brand name effects on inter product similarity judgments

8/6/2019 Brand Name Effects on Inter Product Similarity Judgments

1/10

Brand Name Effects on Interproduct Similarity JudgmentsAuthor(s): David M. BoushSource: Marketing Letters, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Oct., 1997), pp. 419-427Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40216468 .

Accessed: 12/04/2011 09:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toMarketing Letters.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40216468?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40216468?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer


2/10

Marketingetters :4 (1997): 419-427 1997 KluwerAcademicPublishers, anufacturednTheNetherlands

BrandNameEffectsnInterproductimilarityJudgmentsDAVID M. BOUSH*Departmentf Marketing,harlesH. Lundquist ollege ofBusiness,Universityf Oregon, ugene,OR97403-1208,Tel:541 346 3358,[email protected]

AbstractData arepresented emonstratinghat imilarityudgments etween airsofproduct ategories an be asym-metricalnd that rand ame ssociations anreversehedirection fasymmetry.randname ssociations an,butdo notnecessarily,ncrease erceived imilarityetween roductategories. he results upportheviewthat imilarityudgments etween roductategoriesrehighly elativend context ependent. ecause simi-larity lays keyrole nmodelsof affect ransferetween randed roducts,imilaritysymmetryas directimplicationsor rand xtensiontrategy.ompaniesmay e abletominimize he isk f brand xtension o coreproductsy accentuatinghevariant tatus ftheextensions.Keywords: Categorization,rand xtension,imilarity

The conceptofsimilarity lays a fundamental ole inmodels ofhumancognition,no lessso in thatpartofthestudyof cognition hatrelates to consumerbehavior.Explanationsoftheway people think bout advertising, ackaging,products, nd sales pitches generallyassume similarreactions o similarthings.One marketingrea of recent nterestnwhichsimilarity xplicitlyhas played a dominant ole concerns evaluationofnew products hatcarryan existingbrand name (brand extensions).Previous research on brand extensionhas relied heavily on the importanceof similarityrelationshipsbetween the existingrepresentationf thebrandand theproposed extensions Aaker and Keller 1990; Boushand Loken 1991; Keller and Aaker 1992). One of the centralprinciplesthathas emergedis that imilaritynfluences he transfer fpositiveaffect rom he brand's existingprod-ucts to brand extensions.Aaker and Keller (1990), followingthe terminology sed byTauber 1988) discussed brand extension imilarity s "fit," nd focused on higherorderjudgmentsabout the usefulness of a brand's skills and resources,the substitutabilityfexisting nd extensionproducts, nd thecomplementarityforiginaland extensionprod-ucts (see also Sunde and Brodie 1993). Boush and Loken (1991), incorporatingmoreexplicitlya categorizationframework, iscussed similarity s the extent to which thebrand xtension s typicalof thecategoryrepresented ythebrandname.The terminologyof similarityn consumer researchhas been expanded to include "brandconceptconsis-tency," he similarity etween a new product categoryand what a brandmeans to con-sumers Park,Milberg,and Lawson 1991) and "brandbreadth," he similarity mong abrand's existingproducts Boush and Loken 1991; Sheinin and Schmitt1994). Similarity


3/10


4/10

BRAND NAME EFFECTS ON INTERPRODUCT SIMILARITY JUDGMENTS 42 11.1. Featural basesOne basis oftypicalitys the number f features hat bjects share witheach other. haredfeaturesunderlie the notionof "familyresemblance" and of some computationsof theextent o whichan object is typicalof a category Rosch, Simpson and Miller 1976). InTverskys (1977) contrastmodel, similaritys based on some combinationof features hatmatch (i.e. thatobjects share) and features hatare distinctive i.e. thatobjects do notshare).That is,S(a,b), thesimilarity etweenobjectsa and ft,s a function f {A fl B), thefeatures heyhave in common,minus both{A - B), thedistinctive eatures fA, and (B- A\ thedistinctive eatures f B. Stated moreformally,(a,b) = Qf[A IB)- af(A -B) - $f{B - A), where 0, a, and p > 0. The parameters6, a, and p are weightsrepresentinghe importance f the individual feature ets in the similarityudgmentandthe/ function n the model represents he salience of features nd their contribution osimilarity. significantmplicationofTversky's 1977) contrastmodel is that tpredictsasymmetriesn similarityudgments. In a frequently-citedxample Tverskyfound thatsubjectsratedNorth Korea as more similarto Red China than Red China was to NorthKorea. This purportedly ccurred because of "the relative salience of the stimuli;thevariant s more similar to theprototype han vice versa" (p. 328). Again, moreformally,ifwe let "0" be thesubjectand "ft"be the referentn the sentence frame tf s similartoft" hen, ssumingthat hesubjectis more salient than the referenti.e., a > P) itfollowsthat (a,b) > S(b,a) iff (B) > j{A).There are several interestingmplicationsof Tverskys model forproduct similarity.First, imilarityudgmentsbetween twoproduct ategories maybe asymmetricalfone isconsideredtobe theprototype nd theother he variant. econd, associationwith brandmayreverse heasymmetryfsimilarityudgments.This could occur if a particular randhas a prototypical roductthat is not viewed as prototypical utside the context of thebrand.Third,brandnamesmay,bythemselves, ncreaseperceived similarity etweentwoproducts.This could occur eitherby increasingthe salience of common features r byadding a common feature o both (most obviously,the brand name itself could be per-ceived as a common feature).The contrastmodel has been demonstrated or consumerproducts Johnson1986) butthe effects f brand names on product imilarity symmetryare new to the literature.

