ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802
The Mediation of Family Brand Entitativity on Extension Feedback Effects
Crystal Lee, National Chengchi University, Taiwan
Joseph W. Chang, Vancouver Island University, Canada
Yung-Chien Lou, National Chengchi University, Taiwan
This research examined the effects of family brand entitativity on extension feedback effects under high and low accessibility
situations. Research results indicated that family brand entitativity mediated extension feedback effects on family brand evaluations
under both high and low accessibility situations. In comparison, family brand entitativity yielded complete mediation under high
accessibility situation, whereas partial mediation on extension feedback effects was observed under low accessibility situation.
[to cite]:
Crystal Lee, Joseph W. Chang, and Yung-Chien Lou (2011) ,"The Mediation of Family Brand Entitativity on Extension
Feedback Effects", in AP - Asia-Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 9, eds. Zhihong Yi, Jing Jian Xiao, and June
Cotte and Linda Price, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 57-58.
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1009131/volumes/ap09/AP-09
[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
The Mediation Of Family Brand Entitativity On Feedback Extension Effects
Joseph W. Chang, Vancouver Island University, Canada*
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
CONCEPTUALIZATION
Crawford and colleagues (2002) propose the model of
group-level trait transference (GLTT) to interpret the impact
of group members on the information processing of their
group. In the GLTT model, perceived entitativity is the predeterminant of the three-stage information processing of trait
abstraction (or trait inference), stereotyping (or group
impression formation), and trait generalization (or trait
transference).
At the first stage, motivated perceivers engage in on-line
processing for both high and low-entitative groups, where
traits are abstracted from, and associated with, the behaviors
of individual members. However, as the underlying essences
of stereotype are not expected for low-entitative groups, less
effort is made to further process the abstracted traits for the
next step of stereotyping. The processing is more individuated
or piecemeal represented (Brewer 1988; Fiske and Neuberg
1990). In contrast, as high-entitative groups suggest the
underlying essences of stereotype, the abstracted traits are
further processed to form or revise group impression (Stage
2) and transfer across group members (Stage 3). The
information processing of high-entitative groups go through
the whole process of three stages, while the further processing
of stereotyping and trait transference (Stages 2&3) is not
salient for low-entitative groups.
Following the trait abstraction at the first stage, the
abstracted traits of high-entitative group are applied as the
underlying essences of stereotype to update group impression
and associate group members (Stage 2: stereotyping). As the
stereotypes of high-entitative groups are formed by the
underlying essences of behavioral traits, the cognitive
frameworks of high-entitative groups are more prototypic
represented (Brewer and Harasty 1996). In contrast, as low
entitativity does not suggest underlying essences of
stereotypes, the processing of low-entitative groups is
significant only at the first stage of trait abstraction. As a
result, the cognitive frameworks of low-entitative groups are
more exemplar represented (Brewer and Harasty 1996).
Following the stereotyping of group impression
formation, the traits of stereotype transfer across, and become
interchangeable (or common) traits of, group members (Stage
3: trait generalization). As the underlying essences of
stereotypes are highly inductive, the behavioral traits of
group‘s stereotypes are associated with each group member
once the stereotypes of high-entitative groups are captured.
Perceivers make spontaneous dispositional inference on
behavioral traits for high-entitative groups. The abstracted
trait exclusively belonging to a group member turns to be a
common trait associating with every group member, which
consequently multiplies the perceived magnitude of the
abstracted trait and yields polarization or asymmetric effects.
As a result, the properties of high-entitative groups (i.e.,
honest or intelligent) are more disproportionately judged
(Hamilton and Sherman 1996; Sherman et al. 1999; SpencerRodgers et al. 2007).
As with social groups, the attribute generalization of
brand extensions is more likely to emerge for high-entitative
family brands. Perceivers make more extreme judgments and
form more disproportional impressions on high-entitative
groups (Hamilton and Sherman 1996; Sherman et al. 1999;
Spencer-Rodgers et al. 2007). As a result, the multiplied
perceived magnitude of brand extensions polarizes the quality
of high-entitative family brands. Therefore, high- (vs. low-)
entitative family brands are more extremely evaluated. This
result yields asymmetric (or disproportionate) impacts of
positive and negative extension information on family brand
evaluations, which is likely mediated by the prior perceived
entitativity of family brands. Hence, prior perceived
entitativity of family brands mediates feedback extension
effects on subsequent family brand evaluations.
