Consumer brand equity model explores psychological processes

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/245588797
BRAND EQUITY AND CONSUMER INFORMATION PROCESSING: A PROPOSED

MODEL
Article · October 2011
CITATIONS READS
7 357
3 authors:
Andreas Strebinger Günter Schweiger

York University Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien
61 PUBLICATIONS 158 CITATIONS 113 PUBLICATIONS 221 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Thomas Otter
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main
61 PUBLICATIONS 652 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Branding View project
Werbung View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Günter Schweiger on 08 September 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

BRAND EQUITY AND CONSUMER INFORMATION
PROCESSING: A PROPOSED MODEL
Andreas Strebinger
Günter Schweiger
Thomas Otter
July 1998
Andreas Strebinger is research assistant in the Department of Advertising and Marketing

Research at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration
(Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien), Austria. Günter Schweiger is Professor of Advertising and
Marketing Research at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration.
Thomas Otter is research assistant in the Department of Advertising and Marketing Research
at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration. The authors gratefully
acknowledge the support of the Austrian Scientific Research Fund (Fonds zur Förderung der
wissenschaftlichen Forschung) and the valuable comments of John C. Crawford and Gerald
Häubl.
Correspondence should be addressed to:

Ordinariat für Werbewissenschaft und Marktforschung
Institut für Absatzwirtschaft
Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien
Augasse 2-6
A-1090 Vienna
Austria
phone: +43 1 313 52 238
fax: +43 1 313 52 239
2
BRAND EQUITY AND CONSUMER INFORMATION
PROCESSING: A PROPOSED MODEL
ABSTRACT
In the last decade, a lot of research has been dedicated to conceptualizing and measuring
customer-based brand equity. However, apart from putting forth various influencing factors,
no integrative framework has so far been developed to account for the complex psychological
processes underlying the formation of customer-based brand equity. This paper attempts to
propose such a framework by drawing on the theory of consumer information processing.
Starting with ten input variables, the paper identifies four paths which lead to the output
variable of intangible monetary customer-based brand equity: an informational path, an
affective path, a social path, and a path via perceptual changes. Each of these paths involves
several interacting variables. Extensions toward deriving company-based brand equity are
discussed.
3
4
1 Introduction
The overwhelming significance of brands for the consumers’ decision making is uncontested
both in everyday practice and scientific research. In the field of international academic and
non-academic research, a wide variety of models to conceptualize and measure "brand equity"
have been developed over the past few years. To explain how brand equity is generated in the
consumer’s mind, some detailed investigations of individual influencing factors as well as
several synoptic approaches examining the influence of different variables on brand equity
are available (cf. D. Aaker 1992a, 1992b; Biel 1995; Kapferer 1996; Keller 1993). We see a
strong need for an integrative model which will
• provide as comprehensive an overview as possible of the various influencing factors and

• put them in relation to the psychological process taking place in the mind of the consumer.
The present paper proposes such a model based on a conceptualization of brand and brand
equity.
2 Conceptualization of brand and brand equity
2.1 Brand as a notion in the mind of the consumer
In the large gamut of definitions, two general perspectives can be discerned:
• One perspective sees a brand as something visible, tangible, and maybe even audible. One
typical definition is that of a brand as a "distinguishing name and/or symbol (such as a
logo, trade-mark, or package design) intended to identify the goods or services of a seller
or group of sellers, and to differentiate their goods or services from those of the
competitors" (D. Aaker 1992a, p. 7). It thus puts the focus on the material side of the
brand, regarding the consumers’ notion of the brand as a secondary criterion.
• The other perspective - in the words of David Ogilvy - defines a brand as the "consumer´s
idea of a product". When seen from this viewpoint, a brand is a schema or semantic
5
network which the consumer has acquired through a process of learning (e.g., Bekmeier-
Feuerhahn 1996, p. 161ff; Keller 1993). Names and symbols are thus only seen as triggers
of what the brand actually stands for.
We feel the latter view to be more appropriate, especially when it comes to providing an
explanatory model for the generation of brand equity through a psychological process. As a
notion in the consumer’s mind we define the concept of ‘brand’ as the sum of associations
that are evoked by names or symbols. Its scope, however, should not be limited to
associations with the product. By the same token, associations with the firm behind a TV set
brand, information on the dealer of a specific brand of car, or the consumer’s ability to
memorize the telephone number of a pizza delivery service, are also part of the brand and
may consequently also function as important sources of brand equity.
2.2 Three questions on the conceptualization of brand equity
In conceptualizing "brand equity", the following three questions need to be addressed:
1. Which sources of brand equity should be considered?
First, we need to differentiate between customer-based and company-based brand equity.

Customer-based brand equity is admittedly the most important, but not the only source of the
value a brand has for the company (Fig. 1). Apart from the sales market, a brand may also
yield substantial benefits on other markets. Firms whose names are identified with a well-
known and popular brand have a great advantage on the labor market. Other advantages may
be achieved
• on the capital markets,

• on other factor markets (e.g., when a firm is granted special purchasing conditions as a
"reference customer" on account of its well-known brand name) or
• in dealings with political decision makers.
6
Figure 1: Sources of company-based brand equity
The present paper focuses on
• Customer-based brand equity. For the purpose of our paper, we identify brand equity as
the value the brand adds to a good or service for the final consumer. Without doubt, the
trade plays an important role in the building of brand equity (e.g., Keller 1998; Riedel
1996; Srivastava and Shocker 1991). In some cases, it may even become the only source of
brand equity, if the final consumers do not have any brand preferences. However, brand
equity derived from the trade will not be discussed in this paper.
• The brand value that is generated by the products presently on the market (current brand
equity). We will not consider the potential value of a brand when the latter is extended to
new products (e.g., D. Aaker 1992a; Keller 1993, 1998; Keller and Aaker 1992;
Mayerhofer 1995; Mazanec and Schweiger 1981; Park and Srinivasan 1994; Smith and
Park 1992). The proposed model may however also be used to predict this form of "latent
brand equity". We shall further limit our discussion to explaining such brand equity as
7
• results from the purchase decision itself (in-purchase brand equity). Without any doubt,
advantages for strong brands may also exist in a pre- and post-purchase setting. One well-
known example for this phenomenon is the post-purchase reduction of cognitive
dissonance which may be supported by a strong brand.
2. What units should be used to measure brand equity?
The concepts for measuring customer-based brand equity currently available differ from each
other in that they
• evaluate it primarily in non-monetary terms using such criteria as brand recall and
recognition, sympathy for a brand or quality assessment, and subsequently establish an
index value from which they derive a financial value for the company (e.g., D. Aaker
1992a, p. 43ff; Andresen 1991; Bekmeier-Feuerhahn 1996; Kapferer 1996) or
• quantify it in monetary terms from a customer´s perspective (e.g., Bello and Holbrook
1995; Brosch 1995; Crimmins 1992; Herp 1982; Kaas 1977; Kamakura and Russel 1993;
Park and Srinivasan 1994; Sander 1994; Swait et al. 1993). As a rule, this approach is
based on the consumer’s willingness to pay a price premium or on the higher price actually
achieved by a given brand.
In our view, two arguments speak in favor of a monetary quantification of customer-based

brand equity:
• Generally, the goal of business activity is to make a profit. Brand awareness, sympathy or
quality assessment are merely control parameters whose contribution to profit generation
becomes manifest only if the consumer is ready to pay a higher price.
• The monetary quantification of customer-based brand equity forms the bridge via which
the monetary value the brand has for the company can be assessed. This company-based
value of a brand opens up new fields of application for the concept of brand equity. These
include the possibility of asset valuation for the balance sheet or of determining license
fees and sales value of the brand (cf. Barwise et al. 1989; Schweiger and Friederes 1995).
Alternative approaches, such as deriving company-based equity from weighted indexes,
8
share prices, "production costs" or from the market price of a brand, are in our view either
questionable from a methodical point of view or cannot be universally applied (cf.
Kapferer 1996, p. 475ff).
3. Tangible or intangible brand equity?
A widely discussed issue is whether brand equity also includes the objectively measurable
advantages of a product ("tangible brand equity") or only the added value generated by the
brand as such ("intangible brand equity"; cf. Berndt und Sander 1994; Blackston 1992;
Farquhar and Ijiri 1993, p. 87; Kamakura and Russell 1993; Roeb 1994; Sander 1995). When
regarding brand equity from a tangible perspective, for example, one might also rate as brand
equity the value of an additional airbag offered by a specific automobile brand. The intangible
view does not regard such a product advantage as part of brand equity. There is no general
answer as to which of the two positions is the "right" one. Instead, it depends on the aim of
brand evaluation whether objective product advantages should also be included in the concept
of brand equity. To judge the performance of an advertising agency which has no influence on
product design, for instance, an intangible definition of brand equity will be the method of
choice. However, if we wish to determine the price for the sale of a brand complete with all
production facilities and patents, a tangible view of brand equity may be the more appropriate
approach. The present model aims to explain intangible brand equity. It may however also be
extended to a tangible brand equity concept.
3 The building of brand equity: A proposed model involving four paths

between input and output
To explain the building of intangible monetary customer-based brand equity, we propose a

