8/12/2019 6522219

1/8

Role of Pro duc t K nowledge in Evaluation of Brand ExtensionA.V.Muthulcrishn an, University of Florida

Barton A. Weitz, University of Florida^

ABSTRACTThis paper examines the role of productknowledge in consumer evaluation of brandextensions. Specifically, we give a set ofhypwLheses on the moderating effect of the variablesof prcduct knowledge and type of similarity onsimilarity judgment between original and newproduct categories as well as on attitude extension.An experiment was conducted to test thesehypotieses and the results of this experimentsupport some of our predictions.I N T R O D U C T I O NIn recent years there has been an increasedintere ;t in researc h on brand extensio n. The thru stof thi; research has been on identifying a set offactor; determining the success of brand extension(for example Aaker and Keller, 1990; Boush et al,1987; Smith, 1990). The studies examining brandextension from a micro perspective concentrated on

the product and brand characteristics that account forthe judgement of similarity between the original andnew product wiih the same brand name . However,one o; the issues not addressed by these studies isthe interaction of individual characteristics withbrand or product characteristics in similarityjudgn:ent as well as in attitude extension. Thispaper examines the role of an important individualcharaend on 1) the quality perceptions

of the brand in the original product category, 2) theextent to which the new product is perceived as a substitute for or complem ent to the originalproduct, 3) the extent to which the firm'smanufacturing expertise could be transferred to thenew product and 4) perceived difficulty of extension.The authors found that of the proposed set of factorsonly two, transfer and difficulty of exten sion ,had a significant effect on attitude toward theextended brands. In the second study, theymanipulated positive quality cues about the brand(cue present or absent) and opportunity to elaborate(a neutral description of the extension attributesalone or in combination with positive quality cues).It was found that providing positive quality cues didnot affect attitude extension while oppwrtunity toelaborate did.The studies discussed above have certainlyimproved our understanding of tlie factors accountingfor the success of brand extension. However, thereis a need to incorporate individual differences suchas product knowledge as explanatory variables. Asproduct evaluation may be a function of familiarity

407 Advances in Consumer ResearchVolume 18 1991

8/12/2019 6522219

2/8

408 /Role of Product Know ledge in Evaluation of Brand Extensionwith and expertise in a particular product category,these variables may play a significant role inattitude extension. More interestingly, theseknowledge related variables may interact withproduct characteristics to affect one's similarityperceptions as well as attitude extension. Thefollowing section gives the theoretical rationale forincluding the variable of product knowledge in ourstudy.Product Knowledge and Attitude ExtensionIn recent years there has been a substantialamount of research on the role of product knowledgeon various stages of consumer behavior (for exampleBettman and Park, 1980; Brucks, 1985; Johnson andRusso, 1984; Rao and Monroe, 1987 and Sujan,1985). These studies conclude that the decisionprocesses and strategies of consumers who are highon product knowledge differ from those who are low.Based on an extensive conceptual analysis. Alba andHutch inson (1987) sugge st that familiarity (thenumber of product related experiences that have beenaccumulated by the consumer) and expertise (theability to perform product related tasks successfully)are two separate components of product knowledge.Furthermore, these authors suggest that experts aresuperior to novices in terms of their cognitivestructure, analytic capabilities, ability to makeelaborate inferences and memory capabilities. Onthe basis of these conclusions, we suggest that thebasis of similarity or fit judgment in an attitudeextension may not be uniform across all segmentsof consu mers; it may vary between experts andnov i ce s .

We extrapolate the following propositions ofAlba and Hutchinson (1987) to the specific contextof attitude extension. Because of their deep, richlyintertwined category structure, experts may be ableto comprehend similarity between two differentclasses of products although surface perceptual cuesmay not suggest any obvious similarity betweenthose produc ts. When novices process informationselectively, they are more likely than experts toselect peripheral surface cues for judging a brandextension processing (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987)

