The Determination Roles of Category and Attribute Factors on the Reciprocal Effects of Brand Extensions

ABSTRACT - This research discusses the issues of how category and attribute factors affect the typicality judgments of brand extensions and the reciprocal effects of brand extensions on parent brand evaluations. A two-step typicality judgment model based on categorization theories is proposed to examine the stated issues by laboratory experiments. Research results indicate that attribute factor is more influential than category factor on the typicality judgments of brand extensions and the reciprocal effects on parent brand evaluations. Finally, managerial and theoretical implications and future research are discussed with respect to the research findings.

Citation:

Joseph W. Chang (2001) ,"The Determination Roles of Category and Attribute Factors on the Reciprocal Effects of Brand Extensions", in E - European Advances in Consumer Research Volume 5, eds. Andrea Groeppel-Klien and Frank-Rudolf Esch, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 24-29.

European Advances in Consumer Research Volume 5, 2001      Pages 24-29

THE DETERMINATION ROLES OF CATEGORY AND ATTRIBUTE FACTORS ON THE RECIPROCAL EFFECTS OF BRAND EXTENSIONS

Joseph W. Chang, UMIST, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT -

This research discusses the issues of how category and attribute factors affect the typicality judgments of brand extensions and the reciprocal effects of brand extensions on parent brand evaluations. A two-step typicality judgment model based on categorization theories is proposed to examine the stated issues by laboratory experiments. Research results indicate that attribute factor is more influential than category factor on the typicality judgments of brand extensions and the reciprocal effects on parent brand evaluations. Finally, managerial and theoretical implications and future research are discussed with respect to the research findings.

INTRODUCTION

In order to avoid the possible negative reciprocal effect from an unsuccessful or unfavorable brand extension (Chang, 2001; Loken and John, 1993; John, Loken, and Joiner, 1998), marketers have concerns in the leveraging priority of similar and dissimilar brand extensions. Questions, such as "should the similar or the dissimilar brand extension extended first?" are elaborated. However, research results examining the determination roles of category and attribute factors [The category factor means the product class, such as watch, sunglass, lemonades, orangeades, washing-up liquids, sporting motorcar, etc. Consumers judge the category-based similarity by the closeness where a brand extension located to its parent brand. The category-based similarity of the orangeades category is much higher than that of the washing-up liquids to the lemonades category. The attribute factor means detailed performance information about individual product attributes generated from direct or indirect product experiences, such as the semantic attribute performance information of Consumer Reports or the perceived product attribute performances of real product rial. A consumer normally focuses on the quality for favorability of individual product attributes whilst evaluating the attribute-based similarity of a brand extension. In this research, the attribute-based similarity is based on the direct product experience scenario of real product trial.] on the reciprocal effects of parent brand evaluations are discrepant (Ahluwalia and Gurhan-Canli, 2000; Keller and Aaker, 1992; Loken and John, 1993; Romeo, 1991). Moreover, these studies are all based on indirect product experience settings and quite dissimilar to the real world, where consumers’ decision-makings are dominated by direct product experiences. As direct and indirect product experiences invoke high and low order attitudes respectively (Smith and Swinyard, 1982, 1983), research results about the stated issues based on direct and indirect product experience settings could also be different. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to identify the determination roles of the category and attribute factors on the reciprocal effects of brand extensions and the typicality judgments of brand extensions in direct product experience settings.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES: TWO-STEP TYPICALITY JUDGMENT

The reciprocal effects of brand extensions are discussed as a singular information processing process (Ahluwalia and Gurhan-Canli, 2000; John, Loken, and Joiner, 1998; Keller and Aaker, 1992; Loken and John, 1993; Romeo, 1991). However, several consumer evaluation models indicate that consumer’s cognitive procedure is a two-stage process (Fiske and Pavelchak, 1986; Kempf and Smith, 1998; Loken and Ward, 1987; Smith, Shoben, and Rips, 1974; Smith and Swinyard, 1982).