model which can be divided into six sub-sectors. From the input variable sector, four paths
lead to the output variable of brand equity (Fig. 2):
• the informational path: the brand creates an informational value for the consumer by
facilitating the purchase decision and reducing uncertainty;
9
• the affective path: the brand gives the product an affective value via a variety of
mechanisms;
• the social path, on which the brand may become an instrument of social self-presentation;
• the path via a change in the perception of product attributes.
Costs of
Product Involvement Search and
Knowledge Thinking
Risk
Perceived Aversion
Risk
Cost-Benefit
Ratio of
Ratio of Search, Information Search
Experience, and Processing
and Credence
Qualities
Informational
Price-Utility
Value of the
Brand-related Function
Brand
Heuristic Rules
Imagery and
Acoustic
Associations
Intangible
Personal Monetary
Congruence Affective Value
Experiences Customer-Based
with the Ideal of the Brand
with the Brand Brand Equity
Own Self
Brand
Familiarity
Symbolic
Experiences
with the Brand Social Value of
the Brand
Congruence
with the Ideal
Social Self
Conspicuousness Perceptual
of Consumption Changes
Figure 2: Proposed model explaining intangible monetary customer-based brand equity
Note.- An arrow leading from variable A to variable B stands for a main effect of variable A on variable B. If
this arrow is hit by another arrow starting from a variable C, this means that the effect of variable A on variable
B is moderated by variable C. By way of analogy, this also applies to higher-order interactions.
To understand the model it is important to note
10
• that it is a framework model. The different variables are not intended as directly applicable
and unidimensional criteria. They need to be specified individually for each product group
in actual practice. The only parameter that is uniform and comparable across product
categories on account of its monetary quantification is "intangible monetary customer-
based brand equity".
• that it conceptionally addresses the generation of brand equity for a specific consumer in a
specific purchasing situation. In an empirical setting, it will be necessary to aggregate the
observations of different consumers - possibly subdivided into different consumer
segments.
• that those variables which relate to product attributes represent the conglomerate of a
multi-attribute model. The variable of "perceptual changes", for instance, is to be
understood as the sum of brand-based perceptual changes across product attributes
weighted according to the importance of the various attributes (Park and Srinivasan 1994).
If we wish to simulate the model for a given product range, we first need to identify the
relevant product attributes for the consumers or for specific groups of consumers. The
same is true for the field of social and affective dimensions. Likewise, the variable of
"congruence with the ideal own self" is also to be seen as the sum of dimensions emanating
from the brand personality in question (e.g., successful, youthful, serious-minded, etc.).
• that the model serves as an explanation of the relative value of the brand. The different
variables are, for the sake of comprehension, defined in absolute terms (e.g.,
"informational value of the brand"), although in their practical application, they are always
meant to be seen in comparison to some other brand (i.e. as a lower or higher informational
value of brand A as compared to brand B). Interesting practical yardsticks for a firm’s own
brand may be its most important competitor, a store brand or a completely unknown brand.
11
3.1 The input variables
These variables are not to be understood as actual input variables on the part of the company
but rather as the first psychological representation of such input variables. Other input
variables come from the consumer and the product side. Together they are the starting point
for those paths which lead to the generation of brand equity.
Costs of
Knowledge Thinking
Risk
Perceived Aversion
Risk
Cost-Benefit
Ratio of
and Credence
Qualities
Informational
Price-Utility
Value of the
Brand
Heuristic Rules
Imagery and
Acoustic
Associations
Intangible
Personal Monetary
Own Self
Brand
Familiarity
Symbolic
Experiences
the Brand
Congruence
with the Ideal
Social Self
Figure 3: The input variables of the model
The input variables are prefixed for a specific point in time, i.e. for a given purchase decision.
In our view, ten such variables are of special importance for the building of brand equity (Fig.
3).
12
The consumer's personal experiences with a brand may relate to ownership and driving in
the case of a car, tasting in regard to a food product, and the handling of business by a given
bank in connection with a loan. A visit to a branch store of a furniture outlet chain may also
be seen as such a type of personal brand experience. The important thing is that these are all
direct, personal experiences with a given brand. As regards brands under the name of which
various products are marketed, it will be necessary in each case to determine which
experiences the customer transfers from one product to another (cf. Aaker and Keller 1990).
As against that, symbolic experiences with a brand are largely the result of indirect
observations and may also take different forms. A few examples for such symbolic
experiences include making contacts with brand advertising, participating in a sponsored
event, observing a specific type of brand user or just simply obtaining word-of-mouth
information from friends and neighbors. Differentiating between indirect (symbolic) and
direct (personal) experiences can at times be quite difficult, but may nevertheless be a useful
approach since direct experiences have a stronger impact on the customer´s judgment (cf.
Fazio 1990; Fazio et al. 1982; Keller 1993; Wright and Lynch 1995). In advertising, by
contrast, it is necessary to overcome the barrier between the customer's attitude toward the ad
and his or her attitude toward the brand (e.g., Chattopadhyay and Nedungadi 1992; Derbaix
1995; MacKenzie and Spreng 1992; cf. Keller 1987, 1991, 1998).
Product knowledge - in contrast to personal and symbolic experiences with a specific brand -
refers to the consumer’s general knowledge about the product and the purchase decision, and
acts as a separate storage (e.g., Johar, Jedidi, and Jacoby 1997; Punj and Staelin 1983;
Urbany, Dickson, and Wilkie 1989). It contains, for instance, the knowledge as to which
items of product information should be observed, where they are available from, how they
may be merged into specific expectancy value components, and how important such
expectancy value components are for the consumer (cf. Dabholkar 1994). Taking the
automobile as an example, one might say that the HP information provided in the catalog is
an important determining factor of acceleration and that acceleration is of great importance
for consumer X, who is a sporty driver.
By perceived risk we mean the initial uncertainty which brand to choose (Urbany, Dickson,
and Wilkie 1989). "Initial" refers to a hypothetical state prior to any internal information
uptake from memory or any external search for information from catalogs, dealers, labels and
13
the like. It results from the uncertainty as to how specific product attributes should be rated
(Dowling and Staelin 1994). Since the model, as mentioned above, reflects a comparison
between two brands (e.g., the firm´s own brand with a trademark), this uncertainty about a
given attribute may occur in either of the two brands.
What is also to some extent predetermined by the product is the conspicuousness of

consumption (cf. Bearden and Etzel 1982; Graeff 1996). One should not speak of a "general"
conspicuousness of consumption, though, for it must always be considered very closely in
what situations and for what peer group of a certain consumer segment the product becomes
conspicuous - or is intentionally made conspicuous by the consumer.
General brand-related heuristic rules are acquired in the course of a lifetime and appear to
be viewed as either valid or invalid for larger product categories by the consumer (cf.
Lichtenstein and Burton 1989). This is not about a particular brand but rather about general
rules of thumb like "With a well-known brand nothing much can go wrong". While such
general attitudes toward branded products are frequently studied by non-academic researchers
(e.g., Grimm 1995a and 1995b; Kaplitza 1997), the academic research focus is more on
heuristic approaches aiming at the price (e.g., "the more expensive a product, the better its
quality", e.g., Lichtenstein and Burton 1989; Mitra 1995; Olshavsky, Aylesworth and Kempf
1995; Rao and Monroe 1988, 1989) or other extrinsic cues like the type of business (e.g.,
"smaller dealers offer better service", cf. Duncan and Olshavsky 1982). Academic
investigations on brand-related heuristic rules are comparatively rare. Hoyer and Brown
(1990) showed that a simple choice heuristic like "Buy the best-known brand!" primarily
influences the decision of those consumers who have little experience with a given product
category. As regards the advertising of a brand, the sheer size of an ad is typically interpreted
as a sign of quality by consumers (Kirmani 1990; Kirmani and Zeithaml 1993).
There is a number of ways to define involvement by differentiating according to the sources

