{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021181001283697046, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005134788189987163, 'mean_word_length': 5.261044176706827, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Changes in Explicit Information and Brand Perceptions

Consumers' perceptions of alternative brands in the marketplace depend upon the amount of available information. Past research in marketing on brand perceptions generally involved describing stimuli only by their brand names [4, 5, 7, 10]. In two studies where variations were tried, results were different. In the first, a study of self-concept and brand preference, subjects shown color photographs of automobiles did not respond differently in their similarities judgments from those given only brand names [6]. In the second, a study of price and product quality, the judgments of the group receiving a profile on two attributes, as well as brand names, yielded significantly different configurations from those of the group responding only to brand names. The difference was the higher weight assigned to quality dimensions by the former group [11]. These two results provide support for the contention that differences in the configurations are caused by differences in the kind of explicit stimulus information presented. There is no systematic research, however, to guide practitioners and researchers as to how stimuli ought to be presented (what information should be given to the subjects) and as to what particular differences would be caused by varied information. This study attempted to bridge this gap by considering two kinds of explicit information, semantic descriptions and attribute profiles of brands. This information was presented both in place of and in addition to brand names.