5.7
45–54 98 20.1 Asian 62 12.7
55–64 51 10.5 Native American 0 0
65 or over 13 2.7 Pacific Islander 0 0
Missing 0 0 Other 1 0.2
Missing 0 0
Education Marital Status
Grammar School 0 0 Divorced 48 9.9
High school or Equivalent 74 15.2 Living with Another 66 13.6
Vocational/Technical school 46 9.4 Married 153 31.4
Some College Separated 2 0.4
College Graduate 151 31 Single 211 43.3
Master’s degree 172 35.3 Widowed 7 1.4
Doctoral Degree 41 8.4 Missing 0 0
Missing 3 0.6
0 0
Gender Residence
Female 188 38.6 United States 466 95.7
Male 299 61.4 Other 21 4.3
Missing 0 0 Missing 0 0
Income Employment
Under 10,000 29 6 Paid Employee 341 70
10,000–19,999 34 7 Self-employed 119 24.4
20,000–29,999 104 21.4 Not Working 27 5.6
30,000–39,999 98 20.1 Missing 0 0
40,000–49,999 32 6.6
50,000–74,999 129 26.5
75,000–99,999 15 3.1
100,000–150,000 34 7
Over 150,000 12 2.5
Missing 0 0

Appendix B. The scales used in the study

• Subjective knowledge (Component of SEKG) (adapted from Flynn and Goldsmith (1999))
1) I know pretty much about [product class]2.
2) I do not feel very knowledgeable about [product class] (RC3)
3) Compared to most other people, I know more about [product class].
• Experiential Knowledge (Component of SEKG)
1) How many [product class] have you purchased in the last 10 years?
2) How often have you purchased [product class] in the last 10 years?

2
Each respondent was asked to assume that s/he was going to purchase a given product, from a list of 14 different products.
3
Reverse-coded

74
S. Tajdini Journal of Business Research 135 (2021) 66–77

• Motivation to Search (Independent variable in section two of the study)

Enduring involvement (adapted from Novak et al. (2000))

1) The purchase of a [product class] is important to me.

2) The purchase of a [product class] is irrelevant to me (RC).
3) The purchase of a [product class] means a lot to me.
• Ability to Search (Independent variable in section two of the study)

Education

1) What is your highest education level?

Education was measured on 7 levels (coded from 1 to 7): High school or Equivalent, Vocational/Technical school, Some College, College Graduate,
Master’s degree, and Doctoral Degree.

• Information Source Importance (Dependent variable in section three of the study)

1) By moving the slider to the left (0) or right (10), indicate the relative importance of information from marketers prior to purchasing a [product
class]
2) By moving the slider to the left (0) or right (10), indicate the relative importance of information from your own memory prior to purchasing a
[product class]
3) By moving the slider to the left (0) or right (10), indicate the relative importance of information from others you personally know prior to
purchasing a ______.
4) By moving the slider to the left (0) or right (10), indicate the relative importance of information from others you do not personally know prior to
purchasing a ______.
• Product Characteristics (Independent variables in section three of the study)
Product variety (Lancaster, 1990)
There are only a few brands that dominate the market for this product class. (RC)
This product comes under many different names and brands.
When purchasing this product, your choice is limited to only a few brands/providers. (RC)
Rate of product obsolescence (Samiee & Roth, 1992)
This product has been almost the same for as long as I remember. (RC)
This product has been basically the same thing since inception. (RC)
There has been little change in this product over years. (RC)
Purchase size (Rao, 1969)
Purchase of this product requires a significant amount of money.
Regardless of one’s income, buying this product is a rather small purchase. (RC)
Purchase of this product is what I would call a small ticket purchase. (RC)
Public consumption (Bourne, 1957)
I use this product mainly in private. (RC)
This product is used in front of other people.
When I use this product, I’m usually by myself. (RC)
• Consumption Risk (Mediating variables in section three of the study) (Cox, Cox, & Zimet, 2006)
1) When purchasing this product, I pay little attention to the risk it imposes on my health. (RC)
2) Safety is an important consideration for me when buying this product.
3) Before purchase, I need to make sure that the ingredients/parts used in the product are safe.
• Social Desirability Bias- MRT Dimension (Control variable in section three of the study) (adapted from Delroy L. Paulhus (1991))
1) I sometimes tell lies if I have to. (RC)
2) I never cover up my mistakes.
3) I always obey laws, even if I am unlikely to get caught.
4) I have said something bad about a friend behind his or her back. (RC)
5) When I hear people talking privately, I avoid listening.
6) have received too much change from a salesperson without telling him or her. (RC)
7) When I was young, I sometimes stole things. (RC)
8) I have done things that I don’t tell other people about. (RC)
9) I never take things that don’t belong to me.
10) I don’t gossip about other people’s business.

