What Makes Brands Elastic? The Influence of Brand Concept and Styles of Thinking on Brand Extension Evaluation

308 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

You Get What You Pay For? Self-Construal Influences Price-Quality Judgments (2013, background): “Research also suggests that symbolic and prestige products foster abstract associations and multiple connections with quality (Monga and John 2010; Reddy, Holak, and Bhat 1994; Schlosser and Shavitt 2002; Shavitt 1990, 1992; also see Keller 1993).”
The consumer psychology of brands (2012, unknown): “…overall fit (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Bottomley & Holden, 2001; Milberg, Sinn, & Goodstein, 2010); type of brand (e.g., prestige or functional) (Monga & John, 2010); brand knowledge (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994); the presence of explanatory links (Bridges, Keller, & Sood, 2000); parent-brand…”
Social Identity Perspective on Brand loyalty (2012, background): “Research on brand extension finds that prestige brands, due to their status- and quality-signaling advantage, tend to receive more favorable brand extension evaluation (e.g., Kirmani et al. 1999; Monga and John, 2010).”
A Review and Conceptual Framework for Understanding Personalized Matching Effects in Persuasion (2020, background): “…a consumer’s culturally shaped thinking style (e.g., a product is portrayed in isolation for analytical thinkers vs. as part of a broader context for holistic thinkers), it tends to elicit more positive persuasive outcomes (Liang et al., 2011; Monga & John, 2006, 2010; Uskul & Oyserman, 2010).”