Two-step Evaluation Models

Fiske and Pavelchak (1986) propose a two-step information-processing model discussing the concept of societal categorization. At the first step, consumers attempt to find out the fitness of the new category member with the existing category members. The evaluation process is completed if the new member (e.g., brand extension) is perceived as highly matched with the category (e.g., parent brand). In contrast, if there is a moderate match between the category and the new member, the (attribute-based) piecemeal processing is evoked to assess the similarity between the two. The extent of affect transferring from the category to the new member (e.g., brand extension) is decided by the similarity of the new member to the category. Much the same as Fiske and Pavelchak’s (1986) model, Smith, Shoben, and Rips (1974) propose a two-step model identifying the membership of an instance or a concept to a category. The processing of the first step is rapid and global, where subjects try to match the features of the category and the new objects. If there is a clear match between the two, the processing is completed. However, if there is a clear mismatch between the two, the second and slower stage continues, where a more intensive comparison between the features of the category and the new object is elaborated to identify the membership of the new object to the category. Both models of Fiske and Pavelchak (1986) and Smith, Shoben, and Rips (1974) involve a two-stage process, but the former model stresses the affective response to the new instance and the latter model emphasizes the cognitive membership identification.

Smith and Swinyard (1982) develop an integrated information response model to differentiate the product evaluation effects of direct and indirect product experiences. The first stage is the information processing induced by the indirect product experience, such as TV advertising, which invokes lower order beliefs and affects and results in lower belief confidence and insignificant attitude-behavior consistency. The second stage is the process induced by the direct product experience, which invokes higher order beliefs and affects and results in higher belief confidence and significant attitude-behavior consistency. Moreover, Kempf and Smith (1998) propose a refined integrated Ad/Trial model, which is based on the Smith and Swinyard’s (1982) model, to identify how advertising information (indirect product experience) interacts with brand trial experience (direct product experience) and eventually generates overall brand attitudes. An observation emerges from a review of the above models that a two-step information processing is differentiated in categorization and product evaluation research.

The Integrated Two-step Typicality Judgment Model

Based on the above theories, an integrated two-level judgment model is proposed to clarify the determination role of category and attribute factors on brand (extension) evaluations (figure 1), as well as the typicality judgments of brand extensions.

FIGURE 1

TWO-STEP TYPICALITY JUDGEMENT MODEL

The first step: Category-based typicality judgment

Consumers make their similarity judgments heuristically when they are aware that a new brand extension in the same category is extended from a parent brand [The parent brand is defined as an existing well-established brand that gives birth to a brand extension. Moreover, a parent brand is also called a family brand if the parent brand has already been extended and associated with multiple products of brand extensions (Keller, 1998).]. The similarity judgment is based on the fit of category between a parent brand and a brand extension, the category-based similarity judgment. Based on the familiarity with the parent brand from past product experiences, consumers form their expectations on the attribute performances of the brand extension. Under the circumstances, only the lower-order psychological procedure with limited product information processing is elaborated and, therefore, the category factor is the determinant for the similarity (or typicality) judgment of the brand extension.

The second step: Attribute-based typicality judgment

At the second stage, the category-based typicality judgment is adjusted with respect to the perceived detailed attribute information of the brand extension, the attribute-based typicality judgment. The overall typicality is the synergy of the category-based and the attribute-based typicality judgments. The expectation disconfirmation equals the difference between the expected and the perceived performances of the brand extension. The information incongruity of attribute performance, which equals the concept of expectation disconfirmation, interacts jointly with the category-based typicality for the overall typicality judgment of the brand extension. Consumers’ expectations on the brand extension are disconfirmed if the expected and the perceived performances of the brand extension are identified as discrepant. Therefore, the expectation disconfirmation, information discrepancy or schematic incongruity, on the brand extension indicates the perception differences between the category-based and the attribute-based typicality judgments, as well as the perception differences between the expected and the perceived performances of the brand extension. More expectation disconfirmation or schematic incongruity on the brand extension results in more changes of typicality judgment and thereafter more schematic incongruity and negative reciprocal effect.

