Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does the type of attribute matter? Examining whether underlying factors explain product attribute preference

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Brand Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most research into product attribute preferences suggests that innovation through enhanced attributes is superior to innovation through unique attributes, yet the marketplace success of new products with unique attributes challenges these assessments. To determine whether the type of attribute matters, this study examines how two underlying factors explain product attribute preference. First, a schema congruity theoretical framework proposes that perceived differences and confidence both mediate attribute type effects. Second, the authors test whether product attribute preferences result from the specific forms of enhanced or unique attributes. Consumer evaluations of 13 line extensions demonstrate that perceived differences and confidence strongly mediate the effects of the type of attribute on product preferences. The effects of the specific attribute form on preferences are comparable to those of enhanced and unique attributes. This effect similarly is mediated by perceived difference and confidence. This study thus provides several contributions for schema congruity theory, including a demonstration of two inverted U-shaped relationships involving perceived difference. For managers, uncovering the influence of consumers’ perceptions of differences and confidence can help them market new products that feature either type or various forms of attributes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allenby, G.M., T.S. Shively, S. Yang, and M.J. Garratt. 2004. A choice model for packaged goods: Dealing with discrete quantities and quantity discounts. Marketing Science 23(1): 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R.L., and A.K. Manrai. 1999. MDS maps for product attributes and market response: An application to scanner panel data. Marketing Science 18(4): 584–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R.M., and D.A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C.L., and G.S. Carpenter. 2000. Why is the trivial important? A reasons-based account for the effects of trivial attributes on choice. Journal of Consumer Research 26(4): 372–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, T.A., and M. Wänke. 2006. The reduced and enhanced impact of shared features on individual brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology 16(2): 101–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M.C., and R.C. Goodstein. 2001. The moderating effect of perceived risk on consumers’ evaluations of product incongruity: Preference for the norm. Journal of Consumer Research 28(3): 439–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, G.S., R. Glazer, and K. Nakamoto. 1994. Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: The dependence on irrelevant attributes. Journal of Marketing Research 31(3): 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K.W., and M. Renee. 2011. Blue ocean strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W.W. 2010. How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications, ed. V.E. Vinzi, W.W. Chin, J. Hensler, and H. Wold. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, P.A., and D.C. Smith. 1994. The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research 31(2): 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, K.K., and S. Ratneshwar. 2003. Consumer perceptions of product variants positioned on atypical attributes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31(1): 22–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., and S.J. Sherman. 1996. The effect of common and unique features in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research 23(3): 193–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fader, P.S., and B.G. Hardie. 1996. Modeling consumer choice among skus. Journal of Marketing Research 33(4): 442–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grime, I., A. Diamantopoulos, and G. Smith. 2002. Consumer evaluations of extensions and their effects on the core brand: Key issues and research propositions. European Journal of Marketing 36(11/12): 1415–1438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J.F., C.M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19(2): 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kardes, F.R., and G. Kalyanaram. 1992. Order-of-entry effects on consumer memory and judgment: An information integration perspective. Journal of Marketing Research 29(3): 343–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M., J. Lee, and W.A. Kamakura. 1996. Consumer evaluations of line extensions: A conjoint approach. Advances in Consumer Research 23(1): 289–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lees, G., and M. Wright. 2004. The effect of concept formulation on concept test scores. Journal of Product Innovation Management 21(6): 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, B., J. Cherian, and W. Fu. 2010. Can followers overcome pioneers? The role of superior alignable differences in consumer evaluation of brand extensions. Journal of Product and Brand Management 19(2): 85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, G. 1982. The structute of value: Accounting for taste. In Affect and cognition: The 17th annual carnegie symposium. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Maoz, E., and A.M. Tybout. 2002. The moderating role of involvement and differentiation in the evaluation of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12(2): 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers-Levy, J., and A.M. Tybout. 1989. Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research 16(1): 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers-Levy, J., T.A. Louie, and M.T. Curren. 1994. How does the congruity of brand names affect evaluations of brand name? Journal of Applied Psychology 79(1): 46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nam, M., J. Wang, and A.Y. Lee. 2012. The difference between differences: How expertise affects diagnosticity of attribute alignability. Journal of Consumer Research 39(4): 736–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijssen, E.J. 1999. Success factors of line extensions of fast-moving consumer goods. European Journal of Marketing 33(5/6): 450–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noseworthy, T.J., K. Finlay, and I. Towhidul. 2010. From a commodity to an experience: The moderating role of thematic positioning on congruity based product judgement. Psychology and Marketing 27(5): 465–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noseworthy, T.J., F. Di Muro, and K.B. Murray. 2014. The role of arousal in congruity-based product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research 41(4): 1108–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowlis, S.M., and I. Simonson. 1997. Attribute-task compatibility as a determinant of consumer preference reversals. Journal of Marketing Research 34(2): 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, A.L., and H.F. Rosenbaum. 1992. Developing an effective concept testing program for consumer durables. Journal of Product Innovation Management 9(4): 267–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peracchio, L.A., and A.M. Tybout. 1996. The moderating role of prior knowledge in schema-based product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research 23(3): 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pi-Chuan, S. 2010. Differentiating high involved product by trivial attributes for product line extension strategy. European Journal of Marketing 44(11/12): 1557–1575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K., and A. Hayes. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3): 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Product of the Year. 2016. http://productoftheyear.Co.Uk/winners/winning-products/winning-products-2016/, http://productoftheyear.com.au/. Accessed 2nd of Feb 2016.