1.2. FramesBarsalou (1983; 1985) emphasized the role of motivation nd context n framing imi-larity udgments.Sets of similarobjects, termed"ad hoc" or "goal-directed" categories,have some of the propertiesfound in more common categories, such as prototypicalexamples.However, he mosttypicalmembersof thesecategories e.g. "foods youcannoteat on a diet") are determinednotby sharedfeatures, utby extreme values on a singledimension,e.g. calories). Barsalou notedthatgoal-directed ategoriesgenerally ppeartoviolatethe correlational tructure ftheenvironment,requentlyncluding ome membersfrom ach of severalcommon taxonomiccategories. For example, ice creamand potato


5/10

422 DAVIDM. BOUSHchipsbothmaybe typical f "foodsyou cannot at while on a diet.")His findingsemphasize heflexibilityf categorizationrocesses, nd the ease withwhich ertaincategories an be generated orparticular urposes.Medin,Goldstone,nd Gentner(1993) used a framing erspectiveo ustifyhesame kindofasymmetricalimilarityjudgmentseported yTversky.hey argued hat lements f thecomparison rocessitselfwereresponsibleor heasymmetries.n the consumer ehavioriterature,othtypicalityudgmentsbout roducts,nduseofproductss referents,avebeenfoundodepend ncontext ndgoal (Huffman,tal. 1990;Ward nd Loken1988).2. HypothesesBrand ameshavebeen hownoconvey varietyf nformationbout he roducts ithwhich heyreassociated uch s the evelofexpected roductuality,ttributionsboutbuyersf heproducts,ndproduct riginLoken,Ross, nd Hinkle 986).Wemightlsoexpect common rand ametoprime articularttributesr values of a productat-egory. s SchmittndDubedemonstrated,brand amemay ringo mindttributeshattwo ategories ouldnot therwise ave ncommon.Muchofthepreviousiteratureasdealtwithwhatmakes goodbrand ame, ndconsequentlyelied nphonetic ymbol-ism or otheringuisticheoreticalases. Here we arenot oncerned ith he ffect f aparticularrand ame, utwith hegeneralffectf a common rand ame nsimilarityorevaluativeudgments.pecifically e willargue hat ne effect f a common randname s tosignal oconsumershat heproducts similar o other roductsrrepresen-tationsf thebrand nsomerespects.herefore,Hypothesis : A common rand amewill ncrease erceptionsf imilarityetween woproducts.Previous esearchTversky 977;Medin,Goldstone,ndGentner 993)has demon-stratedimilaritysymmetriesetween rototypendvariant. ariantsndprototypesreas likely o exist mong roductss they re nother ategoriesfobjects. or xample,a magazinemaybe seenas a variantf a book, frozen essert s a variant f a frozendinner,unninghoes as a variant fsportswear.herefore e should xpect hefollow-ing:Hypothesis : Pairwise imilarityudgmentsetween roductategoriesmaybe asym-metrical.pecifically,hevariant illbe perceiveds more imilar o theprototypicalproducthan hereverse.Natural ategorytructurend brand ategorytructurerenotnecessarilyhe ame.Therelativerominencefproductsssociatedwith brand robablyasmore o do withwhere hebrand stablishedtself irstr best hanwith aturalategorytructure.ime,Inc.hasextended rommagazinesnto ooks;Adidas,from unninghoes nto lothing.In suchcases thepatternfextensioneems ikelyoreverse herolesofprototypendvariant,ndconsequentlyo reverseheexpected irection f similaritysymmetry.nnaturalroductategorytructureagazinesmightlausiblye consideredo bevariants