of involvement (e.g., Celsi and Olson 1988, Kroeber-Riel 1992) or the underlying motives
(e.g., Johnson and Eagly 1989, 1990; Laurent and Kapferer 1985). For the purpose of the
present paper, we wish to see involvement as a unidimensional parameter in the sense of a
relative importance of the decision. It is irrelevant in this context whether this importance is
an enduring or only a situational one since the model tries to give a conceptional explanation
14
for a specific purchase decision. "Relative" means that the importance for the consumer can
only be derived from a comparison with alternative objectives.
One of these alternative objectives relates to the saving of costs of search and thinking (e.g.,
Punj and Staelin 1983; Schmidt and Spreng 1996; Shugan 1980; Srinivasan and Ratchford
1991; Urbany, Dickson, and Kalapurakal 1996). It must be noted that the procurement of
external information on some products is quite cheap while it is rather expensive in regard to
others. Thus, for example, it is clearly more costly to visit a car dealer than to turn a jar of
marmelade upside down in order to know its ingredients. Apart from such lasting differences
among products, there are also some situative influences which determine the weight of the
costs of search and thinking. Time pressure, for instance, may considerably heighten the
perceived costs of information activity (e.g., Beatty and Smith 1987; Urbany, Dickson, and
Kalapurakal 1996). Conversely, the pleasure of shopping itself or of social benefits derived
from passing on an information to friends and neighbors may reduce the costs of information
activities. The decision whether such an activity pays off will ultimately be subject to a
comparison with the importance of the decision. In this regard, it must be remembered that
the search costs for a specific information are not necessarily the same for all brands. With the
help of an efficient supply of information, a given brand may distinguish itself from the others
in a given product category. Overall, search costs are a case of opportunity costs and are thus
an "entry gate" for external objectives competing for time and effort with the purchase
decision under examination.
A second, more general "entry gate" for external opportunity costs is the price-utility
function. This means that a decision must be taken among competing uses of scarce financial
means in the sense of a microeconomic maximization of utility. One important determinant
for the degree of scarcity of funds is the consumer's personal disposable income. The added
value created by the brand must be weighed against an alternative use of funds before it can
be translated into a willingness to pay a price premium for the brand. Even where a specific
car brand is valued markedly higher by the consumer, he or she must still decide on how
much money to spend on it if this means that the extra expenditure must be taken from the
vacation budget (cf. e. g., Heath and Soll 1996). It is thus necessary to include this external
variable in order to explain the consumer´s willingness to pay a price premium measured in
absolute terms. What is important, though, is not just to consider the consumer's propensity to
spend more for a presumedly higher product quality, but all other possible sources of brand
15
equity as well. Someone with a higher income, for example, will also be ready to pay more in
order to avoid lengthy searches.
The price-utility function is the end result of an important and complex process of search and
interpretation of price information (e.g., Bonini and Rumiati 1996; Dickson and Sawyer 1990;
Hay 1987; Zeithaml 1988). From the wide effects underlying the price-utility function, two
should be considered more closely:
• Price knowledge: It is often the case with frequently purchased low-involvement products
that the absolute price is not checked at every purchase. The consumer's price knowledge
in such cases is often rather limited and mostly based on earlier price research or on an
image-based assessment of the price of a brand (e.g., Biswas and Sherell 1993; Dickson
and Sawyer 1990; Diller 1985; Gijsbrechts 1993). Poor price knowledge may indeed give a
brand more room for maneuvre in terms of pricing as well as a chance to make some short-
term profits, which, however, do not correspond to the customers' actual willingness to
accept a higher price. In the long run, though, this can only be a "time window" with the
consumer reconsidering his or her decision at regular intervals.
• Heuristic price effects: As has been confirmed by numerous studies, consumers in certain
situations tend to decide on the basis of a price-quality heuristic scheme: A higher price
stands for a better quality (e.g., Lichtenstein and Burton 1989; Mitra 1995; Olshavsky,
Aylesworth and Kempf 1995). Similarly, a higher price may also lead to a greater
propensity to spend if the purchase of an expensive commodity is to produce a prestige-
raising effect (e.g., Veblen 1973/1899). Such effects of a higher price are only attributable
to brand equity if they are the result of an interaction with brand awareness, quality
assessment or tradition. If no such interaction is necessary, we feel that these effects do not
represent brand equity as they might just as well be achieved with an unknown brand by
simply charging a higher price.
Risk aversion, finally, relates to a general personality trait addressing the inclination of a
person to take a certain risk once it has been perceived (e.g., Panne 1977; Sorrentino and
Short, 1986).
16
These ten input variables subsequently determine the paths on which a brand may be able to
create customer-based brand equity.
3.2 The informational path to brand equity
This path appears to be widely underrated or at least not consciously included in the
considerations of brand managers in everyday practice. Generally, brand managers tend to
possess a rather detailed knowledge both on their product and on the strong and weak points
of the other brands on the market. They therefore risk to overestimate the knowledge and
interest of the consumers. Being "cognitive misers", consumers do not like thinking (e.g.,
Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Garbarino and Edell 1997; Hauser and Wernerfelt 1990; Park and
Hastak 1994; Shugan 1980) and shun the need for information search (e.g., Dowling and
Staelin 1994; Punj and Staelin 1983; Schmidt and Spreng 1996; Srinivasan and Ratchford
1991). If they feel in any given phase of the purchase decision process that they have already
invested too much energy, they will make up for it at some other stage (Coupey 1994).
If a buyer is not sure which brand to choose, he or she is confronted with a specific cost-
benefit ratio of information activity in function of his or her product knowledge, level of
involvement and costs of search and thinking (Fig. 4). The higher the level of involvement
and product knowledge, the greater will be the benefit derived by the consumer from
searching and cognitive activities. Together they determine whether it makes sense for the
consumer to invest the time and effort required, i.e. the necessary costs of search and
thinking, in the current choice of brand. As an alternative to the procurement of new
information, the consumer may also choose to rely on already acquired knowledge. He or she
will therefore always employ a specific mix of new information and previously acquired
knowledge (e.g., Dick, Chakravarti, and Biehal; Johar, Jedidi, and Jacoby 1997; Lynch,
Marmorstein, and Weigold 1988; Park and Hastak 1994). Personal and symbolic experiences
with a brand may as current knowledge help reduce the cost of information procurement. In
the most simple case, the effect is that a brand that enters more easily into the mind stands a
better chance of being admitted into the consideration set of eligible brands (e.g., D. Aaker
1992a, 1992b; Farquar 1989, p. 27; Kardes et al. 1993; Keller 1993; Kroeber-Riel 1992; Teas
and Grapentine 1996; cf. Feldman and Lynch 1988).
17
Costs of
Knowledge Thinking
Risk
Perceived Aversion
Risk
Cost-Benefit
Ratio of
and Credence
Qualities
Informational
Price-Utility
Value of the
Brand
Heuristic Rules
Imagery and
Acoustic
Associations
Intangible
Personal Monetary
Own Self
Brand
Familiarity
Symbolic
Experiences
the Brand
Congruence
with the Ideal
Social Self
Figure 4: The informational path to brand equity
In a later, more detailed brand evaluation, the advantages derived from personal and symbolic
experiences differ according to the type of relevant product attributes (e.g., Kaas 1990; Rao
and Bergen 1992; Swait et al. 1993; Teas and Grapentine 1996; for brand extensions, see
Smith and Park 1992). The ratio of search, experience and credence qualities is an influencing
factor which is to some extent predetermined by the product (Nelson 1974). It nevertheless
implies a psychological dimension which may vary from person to person. The question is
whether relevant product attributes may be evaluated already before purchase (search
qualities), only after purchase and use (experience qualities) or not at all (credence qualities).
For example, while the attribute "four-door automobile" can easily be verified prior to
purchase, the attribute of longevity can only be assessed after the car has been used. The
attribute of passive safety, finally, will remain a credence quality for most drivers. Experience
and credence qualities constitute a particularly great potential for brand equity. The
distinctions between these variables must however be made specifically for each consumer or
consumer segment and will depend on their level of product knowledge. Whereas the quality
18
of wine is an experience quality for the wine connoisseur, it more likely is a credence quality
for an amateur consumer.
Personal experiences with a brand may bring advantages in search and experience qualities
when compared to untested brands. In terms of search qualities, the consumer simply saves
the need for searching (e.g., Teas and Grapentine 1996). The consumer knows from
experience whether a brand possesses a specific search attribute or not. This is a type of
information one would first have to obtain about some other brand. Experience qualities, by
definition, cannot be assessed until after a given product has been used. In the case of a still
untested brand, such experience qualities are uncertain. How high the cost of reducing such
uncertainty actually is will differ from product to product. It is fairly simple and inexpensive
to assess the taste of food products by making a trial purchase. However, when the quality of
an authorized auto repair shop is evaluated, it will be a considerable competitive advantage
for a car brand if the customer has had positive experiences with his or her last car.
Symbolic experiences with a brand may be used for all three types of product attributes -
search, experience and credence qualities. In the case of search qualities, symbolic
experiences offer the consumer a comparable degree of certainty as personal experiences.
Informative advertising may thus help the consumer compensate for search costs with high
credibility (e.g., Darley und Smith 1993; Ford, Smith, and Swazy 1990). As the information
that a car is equipped with an additional airbag can easily be verified, the consumer harbors
no doubt about the credibility of the claim. The situation is different in the case of experience
qualities. The claim that a new brand of orange juice tastes particularly good or that a
detergent washes better than others requires high credibility on the part of the advertiser in
order for the claim to be able to compete with personal experiences. It may therefore be
assumed that symbolic experiences in this respect will offer less certain information than
personal experiences. On the other hand, the consumer still possesses more information than
in the case of a brand with which he or she associates neither personal nor symbolic
experiences. When it comes to credence qualities like the aquaplaning safety of auto tires, the
naturalness of food products, the correctness of billing by a car repair shop or the hygienic
preparation of dishes in a fast-food restaurant, symbolic experiences are without competition.
Overall, the informational value of a brand results from an iterative process (cf. Jacoby et al.
1994). In several sub-decisions, the consumers make up their minds whether to obtain more
19
information or to rely on their personal and symbolic experiences. Eventually, even after an
exhaustive information process for an unknown brand, two advantages may be left to a brand
with which strong personal or symbolic experiences are associated:
• While there is usually an overall attitude of sufficient certainty for a personally known
brand (e.g., Dabholkar 1994; Sanbonmatsu and Fazio 1990; cf. Park and Hastak 1994), the
items of information about the new brand would first need to be integrated into an overall
attitude toward the brand in a more or less costly procedure. The consumer’s reluctance to
bear these costs may, especially in a low-involvement setting, mean that he or she will
ultimately end up buying the known brand again.
• In terms of experience qualities, some residual uncertainty remains for a brand which the
consumer has not personally tested before. In regard to credence qualities, a brand which
conveys credible symbolic experiences to the consumer will reduce the customer´s risk as
compared to the unknown brand. The greater level of uncertainty will in both cases lead to
a discounting of the competitor brand (e.g., Jaccard and Wood 1988; Johnson and Levin
1985). The size of this discounting factor, and thus the informational value of the known
brand, will depend on the consumer´s risk aversion.
If the cost-benefit ratio of an information activity is very unfavorable, decisions will be rather
superficial (cf. ELM, e.g., Petty and Cacioppo 1986a, 1986b; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann
1983; or HSM, e.g., Chaiken 1980; Chaiken, Liberman, and Eagly 1989). In such a case,
general rules of thumb of the sort "With a well-known brand, nothing much can go wrong"
may also play a role in reducing uncertainty (cf. Hoyer und Brown 1990).
20
3.3 The affective path to brand equity
Several mechanisms may lead to an affective value of the brand (Fig. 5).
Apart from the