Determination Roles of Attribute and Category Factors

Past research has different conclusions about the determination roles of category and attribute factors on the typicality judgments of new category members or brand extensions. Meyers-Levy and Tybout’s (1989) research proves Mandler’s (1982) hypotheses that category similarity is the base of typicality judgment. Also, although not examining the determination role directly, Keller and Aaker (1992) identify the similarity of a brand extension to its parent brand based on the category closeness, which implies that the category factor is the determinant of the typicality of a brand extension. Moreover, Romeo (1991) discovers that there is no difference on brand extension evaluations across the attribute manipulating and concludes that product category of a brand extension is more influential than the attribute factor on the similarity judgment of a brand extension (p. 404). She concludes that an unfavorable similar brand extension is detrimental to its parent brand. However, in contrast, Loken and John (1993) discover that the attribute factor is more influential than the category factor on brand extension evaluations and conclude that category similarity between the extension and the parent brand categories is not a strong determinant for the dilution effects on the parent brand (p. 82). Gurhan-Canli and Maheshwaran (1998) and Loken and John (1993) attribute the discrepant findings to the different settings of brand extension information, which activate different levels of motivation for information processing. As detailed attribute information triggers stronger motivations than category or brief attribute information for the information processing of brand extension, therefore, the attribute factor is more influential than the category factor on brand extension evaluations. In contrast, Loken and John (1993) provide respondents with more detailed attribute information than Romeo’s. However, both Loken and John’s (1993) and Romeo’s 1991) works are based on indirect product experience settings. As direct experience generates high order beliefs (Smith and Swinyard, 1982) and postulates more extreme attitudes (Smith and Swinyard, 1983), the direct product attribute experience should elaborate even higher motivation than the detailed semantic attribute information. Therefore, attribute factor should dominate the typicality judgments of brand extensions in direct experience settings. Specifically,

H1: The attribute factor dominates (or is more influential than the category factor on) the typicality judgments of the brand extensions in direct product experience settings

As brand extension evaluation is verified as being highly correlated with typicality judgment (Loken and John, 1993; Loken and Ward, 1990; Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989), the attribute factor dominating typicality judgments of brand extensions should also dominate brand extension evaluations. Therefore,

H2: The attribute factor dominates (or is more influential than the category factor on) the brand extension evaluations in direct product experience settings.

Moreover, as schematic modification of a parent brand is a result of intra-category inductive generalizations (e.g., Rothbart and Lewis, 1988; Weber and Crocker, 1983) and influenced by the schematic incongruities of brand extensions, the attribute factor dominating typicality judgments of brand extension evaluations should also dominate the parent brand evaluation. Therefore,

H3: The attribute factor dominates (or is more influential than the category factor on) the parent brand evaluations in direct product experience settings.

METHOD: LABORATORY EXPERIMENT

Experimental Design

The experimental study includes sixty-five students as subjects in a 2x2 factorial design. Each experiment group consists of 15 to 20 subjects. A total of one hundred and forty-nine subjects participate in this research, including fifty-five respondents in pilot and pre-tests and thirty subjects in two control groups.

The first factor is the similarities of brand extensions toward the parent brand of Sprite products. Two new brand extensions of Sprite orangeades and Sprite washing-up liquids in the different product categories of orangeades and washing-up liquids represent the similar and dissimilar brand extensions respectively to the parent brand category of lemonades. The second factor is the favorabilities of brand extensions. There are favorable and unfavorable brand extensions for the similar and dissimilar categories of orangeades and washing-up liquids respectively. Therefore, the experiments include four brand extensions in four experimental groups respectively of favorable Sprite orangeades, unfavorable Sprite orangeades, favorable Sprite washing-up liquids and unfavorable Sprite washing-up liquids. Moreover, two control groups are examined in order to clarify the possible biases of experiment treatment effects. The experiment treatments of the control group I and II are an unfavorable similar and an unfavorable dissimilar brand extensions of 7-Up products, which is an unrelated parent brand in the same product category of lemonades, respectively.

Stimuli

The selection of the parent brand

In line with the brand evaluation research of Aaker and Keller (1990) and Romeo (1991), the strong parent brand of Sprite products is chosen from the lemonades product category for reasons that Sprite is a popular brand name with a favorable overall quality image and eliciting relatively specific positive associations, such as lemon/lime flavor, sparkling/fizzy/bubbly, refreshing, etc.

