Search results

This study aims to determine the extent to which the use of coordinating conjunctions enhances or impairs definitional clarity.

In two studies, a sample of 736 construct definitions from the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research and Journal of Consumer Research over a 30-year period was judged for ambiguity and vagueness by both academic and lay judges.

The authors demonstrate that constructing definitions using both “and” and “or” increases the ambiguity and vagueness of the construct’s meaning. The most frequently used conjunction is “and” which appeared in 42 per cent of the definitions. A significant percentage (26 per cent) contain the conjunction “or.”

A framework for understanding alternative interpretations of “and” or “or” is developed. Five recommendations are proposed for evaluating the use of “and” and “or” in construct definitions. Theorists in all academic fields should not use both “and” and “or” in the same construct definition.

A five-step process is proposed for evaluating the use of “and” and “or” in construct definitions. Theorists should not use both “and” and “or” in the same construct definition.

This is the first exploration of how specific wording patterns used in construct definitions in academic research affect the clarity of the definition.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of the corporate brand in a brand alliance that includes one of the corporation’s product brands.

Using a scenario-based study, 899 participants were randomly assigned to one of 84 unique brand alliance scenarios involving a corporate brand, a product brand ally and a focal product brand; a total of 33 corporate brands were represented. Results were estimated using a three-stage least squares model.

Consumers’ evaluations of a focal brand were enhanced when a corporate brand name associated with a product brand ally was included in the brand alliance. The effect was mediated by attitude toward the product brand ally. The indirect effect of the corporate brand was stronger when consumers had low product category knowledge (PCK).

Consistent with competitive cue theory, the findings suggest that a corporate brand can provide superior, consistent and unique information in a brand alliance.

Practitioners should note that the effectiveness of adding a corporate brand name into a product brand alliance is contingent on the extent of consumers’ PCK.

This paper examines when and why corporate brands are effective endorsers in product brand alliances. This paper adds empirical support to previous assertions that, if managed effectively, corporate brands can be valuable assets that convey unique valuable information to consumers.

The purpose of this paper is to integrate the findings of articles appearing in European Journal of Marketing’s special section on covariance-based versus composite-based structural equations modeling (SEM).

This is an editorial which uses literature review to draw conclusions regarding areas of agreement, areas for further research, and changing the discussion around composite-based SEM methods.

There are now four new areas of agreement regarding composite-based SEM. Researchers should adopt a toolbox approach to their methods and know the strengths and weaknesses of the research tools in their toolbox. Partial least squares (PLS) SEM and covariance-based SEM are not substitutes, and it is inappropriate to use the language of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in reporting measurement estimates from PLS SEM. Measurement matters and researchers need to devote effort to using reliable and valid multi-item measures in their investigations.

This postscript article outlines recommendations for authors, reviewers and editors regarding the analysis of data and reporting of results using structural equations models.

The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which a cause-brand alliance (CBA) leads to improved attitude toward cause-brand alliance, which in turn leads to improved brand identification.

The approach uses a 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects experimental design to examine the interaction effect of the brand ally, the non-profit ally, and the perception of cause controversy on a customer’s attitude toward the CBA, which in turn affects identification with the brand ally.

On average, customers’ perception of cause controversy influences attitude toward the CBA and subsequently the level of identification with the brand ally. When a non-profit organization is connected to a controversial issue, managerial options for building a successful CBA are more limited than when the non-profit is noncontroversial.

We contribute to consumer learning theory in the context of CBA research by identifying an important boundary condition – perceived cause controversy. Perceived cause controversy impedes the customer’s learning about partners in CBA. Moreover, fit and cue consistency are separate constructs.

CBAs help build customer brand identification. Brand managers must include the customer’s perceived cause controversy, the ally’s unique information, and the customer’s attitude toward the nonprofit in the decision calculus. Brands have an opportunity to demonstrate corporate social responsibility and build identification by helping a less well-established nonprofit to build positive customer attitudes. If the non-profit is linked to controversy, this opportunity is constrained.

A boundary condition-perceived cause controversy influences how the partners in a CBA differentially influence the customer’s attitude toward the CBA and, ultimately, brand identification.

Reciprocity has traditionally been overlooked in social exchange models of inter-firm relationships. Therefore, this research integrates reciprocity and its antecedents into a social exchange model of inter-firm relationships.

The authors collected primary data from a sample of firms in the Republic of Korea using a questionnaire. They also used covariance-based structural equations modeling to fit the model given the proposed conceptualization.

Both conceptually and empirically, adding reciprocity and its antecedents to the social exchange model produce results that differ from previously published papers. Specifically, reciprocity affects information exchanged indirectly through both credibility and benevolence trust. In addition, the effect of information exchange mediates the effect of trust on calculative and affective commitment.

The foundation of long-term inter-firm relationships is quality information exchange, which is based on the development of credibility and benevolence trust, which in turn is based on reciprocity. Thus, reciprocity is a key variable in relationship development.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is among the first to combine reciprocity and its antecedents into a social exchange model that contains trust and commitment. This model provides a bigger picture of how firms develop long-term relationships with their partner firms.

The paper attempts to examine the effect of multiple brand alliances using a portfolio diversification approach.

