Technological congruence and perceived quality of brand extensions

Journal of Product and Brand Management

Volumn 14, Issue 7, 2005, Pages 438-447

  Story, John ^a   Loroz, Peggy Sue ^b  

^a IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GONZAGA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Brand extensions; Brand management

Indexed keywords

EID: 30744431890     PISSN: 10610421     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/10610420510633387     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Aaker, D.A. (1990), "Brand extensions: The good, the bad, and the ugly", Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31, Summer, pp. 47-56.
2. Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990) "Consumer evaluations of brand extensions", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, January, pp. 27-41.
3. Asimov, I. (1950) I, Robot, Gnome Press, New York, NY.
4. Bridges, S., Keller, K.L. and Sood, S. (2000) "Communication strategies for brand extensions: Enhancing perceived fit by establishing explanatory links", Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29, Winter, pp. 1-11.
5. Chakravarti, D., MacInnis, D.J. and Nakamoto, K. (1990) "Product category perspective, elaborative processing, and brand name", in Golberg, M., Gorn, G. and Pollay, R. (Eds Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 910-16.
6. Clark, A.C. (1968) 2001: A Space Odyssey, Penguin, New York, NY.
7. Dhebar, A. (1996) "Speeding high tech producer: Meet the balking consumer" Sloan Management Review, Vol. 37, Winter, pp. 37-49.
8. Glendinning, C. (1990) When Technology Wounds: The Human Consequences of Progress, William Morrow, New York, NY.
9. Harper, D. (1994) "Technophobes of the world unite" Industrial Distribution, Vol. 83 No. 3, p. 37.
10. Herr, P.M., Farquhar, P.H. and Fazio, R.H. (1996) "Impact of dominance and relatedness on brand extension ", Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 135-59.
11. Higgins, S.H. and Shanklin, W.L. (1992) "Seeking mass market acceptance for high-technology consumer products", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 5-14.
12. Joerges, B. (1988) "Technology in everyday life: Conceptual queries", Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 219-37.
13. Jun, S.Y., Mazumdar, T. and Raj, S.P. (1999) "Effects of technological hierarchy on brand extension evaluations", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 31-43.
14. LaPorte, T.R. and Metlay, D. (1975) "Technology observed: Attitudes of a wary public" Science, Vol. 188, April, pp. 121-7.
15. Meyers-Levy, J. and Tybout, A.M. (1989) "Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation" Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, June, pp. 39-54.
16. Mick, D.G. and Fournier, S. (1998) "Paradoxes of technology:cOnsumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25, September, pp. 123-41.
17. Park, C.W., Milberg, S. and Lawson, R. (1991) "Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, September, pp. 185-193.
18. Rosen, L.D. and Weil, M.M. (1997) Technostress: Coping with Technology at Work, at Home, and at Play, Wiley, New York, NY.
19. Segal, H.P. (1994) Future Imperfect: The Mixed Blessings of Technology in America, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA.
20. Shelley, M.W. (1831) Frankenstein: Or the Modern Prometheus, Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, London.
21. Shocker, A.D., Srivastava, R.K. and Ruekert, R.W. (1994) "Challenges and opportunities facing brand management: An introduction to the special issue", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 149-58.
22. Tenner, E. (1997) Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences, Random House, New York, NY.