• direct effect of symbolic experiences
the affective path may pass through three intermediate stages:
• familiarity with the brand,
• self-congruence, and
• imagery and acoustic associations which, in the form of "advertising remains" or as a result
of personal experiences, have become autonomous units in a separate storage modality.
Costs of
Knowledge Thinking
Risk
Perceived Aversion
Risk
Cost-Benefit
Ratio of
and Credence
Qualities
Informational
Price-Utility
Value of the
Brand
Heuristic Rules
Imagery and
Acoustic
Associations
Intangible
Personal Monetary
Own Self
Brand
Familiarity
Symbolic
Experiences
the Brand
Congruence
with the Ideal
Social Self
Figure 5: The affective path to brand equity
21
A direct effect, above all of symbolic experiences, may be inferred from the theory of
classical conditioning (e.g., Ghazizadeh 1987; Gorn 1982; Kroeber-Riel 1992, p. 128ff). An
affective value can arise from the emotional effects of an advertising contact, participation in
an event, or encounters with friendly personnel. While this is somewhat contested in the
psychological literature, the current view is that there may indeed be a direct effect (c.f. Eagly
and Chaiken 1993, p. 410ff). Affective elements can thus be transferred onto the consumer's
attitude towards a brand without intermediate steps or cognitive participation.
Symbolic and personal experiences may however exert their emotional effect via a discernible
intermediate step. One such phenomenon is the growth of familiarity with the brand. The
explanation for this phenomenon lies in the "mere-exposure effect". This effect ensures that
the simple fact of repeated exposure to an object endows the object with a positive affect
(e.g., Janiszewski 1988, 1990, 1993; Zajonc 1980; Zajonc and Markus 1982). At present, it is
not fully understood whether this positive affect can occur independently of cognitive effects
(e.g., Anand and Holbrook 1990; Anand, Holbrook, and Stephens 1988; Eagly and Chaiken
1993, p. 412ff; Heath 1990; Zajonc 1980). The existence of such an affect is however beyond
doubt.
Another possibility of how a positive affect for a brand can be created by personal and, above
all, symbolic experiences, can be found in the congruence of brand perception and self-
image. This concept is frequently discussed under the heading of brand personality (e.g., D.
Aaker 1996; J. Aaker 1997; Keller 1998). The underlying mechanism of this effect is that of
self-completion (e.g., Gollwitzer and Wicklund 1985). The consumer usually possesses a
differentiated image of him- or herself. This image is composed of the consumer´s notion of
who he or she actually is (the "actual own self") and of an ideal image of who he or she would
like to be (the "ideal own self"; e.g., Higgins 1987, 1989; Ross 1971; Sirgy 1982, 1985; Sirgy
and Samli 1985; Sirgy et al. 1997; Staudinger and Greve 1997). At the same time, the
consumer also forms an image of some of the brand's "personality traits" such as sincerity,
sophistication or ruggedness (J. Aaker 1997). Congruence between such a "brand personality"
and important aspects of the consumer's own self-image results in a positive assessment of the
brand (e.g., Batra, Lehmann, and Singh 1993; Dolich 1969; Graeff 1996; Landon 1974;
Malhotra 1988; Ross 1971; Sentis and Markus 1986; Sirgy 1985; Sirgy and Danes 1982;
Sirgy et al. 1997). Even though it is not yet clear whether the brand must primarily
22
correspond to the image the customers actually have of themselves or rather to the image of
who they ideally want to be, it seems to be a plausible assumption that
• the brand personality must in the first place correspond to the ideal own self without
• deviating too far from an actual own self that is perceived as highly certain. Otherwise, the
cognitive costs for an upgrading of the own self-image by the purchase or possession of the
brand become too high.
The possibility of self-completion through a brand seems to apply especially when there is a
great discrepancy between the actual and the ideal own self and when the perception of the
actual own self is rather blurred (cf. Bem 1972; Fazio 1987). Thus, the purchase of a brand of
car with a particularly youthful appeal - to the extent that it is directed towards the target
person "own self" - will only be interesting in a phase in which unequivocal indications such
as inner feelings or direct tests send out ambivalent signals (as would be the case in a
traditional midlife-crisis setting). For persons who, on the basis of such unequivocal
indications, can be sure that they are still young, such a purchase is as unlikely to lead to a
change of self-image as it is for persons who, as a result of their inner feelings and direct
tests, have no more leeway for a change of their self-image.
Frequently, the self-congruence effect that is directed to the customer´s own personality is
seen as interchangeable with social value. This is due to the fact that it may be important for
the customer´s own self-esteem how he or she is seen by significant others (e.g., Markus and
Wurf 1987; Tice 1992; Wiswede 1973). In that way, the conspicuousness of the purchase and
possession of a brand may contribute indirectly to an improvement of the own self-perception.
Insofar as the aim of the purchase is to improve one's own self-image by enhancing the image
others have of oneself, it should be ascribed to the affective value of the brand through self-
completion rather than to a social value.
A special function in the generation of affective value is played by elements of the brand
scheme stored as imagery and acoustic associations (e.g., Kroeber-Riel 1992, 1993; Ruge
1988; Tauchnitz 1990). They may be "advertising remains" in the form of stored images and
acoustic associations (e.g., Bone and Ellen 1992). Another source is personal experience with
a specific brand (e.g., the image of the own Sony TV set). Their special character results from
23
the separate modality in which they are stored (cf. Paivio 1979). In terms of affective content,
they may have a three-fold effect:
• They continue the process of emotional conditioning: As a result of intentional and

unintentional recall of affect-laden imagery or acoustic associations, there may be a
constant recharging of the brand with emotional contents (cf. Dadds et al. 1997).
• They are decoded as an indication of self-congruence (cf. Bone and Ellen 1992).
• They are seen by some researchers as exerting a direct effect on the consumer's attitude
and behavior (e.g., Bekmeier-Feuerhahn 1996; Kroeber-Riel 1993, p. 110ff).
Relationships between affective variables and other areas
Affective and cognitive elements of a brand are not independent of each other. The affective
evaluation of a brand may blur the view for an objective cognitive assessment (e.g., Johnson
and Eagly 1989, 1990; Petty and Cacioppo 1986a, 1986b). This has an impact on the
informational value of a brand and on perceptual changes. A positive affective evaluation of a
brand will be associated with more certainty of assessment or with an overall improvement of
perception of product attributes. In this regard, Sirgy and colleagues (Sirgy and Samli 1985;
Sirgy et al. 1991) were able to prove that the product attributes of a brand which corresponds
to one´s own self-image is perceived with a positive bias.
Imagery and acoustic associations do not only exert an affective influence but frequently also
contain quite specific information on the product. Whether affective or cognitive elements are
retrieved from imagery and acoustic associations appears to depend on the customer´s
involvement in a given situation (e.g., Miniard et al. 1991). Under low involvement, images
are decoded with regard to their affective content while high involvement causes them to be
examined for their product information potential. It appears to be quite likely that, outside the
purchase decision, imagery and acoustic associations resulting from advertising initially exert
an affective influence whereas in the purchasing situation - especially when the decision is
taken in a high-involvement setting - they serve as a basis for information procurement (cf.
Costley and Brucks 1992; Edell and Staelin 1983; concerning the effect of involvement
changes, see Park and Hastak 1994).
24
3.4 The social path to brand equity
Costs of
Knowledge Thinking
Risk
Perceived Aversion
Risk
Cost-Benefit
Ratio of
and Credence
Qualities
Informational
Price-Utility
Value of the
Brand
Heuristic Rules
Imagery and
Acoustic
Associations
Intangible
Personal Monetary
Own Self
Brand
Familiarity
Symbolic
Experiences
the Brand
Congruence
with the Ideal
Social Self
Figure 6: The social path to brand equity
The mechanisms able to give a brand a social value for the consumer are basically quite
similar to those affective mechanisms which stand behind the effect of the congruence of a
brand with the customer´s own ideal self (Fig. 6) The most important differences are:
• A different "target segment" and thus different motives. In the concept of congruence of a
brand with the perception of the customer´s ideal own self, the aim is to raise his or her
own self-esteem. In terms of social value, the consumer's aim is to improve the image that
significant others (individuals or groups) presumedly have of him or her (cf. Vershofen
1959). As a rule, there are several target segments. If you take a car, these target segments
25
may be fellow workers, neighbors, friends or even members of the own family. As self-
completion and thereby the elevation of one’s own self-esteem can also take place
indirectly via self-presentation vis-à-vis such peer groups, affective and social values may
best be distinguished by the underlying motives. Whereas the issue in affective value is
about preserving or improving the consumer’s self-esteem, it is his or her wish in social
value to have social relationships or to influence people possessing important resources
(e.g., business partners) which is the underlying reason for a decision in favor of a specific
brand.
• Conspicuousness of consumption is a must here since without it consumers may be able to

