Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 5–19 | Cite as

Explaining the Familiarity-Liking Relationship: Mere Exposure, Information Availability, or Social Desirability?

  • Aric Rindfleisch
  • J. Inman
Article

Abstract

A large and diverse body of marketing literature suggests that well-known brands enjoy several advantages compared to less familiar brands. Specifically, brands with higher levels of familiarity appear to achieve higher levels of liking or preference among both consumers and retailers. This familiarity-liking relationship has proven to be one of marketing's most robust and reproducible empirical generalizations. However, there remains a considerable amount of uncertainty as to the conditions under which this relationship arises. In this study, we identify, conceptualize, and empirically assess three alternative hypotheses of the familiarity-liking relationship: mere exposure, information availability, and social desirability. Our results suggest that social desirability is the most powerful of these three potential mechanisms underlying the familiarity-liking phenomenon.

Consumer decision making brand familiarity double jeopardy information availability mere exposure product and brand choice social desirability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson. (1987). “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research 13 (March), 411–454.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, Ralph I. and Kenneth P. Uhl. (1964). “Influence of Beer Brand Identification on Taste Perception,” Journal of Marketing Research 1 (August), 36–39.Google Scholar
  3. Asch, Solomon E. (1955). “Opinions and Social Pressure,” Scientific American 193(5), 31–35.Google Scholar
  4. Barnard, Neil R. and Andrew S.C. Ehrenberg. (1990). “Robust Measures of Consumer Brand Beliefs,” Journal of Marketing Research 27 (November), 477–484.Google Scholar
  5. Barwise, Patrick. (1995). “Good Empirical Generalizations,” Marketing Science 14(3), G29–G35.Google Scholar
  6. Bass, Frank M. and Jerry Wind. (1995). “Introduction to the Special Issue: Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” Marketing Science 14(3), G1–G5.Google Scholar
  7. Bettman, James R., Eric J. Johnson, and John W. Payne. (1991). “Consumer Decision Making,” In Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian (eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Biehal, Gabriel J. and Dipankar Chakravarti. (1983). “Information Accessibility as a Moderator of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research 10 (June), 1–14.Google Scholar
  9. Bornstein, Robert F. (1989). “Exposure and Affect: Overview and Meta-Analysis of Research, 1968–1987,” Psychological Bulletin 106(2), 265–289.Google Scholar
  10. Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto. (1994). “Reflections on Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage,” Journal of Marketing Research 31 (November), 570–573.Google Scholar
  11. Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto. (1989). “Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage,” Journal of Marketing Research 26 (August), 285–298.Google Scholar
  12. Colombo, Richard A. and Donald G. Morrison. (1989). “A Brand Switching Model with Implications for Marketing Strategies,” Marketing Science 8 (Winter), 89–99.Google Scholar
  13. Dickson, Peter R., Paul Farris, and Willem Verbeke. (1997). “Feedback Theory and Management Foresight,” working paper. University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  14. Dickson, Peter R. (1996). “The Static and Dynamic Mechanics of Competition: A Comment on Hunt and Morgan's Comparative Advantage Theory,” Journal of Marketing 60 (October), 102–106.Google Scholar
  15. Ehrenberg, Andrew S.C. (1995). “Empirical Generalisations, Theory, and Method,” Marketing Science 14(3), G20–G28.Google Scholar
  16. Ehrenberg, Andrew S.C., Gerald J. Goodhardt, and T. Patrick Barwise. (1990). “Double Jeopardy Revisited,” Journal of Marketing 54 (July), 82–91.Google Scholar
  17. Fader, Peter S. and David C. Schmittlein. (1993). “Excessive Behavioral Loyalty Experienced By High-Share Brands: Deviations from the Dirichlet Model for Repeat Purchasing,” Journal of Marketing Research 30 (November), 478–493.Google Scholar
  18. Hasher, Lynn and Rose T. Zacks. (1984). “Automatic Processing of Fundamental Information: The Case of Frequency of Occurrence,” American Psychologist 39(12), 1372–1388.Google Scholar
  19. Homans, George C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.Google Scholar
