sonlam-DissProposal-Feb26

8/10/2019 sonlam-DissProposal-Feb26

1/46

CUSTOMER-BRAND IDENTIFICATION AS A SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVEADVANTAGE: A MULTINATIONAL AND LONGITUDINAL EXAMINATION

Son K. Lam

Doctoral StudentUniversity of Houston

[email protected]

Disse !a!ion P o"osa#

C$ai :

D . Mi%$ae# A$ea ne

Commi!!ee:D . E& B#ai

D . 'e ()

D . C. B. B$a!!a%$a *a

1


2/46

CUSTOMER-BRAND IDENTIFICATION AS A SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVEADVANTAGE: A MULTINATIONAL AND LONGITUDINAL EXAMINATION

Disse !a!ion P o"osa#Son K. Lam

A+s! a%!

Previous marketing research has been struggling to find a deeply rooted cognitivevariable that might be more predictive of customer loyalty than customer satisfaction both in theshort run and in the long run. Dra!ing from the customer company identification and brand

health literatures" this dissertation proposes that customer brand identification #$%&'" defined asthe e(tent to !hich customers define themselves in terms of psychological oneness !ith a brand"should be highly predictive of important customer behavior" both in role #e.g." loyalty' and e(trarole #e.g." social promotion'. )he fusion of the brand and the self makes $%& a *sticky prior+ thatis more enduring than either perceived value or s!itching costs" creating a sustainablecompetitive advantage due to its value" rareness" inimitability" and non substitutability. )!oempirical essays in this dissertation e(plore this research proposition and its boundary conditionsin cross cultural and longitudinal conte(ts.

,


3/46

INTRODUCTION

%uilding a strong and healthy relationship !ith customers" the sine -ua non in the era of

hypercompetition" tops the arketing Science &nstitute/s ,00 ,002 research priorities. &n the

relationship marketing literature" the inter relationships among perceived value" satisfaction"

loyalty" and ultimately market share figure predominantly. Ho!ever" it does not take a

microscope to identify t!o ma3or concerns. 4irst" !hile there is consensus that satisfaction is

positively related to customer loyalty" marketing researchers concur that *satisfaction is not

enough+ # liver 16667 8ones and Sasser 16657 9eichheld 166 '. &n this vein" researchers suggest

that perceived value might represent a construct at a higher level of abstraction !ith broaderimplications for predicting customer loyalty than customer satisfaction #Sheth et al. 16617 %olton

and Dre! 16617 9ust and liver 166:'. &n its most general definition" perceived value represents

customers/ perception of !hat is received and !hat is given #;eithaml 1622'. Ho!ever"

perceived value is like a ghost that is hard to chase because it varies across situations" time"

e(perience" types of offering" and competitive landscape #for a revie!" see odish #,000' propose that the health of a brand has t!o related yet distinct

componentsA current !ell being and resistance. %rand current !ell being is generally reflected in

B


4/46

the current market share" baseline sales #i.e." sales !hen there is no promotion'" and customer

based brand e-uity #Celler 166B' under normal conditions. %rand resistance refers to the focal

brand/s vulnerability to abnormal fluctuations in the market" such as competitors/ promotion or

changes in regulations. )his vulnerability manifests itself primarily in the form of s!itching

behavior # c.f." %hattacharya and >odish ,000" p. 2 10'" bringing to light the segment of *spurious

loyalty+ #Day 16 67 8acoby and $hesnut 16=2'. &t remains unclear" ho!ever" as to !hat variables

can serve as valid antecedents to brand health.

9esearch on loyalty suggests that *authentic+ brand loyalty e(ists only !hen there is *a

deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatroni e a preferred productEservice consistently in thefuture" thereby causing repetitive same brand or same brand set purchasing" despite situational

influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause s!itching behavior+ # liver 1666"

p. B:'. &t follo!s immediately that this deeply rooted cognitive variable can serve as an

antecedent to brand health. Dra!ing from the customer company identification literature

#%hattacharya and Sen ,00B7 hearne" %hattacharya" and Fruen ,005'" !e propose that

customer brand identification #$%&'" defined as the e(tent to !hich customers define themselves

in terms of psychological oneness !ith the brand" is the missing link in predicting brand health

even !hen perceived value and s!itching costs are controlled for.

)he brand management literature has postulated several brand concepts such as brand

kno!ledge" brand loyalty" and brand a!areness #Celler 166B'. Ge! constructs reflecting

customer relationship !ith brands have recently been introduced #e.g." brand love" $arroll and

huvia ,00 7 self brand connection" scalas and %ettman ,0057 brand commitment" Hess and

Story ,005'. Ho!ever" $%& is distinct from its predecessor conceptuali ations in that $%&

reflects and captures the psychological oneness # shforth and ael 1626' !hile the plethora of

:


5/46

these constructs does not. Hogg" )erry" and


6/46

%hattacharya and colleagues #%hattacharya and Sen ,00B7 hearne" %hattacharya" and Fruen

,005' to achieve a deeper understanding of $%& and its correlates in four important areas. 4irst"

!e compare the validity of $%& !ith that of perceived value and s!itching costs in predicting

customer behavioral loyalty. Second" !e e(plore the moderating role of cultures of the

relationship bet!een $%& and its conse-uences by adapting Hofstede/s #1620" ,001' cultural

dimensions to the consumer behavior conte(t. )hird" !e e(amine a broader array of $%&

conse-uences. Some of these conse-uences are emergent phenomena in the booming internet era

and might not be e(plainable by perceived value and s!itching costs. 4ourth" !e e(amine the

longitudinal impact of $%& on behavioral loyalty in a competitive conte(t. ore specifically" !estudy ho! enduring the effect of $%& on customer loyalty is over time in markets !here a ne!

entrant tries to uproot customer/s identification !ith incumbent brands.