improve their own self-perception but not the way in which they are judged by others (cf.
Bearden and Etzel 1982). However, there are several ways to raise the conspicuousness of
a product (e.g., "accidental" conversations about a decision in favor of a specific store
chain, test drives with a new car with persons from the target segment, frequent invitations
of guests after the purchase of new furniture, etc.).
Social and affective values are often closely related. For instance, the purchase of a car
usually serves both purposes. The valuation of a social benefit is more difficult for the
consumer, though, because he or she, in contrast to an affective benefit due to an
improvement of self-esteem, is facing not only one, but several target segments. For each of
these persons or groups of persons, there may be a specific ideal social self which the
consumer may wish to achieve. This is particularly true for consumers who take a strong
interest in how they are perceived by their peer groups (e.g., Batra, Myers, and D. Aaker
1995, p. 328; Graeff 1996; cf. Schiefele 1990; Snyder 1974; Tunnell 1984). If there is a strong
divergence of objectives among these target segments (e.g., a car in business life must convey
respectability while in private life the owner may wish to communicate an image of
sportiness) the consumer will have to make a decision for one or the other or else choose a
compromise brand. In the case of less expensive products such as cigarettes, the consumer
will opt for a "multi-brand strategy" designed for a variety of occasions and target segments.
26
3.5 The path of perceptual changes
Costs of
Knowledge Thinking
Risk
Perceived Aversion
Risk
Cost-Benefit
Ratio of
and Credence
Qualities
Informational
Price-Utility
Value of the
Brand
Heuristic Rules
Imagery and
Acoustic
Associations
Intangible
Personal Monetary
Own Self
Brand
Familiarity
Symbolic
Experiences
the Brand
Congruence
with the Ideal
Social Self
Figure 7: The path of perceptual changes
From an intangible view of brand equity, only that part of brand preference is counted
towards brand equity which is not due to a technical, objectively measurable product
superiority (e.g., Park and Srinivasan 1994). The common element of the informational value
of a brand and of perceptual changes is that both are related to concrete product attributes.
The difference is - statistically speaking - that it is in one case the variance and in the other
the mean of the valuation of product attributes which are examined. In substantive terms, the
informational value of a brand is related to the dimension "certain versus uncertain" while
perceptual changes concern the dimension "good versus bad". These two dimensions may, but
do not necessarily have to, coincide. If, for instance, two competing brands in a food category
27
enjoy an excellent reputation, the consumer may well regard it as likely that they both taste
good. Consumers who have already tried one of them, and not the other, will know that one of
the two brands tastes good, while they will only have a more or less certain assumption that
the other probably tastes good.
Another difference lies in the fact that the informational value of a brand can result from all
types of product qualities (e.g., including search qualities) whereas perceptual changes are
only generated by experience and credence qualities (Fig. 7). The older German school of
psychology has coined the term "irradiation" for these perceptual changes (e. g., Spiegel
1958). Such irradiations were above all predicted and detected for product attributes which
were not "experienced on the thematic level" (for an overview, see Schweiger and
Schrattenecker 1995, p. 147ff). In a similar way, more recent approaches such as the
heuristic-systematic model postulate brand-based perceptual changes above all for
"ambivalent" product qualities (e.g., Chaiken and Maheswaran 1994; Eagly and Chaiken
1993; Maheswaran, Mackie, and Chaiken 1992) like the design of a car, the sound quality of a
hifi system or the taste of a soft drink. Both schools of thought refer to the field of peripheral
or heuristic information processing. However, perceptual changes may also occur due to
conscious inferences in a central information processing setting (e.g., Dick, Chakravarti, and
Biehal 1990; Ford and Smith 1987).
As with the informational value of a brand, two approaches for irradiations and conscious
inferences may also be considered here:
• the individual image of a brand, which results from symbolic and personal experiences
(e.g., food brand A claims in its advertising that it is more healthful and is thus also judged
that way by the consumers) and
• general brand heuristics (e.g., "food brand A is purchased more often, it must therefore
taste better").
The advantage of an intangible view of brand equity lies in the fact that it permits a more
precise attribution of performance within the company. What is an integral whole for the
consumer is the result of a diversified cooperation between various departments within the
company such as research and development, production and marketing. If a brand manager
28
does not have an influence on the first two phases, his achievement will be to have given the
brand a value beyond the product as such. This is not meant as a way of cheating the
consumer but of performing professional communication. Intangible brand equity due to
perceptual changes may be created by:
• Positioning a brand toward a subjective consumer experience ("experiential strategy", see

Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis 1986): With the help of advertising and packaging design,
amongst others, the consumer's subjective consumption experience can be enhanced
without objectively measurable product superiority. Just think of the taste of champagne,
the crispiness of savory biscuits or the refreshing action of a shower lotion. As there is no
objective yardstick in such subjective consumer experiences, this will actually create an
additional value for the consumer.
• A superiority in the communication of actual product advantages: If marketers succeed in

conveying the actual attributes of a brand to the consumer in a more credible fashion than
their competitors, they build an intangible brand equity. The consumers do not rate that
product as being better than it is, but they underrate the quality of the competitors'
products. In that case, intangible brand equity is a sign of good brand management without
making false advertising claims.
3.6 The output variable: Intangible monetary customer-based brand

equity
The output variable of this model, as mentioned above, is the willingness of the consumer to
pay a higher price as the result of branding, i.e. the intangible monetary value of the brand for
the consumer (Figure 8). This makes sense in that the performance of brand management
consists in a choice of positioning which is translated into an additional profit for the
company. In that sense, it would be of little use for a firm to try to persuade a target segment
at great costs of the superiority of their own brand if consumers in that segment still need or
want to invest their purchasing power in other areas.
29
Costs of
Knowledge Thinking
Risk
Perceived Aversion
Risk
Cost-Benefit
Ratio of
and Credence
Qualities
Informational
Price-Utility
Value of the
Brand
Heuristic Rules
Imagery and
Acoustic
Associations
Intangible
Personal Monetary
Own Self
Brand
Familiarity
Symbolic
Experiences
the Brand
Congruence
with the Ideal
Social Self
Figure 8: The outvariable intangible monetary customer-based brand equity
4 Summary and discussion
The model presented in this paper attempts to give an integrative view of how customer-based
brand equity may be generated. From the following input variables
• personal experiences with the brand,

• symbolic experiences with the brand,
• perceived risk,
• involvement,
• product knowledge,
• brand-related heuristic rules,
• conspicuousness of consumption,
30
• costs of search and thinking,
• risk aversion, and the
• price-utility function
four paths may lead to the output variable of intangible monetary customer-based brand
equity:
• the informational path, enabling the brand to reduce uncertainty and to save information
costs,
• the affective path, which directly or indirectly charges the brand with emotional substance,
• the social path, which leads to an improvement of evaluation by significant others, and
• the path of perceptual changes, which reflects a skilful communication of the advantages
of the brand.
One important prerequisite for the economic success of a brand is to address a target group
which is ready to pay a higher price for these values.
At present, the model is designed to serve as a basis for future discussion and empirical
research. A major restriction results from it being a theoretical framework model. In such a
model, the various elements can only be presented on a synoptic basis. Many of the above
variables have been covered by a large number of publications which give a very detailed
insight into the patterns of effect emanating from them. For the model to be applied in
practice in a specific product category, it is also necessary, for instance, to specify forms of
symbolic and personal experiences with a brand as well as important product attributes and
relevant social reference groups. We nevertheless believe that the notion of multi-level and
diverse relationships between the first psychological representation of marketing instruments
and customer-based brand equity that is inherent in such a framework model may be helpful
for a better understanding of the modes of action of the various control variables. One such
practical example are routinely performed surveys of brand awareness by various methods.
They are however only useful if the brand manager knows whether and on which paths brand
awareness contributes to brand equity. Below are some examples of how diverse these paths
may be (cf. Aaker 1992a, p. 85ff, 1992b; Keller 1998, p. 91f):
31
• Brand awareness may be indispensible as the brand must be actively recalled by the
consumer in order to qualify for his or her consideration set (e. g., Posavac, Sanbonmatsu,
and Fazio 1997).
• Via heuristic conclusions, brand awareness may help reduce uncertainty about important
product attributes or improve perception in the face of ambivalent product attributes such
as the design of a car, the taste of a cereal or the sound quality of a hifi system.
• It may be an expression of familiarity with the brand and thus of an affective value for the
consumer.
• It may also be an indispensible prerequisite for the social value of a brand. For instance,
the buyer of a TV set may well believe that unknown brands are just as good as known
ones. With respect to the reactions from his friends, however, it might be rather
disadvantageous for him to own an unknown brand of TV set.
An understanding as to which of these paths brand awareness will take is an indispensible

