Effects of Parent‐Extension Similarity and Self Regulatory Focus on Evaluations of Brand Extensions

Yeo, Junsang; Park, Jong-Won

doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1603_9

Cited by 105 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Semin et al, 2005) and both mental and physical health outcomes (e.g., Strauman et al, 2006). The GRFM, in contrast, has primarily been used in investigations examining role models (e.g., Lockwood, Chasten, & Wong, 2005), and in applied research (e.g., Yeo & Park, 2006). Despite their differences in content, development, and applications, both scales share the limitation of being self-report measures and thus are limited by the degree to which participants possess insight into their own motivational state and experiences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note

Summerville

Roese

2008

Journal of Research in Personality

189

200

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between two independent structures of strategic inclination, promotion versus prevention. However, the theory implies two potentially independent definitions of these inclinations, the self-guide versus the reference-point definitions. Two scales (the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire, Higgins al., 2001, and the General Regulatory Focus Measure, Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002) have been widely used to measure dispositional regulatory focus. We suggest that these two scales align respectively with the two definitions, and find that the two scales are largely uncorrelated. Both conceptual and methodological implications are discussed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note

Summerville

Roese

2008

Journal of Research in Personality

189

200

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At this point, the studies that reveal the importance of the fact that motivations are determiners of consumers' purchase decisions and these motivations affect the various side of consumer behavior just like the products and brand evaluation (Aaker & Lee, 2006;Yeo & Park, 2006).…”

Section: Shopping Motivationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examination of the Relationship between Luxury Value Perception and Shopping Motivations: Turkey Sample

Kurnaz¹

2017

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It was aimed to reveal the effects of financial, functional, individual and social value perceptions on hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations within this study. In this direction, a questionnaire was conducted to people over the age of 18 in cities representing 12 regions of Turkey and 2857 questionnaires were put into consideration in total. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling (SEM) were applied to data. According to findings it was identified that the luxury value perception has influence over hedonic and utilitarian motivations. The individual value dimension of luxury perception has the highest effect on hedonic motivations and social, financial and functional value dimensions follow it respectively. And the relative effect of functional luxury value perception also has the highest effect on utilitarian motivations and the financial, individual and social values follow respectively. It was found that, while all these perception's effects have positive impacts, only the social value perception has a negative impact on utilitarian motivations.

show abstract

“…In prior literature, there were two major lines of research that explored the determinants of consumers' brand extension evaluations. The first was product category similarity, which asserted that consumers' brand extension evaluations are determined by the similarity between the core product category and the extension product category (Aaker & Keller, 1990;Yeo & Park, 2006). Because the basis of brand extension evaluation relies on the similarity between two product categories, it can be called productto-product similarity.…”

Section: Consumer Evaluations Of Brand Extensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer evaluations of brand extension: The roles of case-based reminding on brand-to-brand similarity

Shen

Bei

Chu

2010

Psychology & Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Utilizing the case-based reminding theory in analogical reasoning, this research proposes that the evaluation of a brand extension can be improved by reminding consumers of a similar brand in the extension category. This effect is derived from a brand-to-brand similarity, in addition to the product-to-product and brand-to-product similarity identified in prior literature. Experiment 1 explores the idea that the effect of similar case reminders is most pronounced in moderately similar extensions than in highly similar or highly dissimilar extensions due to schema congruity. Experiments 2 and 3 distinguish the levels of similarity (i.e., product-to-product, brandto-product, and brand-to-brand similarity) as a source of consumers' evaluations on a brand extension and further eliminate an alternative explanation of instantaneous learning in the advertisement setup of Experiment 1.

show abstract

Effects of Parent‐Extension Similarity and Self Regulatory Focus on Evaluations of Brand Extensions

Cited by 105 publications

References 29 publications

Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note

Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note

Examination of the Relationship between Luxury Value Perception and Shopping Motivations: Turkey Sample

Consumer evaluations of brand extension: The roles of case-based reminding on brand-to-brand similarity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About