7/46

academics and practitioners in terms of branding strategy and building global brand

communities.

&n the ne(t section" !e revie! the relevant literatures that provide the theoretical

foundation for t!o empirical essays. )hese streams of research include social identity theory"

identity theory" and customer company identification.

LITERATURE REVIE,

So%ia# I&en!i!* T$eo * I&en!i!* T$eo * an& T$ei Ma e!in/ A""#i%a!ions

Social identity theory #)a3fel and )urner 1625' posits that individuals define their self

concepts by their connections !ith social groups or organi ations. 4or e(ample" individualsmight identify !ith social entities such as !ell kno!n organi ations to bask in their reflected

glory #$ialdini et al. 16= '. &n so doing" individuals engage in a self categori ation process

through !hich an ingroup to !hich one belongs is clearly demarcated against an outgroup

#)urner et al. 162='. %ased on social identity theory" organi ational behavior researchers develop

the concept of organi ational identification # lbert and


8/46

#%ago i and Dholakia ,00 7 uni and /Fuinn ,0017 c le(ander" Schouten and Coenig

,00,'.

t a more micro level" identity theory #Stryker and Serpe 162,' focuses on the social

roles individuals play in various social settings. ach role constitutes an identity7 identities are

organi ed hierarchically. arketing research based on identity theory tends to focus on ho!

individual customers behave in agreement !ith the most salient #i.e." most internali ed" high in

the hierarchy' identity because it provides the most meaning for the self # rnett et al. ,00B'. )his

stream of research also frames customer product relationship in light of !hat is *me+ and !hat is

*not me+ #Cleine et al. 16657 9eed ,00,'. lthough social identity theory and identity theoryevolve in t!o different streams of research #social psychology and sociology" respectively'" these

interrelated theories share several similar concepts that have been introduced into the marketing

literature such as identity salience" identity congruent behavior" and multiple levels and layers of

identification. ost relevant to this dissertation are customer company identification and its

conse-uences" identity congruent behavior.

C)s!ome -B an& I&en!i0i%a!ion

Under the overarching theme of relationship marketing #Sheth and Parvatiyar 16657

%erry 1665'" previous research on customer company relationship develops along t!o streams.

)he first stream of research focuses on almost e(clusively interpretive consumers/ account about

their relationship !ith brands #4ournier 16627 c le(ander" Schouten" and Coenig ,00,'. ne

of the tenets of this stream of research is that possessions can be vie!ed as the e(tended self

#%elk 1622'" or the self #Cleine et al. 1665'. )his !ay" consumer product relationships resulting

from fre-uent interactions are anthropomorphi ed. &n other !ords" this research stream treats

brands as relationship partners and vie! consumer brand relationships as affect laden #)homson"

2


9/46

ac&nnis" and Park ,0057 Park and ac&nnis ,00 '.

)aking a cognition based approach" the second stream of research proposes that

consumers identify !ith companies to satisfy one or more self definitional needs #%hattacharya

and Sen ,00B7 hearne" %hattacharya" and Fruen ,0057 in!iller et al. ,00 '. ost importantly"

this identification is not contingent upon interaction !ith specific organi ational members

#)urner 162,'" or direct e(perience !ith the ob3ect of identification #9eed ,000'. t the brand

level" individuals might identify !ith a brand that fits !ith their personalities !ithout actually

being able to afford it. s individuals age" identification changes from an unconscious process of

merely mimicking role models to a more conscious and sophisticated one #$haplin and 8ohn,0057 9eed ,000'.

)his dissertation builds primarily upon this second stream to e(amine customer brand

relationship. $ustomer brand identification #$%&' is defined here as the e(tent to !hich

customers define themselves in terms of psychological oneness !ith a brand. $onsistent !ith the

!idely accepted perspective in organi ational identification research ##%ergami and %ago i

,0007 Dutton et al. 166:'" social categori ation theory #)urner et al. 162='" and research on close

relationships # aron et al. 1661'" $%& is treated here as a cognitive construct that reflects the

e(tent to !hich the brand has been assimilated into the self of customers. Previous research on

brand loyalty has tried to distinguish *action loyalty+ from lo!er levels of loyalty such as

conative loyalty" affective commitment" and cognitive loyalty # liver 16667 Day 16 6'. &n this

vein" $%& might be considered the most po!erful antecedent to the highest form of loyalty

because $%& reflects an on going fusion of the brand and the self into one entity.

)able 1 details the conceptual distinction bet!een $%& and e(isting brand related

constructs. )o establish empirical evidence of its discriminant validity" !e !ill include some of

6


10/46

these measures in the data collection phase.

TABLE 1C)s!ome -B an& I&en!i0i%a!ion an& Simi#a B an&-Re#a!e& Con%e"!s

Con%e"! De0ini!ion an& Dis!in%!ion

$ustomer %rand &dentification )he degree to !hich a customer defines himself in terms of psychologicaloneness !ith a brand.

Self brand connection

# scalas and %ettman ,005'

Self brand connection is used to describe situations !hen brand associationsare used to construct the self or to communicate the self concept to others.$%& reflects this notion from a social identity theory #)a3fel and )urner 1625'

perspective.