  • Reddy, S.K., S.L. Holak, and S. Bhat. 1994. To extend or not to extend: Success determinants of line extensions. Journal of Marketing Research 31(2): 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C.M., S. Wende, and J.-M. Becker. 2015. Smartpls 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, http://www.smartpls.com.

  • Rossiter, J.R. 2002. The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing 19(4): 305–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J.R. 2011. Marketing measurement revolution: The C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace psychometrics. European Journal of Marketing 45(11/12): 1561–1588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanbonmatsu, D.M., F.R. Kardes, and B.D. Gibson. 1991. The role of attribute knowledge and overall evaluations in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 48(1): 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shankar, V., G.S. Carpenter, and L. Krishnamurthi. 1998. Late mover advantage: How innovative late entrants outsell pioneers. Journal of Marketing Research 35(1): 54–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, A., J.J. Inman, Y. Wang, J. Park, G.J. Tellis, R.K. Chandy, D. Macinnis, and P. Thaivanich. 2005. Practice prize reports. Marketing Science 24(3): 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stayman, D.M., D.L. Alden, and K.H. Smith. 1992. Some effects of schematic processing on consumer expectations and disconfirmation judgments. Journal of Consumer Research 19(2): 240–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unilever. 2016. www.Unilever.Co.Uk/brands-in-action/detail/comfort, www.Unilever.Co.Uk/brands-in-action/detail/comfort. Accessed 25th of Jan 2016.

  • Wilkie, D.C., L. Johnson, and L. White. 2015a. Asymmetric preferences for leaders and implications for followers. European Journal of Marketing 49(7/8): 1256–1275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, D.C., L.W. Johnson, and L. White. 2015b. The line extension dilemma: Greater difference or similarity to existing product? Journal of Brand Management 22(6): 534–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, A.D., and B.D. Zumbo. 2008. Understanding and using mediators and moderators. Social Indicators Research 87(3): 367–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., and G.J. Fitzsimons. 1999. Choice-process satisfaction: The influence of attribute alignability and option limitation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 77(3): 192–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., and A.B. Markman. 1998. Overcoming the early entrant advantage: The role of alignable and nonalignable differences. Journal of Marketing Research 35(4): 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., and A.B. Markman. 2001. Processing product unique features: Alignability and involvement in preference construction. Journal of Consumer Psychology 11(1): 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., J.G. Lynch, and Q. Chen. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 37(2): 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K.Z., and K. Nakamoto. 2007. How do enhanced and unique features affect new product preference? The moderating role of product familiarity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 35(1): 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Marketing and Management, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia

    Dean C. H. Wilkie

  2. Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, 3122, Australia

    Lester W. Johnson

  3. Department of Decision and Information Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 77204-6021, USA

    Wynne W. Chin

Authors
  1. Dean C. H. Wilkie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lester W. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wynne W. Chin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dean C. H. Wilkie.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Two example pairs of the concept statements used in the study

Example 1.

Unique active (UA)

New (insert selected brand name) Natural contains a natural active ingredient derived from willow bark, which has been clinically proven to be more effective than standard (insert selected brand name) tablets. So now there is a new active ingredient for treating severe pain.

Enhanced active (EA)

New (insert selected brand name) Forte tablets, is a higher strength formulation than standard (insert selected brand name) tablets and has been clinically proven to be more effective for treating severe pain.

Example 2.

Unique format (UF)

New (insert selected brand name) nasal spray reduces the discomfort of swallowing large tablets by delivering the equivalent of standard (insert selected brand name) tablets in just two sprays.

Enhanced format (EF)

New (insert selected brand name) minitabs reduces the discomfort of swallowing large tablets by delivering the equivalent dose as a standard (insert selected brand name) tablets in a minitab that is 50% smaller.

Appendix 2

See Table 4.

Table 4 Variable descriptions
Full size table

Appendix 3

See Table 5.

Table 5 Specific indirect effects
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilkie, D.C.H., Johnson, L.W. & Chin, W.W. Does the type of attribute matter? Examining whether underlying factors explain product attribute preference. J Brand Manag 25, 305–321 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-017-0082-0

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-017-0082-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation