• No results found

Brand identifiers’ and non-identifiers’ responses to brand-extension advertising strategy conveying social distance through the endorser

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Brand identifiers’ and non-identifiers’ responses to brand-extension advertising strategy conveying social distance through the endorser"

Copied!
94
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

MSc. in Business Administration – Marketing Track

Brand Identifiers’ and non-Identifiers’ responses to Brand-Extension

Advertising Strategy Conveying Social Distance through the Endorser

Student: Jacopo Costa Student number: 11373555 Date: August 5th, 2017 Version: Final Version Supervisor: Dr. Karin Venetis

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by Jacopo Costa who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Abstract

Brand extensions introduced in dissimilar categories are expected to be viewed by consumers as poor-fitting and to alter the overall parent brand identity. The current research aims at analysing how to improve the perception of fit for these extensions, considering different levels of consumer-brand identification. Previous research showed that brand-extension fit can be improved by employing different advertising strategies, some associate the brand-extension with the parent brand to enhance the perception of fit, others associate the brand extension with external cues that affect individuals’ mental representations. The current research employs the latter strategy, by showing either socially close or distant endorser associated with either an extension in a similar or dissimilar category; and tests its effect across different levels of brand identification, which have been found to influence how individuals process brand-related information depending on their identification level. A 2x2x2 quasi-experimental design was conducted among 301 respondents who reported their brand-extension fit perception subsequent to exposure to the advertisement they were randomly assigned. Results from the analyses eventually supported that: (1) category similarity positively influence brand extension fit perception (H1); (2) social distance from the endorser represented in the commercial moderates the relationship between category similarity and brand-extension fit, such that social distance makes consumers see more fit for an extension in the dissimilar category than social proximity (H2); (3) the effect of social distance is weakened when brand-identifiers are the recipients of the advertisement due to their tendency to emphasise the congruity between parent brand and extension identity (H3).

(4)

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ... 6 1.1 PREFACE ... 6 1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION AND SUB-QUESTIONS ... 9 1.3 THEORETICAL AND MANAGERIAL CONTRIBUTIONS ... 9 1.4 RESEARCH LAYOUT ... 10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ... 11 2.1 BRAND EXTENSION ... 11 2.1.1 Conceptualisation of fit and similarity ... 13 2.1.2 Reciprocal effects on parent brand and brand extension ... 14 2.1.3 The effect of context variables ... 15 2.1.4 Consumer-level differences ... 16 2.1.5 Communication strategies ... 18 2.2 PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE ... 21 2.2.1 Consequences of abstraction ... 25 2.2.2 Effects of psychological distance in persuasive messages ... 28

2.3 CONSUMER-BRAND IDENTIFICATION ... 31

2.3.1 Brand Identification and Consumer-Brand Relationship ... 31

2.3.2 Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Brand Identification ... 34

3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ... 39

3.1 CATEGORY SIMILARITY AS PREDICTOR OF PERCEIVED FIT ... 39

3.2 SOCIAL DISTANCE EFFECTS ... 39

3.3 CONSUMER-BRAND IDENTIFICATION INFLUENCE ... 40

4 RESEARCH METHOD ... 43 4.1 PRE-TEST ... 43 4.1.1 Parent Brand Selection ... 44 4.1.2 Brand Extensions Selection ... 45 4.1.3 Social Distance Manipulation ... 47 4.2 MAIN STUDY ... 48 4.2.1 Research Design ... 49 4.2.2 Operationalization of Stimuli ... 50 4.2.3 Procedure and Measures ... 51 5 RESULTS ... 52

5.1 SAMPLE SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION ... 52

5.1.1 Sample Differences among Conditions and Correlation Matrix ... 53

5.2 SCALE VALIDATION ... 56

5.3 CORRELATION MATRIX ... 57

5.4 NORMALITY OF THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE ... 59

5.5 HYPOTHESES TESTING ... 60 5.5.1 Product Category Similarity and Brand-Extension Fit ... 60 5.5.2 Moderating role of Social Distance ... 61 5.5.3 Moderated Moderation through Consumer-Brand Identification ... 63 5.6 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS ... 66 5.6.1 The Moderating Role of Consumer-Brand Identification ... 66 6 DISCUSSION ... 69

6.1 DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CATEGORY SIMILARITY ON BRAND-EXTENSION FIT PERCEPTION ... 70

6.2 THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL DISTANCE FROM THE COMMERCIAL ... 70

6.3 CONSUMER-BRAND IDENTIFICATION ... 72

(5)

6.5 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ... 74 7 CONCLUSION ... 76 7.1 SUMMARY ... 76 7.2 LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ... 77 8 REFERENCES ... 81 9 APPENDICES ... 89

9.1 APPENDIX A – PRE-TEST PAIRED-SAMPLE T-TESTS ... 89

9.2 APPENDIX B – REPRESENTATIONS OF STIMULI ... 91

9.3 APPENDIX C – PRE-TEST AND MAIN STUDY MEASURES ... 93

(6)

1 Introduction

1.1 Preface

Introducing new products under a well-known brand name is one of the most effective strategies for increasing the probability of a successful new product launch. Brand extensions represent a significant marketing phenomenon, whose managerial relevance is clearly highlighted in academic research (D. Aaker, 1990; D. A. Aaker & Keller, 1990; Keller & Aaker, 1992; Kirmani, Sood, & Bridges, 1999; Lau & Phau, 2007). In the last decades, numerous well-known brands have launched new products under their popular brand names. The main rationale rests on the extremely high costs required by a new brand (Kirmani et al., 1999; Pitta & Prevel Katsanis, 1995). Researchers postulate that the costs of introducing a new brand approximately exceed $50 million yet in extraordinary cases may reach $150 million under certain circumstances (D. Aaker, 1990; D. A. Aaker & Keller, 1990; Brown, 1985; Huang, Jia, & Wyer, 2017; Pitta & Prevel Katsanis, 1995; Tauber, 1988). As a consequence, the majority of companies prefer to take advantage of their existing brand equity (D. A. Aaker & Keller, 1990; Pitta & Prevel Katsanis, 1995). An extension strategy has the potential to lower the marketing costs associated to the introduction of a new product or service, due to the stronger customer acceptance resulting from an established brand name (D. Aaker, 1990; D. A. Aaker & Keller, 1990). The majority of existing research has identified ways of increasing the favourableness of an extension at the design stage, by increasing the fit between the extension and the parent brand (D. Aaker, 1990; Boush & Loken, 1991; Keller & Aaker, 1992; Park, Milberg, & Lawson, 1991). Conversely, less attention, in comparison to the main stream of literature, has been paid to the characteristics of the situational environment in which brand extension information is communicated after an extension has already been conceived (Huang et al., 2017). This different branch of research has highlighted the opportunity to improve perceived fit by using

