A Process-Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluation

Author(s): David M. Boush and Barbara Loken

Source: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Feb., 1991), pp. 16-28
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3172723
Accessed: 17/12/2010 07:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marketing Research.

http://www.jstor.org
 DAVIDM. BOUSHand BARBARA
LOKEN*

The authorsexplore the implicationsof consideringa brandas representinga

category consistingof its products.Theyreportresultsof a laboratoryexperiment
in whichresponsetimesand verbalprotocolswere usedto examineprocessesrelated
to the evaluationof brandextensions.Evaluationsof brandextensionswere influ-
enced both by the extension'ssimilarityto the brand'scurrentproducts(brandex-
tensiontypicality)and by the variationamong a brand'scurrentproducts(brand
breadth).An invertedU describesthe relationshipbetweenbrandextensiontypi-
cality and evaluationprocess measures.Moderatelytypicalextensionswere eval-
uated in a more piecemealand less global way thanwere eitherextremelytypical
or extremelyatypicalextensions.Subjects'attitudestowardbrandextensionswere
correlatedhighlywith theirratingsof brandextensiontypicality.

A Process-Tracing
Study of Brand Extension
Evaluation

Brandextensionhas been called "theguidingstrategy many strategicconsiderations,includingthe appropri-

of productplannersin the 1980's"(Tauber1988, p. 26).
With such productsas Zenithcomputers,Atarifax ma-
chines, and Ivory shampoo,businessesattemptto use
the equity built up in establishedbrandnames to help
launchnew products.1Capitalizing on an establishedbrand
nameis a growthstrategythatseemsdestinedto increase
in popularityas the cost of launchinga new brandname
skyrockets.Recentcost estimatesfor developinga new
brandrangefrom$80 millionto $150 million(Aakerand
Keller 1989;Tauber1988).
Successful brand extension depends importantlyon
'The specificityof the term"product"affectswhethera new prod-
uct offeringrepresentsa realextensionof the brand.A 19-inchport-
able colortelevisionset also can be describedas an "electronicprod-
uct" or simply as a "televisionset." Here we generallyrefer to
"products"and "brandextensions"at the latterintermediatelevel of
specificity(e.g., "televisionset").
*David M. Boush is AssistantProfessorof Marketing,University
of Oregon.BarbaraLokenis AssociateProfessorof Marketing,Uni-
versityof Minnesota.
The articleis based on the first author'sdissertationresearchand
was partiallysupportedby grantsfromthe CurtisL. CarlsonSchool
of Managementand from Universityof MinnesotaAcademicCom-
puterServicesandSystems.The authorsthankDel Hawkins,Debbie
John,JimWard,PeterWright,andthreeanonymousJMRreviewers
for theircommentson draftsof the manuscript.
16
atenessof a company'scorporatestructure,applicability
of capitalresources,and abilityof personnelin the new
market.It also requiresthat a favorableprior attitude
towardcurrentbrandedproductstransferto a new prod-
uct. For example,the makersof Zenithcomputersmust
believethatsome of the positiveattitudesassociatedwith
Zenith television sets and the categorylabel "Zenith"
will transferto computers.Understandingwhetherand
how this transferoccursrequiresan understanding of the
way attitudesare linked to particularcategory labels.
Thoughconsumerattitudestowardbrandshave long been
recognizedas crucialin marketing,consumerresearch-
ers have not considereda brandand its productsas con-
stitutinga category.
The purposeof our articleis to explore the implica-
tions of viewing a brandand its productsas a "brand
category"and, in particular,the effects of this categor-
izationperspectivefor evaluatingpotentialbrandexten-
sions. Viewing a brandas a categoryraises, and pro-
vides guidance for addressing, several interesting
questions.Do all family-branded productssharethe at-
titudetowardthe brandcategoryequally?Do consumers
evaluate extensionsthat are similar to currentfamily-
brandedproductsdifferentlyfromthose thatare dissim-
ilar to currentproducts?Do consumersevaluateexten-
sions of brandcategoriesthatrepresenta broadrangeof
producttypesthe sameway thattheyevaluateextensions

