Brand Essence Effects on Extension Information Accessibility
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33423/jmdc.v18i4.7331Keywords:
marketing development, cue-diagnosticity, brand essence, brand similarity, extension typicality, narrow brands, broad brandsAbstract
This study advances the research scope of adverse extension effects by examining the impacts of brand similarity upon the accessibility of negative extension information. The research results reveal that the accessibility of unfavorable extension information of narrow brands is higher than that of broad brands. Negative extension information exerts more adverse effects on narrow brands than on broad brands. Narrow brands are high-similarity brands implying the existence of obvious underlying essence, which facilitates spontaneous processing of negative extension information. Contrarily, broad brands are low-similarity brands implying vague underlying essence, which leads to less spontaneous processing of negative extension information.
References
Ahluwalia, R., & Gurhan-Canli, Z. (2000). The effects of extensions on the brand name: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 371–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/317591
Anderson, N.H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Brewer, M.B., & Harasty, A.S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In E.T. Higgins & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 3: The interpersonal context (pp. 347–370). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Callahan, S.P., & Ledgerwood, A. (2016). On the psychological function of flags and logos: Group identity symbols increase perceived entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(4), 528–550. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000047
Crawford, M.T., Sherman, S.J., & Hamilton, D.L. (2002). Perceived entitativity, stereotype formation, and the interchangeability of group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1076–1094. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1076
Dang, J., Liu, L., Ren, D., & Su, Q. (2018). Polarization and positivity effects: Divergent roles of group entitativity in warmth and competence judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74(1), 74–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.09.003
Feldman, J.M., & Lynch, J.G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421–435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.73.3.421
Hamilton, D.L., & Sherman, S.J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103(2), 336–355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.103.2.336
Higgins, E.T., King, G.A., & Mavin, G.H. (1982). Individual construct accessibility and subjective impressions and recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(1), 35–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.43.1.35
Keller, K.L., & Aaker, D.A. (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 35–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379202900104
Kempf, D.S., & Smith, R.E. (1998). Consumer processing of product trial and the influence of prior advertising: A structural modeling approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(3), 325–338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379803500304
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D.L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A.C., Sherman, S.J., & Uhles, A.N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 223–246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.223
Loken, B., & John, D.R. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do extensions have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 71–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700305
Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
Phillips, T., Slepian, M.L., & Hughes, B.L. (2018). Perceiving groups: The people perception of diversity and hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(5), 766–785. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000120
Sherman, S.J., Hamilton, D.L., & Lewis, A.C. (1999). Perceived entitativity and the social identity value of group membership. In D. Abrams, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp.80–110). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Skowronski, J.J., & Carlston, D.E. (1987). Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 689–699. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.52.4.689
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Hamilton, D.L., & Sherman, S.J. (2007). The central role of entitativity in stereotypes of social categories and task groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 369–388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.369
Susskind, J., Maurer, K., Thakkar, V., Hamilton, D.L., & Sherman, J.W. (1999). Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 181–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.76.2.181
Wittenbrink, B., Gist, P.L., & Hilton, J.L. (1997). Structural properties of stereotypic knowledge and their influences on the construal of social situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 526–543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.72.3.526
Yzerbyt, Y., & Schadron, G. (1994). Stereotypes and social judgment. In R. Bourhis, & J.P. Leyens (eds.), Stereotypes, discrimination, and intergroup relations (pp. 127–160). Brussels, Belgium: Mardaga.
