Original Article

New brands diluting the personality

of existing brands
Received (in revised form): 7th February 2013

Minkyung Choy
is a PhD candidate at Seoul National University. Her research interests are consumer behavior, brand management and
marketing communications.

Jae II Kim
is a Professor of Marketing at Seoul National University. His research interests are consumer behavior, brand management
and qualitative research.

ABSTRACT Marketing literature emphasizes the threats copycats pose to market

Correspondence:
Minkyung Choy
College of Business Administra-
tion, Seoul National University,
Kwanak-ro,
Kwanak-gu, Seoul 151-916,
South Korea
E-mail: mk_choy@hanmail.net
leading brands and demonstrates that copycats that are more identical to the leader
brand are evaluated more positively. This research examines whether a new brand
with varying degrees of brand element similarity changes consumer perception of
the personality of an existing brand. The associative network theory is used to
explain how a new brand affects an existing brand. A total of 160 participants were
randomly assigned to the condition of a 2(similarity: high, low)×2(familiarity: high,
low) between-subject design and completed questionnaires. When consumers are
unfamiliar with a senior brand (that is, an existing pioneer brand in a specific product
category), a junior brand (that is, a new entrant brand to the same product category)
with similar brand elements reinforces personality of the senior brand, whereas a
low-similarity junior brand dilutes them. When consumers are familiar with the
senior brand, the emergence of a junior brand reinforces senior brand personality,
regardless of whether the junior brand is similar or dissimilar to the senior brand.
The dilution of senior brand personality attributed to the emergence of a dissimilar
or unique new brand lowers consumers’ attitude toward the senior brand and
consequently decrease their purchase intention. Our findings contradict what is often
brand management’s gut reaction. The results indicate that when a new brand in
the same product category enters the market with a differentiation strategy (that
is, unique brand name and package design), the new brand can dilute the personality
of an existing brand and affect consumer’s subsequent behaviors. Also, the results
suggest that marketing effort to increase consumers’ familiarity with brands is critical
to the first comer brands.
Journal of Brand Management (2013) 20, 590–607. doi:10.1057/bm.2013.2;
published online 5 April 2013
Keywords: brand similarity; brand personality; brand dilution; attitude; purchase intention

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 7, 590–607

www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/
 New brands diluting the personality of existing brands
INTRODUCTION
Consumers often find themselves buying
products by mistake. They believe that they
are buying the product that they usually
purchase, only to find later that what they
bought only resembles the original product.
Similarity in image, color, brand name and
product packaging makes the recognition
of an original product difficult.
Undifferentiated and copycat products
flood the market, and this practice is wide-
spread in many industries. When a product
of a leading company successfully penetrates
the market, other companies also see the pos-
sibility of entering the same market by offer-
ing a similar product. In reality, legal disputes
between the original trademark holder and
the other party imitating the original are
common because brand imitation damages
the brand image of the original.
The effect of copycat practice on copy-
cat brands has been extensively studied, but
research on the effect of this practice on
original brands is limited (Horen and
Pieters, 2012a). Although marketing litera-
ture on copycat practice has argued that
copycats gain benefits from imitating orig-
inal brands, a recent study (Horen and
Pieters, 2012a) showed the possibility of the
opposite. A question emerges on whether
a new brand imitating another weakens or
strengthens the values associated with the
imitated brand. Previous studies on brand
dilution focus on the weakening of asso-
ciations between a brand and its product
category (Pullig et al, 2006). However,
inasmuch as the emotional, rather than
functional, benefit of a brand is gaining con-
siderable attention, studies on brand dilution
take a more diverse point of view, such as
the symbolic aspect of a brand. This research
focuses on the weakening of the association
between a brand and its personality which
is a component of brand image.