Journal of Marketing Research

Vol. XXVIII(February1991), 16-28
BRANDEXTENSION
EVALUATION
of brandcategoriesrepresentinga narrowrangeof prod-
uct types?To answerthese questions,we first examine
the structureof brandcategories.Specifically, we dis-
cuss how a brandcategorycan be describedby its breadth
(i.e., by the variationamongits products)andposit that
any currentor potential brandedproductcan be de-
scribedby how typicalit is of the brandcategory.Next
we describethe processesby which a brandextension
can be evaluated.Hypothesestest the way brandbreadth
and brandextensiontypicalityinfluencethe evaluation
of brandextensions. Our intent is to demonstratehow
theoriesof categorizationcan help marketersto antici-
pate the effects of brandextensions,andthusplan more
coherentbrandextensionstrategies.
BACKGROUND
Category Structure
MervisandRosch (1981, p. 89) statethat "a category
exists whenevertwo or moredistinguishableobjectsare
treatedequivalently."However,it is the nonequivalence
of cateogrymembers,or "gradedstructure,"that sets
categoriesapartfrom unorderedsets (Rosch, Simpson,
andMiller1976;Smith,Shoben,andRips 1974).Graded
structureand a second characteristicof categorystruc-
ture, brandbreadth,are relevantfor understanding how
judgments of new brandsare formed.
Gradedstructure.People perceivemembersof most
naturallyoccurringcategoriesas varyingin theirdegree
of those categories.
of typicality,or representativeness,
For example,a robinis perceivedas moretypicalof the
category "bird"than is an ostrich. Furthermore,even
nonmembersdifferin how typicala nonmemberthey are
of a category.For example, an unrelatedobject such as
a chairis a betternonmemberof the category"bird"than
is a butterfly.This rangein categoryrepresentativeness
from the most representativemembersof a categoryto
the nonmembersthat are least similarto the categoryis
called "gradedstructure"(see, e.g., Barsalou 1985;
Mervisand Rosch 1981) andhas been demonstratedfor
a varietyof consumercategories(LokenandWard1987;
Wardand Loken 1986). In the contextof brandexten-
sion, gradedstructureimpliesthatsomeproductsaremore
representativeof a brandcategorythan are others, and
preliminarydata supportthis assumption.2
2Toverifythatgroupsof productsrepresentedby brandnamescan
have categorystructure,30 men and46 women 18 to 75 yearsof age
were interviewedby telephonefroma sampleof 190 namesdrawnat
randomfromthe telephonedirectoriesof two large midwesternmet-
ropolitanareas. Respondentswere asked to rate variousproductsas
examples(0 = very poor example, 10 = very good example)of the
brandsSony, Jello, Kraft,andGucci. For each brand,threeproducts
were very good examples(e.g., Sony television set, Gucci shoes),
threeweremoderatelygood examples(e.g., Sony camera,Guccicos-
metics), andthreewere verypoorexamples(e.g., Sony shoes, Gucci
televisionset). Intersubjectagreementaboutthe relativegoodnessof
examplefor these productswas highly significant(p < .000) across
all four brandsas measuredby Kendall'scoefficientof concordance
(Barsalou1983).
17
Brand breadth. Anotheraspect of brandknowledge
structurethatmay influencejudgmentsabouta brandex-
tension is brandbreadth.Brand breadthrefers to the
variabilityamongproducttypes representedby a brand
name.Forexample,the category"Heinzproducts"would
be extremelynarrowif the only producttype were ket-
chup;it wouldbe extremelybroadif it also includedlawn
mowersanddishwashers.The currentHeinzproductof-
feringthatincludesbabyfood, sauces, soups, andother
processedfoods is somewherebetween those two ex-
tremesin breadth.
Brandbreadthappearsto be a resultof the typicality
of brandextensions.If brandmanagersconsistentlyex-
tend the brandby offering new productsthat are very
muchlike (i.e., typicalof) currentones, a narrowbrand
results.If brandextensionsarevery differentfrom(i.e.,
atypicalof) currentproducts,a broadbrandresults. It
seems clear, furthermore,that as new productsbecome
established,people's beliefs aboutwhat is "typical"of
the categorywill be revised.
The Effect of Brand Breadth on Perceived Typicality
Now let us suppose that one of two conditionspre-
vails: a brandname is associated(1) exclusively with
soups (a narrowbrand)or (2) with soups, condiments,
and frozenvegetables(a broadbrand).Considera new
kind of soup andcannedvegetablesas two potentialex-
tensionsof eitherthe narrowbrandor of the broadbrand.
For the narrowsoupbrand,anothersoupis an extremely
typicalmemberof the family-brandcategory.The new
soup probablysharesnearlyall the salientfeaturesof the
currentfamily-branded products(e.g., a healthfulfood,
a stand-alonemeal, wateryconsistency).The potential
brandextensioncannedvegetables,in contrast,is not a
very typicalmemberbecauseit sharesonly a few char-
acteristicswith soups (e.g., it is a healthfulfood butnot
a stand-alonemeal). Further,soup cannotbe as typical
a brandextension for the broadbrandas it is for the
narrowbrandbecause it sharesfewer of the character-
istics of currentproducts(e.g., it shares most charac-
teristicswith soups but few with condimentsor frozen
vegetables).Cannedvegetables,however,are moretyp-
ical of the broadbrandthan of the narrowsoup brand
becausecannedvegetablessharemanyof the featuresof
frozenvegetables,one of the currentfamily-brandmem-
bers.
As the precedingexample illustrates,brandbreadth
shouldinteractwith brandextensiontypicality;percep-
tions of typicality should be more extreme for narrow
brands than for broad brands. Brand extensions that are
essentially the same as the brand'scurrentproductsshould
be perceived as more typical if the brand is narrow than
if the brand is broad. However, brand extensions that
are very different from (any of) the brand's currentprod-
ucts should be perceived as less typical if the brand is
narrow than if the brand is broad.
It is importantto note that the preceding propositions
would not hold if categorization of novel objects oc-
18
curredby matchingthe new instancewith any current
category exemplar(e.g., its "nearestneighbor").Re-
views of recentevidence(cf. Barsalou1990;Malt 1989)
supporta model in which either exemplaror abstract
prototypescan be used. Therefore,
of narrow
H1:Typicalityratingsforextensions brandsare
moreextremethantypicalityratingsfor extensions
of broadbrands.
Piecemealand CategoricalEvaluationProcesses
Relevantto the studyof brandextensionis the way in
whichthe affectassociatedwiththe categorygeneralizes
to the brandextension. Following Fishbeinand Ajzen
(1975), we view an attitude(e.g., towarda brandex-
tension) as the location of an object or concept on an
affectivedimension.Attitudestowardbrandextensions
can be formedin at least two ways. In one, an attitude
is "computed"from specific attributesof the extension.
Such a process has been termed "analytical"(Cohen
1982), "piecemeal"(Fiske 1982), or "computational"
(Brooks1978). A varietyof computational models(e.g.,
Bettman,Capon,andLutz 1975)haveprovedusefulboth
for predictingconsumerattitudesandfor diagnosingthe
bases of attitudes.However, the models do not purport
to describeconsciousevaluationprocesses.
A differentgroupof models (cf. Brewer 1988; Fiske
1982;SrullandWyer 1989)relieson categorizationpro-
cesses to describeattitudeformation.If a new instance
(e.g., a brandextension)is identifiedas belongingto a
previouslydefinedcategory(e.g., a brand),the attitude
associatedwith that categorycan be transferredto the
new instance.Fiske, for example, arguesfrom dataon
personperceptionthatan objectwill receivethe attitude
associatedwith a categoryor schemato the extent that
it is perceivedto fit the category. Similarly,Srull and
Wyer propose that people attempt to form general
impressionsof other people and will use such impres-
sions both to assess new informationand to make sub-
sequentjudgments.Otherresearcherswho describeat-
titudesas being associatedwith a categoryratherthan
generatedby inferencesaboutindividualattributeshave
examinedaffectreferral(Wright1976)andcategory-based
processing(Sujan 1985).
Retrievalof prioraffect and computationof affect are
two processesthatshouldnot be assumedto be mutually
exclusive in any given affectivereaction.For example,
retrievedaffect could influencebeliefs abouta product,
which in turn could influence the attitudetoward the
product.Some models,two of whicharediscussedhere,
explicitly incorporateboth retrievaland computational
processes.In one suchmodel,FiskeandPavelchak(1986)
proposea two-stepprocessfor evaluation.The first step
involves an attemptto matchthe new objectwith a cur-
rentcategory.If categorizationis successful(i.e., if there
is a match),the affect associatedwith the categorylabel
is appliedto the new object and the evaluationprocess
is complete.If thereis a poor matchbetweenthe object
and categoryknowledge,piecemealprocessesare evoked
OF MARKETING
JOURNAL RESEARCH, 1991
FEBRUARY
and affect is computedthrougha weightedcombination
of attributes.
Smith, Shoben, and Rips (1974) proposea two-step
modelforjudgingwhethera conceptor objectis a mem-
ber of a category.In the first step, which is rapid,one
tries to matchthe featuresof the categorywith the fea-
turesof the object.Whenthereis a clearmatchor a clear
mismatch,the processis complete.Whensome features
matchand some do not match, a second, slower stage
of processingis necessary.Duringthe second stage, a
morecarefulcomparisonof definingfeaturesof the cat-
egory is madeto determinewhetherthe objectis a mem-
ber of the category.
Both the Fiske and Pavelchakmodel and the Smith,
Shoben, and Rips model involve a two-stage process.
The first stage is rapidand global whereasthe second
