Support studies

5.5.2.1 Comparing absolute and propensity measures of

brand retrieval

As discussed in Chapter 4 Section 4.3.1, propensity measures of brand retrieval derive from pick-any free elicitation methods (Dreisener and Romaniuk, 2006), which present respondents with a list of brands and brand attributes and ask them to say which brands they associate with which attributes. Importantly, propensity measures of brand retrieval are based on the conceptualisation and operationalisation of memory by the ANT and ACT-R theories (Anderson and Bower, 1983; Anderson et al., 2004). As noted in chapter 2 section 2.6, one of the key limitations of the conceptualization and operationalisation of information retrieval provided by the ANT and ACT-R theories is that they conflate two different pathways to brand retrieval: brand recall and brand recognition (Kahana et al., 2005).

Crucially, brand recall and brand recognition represent different retrieval pathways (Kahana et al., 2005). Based on the cognitive psychology literature reviewed in Chapter 2 Section 2.6, recognition occurs based on the ‘global’ processing fluency of the network (i.e., the level and strength of the associations in a focal concepts’ network); whilst recall occurs from the processing fluency of the cue to the specific item as well as the global processing fluency of the network (Gillund and Shiffrin, 1984). This distinction is demonstrated in the absolute measures of brand recall and brand recognition outlined in Chapter 4 Section 4.3.1. For instance, brand recall is captured by exposing consumers to brand attributes (i.e., items that in some way link to the brand, thus emphasising the importance of attribute-to-brand links); and brand recognition is measured by exposing consumers to the brand (i.e., capturing the importance of the global processing fluency of the brand in memory) (see Rossiter and Percy, 1987; Romaniuk et al., 2004).

Romaniuk (2013) reported that it is not known how propensity and absolute measures differ or are similar. Nonetheless, based on the premise that propensity measures

conflate recall and recognition (Kahana et al., 2005), it seems reasonable to assume that propensity measures will result in greater brand retrieval scores than absolute measures of both brand recall and brand recognition. That is, since brand recall and brand recognition are individual pathways to brand retrieval, they will both result in smaller brand retrieval scores than a propensity measure that combines them both. This also makes sense given the descriptions of the two measures. For instance, whilst brand recognition scores typically result in higher brand retrieval propensities than brand recall scores because they provide consumers will the brand as a cue rather than just brand attributes (see Romaniuk et al., 2004), brand retrieval propensity measures expose consumers to both the brand and brand attributes, suggesting that it would facilitate retrieval to an even greater extent. This is formalised as follows:

HP 7. Brand retrieval propensity will be greater than absolute measures of brand recall.

HP 8. Brand retrieval propensity will be greater than absolute measures of brand recognition.

5.5.2.2 Brand recognition as a dual-process

Literature in Chapter 2 Section 2.6 conceptualised recognition as a dual-process, where it occurs either based on the processing fluency of conceptual nodes

(familiarity) or episodic nodes (recollection) (Reder, 2000; 2002; Diana et al., 2006). In line with dual-process accounts of recognition, there are four possible avenues for similarities/differences across markets, which are shown in Figure 8. These include: (i) differences within each market in terms of the prevalence of familiarity/

recollection; and (ii) differences across market in terms of the prevalence of

familiarity/ recollection. The hypotheses for each of these four possible avenues are formalised below (Figure 8), followed by an overview of the literature used to support them.

Figure 7. Hypotheses for dual-process model of brand recognition

HP 9. Brands in repertoire markets will have a greater propensity to be retrieved via familiarity than by recollection.

HP 10. Brands in subscription markets will have a greater propensity to be retrieved via recollection than by familiarity.

HP 11. Brands in repertoire markets will have a greater propensity to be retrieved via familiarity than brands in subscription markets.

HP 12. Brands in subscription markets will have a greater propensity to be retrieved via recollection than brands in repertoire markets.