(7)

different advertising techniques (Bridges, Keller, & Sood, 2000; Huang et al., 2017; Lane, 2000; Nenkov, 2012; Shen, Bei, & Chu, 2011). Interestingly, evidence that psychological distance cues presented in advertising could influence consumers’ brand-extension perceptions via perceived fluency of processing the message has been uncovered (Huang et al., 2017). Specifically, Huang et al. (2017) used physical distance to trigger different levels of construal which in turn shape the mental representation of the message target, the brand extension. Consequently, it would be interesting to identify other factors that might activate concepts of distance and explore whether they interact with perceived category similarity to affect consumers’ perceptions of the brand-extension fit. According to the branch of research that investigate psychological distance, namely Construal Level Theory (Liberman & Trope, 2008, 2014; Trope & Liberman, 2003, 2010), one such a factor is social distance (the distinction between the social target and oneself; e.g. similar person vs. dissimilar person) (Liberman & Trope, 2014; Trope & Liberman, 2010; Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007). In fact, it is capable of activating concepts of distance since it is recognised as a distance dimension, which can shift mental representations by removing the self, a target object, other individuals or events from the one’s reference point, the one’s direct experience, and project them into ones that are completely unknown (Liberman & Trope, 2008, 2014; Liviatan, Trope, & Liberman, 2008; Trope & Liberman, 2010; Trope et al., 2007). Moreover, all dimensions of psychological distance share the same meaning and are characterised by bi-directionality (Trope & Liberman, 2010; Trope et al., 2007). Importantly, bi-directionality implies that manipulations of construal should impact distance perceptions in the same way as the distance of an event, person or object influences its construal.

Since consumers differ from each other in terms of levels of self-target similarity and therefore different degrees of relationship with respect to the brand, considering the level of consumer-brand identification (CBI) is useful to investigate whether brand identifiers and non-identifiers

(8)

respond differently to the communication of a new brand extension. Brand identifiers have been empirically proven to have closer relationships with the brand itself (Bergkvist & Bech-Larsen, 2010; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Fournier, 1998; Kuenzel & Vaux Halliday, 2008). This, in turn, implies that the ways in which consumers relate to different brands correspond to different interpersonal relationship profiles, each of them comprising a diverse array of relation scripts and behavioural norms (Fournier, 1998). As a consequence, for consumers who identify with the brand, their new brand-borne social identity becomes more important to them such that they can even behave differently when it comes to judge brand-related information (Einwiller, Fedorikhin, Johnson, & Kamins, 2006). Moreover, consumers with strong self–brand connections have been found to be likely to view a brand extension that alters the identity of the parent brand as illegitimate because it alters the meaning of the brand, undermining it as a cultural resource for self-identity construction and its credibility as a brand partner (Fournier, 1998; Spiggle, Nguyen, & Caravella, 2012). Thus, launching a brand extension that modifies the perceived identity of the brand should lead brand identifiers to assess the perceived brand-extension fit more on identity-related congruence than merely on product category fit (Bosmans & Baumgartner, 2005; Rubio & Marin, 2015; Spiggle et al., 2012) as a result of relationship norms violation (J. Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004; Sela, Wheeler, & Sarial-Abi, 2012). Therefore, the present research will investigate whether social distance from the endorser (close vs. distant) represented in the commercial influences the positive relationship between product category similarity (high vs. low) and perceptions of brand-extension fit and whether different levels of consumer-brand identification (identifiers vs. non-identifiers) influence the effects of social distance on the product-category similarity fit perception relationship as a result of the perceived incongruence between the parent identity and the new brand-extension identity conveyed through the commercial.

(9)

1.2 Research question and sub-questions

The main research question can be formulated as follows: How do brand identifiers and non-identifiers respond to social distance from a commercial advertising the introduction of brand extension in terms of their perceptions of fit? The answer to the main question will be built by sequentially answering more specific sub-questions: Ø How do consumers evaluate brand extensions? Ø What is brand extension fit? Ø What is psychological distance? Ø How does psychological distance influence brand-extension fit perceptions? Ø What is consumer-brand identification? Ø How does consumer-brand identification influence the process of fit perception?

1.3 Theoretical and managerial contributions

The current research has several potential implications concerning both marketing practitioners and academics. From a theoretical perspective, this research investigates the effects of a new variable, social distance, on the process of evaluation of brand-extension fit, offering insights into its application in the brand-extension context. Moreover, it offers a deeper and more detailed view at the potential moderating effect of social distance in the context of advertising new brand extensions by looking at different levels of consumer-brand identification, which may lead brand identifiers to be unsusceptible to the effect of social distance. Indeed, from a managerial point of view, this research can potentially offer managers different options concerning how to positively influence the brand-extension fit perceptions. Firstly, by exploiting psychological distance cues in advertising to influence consumers’

(10)

construal level in processing the message. Secondly, offering both a more detailed view in the use of social distance as such a cue and a holistic view of this practice by considering two different groups of people who are exposed to the brand-extension information and may react differently to it depending on their relationship closeness and expectations, namely, identifiers and non-identifiers.

1.4 Research layout

The remainder of the study is organized as follows. Section 2 examines existing literature, with the purpose of underpinning the conceptual framework and generating a set of hypotheses, which are presented in section 3. Subsequently, Section 4 describes the methodology adopted by this research, including information concerning the pre-test content, the main study, operationalisation of stimuli, procedure and measures. In Section 5, the sample is thoroughly described and results concerning hypotheses testing are illustrated. The findings are then discussed in Section 6, in the light of existing literature, and implications for practitioners and academics. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 7, as well as recommendations for future research and the review of limitations. In this section, a summary of the research and its findings are presented. Auxiliary information about the study are provided in appendix section, subsequent to the references section.

(11)

2 Literature Review

In this section, the existing literature on brand extension is reviewed. Investigations of literature gaps led to review previous research concerning both construal level theory and consumer-brand identification as well.

2.1 Brand Extension

The brand extension literature originated from the routine of introducing new products under a well-known brand name. At that time as nowadays, companies with a well-established and recognisable brand name are likely to introduce new products under an established brand name in order to increase the chances of success in the marketplace (Keller & Aaker, 1992). They, thus, use brand names to facilitate entering new markets following two different approaches. The first is line extension, whereby an existing brand name is used to enter a new market segment in its product class, whereas in the second case, namely brand or category extension, the brand name is used to enter a different product category (D. Aaker, 1990; D. A. Aaker & Keller, 1990; Park et al., 1991). Clearly, this practice has become a popular strategy due to its advantage compared to the launch of a new brand. A new brand requires high amounts of capital and the ability to create and manage a completely new set of associations related to the new brand. In contrast, the brand extension strategy takes advantage of the existing brand associations and leverages the synergies of products or services under the same brand name. As a result, it produces several advantages, such as reduced promotional expenditure (Sullivan, 1992), reduced risk from the consumer perspective (D. A. Aaker & Keller, 1990), and enhanced parent brand equity (Keller & Lehmann, 2006). Nevertheless, its success is uncertain. Failure rates, especially within specific product classes such as FMCGs, are about 80% (Marketing, 2003). Hence, academics have focused much of their attention on uncovering potential drivers of brand extension success to help managers reduce risks (D. Aaker, 1990; D. A. Aaker & Keller, 1990; Boush & Loken, 1991; Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994; Keller & Aaker, 1992).

(12)

Existing literature reports and empirically supports several determinants of brand-extension strategy success, yet just a few have been proven in different studies, ergo not leading to mixed results but instead reinforcing the same significant effects. Specifically, Völckner & Sattler (2006) empirically tested ten success factors that were previously found as having a significant impact on brand-extension success and concluded that nine of them significantly affect brand extension success. However, fit between the parent band and the extension product category (D. A. Aaker & Keller, 1990), marketing support (Reddy, Holak, & Bhat, 1994), parent-brand conviction (Kirmani et al., 1999), retailer acceptance (Nijssen, 1999), parent-brand experience(Swaminathan, Fox, & Reddy, 2001), highly contribute to brand-extension success (Völckner & Sattler, 2006). Interestingly, the fit between parent and extension product category, more deeply explained in the next paragraphs, emerges to be the most significant success factor (Völckner & Sattler, 2006).

Brand extensions, thus, denote a significant marketing phenomenon, and account for a sizeable share of the branding literature due to the frequency of their application. The majority of brand-extension research has focused on uncovering antecedents and the process of brand extension evaluation (e.g. Yorkston, Nunes, & Matta, 2010). Existing literature’s goals can be further classified into (1) research on conceptualisations of perceived fit and similarity (D. A. Aaker & Keller, 1990; Park et al., 1991); (2) investigations on reciprocal effects on parent brand and brand extension (Dwivedi, Merrilees, & Sweeney, 2010); (3) studies of the effect of context variables (Bhat & Reddy, 2001; Ferguson, Lau, & Phau, 2016; Keller & Aaker, 1992); (4) investigations of consumer-level differences (Barone, Miniard, & Romeo, 2000; Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994; Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran, 1998; Klink & Smith, 2001; Monga & John, 2007, 2010; Yorkston et al., 2010); (5) research on communication strategies for brand extension success (Bridges et al., 2000; Huang et al., 2017; Lane, 2000; Shen et al., 2011).

(13)

2.1.1 Conceptualisation of fit and similarity

Research on the conceptualisation of fit and similarity has highlighted the dimension upon which it is possible to determine the level of perceived fit between the parent brand and its extensions. Aaker and Keller (1990) acknowledged that when the extension’s category varies from the parent brand’s one, the extension success depends on different dimensions. These include both quality of the parent brand and the degree of fit, assessed in terms of complementarity, substitutability and transferability. The first refers to the extent to which the two categories share the same usage context; the second refers to the degree that the two products are seen as substitutes; while the third one involves the extent to which the same manufacturing skills are exploited by both product categories (D. A. Aaker & Keller, 1990). Particularly, complementarity and transferability are relatively more important factors than substitutability in determining how consumers form brand-extension fit perceptions. In an effort to extend Aaker and Keller’s paper (1990), Park et al. (1991) added a new dimension with a determining role on brand-extension fit, particularly important for prestige brands, namely brand concept consistency. In their research, the authors used previous finding on fit or similarity (D. A. Aaker & Keller, 1990), grouping the three dimensions under one overarching variable called product-level similarity perception, to demonstrate that consumers’ perceptions of fit are not merely based on product features similarities, but also brand concept consistency plays a crucial role. They defined brand concepts as “brand-unique abstract meanings that typically originate from a configuration of product features and a firm’s efforts to create meanings from these arrangements” (Park et al., 1991 p. 186). The outcomes of their research illustrate that for both function- and prestige-oriented brands, the most positive reactions occur when brand extensions score high levels of brand concept consistency and high product-level similarity. However, the relative impact of these factors differs depending on the nature of the brand concept, either functional or prestige concept. Thus, when the brand’s

(14)

concept is consistent with the one of its extensions, the prestige brand seems to be allowed greater extendibility towards products with low product-level similarity than functional brands (Park et al., 1991).

2.1.2 Reciprocal effects on parent brand and brand extension

Investigations on reciprocal effects on parent brand and brand extension highlighted several findings such as the direct reciprocal attitude transfer from extension to the parent brand (e.g. Ahluwalia & Gürhan-Canli, 2000; Cheng-Hsui Chen & Chen, 2000), extension knowledge transfer to the parent brand (Loken & John, 1993) and effects of fit on reciprocal attitude transfer (e.g. Romeo, 1991). These effects seem obvious when two entities have some sort of contact, sharing the same brand name and certain associations and were particularly useful for those practitioners who wanted to leverage the extension features to reinforce the parent brand. However, these findings were regarded as fragmented, not leading to a holistic framework. In this sense, another research significantly expanded knowledge about reciprocal effects by considering that after an extension introduction, the original parent brand attitude may change due to the extension itself. Dwivedi et al. (2010) argued that in the brand extension literature there are two processes of evaluation. The first process is related to the evaluation of the extension as a function of parent brand knowledge, affect and perceptions of fit, whereas the second refers to the brand extension feedback, that is the effect that the brand extension introduction has on its parent brand. The latter is regarded as the combination of parent brand image, perceptions of fit and brand extension attitude. The rationale which the second process is based on refers to the fact that previous findings had assumed that brand extension are able to affect consumers’ mental schema of the parent brand and therefore, they could also modify attitudes towards it. Authors eventually uncovered that the second process, as mentioned above, is supported. Therefore, brand image, perceptions of fit and brand extension attitude positively and directly affect parent brand attitude change. Moreover, the parent brand is also

(15)

regarded as the antecedent of both brand extension attitude and perception of fit, highlighting the indirect effect of parent brand image. In addition to these findings that suggest the inter-relationships among antecedents of feedback, this research adds relevant contributions. Firstly, authors have been capable to rank the effects of each determinants. “Perceived fit, parent brand image and brand extension attitude” is the order based on the actual impact they had in their study and in existing literature. Secondly, the study highlighted the integrating role of perceived fit, which affected both extension evaluation and parent brand attitude change, being extremely relevant for both processes (Dwivedi et al., 2010). 2.1.3 The effect of context variables Investigations on the effect of context variables have revealed several major relationships with brand-extension evaluations (e.g. Bhat & Reddy, 2001; Keller & Aaker, 1992) and led to discover new ways to increase the perception of brand-extension fit (Ferguson et al., 2016). Context variable refers to everything that has contact with the extension and its parent brand and has an impact on the consumer evaluation of brand extensions. Ferguson et al.’s (2016) results confirmed, through a series of replication studies, that greater perceived brand personality fit between the brand extension and the parent brand causes increased image fit, leading consumers to feel more affect with respect to the brand extension (Ferguson et al., 2016). This interaction is based on the argument that high brand personality fit makes consumers to like the extension more due to the fact that they can use it to maintain and project their desirable self-identity, as they can by using the parent brand (Bosmans & Baumgartner, 2005). In other words, if the brand personality fit is high, it implies that the brand extension closely represents what the parent brand symbolises and therefore consumers assess the extension more favourably (Ferguson et al., 2016).