stage is slower and more deliberate.However,the for-
mermodeldescribesaffectiveresponsesto a new object;
the lattermodel addressescategorymembershipbut not
affect. In the case of brandextensions,we are interested
primarilyin the way in which people evaluatethe new
productaffectively,which in turndependson the new
product's"fit"to the originatingbrand.Oncepeopleare
informedthata new extensionhas been madeby a par-
ticularcompany,they may evaluatethe new productas
desirableor undesirableon the basis of (1) whetherthey
like the originatingbrandand (2) whetherthe new prod-
uct is representativeof or similarto the brand'scurrent
products.
Thoughnot explicitly addressingthis issue of evalu-
ation, the Smith, Shoben, andRips modelraisesthe in-
terestingpossibilitythat when an extensionis very dis-
crepantfrom the original category, a rapid evaluation
may occur.The Fiske andPavelchakmodelpredictsthat
mismatches,whetherclear or ambiguous,evoke slow,
piecemeal processes. Following Smith and his coau-
thors, we believe thereis an alternativeto the Fiske and
Pavelchakmodel wherebyboth clear matchesand clear
mismatchesof the originalbrandcategoryare evaluated
morerapidlythanmoderatemismatches.This prediction
is also consistentwith the literature(e.g., Mervis and
Rosch 1981), whichshowsthatboth(1) the moresimilar
an exemplaris to a prototypeof the category,the more
quicklyit will be judged as a memberof thatcategory,
and (2) the moredissimilara nonmemberof a category
is to a prototype,the more quicklyit will be judged to
be a nonmemberof (or "poorfit" to) the category.Eval-
uatinga new brandextensionpresentspeoplewith a cat-
egory verification task (e.g., they verify that a new con-
diment is an acceptable member of the brand category
"Heinz products"). Very atypical extensions are quickly
judged to be a "poor fit" with the current brand image
and elicit fewer piecemeal processes than do moderately
typical brand extensions. Very typical brand extensions
also should elicit only the first stage of evaluation, with-
out need for slow, piecemeal processes.
In summary, the relationship between brandextension
typicality and evaluation response time is hypothesized
BRANDEXTENSION
EVALUATION
to be an inverted U. That is, extremely atypical potential
members of a brand (e.g., Heinz floor wax) should be
evaluatedrapidlybecause a clear mismatchbetween brand
and brand extension elicits only the first stage of eval-
uation. Moderatelyplausiblebrandextensions (e.g., Heinz
instant coffee) should elicit the second, slower stage of
evaluation because neither category membership nor cat-
egory nonmembershipis obvious. The consumer is likely
to judge, in a piecemeal way, whether the attributesthat
make up the abstract representation associated with the
current brand name can be used to develop the potential
extension. Finally, extremely typical brand extensions
(e.g., a new Heinz sauce), like extremely atypical brand
extensions, should require only the rapid first stage of
evaluation. Because piecemeal processes are indicated
by slow response times and more attribute-focused or
inferential cognitive responses (cf. Sujan 1985), we pre-
dict:
H2: Extremelytypicalbrandextensionsareevaluatedmore
rapidlythanmoderatelytypicalbrandextensions.
H3: Extremelyatypical brandextensions are evaluated
more rapidlythan moderatelytypical brandexten-
sions.
H4: Extremelytypical brandextensionselicit fewer at-
tribute-related
(piecemeal)cognitive responsesthan
do brandextensionsthat are moderatelytypical of
the brand.
H5: Extremelyatypicalbrandextensionselicit fewer at-
tribute-related
(piecemeal)cognitive responsesthan
do brandextensionsthat are moderatelytypical of
the brand.
Additionally, because narrow brands are expected to
promote extreme perceptions of brand extension typi-
cality (HI), it follows that extensions of narrow brands
should be less likely than extensions of broad brands to
require the second stage of evaluation. Therefore:
H6: The evaluationof an extensionof a narrowbrandis
more rapidthanthe evaluationof an extensionof a
broadbrand.
H7: The evaluationof an extension of a narrowbrand
elicits fewerpiecemealcognitiveresponsesthandoes
the evaluationof an extensionof a broadbrand.
Effects of Brand Extension Typicality on Evaluation
So far we have examined the nature of the evaluation
process rather than the outcomes of categorization pro-
cesses. Suppose people have information about products
representing a family brand and then report their attitude
toward a potential brand extension. A spreading acti-
vation model of memory (Collins and Loftus 1975) de-
picts this information as nodes connected by links that
indicate relative proximity in a semantic network. Such
a model suggests that typical category members (i.e.,
typical brand extensions) are linked more closely to the
affect of the category (the brand). The concept of sche-
matic fit (Fiske 1982) also suggests that similar objects
elicit similar affect. Therefore, a judgment of poor fit is
likely to have affective consequences. Unless the orig-
19
inal brand has a negative affective label, the more dis-
crepant the brand extension is, the less positively it will
be evaluated as an instance of the original brand. Intu-
itively, from a brand management perspective, this no-
tion seems logical. Atypical brand extensions are less
likely to share the advantages that the brand name has
accrued, and the resulting evaluation will be less positive
than the evaluation of a brand extension that is typical
of the family brandcategory (Boush et al. 1987). Hence,
Ha: Forpositivelyevaluatedbrands,a brandextension's
degree of typicalityof the family brandis related
positivelyto subjects'evaluationsof the extension.
Thatis, brandextensionsare liked betterif they are
typicalof the originalfamily-brandcategorythanif
they are not.
Finally, if the breadth of a brand's current products
influences the perceived typicality of potential brandex-
tensions, then, by the same arguments proposed previ-
ously, brand breadth should likewise influence attitude
toward the brand extensions (cf. Judd and Lusk 1984;
Linville 1982; Parducci and Wedell 1986). Therefore,
Hg: Subjects'reportedaffect towardan extension of a
narrowbrandis more extremethan that towardan
extensionof a broadbrand.
METHOD
The objective of our study was to determine the effect
of brand category structure, in particular the effect of
brand breadth and brand extension typicality, on the
evaluation of potential brand extensions. Though the sit-
uation described here for brand extensions differs from
that described in the person perception literature-the
objects are productsratherthanpeople-the models should
nevertheless be relevant to testing hypotheses about the
processes and outcomes of categorizations of potential
new extensions.
Brand information was manipulatedand subjects eval-
uated a series of potential brand extensions that varied
systematically from an established brand concept. The
evaluation process was traced by using response times
and verbal protocols. Attitudes toward the potential ex-
tensions were assessed by means of rating scales. Rather
than using actual brands, for which brand breadth could
not be varied systematically without introducing brand
history confounds into the study design, we developed
fictitious brandsthat systematicallyvaried in brandbreadth
and the typicality of brand extensions.
Design
The study was a 2 x 5 mixed design with two levels
of brand breadth (narrow or broad) and five levels of
brand extension typicality. The latter was a repeated
measure. Two replicates of this experiment were con-
ducted for each subject, one involving brands associated
with grocery products and the other involving brands as-
sociated with electronic products. All brand extensions
in the grocery products replicate were extensions of a
20
branddescribedin a cover story as "brandB" and all
extensionsin the electronicproductsreplicatewere de-
scribedas extensionsof a brandcalled "brandG."
Independent Variables
Brand extension typicality. Brand extension typicality
was manipulatedas a within-subjectsvariable.Subjects
evaluatedpotentialbrandextensionsthatrangedfromvery
similarto the brand'scurrentproductsto very different
fromcurrentproducts.Ratingscales havebeenusedpre-
viouslyas an appropriate measureof perceivedsimilarity
(Sujanand Dekleva 1987; Wardand Loken 1986), and
typicalitymeasuresthat employ similarityscales have
been used frequently(e.g. Barsalou 1985; Rosch and
Mervis 1975;Tversky 1977).
A pretestwas conductedto select potentialbrandex-
tensionsthatwouldprovidea rangein similarityto soup,
condiments,and frozenvegetables(the "current"brand
B products)and to televisionsets, calculators,and dig-
ital watches (the "current"brandG products).Pretest
subjectswere also askedto thinkof extensionsthatwere
extremelyunlikely. On the basis of the graded mean
similarityto currentproducts,the potentialextensionsof
brandB (the groceryproducts)were selectedto be fro-
zen vegetables,chunkystew, steaksauce, breakfastcer-
eal, cannedfruit, toothpaste,floor wax, and pet food.
The potentialextensions of brand G (the electronics
products)were selectedto be televisionsets, calculators,
digital watches, cameras,refrigerators,ballpointpens,
bicycles, and garbagecans. Potentialbrandextensions
in each replicateincludedproductsthatwere "thesame"
as those of the currentbrand, productsthat were ex-
tremelydifferentfromthose of the currentbrand(almost
nonsensical),and productsthat were moderatelydiffer-
ent fromthose of the currentbrand.
Brand breadth. Brandbreadthwas manipulatedfor