The paper reports the findings of a four‐level, single factor design study in which 149 randomly assigned participants were exposed to a product concept description for a new product in conjunction with: no ally (control), one ally, three homogeneous allies, and three heterogeneous allies.

Results support previous findings in the literature with regard to the effect of a single brand alliance. However, no support was found for the proposition that consumer evaluations of an unknown focal brand, when three well‐known heterogeneous allies are present, will be higher than when either one well‐known ally is present or three well‐known homogeneous allies are present.

Consistent with previous published research and despite diversifying the brand allies; it is impossible to conclude that multiple brand allies provide increased evaluations, relative to a single ally, for a previously unknown brand. More research is necessary regarding when and why multiple allies might be beneficial.

As the use of multiple brand alliances proliferates in the marketplace, it is important to understand the effect of such strategies on consumers' evaluations. The paper contributes to this growing body of research by investigating the effect of multiple brand alliances using a portfolio diversification approach.

While previous research has shown a positive influence of a brand ally or a warranty, published research has not explored the effects of using multiple types of quality signals. The purpose of this paper is to explore the joint effect of a default‐independent signal (i.e. a brand ally) combined with a default‐contingent signal (i.e. a warranty) on the focal brand's evaluations.

This paper reports the findings of a 2 (ally: none vs one) × 2 (warranty: no vs yes) between‐subjects factorial design in which 174 subjects were randomly assigned to experimental conditions.

The study's findings indicate that, individually, both brand alliance and warranty were a significant signal of product quality. However, the use of multiple types of signals, as opposed to one signal, did not add incrementally to consumer's perceived quality evaluations of a focal brand. In addition, risk reduction mediated the effects of brand ally and/or warranty on the focal brand's evaluations.

Recently, researchers have started to explore the influence of multiple brand alliance signals on consumer evaluations of brand. However, only the same type of signal has been examined. Signaling theory suggests that other marketing mix elements are marketplace signals of quality. This study contributes to the literature by investigating the role of multiple types of quality signals in brand building.

Latent constructs represent the building blocks of marketing theory. The purpose of this paper is to provide marketing researchers with a practical procedure for writing construct definitions.

The paper reviews important contributions to construct definition in the literature from marketing, management, psychology and the philosophy of science. The authors expound construct definition in both practical and theoretical spheres to motivate the proposed procedure.

A six‐step procedure for construct definition and redefinition in marketing is developed. The proposed procedure addresses important aspects of definitions including the level of abstraction, scope, nomological relationships, explanatory and predictive power, ambiguity, vagueness, and preventing construct proliferation.

While techniques for developing measures have received a great deal of attention, those for the earlier step of construct definition have not. Researchers will benefit from more precise definitions through improved model specification, better measures, and more reliable determination of the direction of causality. The role of the individual researcher's linguistic skill in construct definition must still be determined.

Marketing practitioners can also use the procedure to define latent constructs for which they must develop measures.

The literature on construct definition is fragmentary, scattered across disciplines and occasionally even arcane. It is further often descriptive of what a good definition looks like rather than prescriptive of how a good definition can be developed. The six steps are simple, broadly applicable, based on both theory and practical experience, consist of relatively few discrete steps, and feed directly into the modern measure development paradigm in marketing.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate alliance formation competence and attitudes toward brand alliances as antecedents of the firm's propensity to brand ally. It aims to test the hypothesis that the relationship between alliance experience and alliance competence is moderated by the relative quality of the experience, which the authors call valence of alliance experience.

Research hypotheses were empirically tested with a national sample of senior marketing executives and brand managers.

The firm's propensity to engage in brand alliances is a function of well‐developed strategic alliance capabilities and positive managerial attitudes toward brand alliances. Importantly, when the firm's prior experience in alliances is relatively more positive the relationship between alliance experience and alliance competence is strengthened.

Not all alliance experience is the same. This study, one of the first studies to examine the relative quality of alliance experience, confirms that the relationship between alliance experience and alliance competence is significantly stronger when that experience has been relatively more positive. This study also contributes to the strategic alliance literature by providing empirical evidence for the importance of managers' attitudes toward brand alliances in driving the firm's propensity to brand ally. By choosing brand alliances as the context for the study the paper contributes to the brand alliance literature by investigating the brand alliance phenomenon from the firm's perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how brand equity levels influence the evaluation of continuous vs discontinuous innovation of new products and the moderating effects of consumer's product category knowledge (PCK).

A 2×2 between‐subjects experiment that varied innovation type (continuous/discontinuous) and brand equity level (high/low) was conducted in order to test study hypotheses.

Study results offer new understanding of how brand equity and PCK influence subject's evaluation of discontinuous vs continuous innovation and provides valuable managerial insights into the potential value of such strategies.

Being innovative is critical to companies' success. Yet, almost half of the new products introduced in the USA are either cancelled or fail to meet targeted financial returns. Within this reality, it is not surprising that research into consumer response to new product innovation has grown over the last decade. This paper extends the current literature by explicating the interaction effects of two sources of knowledge on influencing consumer evaluation of innovation, that is, PCK as well as brand‐specific knowledge as reflected by brand equity level.