Construal and Categorization: Impacts of Psychological Distance on Brand Extensions
ABSTRACT
We propose psychological distance influences acceptance of brand extensions. Studies
showed psychologically distant brand extensions were evaluated more positively than the near
ones, especially when the extensions were less consistent with the associated brands. More
importantly, this psychological distance effect was mediated by the perceived fit of extensions.
________________________________________________________________________
Keywords: psychological distance, construal level theory, categorization theory, category
inference, brand extension
1
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
The topic of brand extension has been pervasively studied in the fields of marketing and
consumer psychology. Previous research suggested that brands and their affiliated products are
represented in memory as different categorical representations, and consumers use those mental
representations to assign a new product or service to a certain category, and draw inferences
about it (Loken et al., 2002). Categorical representations are flexible and malleable, and the
likelihood of category inferences depends on the similarity or match between the representation
of the existing brand category and the representation of a new category member (i.e. Meyvis &
Janiszewski, 2004; Cowley & Mitchell, 2003). The higher the match between the extension
product and its parent brand category, the more likely beliefs and attitudes typical to the parent
brand will be ascribed to the extension.
Recently, Ahluwalia’s research (2008) showed a consumer’s self-construal influences the
perceived fit of an extension and thus, a brand’s stretchability. Interdependent self-construal
leads to a superior ability to uncover relationships between an extension and its parent brand, and
thus is likely to enhance the perceived fit and acceptance of an extension.
The construal level theory (CLT) proposed by Liberman and Trope (1998) suggested that
the chronically-built association between psychological distance and abstraction in cognition
results in the tendency to construe objects/events with more high (low)-level, abstract (concrete)
features when they are psychologically distant (near). Categorization itself is hieratical and with
different levels of abstractness; one could construe less or more inclusive categories of objects,
depending on the level of construal being used to represent the objects. Greater psychological
distance leads to a more inclusive categorization (Liberman et al., 2002).
On the basis of this literature, we propose that psychological distance also enhance the
stretchability of a brand extension. Psychological distance will influence the levels of construal
people use to represent an extension, its categorization, and the likelihood of category inferences
from existing brand category to the extension. Specifically, when a brand extension is
represented at a higher, more abstract, and superordinate construal level, it is more likely to be
included in the existing brand category, leading to greater category inferences. We report the
results of four experiments that examined our propositions.
In Study 1, construal level was manipulated by temporal distance of brand extensions.
Participants were presented with a series of brand extensions (four brands and each had eight
proposed extensions) which were suggested to be introduced in either near or distant future, and
then reported their attitude toward the extensions. A control group was asked to evaluate the
consistency of those extensions to their affiliated parent brands. A median-split was performed
2
on these consistency measures to categorize the extension into low and high consistency group.
Fifty-eight undergraduate students participated in this study. Results showed extensions
represented in distant future were evaluated more favorably than the ones in the near future.
Furthermore, the interaction between temporal distance and consistency suggested that the
psychological distance effect was greater for low consistency extensions than high consistency
ones.
To increase generalizability, different brand extensions were used in Study 2. Furthermore,
another psychological distance dimension was included to manipulate construal level. Study 2 is
a 2(psychological distance: near vs. far) X 2 (distance type: temporal vs. spatial) mixed design
with construal level as between-subjects factor and distance type as within-subjects factor.
Forty-seven undergraduate students participated in this study. They were presented with eighteen
hypothetical extensions (three brands, each with six extensions), suggested to be introduced
either in the near (distant) future or in the US (a foreign country). For each brand, half of the
extensions were manipulated by temporal distance and the other half was by spatial distance.
Participants then reported their attitude toward each extension. Results of study 2 again
supported our hypothesis. When extensions were introduced in either distant future or spatially
distant, participants evaluated the brand extensions more favorably. And the effect of
psychological distance remained regardless of brands, extensions, and distance type.
Study 3 is to examine the mediation effect of perceived similarity (fit). The design of study
3 is similar to study 2, except that one more brand and six more extensions were included, and
measures of brand attitude as well as perceived similarity (fit) were included because previous
research suggested that brand attitude effect on brand extension evaluation is also mediated by fit.
One hundred undergraduate students participated. Results replicated the findings of study 1 and 2,
and extended previous studies by demonstrating that the influence of psychological distance on
brand extension evaluation was mediated by the perceived similarity (fit) (Sobel’s test:
p1-tailed=0.01).
Study 4 adopted a 2 (temporal distance: far vs. near) x 2 (social distance: far vs. near)
between-subject design to examine the potential interplay between different dimensions of
psychological distance. Participants were presented with ten domestic (US-based) vs. foreign
(foreign country of origin) brand extensions to be introduced in temporally near vs. distant future.
We matched the brands in terms of their product class and brand strength. It’s assumed that
although all the brands are available in the US markets, foreign brands should be perceived more
socially distant than domestic brands. Results showed a significant social distance main effect on
liking and purchase intention toward brand extension, and a marginal significant two-way
interaction effect on purchase intention.
Taken together, the findings across four studies shed light on the linkage between construal
3
level theory and categorization theory, and their application on brand extension. The
categorization and evaluation of a new product extension is influenced by its psychological distance,
especially when the extensions are inconsistent with the parent brands. The present study
contributes to the brand extension literature by providing construal level as another route to
understand the potential of brand stretchability, and how a brand extension is perceived, and its
likelihood of acceptance by consumers. This study also extends previous research by examining
the effect of other psychological distance dimensions (spatial and social) and their interplay on
brand extension evaluation.