fictitiousbrandsas a between-subjectsfactor with two
levels. Brandswere constructedartificiallyto be com-
posed either of very similarproductsor of a more di-
verse groupsof products.A narrowbrandin the grocery
productsreplicatewas composedof soups only, condi-
ments only, or frozen vegetables only; a broadbrand
was composedof soups, condiments,and frozen vege-
tables. A narrowbrandin the electronicproductsrepli-
cate was composedof television sets only, calculators
only, or digitalwatchesonly;a broadone was composed
of television sets, calculators,and digital watches. By
includingthreenarrow-brand conditionsfor each broad-
brand condition, we attempted to hold the type of prod-
uct constant between the two breadth levels and so elim-
inate confounds due to type of product. Also note that,
for the broad brands, three different potential extensions
in each replicate could be "the same" as current prod-
ucts.
Procedure
The subject sat at a desk that was facing a video cam-
era approximatelyseven feet away. The subject then went
JOURNAL
OF MARKETING 1991
FEBRUARY
RESEARCH,
throughthe following procedurefor each of two repli-
cates. The subjectwas askedto reada bookletcontaining
threekindsof informationabouta fictitiousbrand(e.g.,
brandB) andits competitors(e.g., brandsA, C, andD).
The firstkindof brandinformationconveyedsimilarities
in size and age of the parentcompanies.This informa-
tion was providedas an overviewof the companiesand
was includedto minimizeunwantedinferencesby sub-
jects when they were told lateraboutdifferencesin the
productssold undereach brand.The secondkind of in-
formationwas intendedto manipulatebrandbreadth.It
includeda descriptionof each brand'sproductmix. The
thirdkind of informationprovidedmore specific infor-
mationabouteach brand'sproducts.It was designedto
inducea positiveattitudetowardthe targetbrand.Each
brandwas describedby listingproductsalongwith eval-
uationsof thoseproductsin a ConsumerReportsformat.
At the end of the bookletwere instructionsfor the sub-
ject to look over all the informationon the brandsuntil
"you feel you have formedan impressionof the four
brands."The rationalefor includinginformationabout
the competitivebrandswas to providea contextfor the
target information.When the subject had formed an
impressionof each brand,he or she was instructedto
turn the page and rate each brand'sproductson three
semantic differentialattitudescales (describedsubse-
quently).
Afterevaluatingthe four brands,the subjectreturned
the first bookletand receiveda second booklet. He or
she was askedto readalongas the experimenter readthe
instructionsaloud. Subjectswere told thatthe next part
of the studypertainedto the way they would rate some
new productsthatmightbe made by brandB (or brand
G) andthatthey wouldbe askedto rateseveralpotential
brandB (or brandG) productsone at a time. They were
asked to thinkout loud while evaluatingeach product.
The subjectthenturnedthe page andreadalouda ques-
tion such as, "How would you rate brandB breakfast
cereal?",and completedtwo semanticdifferentialatti-
tude ratingscales (describedsubsequently).The subject
evaluatedall of the potentialbrandextensionsin thisway.
(The first was for practiceonly.) The time requiredfor
the subjectto evaluateeach brandextensionandthe ver-
balizationsmade duringeach evaluationwere recorded
by meansof a videocamera(PentaxPV-C55A)equipped
with a stopwatchfunction(RCA CGA020). The order
in whichsubjectsevaluatedthe brandextensionswas de-
terminedrandomlyandthenreversedfor half of the sub-
jects. The order of the replicates was reversed for half
of the subjects and the design was balanced for combi-
nations of order effects between replicates.
After subjects had evaluated brand extensions for both
replicates, they completed backgroundquestions and gave
personaldemographicinformation.Finally, similarityand
recall measures were taken to ensure that brand breadth
and brand extension typicality were manipulated as in-
tended. The entire procedure took from 20 to 30 minutes
per subject.
BRANDEXTENSION
EVALUATION
Dependent Variables
Typicalitywas measuredby askingsubjectsto ratethe
similarityof each potentialbrandextensionto "products
the brandcurrentlymakes"on a 7-pointbipolarscale (1
= dissimilar, 7 = similar). (Remember that typicality of
the brandextensionis includedin the studyas not only
an independentvariablebut also a dependentvariable
becauseperceived typicalityis predictedto dependon
whetherthe brandis narrowor broad.)
Attitudestowardthe brandextension(evaluativeout-
comes) were measuredon two 7-point semanticdiffer-
entialscales anchoredby favorable/unfavorable andde-
(cf. BurkeandEdell 1989).Evaluative
sirable/undesirable
processes were measuredby the lengthof time takenby
a subjectto makean evaluationandby concurrentverbal
protocols.The responsetime used in these analyseswas
measuredfromwhen subjectsfinishedreadingthe ques-
tion on the brandextensionuntil they markedthe first
ratingscale. This intervalomits both the readingtime
and the time for subjectsto read and considermultiple
scales, which can vary across subjects.
Subjects
Subjectswere 144 universitystudents,72 in each of
the two breadthconditions.The narrowbrandconditions
were balancedfurtherby product.That is, in the elec-
tronics replicate, 24 subjects reacted to brandsrepre-
sentedby television sets only, 24 to brandsrepresented
by calculatorsonly, and24 to brandsrepresentedby dig-
ital watchesonly. In the narrowbrandconditionsof the
groceryproductsreplicate,24 subjectsreactedto brands
representedonly by frozenvegetables,condiments,and
soups, respectively.Subjectseach were paid $5.00 and,
in some cases, given extracreditfor participation.Sub-
jects were assignedrandomlyto experimentalconditions
within each of the two replicates.Those who were as-
signed to the narrowbrandexperimentalconditionsin
the first replicatewere assignedto the broadbrandcon-
dition in the second, and vice versa.
RESULTS
The responseswere analyzed,for the most part, in a
2 (narrowbrand/broadbrand)x 5 (potentialbrandex-
tensions rangingfrom the same as currentproductsto
very differentfrom currentproducts)repeatedmeasures
analysisof variancedesign.
Hypothesizedeffects were tested by performingboth
univariate and multivariateanalyses of variance. The ho-
mogeneity of variance assumption was not met in any of
the analyses. That is, the observations were significantly
correlated within subjects (Greenhouse-Geisser epsilon
ranged from approximately .80 to .90). Conventional
univariateanalyses therefore would produce inflated type
I errors, implying an overly liberal test of the hypotheses
(Geisser and Greenhouse 1958). The preferred solution
to this problem is to perform multivariate analyses of
variance on the within-subjects effects, which produce
21
accurateestimatesof type I errorswithoutan assumption
of any particularform of the variancesand covariances
amongtherepeatedmeasures(LaTourandMiniard1983).
Manipulation Checks
Affect toward the brands. The assumption was that in
orderto transferattitudefroma brand'scurrentproducts
to new products,subjectshad to constructan attitude
towardthe brand'scurrentproducts.Providingproduct
ratingsin a ConsumerReportsformat(as describedpre-
viously)was the meansby whichwe triedto createthese
positive attitudes.Evaluationson three 7-point bipolar
adjectivescales anchoredby desirable/undesirable,fa-
vorable/unfavorable,and high quality/low quality, re-
spectively, yielded means rangingfrom 5.3 to 6.0, all
acceptablypositive. There were no significantdiffer-
ences betweenbrandson these measures.
Brand extension typicality. Subjects were asked to rate
the similarityof eachpotentialbrandextensionto "prod-
uctsthe brandcurrentlymakes"on a 7-pointbipolarscale
(1 = dissimilar, 7 = similar). The results indicated that
the potentialbrandextensions representeda range in
similarityto the brand'scurrentproductsin both repli-
cates (see Table 1). However, among electronicprod-
ucts, the ballpointpen and bicycle were equallydissim-
lar to currentproducts. Because the bicycle did not
constitutean additionallevel of the typicalitymanipu-
lation, it was droppedfrom the analyses.3
Brand breadth. Subjects were asked to name the
productsthey recalledthat brandB and brandG "cur-
rentlymake."Forthe manipulationto have worked(and
be recalled)perfectly,all subjectsin the narrowbrand
conditionsshould have rememberedonly one kind of
product(e.g., frozenvegetablesonly, condimentsonly,
or soup only) and all subjectsin the broadbrandcon-
ditionsshouldhave namedthreekindsof products(e.g.,
frozen vegetables,condiments,and soup). The manip-
ulationworkedwell, if not perfectly.Nearlyall subjects
(98%)in the narrowbrandconditionsfor both brandB
and brandG recalledone producttype. Most subjects
(78%)in the broadbrandconditionsaccuratelyrecalled
threeproducttypes.
Brand Extension Typicality as a Dependent Measure
H, predictsthat typicalitywould interactwith brand
breadth;specifically, that typicalityratings for exten-
sions of narrowbrandswouldbe moreextremethantyp-
icality ratingsfor broadbrands.As predicted,thereis a
significant interaction between brand breadth and the
product within-subjects factor in multivariateanalyses of
variance for both the grocery products replicate (F4,139 =
4.27; p < .003) and the electronicproductsreplicate(F3,138
3Analyses conducted without the bicycle and without the ballpoint
pen were substantivelythe same. The bicycle was chosen to be dropped
because of indications that it produced the only significant order effect
in the analyses.
22 JOURNAL
OF MARKETING FEBRUARY
RESEARCH, 1991