prerequisite for assessing its value and function in brand management.
In conceptional terms, the model describes the building of customer-based brand equity for a
single consumer in a given situation. As a result of this, the following extensions are possible:
• The integration of situative customer-based brand equity into a measure of the value the
customer represents for the company within a specified time period (e.g., one year). For
this purpose, further explanatory variables must also be taken into account. It must be
considered, for instance, how often the consumer buys a product, what chance he or she
has to get in contact with the brand when switching between supermarket chains (e.g., Park
and Srinivasan 1994; Riedel 1996) and how profoundly fluctuations in explanatory
variables (e.g., because of mood-dependent price-utility functions) will lead to a behavior
with or without brand loyalty (cf. e.g., D. Aaker 1992a, 1992b). In practice, such
integration will not take place in the individual consumer but on the level of consumer
segments.
32
• The integration of brand equity of a single consumer or consumer segments into a
company-based brand equity in monetary terms (e.g., Sander 1994, 1995). It must be
considered, though, that customer-based brand equity at a uniform price cannot be fully
exploited by the company. It will always be divided among the manufacturer, the
consumers and the retailers. As consumers will differ in their willingness to pay a higher
price, a price-sales curve is created on which the point of optimal profit needs to be
determined (e.g., Kaas 1977). This means that some consumers will pay less than they
would normally be ready to pay. As a function of the firm's market position, a smaller or
larger portion of brand equity will go to the trade. In the absence of precise forecasts, such
calculations might be difficult, depending on the time horizon of brand evaluation.
Before these questions can be solved, the issue that needs to be addressed as a first step is to
explain how brand equity is built in the customer´s mind. For the time being, the proposed
model might above all be a heuristic instrument for the brand manager which can be used to
mentally simulate the effect of marketing measures on customer-based brand equity.
33
34
5 References
Aaker, David (1992a), Management des Markenwerts. Frankfurt/Main: Campus-Verlag.
---- (1992b), "The Value of Brand Equity," Journal of Business Strategy, 13 (July/August), 27-32.
---- (1996), "Misconceptions About Brands," The Journal of Brand Management, 3 (February), 212-14.
---- and Kevin Lane Keller (1990), "Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions," Journal of Marketing, 54
(January), 27-41.
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), "Dimensions of Brand Personality," Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (August),
347-56.
Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), "Dimensions of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer
Research, 13 (March), 411-54.
Anand, Punam and Morris B. Holbrook (1990), "Reinterpretation of Mere Exposure or Exposure to Mere
Reinterpretation," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 242-44.
----, ---- and Debra Stephens (1988), "The Formation of Affective Judgments: The Cognitive-Affective Model
Versus the Independence Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (December), 386-91.
Andresen, Thomas (1991), "Innere Markenbilder: MAX-wie er wurde, was er ist," planung und analyse 1/91,
28-34.
Barwise, Patrick, Cristopher Higson, Andrew Likierman, and Paul Marsh (1989), Accounting for Brands.
London: London Business School and The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
Batra, Rajeev, Donald R. Lehmann, and Dipinder Singh (1993), "The Brand Personality Component of Brand
Goodwill: Some Antecedents and Consequences," in Brand Equity and Advertising, David A. Aaker
and Alexander Biel, eds. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
----, John G. Myers, and David A. Aaker (1995), Advertising Management, Fifth Edition. Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, Sigrid (1996), "Marktorientierte Markenbewertung: Eine marktpreisorientierte

Bewertung von Marken aus konsumenten- und unternehmensorientierter Perspektive,"
Habilitationsschrift, Universität-Gesamthochschule Paderborn.
35
Bello, David C. and Morris B. Holbrook (1995), "Does an Absence of Brand Equity Generalize Across Product
Classes," Journal of Business Research, 34 (October), 125-31.
Bem, Daryl J. (1972), "Self-Perception Theory," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, L.