References
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2000). Knowledge calibration: What consumers know
and what they think they know. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 123–156.
Babić Rosario, A., Sotgiu, F., De Valck, K., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2016). The effect of
electronic word of mouth on sales: A meta-analytic review of platform, product, and
metric factors. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(3), 297–318.
Baek, T. H., Kim, J., & Yu, J. H. (2010). The differential roles of brand credibility and
brand prestige in consumer brand choice. Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 662–678.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1983). A holistic methodology for modeling consumer response to
innovation. Operations Research, 31(1), 128–176.

75
S. Tajdini
Barrafrem, K., Västfjäll, D., & Tinghög, G. (2020). Financial Homo Ignorans: Measuring
vulnerability to behavioral biases in household finance.. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.
io/q43ca.
Beatty, S. E., & Smith, S. M. (1987). External search effort: An investigation across
several product categories. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(1), 83–95.
Bettman, J. R. (1979). Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Co: Addison-
Wesley Pub.
Bettman, J. R., & Park, C. W. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and
phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis.
Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 234–248.
Bhatnagar, A., & Ghose, S. (2004). Online information search termination patterns across
product categories and consumer demographics. Journal of Retailing, 80(3), 221–228.
Bloch, P. H. (1981). An exploration into the scaling of consumers’ involvement with a
product class. ACR North American Advances.
Blummer, B., & Kenton, J. M. (2014). Improving student information search: A metacognitive
approach. Chandos Publishing.
Bourne, F. S. (1957). Group influence in marketing and public relations. In R. Likert, &
S. P. Hayes (Eds.), Some Applications of Behavioral Research (pp. 207–255). Basil,
Switzerland: Unesco.
Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 1–16.
Bughin, J., Doogan, J., & Vetvik, O. J. (2010). A new way to measure word-of-mouth
marketing. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 113–116.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2016). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new
source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Methodological
issues and strategies in clinical research (pp. 133–139). American Psychological
Association.
Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and
comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210–224.
Chakravarti, A., & Janiszewski, C. (2003). The influence of macro-level motives on
consideration set composition in novel purchase situations. Journal of Consumer
Research, 30(2), 244–258.
Chang, S.-J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common
method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business
Studies, 41, 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.88.
Chaudhuri, A. (2000). A macro analysis of the relationship of product involvement and
information search: The role of risk. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 8(1),
1–15.
Choi, J. W. (1993). Exploring heterogeneity in consumer search patterns. Retrieved from
http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/
fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqm&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:9409658.
Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7(3),
249–253.
Cox, A. D., Cox, D., & Zimet, G. (2006). Understanding consumer responses to product
risk information. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 79–91.
Dhar, V., & Chang, E. A. (2009). Does chatter matter? The impact of user-generated
content on music sales. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 300–307.
Dholakia, U. M. (2001). A motivational process model of product involvement and
consumer risk perception. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1340–1362.
Dodd, T. H., Laverie, D. A., Wilcox, J. F., & Duhan, D. F. (2005). Differential effects of
experience, subjective knowledge, and objective knowledge on sources of
information used in consumer wine purchasing. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 29(1), 3–19.
Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (1986). Consumer Behaviour. New York:
Dryden Press.
Etkin, J. (2016). Choosing variety for joint consumption. Journal of Marketing Research,
53(6), 1019–1033.
Fellner, G., & Maciejovsky, B. (2007). Risk attitude and market behavior: Evidence from
experimental asset markets. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(3), 338–350.
Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). A short, reliable measure of subjective
knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 46(1), 57–66.
Garinther, A., Mayorga, M., Västfjäll, D., & Slovic, P. (2019). Information spotlighting in
Americans’ Decisions Surrounding Refugee resettlement Policy. Journal of Refugee
Studies.
Golman, R., Hagmann, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2017). Information avoidance. Journal of
Economic Literature, 55(1), 96–135.
Gursoy, D. (2019). A critical review of determinants of information search behavior and
utilization of online reviews in decision making process. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 76, 53–60.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate
data analysis, (Vol. 5):. NJ: Prentice hall Upper Saddle River.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago press.
Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in
choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(1), 5–28.