%rand affect

#$haudhuri and Holbrook ,001'

brand/s potential to elicit a positive emotional response in the averageconsumer as a result of its use. $%& is not contingent on previous use.

%rand love

#$arroll and huvia ,00 '

)he degree of passionate emotional attachment a satisfied consumer has for a particular trade name. %rand love is affect based" !hereas $%& is a cognitiveconstruct.

%rand trust

#$haudhuri and Holbrook ,001'

)he !illingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function. )his might be one of the antecedents of $%&.$onsumers might trust a number of brands" but not identify !ith all of them.

%rand loyalty

# liver 1666'

deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatroni e a preferred productEserviceconsistently in the future" thereby causing repetitive same brand or same

brand set purchasing" despite situational influences and marketing effortshaving the potential to cause s!itching behavior. )he ne! construct $%& is anantecedent to brand loyalty.

Antecedents to CBI. &t is important to note that customer brand emotional attachment has

recently received some academic attention #)homson" ac&nnis" and Park ,005'. &nstead of

vie!ing the cognition and emotion based streams of research as separate" !e believe the

interplay of cognition and affect in forming $%& is inherent in the conceptual frame!orks of

organi ational identification in the forms of *perceived attractiveness of the organi ation+

#%hattacharya and Sen ,00B' and *emotional significance attached to that membership+ #)a3fel1621" p. ,55'. &t should be emphasi ed" ho!ever" that the antecedents to $%& are heavily leaned

to!ard cognitive processes for at least t!o reasonsA #1' &dentification involves an effortful

comparison to detect the fit bet!een the self and the brand along dimensions such as personality

10


11/46

and values # c.f., Sirgy 162,7 aker 166='" and #,' &dentification re-uires perceived

distinctiveness of the brand in the consideration set. )here e(ists mounting empirical evidence

that cognitive variables such as construed e(ternal image of the organi ation" perceived

organi ational prestige" and organi ational stereotypes serve as strong predictors of members/

organi ational identification #e.g." hearne" %hattacharya" and Fruen ,0057 %hattacharya" 9ao"

and Flynn 16657 Creiner and shforth ,00:7 Dukerich" Folden" and Shortell ,00,7 %ergami and

%ago i ,000'.

Consequences of CBI. Previous research on organi ational identification suggests that

organi ational identification has important implications for organi ations. rgani ationalidentification has been found to be predictive of organi ational members/ in role behavior such

as performance as !ell as e(tra role behavior like organi ational citi enship behavior #9iketta

,005'. 9ecent marketing research on customer company identification also supports this claim

# hearne" %hattacharya and Fruen ,0057 Donavan" 8anda" and Suh ,00 '. &n terms of affective

conse-uences" organi ational identification researchers suggests that organi ational identification

can result in *hot affects+ such as passion" strong bonding" captivation" or even addiction" a

vie!point that is consistent !ith the emotion based research stream revie!ed above. &n the

terminology of s!itching costs" organi ational identification can lead to high emotional

s!itching costs #%urnham" 4rels" and aha3an ,00B'.

&n the ne(t section" !e present t!o essays. )he organi ation of each essay is as follo!s.


12/46

ESSA' 1CONSE2UENCES OF CUSTOMER-BRAND IDENTIFICATION:

A CROSS-NATIONAL EXAMINATION

)here has been a rekindled interest in studying the link bet!een perceived value and

customer loyalty #8ohnson" Herrmann" and Huber ,00 '. 9esearchers seem to concur that

perceived value might be more predictive of customer future intentions than satisfaction #$ronin

et al. 166=7


13/46


14/46

behaviors can be organi ed into a continuum" !ith stronger claims being the most intense e(tra

role behavior.

emon 16667

;eithaml et al. 166 '. %y definition" perceived value forms the foundation of relationships

characteri ed by reciprocity and calculation. &nasmuch as higher level customer behaviors such

1:


15/46

as forgiveness and brand defense are costly to the customers and perceived value does not

necessarily lead to higher levels of brand internali ation to ignite stronger claims" !e do not

e(pect perceived value to be related to these behaviors. )his suggests"

H , A )here is a positive relationship bet!een perceived value and #a' repurchase intention"#b' !illingness to pay more" and #c' social promotion.

HBA Perceived value is not related to #a' customer forgiveness" #b' brand defense" and #c'stronger claims.

C)#!) a# Dimensions

mong various conceptuali ations of cultural orientations #e.g." Sch!art 166,7 9okeach

16=B7 Peabody 16257 Hofstede 1620" ,001'" Hofstede/s five cultural dimensions remain the most

!idely accepted perspective #Steenkamp et al. 1666'. )hese dimensions include individualism

Ecollectivism" uncertainty avoidance" po!er distance" masculinityEfemininity" and long term

orientation.


16/46

propensities in maintaining and nurturing e(isting relationships and to assign perceived value

different !eights in forming their behavioral intentions. &n the ne(t section" !e first define each

cultural dimension" then present the rationale for the hypotheses.

Individualism/Collectivism. )his cultural orientation is defined as the degree to !hich

individuals are supposed to look after themselves or remain integrated into groups #Hofstede

,001'. )his dimension has received the most attention in marketing research.


17/46

concerned about being harmonious !ith social groups" and might trade off personal benefits such

as value for money for brands that readily receive social acceptance. $ollectivistic customers are

also more likely to attribute failure of products to e(ternal forces such as fate and luck rather

than holding the company responsible #Schutte and $iarlante 1662'" and are therefore more

forgiving. )hese customers also vie! e-ual treatment as more important than e-uity # c4arlin

and S!eeney ,001'" and as a result do not put forth stronger claims to be treated differently.

)herefore"

H : A )he relationship bet!een $%& and #a' repurchase intention" #b' !illingness to paymore" and #c' brand social promotion !ill be stronger #!eaker' !hen the customer is

collectivistic #individualistic'.H5A )he relationship bet!een perceived value and #a' repurchase intention !ill be

stronger #!eaker' !hen the customer is individualistic #collectivistic'. Ho!ever" therelationship bet!een perceived value and #b' !illingness to pay more" and #c' brandsocial promotion !ill be !eaker #stronger' !hen the customer is individualistic# collectivistic'.

H A )he relationship bet!een $%& and #a' forgiveness" and #b' brand defense !ill bestronger #!eaker' !hen customers have collectivistic #individualistic' orientation.Ho!ever" the relationship bet!een $%& and #c' stronger claims !ill be !eaker#stronger' for collectivistic #individualistic' customers.

Uncertainty avoidance . Uncertainty avoidance refers to the e(tent to !hich a culture

programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations

#Hofstede ,001'. High uncertainty avoidance individuals prefer stability" loyalty" simplicity in

consumption. )hey possess strong resistance to changes and a high need for clarity and structure

#*!hat is different is dangerous+'. Hence" they !ill be less likely to go through the hassle of

brand e(perimentation #%roderick ,00='. %ecause giving out !ord of mouth might reduce the

uncertainty that goes along !ith consumption and reduce post purchase cognitive dissonance

#>iu et al. ,0017 4estinger 165='" customers !ho are high in uncertainty avoidance !ill also be

more likely to engage in this e(tra role behavior.

1=


18/46

&t is risk and structure that customers !ith high uncertainty avoidance are after" not

perceived value. ong term oriented customers should assign particular importance to

12


19/46

perceived value as this value !ill be instrumental in relationship maintenance in the long run.

$onse-uently" the relationship bet!een perceived value and its conse-uences !ill be elevated

among these customers.


20/46

MET(ODOLOG'

Sam"#e

)o pretest the baseline model" data !ere collected from high prescribing physicians in a

%,% setting. )o test the full conceptual frame!ork" data !ill be collected from appro(imately

B000 actual consumers in 1, countries in urope and sia. )hese consumers !ill be asked about

their relationships !ith brands in highly hedonic or symbolic categories #see 9oth 16657 Park"

8a!orski" and ac&nnis 162 '.


21/46

&t should be noted that although the formal hypotheses are stated at the individual

consumer level" the conceptual frame!ork depicted in 4igure , can be tested at t!o levels of

analysisA national and individual. )he individual level of analysis is attractive and appropriate

because #1' )here might e(ist !ithin culture variations7 )his is particularly important for

countries !ith high mobility as in the uropean Union" #,' &t allo!s for testing interactions !ith

statistical po!er. Ho!ever" it is also possible to test the model using national scores and applying

Hierarchical >inear odeling #H> " 9audenbush and %ryk ,00,'. &n this regard" there are t!o

possibilitiesA #1' Using Hofstede/s ra! score" and #,' Using the average scores reported by

sub3ects !ithin each country. )he former approach has been adopted in previous research. )hisapproach has the disadvantage that Hofstede/s ra! scores !ere published a long time ago" and

!as measured using &% employees almost e(clusively. )hese scores might not be

representative of the general consumers. )he latter approach runs the risk of ignoring high

!ithin country variations. is used" the >evel 1 variables consist of $%& and its

conse-uences. >evel , variables are the national cultural orientations. &n other !ords" the

moderating effects !ill be modeled as cross level interactions. )he follo!ing e-uations e(press

this idea.

DI i3 J K 03 L K13#$%&' L K,3#I >U ' L r i3 . #1.1'

K03 J M00 L M01#$ >' L M 0, #U &'L M0B#>) 'L u 03. #1.,'

K13J M10 L M11#$ >' L M 1, #U &'L M1B#>) 'L u 13. #1.B'

K,3 J M,0 L M,1 #$ >' L M ,, #U &'L M,B #>) 'L u ,3. #1.:'

!here DI J dependent variables" $%& J $ustomer %rand &dentification" I>U J Perceived

value" $ > J $ollectivismE&ndividualism" U & J Uncerntainty avoidance" >) J >ong term

orientation" r i3 N G#0"O, '.

,1


22/46

Ana#*!i%a# a"" oa%$

)his large scale study needs to address important methodological challenges. 4irst" the

study has multiple dependent variables. eung and %ond 1626'.

,,


23/46

FIGURE 1.1Essa* 1 - Con%e"!)a# F ame5o

Cons)me -B an&I&en!i0i%a!ion

Con! o# Socio demographic variables9eciprocity

S!itching costs #if applicable'

C)#!) a# O ien!a!ions&ndividualismE$ollectivismUncertainty avoidance>ong term orientation

Pe %ei4e& Va#)e

(i/$-#e4e# Be$a4io

Stronger claims

%rand defense

$onsumer forgiveness

Lo5- !o Me&i)m-#e4e# Be$a4io

%rand social promotion


24/46

ESSA' 6CUSTOMER-BRAND IDENTIFICATION AS AN ANTECEDENT TO BRAND (EALT(

Previous marketing research has struggled !ith finding a strong predictor of customers/

long term behavioral loyalty in the presence of competitive moves. )his second essay

complements the first essay by investigating !hy it is important to build $%& in a competitive

setting using a longitudinal study design.


25/46

has not thoroughly investigated this research proposition. 9ecent research that does compare the

predictive validity of satisfaction and commitment either tests it cross sectionally #Farbarino and

8ohnson 1666'" uses lagged variable analysis #8ohnson" Herrmann" and Huber ,00 7 ittal"

Cumar" and )siros 1666'" or largely ignores competition. )here has also been little research on

customer/s perceived value of brands" much less on its longitudinal effects on brand loyalty.

ore importantly" previous research on perceived value has sho!n mi(ed findings" ranging from

very strong effects #S!eeney et al. 1666' to marginal ones #Sirohi et al. 1662'. )hese e-uivocal

results might be an artifact of important missing predictors such as $%& or s!itching costs. %y

simultaneously considering $%&" customer/s perceived value" s!itching costs" and competition"!e are able to put the above critical research propositions to the most stringent test.

ore specifically" !e study the dynamic of $%& !hen there is a ne! entrant and its

impact on behavioral loyalty at the individual level by seeking the ans!ers to t!o research

-uestionsA #1' Ho! predictive is $%& !ith a focal brand compared !ith its perceived value and

customers/ s!itching costs in predicting s!itching behavior from the focal brand to the ne!

entrant?" and #,' Ho! does this pattern change over time?

CONCEPTUAL FRAME,ORK AND ('POT(ESES

s defined above" $%& represents the e(tent to !hich customers perceive themselves and

the brand as sharing self definitional attributes.


26/46

!e confine ourselves to investigating only s!itching behavior from the incumbent brands to the

ne! brand. )he conceptual frame!ork is depicted in 4igure ,.1.

&nsert 4igure ,.1 about here

t the aggregate market level" the product diffusion literature focuses on !ord of mouth

and consumer innovativeness as t!o important drivers of ne! product diffusion" largely ignoring

psychological variables #e.g." %ass 16 67 Crishnan" %ass" and Cumar ,000'. Shifting the focus to

a subgroup of the market" !e e(tend this diffusion literature by incorporating $%& and other

psychological variables into the model !hile simultaneously controlling for perceived value and

s!itching costs.

)he relationship bet!een perceived value" defined as the difference bet!een benefits and

costs" and repurchase intention has been found to be partially mediated by customer satisfaction

#Patterson and Spreng 166=7 ehmann 166:7 %olton and >emon 1666'. &n either conceptuali ation"

satisfaction appears to be an affective outcome of a highly rational evaluation of the discrepancy

bet!een e(pectations and performance" as posited in the disconfirmation paradigm # liver 16207

liver" 9ust" and Iarki 166=' or perceived value in the value research stream #Sheth et al. 16617

;eithaml 1622'. 4urthermore" both the accumulation of satisfaction and perceived value are not

enough to reach *ultimate loyalty+ # liver 1666" p. B:' because they are sub3ect to deterioration

and competitive promotions. &t should also be noted that transaction specific satisfaction is

highly correlated !ith positive affect # liver" 9ust" and Iarki 166=' but not enduring *hot

,


27/46

affects.+ &n the aggregate" the direct and indirect effects of perceived value on customer

behavioral loyalty" !hile cognitive and affective in nature" do not reflect a high level of

internali ation of brand values into the self.

&n addition to customer perceived value" s!itching costs might be another reason !hy

customers keep buying a brand.


28/46

brand+ and *ac-uired the skills necessary to overcome threats and obstacles to this -uest+ # liver

1666" p.B= B2'. Social identity theory and identity theory refer to these behaviors as identity

congruent behavior #)a3fel and )urner 16257 Stryker and Serpe 162,'. &n its ultimate form"

customers entered the phase of *immersed self identity+ !hen they participate in brand

communities. &n other !ords" $%& carries !ith it the notion of personal determination and social

support that are not reflected in either s!itching costs or satisfaction # liver 1666" p. :,'.


29/46

the introduction of a high tech product in a number of countries in urope !ill take place in

,002. )he advantage of this research sample is that it is possible to measure all of the

independent variables over : periods. 4urthermore" !hile the s!itching behavior is self

reported" it is fairly ob3ective.

Meas) es

Depending on the e(pected launch of the brand" !e !ill conduct a series of surveys and

ask sub3ects to record customer diaries. $%& !ill be measured using the , item scale #%ergami

and %ago i ,000'" of !hich one item is a Ienn diagram" and the other in !ords. ther measures

are adapted from e(isting scales.

Con! o# Va ia+#es

%ecause this study !ill be tested in the conte(t of a ne! brand introduction into e(isting

markets" !e believe it is necessary to control for customer characteristics. $onsistent !ith the

product diffusion literature #%ass 16 6' and customer innovativeness #>ynn and Felb 166 7

Steenkamp et al. 1666'" !e predict that customer innate innovativeness and susceptibility to

social influence #%earden" Getemeyer" and )eel 1626' !ill influence their probability of adopting

ne! brands that are innovative" andEor symbolic andEor publicly consumed.

&n a competitive market" consumers might develop multiple identifications !ith brands.