Berkowitz, ed. Academic Press, New York.
Berndt, Ralph and Matthias Sander (1994), "Der Wert von Marken," in Handbuch Markenartikel, M. Bruhn, ed.
Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.
Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), "Reference Group Influences on Product and Brand Purchase
Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 183-94.
Beatty, Sharon E. and Scott M. Smith (1987), "External Search Effort: An Investigation Across Several Product
Categories," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (June), 83-95.
Biswas, Abhijit and Daniel L. Sherrell (1993), "The Influence of Product Knowledge and Brand Name on
Internal Price Standards and Confidence," Psychology & Marketing, 10 (January/February), 31-46.
Blackston, Max (1992), "Observations: Building Brand Equity by Managing the Brand´s Relationships,"
Journal of Advertising Research, 32 (May/June), 79-83
Bone, Paula Fitzgerald and Pam Scholder Ellen (1992), "The Generation and Consequences of
Communication-evoked Imagery," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), 93-104.
Bonini, Nicoloa and Rino Rumiati (1996), "Mental Accounting and Acceptance of a Price Discount," Acta
Psychologica, 93 (September), 149-160.
Brosch, Alexander (1995), "Einflußfaktoren auf den Markenwert aus Sicht der Konsumenten," Diplomarbeit,
Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Austria.
Celsi, Richard L. and Jerry C. Olson (1988), "The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension
Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 210-24.
Chaiken, Shelly (1980), "Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus
Message Cues in Persuasion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (November), 752-66.
---- and Duraraj Maheswaran (1994), "Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of Source
Credibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (March), 460-73.
36
----, Akiva Liberman, and Alice H. Eagly (1989), "Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing within and
beyond the Persuasion Context," in Unintended Thought, James S. Uleman and John A. Bargh, eds.
New York: The Guilford Press.
Chattopadhyay, Amitava and Prakash Nedungadi (1992), "Does Attitude toward the Ad Endure? The
Moderating Effects of Attention and Delay," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), 26-33.
Costley, Carolyn L. and Merrie Brucks (1992), "Selective Recall and Information Use in Consumer
Preferences," Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (March), 464-74.
Coupey, Eloise (1994), "Restructuring: Constructive Processing of Information Display in Consumer Choice,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 83-99.
Crimmins, James C. (1992), "Better Measurement and Management of Brand Value," Journal of Advertising
Research (July/August), 11-19.
Dabholkar, Pratibha A. (1994), "Incorporating Choice into an Attitudinal Framework: Analyzing Models of
Mental Comparison Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 100-19.
Dadds, Mark R., Dana H. Bovbjerg, William H. Redd, and Tim R. H. Cutmore (1997), "Imagery in Human
Classical Conditioning," Psychological Bulletin, 122 (July), 89-103.
Darley, William K. and Robert E. Smith (1993), "Advertising Claim Objectivity: Antecedents and Effects,"
Journal of Marketing, 57 (October), 100-13.
Derbaix, Christian M. (1995), "The Impact of Affective Reactions on Attitudes Toward the Advertisement and
the Brand: A Step Toward Ecological Validity," Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (November),
470-79.
Dick, Alan, Dipankar Chakravarti, and Gabriel Biehal (1990), "Memory-Based Inferences During Consumer
Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (June), 82-93.
Dickson, Peter R. and Alan G. Sawyer (1990), "The Price Knowledge and Search of Supermarket Shoppers,"
Journal of Marketing, 54 (July), 42-67.
Diller, Hermann (1985), Preispolitik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Dolich, Ira J. (1969), "Congruence Relationships Between Self Images and Product Brands," Journal of
Marketing Research, 6 (February), 80-84.
37
Dowling, Grahame R. and Richard Staelin (1994), "A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-handling
Activity," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 119-34.
Duncan, Calvin P. and Richard W. Olshavsky (1982), "External Search: The Role of Consumer Beliefs,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (February), 32-43.
Eagly, Alice H. and Shelly Chaiken (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Edell, Julie A. and Richard Staelin (1983), "The Information Processing of Pictures in Print Advertisements,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (June), 45-61.
Farquhar, Peter H. (1989), "Managing Brand Equity," Marketing Research (September), 24-33.
---- and Yuji Ijiri (1993), "A Dialogue on Momentum Accounting for Brand Management," International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 10 (March), 77-92.
Fazio, Russell H. (1987), "Self-Perception Theory: A Current Perspective," in Social Influence: The Ontario
Symposium, 5, Mark P. Zanna, James M. Olson and C. Peter Herman, eds. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fazio, Russell H. (1990), "Multiple Processes By Which Attitudes Guide Behavior: The MODE-Model as an
Integrative Framework," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Mark P. Zanna, ed. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Fazio, Russell H., Jeaw-Mei Chen, Elizabeth C. McDonel, and Steven J. Sherman (1982), "Attitude
Accessibility, Attitude-Behavior Consistency, and the Strength of the Object-Evaluation Association,"
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18 (July), 339-57.
Feldman, Jack M. and John G. Lynch, Jr. (1988), "Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement
on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (August), 421-35.
Ford, Gary T. and Ruth Ann Smith (1987), "Inferential Beliefs in Consumer Evaluation: An Assessment of
Alternative Processing Strategies," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 363-71.
----, Darlene B. Smith, and John L. Swasy (1990), "Consumer Skepticism of Advertising Claims: Testing
Hypotheses from Economics of Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (March), 433-41.
Garbarino, Ellen C. and Julie A. Edell (1997), "Cognitive Effort, Affect, and Choice," Journal of Consumer
Research, 24 (September), 147-58.
38
Ghazizadeh, Ulrich R. (1987), Werbewirkung durch emotionale Konditionierung: Theorie Anwendung und
Meßmethode, Europäische Hochschulschriften, Bd. 851. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Gijsbrechts, Els (1993), "Prices and pricing research in consumer marketing: Some recent developments,"
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10 (June) 115-51.
Gollwitzer, Peter M. and Robert A. Wicklund (1985), "Self-Symbolizing and the Neglect of Others´
Perspectives," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (March), 702-15.
Gorn, Gerald J.(1982), "The Effects of Music in Advertising on Choice Behavior: A Classical Conditioning
Approach," Journal of Marketing, 46, 1, 94-101.
Graeff, Timothy R. (1996), "Image Congruence Effects on Product Evaluations: The Role of Self-Monitoring
and Public/Private Consumption," Psychology & Marketing, 13 (August), 481-99.
Grimm, Manuela (1995a), "Sind Sie ein überzeugter Käufer von Markenartikeln," Markenartikel 7/95, 351.
---- (1995b), "Was tun die Verbraucher, wenn ihre Marke einmal nicht so einfach verfügbar ist?," Markenartikel
10/95, 491.
Hauser, John R. and Birger Wernerfelt (1990), "An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets," Journal of
Consumer Research, 16 (March), 393-408.
Hay, Christian (1987), Die Verarbeitung von Preisinformationen durch Konsumenten. Heidelberg: Physica-
Verlag.
Heath, Chip and Jack B. Soll (1996), "Mental Budgeting and Consumer Decision," Journal of Consumer
Research, 23 (June), 40-52.
Heath, Timothy (1990), "The Logic of Mere Exposure: A Reinterpretation of Anand, Holbrook, and Stephens
(1988)," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 237-41.
Herp, Thomas (1982), Der Marktwert von Marken des Gebrauchgütersektors, Europäische Hochschulschriften,
Bd. 392. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Higgins, E. Tory (1987), "Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect," Psychological Review, 94, 3,
319-40.
39
---- (1989), "Knowledge Accessibility and Activation: Subjectivity and Suffering from Unconscious Sources,"
in Unintended Thought, James S. Uleman and John A. Bargh, eds. New York: The Guilford Press.
Hoyer, Wayne D. and Steven P. Brown (1990), "Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common, Repeat-
Purchase Product," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 141-48.
Jaccard, James and Gregory Wood (1988), "The Effects of Incomplete Information on the Formation of
Attitudes Toward Behavioral Alternatives," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (April),
580-591.
Jacoby, Jacob, James J. Jaccard, Imran Currim, Alfred Kuss, Asim Ansari, and Tracy Troutman (1994),
"Tracing the Impact of Item-by-Item Information Accessing on Uncertainty Reduction," Journal of
Consumer Research, 21 (September), 291-303.
Janiszewski, Chris (1988), "Preconscious Processing Effects: The Independence of Attitude Formation and
Conscious Thought," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 199-209.
---- (1990), "The Influence of Print Advertisement Organization on Affect Toward a Brand Name," Journal of
Consumer Research, 17 (June), 53-65.
---- (1993), "Preattentive Mere Exposure Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (December), 377-92.
Johar, Gita Venkataramani, Kamel Jedidi, and Jacob Jacoby (1997), "A Varying-Parameter Averaging Model of
On-Line Brand Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September), 223-47.
Johnson, Richard D. and Irwin P. Levin (1985), "More than Meets the Eye: The Effect of Missing Information
on Purchase Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (September), 169-77.
Johnson, Blair T. and Alice H. Eagly (1989), "Effects of Involvement on Persuasion," Psychological Bulletin,
106, 2, 290-314.
---- and ---- (1990), "Involvement and Persuasion: Types, Traditions, and the Evidence," Psychological Bulletin,
107, 3, 375-84.
Kaas, Klaus Peter (1977), Empirische Preisabsatzfunktionen bei Konsumgütern. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
---- (1990), "Langfristige Werbewirkung und Brand Equity," Werbeforschung und Praxis 3 / 90, 48-52.
Kamakura, Wagner A. and Gary Russel (1993), "Measuring Brand Value with Scanner Data," International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 10 (March), 9-22.
40
Kapferer, Jean-Noël (1996), Les Marques: Capital de L´Entreprise, troisième tirage. Les Éditions
d´Organisation: Paris.
Kaplitza, Gabriele (1997), "Die Marke ist tot - es lebe die Marke," planung und analyse, 1/97, 54-55.
Kardes, Frank R., Gurumurtha Kalyanaram, Murali Chandrashekaran, and Ronald J. Dornoff (1993), "Brand
Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition, Consumer Choice and the Pioneering Advantage," Journal
of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 62-75.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1987), "Memory Factors in Advertising: The Effect of Advertising Retrieval Cues on Brand
Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 316-33.
---- (1991), "Memory and Evaluation Effects in Competitive Advertising Environments," Journal of Consumer
Research, 17 (March), 463-76.
---- (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity," Journal of Marketing,
57 (January), 1-22.
---- (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice-Hall.
---- and David A. Aaker (1992), "The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand Extensions," Journal of
Kirmani, Amna (1990), "The Effect of Perceived Advertising Costs on Brand Perceptions," Journal of
---- and Valerie Zeithaml (1993), "Advertising, Perceived Quality, and Brand Image," in Brand Equity and
Advertising, David A. Aaker and Alexander Biel, eds. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kroeber-Riel, Werner (1992), Konsumentenverhalten, 5. Auflage. München: Vahlen.
---- (1993), Bildkommunikation: Imagerystrategien für die Werbung. München: Vahlen.
Landon, E. Laird Jr. (1974), "Self Concept, Ideal Self Concept, and Consumer Purchase Intentions," Journal of
Laurent, Gilles and Jean-Noel Kapferer (1985), "Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles," Journal of
41
Lichtenstein, Donald R. and Scot Burton (1989), "The Relationship Between Perceived and Objective Price-
Quality," Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (November), 429-43.
Lynch, John G., Howard Marmorstein, and Michael F. Weigold (1988), "Choices from Sets Including
Remembered Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluation," in Journal of
MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard A. Spreng (1992), "How Does Motivation Moderate the Impact of Central and
Peripheral Processing on Brand Attitudes and Intentions?," Journal of Consumer Research, 18
(March), 519-29.
Maheswaran, Durairaj, Diane M. Mackie, and Shelly Chaiken (1992), "Brand Name as a Heuristic Cue: The
Effects of Task Importance and Expectancy Confirmation on Consumer Judgments," Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 1 (4), 317-36.
Malhotra, Naresh K. (1988), "Self Concept and Product Choice: An Integrated Perspective," Journal of
Economic Psychology, 9 (March), 1-28.
Markus, Hazel and Elissa Wurf (1987), "The Dynamic Self-Concept: A Social Psychological Perspective,"
Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
Mayerhofer, Wolfgang (1995), Imagetransfer - Die Nutzung von Erlebniswelten für die Positionierung von
Ländern, Produktgruppen und Marken. Wien: Service Fachverlag.
Mazanec, Josef and Günter Schweiger (1981), "Improved Market Efficiency Through Multi-Product Names?,"
European Research, 9 (January), 32-44.
Miniard, Paul, W., Sunil Bhatla, Kenneth R. Lord, Peter R. Dickson, and H. Rao Unnava (1991), "Picture-based
Persuasion Processes and the Role of Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 93-
107.
Mitra, Anusree (1995), "Price Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations: The Moderating Role of Motivation and
Attribute Information," Journal of Business Research, 33 (July), 187-95.
Nelson, Philip (1974), "Advertising as Information," Journal of Political Economy, 83 (July/August), 729-54.
Olshavsky, Richard W., Andrew B. Aylesworth, and DeAnna S. Kempf (1995), "The Price-Choice Relationship:
A Contingent Processing Approach," Journal of Business Research, 33 (July), 207-18.
Paivio, Allan (1979), Imagery and Verbal Processing. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42
Panne, Friedrich (1977), Das Risiko im Kaufentscheidungsprozeß des Konsumenten. Frankfurt/Main: Verlag
Harri Deutsch.
Park, Chan Su and V. Srinivasan (1994), "A Survey Based Method for Measuring and Understanding Brand
Equity and Its Extendibility," Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May), 217-88.
Park, C. Whan, Bernard J. Jaworski, and Deborah J. MacInnis (1986), "Strategic Brand Concept Management,"
Journal of Marketing, 50 (October), 135-45.
Park, Jong-Won and Manoj Hastak (1994), "Memory-based Product Judgments: Effects of Involvement at
Encoding and Retrieval," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 534-47.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986a), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral
Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986b), "The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion," in
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, Berkowitz L., ed. New York: Academic Press.
Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann (1983), "Central and Peripheral Routes to
Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, 10
(September), 135-46.
Posavac, Steven S., David Sanbonmatsu, and Russell H. Fazio (1997), "Considering the Best Choice: Effects of
Salience and Accessibility of Alternatives on Attitude-Decision Consistency," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 72 (February), 253-261.
Punj, Girish N. and Richard Staelin (1983), "A Model of Consumer Information Search Behavior for New
Automobiles," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (March), 366-80.
Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1988), "The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in
Product Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 253-64.
---- and ---- (1989), "The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Image on Buyers´ Perceptions of Product
Quality: An Integrative Review," Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (August), 351-57.
---- and Mark E. Bergen (1992), "Price Premium Variations as a Consequence of Buyers´Lack of Information,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (December), 412-23.
Riedel, Frank (1996), Die Markenwertmessung als Grundlage strategischer Markenführung. Heidelberg:
Physica-Verlag.
43
Roeb, Thomas (1994), Markenwert: Begriff, Berechnung, Bestimmungsfaktoren. Aachen: Verlag Mainz.
Ross, Ivan (1971), "Self-Concept and Brand Preference," Journal of Business, 44 (January), 38-50.
Ruge, Hans-Dieter (1988), Die Messung bildhafter Konsumerlebnisse, Band 16 der Schriftenreihe Konsum und
Verhalten. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
Sander, Matthias (1994), Die Bestimmung und Steuerung des Wertes von Marken. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
---- (1995), "Markenbewertung auf der Basis der hedonischen Theorie," Markenartikel 2/95, 76-80.
Sanbonmatsu, David M. and Russell H. Fazio (1990), "The Role of Attitudes in Memory-Based Decision
Making," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (October), 614-22.
Sentis, Keith and Hazel Markus (1986), "Brand Personality and Self," in Advertising and Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 3, Jerry Olson and Keith Sentis, eds. New York: Praeger.
Schiefele, Ulrich (1990), Einstellung, Selbstkonsistenz und Verhalten. Göttingen: Verlag für Psychologie.
Schmidt, Jeffrey B. and Richard A. Spreng (1996), "A Proposed Model of External Consumer Information
Search," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24 (Summer), 246-56.
Schweiger, Günter and Gereon Friederes (1995), "Vom Markenmythos zum Markenwert," Werbeforschung und
Praxis 1/95, 26-31.
---- and Gertraud Schrattenecker (1995), Werbung, 4. Auflage. Stuttgart: Fischer.
Shugan, Steven M. (1980), "The Cost of Thinking," Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (September), 99-111.
Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982), "Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review," Journal of Consumer
Research, 9 (December), 287-300.
---- (1985), "Using Self-Congruency and Ideal Congruity to Predict Purchase Motivation," Journal of Business
Research, 13, 195-206.
---- and Jeffrey E. Danes (1981), "Self-Image/Product-Image Congruence Models: Testing Selected Models," in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, Andrew Mitchell, ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research.
44
---- and A. Coskun Samli (1985), "A Path Analytical Model of Store Loyalty Involving Self-Concept, Store
Image, Geographic Loyalty, and Socioeconomic Status," Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 13 (Summer), 265-91.
----, Johar, J. S., Samli, A. Coskun, and Claiborne, C. B. (1991). "Self-congruity Versus Functional Congruity:
Predictors of Consumer Behavior," Journal of the Academy of Markting Science, 19 (Fall), 363-75.
----, Dhruv Grewal, Tamara F. Mangleburg, Jae-ok Park, Kye-Sung Chon, C. B. Claiborne, J. S. Johar, and
Harold Berkman (1997), "Assessing the Predictive Validity of Two Methods of Measuring Self-
Image Congruence," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (Summer), 229-41.
Smith, Daniel C. and C. Whan Park (1992), "The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising
Efficiency," Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 296-313.
Snyder, Mark (1974), "Self-Monitoring of Expressive Behavior," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
30, 4 (October), 526-37.
Sorrentino, Richard M. and Judith-Ann C. Short (1986), "Uncertainty Orientation, Motivation, and Cognition,"
in Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Richard M. Sorrentino
and E. Tory Higgins, eds. Chichester: Wiley.
Spiegel, Bert (1958), Werbepsychologische Untersuchungsmethoden: Experimentelle Forschungs- und

