Original Research

Even when it feels difficult to think why I like you, I still do: The role of content, cognitive feelings and thinking systems on the evaluation of close and prominent brands

Rogelio Puente-Diaz, Judith Cavazos-Arroyo
South African Journal of Business Management | Vol 51, No 1 | a1327 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v51i1.1327 | © 2020 Rogelio Puente-Diaz, Judith Cavazos-Arroyo | This work is licensed under CC Attribution 4.0
Submitted: 14 November 2018 | Published: 30 January 2020

About the author(s)

Rogelio Puente-Diaz, School of Business and Economics, Universidad Anáhuac México, North Campus, Naucalpan de Juárez, Mexico
Judith Cavazos-Arroyo, Interdisciplinary Center for Postgraduate Research, Popular Autonomous University, Puebla, Mexico


Purpose: The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the influence of recalling many versus few brand attributes on brand evaluations, the mediating role of ease of recall and whether this mediated effect was moderated by thinking styles across two brands of cellphones: iPhone and Galaxy.

Design/methodology/approach: We used a between subjects experimental design to manipulate the amount of information brought to mind of the cellphone brands participants currently own.

Findings/results: Results for iPhone™ showed a positive influence of bringing to mind many brand qualities on brand evaluations. This effect was partially mediated by ease of recall. Results for Galaxy™ not only showed a non-significant direct effect but also a significant indirect effect mediated by ease of recall. Lastly, the mediated effect of bringing to mind more information on brand evaluations of iPhone™ was moderated by experiential and rational thinking.

Practical implications: Results showed the importance of metacognitive experiences for understanding the evaluation of brands.

Originality/value: Our findings have important implications for understanding how consumers evaluate close and prominent brands.


ease of recall; content; brands; cognitive feelings; thinking styles.


Total abstract views: 3213
Total article views: 3673

Crossref Citations

No related citations found.