  20. Hoyer, Wayne D. and Steven P. Brown. (1990). “Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common Repeat-Purchase Product,” Journal of Consumer Research 17 (September), 141–148.Google Scholar
  21. Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler. (1990). “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem,” Journal of Political Economy 98(6), 1325–1348.Google Scholar
  22. Kardes, Frank R. and Gurumurthy Kalyanaram. (1992). “Order-of-Entry Effects on Consumer Memory and Judgment: An Information Integration Perspective,” Journal of Marketing Research 29 (August), 343–357.Google Scholar
  23. Katz, Michael L. and Carl Shapiro. (1985). “Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility,” American Economic Review 75(3), 424–440.Google Scholar
  24. Kent, Robert J. and Chris T. Allen. (1994). “Competitive Interference Effects in Consumer Memory for Advertising: The Role of Brand Familiarity,” Journal of Marketing 58 (July), 97–105.Google Scholar
  25. Kollock, Peter. (1994). “The Emergence of Exchange Structures: An Experimental Study of Uncertainty, Commitment, and Trust,” American Journal of Sociology 100 (September), 313–345.Google Scholar
  26. Krugman, Herbert E. (1965). “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement,” Public Opinion Quarterly 29(3), 349–356.Google Scholar
  27. Maslow, A.H. (1937). “The Influence on Familiarization on Preference,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 21 (August), 162–180.Google Scholar
  28. Matlin, Margaret W. (1971). “Response, Competition, Recognition, and Affect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 19(3), 295–300.Google Scholar
  29. Merton, Robert K. (1968). “The Matthew Effect in Science,” Science 159 (January 5), 56–63.Google Scholar
  30. Meyer, Robert J. (1982). “A Descriptive Model of Consumer Information Search Behavior,” Marketing Science 1 (Winter), 93–121.Google Scholar
  31. Meyer, Robert J. (1981). “A Model of Multiattribute Judgments Under Attribute Uncertainty and Informational Constraint,” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (November), 428–441.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, Robert J. and Arvind Sathi. (1985). “A Multiattribute Model of Consumer Choice During Product Learning,” Marketing Science 4 (Winter), 41–61.Google Scholar
  33. Pronko, N.H. and D.T. Herman. (1950). “Identification of Cola Beverages, IV: Postscript,” Journal of Applied Psychology 34, 68–69.Google Scholar
  34. Raj, S. P. (1985). “Striking a Balance between Brand ‘Popularity’ and Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing 49 (Winter), 53–59.Google Scholar
  35. Reibstein, David J. and Paul W. Farris. (1995). “Market Share and Distribution: A Generalization, A Speculation, and Some Implications,” Marketing Science 14(3), G190–G202.Google Scholar
  36. Rogers, Everett. (1983). The Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sen, Sankar and Eric J. Johnson. (1997). “Mere-Possession Effects without Possession in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research 24 (June), 105–117.Google Scholar
  38. Shuchman, Abe. (1968). “Are There Laws of Consumer Behavior?” Journal of Advertising Research 8(1), 19–27.Google Scholar
  39. Simonson, Itamar. (1989). “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research 16 (September), 158–174.Google Scholar
  40. Smith, Robert E. (1983). “Integrating Information from Advertising and Trial: Processes and Effects on Consumer Response to Product Information,” Journal of Marketing Research 30 (May), 204–219.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, Robert E. and William R. Swinyard. (1982). “Information Response Models: An Integrated Approach,” Journal of Marketing 46 (Winter), 81–93.Google Scholar
  42. Thaler, Richard. (1980). “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1 (March), 39–60.Google Scholar
  43. Zajonc, Robert B. (1980). “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need no Inferences,” American Psychologist 35, 151–175.Google Scholar
  44. Zajonc, Robert B. and Helen Markus. (1982). “Affective and Cognitive Factors in Preference,” Journal of Consumer Research 9 (September), 123–131.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aric Rindfleisch
    • 1
  • J. Inman
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Business and Public AdministrationUniversity of ArizonaTucson
  2. 2.School of BusinessUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadison

Personalised recommendations