4urthermore" the brand e(tension literature suggests that positively evaluated symbolic

associations bet!een a company/s e(isting brands and its ne! brand enhance the e(tendibility of

a corporate brand #Park" ilberg" and >a!son 1661'. )herefore" !e control for the $%& !ith the

company that o!ns the ne! brand" and the customer/s perceived brand concept consistency of

the ne! brand. 4inally" !e also control for socio demographic variables.

Ana#*!i%a# a"" oa%$

,6


30/46

4or this study" since the dependent variable is an event #s!itchEnot s!itch'" !e adopt

survival analysis as the analytical methodology. %ecause the underlying metric for time in this

particular study is truly continuous but !e only measure discreti ed values" !e specify the clog

log link # llison 16657 Hosmer and >emesho! ,0007 Singer and et ! be a non negative continuous random variable !ith probability density function

f"t# and cumulative distribution function $"!# J Pr ! % t Q" giving the probability that the eventhas occurred by duration t . &n this study" the event is *s!itching to the ne! brand+. )he survival

function &"t# reflects the probability of not e(periencing the event or *surviving+ through time

period ' .

==>=t

d( ( f t $ t ! t & '#'#1QPr'# . #,.1'

)he ha ard function represents the instantaneous rate of occurrence of the event and is

defined as

dt t ! dt t ! t

t QRPr

'# lim0dt

>+


31/46

'KDe(p#'#'"# 0 t z t = " #,.:'

!here represents a vector of covariates.

9e!rite the ha ard specification )zexp()(),( 0 = t z t as

)zexp()(),(1

),(0 =

t z t F

z t f . #,.5'

et

=t

duut 0

00 '#'# . #,.6'


32/46

[ ]'Q#'#Pe(p'#e(p 100KD

0

KD

1

==

' 'a

a ' aaeduueq

'

'

. #,.10'

)he corresponding ha ard rate in the ' th interval a ' ) " a ' ' is

' ' q* = 1 . #,.11'

)he total survivor function until the start of the ' th interval is e(pressed as

'#e(p 10KD

= ' ' ae& . #,.1,'

Define

'T#'#lnS 100 = ' ' ' aa " #,.1B'

the likelihood of an event in interval a ' ) " a ' ' given survival until then can be !ritten as

=

++ =1

1

KDKD 'e(p#'Qe(p#1P '

+ ' '

+ ' ee& * . #,.1:'

>et ' J 1 for an event in the ' th interval and ' J 0 other!ise. Iia a complementary log log

#clog log' link" the likelihood for an individual i observed for r i intervals until either an event or

censoring isA

i' N %ernoulli# i' ' i J 1" " n" ' J 1" " r i

TSK'Q1log#log 'i ' 'i' a z += . #,.15'

!here K ' denotes a regression effect that is fi(ed !ithin intervals but may vary bet!een intervals"

and a 'T represents potentially time varying predictors. 4urther detailed discussion of discrete

time survival analysis is available in Singer and


33/46

4or this study" time invariant variables !ill include customer characteristics" namely

innate innovativeness # I-- '" socio demographic variables such as gender # 01- '" age # A01 '"

income # I-C '" and susceptibility to social influence # &U& '.


34/46

-B2CBI $onsumer %rand &dentification !ith the company that o!ns the ne! brand#%ergami and %ago i ,000'.

-B2 AL Perceived value of the ne! brand #Dodds et al. 16617 Getemeyer et al. ,00:'.&I5 &nterbrand similarity" using product attribute level comparisons.

-B234 Promotion during the time interval #yesEno'. -B2C - %rand concept consistency !ith the other brands under the same umbrella brand. -B29UA Perceived product -uality of the ne! brand -B2&14 Perceived services of the cell phone carrier of the ne! brand -B26 5 consists of time invariant predictors.Iector = consists of time varying predictors.


35/46

.

lternatively" the non proportional model #i.e." !ith time varying effects' can be

specified by creating interaction terms bet!een the time invariant #vector > ' and time varying

#vector = ' predictors and the time period dummies # 8 ' '. )he model can also be specified as a

split ha ard model #Hess and ayhe! 166='.

B5


36/46

FIGURE 6.1Essa* 6 - Con%e"!)a# F ame5o

S, 7!89

Time-in4a ian! an!e%e&en!s

Ne5 en! an! $%& !ith the ne! brand and the brand o!ner#L' Perceived value #L' $ontrol variablesA &nterbrand similarity"%rand concept consistency #L'"


37/46

,o P#an

Ma;o s!e"s in !$e &e4e#o"men! o0 !$e &isse !a!ion Ta /e! &a!e

4inali e sources of data 4ebruary ,0029efine study measures 8anuary ,002 arch ,002Pretest 8anuary ,002 arch ,002$ollect data pril ,002 X December ,002naly e data ugust ,002 X 8anuary ,002


38/46

Re0e en%e

aker" 8ennifer >. #166='" *Dimensions of %rand Personality"+ ;ournal of 5ar+eting 4esearc* "B: # ugust'" B:= B5 .

hearne" ichael" $.%. %hattacharya" and )homas Fruen #,005'" * ntecedents and$onse-uences of $ustomer $ompany &dentificationA (panding the 9ole of 9elationshiparketing"+ ;ournal of Applied 3syc*ology " 60 #B'" 5=:X25.

hlu!alia" 9ohni" 9obert . %urnkrant" and H. 9ao Unnava #,000'" *$onsumer 9esponse to Gegative PublicityA )he oderating 9ole of $ommitment"+ ;ournal of 5ar+eting 4esearc* " B= # ay'" ,0B ,1:.

lbert" Stuart and David .