Table 1
CELLMEANSFORDEPENDENT
MEASURES

Percent
Typicality rating Attitude rating Response time piecemeal responses
Narrow Broad Narrow Broad Narrow Broad Narrow Broad
brand brand Overall brand brand Overall brand brand Overall brand brand Overall
Grocery products
"Same" product 6.72 6.32 6.52 12.22 11.44 11.83 8.41 9.66 9.02 6.9 15.3 11.1
Canned fruit 4.67 5.07 4.87 9.76 10.53 10.14 8.93 11.14 10.03 18.1 18.1 18.1
Breakfast cereal 3.34 3.76 3.56 8.66 8.94 8.80 9.45 12.52 10.98 11.1 11.1 11.1
Toothpaste 1.99 1.92 1.95 6.45 6.87 6.66 8.58 10.58 9.57 6.9 9.7 8.2
Floor wax 1.38 1.32 1.35 5.59 5.79 5.69 9.50 8.41 8.97 6.9 5.6 6.3

Electronic products
"Same" product 6.83 6.56 6.69 11.66 12.22 11.94 8.04 8.26 8.15 4.2 21.4 12.7
Camera 4.69 5.53 5.11 10.00 10.83 10.44 10.65 10.23 10.44 22.2 20.0 21.1
Refrigerator 3.08 3.76 3.43 8.14 8.94 8.53 10.25 12.55 11.40 12.5 17.1 14.5
Ballpoint pen 2.26 2.11 2.18 7.87 7.66 7.79 11.56 10.27 10.91 9.7 7.1 8.4

= 9.74; p < .000). In both replicates, results indicate
that brand breadth influenced the perceived typicality of
products. For potential extensions that were essentially
the same as current products, the perceived typicality
ratings were higher when the brand originally repre-
sented a narrowrange of product types than when it rep-
resented a broad range of product types (mean = 6.72
vs. 6.32 in the grocery replicate; 6.83 vs. 6.56 in the
electronics replicate).
The opposite pattern of results occurred for potential
extensions that were moderatelydifferentfrom the brand's
current products. Canned fruit, for example, was rated
as more typical of the current grocery products brand
when the brand represented a broad range of products
than when it represented a narrow range (mean = 5.07
vs. 4.67). Similarly, the camera was rated as more typ-
ical of current electronic products when the brand was
broad than when it was narrow (mean = 5.53 vs. 4.69).
Hence, narrow brands increased the perceived typi-
cality of brand extensions that were about the same as
current products and decreased the perceived typicality
of products that were moderately different from current
products, supporting HI. However, as shown in Table
1, when the potential extensions were very different from
the brand's current products, differences between nar-
row and broad brand conditions were small.
Effects on Response Time
Several hypotheses were made about the speed with
which subjects make judgments. Faster judgments are
assumed to be associated with categorical processing and
slower judgments with piecemeal processes. Preliminary
analyses of response times revealed substantial positive
skewness, indicating that a transformationto normalize
the data was appropriate (Kirk 1982). Therefore the
analyses of variance reportedhere employed naturallog-
arithmic transformationsof the response times.4
Effects of typicality on response time. H2 predicts that
extremely typical brand extensions would be evaluated
more rapidly than moderately typical brand extensions;
H3 predictsthat extremelyatypical brandextensions would
be evaluated more rapidly than moderately typical ones.
A main effect for the product within-subjects factor is
significant in the electronic products replicate (F3,133 =
14.20; p < .000). Results vary in the predicted direction
but are not significant in the grocery products replicate
(F4,127 = 1.92; p < .111). Brand extensions that were
"the same" as current products were rated more rapidly
than any of the other brand extensions in the eletronics
replicate, supportingH2 (see Table 1). Further,the brand
extensions that were most atypical were evaluated faster
than more moderatelyatypical extensions, supportingH3.
Because typicality also was included in the study as a
dependent variable, and hypotheses pertain to perceived
typicality of extensions, we believe it is also useful to
examine the changes in response times as a function of
this continuous-level variable. Therefore, for each rep-
licate, response times are also shown plotted against de-
gree of reportedtypicality in Figure 1, A and B. Again,
overall, the predicted curvilinear relationship between
perceived typicalityand speed of judgment(responsetime)
is indicated.
Effect of brand breadth on response time. H6 predicts
that extensions of narrowbrandswould be evaluatedmore
4Response times could be recorded fairly precisely by using slow-
motion and freeze-frame controls. A subset of 30 randomly chosen
responses were timed twice. The mean difference between the times
was just under .15 second and the maximum difference was .30 sec-
ond. Errors of this magnitude should not significantly affect the anal-
yses.
 EVALUATION
BRANDEXTENSION 23

Figure 1
OF BRANDEXTENSION
EFFECT TYPICALITY
AND BRANDBREADTHON RESPONSE
TIMES,PIECEMEAL
COGNITIVE
AND ATTITUDE
RESPONSES, RATINGS

A. ResponseTim ByTypcaltyRating B. ResponseTmeByTypicalty

Rating
OroceryProducts lectron Products
Response e (snds)
ReposTime(Reoneim (seconds)

12 . . . . . .' . . .
......... *............. ... .....
12

3 41 2 3 4 6 6 1

TykFt PyTyp mFtnP

C. Piecemeal Responses By TypicalityRating D. Piecemeal Responses By TypicalityRating

roceryProducts Electronic
Products
PRtPiecemesl
Responses PctPiecemeal
Responses
20 25

18- ..
18

....
......... .. ...
15...o.. ....
8
?5

I I 0 I I I I
41iI
1 2 3 4 5 7 1 2 3 4 5 86 7
6
Typicaty
Pating TypicWny
Rang

E. AttitudeRatingByTypicality
Rating F. AttitudeRatingByTypicality
Rating
OroceryProducts Electronic
Products
AttitudeRating AttitudeRating
14 13

11
10
10

6I -

SI I I 7 I I I I
1 2 3 4 5 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 8
Typicality
Rating Typicality
Rating