This study examines brand dilution in
the relationship between a senior brand and
a junior brand. Senior brand is defined as
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
an existing pioneer brand in a specific prod-
uct category or the first comer in its prod-
uct category. It is the first user of trademarks
(for example, brand name, slogan and sym-
bol) and owns such trademarks (Simonson,
1994; Pullig et al, 2006). Junior brand is
defined as a new entrant brand to the same
product category or the second comer
within the senior brand’s product category,
and it possesses attributes similar or dis-
similar to those of the senior brand (Pullig
et al, 2006). Junior brand is a competing
party that makes consumers mistakenly
believe it is the senior brand because the
junior brand often uses similar marks already
being used by an existing party (Simonson,
1994; Pullig et al, 2006).
Specifically, the main objective of this
research is to investigate whether similarity
in terms of brand elements, such as brand
name and package design, between a senior
and a junior brand dilutes or reinforces sen-
ior brand personality. To explain how a
junior brand causes the dilution and rein-
forcement of senior brand personality, we
employed the associative network theory
that suggests that associative constructs of
brands compete against one another for
retrieval in a shared brand network. This
study also examines whether high familiar-
ity with the senior brand alleviates the dilu-
tion of senior brand personality. Finally,
this study identifies whether the dilution or
reinforcement of senior brand personality
results in lower or higher attitude toward
the senior brand compared with the junior
brand, consequently affecting the intention
of consumers to buy the senior brand.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND
HYPOTHESES
Brand dilution and associative
network theory
Brand dilution focuses on protecting the
value of the existing brand. Based on prior
research (Pattishall, 1984; Simonson, 1993),
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607 591
 Choy and Kim
Morrin and Jacoby (2000, p. 266) describe
brand dilution as ‘lessening the uniqueness
or distinctiveness of a famous brand in the
minds of consumers … and weakening a
famous brand’s propensity to bring to mind
relevant associations’. Studies on brand
dilution define dilution as the weakening
of associations between the brand and any
of its aspects (Morrin and Jacoby, 2000;
Jacoby, 2001). This perspective assumes
that a brand’s value or equity is something
that exists in the brand knowledge or mem-
ory network of consumers (Pullig et al,
2006).
Dilution has two different forms, namely
(1) tarnishment and (2) blurring (Simonson,
1993). Tarnishment corresponds to obvious
damage to a senior brand because of an
attached negative association resulting from
the emergence of a junior brand. Blurring
refers to a gradual lowering of the identity
and uniqueness of a senior brand because
of the emergence of a junior brand.
Although both forms seem to describe dilu-
tion as the negative effect of the introduc-
tion of a junior brand on brand associations,
this study defines dilution based on the sec-
ond form, not only because blurring is less
obvious and less frequently studied (Pullig
et al, 2006), but also because it expectedly
gives more subtle insight to the market,
such as understanding the gradually low-
ered values associated with a brand.
The logic of a junior brand affecting a
senior brand is relevant to the way consum-
ers store and retrieve brand information
from their knowledge structure (Morrin
and Jacoby, 2000; Pullig et al, 2006). The
associative network theory holds that infor-
mation stored in long-term memory con-
sists of networks containing nodes that are
connected by links. The associations include
relations such as category membership and
possession of characteristics (Morrin and
Jacoby, 2000). When additional associa-
tions are added to a pre-existing network,
the retrieval speed slows down, particularly
592 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
if the new information exhibits little seman-
tic relatedness to existing nodes in the net-
work (Morrin and Jacoby, 2000).
Consider an example from Morrin and
Jacoby (2000), wherein a consumer is
familiar with the Hyatt Hotel brand and
has formed a brand network for Hyatt in
his/her long-term memory. The consumer
is exposed to information about Hyatt Legal
Services either through advertising, word-
of-mouth communication or direct experi-
ence. The knowledge structures of
consumers will be altered such that an addi-
tional Hyatt node is created and attached
to the category node for legal services. Such
an alteration of consumer knowledge struc-
ture is expected to weaken the relative
strength of the original brand network.
Given that the Hyatt name no longer
belongs to the first user of the mark, the
first user no longer owns the Hyatt name
in his/her long-term memory. Thus, when
exposed to the Hyatt name, consumers may
instead activate the legal services network
rather than the hotel network for the Hyatt
mark. A response competition may also
occur, thus impeding the retrieval of the
Hyatt hotel network.