Hertwig, R., & Engel, C. (2016). Homo ignorans: Deliberately choosing not to know.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 359–372.
Holak, S. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (1990). Purchase intentions and the dimensions of
innovation: An exploratory model. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An
international publication of the product development & management association, 7(1),
59–73.
Huang, P., Lurie, N. H., & Mitra, S. (2009). Searching for experience on the web: An
empirical examination of consumer behavior for search and experience goods.
Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 55–69.
76
Journal of Business Research 135 (2021) 66–77
Hwang, H., Malhotra, N. K., Kim, Y., Tomiuk, M. A., & Hong, S. (2010). A comparative
study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling.
Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 699–712.
Iacobucci, D., Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., Schneider, M. J., & Popovich, D. L. (2015).
Toward a more nuanced understanding of the statistical properties of a median split.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(4), 652–665.
Jansen, R. J. G., Curşeu, P. L., Vermeulen, P. A. M., Geurts, J. L. A., & Gibcus, P. (2013).
Information processing and strategic decision-making in small and medium-sized
enterprises: The role of human and social capital in attaining decision effectiveness.
International Small Business Journal, 31(2), 192–216.
Keller, E., & Berry, J. (2003). The influentials: One American in ten tells the other nine how to
vote, where to eat, and what to. buy: Simon and Schuster.
Kenny, D. A. (2020). Measuring Model Fit. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/cm/
fit.htm.
Kim, W. J., & King, K. W. (2009). Product category effects on external search for
prescription and nonprescription drugs. Journal of Advertising, 38(1), 5–20.
Klein, L. R., & Ford, G. T. (2003). Consumer search for information in the digital age: An
empirical study of prepurchase search for automobiles. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 17(3), 29–49.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford
publications.
Klobas, J. E., & Clyde, L. A. (2000). Adults learning to use the Internet: A longitudinal
study of attitudes and other factors associated with intended Internet use. Library &
Information Science Research, 22(1), 5–34.
Kokkinaki, F. (1999). Predicting product purchase and usage: The role of perceived
control, past behavior and product involvement. ACR North American Advances, 26,
576–583.
Koriat, A. (2007). Metacognition and Consciousness. In P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch, &
E. Thompson (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness (pp. 289–325). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lancaster, K. (1990). The economics of product variety: A survey. Marketing Science, 9(3),
189–206.
Lavoie, M. (2004). Post Keynesian consumer theory: Potential synergies with consumer
research and economic psychology. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(5), 639–649.
Lawson, S. J., Gleim, M. R., Perren, R., & Hwang, J. (2016). Freedom from ownership: An
exploration of access-based consumption. Journal of Business Research, 69(8),
2615–2623.
Lei, M., & Lomax, R. G. (2005). The effect of varying degrees of nonnormality in
structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(1), 1–27.
Lind, T., Ahmed, A., Skagerlund, K., Strömbäck, C., Västfjäll, D., & Tinghög, G. (2020).
Competence, Confidence, and Gender: The Role of Objective and Subjective
Financial Knowledge in Household Finance. Journal of Family and Economic Issues,
1–13.
Liu, Y., Polman, E., Liu, Y., & Jiao, J. (2018). Choosing for others and its relation to
information search. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 147,
65–75.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Cai, L. (2006). Testing differences between nested
covariance structure models: Power analysis and null hypotheses. Psychological
Methods, 11(1), 19.
Maheswaran, D., & Sternthal, B. (1990). The effects of knowledge, motivation, and type
of message on ad processing and product judgments. Journal of Consumer Research,
17(1), 66–73.
Maity, M., Dass, M., & Kumar, P. (2018). The impact of media richness on consumer
information search and choice. Journal of Business Research, 87, 36–45.
Micceri, T. (1989). The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures.
Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 156.
Moon, S., Bergey, P. K., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Dynamic effects among movie ratings,
movie revenues, and viewer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 108–121.
Mothersbaugh, D. L., Feick, L. F., & Park, C. W. (1995). Subjective and Objective Knowledge
and Their Consequences: Limits of Experimental Approaches. Provo, UT: Paper
presented at the The Association for Consumer Research.
Murray, K. B. (1991). A test of services marketing theory: Consumer information
acquisition activities. Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 10–25.
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y.-F. (2000). Measuring the customer experience in
online environments: A structural modeling approach. Marketing Science, 19(1),
22–42.
Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: Tata McGraw-hill.
Packard, G., & Wooten, D. B. (2013). Compensatory knowledge signaling in consumer
word-of-mouth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 434–450.
Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Balanced inventory of desirable responding (BIDR). Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy. Measures Package, 41, 79586–79587.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson,
P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social
psychological attitudes (Vol. 1, pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Peter, J. P., & Tarpey, L. X. (1975). A comparative analysis of three consumer decision
strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(1), 29–37.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease
persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1915.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on
attitude of advertising content and context. ACR North American Advances, 8, 20–24.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion:
Application to advertising. Advertising and Consumer Psychology, 1, 3–23.
Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., Fabrigar, L. R., Priester, J. R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1993).
Conceptual and methodological issues in the elaboration likelihood model of
S. Tajdini
persuasion: A reply to the Michigan State critics: Specifying the ELM. Communication
Theory, 3(4), 336–342.
Pillai, K. G., Brusco, M., Goldsmith, R., & Hofacker, C. (2015). Consumer knowledge
discrimination. European Journal of Marketing.
Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review
of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 885
(879), 10–1037.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.
Price, L. J., & Dawar, N. (2002). The joint effects of brands and warranties in signaling
new product quality. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(2), 165–190.
Rao, T. R. (1969). Consumer’s purchase decision process: Stochastic models. Journal of
Marketing Research, 6(3), 321–329.
Ratchford, B. T. (2001). The economics of consumer knowledge. Journal of Consumer
Research, 27(4), 397–411.
Ratchford, B. T., Lee, M.-S., & Talukdar, D. (2003). The impact of the Internet on
information search for automobiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 193–209.
Richins, M. L., & Bloch, P. H. (1986). After the new wears off: The temporal context of
product involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 280–285.
Samiee, S., & Roth, K. (1992). The influence of global marketing standardization on
performance. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 1–17.
Schmidt, J. B., & Spreng, R. A. (1996). A proposed model of external consumer
information search. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(3), 246–256.
Sharifpour, M., Walters, G., Ritchie, B. W., & Winter, C. (2014). Investigating the role of
prior knowledge in tourist decision making: A structural equation model of risk
perceptions and information search. Journal of Travel Research, 53(3), 307–322.
Simonson, I., & Rosen, E. (2014). What marketers misunderstand about online reviews.
Harvard Business Review, 92(1), 7.
Solomon, M. R. (2009). Marketing: Real people, real decisions. Pearson Education.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (2000). On the use of structural equation
models for marketing modeling. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17
(2–3), 195–202.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., De Jong, M. G., & Baumgartner, H. (2010). Socially desirable
response tendencies in survey research. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2),
199–214.
Stevens, J. P. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Routledge.
77
Journal of Business Research 135 (2021) 66–77
Sweeny, K., Melnyk, D., Miller, W., & Shepperd, J. A. (2010). Information avoidance:
Who, what, when, and why. Review of General Psychology, 14(4), 340–353.
Tinghög, G., Andersson, D., Bonn, C., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Koppel, L., &
Västfjäll, D. (2016). Intuition and moral decision-making–the effect of time pressure
and cognitive load on moral judgment and altruistic behavior. PLoS ONE, 11(10).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164012.
Vigar-Ellis, D., Pitt, L., & Berthon, P. (2015). Knowing what they know: A managerial
perspective on consumer knowledge. Business Horizons, 58(6), 679–685.
Warren, C., & Mohr, G. S. (2019). Ironic consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 46
(2), 246–266.
Westfall, P. H., & Henning, K. S. S. (2013). Texts in statistical science: Understanding
advanced statistical methods. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476–487.
Wilson, T. D. (1981). On user studies and information needs. Journal of. Documentation.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Familiarity: Product use, involvement or expertise? ACR North
American Advances, 12, 296–299.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of Advertising, 15(2),
4–34.
Zeugner-Roth, K. P., Žabkar, V., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2015). Consumer ethnocentrism,
national identity, and consumer cosmopolitanism as drivers of consumer behavior: A
social identity theory perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 23(2), 25–54.
Zhang, Y. (2005). Age, gender, and Internet attitudes among employees in the business
world. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(1), 1–10.
Zhang, Z., & Hou, Y. (2017). The effect of perceived risk on information search for
innovative products and services: The moderating role of innate consumer
innovativeness. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34(3), 241–254.
Zhu, F., & Zhang, X. (2010). Impact of online consumer reviews on sales: The moderating
role of product and consumer characteristics. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 133–148.
Saeed Tajdini received his PhD in Business Administration from the University of Texas El
Paso in 2017 and since has been an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Indiana University
Southeast. Saeed mainly teaches international business, principles of marketing, and data
analytics courses. Saeed’s research has been published in the Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, the Academy of Marketing Science Review, the Qualitative Market Research:
An International Journal, as well as the Journal of Marketing Analytics.