Narrow Broad Overall

i--] 0
.... .. ......• ....
24
rapidlythanextensionsof broadbrands.Thoughon av-
erage potentialextensionsof narrowbrandswere eval-
uatedmorerapidlythanthose of broadbrands(mean =
8.97 vs. 10.46 for the groceryreplicate;mean = 10.12
vs. 10.32 for the electronicsreplicate),the main effect
of brandbreadthis not significantin eitherreplicate(F,1o30
= 1.98;p < .161 in the groceryreplicate;F1,135 < 1 in
the electronicproductsreplicate).However, an interac-
tion betweenbrandbreadthandproducttypicalityis sig-
nificantin multivariatetests involvingthe groceryprod-
ucts replicate(F4,127 = 2.41; p < .05) and is close to
conventionalsignificancein the electronicproductsrep-
licate (F3,133 = 2.14; p < .098).
Because of its marginalsignificance,this interaction
must be interpretedcautiously;however, it can be in-
terpretedin two ways. First, as shown in Table 1, ex-
tensionsof narrowbrandswere evaluatedmore rapidly
thanthose of broadbrands,but only when the potential
extensionwas not verydifferentfromthe brand'scurrent
product(the one exceptionwas the camerain the case
of electronicproducts).For example, as predicted,the
productthat was "the same" as one that the brandal-
readymadewas evaluatedmorerapidlyfor narrowbrands
thanfor broadbrands(mean= 8.41 vs. 9.66 secondsin
the groceryreplicate;mean = 8.04 vs. 8.26 secondsin
the electronicsreplicate).However, the potentialbrand
extensionthat was most atypicalof the brand'scurrent
productswas evaluatedfasterfor broadbrandsthanfor
narrowones (for floor wax, mean = 8.41 vs. 9.50 sec-
onds; for ballpointpen, mean = 10.27 vs. 11.56 sec-
onds). A secondinterpretation of these data sheds some
on
light H2 and H3. As can be seen in Figure 1, A and
B, the predictedinverted-U-shaped relationshipbetween
typicalityand responsetime is more evident for broad
thanfor narrowbrands.For narrowbrands,not only is
the shapeof the curveflatter,butalso the responsetimes
for the most atypicalextensionincrease.
Effects on Cognitive Responses
Protocolswere coded into categoriesfor thoughtsre-
latingto specificproductattributesandthoughtsdrawing
inferencesabout the products.Thoughtsaboutproduct
attributesor inferencesdrawnaboutthe suitabilityof the
potentialbrandextensionsexpressed "piecemeal"pro-
cesses. Subjects'thoughtswere coded by threejudges.
One judge coded all the responsesand two judges each
coded responsesfrom a differentgroupof 20 subjects.
Disagreementswere resolvedby the first authorand all
responses were coded. Interjudge agreement averaged
83%. Because the majority of subjects made no piece-
meal responses, cognitive responses were treated as a
categorical variable and the proportion of subjects ren-
dering piecemeal responses when evaluating a particular
product was compared across factors.
Effects of typicality on cognitive responses. H4 and H5
propose respectively that extremely typical and ex-
tremely atypical brand extensions would evoke fewer
piecemeal processes than would moderatelytypical brand
OF MARKETING
JOURNAL RESEARCH, 1991
FEBRUARY
extensions.Goodness-of-fittests confirmthis resultboth
for groceryproducts(x2 = 9.58; p < .05) and for elec-
tronicproducts(x2 = 14.01;p < .003). The overallper-
centage of subjects renderingpiecemeal responses is
greaterfor the two moderatelytypicalbrandextensions
in each replicate(18.1%for cannedfruit;21.1% for the
camera)than for eitherthe "same"(11.1% in the gro-
cery replicate;12.7%in the electronicsreplicate)or the
extremelyatypicalbrandextensions(6.3%for floorwax;
8.4% for ballpintpen). H4 and H5 are supported.Fur-
thermore,in contrastto responsetimeresults,whencog-
nitive responsesare plottedby perceivedtypicality(see
Figure1, C andD), the predictedinverted-U-shaped re-
lationshipappears to be more evident for narrow than
for broadbrands.
Effect of brand breadth on cognitive responses. H7
predictsthat extensionsof a narrowbrandwould evoke
fewer piecemeal thoughtsthan extensions of a broad
brand.This hypothesisis supportedonly for "thesame"
productin the electronicproductsreplicate(X2= 8.1; p
< .004). Brandextensionsthat were the same as the
brand'scurrentproductselicitedpiecemealprocessesmore
often for broad(21.4%)thanfor narrow(4.2%)brands.
Resultsfor "the same"productin the groceryproducts
replicate(15.3%vs. 6.9% for broadandnarrowbrands,
respectively)vary in the expecteddirectionbut are not
significant.A new productthatis just like thosethe brand
alreadymakes seems more likely to evoke thoughtful-
ness if the brandconsists of a varietyof productsthan
if it consists of only one kind of product.Thoughthis
is an interestingresult, H7 is not supportedoverall.
Effects on Attitude
The correlationsbetween the "desirability"and "fa-
vorability"scales rangefrom .81 to .92. Consequently,
attitudewas measuredby summingthe two scalesto pro-
duce a single 14-pointscale (with a ratingof 8 as the
neutralpoint).
Effect of product typicalityon attitude. H8 predictsthat
the more typical a potentialextension is of the brand,
the more positively it would be evaluated.The results
supportthat hypothesis.Main effects for producttypi-
cality are significantin both the groceryproductsrep-
licate (F4,139 = 117.71; p < .000) and the electronic
productsreplicate(F3,140 = 64.98; p < .000). Atypical
extensionswereperceivedvery negativelyin the grocery
productsreplicateand slightlybelow the neutralpointin
the electronicproductsreplicate(see Table 1). The cor-
relation between attitude and perceived typicality ratings
averages .50 in the grocery replicate and .48 in the elec-
tornics replicate. This relationshipbetween typicality and
attitude ratings is demonstrated graphically in Figure 1,
E and F.
Effect of brand breadth on attitude. H9 predicts that
extensions of narrow brands would elicit more extreme
attitudes than extensions of broad brands. The results
generally support that hypothesis. The main effect of
breadth is significant in the electronic products replicate
BRANDEXTENSION
EVALUATION
(F1,142 = 5.07; p < .026); the interactionbetweenbrand
breadthand producttypicalityis significantin the gro-
cery productsreplicate(F4,139 = 2.92; p < .023) and is
close to conventional significance for the electronic
productsreplicate(F3,14 = 2.40; p < .070).
In the groceryproductsreplicate,as predicted,therange
of attitudeis greaterfor narrowthan for broadbrands.
Forexample,brandextensionsthatwere the sameas the
brand'scurrentproductswere perceivedas more desir-
able when the brandwas narrow(mean = 12.22) than
when the brandwas broad(mean = 11.44). In contrast,
brandextensionsthatweremostdissimilarto the brand's
currentproductswere perceivedas less desirablewhen
the brandwas narrow(mean = 5.59) thanwhen it was
broad(mean = 5.79). In bothreplicatesthe attituderat-
ings werehigherfor moderatelytypicalbrandextensions
whenthe brandwas broadthanwhenit was narrow.(For
the moderatelytypicalextensioncannedfruit, the mean
is 10.53 for the broadbrandand 9.76 for the narrow
brand.For the camera,the meanis 10.83 for the broad
brandand 10.00 for the narrowbrand.)Apparently,ex-
tensionsthatare somewhatdifferentfromthe currentof-
ferings are consideredmore acceptableif the company
has alreadyextendedto differentproducts.
Finally, attitudeswere plottedagainstperceivedtyp-
icalityratings.However,note thatbecausebrandbreadth
had the same effect on typicalityratingsas on attitude
ratings,the plots in Figure1, E andF, disguisethe effect
of brandbreadth.
DISCUSSION
Consistentwith conceptualframeworksdevelopedin
cognitive and social psychology, brandextensiontypi-
cality and brandbreadthhad significanteffects on the
evaluationprocessesandevaluationoutcomesassociated
with a potentialbrandextension.Thesefindingsandim-
plicationsfor categorizationmodels that examineeval-
uation processesare addressedin the sections that fol-
low.
BrandExtensionTypicality
Both replicatesof our study show a direct linearre-
lationshipbetweentypicalityandattituderatingsfor po-
tentialbrandextensions. As predicted,attitudetransfer
from the currentbrandto potentialextensionsdid not
occurin an all-or-nothingway. The negativeattitudeto-
wardextremelyunlikelyor atypicalproductsthata brand
mightmakewentbeyondthe failureof a positiveattitude
to "ruboff" on the new product.Particularlyin the gro-
cery productsreplicate,subjectsseemedto find atypical
brandextensionsfundamentally wrongfor the brand.This
result is differentfrom what has been predictedin the
person perceptionliteraturefor schematicfit. Specifi-
cally, Fiske (1982) positedthatwhen a persondoes not
fit a particularschema, the affectiveresponseis neutral
or slightly positive pendingidentificationof the person
as a good fit with anotherschema.
One possible reasonfor this differencein predictions
25
is that different classificationshave different conse-
quences. You shouldbe less botheredwhen a librarian
does not fit your "librarian"
stereotypethanwhen a doc-
torwho is aboutto operateon you does not fit your"sur-
geon" stereotype.Similarly,thoughto a lesser degree,
negativeconsequencesare impliedby atypicalbrandex-
tensions.For example,an atypicalbrandextensionmay
be regardednegativelyif it is perceivedto requireex-
pertiseoutsidethe originatingcompany.
Brand Breadth
Resultsindicatethatbrandbreadthinteracted withbrand
extensiontypicality.Specifically,when the brandmade
a varietyof products,an extensionthat was essentially
the same as a currentproductwas perceivedas not as
typicalas when the brandmade only one type of prod-
uct. However, greaterbreadthincreasedthe perceived
typicalityof moderatelydiscrepantextensions.The pre-
ceding discussionmay imply that a narrowbrandsuch
as Campbell'shas an advantageover a broaderbrand
such as Heinz in offeringa new soup, but Heinz has an
advantageover Campbell'sin offeringa moderatelydif-
ferentextensionsuchas a new line of frozenvegetables.
Finally, brandbreadthhad little effect on the perceived
typicalityof extremelydiscrepantextensions,suggesting
that breadthand typicalityare relative, ratherthan ab-
solute, magnitudes.For any particularlevel of brand
breadth,some productsare so discrepantas to makethe
brandcategoryseem relativelynarrow.Therefore,nei-
ther a narrowbrandsuch as Campbell'snor a broader
brandsuchas Heinzwouldhavean advantagein offering
an extremelydiscrepantextensionsuch as toothpaste.
A narrowbrandmay not always have an advantage
whenofferingnew productsthatareessentiallythe same
as currentones. Results in the electronicproductsrep-
licateindicatethatthe extensionsof the broadbrandgen-
erallywereperceivedmorefavorablythanthe extensions
of the narrowbrand.In the replicatein whichbrandnar-
rowness seemed disadvantageous,the brand's current
productswere calculators,television sets, and digital
watches.Perhapsa brandthatmadeonly digitalwatches
or calculatorswas viewed as overspecialized.Recent
findings (Aaker and Keller 1989) substantiatethe im-
portanceof perceivedexpertisein positive evaluations
of brandextensions.Possiblygroupsof relatedproducts
fortifya brandimage,particularly one in whichtechnical
expertisehas an importantrole.
Evaluation Processes
The evidence reported here is consistent with an eval-
uation model that includes both categorical and piece-
meal processes. As hypothesized, categorical processes
predominated when consumers evaluated products that
were "the same" as the brand's current products and
piecemeal processes predominated when consumers
evaluated products that were moderately different from
the brand's current products. However, there are also
several deviations from the predicted U-shaped relation-
26
ship betweenbrandextensiontypicalityand the process
measures.
Responsetimes for extensionsof narrowbrandsde-
viate from the predictedcurvilinearpatternin that ex-
tremelyatypicalextensionsof narrowbrandstook longer
to evaluatethandid moderatelytypicalextensions,a re-
