Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A PLS Model to Study Brand Preference: An Application to the Mobile Phone Market

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Partial Least Squares

Part of the book series: Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics ((SHCS))

Abstract

Brands play an important role in consumers’ daily life and can represent a big asset for companies owning them. Owing to the very close relationship between brands and consumers, and the specific nature of branded products as an element of consumer life style, the branded goods industry needs to extend its knowledge of the process of brand preference formation in order to enhance brand equity.

This chapter show how Partial Least Squares (PLS) modeling can be used to successfully test complex models where other approaches would fail due to the high number of relationships, constructs and indicators. Here, PLS modeling is applied to brand preference formation regarding mobile phones.

With a wider set of explanatory factors than prior studies, this one explores the factors that contribute to the formation of brand preference using a PLS model to understand the relationship between those and consumer preference for mobile phone brands.

Despite the exploratory nature of the study, the results reveal that brand identity, personality and image, together with self-image congruence have the highest impact on brand preference. Some other factors linked to the consumer and the situation also affect preference, but to a lesser degree.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 389.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, S., & Teas, R. K. (2001). Perceived value: Mediating role of perceived risk. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(4), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, S. A., & D’Astous, A. (1993). Cross-national evaluation of made-in concept using multiple cues. European Journal of Marketing, 27(7), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, R. I., & Uhl, K. P. (1964). Influence of beer brand identification on taste perception. Journal of Marketing Research, 1(3), 36–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alpert, F., Kamins, M., Sakano, T., Onzo, N., & Graham, J. (2001). Retail buyer beliefs, attitude and behavior toward pioneer and me-too follower brands: A comparative study of Japan and the USA. International Marketing Review, 18(2), 160–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alpert, M. I. (1972). Personality and the determinants of product choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(1), 89–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1999). Strategies for building consumer brand preference. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 8(2), 130–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alsop, R. (1984, November 29). Color grows more important in catching consumers’ eyes. Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition), 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antil, J. H. (1984). Conceptualization and operationalization of involvement. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 203–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballester, M. E. D., & Alemán, J. L. M. (2002). Construcción de un índice de medición con indicadores formativos. Investigación y Marketing, 75, 16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, S. (1950). The measurement of the effect of a new packaging material upon preference and sales. Journal of Business, 23(2), 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, D., Thompson, R., & Higgins, C. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, F. M. (1974). The theory of stochastic preference and brand switching. Journal of Marketing Research, 11(1), 1–20.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, F. M., & Pilon, T. (1980). A stochastic brand choice framework for econometric modeling of time series market share behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 486–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, F. M., & Talarzyk, W. (1972). An attitude model for the study of brand preference. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(1), 93–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becherer, R. C., Morgan, F. W., & Richard, L. M. (1982). Informal group influence among situationally/dispositionally-oriented consumers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 10, (3), 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W. (1974). An exploratory assessment of situational effects in buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 11(2), 156–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W. (1975a). Situational variables and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(3), 157–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W. (1975b). The objective situation as a determinant of consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 2, 427–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W., Bahn, K. D., & Mayer, R. N. (1982). Developmental recognition of consumption symbolism. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best, R. J. (1978). Validity and reliability of criterion-based preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(1), 154–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., & Jones, M. J. (1972). Formal models of consumer behavior: A conceptual overview. Journal of Business, 45(4), 544–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., Capon, N., & Lutz, R. J. (1975). Cognitive algebra in multi-attribute attitude models. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(2), 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birdwell, A. E. (1968). A study of the influence of image congruence on consumer choice. Journal of Business, 41(1), 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blin, J.-M., & Dodson, J. A. (1980). The relationship between attributes, brand preference, and choice: A stochastic view. Management Science, 26(6), 606–619.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, P. H., & Richins, M. L. (1983). A theoretical model for the study of product importance perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 47(3), 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogart, L., & Lehman, C. (1973). What makes a brand name familiar? Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolfing, C. P. (1988). Integrating consumer involvement and product perceptions with market segmentation and positioning strategies. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 5(2), 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bristow, D. N., & Asquith, J. A. L. (1999). What’s in a name? An intracultural investigation of Hispanic and Anglo consumer preferences and the importance of brand name. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 8(3), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bristow, D. N., Schneider, K. C., & Schuler, D. K. (2002). The brand dependence scale: Measuring consumers’ use of brand name to differentiate among product alternatives. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 11(6), 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, K., & Cooper, P. (1987). Research is good for you. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 5(1), 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, B. E., & Cha, J. (1996). Crossing the threshold. Marketing Research, 8(4), 20–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucklin, R. E., Gupta, S., & Han, S. (1995). A brand’s eye view of response segmentation in consumer brand choice behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(1), 66–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., & Garretson, J. A. (1998). A scale for measuring attitude toward private label products and an examination of its psychological and behavioral correlates. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(4), 293–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushman, B. J. (1993). What’s in a name? The moderating role of public self-consciousness on the relation between brand label and brand preference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 857–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., Jarvis, W., & Blair, G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M. C., & Goodstein, R. C. (2001). The moderating effect of perceived risk on consumers’ evaluations of product incongruity: Preference form the norm. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 439–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, G. S., & Nakamoto, K. (1989). Consumer preference formation and pioneering advantage. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(3), 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. D., De Soete G., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1990). Two stochastic multidimensional choice models for marketing research. Decision Sciences, 21(2), 337–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, J., & Wahlers, R. (1999). A revision and empirical test of the extended price-perceived quality model. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A. (2001). The impact of common features on consumer preferences: A case of confirmatory reasoning. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 475–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 307–341). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb-Walgren, C., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costley, C. L., & Brucks, M. (1992). Selective recall and information use in consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 464–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creyer, E. H., & Ross, W. T. (1997). Tradeoffs between price and quality: How a value index affects preference formation. Journal of Consumer Credit Management, 31(2), 280–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currim, I. S., & Sarin, R. K. (1984). A comparative evaluation of multiattribute consumer preference models. Management Science, 30(5), 543–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Astous, A., & Gargouri, E. (2001). Consumer evaluations of brand imitations. European Journal of Marketing, 35(1/2), 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Chernatony, L., & McDonald, M. H. B. (2001). Creating powerful brands. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Río, A., Vázquez, R., & Iglesias, V. (2001). The role of the brand name in obtaining differential advantages. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10(7), 452–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, K. K., & Ratneshwar, S. (2003). Consumer perceptions of product variants positioned on atypical attributes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 22–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., & Rao, V. R. (1984). GENFOLD2: A set of models and algorithms for the general unfolding analysis of preference/dominance data. Journal of Classification, 1, 147–186.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., & Rao, V. R. (1986). A constrained unfolding methodology for product positioning. Marketing Science, 5(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (1999). Comparison effects on preference construction. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 293–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, A., Jain, A., & Richardson, P. (1996). How consumers evaluate store brands. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 5(2), 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, K. G. (1982). Imported versus U.S. produced apparel: Consumer views and buying patterns. Home Economic Research Journal, 10(3), 241–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, P. R. (1982). Person-situation: Segmentation’s missing link. Journal of Marketing, 46(4), 56–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price brand and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Souza, G., & Rao, R. C. (1995). Can repeating an advertisement more frequently than the competition affect brand preference in mature market. Journal of Marketing, 59, 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, C. P., & Nelson, J. E. (1985). Effect of humor in a radio advertising experiment. Journal of Advertising, 14(2), 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, M. G., & Murphy, P. E. (1986). Research note: The influence of perceived risk on brand preference for supermarket products. Journal of Retailing, 62(2), 204–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, R. (1994). Exploring the symbolic meaning of brands. British Food Journal, 5(Special), s13–s19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericksen, M. K. (1996). Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase intention: A European perspective. Journal of Euromarketing, 6(1), 41–56.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ettenson, R. (1993). Brand names and country-of-origin effects in emerging market economies of Russia, Poland, and Hungary. International Marketing Review, 10(5), 14–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, F. B. (1959). Psychological and objective factors in the prediction of brand choice. Journal of Business, 32, 340–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Ohio: The University of Akron Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, G., Allenby, G. M., Yang, S., & Edwards, Y. (2003). The effectiveness of demographic and psychographic variables for explaining brand and product category use. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 1(2), 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, G. W., Carmon, Z., Ariely, D., & Zauberman, G. (1999). Goal-based construction of preferences: Task goals and the prominence effect. Management Science, 45(8), 1057–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbarino, E. C., & Edell, J. A. (1997). Cognitive effort, affect and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, B. B., & Levy, S. J. (1955). The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review, 33, 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garthwaite, P. H. (1994). An interpretation of partial least squares. (425), 122–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geisser, S. (1975). The predictive sample reuse method with applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70(350), 320–328.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ginter, J. L., & Bass, F. M. (1972). An experimental study of attitude change, advertising, and usage in new product introduction. Journal of Advertising, 1(1), 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graeff, T. R. (1996). Using promotional messages to manage the effects of brand and self-image on brand evaluations. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(3), 4–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graeff, T. R. (1997). Consumption situations and the effects of brand image on consumers’ brand evaluations. Psychology and Marketing, 14(1), 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruenfeld, D. H., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1992). Semantics and pragmatics of social influence: How affirmations and denials affect beliefs in referent propositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1), 38–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). London: Prentice Hall International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haley, R. I., & Case, P. B. (1979). Testing thirteen attitude scales for agreement and brand discrimination. Journal of Marketing, 43(4), 20–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, C. M., & Terpstra, V. (1988). Country-of-origin effects for uni-national and bi-national. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(2), 235–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. J., & Monaco, G. E. (1978). Psychology of pragmatic implications: Information processing between the lines. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 107(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, D. I. (1970). The effects of subliminal stimulation on drive level and brand preference. Journal of Marketing Research, 7(3), 322–326.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, D. I., & Coney, K. A. (1974). Peer group influences on children’s product preferences. Academy of Marketing Science Review Online, 2(2), 322–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellier, P. K., Guersen, G. M., Carr, R. A., & Rickard, J. A. (2003). Customer repurchase intention. A general structural equation model. European Journal of Marketing, 37(11/12), 1762–1800.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helman, D., & De Chernatony, L. (1999). Exploring the development of lifestyle retail brands. The Service Industries Journal, 19(2), 49–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higie, R. A., & Sewall, M. A. (1991). Using recall and brand preference to evaluate advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(2), 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, J. W., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1995). Self-concept and advertising effectiveness: The influence of congruency conspicuousness and response mode. Psychology and Marketing, 12(1), 53–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, R. L. (1974). The Edwards personal preference schedule and consumer personality research. Journal of Marketing Research, 11(3), 335–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. E. (1976). Self-concept and brand preference: A partial replication. Journal of Business, 49(4), 530–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hugstad, P. S., & Durr, M. (1986). A study of country of manufacturer impact on consumer perceptions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 9, 115–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, J. W., Raman, K., & Mantrala, M. K. (1994). Finding choice alternatives in memory: Probability models of brand name recall. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4), 441–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, J., Szybillo, G. J., & Busato-Schach, J. (1977). Information acquisition behavior in brand choice situations. Journal of Consumer Research, 3(4), 209–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, S. P., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Motivated reasoning: A depth-of-processing perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 358–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamal, A., & Goode, M. M. H. (2001). Consumers and brands: A study of the impact of self-image congruence on brand preference and satisfaction. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 19(7), 482–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, C. B., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ji, M. F. (2002). Children’s relationships with brands: True love or one-night stand? Psychology and Marketing, 19(4), 369–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Wold, H. (1982). The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with latent variables: Historical and comparative aspects. In H. Wold & K. Jöreskog (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, prediction (Vol. 1, pp. 263–270). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaponin, A. (1960). Personality characteristics of purchasers. Journal of Advertising Research, 1(1), 6–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassarjian, H. H. (1971). Personality and consumer behavior: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(4), 409–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassarjian, H. H. (1979). Personality: The longest fad. Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 122–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keillor, B. D., Parker, R. S., & Schaefer, A. (1996). Influences on adolescent brand preferences in the United States and Mexico. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(3), 47–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management – building, measuring and managing brand equity (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khachaturian, J. L., & Morganosky, M. A. (1990). Quality perceptions by country of origin. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 18(5), 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C. K. (1995). Brand popularity and country image in global competition: Managerial implications. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 4(5), 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirmani, A., & Zeithaml, V. (1993). Brand equity and advertising: Advertising’s role in building strong brands. In D. A. Aaker & A. L. Biel (Eds.), Brand equity and advertising: Advertising’s role in building strong brands (pp. 143–162). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klink, R. R. (2001). Creating meaningful new brand names: A study of semantics and sound symbolism. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(2), 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, C., & Labahn, D. W. (1997). Creating effective brand names: A study of the naming process. Journal of Advertising Research, 37(1), 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, H. E. (1962). The learning of consumer preference. Journal of Marketing, 26(2), 31–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landon, L. E., Jr. (1974). Self concept, ideal self concept, and consumer purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 44–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, F., & Dahlén, M. (2003). Let’s be strange: Brand familiarity and ad-brand incongruency. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12(7), 449–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, G. T., & Lee, S. H. (1999). Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. Journal of Market Focused Management, 4, 341–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, D. R. (1972). Judged similarity and brand-switching data as similarity measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(3), 331–334.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, S. J. (1959a). Symbols by which we buy. In M. J. Baker (Ed.) (2001), Marketing-critical perspectives on business and management, II (pp. 432–438). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, S. J. (1959b). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37, 117–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C., & Stubbs, S. (1999). National expansion of British regional brands: Parallels with internationalization. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 8(5), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, D. R., & Burton, S. (1989). The relationship between perceived and objective price-quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 429–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 234–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C.-F. (2002). Segmenting customer brand preference: Demographic or psychographic. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 11(4), 249–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C., Wu, W.-Y., Wang, Z.-F. (2000). A study of market structure: A brand loyalty and brand switching behaviors for durable household appliances. International Journal of Market Research, 42(3), 277–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W., Jr. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(6), 350–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackay, M. M. (2001). Evaluation of brand equity measures: Further empirical results. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10(1), 38–51.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Macklin, M. C. (1996). Preschoolers’ learning of brand names from visual cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maheswaran, D., & Mackie, D. M. (1992). Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(4), 317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N. K. (1981). A scale to measure self-concepts, person concepts, and product concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(4), 456–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N. K. (1988). Self concept and product choice: An integrated perspective. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandrik, C. A. (1996). Consumer heuristics: The tradeoff between processing effort and value in brand choice. Advances in Consumer Research, 23, 301–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its application. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers-Levy, J. (1989a). The influence of a brand name’s association set size and word frequency on brand memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers-Levy, J. (1989b). Investigating dimensions of brand name that influence the perceived familiarity of brands. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 258–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. E., & Ginter, J. L. (1979). An investigation of situational variation in brand choice behavior and attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, A. A. (1982). Models of memory: Implications for measuring knowledge structures. Advances in Consumer Research, 9, 45–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. A. (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior: Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, K. B. (1976). The influence of price differences and brand familiarity on brand preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 3(1), 42–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L., & Zajonc, R. B. (1982). Exposure effects in person perception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 395–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, J. (1994). Predicting brand preference. Marketing Management, 2(4), 32–44.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Moschis, G. P. (1981). Patterns of consumer learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 9(2), 110–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moutinho, L., & Goode, M. (1995). Gender effects to the formation of overall product satisfaction: A multivariate approach. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 8(1), 71–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthukrishnan, A. V., & Kardes, F. R. (2001). Persistent preferences for product attributes: The effects of the initial choice context and uninformative experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nedungadi, P. (1990). Recall and consumer consideration sets: Influencing choice without altering brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 263–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niedrich, R. W., & Swain, S. D. (2003). The influence of pioneer status and experience order on consumer brand preference: A mediated effects model. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 468–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olmo, J. M. C., & Jamilena, D. M. F. (2000). Regresión lineal. In T. L. Martínez (coord.), Técnicas de análisis de datos en investigación de mercados (pp. 247–280). Madrid: Editorial Pirámide.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, S. O. (2002). Comparative evaluation and the relationship between quality, satisfaction, and repurchase loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 240–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onkvisit, S., & Shaw, J. (1987). Self-concept and image congruence: Some research and managerial implications. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4(1), 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & Bamossy, G. (1990). A comparative image analysis of domestic versus imported products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 7(4), 283–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1992). Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 87–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Schkade, D. A. (1999). Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(3), 243–270.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Peris, S. M., Newman, K., Bigne, E., & Chansarkar, B. (1993). Aspects of Anglo-Spanish perceptions arising from country-of-origin image. International Journal of Advertising, 12(12), 131–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter, J. P., & Ryan, M. J. (1976). An investigation of perceived risk at the brand level. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(2), 184–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A. (1970). The price-perceived quality relationship: Experimental evidence. Journal of Marketing Research, 7(4), 525–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petroshius, S. M., & Monroe, K. B. (1987). Effect of product-line pricing characteristics on product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 511–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petroshius, S. M., & Crocker, K. E. (1989). An empirical analysis of spokesperson characteristics on advertisement and product evaluations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17(3), 217–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phau, I., & Lau, K. C. (2001). Brand personality and consumer self-expression: Single or dual carriageway? Brand Management, 8(6), 428–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, T., & Nooh, S., Md. (1999). The impact of country-of-origin on product choice: A developing country perspective. Journal of Practical Global Business, 1(1), 18–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pras, B., & Summers, J. O. (1978). Perceived risk and composition models for multiattribute decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(3), 429–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quester, P., & Lim, A. L. (2003). Product involvement/brand loyalty: Is there a link? Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12(1), 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1988). The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, A. R., Qu, L., & Ruekert, R. W. (1999). Signaling unobservable product quality through a brand ally. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 258–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rettie, R., Hilliar, S., & Alpert, F. (2002). Pioneer brand advantage with UK consumers. European Journal of Marketing, 36(7/8), 895–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rheingold, H. L. (1985). Development as the acquisition of familiarity. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, P. S., Dick, A. S., & Jain, A. K. (1994). Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 28–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richins, M. L. (1994a). Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 504–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richins, M. L. (1994b). Special possessions and the expression of material values. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 522–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riezebos, R. (2003). Brand management. A theoretical and practical approach. Essex: Prentice Hall/Financial Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigaux-Bricmont, B. (1981). Influences of brand name and packaging on perceived quality. Advances in Consumer Research, 9, 472–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, W. C., & Schneider, K. C. (1993). An empirical evaluation of the kapferer-laurent consumer involvement profile scale. Psychology and Marketing, 10(1), 333–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, I. (1971). Self-concept and brand preference. Journal of Business, 44(1), 38–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. E., McCulloch, R. E., & Allenby, G. M. (1996). The value of purchase history data in target marketing. Marketing Science, 15(4), 321–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russel, G. J., & Kamakura, W. A. (1997). Modeling multiple category brand preference with household basket data. Journal of Retailing, 73(4), 439–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. E., Meloy, M. G., & Husted-Medvec, V. (1998). Predecisional distortion of product information. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 438–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadowski, C. J., & Cogburn, H. E. (1997). Need for cognition in the big-five factor structure. Journal of Psychology, 131(3), 307–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sambamurthy, V., & Chin, W. W. (1994). The effects of group attitudes toward alternative GDSS designs on the decision-making performance of computer-supported groups. Decision Sciences, 25(2), 215–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sappington, D. E. M., & Wernerfelt, B. (1985). To brand or not to brand? A theoretical and empirical question. Journal of Business, 58(3), 279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, B. H., & Shultz, II, C. J. (1995). Situational effects on brand preference for image products. Psychology and Marketing, 12(5), 433–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sellin, N. (1989). PLSPath version 3.01 application manual. Germany: Hamburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, J., Fitzsimons, G. J.(2000). The effects of analysing reasons for brand preferences: Disruption or reinforcement. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 318–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethuraman, R. & Cole, C. (1999). Factors influencing the price premiums that consumers pay for national brands over store brands. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 8(4), 350–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shank, M. D., & Langmeyer, L. (1994). Does personality influence brand image? Journal of Psychology, 128(2), 157–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S. (1981). The theory of stochastic preferences: Further comments and clarifications. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 364–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, R. N. (1978). The mental image. American Psychologist, 33(2), 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheth, J. N. (1968). How adults learn brand preference. Journal of Advertising Research, 8(3), 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shocker, A. D., & Srinivasan, V. (1979). Multiattribute approaches for product concept evaluation and generation: A critical review. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(2), 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J. (1985). Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase motivation. Journal of business Research, 13(3), 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J.-O., Chon, K.