The package designs of the tested products

The favorable Sprite orangeades and unfavorable Sprite orangeades are products of Fanta orangeades and Asda Farm Stores orangeades respectively. The favorable Sprite washing-up liquids and unfavorable Sprite washing-up liquids are products of Fairy washing-up liquids (85p for a half liter bottle) and Asda Farm Stores washing-up liquids (15p for a one liter bottle) respectively. Four specifically designed hypothetical labels with Sprite brand names replace the package labels of the four products. The label of the favorable Sprite orangades (500ml) is similar to that of Sprite lemonades, but the color is changed from green to orange. The label of the unfavorable Sprite orangeades is similar to the label of Asda Farm Stores orangeades, but the "Asda Farm Stores" logo is replaced by the "Sprite" logo. The label of the favorable Sprite washing-up liquids is similar to the Sprite lemonades (500ml), but the label size is enlarged to fit the bottle (500ml) of Fairy washing-up liquids and the label color is changed from green to deep blue, which implies a hygienic product. The label of the unfavorable Sprite washing-up liquids is similar to that of Asda Farm Stores, but the "Asda Farm Stores" logo is replaced by the "Sprite" logo. All the four tested products are in 500ml bottles for the purposes of standardization and ease of comparison. The stimuli of unfavorable similar and dissimilar brand extensions of 7-Up are similar to the unfavorable similar and dissimilar brand extensions of Sprite products, despite the "Sprite" logos are replaced by the "7-Up" logos.

Independent Variables

Product favorability is identified by product performances and measured by six seven-point bi-polar scales of brand attitude measures with endpoints labeled "Bad"/"Good", "Dislike"/"Like", "Unfavorable"/"Favorable", "Low quality"/ "High quality" (Hastak and Olson, 1989; Kempf and Smith, 1998; MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989; Smith, 1993), "Not at all likely to try"/"Very likely to try" and "Inferior product"/ "Superior product" (Jacobson and Aaker, 1987; Keller and Aaker, 1992).

Similarity (or typicality) is discussed both on product category (basic category level) and attribute levels (sub-ordinate category level). The category similarity is measured by asking "In my opinion, orangeades (or washing-up liquids) are ____ to lemonades" followed by a seven-point bi-polar scale with endpoints labeled "Dissimilar to" (1) and "Similar" (7) (Chang, 2001; John, Loken and Joiner, 1998; Keller and Aaker, 1992; Loken and John, 1993; Romeo, 1991). The product attribute similarity (or typicality) is measured by asking "In my opinion, the Sprite orangeades (or washing-up liquids) are ______ to the Sprite products" followed by four seven-points bi-polar scales with endpoints labeled "Dissimilar to" (1) / "Similar to" (7), "Inconsistent with" (1) / "Consistent with" (7), "Atypical of" (1) / "Typical of" (7) and "Unrepresentative of" (1) / "Representative of" (7) (Chang, 2001; John, Loken and Joiner, 1998; Keller and Aaker, 1992; Loken and John, 1993; Loken and Ward, 1990).

Dependent Variables

Brand attitudes are measured by the identical measures of product favorability.

Subject and Procedure

The Pilot Pre-test and Pre-test

This research is comprised of three data-collecting stages of pilot pre-test, pre-test and experiments. The pilot pre-test stage is the process of developing and revising questionnaires for the pre-test and experiments. The pre-test collects data of category similarities and unaided brand awarenesses of lemonades, orangeades and washing-up liquids. The questionnaires have been revised around 30 times before they are believed to have validity and reliability to be implemented for the experiments at the final stage. The whole procedures of the pre-test and each experiment are about 5 and 15 minutes respectively.

The Experiment Procedures

In the beginning of the experiments, participants are advised that the research purpose is to learn about consumers’ responses toward new products, which will be launched into the UK market by a famous manufacturer. All respondents are invited volunteers and users of lemonades, orangeades and washing-up liquids. Qualified participants are selected and filtered by screening questionnaires and allocated randomly to one of the experiment or the control groups. Experiments are conducted in small groups with an average size of 3 persons. Each respondent is asked to taste or use a sample product of orangeades or washing-up liquids, which will be launched by a lawful manufacturer and, then, fills out Part I questionnaires evaluating the sample products. They, then, evaluate the Sprite products and taste and evaluate the real products of Sprite lemonades. After that, the participants are advised that the Sprite Company will be developing a new brand extension of Sprite orangeades or Sprite washing-up liquids and asked to indicate their expectations on the performance of the brand extension.