Full Reference
Aaker, D. and Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of
Marketing, 54, 27-41.
Ahluwalia, R. (2008). How far can a brand stretch? Understanding the role of self-construal,
Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 337-350.
Barone, M. J. and Miniard, P. W. (2002). Mood and brand extension judgments: asymmetric
effects for desirable versus undesirable brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(4),
283-291.
Barone, M. J., Miniard, P. W., and Romeo, J. B. (2000). The influence of positive mood on brand
extension evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 386-400.
Bless, H. and Schwarz, N. (1999). Context effects in political judgement: assimilation and
contrast as a function of categorization processes. European Journal of Social Psychology,
28(2), 159-172.
Bottomley, P. A. and Holden, S. J. S. (2001). Do we really know how consumers evaluate brand
extensions? Empirical generalizations Based on secondary analysis of eight studies. Journal
of Marketing Research, 38(4), 494-500.
Boush, D. M. and Loken, B. (1991). A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 16-28.
Cowley, E. and Mitchell, A. A. (2003). The moderating effect of product knowledge on the
learning and organization of product information. Journal Consumer Research, 30,
443-454.
Dhar, R. and Kim, E. Y. (2007). Seeing the forest or the trees: implications of construal level
theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 96-100.
Eyal, T., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., and Walther, E. (2004). The pros and cons of temporally near
and distant action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 781-795.
Farquhar, P. H., Han, J. Y., Herr, P. M., and Ijiri, Y. (1992). Strategies for leveraging master
brands. Marketing Research, 4, 32-43.
4
Fujita, K., Eyal, T., Chaiken, S., Trope, Y., and Liberman, N. (2008). Influencing attitudes toward
near and distant objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 562-572.
Henderson, M. D., Fujita, K. F., Trope, Y., and Liberman, N. (2006). The effect of spatial
distance on social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 845-856.
Herr, P. (1989). Priming price: prior knowledge and context effects. Journal of Consumer
Research, 16, 67-75.
Herr, P., Farquhar, and Fazio, R. (1996). Impact of dominance and relatedness on brand
extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(2), 135-159.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T.
Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp.
133-168) .New York: Guilford.
Higgins, E. T., Bargh, J. A., and Lombardi, W. (1985). Nature of priming effects on
categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and cognition, 11,
59-69.
Jones, C. R. M., and Fazio, R. H. (2008). Associative strength and consumer choice behavior. In
Haugtvedt, C. P., Herr, P. M., & Kardes, F. R. (Ed.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology
(pp.437-459). New York: Psychology Press.
Kardes, F. R., Posavax, S. S., Cronley, L. C., and Herr, P. M. (2008). Consumer inference. In
Haugtvedt, C. P., Herr, P. M., & Kardes, F. R. (Ed.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology
(pp.165-191). New York: Psychology Press.
Kim, J. and Wilemon, D. (2002). Sources and assessment of complexity in NPD projects. R&D
Management, 33 (1), 16-30.
Lee, A. Y. and Sternthal, B. (1999). The effects of positive mood on memory. Journal of
Consumer Research, 26, 115-128.
Loken, B., Barsalou, L. W., and Joiner, C. (2008). Categorization theory and research in
consumer psychology. In Haugtvedt, C. P., Herr, P. M., & Kardes, F. R. (Ed.), Handbook of
Consumer Psychology (pp.133-163). New York: Psychology Press.
Loken, B., Joiner, C., and Peck, J. (2002). Category attitude measures: exemplar as inputs.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (2), 149-161.
Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., and Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level
of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523-534.
Liberman, N. and Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near
and distant future decisions: a test of temporal construal theory, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18.
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., and Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W. Kruglanski &
E. T. Higgins (Eds.) Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York: Guilford
5
Press.
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., and Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal level theory and consumer behavior.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 113-117.
Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., and Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance
dimension: implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44 ,1256-1269 .
Meyers-Levy, J. and Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 39-54.
Meyvis, T. and Janiszewski, C. (2004). When are broader brands stronger brands? An
accessibility perspective on the success of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer research,
31(2), 346-357.
Monga, A. B., and John, D. R. (2007). Cultural differences in brand extension evaluation: the
influence of analytic versus holistic thinking, Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 529-536.
Murphy, G. L., and Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence.
Psychological Review, 92, 289-316.
Park, C. W., Milberg, S., and Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: the role of
product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research,
18, 185-193.
Ratneshwar, S., Barsalou, L. W., Pechmann, C., and Moore, M. (2001). Goal-derived categories:
the role of personal and situational goals in category representations. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 10(3), 147-158.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 104(3), 192-233.
Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models,
and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24(4),
323-355.
Smith, P. K., and Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the tree:
power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90(4), 578-596.
Taylor, S. E. (1981). The interface of cognitive and social psychology. In J. H. Harvey (Ed.),
Cognition, social behavior, and the environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Thomas, M., Chandran, S., and Trope, Y. (2006). The effects of temporal distance on purchase
construal. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University.
Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in
preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 876-889.
6
Trope, Y., Liberamn, N., and Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance:
effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 17, 83-95.
Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., and Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is
unlikely: probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 135, 641-653.
Waldman, M. R., Holyoak, K. J., and Fratianne, A. (1995). Causal models and the acquisition of
category structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 181-206.
Wank, M., Bless, H., and Schwarz, N. (1998). Context effects in product line extensions: context
is not destiny. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (4), 299-322.
7