6/10

BRAND NAME EFFECTS ON INTERPRODUCT SIMILARITY JUDGMENTS 423andbooks theprototype.owever, imemagazine s prototypical;ime booksare thevariant.herefore epredicthat:Hypothesis : Brandnames can reversesymmetriesn similarityudgmentsetweenproductategories.3. Method5.1.PretestThepurpose fthe retest as toselect roductategoriesor sein themain tudies ndtoverifyhat hepopulation asfamiliar ith ertainrand ames.For ach brand amea product ategorywas selected o representheprototypef the brand nd anotherproductorepresentlesstypical ariant.ubjectswere 6 studentsn anundergraduateconsumerehaviorlass. Each subjectwasgiven listof 23 brand ames nd asked:1)"Theproducthat ou hinks most ypicalf he rand"nd2) "Anotherroducthat outhinkarrieshe amebrand ame ut snot s typicalf he rand." heresultingroductlistsverifiedamiliarityith he brands hosen nd also provided learly rototypicalproductategoriesor achbrand. he 20 brandsnd heirespectiverototypicalnd esstypical roductshatwere hosenfor nclusions re shownnTables1 and 2.3.2.MainstudyIn orderest he hree ypothesestatedbove, 5 studentsn anundergraduatentroduc-torymarketinglassparticipatedn a two-partxperiment.n thefirstart ) presence fbrand ame ndb) order fprototypend variant eremanipulateds between-subjectsvariableswith wolevels each. That s, half thesubjectsrated heir greement ithTable1. Agreement ith imilaritytatementsorBranded ndUnbranded roductsStatementfagreement Mean rating randed Meanrating nbrandedA crackers like a cookie Keebler)a 4.32 3.43Shampoo s likesoap (Ivory) 4.84 5.28Diet cola is likeregular ola (Coke) 2.97 2.55A motorcycles like a car Honda)" 4.21 2.87A VCR is like a radio Sony)a 4.05 2.00Crackersre ikecereal Nabisco) 3.82 3.11Clothes re ike watchesSwatch)* 4.84 3.51Spaghettiauce is likesoup Campbell's) 3.61 3.66Homeappliances re like et engines G.E.) 2.66 2.09Athletichoesare likeclothingNike)a 6.74 4.70Copiers re ikecomputersXerox) 4.71 4.62*Mean imilarityignificantlyigher orbranded roup, < .05.


7/10

424 DAVID M. BOUSHTable2. Choice ofSentencesWith ndWithout randNames andWithPrototypendVariant eversedBrand StatementfSimilarity Branded,% Unbranded,Jello* gelatin s likepudding ops 18.9 63.0pudding opsare likegelatin 81.1 37.0Sara Leea dinnersre ikecakes 75.7 36.2cakes are like dinners 24.3 63.8Time" magazinesare ike books 21.1 85.1books are ikemagazines 78.9 14.9Levi's shirtsre like eans 92.1 74.5jeans are ikeshirts 7.9 25.5Yamaha* motorcyclesre likemusical nstruments 36.8 74.5musical nstrumentsre likemotorcycles 63.2 25.5Adidas* running hoes are likeclothing 15.8 87.2clothings likerunning hoes 84.2 12.8Black& Decker* powertoolsare like home ppliances 26.3 70.2home ppliances re likepowertools 73.7 29.8Gillette lightersre likerazors 76.3 57.4razors are ike ighters 23.7 42.6Zenith televisions re ike stereos 21.1 3 1 9stereos re like televisions 78.9 68.1"Brandnameproduced ignificanteversal f sentence referencep < .0001)Prototyperoducts inboldfacestatementsfsimilarityetween airsofbrandedroductsKraftmarshmallowsre ikeKraftheese)andhalf he ubjects ated he amepairsofproducts,utwithout randnamesmarshmallowsre ikecheese).Theorder fprototypend variant as reversedforhalf he ubjectsKraftheese s likeKraftmarshmallows).In the econd art f the tudy resencef brand amewasmanipulateds a between-subjects ariablenthe ameway s describedbove,butorder fprototypendvariantwasmanipulateds a within-subjectsariable y sking ubjectsochoosebetween airsof sentencesnwhich he rder fprototypendvariant asreversede.g.books re ikemagazines s. magazinesrelikebooks).Following versky'smethodTversky 977),subjectswere sked ochoosewhich ftwo entencesounded etter.airsofsentenceswerepresentedo half he ubjectswith hebrand ame Choose A) TimemagazineslikeTimebooksor B) Timebooks re ikeTimemagazine) ndtotheother alf f thesubjectswithouthebrand ame Choose A) A magazines like bookor B) A book slike a magazine).n eachofthebetween-subjectsonditionsheorderwas reversed orhalf he ubjects.4. ResultsThehypotheses erefirstested sing heratingcalepart f the tudy. pecifically,heeffectf brand ame, rder fprototypendvariant,nd the nteractionetween randname andorder,weretested n a repeatedmeasures esignusingmultiple nalyses fvariance. verall, he ffect fbrandwas significantF( 11,71)= 3.83,p < .000),sup-