sult consistentwith the Fiske andPavelchakmodel. Per-
haps subjectswere somewhatconfusedby the prospect
of a companyextendingits brandfrom, say, condiments
to toothpaste.Atypicalextensionsof broadbrandsmay
have evoked less confusionbecause the brandat least
had alreadydemonstratedexpertisein multipleproduct
lines.
The relationshipbetweentypicalityandresponsetime
is muchflatterfor narrowbrandsin the groceryproducts
replicatethan in the electronicproductsreplicate.One
explanationfor this differenceis the types of products
tested.Subjectsmay haveevaluatedgroceryproductsand
electronicproductsvery differently.Because electronic
productsare more technicallycomplex, the evaluative
criteriafor a brandextensionmay be based on the per-
ceivedexpertiseof the manufacturer. However,the eval-
uationof a groceryproductbrandextensionmaybe based
moreon subjectivecriteriafor the appropriatenessof us-
ing the samebrandon productswith extremelydifferent
attributes.Perhapsbrandsthatmaketechnicallycomplex
products(calculators,television sets) encourage con-
sumersto scan their memoriesmore thoroughlyfor a
way to matchthe brandextensionwith a featureof the
brand'scurrentproducts.Futureresearchmightexplore
this issue further.
A notableaspectof the responsetimes and cognitive
responsesin the electronicproductsreplicateis thatthe
extremelyatypicalproduct(ballpointpen) took as long
to evaluateas the moderatelytypical products(camera
and refrigerator)but did not elicit piecemealcognitive
responsesin nearlyas many subjects.This findingsug-
gests thatthe two processindicatorsmay have measured
differentaspectsof piecemealprocessing.The response
times seem to have measuredthe difficultyof finding
pointsof similarityor differencebetweenthe brandex-
tensionand currentproducts,whereasthe cognitivere-
sponsesmeasuredthefrequencywithwhichrelevantpoints
of similarityor differencewere found. Apparently,sub-
jects scannedtheirmemoriesfor points of similarityor
differencebetweencurrentproductsandthepotentialbrand
extension,and verbalizedany thatseemedrelevant.Re-
sponse time is arguablythe best measureof the extent
of the evaluative processing because it includes the silent
search of memory. In this context, verbal protocols may
be more useful to characterize the nature of processing
than to measure its extent.
Limitations
The strategy in our study was to manipulate structural
variables that seemed likely to influence evaluation. As
with all laboratoryexperiments, interpretationof the re-
sults must be tempered by an understandingof how well
JOURNAL
OF MARKETING 1991
FEBRUARY
RESEARCH,
the experimentaltask representedthe real issues inves-
tigated. The primarydifferencesbetween the experi-
mentaltask and an evaluationof a truebrandextension
are that experimentalevaluations(1) did not occur in a
store as they often would in consumerdecision situa-
tions, (2) werebasedon vicariousexperienceratherthan
personalexperiencewith productsin use, and (3) were
basedon information presentedin exclusivelyverbalform
ratherthanas a reactionto othertactile and visual cues
suchas wouldoccurin mostproductevaluationsettings.
In addition,thereis a strongpossibilitythatthe experi-
mentaltaskprimedthe typicalitygradientrepresentedby
potentialbrandextensions (it was probablyevident to
subjectsthat potentialbrandextensionsvariedin simi-
larityto currentbrandedproducts).
A secondlimitationof the studyis thatwhenresponse
timesandverbalprotocolsare collectedconcurrently they
may becomeconfounded.Thatis, the act of verbalizing
probablylengthensresponsetime. Thoughtverbalization
may either accentuateor attenuatethe extent of piece-
meal processingas measuredby responsetime because
all verbalresponsestake time and only some of them
indicatepiecemealprocessing.
Concluding Remarks
Despite the limitations,the resultsof our experiment
reveal some interestingaspects of the relationshipbe-
tween categorystructureand the process of evaluating
potentialnew membersof the category.The strengthsof
the researchmethodinclude the experimentalmanipu-
lation of brandbreadthand the comparisonof response
timesandverbalprotocolmeasuresacrosstwo replicates
of the experiment.The results suggest that category
structurehelpsto shapeevaluationprocessesandthatat-
titudeand typicalityare closely linked.
To the extent that the experimentaltask mirroredas-
pects of an actual productevaluation,the results also
provideinsightinto the way brandextensionevaluation
is influencedby brandextension typicalityand brand
categorybreadth.Specifically,brandextensionsappear
to be evaluatedmore highly to the extent that they are
perceivedas similarto (or typicalof) the brand'scurrent
productoffering.The perceivedtypicalityof a potential
extensionis influenced,in turn, by the breadthof the
brand's currentproductoffering. Narrowbrand cate-
gories appearto have advantagesfor extensionsthatare
highlysimilar,andbroadbrandcategoriesappearto have
advantagesfor extensionsthataremoderatelysimilar,to
the brand's current products. In our study, broad brand
categories included a greater variety of products than did
narrow brand categories. This variety may be specified
better as having both range (operationally defined as the
difference between the two most different products) and
variability (operationally defined as a summary measure
of interproductdifferences, such as pairwise differences
squared and summed). Future research might investigate
range and variability as separate factors of brand cate-
gory breadth.
 EVALUATION
BRANDEXTENSION
It is significant that some potential brand extensions
were perceived as moderately typical rather than either
extremely typical or extremely atypical of the brand cat-
egory. These moderately typical extensions appeared to
generate greater thought and processing time than either
extremely typical or extremely atypical extensions. Per-
haps they would be aided by promotions, and other mar-
keting devices, that take into account this greater pro-
cessing.
Our findings suggest that categorization theory pro-
vides a promisingframeworkfor furtherresearchon brand
extension. By better understandingthe structureof brand
categories and the way differences (or changes) in that
structureaffect brand attitudes, marketerscan better an-
ticipate the effects of brand extension.
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. and Kevin Lane Keller (1989), "Consumer
Evaluations of Brand Extensions," Journal ofMarketing, 54
(January),27-41.
Barsalou,LawrenceW. (1983), "AdHoc Categories,"Mem-
ory and Cognition, 11 (3), 211-27.
- (1985), "Ideals,CentralTendency,and Frequencyof
Instantiationas Determinantsof GradedStructurein Cate-
gories," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, 11 (4), 629-48.
(1990), "On the Indistinguishabilityof Exemplar
Memoryand Abstractionin CategoryRepresentation,"in
Advances in Social Cognition, Vol. 3, T. K. Srull and R.
S. Wyer, Jr., eds. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAs-
sociates.
Bettman,JamesR., Noel Capon,and RichardJ. Lutz(1975),
"Cognitive Algebra in MultiattributeAttitude Models,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (May), 151-64.
Boush, David, ShannonShipp, BarbaraLoken, Ezra Genc-
turk,SusanCrockett,Ellen Kennedy,BettyMinshall,Den-
nis Misurell,LindaRochford,andJon Strobel(1987), "Af-
fect Generalization to Similar and Dissimilar Brand
Extensions," Psychology and Marketing, 4 (3), 225-37.
Brewer, MarilynnB. (1988), "A Dual Process Model of
Impression Formation," in Advances in Social Cognition,
Vol. 1, T. K. SrullandR. S. Wyer, Jr., eds. HillsdaleNJ:
LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, 1-36.
Brooks, Lee (1978), "NonanalyticConcept Formationand
Memory for Instances," in Cognition and Categorization,
E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
ErlbaumAssociates, 169-215.
Burke,MarianChapmanandJulieA. Edell (1989), "TheIm-
pactof Feelingson Ad-BasedAffect andCognition,"Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 26 (February), 69-83.
Cohen,Joel B. (1982), "TheRole of Affect in Categorization:
Towardsa Reconsideration of the Conceptof Attitude,"in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, Andrew Mitchell,
ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Associationfor ConsumerResearch,
94-100.
Collins, AllanM. andElizabethF. Loftus(1975), "A Spread-
ing ActivationTheoryof SemanticProcessing,"Psycholog-
ical Review, 82 (6), 407-28.
Fishbein,Martinand Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude,In-
tention and Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub-
lishing Company.
Fiske, SusanT. (1982), "Schema-Triggered
Affect: Applica-
27
tions to Social Perception," in Affect and Cognition: The
17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, Margaret
S. Clarkand SusanT. Fiske, eds. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence
ErlbaumAssociates, 171-90.
- andMarkA. Pavelchak(1986), "Category-Based Ver-
sus Piecemeal-BasedAffectiveResponses:Developmentsin
Schema-Triggered Affect," in The Handbook of Motivation
and Cognition: Foundation of Social Behavior, Richard W.
Sorrentinoand E. Tory Higgins, eds. New York:Guilford
Press, 167-203.
Geisser, Seymourand Samuel W. Greenhouse(1958), "An
Extensionof Box's Resultson the Use of F Distributionin
Multivariate Analysis," Annals of Mathematical Statistics,
29 (April), 885-91.
Judd,CharlesM. and CynthiaM. Lusk (1984), "Knowledge
Structuresand EvaluativeJudgments:Effects of Structural
Variableson JudgmentalExtremity,"Journalof Personality
and Social Psychology, 46 (6), 1193-207.
Kirk, Roger E. (1982), Experimental Design: Procedures for
the Behavioral Sciences. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub-
lishing Company.
LaTour,StevenA. andPaulW. Miniard(1983), "TheMisuse
of RepeatedMeasuresAnalysis in MarketingResearch,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (February), 45-57.
Linville, PatriciaW. (1982), "TheComplexity-Extremity
Ef-
fect and Age-BasedStereotyping,"Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 42 (2), 193-211.
Loken, Barbaraand JamesWard(1987), "Measuresof Attri-
buteStructureUnderlyingProductTypicality,"in Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, Melanie Wallendorf and
Paul F. Anderson,eds. Provo, UT: Associationfor Con-
sumerResearch,22-8.
Malt, BarbaraC. (1989), "An On-LineInvestigationof Pro-
totype and ExemplarStrategiesin Classification,"Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cog-
nition, 15 (4), 539-55.
Mervis, CarolynB. and EleanorRosch (1981), "Categoriza-
tion of Natural Objects," Annual Review of Psychology, 32,
89-115.
Parducci,Allen and Douglas H. Wedell (1986), "The Cate-
gory Effect With Rating Scales: Number of Categories,
Numberof Stimuli, and Methodof Presentation,"Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-
formance, 12 (4), 496-516.
Rosch, Eleanorand CarolynB. Mervis (1975), "FamilyRe-
semblances:Studiesin the InternalStructureof Categories,"
Cognitive Psychology, 7 (4), 573-605.
- , CarolSimpson,and R. Scott Miller (1976), "Struc-
tureBases of TypicalityEffects,"Journalof Experimental
Psychology: HumanPerception and Performance, 2 (4), 491-
502.
Smith,EdwardE., EdwardJ. Shoben,andLanceJ. Rips(1974),
"Structureand Process in SemanticMemory:A Featural
Model for SemanticDecisions,"PsychologicalReview, 81
(3), 214-41.
Srull, ThomasK. andRobertS. Wyer(1989), "PersonMem-
ory and Judgment,"PsychologicalReview, 96 (1), 58-83.
Sujan,Mita (1985), "ConsumerKnowledge:Effects on Eval-
uationStrategiesMediatingConsumerJudgments,"Journal
of Consumer Research, 12 (June), 31-46.
- and ChristineDekleva (1987), "ProductCategoriza-
tion andInference-Making:
Some Implicationsfor Compar-
ative Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (De-
cember, 372-8.
28 OF MARKETING
JOURNAL 1991
FEBRUARY
RESEARCH,