Later on, subjects are advised that the sample products of orangeades or washing-up liquids that they tried in the beginning of the experiments are exactly the brand extension that the Sprite company will be launching. Simultaneously, the real Sprite orangeades or Sprite washing-up liquids with package designs are shown to them. They, then, re-evaluate the Sprite orangeades or Sprite washing-up liquids.

After that, subjects re-evaluate the Sprite products and the Sprite lemonades with the identical measures to verify the attitude changes on the Sprite products and the Sprite lemonades. Finally, participants answer selected personal demographics questions, such as age, gender etc., and are dismissed with thanks and rewards. Each participant receives a two-pound worth reward of Coca Cola, Sprite lemonades or Fanta orangeades in successfully completing the experiments.

For the two control groups, respondents experience the same experiment procedures and answer the similar questions with the same measures as those for the four experiment groups, despite the different settings of brand extensions. The experiment treatments of the control group I and II are unfavorable similar and dissimilar brand extensions of an unrelated parent brand of 7-Up respectively, which are expected to rule out the possible biases of the experiment treatments of unfavorable similar and dissimilar brand extensions.

RESULTS

Manipulating Check (independent variables)

Group homogeneity

The Levene’s tests of equality of error variances indicate that both the error variances of the brand attitudes of parent and original brands are equal across the six groups (F= .42, p>.05; F=2.24, p>.05), which indicates that the four experiment groups and the two control groups are homogeneous. Moreover, the brand attitudes of the parent and the original brands before and after the experiment treatments are not significantly different in the two control groups (t= -.36, p> .05; t=.73, p> .05). Also, the brand attitudes of the parent and the original brands are similar (t= 1.55, p>.05) and highly correlated (r=.60, p=.00), which suggests that the parent and the original brands are perceived as a same entity before extending a brand extension. Therefore, the original brand will not affect negatively or positively on the parent brand image and the dilution effects on the parent brand image in the four experiment groups are purely induced by the experiment treatments of unfavorable brand extensions, which rules out the possible biases of experiment treatment effect.

Product favorability and similarity/typciality

Results of one-way ANOVA analyses indicate that:

1. The product attitudes of the favorable (Fanta) orangeades are significantly much better than the product attitudes of the unfavorable (Asda Farm Stores) orangeades (M=4.84 vs. 3.77; F=8.59, p<.0). The product attitudes of the favorable (Fairy) washing-up liquids are significantly much better than the product attitudes of the unfavorable (Asda Farm Stores) washing-up liquids (M=5.20 vs. 4.09; F=14.36, p<.01).

2. The product attitudes of the favorability Sprite (Fanta) orangeades are much better than the product attitudes of the unfavorable Sprite (Asda Farm Stores) orangeades (M= 4.98 vs. 3.74; F=7.78, p<.01). The product attitudes of the favorable Sprite (Fairy) washing-up liquids are significantly much better than the product attitudes of the unfavorable Sprite (Asda Farm Stores) washing-up liquids (M=4.89 vs. 3.50; F=11.76, p< .01).

3. The orangeades category is perceived as being extremely dissimilar to the washing-up liquids (M=5.97 vs. 2.14, F=146.96, p=.00).

4. The favorable Sprite (Fanta) orangeades are perceived as being significantly much similar (or typical) than the unfavorable Sprite (Asda Farm Stores) orangeades to the Sprite lemonades (M=5.13 vs. 3.20; F=9.92, p<.01). The favorable Sprite (Fairy) washing-up liquids are perceived as being significantly much similar (or typical) to the Sprite products than the unfavorable Sprite (Asda Farm Stores) washing-up liquids are (M=4.86 vs. 2.98; F=12.46, p<.05).

Therefore, the independent variables of product favorability and similarity (or typicality) are properly manipulated both on basic and sub-ordinate categorical levels.