Firstly, according to Baek and King (2009), consumers’ perceptions of brands differ depending on whether the brand is high in hedonic or utilitarian features. Specifically, brands high in hedonic features drive sensory and experiential brand perceptions (i.e., consumers remember how relaxing their last holiday with Thompsons was), whilst brands with utilitarian features reflect rational and functional brand benefits (i.e., consumers think of whether a Renault car will reliably and safely get them to work every day). In line with this distinction, it seems reasonable to assume that functional

Familiarity Recollection Repertoire market A B HP 9: A>B Subscription market C D HP 10: D>C HP 11: A>C HP 12: D > B

brand information refers to retrieving brands via familiarity, i.e. the retrieval of conceptual brand information; whereas drawing on hedonic brand features refers to the retrieval of brands via recollection, i.e. the retrieval of episodic or experiential brand information.

Correspondingly, there is reason to believe that brands in repertoire markets are higher in utilitarian features, and brands in subscription markets are higher in experiential or hedonic features. This is because in subscription markets (which are typically service-based), consumer interaction with employees, the environmental and the servicescape are key facets of brand choices (Berry, 2000; Lovelock and

Gummesson, 2004). Moreover, consumers have more personal experiences with service brands (Zeithmal, Parasuraman and Berry, 1985), which are thought to include more vivid memories, feelings and emotions that the consumer lives (Meyer and Schwager, 2007; Berry and Carbone, 2007; Verhoef et al., 2009). Such

characteristics are highly aligned to recollection (Stocchi, Fuller and Wright, 2015; Stocchi and Wright, 2016). This contrasts with repertoire markets, where goods are arguably more dominant in utilitarian or functional features, and presumably arises because goods are more tangible than services (Laroche et al., 2001). It is also explainable by drawing on the distinction between search, experience and credence- based features of offerings (see Nelson, 1970; Darby and Karni, 1973). Specifically, search attributes signify product features that consumers can determine and evaluate prior to purchase (e.g., tangible features of offerings); experience attributes refer to product characteristics that can be discerned and evaluated only after purchase or during consumption (e.g., entertainment value); and credence attributes include any product details that consumers cannot determine or evaluate even after purchase (i.e., the success of an operation) (Nelson, 1970; Darby and Karni, 1973). Importantly, search attributes are believed to be more prominent in goods, and experiential and credence attributes are more prominent in services (Krishnan and Hartline, 2001). Correspondingly, this suggests that brands in repertoire markets are more likely to be retrieved from memory via familiarity, both comparative to recollection (HP 10), and comparative to the prevalence of retrieving subscription market brands via familiarity (HP 12). Similarly, brands in subscription markets will have a greater propensity to be retrieved by recollection (HP 11), both comparative to familiarity, and comparative to

the prevalence of retrieving brands in repertoire markets via recollection (HP 13); as formalized above.

5.6 Chapter summary

This chapter was the first of three chapters in this thesis that are dedicated to objective two, which relates to the use of the framework to examine the link between consumer memory and brand choice in and across markets.

The chapter began by re-capitulating the research problem and outlining the specific research question that is used to address the objective, which is: “Do consumers narrow down brands for choice in the same or a different way across repertoire and subscription markets?”. It was argued that the research question is important because it: (i) enhances contributions to the aim of this thesis by empirically demonstrating the link between consumer memory and brand choice (i.e., rather than just detailing it); (ii) empirically demonstrates the link in and across markets, which addresses concerns over a bias of branding research in non-goods markets and comparative research across markets; and (iii) can shed some light on the generalizability of branding principles such as those related to CBBE.

The following section provided a definition of repertoire and subscription markets; and was followed by an overview of the research approach, which explained how the framework from Chapter 4 can be used to address the research question. It was explained that the framework supports a multi-level examination of the research question that facilitates comparisons across repertoire and subscription markets in terms of: (i) brand retrieval propensity; (ii) the size of the stages of the brand choice process; and (iii) the link between brand retrieval and brand choice; and (iv) the impact of prior brand usage on brand retrieval (i.e., the feedback loop). The approach also includes two supporting studies, which examine different measures of brand retrieval and shed complementary insights into the link between consumer memory and brand choice. The final section of the chapter set out the arguments necessary to form and specify the hypotheses.