METHOD
The first study involved eight experimental conditions
with respondents randomly assigned to groups in a 2
(information valence: positive vs. negative) x 2 (categorical
similarity: similar vs. dissimilar) x 2 (perceived entitativity:
high vs. low) between-subjects factorial design. Participants
were told that the purpose of study was to investigate
consumers‘ opinions about brands. In the beginning, they
were asked to read the semantic information about XXX or
YYY family brand carefully and evaluate the entitativity and
the quality of XXX or YYY family brand. They were then
requested to carefully read information about a newly
launched extension and evaluate the brand extension with the
identical measures of family brand attitudes. Finally, they reevaluated XXX or YYY family brand immediately after the
evaluation of new extension. In all, a total of two hundred and
forty-three undergraduates participated in this study,
including one hundred and twenty-five respondents in the
main study and one hundred and eighteen respondents in pretests. The second study was similar to the first study, except
intervening tasks were added to manipulate the low
accessibility of brand extension information. A total of one
hundred and ninety-four undergraduates participated in this
research, including sixty-nine respondents in the pre-test of
information accessibility and one hundred and twenty five
respondents in experiments.
MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Research findings indicate that family brand entitativity
mediates the feedback effects of brand extension on family
brand evaluations under both high and low accessibility
situations. In comparison, family brand entitativity yielded
complete mediation under high accessibility situation,
whereas partial mediation on feedback extension effects was
observed under low accessibility situation. The impression
about family brand entitativity is more salient when extension
information is highly accessible, which leads to the result of
complete mediation. In contrast, the impression about family
brand entitativity is relatively ambiguous when extension
information is lowly accessible, which yields partial
mediation. In terms of family brand entitativity, the mediation
effect of family brand entitativity is more salient for high (vs.
57
Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 9 © 2011
58 / The Mediation Of Family Brand Entitativity On Feedback Extension Effects
low) entitative family brands, regardless of the accessibility
of extension information. The result supports the GLTT
model, which suggests that group members of a high (vs. low)
entitative group are more influential on the impression
formation of groups. As underlying essences are expected for
high (vs. low) entitative family brands, on-line processing of
extension information is more salient and goes through the
three stages of trait abstraction, stereotyping, and trait
generalization, which yields more salient mediation effect of
family brand entitativity.
The discussion of previous research in extension
feedback effects focused on the categorical fit between brand
extensions and their family brands and the accessibility and
diagnosticity of brand extension information. This research
moved a further step beyond these scopes and, as with group
perception in social cognition, identified the perceived
entitativity of family brands as a mediator of extension
feedback effects.
REFERENCES
Brewer, M. B. (1988), ―A Dual Process Model of Impression
Formation,‖ in Advances in Social Cognition, Vol. 1, T.
K. Srull and R. S. Wyer, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brewer, M. B. and A. S. Harasty (1996), ―Seeing Groups as
Entities: The Role of Perceiver Motivation,‖ in
Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, Vol. 3, E. T.
Higgins and R. M. Sorrentino eds. New York: Guilford
Press, 347-370.
Crawford, M. T., S. J. Sherman, and D. L. Hamilton (2002),
―Perceived Entitativity, Stereotype Formation, and the
Interchangeability of Group Members,‖ Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (5), 1076-1094.
Fiske, S. T. and S. L. Neuberg (1990), ―A Continuum of
Impression Formation, from Category-Based to
Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and
Motivation on Attention and Interpretation,‖ in Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, M. P. Zanna, ed.
New York, NY: Academic Press, 1-74.
Hamilton, D. L. and S. J. Sherman (1996), ―Perceiving
Persons and Groups,‖ Psychological Review, 103, 336355.
Sherman, S. J., D. L. Hamilton, and A. C. Lewis (1999),
―Perceived Entitativity and the Social Identity Value of
Group Membership,‖ in Social Identity and Social
Cognition, D. Abrams and M. Hogg, eds. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell, 80-110.
Spencer-Rodgers, Julie, David L. Hamilton, and Steven J.
Sherman (2007), ―The Central Role of Entitativity in
Stereotypes of Social Categories and Task Groups,‖
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3),
369–388