In two experiments, the authors show that corporate image associations with innovation and trustworthiness (but not social responsibility) influence product evaluations more when consumers perceive high (versus low) risk in the product purchase. Their findings extend previous research by identifying perceived risk as a moderator of the effects of corporate image on product evaluations. The authors discuss implications for the conditions governing the “flow-through” of corporate image to individual product evaluations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BagozziRichard P., Gürhan-CanliZeynep, and PriesterJoseph R. (2002), The Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior, Applying Social Psychology Series, SuttonStephen, ed. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
2.
BaronReuben M., and KennyDavid A. (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–82.
3.
BatraRajeev, and SinhaIndrajit (2000), “Consumer-Level Factors Moderating the Success of Private Label Brands,”Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 175–91.
4.
BettmanJames R. (1973), “Perceived Risk and Its Components: A Model and Empirical Test,”Journal of Marketing Research, 10(May), 184–90.
5.
BiehalGabriel J., and SheininDaniel A. (1998), “Managing the Brand in a Corporate Advertising Environment: A Decision-Making Framework for Brand Managers,”Journal of Advertising, 27(Summer), 99–110.
6.
BouldingWilliam, and KirmaniAmna (1993), “A Consumer-Side Experimental Examination of Signaling Theory: Do Consumers Perceive Warranties as Signals of Quality?”Journal of Consumer Research, 20(June), 111–23.
7.
BrownTom J., and DacinPeter A. (1997), “The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses,”Journal of Marketing, 61(January), 68–84.
8.
ChaikenShelly, and MaheswaranDurairaj (1994), “Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Arguments Ambiguity, and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460–73.
9.
CoxDonald F. (1967), “Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior,” in Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, DonaldF. Cox, ed. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 604–639.
10.
DowlingGrahame R. (1986), “Measuring Corporate Images: A Review of Alternative Approaches,”Journal of Business Research, 17(1), 27–34.
11.
DowlingGrahame R., and StaelinRichard (1994), “A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling Activity,”Journal of Consumer Research, 21(June), 119–34.
12.
FeldmanJack M., and LynchJohn G.Jr. (1988), “Self-Generated Validity: Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(August), 421–35.
13.
GanesanShankar (1994), “Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer–Seller Relationships,”Journal of Marketing, 58(April), 1–19.
14.
GarnerSarah Jane (1986), “Perceived Risk and Information Sources in Services Purchasing,”The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, 24(2), 49–59.
15.
GemündenHans G. (1985), “Perceived Risk and Information Search: A Systematic Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2(2), 79–100.
16.
GrunigJames (1979), “A New Measure of Public Opinions on Corporate Social Responsibility,”Academy of Management Journal, 22(4), 738–64.
17.
HovlandC.I., JanisI.K., and KelleyH.H. (1953), Communication and Persuasion.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
KellerKevin Lane (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19.
KellerKevin Lane, and AakerDavid A. (1997), “Managing the Corporate Brand: The Effects of Corporate Marketing Activity on Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,” Working Paper No. 97–106, Marketing Science Institute.
20.
KumarNirmalya, ScheerLisa K., and SteenkampJan-Benedict E.M. (1995), “The Effects of Perceived Interdependence on Dealer Attitudes,”Journal of Marketing Research, 22(August), 348–56.
21.
LynchJohn G., MarmorsteinHoward, and WeigoldMichael F. (1988), “Choices from Sets Including Remembered Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 15(September), 169–84.
22.
OhanianRoobina (1990), “Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers' Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness,”Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.
23.
RaoAkshay R., and MonroeKent B. (1988), “The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 15(September), 253–64.
24.
SchumannDavid W., HathcoteJan M., and WestSusan (1991), “Corporate Advertising in America: A Review of Published Studies on Use, Measurement, and Effectiveness,”Journal of Advertising, 20(September), 35–56.
25.
SenSankar, and BhattacharyaC.B. (2001), “Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility,”Journal of Marketing Research, 38(May), 225–43.
26.
SpectorAaron J. (1961), “Basic Dimensions of the Corporate Image,”Journal of Marketing, 25(October), 47–54.
