The Malleable Brand: The Role of Implicit Theories in Evaluating Brand Extensions

202 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.

Mindsets shape consumer behavior (2016, background): “When a brand went too far—changing both its personality and its physical traits—even people with a growth mindset were wary of the change, perceiving a poor fit between the original and the extension (Yorkston et al., 2010).”
Creating brand personality with brand names (2012, background): “A potential antecedent to brand personality is the brand name (Batra et al. 1993; Yorkston et al. 2010 ).”
Capitalizing on brand personalities in advertising: The influence of implicit self‐theories on ad appeal effectiveness (2012, background): “Recently, Yorkston et al. (2010) have shown that consumers who hold entity theories are less flexible in their thinking about brands, and as a result, they favor advertising copy and visuals that are highly consistent with a brand's personality.”
Got to Get You into My Life (2009, unknown): “Recently, researchers have started to examine how implicit self-theories influence goal-directed behavior (Mukhopadhyay and Johar 2005), affect regulation (Labroo and Mukhopadhyay 2009), and brand extension evaluations (Yorkston et al. 2010).”