8/10

BRAND NAME EFFECTS ON INTERPRODUCT SIMILARITY JUDGMENTS 425porting ypothesis.However, eitherhe ffectf the rder etween rototypicalrod-uct andvariantF( 11,71= .49,p < .89) northe nteractionetween rand ndorder,which ests he ffect f brand ameonasymmetricalimilarityudgments, ere ignifi-cant F( 11,71)= .42,p < .94). Thereforeheratingsart f thequestionnaireidnotsupport ypothesesor3.The mean atingsor greement ith imilaritytatementsreshownnTable1(1 = stronglyisagree, = stronglygree).Brandnames ignificantlyincreased erceptionsf similarityetween heproduct airsfor hebrandsKeebler,Honda, ony, watch,nd Nike.

Data from he hoice askpart f the tudyre shown nTable2.They learlyupportthe xistencefasymmetriesn similarityudgmentsndtheeffect f brandnamesonthoseasymmetries.or example, pproximately9 percent f subjectspreferredhestatementimebooks re ikeTimemagazinend21percent referredhe tatementimemagazines like Time books.However,mong ubjectswho chosebetween he samestatements,utwithouthebrand ames, hepreferenceas reversed.hat s,about85percentreferredhe tatement agazinesre ikebookstothe tatementooks re ikemagazines.rom he retestataweknow hatmagazines the rototypicalimeproduct,whilebooks arethevariant. randnamesreversed hedirection fsimilarityassessedusing ates orrectedhi-square oodness ffit ests) or he roduct airs ssociatedwithTime, araLee,Jello, amaha, didas, ndBlack& Decker. he choice askdata upportbothHypothesis andHypothesis. Assuminghat entence referencesor nbrandedsentenceseveals heproduct-levelypicality,otethat heres a sort fceiling ffectwhen rand ndproduct-levelypicalitys the ame e.g.,for evi's, Gillette,ndXerox).

5. DiscussionOverall,hedata upportedhenotionhat rand ames an nteract ith roductategoryknowledgen nterestingndpredictableays. articularlynterestingas the indinghatbrandnamescould reverse symmetricalimilarity.n importantmplicationf thisasymmetryastodo withhow affect ssociatedwith brand ransfersoproducts,ndbetween roducts,hatmight e associatedwith t. Because of thecrucial ole of simi-larityn affectransfer,symmetricalimilaritymplies symmetricalffectransfer.brand'sxisting rototypicalroductsrethereforeore ikelyo nfluenceow onsum-ersfeel bout randxtensionshan he everse.he effectfbrand ame n nterproductsimilarityudgmentslsohighlightsheflexibilityf those elationshipsnd their oten-tialmanipulation.or xample,tseems ikely hat hevarianttatus fbrand xtensionscouldbe accentuatedo decrease isk otheparent rand. hismighte accomplishedyadvertisinghat ystematicallymphasizesore brand roductsnd attributesrbycre-ating ub-brandssuchas Hallmark Shoebox"greetings).irms evelopingewbrandsmaybeguided ythenaturalsymmetriesnsimilaritynddevelop trong eputationsnprototypicalroducts. orexample, firm hat ontemplatesnteringhemarket orcampingquipment ay ogically oncentraten developing strong ame ntentsiftentsreprototypical)ven f theirmain xpertiseies elsewhere.


