2000
DOI: 10.1509/jmkr.37.3.331.18780
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Connectionist Model of Brand–Quality Associations

Abstract: Consumers use brand names and product features to predict the performance of products. Various learning models offer hypotheses about the source of these predictive associations. Spreading-activation models hypothesize that cues acquire predictive value as a consequence of being present during the acquisition of product performance information. Least mean squares connectionist models hypothesize that any one cue acquires predictive value only to the extent that it can predict differences in performance that ar… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
177
1
7

Year Published

2004
2004
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 239 publications
(190 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
5
177
1
7
Order By: Relevance
“…This research is in line with previous works on cobranding: First, information from cues, such as brands and labels, is not processed independently but rather in combination, such that they can compete with or influence the other's predictiveness (Janiszewski and Van Osselaer 2000). Second, complementarity between brands is essential for transfers to occur and to align cobranded products' attribute judgment with those of the top performer (Park et al 1996).…”
Section: Theoretical Implications and Limitationssupporting
confidence: 85%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This research is in line with previous works on cobranding: First, information from cues, such as brands and labels, is not processed independently but rather in combination, such that they can compete with or influence the other's predictiveness (Janiszewski and Van Osselaer 2000). Second, complementarity between brands is essential for transfers to occur and to align cobranded products' attribute judgment with those of the top performer (Park et al 1996).…”
Section: Theoretical Implications and Limitationssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…However, brand equity transfers occur mainly when an individual brand cannot signal quality by itself (Rao and Ruekert 1994). Several research works examine cobranding efficiency (Geylani et al 2008;Janiszewski and Van Osselaer 2000;Park et al 1996). For example, Janiszewski and Van…”
Section: Brand Equity and Label Equity: Cobranding And The Marginal Lmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…According to the associative network memory model [2] [3] [4] of cognitive psychology, the brand in the form of "a name, term, marker, symbol or combination of them" exists in the brain as a band node. Through direct or indirect contact with the brand and their consumption experience, consumers generate cognitive information about organizations, products, or services related to cognitive, affective experience, experience of use, which are directly or indirectly connected with the brand nodes in the memory network, and form the brand association.…”
Section: The Analysis Of the Bcm Technologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model incorporated only key constructs based on source theories in an attempt to provide initial evidence that could stimulate further research in this direction. This study did not include other potentially influential factors such as the brand breadth and the number of brands affiliated (Bousch & Loken, 1991;Dacin & Smith, 1994;Dawar, 1996), specific dimensions of extension fit (e.g., Broniarcyk & Alba, 1994;Schmitt & Dube, 1992), and types of branding strategies such as vertical and/or horizontal extensions, and individual branding and/or sub-branding (e.g., Janiszewski & Van Osselaer, 2000;Kim, Lavack, & Smith, 2001;McCarthy, Heath, & Milberg, 2001). Additional consideration may be given to sequential introductions of brand extension, effects of extended brands on parent brands, advertising and market share implications of extension strategies, and market growth opportunities (e.g., Dawer & Anderson, 1994;Lane, 2000;Rangaswamy, Burke, & Oliver, 1993;Sullivan, 1992).…”
Section: Limitations and Suggestions For Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%