Tauber,EdwardM. (1988), "BrandLeverage:Strategyfor Wright,PeterL. (1976), "An AdaptiveConsumer'sView of

Growthin a Cost ControlWorld,"Journalof Advertising
Research,31 (August/September),26-30.
Tversky,Amos (1977), "Featuresof Similarity,"Psycholog-
ical Review, 84 (4), 327-52.
Ward,Jamesand BarbaraLoken(1986), "TheQuintessential
SnackFood: Measurementof ProductPrototypes,"in Ad-
vances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Richard Lutz, ed.
Provo, UT: Associationfor ConsumerResearch,126-31.
AttitudesandChoiceMechanismsas Viewedby an Equally
Adaptive Advertiser," in Attitude Research at Bay, William
D. Wells, ed. Chicago:AmericanMarketingAssociation,
113-311.
ReprintNo. JMR281101

fIY1
~L~I0 0

1 bl

publication are now avai a e ro

Yes!I wouldliketo knowmoreaboutUMIArticle Name

Clearinghouse.I aminterestedin electronicordering
Title
throughthe followingsystem(s):
Institution/Company
D DIALOG/Dialorder D ITTDialcom
O OnTyme O OCLC ILLSubsystem Department
EI Other (pleasespecify) Address
El I am interestedin sendingmyorderbymail.
City State Zip
l Pleasesendmeyourcurrentcataloganduser
instructionsforthe system(s)I checkedabove. Phone
Mailto: University International
Microfilms
300 NorthZeebRoad,Box91 AnnArbor,MI48106