39/46

" assimo %ergami" Fian >uca ar occhi" and Fabriele orandin #,002'" *$ustomers areembers of rgani ations" tooA ssessing 4oci of &dentification in a %rand $ommunity"+6or+ing paper .

%arney" 8ay #1661'" *4irm 9esources and Sustained $ompetitive dvantage"+ ;ournal of 5anagement " 1= #1'" 66 1,0.

%ass" 4rank . #16 6'" * Ge! Product Fro!th for odel $onsumer Durables"+ 5anagement&cience" 15 #5'" ,15 ,,=.

%earden" eonard >odish #,000'" *)o!ards a System for onitoring %rand Health from StoreScanner Data"+ 5&I 6or+ing 3aper " 9eport Go. 00 111.

" Hayagreeva 9ao" and ary nn Flynn #1665'" *Understanding the %ond of &dentificationAn &nvestigation of &ts $orrelates among rt useum embers"+ ;ournal of 5ar+eting "56 #:'" : 5=.

%lodgett" 8effrey F." >ong $huan >u" Fregory . 9ose" and Scott 8. Iitell #,001'" * thicalSensitivity to Stakeholder &nterestsA $ross $ultural $omparison"+ ;ournal of t*e

Academy of 5ar+eting &cience " ,6 #,'" 160 ,0,.

%olton" >isa . and mericus 9eed" && #,00:'" *Sticky PriorsA )he Perseverance of &dentityffects on 8udgment"+ ;ournal of 5ar+eting 4esearc* " :1#:'" B6= :10

B6


40/46

%olton" 9uth G. and Catherine G. >emon #1666'" * Dynamic odel of $ustomers/ Usage ofServicesA Usage as an ntecedent and $onse-uences of Satisfaction"+ ;ournal of

5ar+eting 4esearc* " B # ay'" 1=1 12 .

" and 8ames H. Dre! #1661'" * ultistage odel of $ustomers/ ssessments of Service

Yuality and Ialue"+ ;ournal of Consumer 4esearc* " 1= #:'" B=5 B2:.

%roderick" manda 8. #,00='" * $ross Gational Study of &ndividual $ultural Gomological Get!ork of $onsumer &nvolvement"+ Psychology and arketing" ,: #:'" B:B B=:.

%urnham" )homas ." 8udy C. 4rels" and Ii3ay aha3an #,00B'" *$onsumer S!itching $ostsA )ypology" ntecedents" and $onse-uences"+ ;ournal of t*e Academy of 5ar+eting&cience" B1 #,'" 106 1, .

$arroll" %arbara . and aron $. huvia #,00 '" *Some ntecedents and utcomes of %rand>ove"+ 5ar+eting Letters " 1= #,'" =6 26.

$ialdini" 9obert %." 9ichard 8. %orden" vril )horne" arcus 9andall loyd 9eynolds Sloan #16= '" Z%asking in 9eflected FloryA )hree #4ootball' 4ieldStudies"Z ;ournal of 3ersonality and &ocial 3syc*ology " B:" B =5.

$haplin" >an Gguyen and Deborah 9oedder 8ohn #,005'" *)he Development of Self %rand$onnections in $hildren and dolescents"+ ;ournal of Consumer 4esearc* " B, #8une'"116 1,6.

$haudhuri" r3un and oris %. Holbrook #,001'" *)he $hain of ffects from %rand )rust and%rand ffect to %rand PerformanceA )he 9ole of %rand >oyalty"+ ;ournal of 5ar+eting "5 # pril'" 21 6B.

$hung" mily" and ichael %everland #,00 '" * n (ploration of $onsumer 4orgiveness4ollo!ing arketer )ransgressions"+ Advances in Consumer 4esearc* " BB" 62 66.

$ongdon" Peter #,00='" Bayesian &tatistical 5odeling " nglandA


41/46

Donavan" D. )odd" S!inder 8anda" and 8aebeom Suh #,00 '" * nvironmental &nfluences in$orporate %rand &dentification and utcomes"+ ;ournal of Brand 5anagement " 1: #1E,'"1,5 1B .

Dukerich" 8anet ." %rian 9. Folden" and Stephen . Shortell #,00,'" *%eauty &s in the ye of

the %eholderA )he &mpact of rgani ational &dentification" &dentity" and &mage on the$ooperative %ehaviors of Physicians"+ Administrative &cience 9uarterly " := #B'" 50=XBB.

Dutton" 8ane ." 8anet . Dukerich" and $elia I. Har-uail #166:'" * rgani ational &mages andember &dentification"+ Administrative &cience 9uarterly " B6 #,'" ,B6X B.

in!iller" Sabine ." le(ander 4edorikhin" llison 9. 8ohnson" and ichael . Camins #,00 '"* nough &s nough\ onger Prevents Gegative $orporatessociations"+ ;ournal of t*e Academy of 5ar+eting &cience " B: #,'" 125X6:.

lsbach" Cimberly D. #1666'" * n (panded odel of rgani ational &dentification"+ 4esearc*in rganizational Be*avior " 9obert &. Sutton and %arry . Sta!" eds. ,1" Freen!ich" $)A8 & Press &nc." 1 B ,00.

rdem" )]lin" 8offre S!ait" and ana Ialen uela #,00 '" *%rands as SignalsA $ross $ountryIalidation Study"+ ;ournal of 5ar+eting " =0 #8anuary'" B: :6.

scalas" 8ennifer dson and 8ames 9. %ettman #,005'" *Self $onstrual" 9eference Froups" and%rand eaning"+ ;ournal of Consumer 4esearc* " B, #December'" B=2 B26.

