Study method and predictions

Four distinct types of brand attribute matrices were constructed in the orange juice

category. The brand attribute matrices were similar in structure to the matrix used in study 2A.

All brand-attribute matrices had three brands. There was one dominant brand (Tropicana) and

two non-dominant brands (Oasis and Simply-Orange). The pretests for brand dominance in the

orange juice category are detailed in study 3. The matrix had three equivalently important

attributes: nutrition rating, taste rating and freshness rating and one trivial attribute: extraction

process.

I label the four types of matrices as (a) mixed-trivial, (b) mixed-non-trivial, (c) brand-

only and (d) trivial-only. The target brand had the same ratings on the three important attributes

and the trivial attribute across all four conditions. For the first three conditions, Oasis was the

target brand. For the trivial-only-matrix an unknown brand: Sonera was the target brand. I

expand on the rationale for using a different target brand in the trivial-only-matrix below.

The mixed-trivial matrix had the identical structure as the ground coffee matrix of study

on one of the three important attributes. Specifically, Simply-Orange was rated high on nutrition,

Tropicana was rated high on taste and Oasis was rated high on freshness. Further, the target

brand Oasis had the trivial attribute: Patented Florida extraction while the other two brands had

regular extraction. The mixed-trivial matrix served as the control matrix in which all three types

of processing (brand based, lexicographic and trivial attribute based) were possible as there was

variability between brands, important attributes and trivial attributes.

The mixed-non-trivial matrix had the same structure as the mixed-trivial matrix with one

exception. All three brands had the trivial attribute: Patented Florida extraction. Hence, in the

mixed-non-trivial matrix people could engage only in brand based and lexicographic processing.

Trivial attribute processing was not possible as there was no variability on the trivial attribute

dimension across the three brands.

The third matrix i.e., the brand only matrix was so constructed that all three brands had

identical ratings on the three important attributes as well as the trivial attribute. This restricted

the processing type to only brand based processing. Participants could not engage in either

lexicographic or trivial attribute processing in this matrix as there was no variability in the

ratings of important attributes or trivial attributes across the three brands.

The final matrix was the trivial-only matrix. The matrix was so created that it favored

trivial-attribute processing. To achieve that I created a brand attribute matrix in which the

likelihood of brand based or lexicographic processing was minimal. To minimize brand based

processing, I used three brand names that were equally attractive (Solevita, Sunito and Sonera)

but that were not present in the Canadian market. Further, to avoid lexicographic processing, the

matrix was so designed that the three brands had identical ratings on the important attributes. The

Patented Florida extraction while the other two brands Solevita and Sunito had Regular

extraction. For comparability, the target brand Sonera had identical ratings (on important

attributes and the trivial attribute) as the target brand Oasis had in the previous three conditions.

See appendix 9 for the stimuli (brand-attribute matrices of all four choice sets) constructed for

study 2C.

I argued earlier that the overall choice share that a brand secures, is an aggregation of the

choice share it gains because of (i) prior brand cognitions, (ii) being attractive on an important

attribute and (iii) being attractive on a trivial attribute. Proportionally, greater the number of

contributing factors for choice, greater should be the choice of a target brand. Given that I

theoretically argue and empirically show that trivial attributes lead to a significant choice share

increase, I predict that the choice share of the target brand (Oasis) in the mixed-trivial matrix

[control condition] should be significantly higher than the choice share of Oasis in (i) the brand-

only matrix and (ii) the mixed-non-trivial matrix.

I further predict that the choice share of the target brand in the mixed-trivial matrix will

be less than the choice share of the target brand in the trivial-only matrix. This will happen as in

the trivial-only matrix, the only factor upon which people can make a choice is the trivial

attribute which favors the target brand. This should lead to extremely high choice-share for the

target brand in the trivial-only matrix. In contrast, in the mixed-trivial matrix, trivial attribute is

only one of the three factors affecting choice. While the trivial attribute favors the target brand,

prior brand cognitions and marginal attractiveness on certain important attributes will still

continue to drive choice towards other brands in the choice set. Hence, I expect a lower choice

share of the target brand in the mixed-trivial matrix relative to its choice share in the trivial-only

Participants and procedure. One hundred and eighty nine undergraduate students (66%

Female, 18.3 years) participated in the study. The study design was a 4 condition between

subjects design. The type of brand-attribute matrix was the manipulated variable with four levels

[mixed-trivial, mixed-non-trivial, brand-only, and trivial-only]. Participants were asked to

choose from three orange juice brands that had different product features. Participants evaluated

the brand-attribute matrix and selected one of the three brands. They next provided basic

demographic information and the study concluded.

13.2.

Results

The choice share of the target brand was the dependent variable. The findings of the

study were consistent with my predictions. First, the choice share of the target brand (Oasis) in

the mixed-trivial matrix (29.2%) was significantly higher than the target brand’s choice share in

the brand-only matrix (6.2%),

χ

2 (1, 96) = 8.64, p < .01, Φ _{= .30. The choice share of the target} brand (Oasis) in the mixed-trivial matrix (29.2%) was also significantly higher than its choice

share in the mixed-non-trivial matrix (10.8%),

χ

2 (1, 94) = 4.87, p < .05, Φ _=.22.

In my next analysis, I compared the target brand’s choice share in the mixed-trivial

matrix to its choice share in the trivial-only matrix. The target brand (Sonera) in the trivial-only

matrix secured the bulk of choice share (85.1%). Further, as predicted, the target brand’s choice

share in the trivial-only matrix (85.1%) was substantially higher than the target brand’s choice

share in the mixed-trivial matrix (29.2%),

χ

2 (1, 95) = 30.2, p < .001, Φ _{= .56.} The choice share results of study 2C are presented in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Study 2C Results – Brand Choice Share

Treatment

Condition Type of Processing Cell size Choice share

1 Mixed Trivial 48 Simply-Orange 33.3% Tropicana 37.5% Oasis 29.2% 2 Mixed Non-trivial 46 Simply-Orange 37.0% Tropicana 52.2% Oasis 10.8% 3 Brand only 48 Simply-Orange 33.4% Tropicana 60.4% Oasis 6.2% 4 Trivial only 47 Solevita 0 % Sunito 14.9% Sonera 85.1%

13.3.

Discussion

Study 2C confirmed that people adopt different choice strategies (i.e., brand based,

lexicographic and trivial attribute based processing) when choosing from a brand-attribute matrix

that has a trivial attribute. These findings provide experimental evidence that people engage in

Chapter 14

In document The Viability and Sustainability of a Trivial Attribute Differentiation Strategy (Page 114-120)