Hypothesis Testing

Results of two-way ANOVA analyses indicate that the main effect of the attribute favorability factor is significant on the typicality judgments of brand extensions (F = 22.25, p= .00). Both the main effect of category factor and the interaction effect of category and attribute factors on the typicality judgments of brand extensions [As being highly internally consistent and correlated (Cronbach=s alpha = .88; r = .78, p<.01), the two measures of similarity and typicality are combined into an overall typicality measure of brand extensions.] are not significant (F = .38, p >.05; F = .004, p> .05). The results indicate that the attribute factor determines the overall typicality judgments of the brand extensions, regardless of the category similarity. Therefore, hypothesis one (H1) is supported.

Moreover, results of two-way ANOVA analyses indicate that the main effect of the attribute factor is significant on the brand extension evaluations (F = 19.22, p= .00). Both the main effect of category factor and the interaction effect of category and attribute factors are not significant on the brand extension evaluations [As being highly internally consistent and correlated with each other (Cronbach=s alpha = .96; r = .70 to .90, p<.01), the six attitude measure are combined into the overall attitude measure of brand extensions.] (F = .30, p >.05; F = .07, p> .05). Therefore, the attribute factor determines the overall brand extension attitudes, regardless of the category similarity, and hypothesis two (H2) is supported.

Finally, results of two-way ANOVA analyses indicate that the main effect of attribute factor is significant on the parent brand evaluation [As being highly internally consistent and correlated with each other (Cronbach=s alpha = .96; r = .73 to .87, p<.01), the six attitude measure are combined into the overall attitude measure of parent brand.] (F _(1.63) = 5.71, p= .02). Both the main effect of category factor and the interaction effect of category and attribute factors are not significant on the parent brand evaluation (F = .09, p >.05; F = .65, p> .05). Therefore, the attribute factor determines the parent brand evaluation, regardless of the category similarity, and hypothesis three (H3) is supported.

IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Theoretical Implications

The attribute factor is verified as being more influential than the category factor on the typicality judgments of brand extensions, the brand extension evaluations, and the parent brand evaluation. The research findings parallel with those of Ahluwalia and Gurhan-Canli (2000) and Loken and John (1993) and are discrepant or partially fit with those of Keller and Aaker (1992) and Romeo (1991). Direct product experiences trigger higher order cognitive and affective responses in response to the product information of individual attributes. Eventually, the attribute factor out-weights the category factor and dominates the typicality judgments of brand extensions, the brand extension evaluations, and the parent brand evaluation. Different experimental settings of direct and indirect product experiences do induce different results in brand (extension) evaluations.

Managerial Implication

The research findings suggest marketers that extending unfavorable dissimilar brand extensions will not be able to escape from the negative reciprocal effects of brand extensions on parent brands. Whenever there is an unfavorable brand extension, there will be negative reciprocal effects on the parent brands. No matter how the brand extension is categorically dis-similar to its parent brand. The myth that unfavorable dis-similar brand extensions will never cannibalize their parent brands is unfeasible in the real world. The best way for identifying whether a brand extension will cannibalize its parent brand image is to measure the attribute-based favorability of the brand extension. Marketers who engage in extending brand extensions to down-graded market segmentations need also to consider the threat of the possible damages on their parent brands, despite focusing on the profit-maximizing via leveraging brand extension portfolio to broader markets. Therefore, no unfavorable brand extension should be extended, unless the profits generated from down-graded leveraging of brand extensions can compensate the threats of weakening on parent brand images.

Limitations and Future Research

This research manipulates the two independent variables of category and attribute factors and the selected parent brand is a strong brand with strong brand image. As the brand-leveraging activities are not restricted to strong brands, some brands with fair or weak brand images are still engaging in their brand-leveraging, such as the brands of Asda Farm Stores, Cresta, etc. The parent brand image of lower quality brands might be much more difficult to be diluted, because of consumers’ low performance expectations on the brand extensions of the lower quality brands. Moreover, as the lemonades products are low-involvement frequently purchased goods, therefore the findings of this research are applicable for the products with similar features as the tested products in this research. As spending much time and doing much effort in purchase decision-making, consumers are more loyal to the high-involvement products that they selected and were satisfied with. The brand attitudes of the parent brands should be more difficult to be diluted by unfavorable brand extensions. Therefore, the applicability of the research findings for high-involvement products is needed to be verified. Also, the negative reciprocal effects of the unfavorable brand extensions on the parent brand in this research are based on the parent brand (Sprite) that has never been extended. Therefore, the dilution effect on the parent brand can be more specifically explained as the dilution effect of the first unfavorable brand extension on the brand image of a frequently purchased strong parent brand. Accordingly, as the sequential dilution effects of brand extensions on a parent brand image are observed to be diminishing under indirect product experience situations (Keller and Aaker, 1992), the negative reciprocal effects of the second and so forth brand extensions on the parent brand in direct product experience settings can also be diminishing.