4estinger" >eon #165='" A !*eory of Cognitive 8issonance . Stanford" $ A Stanford UniversityPress.

4iol" arlene $. #1661'" * anaging $ulture as a $ompetitive 9esourceA n &dentity %ased Iie!of Sustainable $ompetitive dvantage"+ ;ournal of 5anagement " 1= #1'" 161 ,11.

4ornell" $laes" ichael D. 8ohnson" ugene


42/46

Hofstede" Feert #1620'" Culture@s Consequences? Comparing alues, Be*aviors, Institutions andrganizations Across -ations " 1st ed." )housand aks" $ A Sage.

#,001'" Culture@s Consequences? Comparing alues, Be*aviors, Institutions andrganizations Across -ations " , nd ed." )housand aks" $ A Sage.

Hogg" ichael ." Deborah 8. )erry" and Catherine . . othersbaugh" and Sharon . %eatty #,00='"*)he Positive and Gegative ffects of S!itching $osts on 9elational utcomes"+

;ournal of &ervice 4esearc* " 6 #:'" BB5 B55.

8ones" )homas . and


43/46

Crishnan" )richy I." 4rank . %ass" and I. Cumar #,000'" *&mpact of a >ate ntrant on theDiffusion of Ge! ProductEService"+ ;ournal of 5ar+eting 4esearc* " B= # ay'" , 6,=2.

Cruglanski" rie iu" %en Sha! $hing" livier 4urrer" and D. Sudharshan #,001'" *)he 9elationships %et!een$ulture and %ehavioral &ntentions )o!ard Services"+ ;ournal of &ervice 4esearc* " : #,'"112 1,6.

>ynn" ichael and %etsy D. Felb #166 '" *&dentifying &nnovative Gational arkets for

)echnical $onsumer Foods"+ International 5ar+eting 4evie " 1B # '" :B 5=.

arkus" Ha el 9ose and Shinobu Citayama #1661'" *$ulture and the SelfA &mplications for$ognition" motion" and otivation"+ 3syc*ological 4evie " 62 #,'" ,,: ,5B.

c le(ander" 8ames H." 8ohn


44/46

#166B'" *$ognitive" ffective" and ttribute %ases of the Satisfaction 9esponse"+ ;ournal ofConsumer 4esearc* " ,0 #December'" :12 :B0.

#1620'" * $ognitive odel of the ntecedents and $onse-uences of SatisfactionDecisions"+ ;ournal of 5ar+eting 4esearc* " 1= #Govember'" : 0 : 6.

" 9oland ). 9ust" and Sa3eev Iarki #166='" *$ustomer DelightA 4oundations" 4indings" andanagerial &nsight"+ ;ournal of 4etailing " =B #B'" B11XB .

Park" $.


45/46

9ust" 9oland ). and 9ichard >. liver #166:'" *Service YualityA &nsights and anagerial&mplications from the 4rontier"+ in &ervice 9uality? -e 8irections in !*eory and

3ractice " 9oland ). 9ust and 9ichard >. liver" eds. )housand aks" $ A Sage" 1 ,0.

" Catherine G. >emon" and Ialarie . ;eithaml #,00:'" *9eturn on arketingA Using$ustomer -uity to 4ocus arketing Strategy"+ ;ournal of 5ar+eting " 2 #1'" 106 ,=.

Schutte" Hellmut and Deanne $iarlante #1662'" Consumer Be*avior in Asia . Hampshire" UCAac illan.

Sch!art " Shalom H. #166,'" *Universals in the $ontent and Structure of IaluesA )heoreticaldvances and mpirical )ests in ,0 $ountries"+ in Advances in 1(perimental &ocial

psyc*ology " Iol. ,5" ark ;ana" ed. rlando" 4>A cademic Press" 1 5.

Sheth" 8agdish G. and tul Parvatiyar #1665'" *9elationship arketing in $onsumer arketsAntecedents and $onse-uences"+ ;ournal of t*e Academy of 5ar+eting &cience " ,B #:'",55 ,=1.

" %ruce &. Ge!man" and %arbara >. Fross #1661'" *


46/46

S!eeney" 8illian $." Feoffrey G. Soutar" and >ester eung" 8ose iguelSala ar" %ernadette Setiadi" 8ai %. P. Sinha" Hubert )ou ard" and ;bigne! ;aleski #166B'"* n tic mic nalysis of &ndividualism and $ollectivism"+ ;ournal of Cross Cultural

3syc*ology " ,: #B'" B B2B.

" and unkook . Suh #,00,'" *$ultural &nfluences on Personality"+ Annual 4evie of 3syc*ology " 5B" 1BB 1 0.

)urner" 8ohn $. #162,'" *)o!ard a $ognitive 9edefinition of the Social Froup"+ in &ocial Identity and Intergroup Be*avior " Henri )a3fel" ed. $ambridge" nglandA $ambridge

University Press" 15 :0." ichael . Hogg" Penelope 8. akes" Stephen D. 9eicher" and argaret S. eonard > %erry" and Parasuraman #166 '" *)he %ehavioral $onse-uences of Service

Documents

sonlam-DissProposal-Feb26