(16)

2.1.4 Consumer-level differences

This research topic can be seen as a subset of the effect of contextual variables, rather than an individual stream of research, because consumers are an external entity with respect to the extension itself. Yet, since it accounts for a sizeable part of the literature, it is necessary to analyse these findings separately. Studies of consumer-level differences reported results on several key variables, namely, for example, motivation, expertise and innovativeness. Existing literature has found motivation as moderator of the transfer of both knowledge and affect from the parent brand to an extension (Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran, 1998). When consumers are highly motivated, they engage in complex cognitive processing and consider the extension information in a gradual way. On the other hand, when consumers are not motivated, the cognitive processing is simpler and unequivocal, and thus, greater transfer of affect occurs (Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran, 1998; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Another moderating effect has been uncovered to impact the effect of brand associations, brand affect and fit on brand extension attitude; the variable that plays this role is expertise with respect to products (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994). Experts’ judgments rely on the processing of product-related associations, while novices’ ones are based on perceptions of fit and attitude towards the brand. The third above mentioned variable, innovativeness, refers to the degree of consumer innovativeness and tendency to new-product adoption (Klink & Smith, 2001). Early adopters are less risk-sensitive and therefore, perceived fit is less relevant in their evaluation than it is for late adopters.

However, other studies have focused on this topic of research and highlighted interesting relationships between individual idiosyncrasies and extension evaluation. For example, Barone et al. (2000) studied the ability of positive mood to promote more flexible categorisation, which, in the context of brand extensions, should result in stronger perception of fit between the parent brand and extension categories. They ultimately found that, as predicted, positive mood

(17)

can influence the evaluation of brand extensions. Particularly, the facilitative impact of mood on evaluation is greater for moderate-fitting extensions than either good- or poor-fitting ones. Moreover, they also highlighted two processes underpinning the mood’s influence. In the first one, the evaluation attached to the parent brand is transferred to the extension, depending on the level of similarity between the brand and the extension. In the second one, inferences about the competency in producing an extension play a mediating role. Here, similarity provides the basis for inferring competency, which, in turn, determines evaluations(Barone et al., 2000). Monga and John (2007, 2010) studied the effects of the way people think on brand-extension evaluations across different cultures. They based their work on the widely-shared assumption that consumer evaluate a brand extension depending on the degree of fit with the parent brand and argued that consumers from the Eastern cultures, who are characterised by holistic thinking, perceived higher fit and therefore they evaluate extension more favourably than those from Western cultures, who are characterised by analytic thinking (Monga & John, 2007). In their subsequent work, they examined the effects of style of thinking (holistic vs. analytical thinkers) on brand-extension evaluation of brands with different concepts (functional vs. prestige brands). The authors found that, for functional brands, holistic thinkers evaluate poor fitting extensions more favourably than analytical thinkers, while, for prestige ones, the two categories of thinkers respond equally (Monga & John, 2010). More interestingly, Kim and John (2008) studied an interesting determinant of the most important factor of brand-extension success, perceived fit. They argue that construal level, which refers to the level of abstraction of an individual’s mind-set (abstract vs. concrete), influences brand extension evaluation. This assumption is based on the arguments that construal levels judgments and decision making by a preference of information that matches the individual’s mind-set. Specifically, they argued that because of the global nature of perceived fit as a judgment based on available information about parent brand and extension, and therefore its high-level construal, consumers with an

(18)

abstract mind-set place more emphasis on perceived fit when judging the extension. In contrast, consumers with a concrete mind-set are more likely to base their judgments on concrete information, such as assessments of concrete attributes and usage situations. Because the construal level of their judgment, in the latter context, does not match their propensity to construe information at a lower level of abstraction, they do not rely on perceived fit. By conducting three experiments, they eventually found that levels of construal moderate the effect of perceived fit on brand extension evaluation. Hence, consumers who construe information at a higher level, place more relevance on perceived fit in evaluating extensions. Moreover, they tested this rule across different context and proved it right as a simple difference between individuals (chronic tendency) and as changeable situational factor (near vs. distant future), which, in turn, elicit different construal level processing demonstrating that it is possible to modify the process of brand-extension evaluation (H. Kim & John, 2008). 2.1.5 Communication strategies

Although brand-extension literature is not a recent stream of research anymore, little attention, compared to the rest of the academic work, has been paid to empirically testing way of modifying and affecting the perceptions of success factors relevant in the brand-extension context.

The existing research on communication strategies for brand-extension success has generally focused on uncovering new ways of altering consumers’ perceptions of fit. Lane (2000) studied the effects of ad repetition and content on perceptions of incongruent extensions, disputing the common belief that all poor-fitting or incongruent extensions are to fail. In her study, participants who were exposed to an advertisement more frequently evaluated incongruent extensions more favourably than those who saw it only once. However, this effect has been found to be attenuated by the ad content. In the case of highly incongruent extensions and when the message mainly contained peripheral brand association, participants evaluated brand

(19)

extensions less favourably, but still positively, than when the message disclosed central brand associations, such as potential consumer benefits. Moreover, in the case of moderately incongruent extensions, both peripheral and central associations were equally and significantly effective (Lane, 2000). These results further confirm that the way people process a message is of extreme importance in the context of advertising (J. Kim, Lim, & Bhargava, 1998; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

Bridges et al. (1999) investigated the effects of explanatory links on the perceptions of fit. Explanatory links aim to connect the parent brand to the brand extension through the relevance of the parent brand association in the extension context. Their research highlighted that extension evaluations were improved with a relational communication strategy that raised the salience of the relationship between the two categories. That is, when the new brand extension is explicitly paired with parent brand’s central associations, its evaluation results more favourable than when this link is absent or the associations are less relevant in the new context (Bridges et al., 2000). Bambauer-Sachse et al. (2011) analysed how brand-extension evaluation of moderate and poor fit can be improved by using diverse advertising cues. Such advertising cues should remind recipients of the message about the brand extension to the parent brand. Therefore, the authors tested the effects of two such variables, namely fit prime and advertising elements used for or associated with the parent brand. Their findings suggest that the use of fit prime is advantageous only if employed for moderately fitting extensions, while it is detrimental when used in support of a poor-fitting extensions. This is probably due to the fact that if people is primed to paying attention to something that does not actually exist or is bad, they tend to extract the opposite information. Moreover, advertising elements typically associated with the parent brand have positive effect in building a connection between brand extensions and parent brand, enhancing the perception of fit (Bambauer-Sachse, Hüttl, & Gierl, 2011).