Furthermore, experts may more often useelaborate inferences to fmd fit between two productcategories. For example, Gillette once test marketeda line of blank tape casse ttes. Tho ugh , the Gillettename is not associated with sound reproduction,knowledge of the commonalities between theproduction of cassette tapes and shaving equipmentsmade the association between the brand and theproduct seem less incongruent (Alba and Hutchinson,1 9 8 5 ) .Thus experts may find similarity between theoriginal product and the new product with the samebrand name on the basis of deep cues We definedeep cues as those factors that may account for theperformance of the product in the original categoryand may also be related to the performance in thenew category. At the attribute level, these mayinclude similarity in terms of technology, designand fabrication and materials and components used

in the manufacturing process. These may alsoinclude abstract benefits that require elaborateinference making.Novices, on the other hand, may tend torelate the original and new products on the basis ofsurface level cues These factors are not related tothe perfonnanc e of products. Rather these mayinclude perceptual cues like package, shape, color,size, etc., perception of two products being eithersubstitutes or complements, similar retail outlets andsimilar promotional techniques used. Also benefitsthat require no elaborate inference making may comeunder liiis category.The findings of several streams of research inthe areas of attitude formation and change supportour propositions. Our proposition that similaritybetween two products may be judged on the basis ofeither surface level factors or deeper level factors issimilar to the propositions of Petty and Cacioppo(1981) and Chaiken (1980). In both these mod els,ability is one of the factors that decide the type ofprocessing a person engages in. In a framework onrelationship among belief attitude,intention and

behavior, Feldman and Lynch (1988) propose thatprior knowledge may be one of the factors thatdetermine the perceived diagnosticity of an input.As previous studies have shown, attitudeextension is a function of jjerceived similaritybetween two products. Based on the logic givenabove we suggest that experts are more likely totransfer their attitude when the original and newproduct categories are similar in terms of deepproperties. Conversely, novices are more likely totransfer their attitude when categories are similaronly in terms of stirface level factors. It has to benoted, however, that when two products are related atsurface level, experts as well as novices mayidentify the similarity. Unlike novices, experts maynot perceive such a similarity diagnostic and hence

may not transfer their attitude from the originalproduct to the new product bearing the same brandname.The above discussion leads us to thefollowing set of hypotheses:

HI (a): When similarity between the originalproduct and the new product with thesame brand name is based on surfacefactors, experts as well as novices arelikely to identify the similarity.H l(b ) : When similarity between the originalproduct and the new product with thesame brand name is based on deepfactors, experts are more likely thannovices to identify this similaritymore accurately.H2(a): When similarity between the originalproduct and the new product with tliesame brand name is based on surfacefactors, novices are more likely thanexperts to transfer their positive or

8/12/2019 6522219

3/8

Advances in Consumer Research Volume IS) I4 09negative attitude toward the originalproduct to the new product.

H; (b): Whe n similarity between the originalproduct and the new product with thesame brand name is based on deepfactors, experts are more likely thannovices to transfer their positive ornegative attitude toward the originalproduct to the new product.

Altfiough these hypotheses were proposedexplicitly for the variable of expertise, we expectedtlie Slime pattem of results for the variable offamiliari ty.METHOD

Subj tc t sSubjects in this study were undergraduatestudents enrolled for Marketing Management andMarketing Research courses at a South-easternuniversity. There were 106 subjects (52% femaleand 48 % male). The subjects participated in thestudy as a part of a course requirement.PnxreiureThe subjects were told that the study wasbeing conducted by the university for a sportinggood:; manufacturer. To increase the responseinvolvement, subjects were told that their responseswould be used as input for the product andpromotional strategy of the compan y. Then theywere asked to fill out a four section questionnaire.Each section of the questionnaire was distributed andcollected separately. Th e sections of thequestionnaire asked for information in the followingorder: a. attitude toward the brand s in the originalproduct category; b. attitude toward hypotheticalbrand extensions; c. judgm ent of similarity b etweenoriginal and new products; d. the level of familiaritywith and expertise in the original as well as newcategaries. At the end of the session subjects weredebriefed.Deslj;n There were tliree factors in this study -prodi ct knowledge at two levels (expert vs noviceand high familiarity vs low familiarity), basis ofsimilarity at two levels (deep vs surface), andattitude toward brands in the original category at twolevels (positive vs negative). Product knowledgewas i. between subjects factor and the other two werewith in subject factors. The re were two brandsnested in each combination of the two with insubje;ts factors and "brands" was treated as a fixedfactoi\ Finally the set of subjects was treated asrandom factor nested in product knowledge.Independent VariablesThe study was conducted with termis racquetas th'j proposed extension category using brandnames of existing tennis shoes or golf clubs.Termis racquets bear a surface similarity to tennis

shoes. Probably the most obvious relationshipsbetween these products are that both of them aretennis products and thus may be viewed ascomplements and both are sold at the same retailout le t s .Tennis racquets were considered to be similarto golf clubs at a deejjer level. It was learnedthrough lengthy discussions v/ith sporting goodssellers that same materials were used to manufacturecomponents of these two produc ts. Further thedesign and fabrication techniques for these productswere quite similar.The second factor in the study was tlie initialattitude toward the brand in the original category.The brands of golf clubs and tennis shoes consideredby sellers of sporting goods to be high quality wereused as "positive brands" and tJie ones theyidentified as low quality were used as "negativebrands". Their classification highly correlated withthe sales figures for these brands, suggesting thatconsumers may share their perceptions of quality.Tlie third factor was the level of subjects'knowledge in tennis and golf produ cts. Bothfamiliarity and expertise were measured, in order toascertain v/hether differently moderated similarityjudgmen ts and attitude extension. Expertise wasmeasured through two item self rating. In previousstudies this measure of subjective knowledge wasfound to be correlated with objective knowledge (forexample, Brucks, 1985). Familiarity was measuredthrough a nine item scale. Some of the items weresimilar to those used by Sujan(1985) to measurefamiliarity in another product domain. Others wereconstructed on the lines of the components offamiliarity identified by Alba and Hutchinson(1987). Appendix- A gives the items used to measureexpertise and the contents of ffimiliarity scale.Cronbach's alpha for subjective expertise was 0.969for tennis shoes, 0.985 for golf club and 0.981 fortennis racquets. Median split was used to separatehigh and low knowledge groups in each of theproduct categories. Subjects falling in the upperhalf of all the three categories were classified as"high familiar group" and tiie others were classifiedas "low familiar group ". A similar proce dure wasused to classify subjects as experts and novices.Dependent V ariablesAttitude toward brands in the originalcategory, attitude toward the new product with thesame brand names and judgment of similaritybetween the original and new product categories wereused as dependent variables. Attitude toward brandsin the original categories was included as a check forour manipulation of positive and negative brands.The manipulation check revealed that the ratings ofthe subjects did not agree with those of the sellersin the case of two brands each in tennis shoes andgolf club categ ories. Hen ce altliough we collecteddata for six brands in each category, only data forfour brands in each categorj' were included in thefinal analysis.

Based on attitude scales used in a number ofprevious studies, attitudes toward brands in original

8/12/2019 6522219

4/8

410 /RoU of Product Knowledge in Evaluation of rand Extensionas well as extended category was measured through ascale of four 7 point semantic differential items.The items in the scale were positive-negative,favorable-unfavorable, good-bad and like-dislike.Cronbach's alpha for scale items for attitude towardthe original brand was 0.754 and it was 0.868 forscale items for attitude toward the extended brand.The overall attitude was the average of these fouri tems . The perceived similarity between the originalcategory and new category was measured through twoitems (1= not at all similar to 7= highly similar andl=not at all related to 7=extremely related).Cronbach's alpha for these items was 0.911 for thepair of tennis shoes-tennis racquet and 0.930 for thepair of golf club-tenn is racquet. Th e subjects werealso asked to give reasons for their similarityjudgments which served as an indicator of thepossible bases of similarity. Later these responseswere coded by one of the researchers as deep andsurface level factors.Plan of Analysis

To test Hypotheses la. and lb. two modelswere used. In the first model either expertise orfamiliarity and type of similarity (manipulated) werethe independent variables and subjects' rating ofsimilarity was the dependent variable.Expertise/familiarity was a between subjects variableand type of similarity was a two levels (surface anddeep) repeated factor. A mixed factor analysis ofvariance was used to test these hypotheses. Tosupport these hypotheses there should be asignificant simple effect of product knowledge atdeep level of similarity and there should be no sucheffect at surface level of similarity. In other word s,there should be a significant expertise/familiarity *Type of similarity interaction.In the second model, the reasons forsimilarity judgment for the pairs of tennis shoes-termis racquet and golf club-tennis racquet,coded asaccurate and inaccurate was used as the dependentvariable and familiarity/expertise was theindependent variable. This model was an additionaltest of hyp othes is lb . If our assertion that expertswould identify the basis of similarity moreaccurately when two products are related at a deeperlevel is correct, then there should be a significanteffect of expe rtise/familiarity . Catego rical linearmodel (CATMOD) was used as the technique ofanalys i s .R E S U L T S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