9/10

426 DAVID M. BOUSHAlthoughhedatagenerallyupportedhe hree ypothesesnthe tudy,t s interestingthat hehypotheses erenot upportedor ll brandsndproduct airs.Explanationsorthis nclude imitationsf this tudy,pecifically,hat hebrands ndproduct airswerenotthe same in bothparts f thestudy ndthesimilarityatingswere ess sensitivemeasures han he forced hoicesbetween entence airs.Still, t seems nterestingoconsiderwhy common randname ncreasedimilarityerceptionsorproduct airsassociatedwith omebrands utnot thers. erhapshemostikely xplanationsthat,ycontext r direct ssociation,ome brands dd something ore o natural roductat-

egories han o others.AcknowledgementsDavidM. Boush s Associate rofessorfMarketingn theCharlesH. Lundquist ollegeof Business t theUniversityfOregon. heauthorhanks ditor obertMeyernd twoanonymouseviewersor ommentsn earlier rafts fthismanuscript.ReferencesAaker,David. A., and Kevin L. Keller. 1990). "Consumer valuations f Brand Extensions." ournal fMarketing4(1), 27-41.Barsalou,LawrenceW. 1983). "AdHoc Categories."Memorynd Cognition 1(3), 21 1-227.Barsalou,LawrenceW. 1985). "Ideals,Central endency,nd Frequencyf Instantiations DeterminantsfGraded Structuren Categories." ournal f Experimental sychology: earning,Memory nd Cognition11(4), 629-648.Barsalou,LawrenceW.,andChristopher. Hale. (1993). "Components fConceptualRepresentation:romFeature iststoRecursive rames."n IvenVanMechelen,JamesHampton, yszard . Michalski,ndPeterTheuns,eds.), Categories nd Concepts:Theoretical iews nd Inductive ata Analysispp. 97-144). NewYork:AcademicPress.Boush,David M, and BarbaraLoken. (1991). "A ProcessTracingStudyof Brand Extension valuation"Journal f Marketing esearch 8 (February), 6-28.Broniarczyk.usan M. andJosephW.Alba. 1994). "The mportancef theBrand n BrandExtension."ournalofMarketing esearch 1 (May), 214-228.Huffman,ynthia ., BarbaraLoken, nd JamesWard. 1990). "Knowledge nd Context ffects nTypicalityJudgments."n M. E. Goldberg,G. Gorn, nd R. W. Pollay, eds.), Advances n ConsumerResearch,17,257-265.Johnson, ichaelD. (1986). "Consumer imilarityudgments:Testof theContrastModel."PsychologyndMarketing(1), 47-^0.Keller,KevinL., andAaker,DavidA. (1992). "The Effects f Sequential ntroductionf BrandExtensions."Journal f Marketing esearch 9(1), 35-50.Loken,Barbara, nd DeborahRoedderJohn.1993). "Diluting randBeliefs:WhenDo Brand xtensions avea Negativempact?"Journal fMarketing7 (July), 1-84.Loken,Barbara, vanRoss,and RonaldHinkle. 1986). "Consumer onfusion fOrigin nd BrandSimilarityPerceptions" ournal fPublicPolicy ndMarketing, 195-211.Medin,Douglas L., Robert . Goldstone,nd DedreGentner.1993). "Respectsfor imilarity."sychologicalReview100(2),254-278.Park,C. Whan,Milberg, andra& Lawson,R. (1991). "Evaluation fBrandExtensions: he Role of Product-Feature imilarityndConceptConsistency."ournal fConsumer esearch18(2), 185-193.


10/10

BRAND NAME EFFECTS ON INTERPRODUCT SIMILARITY JUDGMENTS 427Rips,Lance J. 1989). "Similarity,ypicality,nd Categorization."n StellaVisniadou nd AndrewOrtony,(eds.), SimilarityndAnalogicalReasoning, pp. 19-59). New York:Cambridge niversityress.Rosch,E.,C. Simpson ndR. S. Miller.1976). "Structureases ofTypicalityffects" ournal f ExperimentalPsychology: umanPerceptionndPerformance(4), 491-502.Schmitt,ernd, ndLaurette ube. (1992). "Contextualized epresentationsf BrandExtensions: re FeatureLists orFrames heBasic ComponentsfConsumer ognition."Marketingetters , 115-126.Sheinin, aniel A. and BerndH. Schmitt.1994). "Extending randswithNew Product oncepts: he Role ofCategory ttributeongmity, randAffect,nd BrandBreadth." ournal fBusinessResearch 1, 1-10.Sunde, orraine,nd Roderick .Brodie. 1993). "Consumer valuations fBrandExtensions: urthermpiri-cal Results." nternational ournal fResearch nMarketing 0,47-53.Tauber, dwardM. (1988). "BrandLeverage: trategyorGrowthna Cost ControlWorld." ournal fAdver-tising esearch 1(3), 26-30.Tversky,mos 1977). "Features fSimilarity."sychological eview 4(4), 327-350.Ward, ames,nd Barbara oken. 1988). "TheGeneralityfTypicalityffects n PreferencendComparison:An Exploratoryest." n M. J.Houstoned.) Advances nConsumer esearch15,55-61.

brand name effects on inter product similarity judgments

Documents