(20)

Huang et al. (2017) examined the effects of consumers’ perception of their physical distance from the extension information, utilising a billboard advertisement (Experiment 3), on the evaluations of a brand extension. Their research found that the metaphorical match between perceived physical distance and brand-extension fit has a positive effect on extension via the mediating impact of processing fluency. This effect occurs when the concepts activated by perceived physical distance are metaphorically similar to concepts used to interpret the brand extension information (Huang et al., 2017). To some extent, they combined previous findings on the moderation effect of construal level on perceived fit (H. Kim & John, 2008) and the findings from Bambauer-Sachse et al. (2011) concerning the positive effects of advertising cues on perceived fit and adapted them to analyse whether psychological distance could trigger different levels of construal and therefore, change or improve perception of fit. Ultimately, they found that, for physical distance, the perception of fit improves only when the metaphorical match between the distance and the concepts that are used to interpret the extension fit occurs leading people to experience fluency in processing the message. This fluency, then, is misattributed to the extension rather than to the framing of the message, and in turn, positively affect brand-extension evaluations.

This stream of research has highlighted several ways in which it is possible to affect fit perception. Particularly interesting is the fact that perceived fit is a ubiquitous construct in the success of brand extensions and its importance has been clearly highlighted in extant literature (D. Aaker, 1990; D. A. Aaker & Keller, 1990; Dwivedi et al., 2010). The most critical antecedent of perceived fit is category similarity, a term derived by the combination of the complementarity and transferability concepts in Aaker and Keller (1990). Therefore, the current research aims at uncovering ways to modify the process of categorisation of product classes similarity by employing construal level theory, which has been found to be related to perceived brand-extension fit (H. Kim & John, 2008), through advertising. Interestingly, using

(21)

the concepts on psychological distance to elicit different levels of construal with which consumers process the message has received little attention (Huang et al., 2017). Previous research only considered the effects of one psychological distance dimension, namely physical or spatial distance. Hence, other dimensions of psychological distance may have an impact on perception of fit, and, thus, make consumers look at the extension from another perspective. The next section of the literature review provides more information about construal level theory, the concept of psychological distance and how they are capable to modify brand-extension fit perceptions in the current research.

2.2 Psychological distance

Construal Level Theory (CLT, Liberman & Trope, 2008, 2014; Trope & Liberman, 2003, 2010) suggests that one of the factors that has an impact on construal level is the psychological distance between an individual as perceiver and his/her target. In other words, it posits that psychological distance systematically influences the way people mentally represent the world around them (Liberman & Trope, 2008; Trope & Liberman, 2010) through abstraction, which is the formation of mental representations that allow seeing distinct object as equivalent, introducing invariance into set of objects around us (Liberman & Trope, 2014). An object or event is said to be psychologically distant when it is relatively remote in time or space, refers to experience of others and when it is unlikely to occur (Liberman & Trope, 2008; Trope & Liberman, 2010). According to CLT, the more psychological distance between the perceiver and the target, the more likely are perceivers to form high-level instead of low-level construal of objects, events and people. Low-level construals are concrete, unstructured, and contextualised mental representations that comprise subordinate and incidental characteristics of events. In contrast, high-level of construals are abstract, schematic, and decontextualized mental representations that extract the essence from the available information, emphasizing superordinate, core features of events and omitting incidental ones (Bar-Anan, Liberman,

(22)

Trope, & Algom, 2007; Liberman & Trope, 2008, 2014; Trope & Liberman, 2010). In addition, CLT defines four dimensions of psychological distance: (a) physical or spatial distance - how distal in space is the target from the perceiver; (b) temporal distance - how much time separates the perceiver’s present and the target event (past or future); (c) social distance - how distinct is the social target from the perceiver’s self; and (d) hypotheticality - how likely is the target event to happen, how close is it to reality (Trope & Liberman, 2010; Trope et al., 2007). Previous research suggests that the zero-anchoring point for all four dimensions is the same, the perceiver’s direct experience, while psychologically distal entities are individuals, objects and events that are not part of the perceiver’s experience (Liberman & Trope, 2008; Trope & Liberman, 2010; Trope et al., 2007). Therefore, because of the limited concrete knowledge about distal entities compared to proximal ones, perceivers will form abstract, higher level construals of the former entities than the latter. Consequently, an association is made between psychological distal entities and high-level construals and between proximal entities and low-level construals. This association has been found to be supported by several studies over time (Liberman & Trope, 1998, 2008, 2014; Trope & Liberman, 2010). For example, Bar-Anan Y., Liberman N. and Trope Y. (2006) demonstrate through an eight-experiment study that this association exists and is consistent across the four concepts of psychological distance. In their research, the authors tested and supported the hypotheses that high-level construals are associated with distant-future concepts, distant locations/places, socially distant individuals and, finally, with concepts that relate to hypotheticality, while low-level construals are associated with near-future concepts, proximal locations/places, socially proximal individuals and concepts that relate to reality (Bar-Anan, Liberman, & Trope, 2006). These findings suggest that abstract thinking is used to transcend the present and expand one’s mental horizon by thinking farther into time and space and considering remote social targets and unlikely possibilities (Liberman & Trope, 2008, 2014; Trope & Liberman, 2010). Part of

(23)

existing research (Bar-Anan et al., 2007; Casasanto & Boroditsky, 2008; Liberman & Trope, 2014) has also supported the hypothesis that interrelations among psychological distance dimensions exists. The results from these studies suggest that spatial, temporal, social distance and hypotheticality have a common meaning and people access it spontaneously (Liberman & Trope, 2008, 2014; Trope & Liberman, 2010; Trope et al., 2007). Hence, since psychological distance is reflected in different dimensions, these dimensions are mentally associated such that, for example, remote locations recall distant future, other people and unlikely events, and vice versa, likely events recall proximal locations, near future and the oneself rather than other people, distant places and future. “All psychological dimensions are egocentric with a common zero-distance point, which is the experienced reality of me here and now” (Liberman & Trope, 2014 p. 364). This fundamental similarity is supported by evidence of a common, automatically processed meaning shared among dimensions, which is retrieved even when it is not context-related (Bar-Anan et al., 2007). Psychological distance is assessed automatically due to its unconditional and inexplicable importance: “it is ever important whether an object is real or imaged, certain or probable, present, future or past, mine or somebody else’s” (Liberman & Trope, 2014 p.365). Psychological distance, hence, is a variable relation between the perceiver and the perceived objects (Liberman & Trope, 2014). Finally, CLT postulates that the relationship between distance and construal is bi-directional due to the fact that this relationship is underpinned by an over-generalised association of the two parties. Bi-directionality implies that manipulations of construal should impact distance perceptions in the same way as the distance of an event, person or object influences its construal (Trope et al., 2007). Findings in line with this prediction supported it for all distance dimensions (Liberman, Trope, McCrea, & Sherman, 2007; Wakslak, Trope, Liberman, & Alony, 2006). The major implication of this prediction is that it makes possible to shape the level of construal at which people construe and process messages and information. Using distance cues

(24)

may make people construe the focal message at the desired construal level which, in turn, may shape the perception of their surroundings.

Unsurprisingly, the association or link between distance and level of construal has implications into perception, categorization and inference. Firstly, concerning perception, a psychologically distant perspective enables people to better see “the big picture”. Although abstraction can improve the capacity to perceive the entity as a whole, when the required task is about identifying small details, abstraction has an opposite effect. Therefore, distance has a negative effect on the ability to identify peculiarities, whereas it represents an advantage when generalising is necessary (Smith & Trope, 2006; Wakslak et al., 2006). Secondly, categorization is affected by mental representations due to the fact that people group objects or actions according to their perception of them. For example, a distant future action (e.g. conducting a study) is described in high-level construal terms (e.g. advancing science) rather than in low-level construal terms (e.g. testing hypotheses) (Liberman & Trope, 1998). Obviously, this assertion is true among the other distance dimensions (K. Fujita, Henderson, Eng, Trope, & Liberman, 2006; Liviatan et al., 2008; Wakslak et al., 2006). Interestingly, it is already possible to understand that perceptions of categorized entities are extremely influenced by the way they are represented in the environment, which, in turn, impacts the way people mentally construe that representation. Thirdly, concerning inference, it is possible to explain others’ behaviour in terms of abstract dispositions of the actor (e.g. traits, values) or in terms of specific situational factors. Social psychological literature has supported the fact that all dimensions of psychological distance and proximity are associated with high-level personal dispositions and low-level situational factors respectively (Liberman & Trope, 2008; Trope & Liberman, 2010). People’s explanations of their own behaviour highlight the use of situational factors that operate at the same time of the action (temporal distance), are of direct experience of the self

(25)

(physical distance) and concern the self (social distance); whereas their explanations of others’ behaviour stress personal dispositions (E. E. Jones, 1972). 2.2.1 Consequences of abstraction As a result of the process of abstraction and the way in which people make evaluations, that is, relying on mental representation of the target object rather than the object itself, psychological distance can have an array of consequences for prediction, evaluation and behaviour (Liberman & Trope, 2008; Trope & Liberman, 2010). In fact, practically, distance itself acts as the trigger which makes people change the extent to which their mental representation of an object includes or weighs high and/or low-level characteristics of the object. This change can, in turn, affect the person’s judgments, intentions and actions regarding that object, which now have a different mental representation and may be interpreted and understood in a new manner (Dhar & Kim, 2007; Liberman & Trope, 2008; Trope & Liberman, 2010; Trope et al., 2007; Williams & Bargh, 2008). However, the current literature review merely discusses consequences on evaluation, which have a direct impact on the perception of fit as a consequence of the mental process of categorisation.

2.2.1.1 Consequences on evaluation

People tend to make choices and set preferences with respect to their construal of objects rather than the objects themselves. According to CLT, besides depending on the actual attributes of the objects, levels of construal also depend on the object’s psychological distance. Therefore, all dimension of distance should similarly affect evaluation to the extent that they promote higher-level construal.

Previous research provides empirical evidence that psychological distance affects people’s evaluations and judgments (e.g. Dhar & Kim, 2007; Williams & Bargh, 2008). For example, a four-experiment research examined the effects of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation

(26)

(Williams & Bargh, 2008). Its findings highlight that (1) the mere activation of physical-distance concepts, without explicitly referring to the self, is sufficient to affect people’s evaluations (study 1) and affective responses (study 2); (2) priming spatial distance reduces the affective intensity of stimuli, such that the greater the distance, the less affective the stimulus is; (3) increased spatial distance increases feelings of emotional distance (the emotional attachment people feel between themselves and others) (Williams & Bargh, 2008). CLT proposes that overall psychological distance shifts the attractiveness of an outcome closer to its high-level construal value than to its low-level construal value. However, when the low-level value is more positive than the high-level one, the outcome should be more attractive in the near future; whereas, when the high-level value is more positive than the low-level value, the outcome is more attractive in the distant future (Liberman & Trope, 2008; Trope & Liberman, 2010). In support of this prediction, previous research has explored various contexts (Eyal, Liberman, Trope, & Walther, 2004; Kentaro Fujita, Eyal, Chaiken, Trope, & Liberman, 2008; Liberman & Trope, 1998; Malkoc, Zauberman, & Bettman, 2007; Thomas, Chandran, & Trope, 2006; Todorov, Goren, & Trope, 2007; Trope & Liberman, 2000), such as evaluations of objects containing both central and peripheral aspects (Trope & Liberman, 2000) and evaluation based on either desirability or feasibility (Liberman & Trope, 1998; Thomas et al., 2006). Central features or aspects of outcomes constitute high-level construal, while peripheral aspects of outcomes constitute low-level construal. Thus, distancing an outcome should increase the weight of central rather than peripheral aspects (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Trope and Liberman’s (2010) findings report that participants who thought about the radio set in the distant future had higher satisfaction when the radio set was characterised by good sound quality (central aspect) and poor clock quality (peripheral aspect) than when it was characterised by bad sound quality and good clock quality. Hence, the author could indicate that temporal distance increases the weight people give to central features and decreases that

(27)

of peripheral ones (Trope & Liberman, 2000).

Similar findings have been found in the context of social distance (Liviatan et al., 2008). In this case, the authors asked students to evaluate an essay (central) written by a student who performed well or poorly on an unrelated subject exam (peripheral). Social distance was manipulated such that participants were led to believe that the writer was either similar to them (close) or dissimilar to them (distant). Ultimately, the weight of the peripheral information about the unrelated subject exam, relative to that of the essay, was greater in participants’ evaluations of the essay they believe it was written by a similar student than by a dissimilar one. In the latter example, desirability involves the value of the action’s end state and it is considered a high-level construal feature, whereas feasibility involves means by which it is possible to reach the end state and it is considered a low-level construal aspect. Therefore, desirability should receive much more weight over feasibility when psychological distance is high. Support to this prediction has been found across all dimensions of psychological distance (Liberman & Trope, 1998; Liviatan et al., 2008; Todorov et al., 2007). In addition, past research has also investigated the effect of psychological distance and level of construal on categorisation (Liberman, Sagristano, & Trope, 2002). In their research (Study 1), Liberman, Sagristano and Trope (2002) tested the CLT prediction that individuals use fewer and broader categories to classify objects relating to distant situations than when classifying objects relating to near situations (Liberman et al., 2002; Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope & Liberman, 2010). In their manipulation, participants imagined themselves in various situations in either the near or distant future and classified several objects into as many categories as they thought it would be appropriate. Eventually, results suggested that people used fewer categories to classify objects they imagined in distant future situation (more abstract and broad categorisation) than in a near one (Liberman et al., 2002). The major implication of this study with respect to the current research is that any dimension of psychological distance can be