Manipulat ion ChecksAs mentioned earlier, data on some brandshad to be excluded from analysis as the initialattitude expressed by a majority of subjects did notagree with the opinions of sellers. We condu ctedmanipulation checks to ensure that the eight brandsincluded in final analysis were perceived as positiveor negative by subjeets. We were interested in twoeffects. First, to show that our manipu lationsworked, there should be a significant main effect of

the factor cf initial attitude . Secon d, we testedwhether the difference in liking between the positiveand negative brands of tennis shoes was equal forexperts and novices and whether the analogousdifference in liking for positive and negative brandsof golf clubs was equal for experts and novices.Such expert novice difference in attitudes toward theoriginal brands could artificially produce differencesin liking for the extended brands. This explana tioncould be ruled out by finding no significant threeway interaction of product knowledge*initialattitude*type of similarity.The results we obtained confirmed that theinitial attitude manipulation was strong (F (1,104)=97.16, p < 0.0001 )2. -j^g three way interaction wasnot significant (F (1,104)= 2.35, p > 0.128). Thisshows that there was no expert-novice differences intlie liking for brands in the original productcategories.Similarity Judgm ents of Experts and NovicesThe model using expertise as a betweensubjects variable, type of similarity as repeatedfactor and similarity judgment as dependent variableyielded partial support for our hyp othese s l(a) andl (b ) . Tab le 1 gives the type of similarity xexpertise mean scores.

The type of similarity x expertise interactionwas highly significant ( F (1,104) =23.9, p

8/12/2019 6522219

5/8

8/12/2019 6522219

6/8

412 I Role of Product Kn owledge in Evaluation of Brand ExtensionT A B L E 4A T T I T U D E E X T E N S I O N B Y E X P E R T S A N D N O V I C E S

EXPERTISENovices(n=87)Experts(n=19)N=106

S U R F A C EPosit ive Negative3.518

2 . 6 7 0

2 . 7 0 6

2 . 2 1 0

DE E PPosit ive Negative1 923 1 762

4 1 917

ones used in this study. It may be necessary toreplicate this study using a number ofproducts/brand s. Finally, in the process ofcategorization, we suggested that our novicesubjects' evaluation may be based on a similarityjudgmen t. They may identify similarity betweentennis shoes and tennis rackets as they are used inthe same sport (complemen ts). However it is alsopossible that they just went by the category label T ennis as this label was missing in the otherpair.^ Hence it is possible that novices' evaluationsimply may be on the basis of the category labeland not on the basis of perceptual fit of surface levelfactors. Future research could exam ine thesecompeting explanations on the process of attitudeext ens i on.G E N E R A L D I S C U S SI O N A N D C O N C L U S I O NIn this research we suggested that experts andnovices may differ in their reactions to brandextension on the basis of the type of relationshipbetween the original product and the new productwith the same brand name. Our results may have

implications in the areas of branding andprom otion. Wh en a firm extends its brand name toanother product category on the basis ofcommonality in technology, experts may appreciatesuch an extension while novices may not.Similarly, novices may find surface i'actorsdiagnostic while novices may not.In such a case, itwill be advantageous for the firm to educateconsumers on the technical/manufacturingcommonalities and convince them that the extensionis logical. T he expert - novic e differences may alsobe useful in positioning of the extended brand.However, when the global image of the firm is veryhigh then there may not be any expert - novicedifference in produ ct evaluation. In such an instanceexperts as well as novices may have high attitudetoward extended brand.

F O O T N O l ^The analyses with familiarity instead ofexpertise as an independent variable yielded resultssomewhat different f'rom those reported in the results

'We thank Susan Broniarczyk for suggesting thisposs i bl i t y

and discussion s ection. Th e typ>e of similarity xfamiliarity was not significant at 0.05 level but wassignificant at 0.1 level (F (1,104) = 2.93, p < 0.1).For the pair of tennis racquet and golf club basis ofjudgment x familiarity interaction was significant(chi-square (1)= 12.67, p < .0005. Th e three wayinteraction among familiarity, initial attitude andtype of similarity was significant (F (l,104)=4.38,p < 0.05). However, the mean in po sitive-surfacecondition (3.24) was higher than the mean inpositive-deep condition (2.76) for High familiargroup. Th is is contrary to our prediction. Th isshows that as Alba and Hutchinson (1987) argue,familiarity and expertise are different constructs andtreating them as same may cause serious constructvalidity problems.

