A brand's stretchability is an important avenue for growth and new product introductions. This research examines the role of an individual-difference variable (self-construal) in enhancing a brand's stretchability potential. It is postulated that an interdependent self-construal leads to a superior ability to uncover relationships among stimuli (e.g., an extension and its parent brand) and thus is likely to enhance the perceived fit of an extension and the likelihood of its acceptance. However, these beneficial effects are likely to emerge only under conditions in which the interdependent consumer is motivated to elaborate extensively on the extension information. Five experiments test the underlying mechanism, its implications for different levels of brand stretch (varying from close to far), and the marketing strategy implications of the proposed theoretical framework.
AakerDavid A., and KellerKevin L., (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,”Journal of Marketing, 54(January), 27–41.
2.
AakerJennifer L., and SenguptaJaideep, (2000), “Additivity Versus Attenuation: The Role of Culture in the Resolution of Information Incongruity,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 68–82.
3.
AhluwaliaRohini, and BurnkrantRobert E., (2004), “Understanding Questions About Questions: A Persuasion Knowledge Perspective for Understanding the Effects of Rhetorical Questions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 26–42.
4.
AhluwaliaRohini, and Gurhan-CanliZeynep, (2000), “The Effects of Extensions on the Family Brand Name: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective,”Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 371–81.
5.
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, 31(December), 1173–82.
6.
BrewerMarilynn B., and GardnerWendi, (1996), “Who Is This ‘We’? Levels of Collective Identity and Self Representations,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.
7.
BroniarczykSusan M., and AlbaJoseph, (1994), “The Importance of the Brand in Brand Extension,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31(May), 214–28.
8.
CrossSusan E., MorrisMichael L., and GoreJonathan S., (2002), “Thinking About Oneself and Others: The Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal and Social Cognition,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 399–418.
9.
HanSang-pil, and ShavittSharon, (1994), “Persuasion and Culture: Advertising Appeals in Individualistic and Collectivistic Societies,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30(July), 326–50.
10.
HuntR. Reid, and SetaCatherine E., (1984), “Category Size Effects in Recall: The Roles of Relational and Individual Item Information,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10(July), 454–64.
11.
JainShailendra P., DesaiKalpesh K., and MaoHuifang, (2007), “The Influence of Chronic and Situational Self-Construal on Categorization,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 66–76.
12.
JiLi-Jun, ZhangZhiyong, and NisbettRichard, (2004), “Is It Culture or Is It Language: Examination of Language Effects in Cross-Cultural Research in Categorization Effects,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 57–65.
13.
KellerKevin Lane, (2002), Branding and Brand Equity.Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
14.
KuhnenUlrich, HannoverBettina, and SchubertBenjamin, (2001), “The Semantic-Procedural Interface Model of the Self: The Role of Self-Knowledge for Context-Dependent Versus Context-Independent Modes of Thinking,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 397–409.
15.
LeeAngela Y., AakerJennifer L., and GardnerWendi L., (2000), “The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Self-Construals: The Role of Interdependence in Regulatory Focus,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1122–34.
16.
LokenBarbara, and JohnDeborah Roedder, (1993), “Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative Impact?”Journal of Marketing, 57(July), 71–84.
17.
MaheswaranDurairaj, and ChaikenShelly, (1991), “Promoting Systematic Processing in Low-Motivation Settings: Effect of Incongruent Information on Processing and Judgment,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 13–25.
18.
MalaviyaPrashant, KisieliusJolita, and SternthalBrian, (1996), “The Effect of Type of Elaboration on Advertisement Processing and Judgment,”Journal of Marketing Research, 33(November), 410–21.
19.
MandelNaomi, (2003), “Shifting Selves and Decision Making: The Effects of Self-Construal Priming on Consumer Risk-Taking,”Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 30–40.
20.
MaozEyal, and TyboutAlice M., (2002), “The Moderating Role of Involvement and Differentiation in the Evaluation of Brand Extensions,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(12), 119–31.
21.
MarkusHazel R., and KitayamaShinobu, (1991), “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation,”Psychological Review, 98(April), 224–53.
22.
McQuarrieEdward F., and MickDavid Glen, (1996), “Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language,”Journal of Consumer Research, 22(March), 424–38.
23.
Meyers-LevyJoan, (1991), “Elaborating on Elaboration: The Distinction Between Relational and Item-Specific Elaboration,”Journal of Consumer Research, 18(December), 358–67.
24.
Meyers-LevyJoan, LouieTherese A., and CurrenMary T., (1994), “How Does the Congruity of Brand Names Affect Evaluations of Brand Name Extensions?”Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 46–53.
25.
MeyvisTom, and JaniszewskiChris, (2004), “When Are Broader Brands Stronger Brands? An Accessibility Perspective on the Success of Brand Extensions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 31(September), 346–57.
26.
MongaAlokparna Basu, and JohnDeborah Roedder, (2007), “Cultural Differences in Brand Extension Evaluation: The Influence of Analytic Versus Holistic Thinking”Journal of Consumer Research, 33(March), 529–36.
27.
MothersbaughDavid L., HuhmannBruce A., and FrankeGeorge R., (2002), “Combinatory and Separative Effects of Rhetorical Figures on Consumers' Effort and Focus in Ad Processing,”Journal of Consumer Research, 28(March), 589–602.
28.
NgSokling, and HoustonMichael J., (2006), “Exemplars or Beliefs? The Impact of Self-View on the Nature and Relative Influence of Brand Associations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 32(March), 519–29.
29.
NorenzayanAra, ChoiIncheol, and NisbettRichard E., (2002), “Cultural Similarities and Differences in Social Inference: Evidence from Behavioral Predictions and Lay Theories of Behavior,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), 109–120.
30.
OysermanDaphna, CoonHeather, and KemmelmeierMarkus, (2002), “Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses,”Psychological Bulletin, 128(January), 3–72.
31.
ParkC. Whan, MilbergSandra J., and LawsonRobert, (1991), “Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency,”Journal of Consumer Research, 18(September), 185–93.
32.
SchwarzNorbert, and BlessHerbert, (2007), “Mental Construal Processes: The Inclusion Exclusion Model,” in Assimilation and Contrast in Social Psychology, StaplesDiedrik, and SulsJerry, eds. New York: Psychology Press, 119–41.
33.
SimmsJane, (2005), “Where Are All the New Ideas?”Marketing (UK), (December 18), 34–36.
34.
SingelisTheodore, M., (1994), “The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–91.
35.
TrafimowD., TriandisHarry C., and GotoSharon G., (1991), “Some Tests of the Distinction Between the Private Self and the Collective Self,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 649–55.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