(28)

employed to shape how people categorise objects and thus also categories in which a brand operates, highlighting the chance that mental representations of category boundaries may be altered and consequently influencing the perception of fit. 2.2.2 Effects of psychological distance in persuasive messages CLT has been arguing for decades that psychological distance is an extremely important and ubiquitous concept in people’s lives because it characterises how they mentally construe their surroundings. Clearly, due to the several aforementioned consequences to which psychological distance leads, it is easy to imagine a close-related relationship with what aims to willingly change people’s attitudes and behaviours, namely advertising. The minority of existing research on psychological distance, however, has paid attention to the potential benefits that framing psychological distance can achieve in advertising (e.g. Huang et al., 2017; Lane, 2000; Nenkov, 2012). From these few studies, compared to those not related to a marketing context, it is possible to comprehend main guidelines in determining the effects of displaying distance cues and making people mentally represent the target as the marketer wants to. Majority of these stream of research mainly focused on the effect of the interaction between distance cues and consumer’s mind-set on different outcome variables, which implies the fact that the distance cue itself does not affect the mental representation but interacts with a standard mind-set with which an individual usually processes information (e.g. H. Kim & John, 2008; Nenkov, 2012). This line of research exploits half of the potential that CLT can achieve. In fact, it merely applies and proves the CLT arguments which state that psychological distance is associated with high-level construals and psychological closeness with low-level construals. However, it does not consider the fact that psychological distance can actually shape the mind-set with which people construe information, as explained previously by the bi-directionality claim. For example, Kim, Rao and Lee (2009) conducted a study aimed to analyse the efficacy of

(29)

different persuasive messages in the context of a political campaign. Particularly, they tested whether the psychological distance with which voters construe the political election event, either abstractly when the event is far in time or concretely when it is close, interact with the emphasised content of the message, either abstract or concrete themes. In other words, they tested whether the match between consumers’ mental representations of the event (temporal distance) and construal level of the message leads to more favourable attitudes towards the candidate than when a mismatch occurs. The authors found that the congruence between temporal distance and message orientation influences the attitude towards the candidate. Moreover, they revealed that this interaction only occurs for people with low level of expertise (novices) and not for experts, indicating the level of expertise as another moderator in this relationship (H. Kim, Rao, & Lee, 2009). Drawing on the latter research’s findings, Nenkov (2012) studied this relationship in a more common situational context, namely consumer decision making process. The author argued, and eventually supported, that if consumers are in the pre-decisional phase of the process, they construe the target to be purchased abstractly due to the relative distance from the purchasing action, and therefore they will be more positively influenced by ads that emphasise high-level construal messages. In contrast, those who are in the post-decisional phase construe the target concretely due to the proximity to the purchase and thus will be more influenced by low-level construal messages (Nenkov, 2012). In addition to being the first study to provide empirical evidence of the connection between consumer decision making process phases and construal level theory, it also suggests another framing approach by varying psychological distance orientation of the framing target.

Another example of this line of research has been conducted by Kim and John (2008). As already mentioned in this research, they argued that construal level influences brand extension evaluation. This assumption is based on the arguments that construal levels judgments and decision making by a preference of information that matches the individual’s mind-set. Because

(30)

of the global nature of perceived fit as a judgment based on available information about parent brand and extension, and therefore its high-level construal, consumers with an abstract mind-set place more emphasis on perceived fit when judging the extension and vice versa for those with concrete mind-set. They ultimately uncovered the moderating effect of construal level on the relationship between perceived fit and brand extension evaluation. However, they also proved that this moderating effect may stem from both simple differences between individuals (different mind-sets) and changeable situational factors (i.e. distance cues), which, in turn, elicit different construal level processing demonstrating that it is possible to modify the process of brand-extension evaluation (H. Kim & John, 2008).

Inspired by the latter discovery, Huang et al. (2017) analysed the effect of psychological distance cues communicated through an ad on the relationship between brand extension similarity and brand extension evaluation. Eventually, authors found that the metaphorical match between the distance cue (close vs. distant) and the concepts used to assess the brand-extension (poor: distant vs. good: close) made the message as more fluent. In turn, this fluency has been misattributed to the extension which, in the end, was evaluated more positively than those in a mismatch condition (distant vs. good: close). This study, however, is the only one that used a psychological distance dimension, physical or spatial distance, in advertising context to alter consumers’ evaluations (Huang et al., 2017), exploiting the intrinsic bi-directional nature of psychological distance. Since the main objective of the current research is to uncover the ways in which it is possible to improve brand extension success and enhance brand-extension fit perception through altering the way product category similarity is perceived, the notion that psychological distance impacts categorisation will be employed to pursue this research aim. Particularly, social distance, one of the four dimensions of psychological distance, will be used as an advertising cue, with the intent to shape the way people categorise the focal brand’s product category

(31)

boundaries (K. Fujita et al., 2006; Liberman et al., 2002; Liberman & Trope, 1998), which should lead to different perceptions of fit between the parent brand and its extension. The current scenario would also investigate the potential effect of exploiting bi-directionality of psychological distance (Trope et al., 2007) to make people construe stimuli and information conveyed through the advertisement at the level of the distance cue represented.

Because the current research is focused on the brand context, the effect of psychological distance and level of construal may vary depending on the level of consumer-brand identification. Therefore, this study also employs the variable consumer-brand identification to investigate whether brand-identifiers and non-identifiers infer the same importance to different brand-extension information. The next paragraphs introduce the consumer-brand identification concept and its potential effect in the current scenario.

2.3 Consumer-Brand Identification

2.3.1 Brand Identification and Consumer-Brand Relationship

Existing research on consumer-brand relationships has highlighted that the ways in which consumers relate to brands often correspond to interpersonal relationship profiles, each implying different relationship scenario and norms (Fournier, 1998). Therefore, four conditions that usually qualify interpersonal relationships have been applied to the consumer-brand relationship domain. These conditions are: (1) relationships involve reciprocal exchange between active and interdependent relationship partners; (2) relationships are purposive, involving the provision of meanings to the person who engages them; (3) relationships are multiplex phenomena: they provide a range of possible benefits for their participants as a result of their multidimensionality; (4) relationships are process phenomena: they evolve and change over a series of interactions (Hinde, 1995). Even though anthropomorphising activities, which satisfy the need to anthropomorphise non-material objects to facilitate interaction with them

(32)

(Fournier, 1998; Nida & Smalley, 1959), serve as an example to practically demonstrate the attempt to show or perceive brands as vital members of people’s lives, in order to serve as a relationship partner, they must behave actively as a contributing member of the relationship. The major activity that qualifies brands as an active partner is conducting marketing actions through interactive and addressable communications of every kind (Fournier, 1998). Moreover, temporality distinguishes relationships from isolated transactions (Berscheid & Peplau, 1983). Relationships consist of a series of repeated exchanges between parties and evolve in response to these interactions. Due to these reasons, it is possible to think about consumer-brand relationship. Brands actively communicate and engage with consumers; these activities should be carried out by the brand in such manners which do not ruin the relationship previously built.

Previous studies aiming at uncovering the antecedents of the different level of consumer-brand relationships found that one of the most effective predictor of this phenomenon is consumer-brand identification (Bergkvist & Bech-Larsen, 2010; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Kuenzel & Vaux Halliday, 2008; Tuškej, Golob, & Podnar, 2013). This finding was achieved only after Arnett et al. (2003) had criticised past literature about consumer-brand relationship as having concentrated solely on the economic nature of these relationships. From that point onwards, social identity theory’s application has been extended to the marketing context (Ahearne, Bhattacharya, & Gruen, 2005), besides its previously common application in the sociological and psychological disciplines, e.g. organisational behaviour (Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000). Social identity theory, per se, postulates that in expressing their sense of self, people go beyond their personal identity developing a social identity (Turner, 1975). Hence, social identification takes place when a person identifies with a group of people. It is a perception of oneness with a group of people (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In the organisational context, it has been defined as “the degree to which a member defines him- or herself by the same attributes that he or she

(33)

believes define the organisation” (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). Thus, it is possible to assume that identification is a “perceptual constructive construct” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), what determines it is merely a psychological perception of an individual to see him- or herself as being connected with a group without a need to interact with other members or to have formal linkages with the organisation (Scott & Lane, 2000). Hence, it is readily understandable that the application to the consumer-brand context is plausible. Customers develop a social identity by identifying with and associating themselves with brands that reflect and reinforce their self-identities. Because brands and possessions help consumers express their uniqueness and identity, consumers identify with them and, in turn, tend to create powerful relations (Belk, 1988; McEwen, 2005). Hence, consumer-brand identification can be defined as “the perception of sameness between the brand and the consumer” (Tuškej et al., 2013), and seen by brand identifiers as the congruence between brand image (perceived brand identity) and self-identity (Nandan, 2005). Generally, consumer-brand identification has been linked to a significant impact on individual consumer behaviour, including effects on consumer buying-related decisions (Ahearne et al., 2005), brand preference (Tildesley & Coote, 2009), consumer loyalty (Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995; C. K. Kim, Han, & Park, 2001), brand community and commitment (Casaló, Flavián, & Guinalíu, 2008), consumer satisfaction and intention to purchase (Kuenzel & Vaux Halliday, 2008), positive word of mouth (Belén del Río, Vazquez, & Iglesias, 2001; C. K. Kim et al., 2001; Kuenzel & Vaux Halliday, 2008) and consumer’s willingness to pay a price premium (Belén del Río et al., 2001). These findings unanimously show evidence that consumer-brand identification strongly predicts the relationship between the consumer and the brand since consumer loyalty, consumer satisfaction, intention to purchase, positive word of mouth and willingness to pay a price premium are good indicators of the quality of the consumer-brand relationship (McEwen, 2005). Moreover, consumers who share very similar identification

(34)

define themselves in relation to the group and in distinction from members of a rival group (Tajfel & Turner, 1985), highlighting the fact that brand identifiers also show oppositional brand loyalty. Similar findings in the brand community context have shown evidence that brand communities are a sort of brand identifier association, in which brand identifiers are also connected with each other (Muniz & O'guinn, 2001). 2.3.2 Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Brand Identification Besides the overall contribution to consumer-brand relationship stream of research, some of those findings have a specific relevance with respect to this study. From the stand point of antecedents, Kuenzel and Halliday (2008) uncovered that consumer-brand identification is the result of the combination of three constructs, namely brand prestige, satisfaction and communication. All of them show a positive relationship with respect to consumer-brand identification. The relevant discovery concerns the role of communication. That is, brands can shape how consumers build bonds with them not only through the values adopted, prestige and satisfaction, but also through marketing activities (Kuenzel & Vaux Halliday, 2008), interestingly employing different advertising strategies (Kuenzel & Vaux Halliday, 2008) and extend the brand in “far” categories may convey different brand identities (Spiggle et al., 2012). From the standpoint of consequences, previous research has highlighted the direct influence of brand identification on relationship quality (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Kuenzel & Vaux Halliday, 2008; Tuškej et al., 2013) as stated previously. Specifically, a high level of consumer-brand identification leads consumers to repurchase more frequently and to be more willing to share their experience with others (Word of Mouth), for example, which both are manifestations of the strength of the consumer-brand relationship (Kuenzel & Vaux Halliday, 2008). Relevant to the purpose of this research is also the unveiled consequence of brand

(35)

identification concerning the tendency for consumers who identify with the brand to have stronger claims on company behaviour. When consumers identify with a brand or company, their company-borne social identity becomes more important to them. In turn, this importance makes consumers perceive their claims as more legitimate, pressing them more actively (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). The latter point is close-related to findings concerning brand communities (Muniz & O'guinn, 2001). In their research, Muniz and O’Guinn studied the behaviours of brand community members and highlighted that brand identifiers are particularly concerned with brand-related marketing activities as they represent the brand they identify with to both others or themselves. Especially, they expect marketers and brand managers to meet their expectations about how the brand should be represented, preceding the Bhattacharya and Sen’s finding concerning stronger claims from consumers who highly identify with the brand.

From a relationship perspective, the stronger claims from identifiers may be seen as a relationship norm that the brand has to respect. As relationships become closer and people repeatedly interact with relationship partners, they develop expectations about how these relationships should occur (Baldwin, 1992, 1995). Analogously, the ways in which consumers relate to different brands correspond to different interpersonal relationship profiles, each of them comprises a diverse array of relation scripts and behavioural norms (Fournier, 1998), which, if violated, can cause a change in the strength of the relationship (Metts, 1994). Hence, different consumer-brand relationships imply different norms of behaviour, which, in turn, guide consumers’ evaluations of brands’ actions (J. Aaker et al., 2004). Prior research concerning relationship norms in the context of consumer-brand relationship has shown that when brands violate explicit or implicit relationship norms (= transgression), their behaviour has a negative impact on relationship strength (J. Aaker et al., 2004), appraisal of marketing actions and brand evaluations (Aggarwal, 2004). Another example confirming that strong

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Immediately after finishing her master’s degree, she served as an academic assistant in the Pharmaceutical Research Group, ITB for one year, and she also worked

After 3-years follow up of the ACT-CVD cohort we performed a prospective study of the occurrence of first cardiovascular events in tightly controlled low disease activity

Kaplan-Meier curve showing time to discontinuation of levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) infusion. The vertical tick marks denote censored observations. The horizontal

The analyzed characteristics were: maximum diastolic blood pressure (mmHg), maternal age (years), Caucasian maternal ethnicity (native Dutch and other white women or

Om met meer zekerheid te stellen dat dit waargenomen verband tussen controle en stress aanwezig is bij mensen met een antisociale persoonlijkheid, en niet enkel bij mensen

The theory that seems to fit best, from the equity market point of view, is the theory from Ramalingegowda and Yu (2012) because long- term institutional investors demand

It will analyse views that either integrate or discount public opinion within the PP’s decision-making process, and also the ethical issues surrounding the information received

Network traffic with periodic behavior has two important charac- teristics that determine its normal appearance: the period (or frequency) and size (i.e., number of packets) of the