A P P E N D I X - AThe contents of Familiari ty ScaleThe items included in the familiarity scalesought information on (1) How long the subjectbeen playing the sport? (2) How often does sheplay? (3) How often does she visit storesexclusively selling these products? (4) How manytimes has she bought tennis racquets, tennis shoesand golf clubs for herself or for others? (5) Howoften and how much is she consulted by her friendsand relatives in the purcha se of these products? (6)How much of attention does she pay to the ads forthese products? (7) How many brands in each ofthese product categories could she recall? (8) Whatmagazines pertaining to these product categoriesdoes she read? and (9) How much of time does shespend watching TV programs on these sports?

The subjective expertise scale had two items1) I consider myself least knowledgeable = 1 tohighly knowledgeable = 7 and 2) I consider myselfnovice = 1 to expert = 7. Th ese were measured foreach product category separately.R E F E R E N C E SA aker, D and K. Keller (1990), C onsumerEvaluations of Brand Extensions , Journal ofMarketing 54 , 27-41.A lba, J. W and J. \V. Hutchinson (1985), AFramework for Understanding ConsumerKnowledge II. C omparison and InferenceProcess , Working Paper, University of Florida,Center for Consumer Research.

8/12/2019 6522219

7/8

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 18) I4 3(1987), Dimensions of ConsumerExpertise , Journal of Consumer Research, 13 ,4 1 1 - 4 5 4 .Bettrian, J. R and C. W. Park (1980), Effects ofPrior ICnowledge and Experience and Phase of theChoice Process on Consumer Decision Processes:A Protocol Analysis , Journal of ConsumerResearch, 7, 234-248.Boush, D et al.[ University of Minnesota Seminar ](1987), Affect Gen eralization to Similar andE'issimilar Brand Extensions , Psychology andMarketing, 4, 225-237.Brucks, M (1985), The Effects of Product ClassKlnowledge on Information Search Behavior ,Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 1-16.Chaiken, S (1980), Heuristic versus SystematicInformation Processing and the Use of Sourceversus Message Cues in Persuasion , Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.Feld.-nan, J. M and J. G. Lynch, Jr. (1988), Self-Cienerated Validity and Other Effects ofMeasurement onBelief, Attitude, Intention and

ehavior . Journal of Applied P sychology, 73,4 2 1 - 4 3 5 .Johnson, E. J and E. Russo (1984), ProductFamiliarity and Leaming New Information ,Journal cf Consumer Research, 11, 253-263.Leuthesser, L (1988), Defining, Measuring, andManaging Brand Equity , MSI Report No. 88-1 0 4 .Mac lnnis, D and K. Nakamoto (1989), Cognitive/associations and Product CategoryComp;irisons : The Role of KnowledgeStructures and Context , Working paper.University of Arizona.

Pettj', R. E and J. T. Cacioppo (1981), Attitudesand Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary/approaches , Dubuque, IA, William C. Brown.Rao, A and K. B. Monroe (1988), The ModeratingEffect of Prior Knowledge in Cue Utilization inFroduct Evaluation , Journal of ConsumerResearch, 15, 253-263.Smilh, D (1990), An Examination of Product andMarket Conditions That Affect the FinancialOutcome of Brand Extensions , Working paper.University of Wisconsin.

Sujan, M (1985), Consumer Knowledge Effects onElvaluation Strategies Mediating ConsumerJudgments , Journal of Consumer Research, 12 ,3 1 - 4 6 .Tauber, E. M (1981), Brand Franchise Extension:^few Product Benefits from Existing Brand^fames , Business Horizons, 24 (2), 36-41 .(1988), Brand Leverag e: Strategy ForGrowth in a Cost-Control World , Journal ofAdvertising Research, 2 8, (August/Septemb er),2 6 - 3 0 .

8/12/2019 6522219

8/8