REFERENCES

Aaker, David A. and Kevin Lane Keller (1990), "Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions," Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), 27-41.

Ahluwalia, Rohini and Zeynep Gurhan-Canli (2000), "The Effects of Extensions on the Family Brand Name: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (December), 371-381.

Chang, Joseph W. (2001), "Will a Parent Brand Be Diluted by an Unfavorable Brand Extension? A Brand Trial-Based Approach," working paper, Manchester School of Management, UMIST, UK.

Fiske, Susan T. and Mark A. Pavelchak (1986), "Category-Based Versus Piecemeal-Based Affective Responses: Developments in Schema-Triggered Affect," in The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundation of Social Behavior, Richard W. Sorrentino and E. Tory Higgins, eds. New York: Guilford Press, 167-203.

Gurhan-Canli, Zeynep and Durairaj Maheshwaran (1998), The Effects of Extensions on Brand Name Dilution and Enhancement," Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (November), 464-473.

Hastak, Manoj and Jerry C. Olson (1989), "Assessing the Role of Brand-Related Cognitive Responses as Mediators of Communication Effects on Cognitive Structure," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 444-456.

Jacobson, Robert and David A. Aaker (1987), "The Strategic Role of Product Quality," Journal of Marketing, 51 (October), 31-44.

John, Deborah Roedder, Barbara Loken and Christopher Joiner (1998), "The Negative Impact of Brand Extensions: Can You Dilute Flagship Products?" Journal of Marketing, 62 (January), 19-32.

Keller, Kevin L.(1998), Strategic Brand Management, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Keller, Kevin L. and David A. Aaker (1992), "The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand Extensions," Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (February), 35-50.

Kempf, Deanna S. and Robert E. Smith (1998), "Consumer Processing of Product Trial and the Influence of Prior Advertising: A Structural Modeling Approach," Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (August), 325-338.

Loken, Barbara and Deborah Roedder John (1993), "Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand ExtensionsHave a Negative Impact?" Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 71-84.

Loken, Barbara and James Ward(1987), "Measures of Attribute Structure Underlying Product Typicality," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 22-26.

Loken, Barbara and James Ward (1990), "Alternative Approaches to Understanding the Determinants of Typicality," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 111-126.

MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989), "An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context," Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 48-65.

Mandler, George (1982), "The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste," in Affect and Cognition: The 17^th Annual Carnegie Symposium, Margaret S. Clark and Susan T. Fiske, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-36.

Meyers-Levy, Joan and Alice M. Tybout (1989), "Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June), 39-54.

Romeo, Jean B. (1991), "The Effect of Negative Information on the Evaluation of Brand Extensions and the Family Brand," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, Rebecca H. Holman and Michael R. Solomon, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 399-406.

Rothbart, Myron and Scott Lewis (1988), "Inferring Category Attributes from Exemplar Attributes: Geometric Shapes and Social Categories," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 (6), 861-872.

Smith, Edward E., Edward J. Shoben, and Lance J. Rips (1974), "Structure and Process in Semantic Memory: A Featural Model for Semantic Decision," Psychological Review, 81 (2), 214-241.

Smith, Robert E.(1993), "Integrating Information from Advertising and Trial: Processes and Effects on Consumer Response to Product Information," Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (May), 204-219.

Smith, Robert E. and William R. Swinyard(1982), "Information Response Models: An Integrated Approach," Journal of Marketing, 46 (Winter), 81-93.

Smith, Robert E. and William R. Swinyard (1983), "Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The Impact of Product Trial versus Advertising," Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (August), 257-267.

Weber, Rence and Jennifer Crocker (1983), "Cognitive Processes in the Revision of Stereotypic Beliefs," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (November), 961-977.

----------------------------------------