-S., Claiborne, C. B., et al. (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(3), 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivakumar, K. (1996). An empirical investigation of the two roles of price on brand choice. Pricing Strategy and Practice, 4(2), 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snoj, B., Korda, A. P., & Mumel, D. (2004). The relationships among perceived quality, perceived risk and perceived product value. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 13(2/3), 156–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, N., & Ratchford, B. T. (1991). An empirical test of a model of external search for automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, S. S., & Till, B. D. (2002). Evaluation of search, experience and credence attributes: Role of brand name and product trial. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 11(7), 417–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V. (1975). A general procedure for estimating consumer preference distributions. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(4), 377–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, J. E. (1966). Effects of group influences on consumer brand preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 3, 68–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stayman, D. M., & Aaker, D. A. (1988). Are all the effects of ad-induced feelings mediated by attitude toward the Ad? Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 368–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephen, K. T., Fox, H. W., & Leonard, M. J. (1985). A comparison of preferences concerning the purchase of domestics products versus imports: United States and Jamaica. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 8, 100–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 36(2), 111–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. A., & Baker, T. L. (1994). An assessment of the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers’ purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 70(2), 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 48, 159–205.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tenenhaus, M., Amato, S., and Esposito Vinzi, V. (2004). A global goodness-of-fit index for PLS structural equation modelling. Proceedings of the XLII SIS Scientific Meeting, Vol. Contributed Papers, CLEUP, Padova, pp. 739–742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thakor, M. V., & Katsanis, L. P. (1997). A model of brand and country effects on quality dimensions: Issues and implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9(3), 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorelli, H. B., Lim, J.-S., & Ye, J. (1989). Relative importance of country of origin, warranty and retail store image on product evaluations. International Marketing Review, 6(1), 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traylor, M. B. (1981). Product involvement and brand commitment. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(6), 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tse, D. K., & Gorn, G. J. (1993). An experiment on the salience of country-of-origin in the era of global brands. Journal of International Marketing, 1(1), 57–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban, G. L., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). Design and marketing of new products. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkataraman, V. K. (1981). The price-quality relationship in an experimental setting. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(4), 49–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, M., & Heslop, L. A. (1989). Consumer attitudes toward the quality of domestic and imported apparel and footwear. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 13, 337–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westfall, R. (1962). Psychological factors in predicting product choice. Journal of Marketing, 26(2), 34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley, J. J., Walton, R. G., & Chiu, J. S. Y. (1977). The influence of prior product experience, price and brand on quality perception. Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 72–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt, R. E., & Bruce, G. D. (1972). Group influence and brand choice congruence. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(4), 440–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wold, H. (1982), Soft modeling, the basic design and some extensions. In K. G. Jreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation, I–II. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodside, A., & Trappey, III, R. J. (1992). Finding out why customers shop your store and buy your brand: Automatic cognitive processing models of primary choice. Journal of Advertising Research, 32(6), 59–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodside, A. G., & Wilson, E. J. (1985). Effects of consumer awareness of brand advertising on preference. Journal of Advertising Research, 25(4), 41–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S., Allenby, G. M., & Fennell, G. (2002). Modelling variation in brand preference: The roles of objective environment and motivating conditions. Marketing Science, 21(1), 14–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaichkowsky, J. L., & Vipat, P. (1993). Inferences from brand names. European Advances in Consumer Research, 1, 534–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising messages. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinkhan, G. M., & Martin, C. R., Jr. (1987). New brand names and inferential beliefs: Some insights on naming new products. Journal of Business Research, 15(2), 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Gestão e Economia, Universidade da Beira Interior, Estrada do Sineiro, 6200-209, Covilhã, Portugal

    Paulo Alexandre O. Duarte & Mário Lino B. Raposo

Authors
  1. Paulo Alexandre O. Duarte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mário Lino B. Raposo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paulo Alexandre O. Duarte .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Inf. Systems & Decision Sciences, ESSEC Business School of Paris, av. Bernard Hirsch, Cergy Pontoise CX, 95021, France

    Vincenzo Esposito Vinzi

  2. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, Houston, 77204-6282, U.S.A.

    Wynne W. Chin

  3. Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands

    Jörg Henseler

  4. School of Economics & Management, BeiHang University, XueYuan Road 37, Beijing, 100083, China, People's Republic

    Huiwen Wang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Duarte, P.A.O., Raposo, M.L.B. (2010). A PLS Model to Study Brand Preference: An Application to the Mobile Phone Market. In: Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W., Henseler, J., Wang, H. (eds) Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_21

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation