PurposeThe paper seeks to conduct an exploratory study into how positive and negative brand belief levels differ before, and change after, consumers defect from a brand or take up a new brand.Design/methodology/approachTwo longitudinal studies in banking and insurance were used. These included repeat interviews with the same consumers. Brand buying behaviour and positive and negative brand beliefs were measured and then compared across those who defected from a brand and those who took up a new brand.FindingsPrior to defection, differences in both positive and negative perceptions were apparent in those who subsequently defected. There was also evidence of a readjustment after defection to match the new user status. There was evidence that this readjustment did not just occur in the behaviour change period, but continued to occur afterwards, with differences over time much greater for the longer time frame interview than evident for the shorter time frame. Negative beliefs were more discriminating when the defection was customer‐initiated rather than during a renewal process. New brand users displayed a higher propensity to give positive beliefs prior to taking up the brand compared to non‐users who did not take up the brand. These changes further continued post‐switching as new users adjusted to their new status.Originality/valueThis research contributes to the understanding of the brand belief‐behaviour relationship using two very different longitudinal studies. It also investigates negative brand beliefs, which are rarely researched, and compares the effects of negative beliefs with that of positive beliefs.

No abstract

This research focuses on consumer brand usage segments and the responses they give to negative attributes in brand image studies. Analysis was conducted across three markets and four approaches for measuring brand beliefs with respondents who were current users, past users or had never tried a brand. The major finding of this study was that past users of a brand consistently have the highest tendency to elicit negative beliefs about brands. Further, those who have never used a brand typically have a lower propensity than current brand users to elicit negative brand beliefs. These results suggest that negative beliefs about a brand are developed as a result of purchase behaviour, rather than as mechanisms to reject a brand prior to purchase. These findings have implications for the role of negative beliefs in consideration of set formation and the trial of a new brand. They also provide insight into the patterns that may be expected when measuring and interpreting negative brand beliefs across different usage groups.

reflective learning and reflective practice; qualitative and quantitative research methods; empirical generalisationalist research methods; and behaviourist theories of consumer behaviour. He has published articles on student evaluations of teaching and reflective practice, as well as negative brand beliefs, luxury and premium brands, and wine marketing. AbstractThough there have been many studies conducted that emphasise faculty reflection as a crucial feature of professional practice, there appears to have been little empirical evidence to support the proposition that reflective practice improves the quality of teaching. Previous research demonstrated that reflective practice could be encouraged by weekly formative student evaluations of teaching (SETs). This study investigated the impact of reported reflective practice using formative SETs on changes to summative SETs, typically conducted at the end of a teaching period. Data was collected in a rural UKbased university-college in 11 modules (n = six faculty members, n = 413 students) in Business, Countryside and Environment, Foundation Degree and Veterinary Nursing programmes over the period of 2 years of data collection. Findings show that on average, SET scores increased for all reflective practitioners year on year and increased more for those faculty members who demonstrated higher levels of reflection.Previous research into summative SETs has both praised and criticised their use (eg,