Prüfverfahren. Berlin: Duncker und Humbolt.
Srinivasan, Narasimhan and Brian T. Ratchford (1991), "An Empirical Test of a Model of External Search for
Automobiles," Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (September), 233-42.
Srivastava, Rajendra K. and Allan D. Shocker (1991), Brand Equity: A Perspective on Its Meaning and
Measurement. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Marketing Science Institute.
Staudinger, Ursula M. and Werner Grave (1997), "Das Selbst im Lebenslauf: Brückenschläge und
Perspektivenwechsel zwischen entwicklungs- und sozialpsychologischen Zugängen," Zeitschrift für
Sozialpsychologie, 28, 1/2, 3-18.
Swait, Joffre, Erdem Tulin, Jordan Louviere, and Chris Dubelaar (1993), "The Equalization Price: A Measure of
Consumer-Perceived Brand Equity," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10 (March), 23-
45.
Tauchnitz, Jürgen (1990), Werbung mit Musik: Theoretische Grundlagen und experimentelle Studien zur
Wirkung von Hintergrundmusik in der Rundfunk- und Fernsehwerbung. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
45
Teas, R. Kenneth and Terry H. Grapentine (1996), "Demystifying Brand Equity: Framework guides research on
the role brands play in purchase decisions," Marketing Research, 8 (Summer), 25-29.
Tice, Dianne M. (1992), "Self-Concept Change and Self-Presentation: The Looking Glass Self Is Also a
Magnifying Glass," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (September), 435-51.
Tunnell, Gil (1984), "The Discrepancy Between Private and Public Selves: Public Self-Consciousness and its
Correlates," Journal of Personality Assessment, 48 (October), 549-55.
Urbany, Joel E., Peter R. Dickson, and Rosemary Kalapurakal (1996), "Price Research in the Retail Grocery
Market," Journal of Marketing, 60 (April), 91-104.
----, ----, and William L. Wilkie (1989), "Buyer Uncertainty and Information Search, Journal of Consumer
Research," 16 (September), 208-15.
Veblen, Thorstein (1973/1899), The Theory of The Leisure Class. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Vershofen, Wilhelm (1959), Die Marktentnahme als Kernstück der Wirtschaftsforschung,

Wiederveröffentlichung. Berlin/Köln.
Weber, Manfred (1986), Der Marktwert von Produkteigenschaften. Berlin: Duncker und Humbolt.
Wiswede, Günter (1973), Motivation und Verbraucherverhalten: Grundlagen der Motivforschung. München:
Ernst Reinhardt Verlag.
Wright, Alice A. and John G. Lynch, Jr. (1995), "Communication Effects of Advertising versus Direct
Experience When both Search and Experience Attributes Are Present," Journal of Consumer
Research, 21 (March), 708 - 18.
Zajonc, Robert B. (1980), "Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need no Inferences," American Psychologist, 35
(February), 151-75.
---- and Hazel Markus (1982), "Affective and Cognitive Factors in Preferences," Journal of Consumer Research,
9 (September), 123-31.
Zeithaml, Valerie (1988), "Consumer Perception of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and
Synthesis of Evidence," Journal of Marketing, 52 (July), 2-22.
46
View publication stats

Consumer brand equity model explores psychological processes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer brand equity model explores psychological processes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

BRAND EQUITY AND CONSUMER INFORMATION PROCESSING: A PROPOSED

Article · October 2011

Andreas Strebinger Günter Schweiger

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Branding View project

Werbung View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Andreas Strebinger is research assistant in the Department of Advertising and Marketing

Correspondence should be addressed to:

PROCESSING: A PROPOSED MODEL

• provide as comprehensive an overview as possible of the various influencing factors and

2 Conceptualization of brand and brand equity

2.1 Brand as a notion in the mind of the consumer

In the large gamut of definitions, two general perspectives can be discerned:

2.2 Three questions on the conceptualization of brand equity

In conceptualizing "brand equity", the following three questions need to be addressed:

1. Which sources of brand equity should be considered?

First, we need to differentiate between customer-based and company-based brand equity.

• on the capital markets,

The present paper focuses on

2. What units should be used to measure brand equity?

In our view, two arguments speak in favor of a monetary quantification of customer-based

3. Tangible or intangible brand equity?

3 The building of brand equity: A proposed model involving four paths

To explain the building of intangible monetary customer-based brand equity, we propose a

• the path via a change in the perception of product attributes.

Figure 2: Proposed model explaining intangible monetary customer-based brand equity

To understand the model it is important to note

Figure 3: The input variables of the model

What is also to some extent predetermined by the product is the conspicuousness of

There is a number of ways to define involvement by differentiating according to the sources

3.2 The informational path to brand equity

Figure 4: The informational path to brand equity

Apart from the

Figure 5: The affective path to brand equity

• They continue the process of emotional conditioning: As a result of intentional and

Relationships between affective variables and other areas

Figure 6: The social path to brand equity

• Conspicuousness of consumption is a must here since without it consumers may be able to

Figure 7: The path of perceptual changes

• Positioning a brand toward a subjective consumer experience ("experiential strategy", see

• A superiority in the communication of actual product advantages: If marketers succeed in

3.6 The output variable: Intangible monetary customer-based brand

Figure 8: The outvariable intangible monetary customer-based brand equity

4 Summary and discussion

• personal experiences with the brand,

An understanding as to which of these paths brand awareness will take is an indispensible

Aaker, David (1992a), Management des Markenwerts. Frankfurt/Main: Campus-Verlag.

Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, Sigrid (1996), "Marktorientierte Markenbewertung: Eine marktpreisorientierte

Bem, Daryl J. (1972), "Self-Perception Theory," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, L.

Psychologica, 93 (September), 149-160.

Diller, Hermann (1985), Preispolitik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Kroeber-Riel, Werner (1992), Konsumentenverhalten, 5. Auflage. München: Vahlen.

---- (1993), Bildkommunikation: Imagerystrategien für die Werbung. München: Vahlen.

---- and Gertraud Schrattenecker (1995), Werbung, 4. Auflage. Stuttgart: Fischer.

Spiegel, Bert (1958), Werbepsychologische Untersuchungsmethoden: Experimentelle Forschungs- und

Vershofen, Wilhelm (1959), Die Marktentnahme als Kernstück der Wirtschaftsforschung,

View publication stats

You might also like