Introduction As many as 44 million people cannot read a newspaper or fill out a job application and another 50 million more cannot read or comprehend above the eighth grade level in the U.S. (Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad 1993). While basic literacy rates may increase, the percent of adults who have sufficient literacy skills to function adequately in that society may decrease. But a more serious problem that the US is experiencing is the increasing number of people who are aliterate. The aliteracy phenomenon is “increasing numbers of capable readers who are regularly choosing not to read”(Mikulecky, 1978, p.3). Aliteracy is on the rise internationally (Merga, 2014). Less than 66% of Hong Kong’s citizens (Anon., 2011) and less than 50% of Italians (Istat, 2010) reported reading a book in 2010. Aliterate consumer can read. However, while aliterate consumers are capable readers, they may display similar reading outcomes (i.e. poor comprehension) to illiterate or low-literate consumers (i.e., consumers who are not capable readers). We explore underlying reading processes of aliterate consumers from a level of processing perspective (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Greenwald & Leavitt, 1984). Conceptual Background and Hypotheses Level of processing ranges from shallow to deep. Shallow processing consists of attending to phonetic and orthographic components. Deeper processing involves using semantic processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Greater depth of processing thus entails a higher degree of cognitive involvement for the purpose of comprehension. Deeper processing at the semantic task level results in longer processing time and better memory performance (Gardiner, 1974). Conversely, when readers engage in shallow processing, memory performance is reduced (Treisman, 1964, 1969). For instance, in an advertising context, Saegert (1979) finds that deeper processing of ads resulted in greater recall and recognition. As detailed, literature on reading suggests that aliterate processors do not process written texts at a deep level, preferring instead to skim and scan (Duchei & Mealy 1993). In the domain of consumer behavior in general, and product warnings in particular, consumer aliteracy suggests a shallow level of processing of written marketing materials that will be observable from both a process and an outcome standpoint. In terms of process, aliterate consumers lower level of processing will be manifest in less time spent processing product warnings. As an outcome, comprehension of written product warnings should decrease as consumer aliteracy increases and time spent processing decreases. These baseline differences between more- and less- aliterate consumers is formalized as Hypotheses 1-3. H1. Consumers with higher consumer aliteracy levels will spend less time processing written product warnings. H2. Consumers with higher consumer aliteracy levels will have lower comprehension of written product warnings. H3. Time spent processing written product warnings will mediate the relationship between consumer aliteracy and comprehension of product warnings. Method Sample and Procedure One hundred sixty-one students from a large Southeastern university participated in an online survey. The sample was 51 % female and 57% white/Caucasian. Participants were asked to review an ad for fabric softener and then asked to respond to ten comprehension questions regarding the product warning that was prominent in the ad. Respondents were also asked to evaluate the extent to which they agreed (i.e., seven-point scale) with each of the five-items of the aliteracy scale (Jae & Ferguson 2010). Finally, participants were asked to complete a reading ability scale (Reading Level Indicator, 2000) and demographic information. Stimuli Two versions of ads for a fictitious laundry softener product called “Visatia”were used as the experimental stimuli. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the ad conditions. Both ads featured a picture of a product package a statement about the product’s performance (e.g., you can have a fresh feeling every day with Visatia), and product warning information. The ads differed only in the amount and complexity of information provided regarding product performance. A longer and more difficult version of the product claims and a shorter and less complex version of the product claims were used to ensure that differences between more- and less-aliterate consumers did not arise only for ads of a certain length or complexity. Measures Ten comprehension questions were designed to test how well participants understood the product-warning statements in the ads. Each question offered four answer choices. To measure overall comprehension, each question was scored 1 for the correct answer and 0 for the incorrect answer. The five-item aliteracy scale (Jae & Ferguson, 2010) was measured with seven- point Likert scales (strongly disagree/strongly agree). Participants a reading ability test comprised of twenty vocabulary and twenty sentence completion questions (Reading level indicator, 2000). Participants’time spent in reviewing the ads containing the product warnings was measured electronically. Results The average participant spent 30.29 seconds reviewing the stimuli (e.g., product warning), earned 7 out of 10 on product warning comprehension, and achieved 35 out of 40 on the reading ability index. The Consumer Aliteracy Scale demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .822). Data were collapsed across ad length/complexity conditions after failing to observe differences in processing across the two ads (p > .1). Path analysis was used to test Hypotheses 1-3. Path analysis allowed us to test multiple relationships consecutively and to test for mediating relationships (Iacobucci, Saldanha, & Deng, 2007). The model was estimated with direct and indirect paths included. The fit statistics were acceptable (i.e., χ2= 10.65, df = 13, p = 0.64, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR = 0.03) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). To test Hypotheses 1-3, including the mediating effect of time on the aliteracy—product warning comprehension relationship, we estimated the direct effects of aliteracy on product warning comprehension, as well as, the indirect effects of aliteracy on time and of time on product warning comprehension simultaneously. Hypothesis two is supported as aliteracy has a direct, negative effect on product warning comprehension (γ21=-0.245, p <.01). The indirect path of aliteracy to time and time to product warning were also significant. Specifically, Hypothesis three is supported in that consumers who reported higher levels of aliteracy spent less time viewing the product warnings (γ11=-0.191, p <.05), and consumers who spent less time viewing the product warnings scored lower on product warning comprehension (β21= 0.294, p <.01). With significant indirect paths, a significant direct path, and a significant Sobel z (i.e., z =2.013, p <.05), we conclude that time spent viewing product warning partially mediates the relationship between aliteracy and product warning comprehension. The Hypothesis three is supported. Correlation analysis indicates that aliteracy level is not correlated with reading ability level (i.e., r = -.03, p =.70). This suggests evidence that aliteracy is not a function of reading ability. Discussion While aliteracy may be a growing phenomenon, the extant research on the topic is limited. From the viewpoint of consumers, aliteracy could lead to unwise product selection, dangerous misuse of products, product dissatisfaction, and wasted time and money. Aliteracy, by definition, is not an ability issue rather motivation issue. Even though capable readers, aliterate consumers reading comprehension is significantly below non-aliterate consumers, a similar outcome pattern observed for low-literate consumers relative to high-literate consumers (Jae & DelVecchio 2004). Due to their lack of reading habit, aliterate consumers do not take full advantage of available information in the marketplace. The current study demonstrates that aliterate consumers display significantly different reading outcomes relative to non-aliterate consumers; differences that are not driven by reading ability. Aliterate consumers spend less time reading and, in turn, achieve a lower level of comprehension of written product warnings relative to non-aliterate consumers. Thus, the study reveals that aliterate consumers may mirror the reading outcomes of low-literate consumers in reading product warnings who demonstrate poor comprehension relative to literate consumers.