Field Study Discussion

This study was aimed at testing the robustness of the proposed CPBI scale and the generalisability of the hypothesised CPBI processing model with a different product category, for real innovations and across different populations. Hypotheses 1, 4, 5 and 6 were retested using a cross-sectional design. Respondents were 408 American adults. The data were subject to SEM.

Results of MGCFA showed that the proposed unidimensional 10 item scale for the CPBI construct performs well for other samples such as American consumers. In addition, eight out of the 10 proposed items to measure CPBI (BI1-BI8) were found to perform equivalently across Australian and American consumers. Results indicated that while Australian consumers put more emphasis on the leadership aspect of brand innovativeness (BI9), for American consumers the ability to change the market (BI10) plays a slightly more important role. These two small differences are not surprising as measuring instruments are often group specific (here Australian and American consumers) in the way they operate (Byrne et al., 1989) and it is possible that these instruments may not be completely identical across groups (Bentler, 2005). Still BI9 and BI10 factor loadings for Australian and American samples (BI9: λAUS = 0.86, λUSA = 0.77; BI10: λAUS = 0.80, λUSA = 0.83) were all highly significant (p < 0.001) and all could be categorised as strong effects (Hair et al., 2010). Thus, it was conclusive that these slightly different operations for BI9 and BI10 across the two samples are negligible (Bentler, 2005; Byrne, 2010) and altogether, the field study provides further support for the construct validity of the proposed CPBI conceptualisation and operationalisation.

Regarding the CPBI model, results were similar to the laboratory study. The proposed CPBI model indicated adequate fit to the data. Results indicated that technological features of a new

product have a strong effect on consumers’ evaluation of the product’s innovativeness (Hypothesis 1). Also, a new product leads to an enhancement of consumer perceived brand innovativeness (Hypothesis 4). Finally, direct and positive relationships between consumer perceived brand innovativeness and brand attitude and purchase intention were found, providing support for Hypotheses 5 and 6.

The proposed CPBI model explained a substantial variance in the consumer perceived brand innovativeness construct. Thus, the field study provides support for the replicability and generalisability of the majority of the full CPBI model (four out of six Hypotheses) for real world situations and across Australian and American samples. It also provides an opportunity to evaluate cross-culturally some aspects of diffusion theory (Rogers, 2003) in marketing. One of the most important challenges for consumer behaviour research is extending the applicability of consumer theory to cover different countries and cultures (Goldsmith, d’Hauteville, & Flynn, 1998). Replicable models allow researchers to tie together the findings of different studies into a complex picture of consumer – innovative brand interactions.

Also, two additional relationships were identified in the post hoc analysis. The links presenting the effects of consumer perceived product innovativeness on brand attitude and purchase intention were added to the proposed CPBI model for their theoretical and statistical meaningfulness. The relationship between consumers’ perceptions about product innovations and consumer purchase intention has been examined in previous studies (Alexander et al., 2008; Moreau et al., 2001). Previous studies also suggested product innovations as a potential driver of brand attitude (Aaker, 2007; Aaker & Jacobson, 2001). Recently, this effect was also empirically examined in other studies (Lowe & Alpert, 2013). Thus, the field study also extends the previous finding in this area.

Most importantly though, it could be argued that these two relationships put more emphasis on the strategic value of the brand innovativeness and its substantial effect on consumers attitude toward the brand and consumer purchase intention. As discussed in the method section, consumers evaluated CPPI of two recently introduced tablets; namely Lumia 2520 and iPad Air. Similar to what occurs in day to day life, the new product stimuli were presented with their parent brand name. Thus, it is very likely that consumers’ evaluations of Lumia 2520 or iPad Air included their perceptions of Nokia Lumia 2520 or Apple iPad Air. Therefore, it is likely that these two relationships present the aggregate effect of brand–innovation pair on brand attitude and purchase intention.

116

Chapter 5 Testing the Generalisability of the CPBI Scale and Processing Model: Field Study

Given the same condition in the laboratory testing of the CPBI model (brand name attached to the new product)18, one might wonder why these two relationships were not suggested as mis-specified in the results of the laboratory study model estimation. As reviewed in the previous chapter, the impact of pre-CPBI on CPPI was partially supported with a weak path estimate of 0.1. Apparently, consumers’ perceptions of brand innovativeness were not fully transferred to their perceptions about the fictitious innovation. It was discussed that pre-CPBI might have had a significant influence on CPPI if participants had received promotional material featuring the brand– innovation pair on more than one occasion (see Section 4.4 Laboratory Study Discussion for more details). Thus, the brand–innovation pair for the fictitious innovation and the real brand in the laboratory study was not likely to be as strong as the brand–innovation pair for the real innovation and the real brand in the field study, which in turn resulted in (1) more clear distinctions between CPPI and CPBI in the laboratory study, (2) no misfit specification regarding the effect of CPPI on brand attitude and purchase intention.

The field study was limited in a sense that it did not replicate the proposed relationship between pre-CPBI and CPPI, leaving it open for future research to provide a stronger examination of this relationship. Still, from the preceding argument, the possibility of observing support for this relationship is high in more realistic situations such as the field study setting. Thus, in addition to the empirical support for the generalisability of a large proportion of the proposed CPBI model, results provide preliminary support for the effect of pre-CPBI on CPPI.

5.5 Conclusion

This chapter reported the methods, analyses, and findings of testing CPBI scale and model in a field study. As the final study in a series of studies examining CPBI, this investigation builds on earlier results suggesting the validity of the CPBI proposed scale and processing model. The contribution of this study is twofold. First, it provides additional evidence for the psychometric soundness of the CPBI scale. The cumulative evidence of this and previous studies shows that the scale performs well for both student and adult respondents, for both mobile phone and tablet product categories as target stimuli, and for Australian as well as American consumers. Second, the field study cross-validates the original results for the proposed CPBI processing model with a real world brand–innovation context. The next chapter provides a general discussion of the thesis, including an overview of results relating to each of the eight studies comprising the thesis and their implications for theory and practice.

18 _{To be able to test for the effect of pre-CPBI on CPPI and post-CPBI (Hypotheses 2-3), it was essential to include}