The theory of associative network sug-
gests that people store brand information
in their long-term memory as a pattern of
linkages between concept nodes, similar to
associations between the brand and its
attributes (Anderson, 1983). Even when
two brands are unrelated to each other in
the aspect of ownership or producer, they
create links to each other by sharing simi-
lar brand elements, such as brand names,
logos and slogans (Pullig et al, 2006). Even
if consumers have separate cognitive net-
works for each of the senior and junior
brands, some shared attributes connect the
two networks (Pullig et al, 2006).
Given that both senior and junior brands
exist in a shared brand network, focusing
on the senior brand activates associations
connected with the junior brand (Anderson
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607
 New brands diluting the personality of existing brands
et al, 2000), and vice versa. All associative
constructs compete against one another for
activation, and associations of a junior
brand, which are new in the brand knowl-
edge structure found in the memory of
consumers, could thus affect the degree of
activation of senior brand associations
(Burke and Srull, 1988). In other words, in
a shared brand network, adding a similar
new construct results in activation among
closely related existing constructs, thus
increasing the degree of activation of senior
brand associations (Humphreys et al, 2000).
Adding a dissimilar construct, on the other
hand, decreases the degree of activation of
senior brand associations.
Brand similarity and brand dilution
Copycats imitate the characteristics of orig-
inal brands, such as brand name, logos,
symbols and packages, and free ride on the
brand equity of the original product. The
characteristics of a brand are called brand
elements, which identify and differentiate
one brand from another. Brand elements
include brand names, URLs, logos, char-
acters, spokespeople, slogans and jingles
(Keller, 2003). A good choice of brand ele-
ments promotes the formation of strong,
favorable and unique brand associations
(Keller, 2003). Hence, copycats imitate the
brand elements of a leader brand (that is, a
senior brand with high awareness, familiar-
ity or reputation) to take advantage of the
authorized positive associations and mar-
keting efforts of the leader brand (Horen
and Pieters, 2012a).
Trademark is the combination of unique
brand elements that, when taken together,
create a product impression that consumers
will consistently associate with that brand
(Rutherford et al, 2000). If a new brand is
designed and dressed as a senior brand in
terms of shape, color, design, labeling,
packaging or texture, that will affect con-
sumers’ response in several ways (Rutherford
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
et al, 2000). Typical users are most likely
to rely on heuristics such as color schemes,
lettering or product placement to aid their
purchase decision (Simonson, 1994). Thus,
the similarity of the brand name, design or
any of the various attributes can be consid-
ered to contribute to consumer confusion.
Keller (2003) suggests six criteria in
choosing brand elements: memorability,
meaningfulness, likeability, transferability,
adaptability and protectability. When a sen-
ior brand chooses brand elements, a crite-
rion to be considered carefully against
copycat imitation is ‘protectability’, which
is the extent to which a brand element is
ensured both legally and competitively
from trademark infringement. Logos, sym-
bols, slogans and jingles are highly pro-
tected from infringement, whereas brand
names and packaging are protected only
within certain limits because they can be
easily reproduced (Keller, 2003). In their
studies, Horen and Pieters (2012a) posit
that leader brands and copycat brands differ
in brand name and package design. They
reasoned that cases of trademark infringe-
ment often deal with these brand elements,
which are important features of the trade
appearance of brands. Thus, brand similar-
ity in this study is operationalized as the
similarity in brand name and package design
between two brands.
Literature on trademark infringement
has emphasized the potential harm that
copycats pose to senior brands (Morrin and
Jacoby, 2000). This potential harm is based
on the idea that the more the copycat brand
resembles the original leader brand, the
more likely that it will create brand confu-
sion and the more likely it is for consumers
to evaluate the copycat brand positively
(Loken et al, 1986; Warlop and Alba, 2004).
Thus, research on the practice of imitating
products has focused on demonstrating
potential brand confusion when copycat
products closely resemble the original
(Simonson, 1994).
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607 593
 Choy and Kim
However, a recent research on copycat-
ting (Horen and Pieters, 2012a) suggests a
possibility that copycats could be less dan-
gerous to leader brands than commonly
believed. Horen and Pieters (2012a) found
that the appraisal of copycats with a higher
degree of similarity increases only when
consumers evaluate them in the absence of
an explicit comparison with leader brands.
When direct comparison with a leader
brand is conducted, copycats closely similar
to the leader brand receive less positive
reviews compared with copycats that are
moderately similar to the leader brand.
Although they demonstrated that copycats
can gain or lose from their resemblance of
the leader brand, they remain silent on how
copycat similarity affects the reputation of
the leader brand. Pullig et al (2006) focused
on the change in senior brands resulting
from the emergence of junior brands. They
demonstrated that the association with a
senior brand and its distinctive aspects is
reinforced when category similarity with
the junior brand is high and diluted when
category similarity is low. Their results sug-
gest that dilution is least likely to occur in
copycat strategies when a copycat emerges
in a similar category as the senior brand.
A recent study argues that copycats most
often imitate the perceptual feature of a
leader brand, but they can also imitate
underlying meanings or themes of the
leader brand (Horen and Pieters, 2012b).
The former is called feature imitation and
the latter is called theme imitation.
According to Horen and Pieters (2012b),
feature imitation occurs through imitation
of the letters of the leader brand’s name or
through imitation of the distinctive percep-
tual features of the leader brand’s package
design. By replacing one or more letters of
the name or by rearranging them (for
example, ‘Dogiva’ dog biscuits from Godiva
chocolate or ‘Wumart’ from Wal-Mart), or
by subtly or blatantly copying product
appearance (for example, the red and white
594 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
oval logo of Bertolli olive oil or the lilac
wrapper of Milka chocolate), copycats
exhibit a type of literal similarity (Horen
and Pieters, 2012b). Theme imitation
involves copying the semantic meaning or
theme of a leader brand, such as the ‘wild-
cat’ theme of the Puma sports brand or the
‘traditional, family-produced olive oil’
theme of the Bertolli brand, but presenting
it in a visually different way (Horen and
Pieters, 2012b).
Using a large variety of product catego-
ries (for example, yogurt, bottled water,
athletic shoes, spreadable butter and milk
chocolate), Horen and Pieters (2012b)
showed that participants perceive feature
copycats as less acceptable and more unfair
than theme copycats, as predicted. The
authors argued that displaying literal simi-
larity through imitation of the unique fea-
tures of a leader brand is more likely to
activate a clear representation of this brand
(that is, ‘This looks exactly like A’) because
these features are directly linked to the
leader brand. Therefore, feature imitations
are likely to be considered inappropriate
and unacceptable. In addition, feature imi-
tations are perceived to cause aversion in
consumers, which will cause them to have
a negative view of the copycat (Horen and
Pieters, 2012b).
Theme imitations, on the other hand,
are more implicit and less evident than fea-
ture imitations because underlying mean-
ings or themes are indirectly linked to the
leader brand (Horen and Pieters, 2012b).
Furthermore, because themes are not exclu-
sively associated with the imitated leader
brand but also with other brands, theme
imitations are considered more acceptable
and less deceptive than the imitation of dis-
tinctive perceptual features (Horen and
Pieters, 2012b). The studies imply that imi-
tating the underlying meaning or theme
conveyed by the leader brand is a more
effective copycatting strategy than imitating
its unique perceptual features.
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607
 New brands diluting the personality of existing brands
Dilution of brand personality
Brand dilution refers to the weakening of
associations between the brand and any of
its aspects. The number and nature of a
given brand’s associations are thought to be
an indicator of its equity (Aaker, 1991;
Keller, 1993). Thus, copycats unfairly take
advantage of associations related to leader
brands and consequently get a free ride on
the authorized equity of leaders. Among
various brand-related associations, one
important symbolic brand association is
brand personality. Brands provide symbolic
meanings or benefits to consumers because
consumers incorporate human personality
traits in a brand. Aaker (1997, p. 347) refers
to brand personality as ‘the set of human
characteristics associated with a brand’. She
exploited personality traits used in psychol-
ogy and marketing literature, conducted
qualitative research intended for American
consumers, and developed five brand per-
sonality dimensions, namely, sincerity,
excitement, ruggedness, competence and
sophistication. Numerous researchers con-
sider brand personality as an important fac-
tor from the perspective of brand-related
association (for example, Aaker, 1991;
Keller, 1993; Kotler, 2002). Thus, distinctly
positive brand personality facilitates distinc-
tive brand association.
A favorable brand personality is thought
to encourage consumers in active process-
ing (Biel, 1992), create grounds for product
differentiation (Aaker, 1996b), and increase
consumer preference and usage (Sirgy,
1982). In other words, brand personality
makes a given brand stand out in the crowd
(Freling and Forbes, 2005) and plays an
important role in differentiation. Thus,
when a new brand enters a market, brand
personality becomes one of the important
brand-related associations distinguishing
the new brand from existing brands.
Brand personality dilution is operational-
ized in this study as the lessening of asso-
ciations between a brand and its personality.
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
According to Aaker (1996a), both product-
related factors, such as product category,
price and physical attributes, as well as non-
product-related factors, such as user imagery,
symbols, marketing communication and
word of mouth, form brand personality.
In this research, packaging and brand name
correspond to the product- and non-prod-
uct-related factors, respectively.
According to associative network theory,
the logic of brand dilution, adding a simi-
lar new construct results in activation
among closely related existing constructs,
thus increasing the degree of activation of
senior brand associations, while adding a
dissimilar construct decreases the degree of
activation of senior brand associations.
Thus, we hypothesize that the emergence
of a similar junior brand would promote
the activation of the associations of a senior
brand, thus reinforcing the senior brand
personality. The emergence of a dissimilar
junior brand, in contrast, interrupts the
activation of associations of a senior brand,
resulting in the dilution of the senior brand
personality.
Hypothesis 1a: A high-similarity junior
brand reinforces senior brand person-
ality.
Hypothesis 1b: A low-similarity junior
brand dilutes senior brand personality.
The role of brand familiarity in brand
personality dilution
People who are familiar with a certain
object learn, understand and appraise new
information about the object better than
those who are unfamiliar with the object
(Celsi and Olson, 1988). Brand familiarity
reflects the degree of a consumer’s direct
and indirect experience with a brand (Alba
and Hutchinson, 1987; Kent and Allen,
1994; Campbell and Keller, 2003). Murphy
and Wright (1984) argue that in perceiving
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607 595
 Choy and Kim
similarity between two brands, a person
unfamiliar with one or both brands might
perceive them as mere replications of the
same product category. In contrast, a per-
son familiar with one or both brands might
differentiate one brand from the other bet-
ter. Thus, in the case of less familiar brands,
consumers may have little experience with
these brands and possess an unstable knowl-
edge structure about such brands, which
can be easily affected by external factors
(Crocker et al, 1984). In contrast, the
knowledge structure of highly familiar
brands remains stable in consumer memory
and does not change easily.
Brand familiarity captures the brand
knowledge structures of consumers regard-
ing the brand associations that exist in their
memory (Campbell and Keller, 2003).
Consumers have various types of associa-
tions for familiar brands through first-hand
experience, experiences of family or friends,
or company marketing communications
such as advertising (Campbell and Keller,
2003). On the contrary, consumers lack
many associations for unfamiliar brands
because of the absence of these kinds of
experiences. Based on the associative net-
work theory, the stronger the linkage
between a brand and its associations, the
more likely it is that these associative con-
structs are activated (Pullig et al, 2006).
The ‘co-occur’ method, a learning
method of consumers’ brand association
network formation, suggests that as the fre-
quency of occurrence of brand-related
association increases through direct or indi-
rect experience, the linkage between the
brand and its related associations becomes
stronger (Anderson, 1983). Greater famili-
arity with brand-related associations rein-
forces the strength of the linkage, resulting
in an increased probability of activation of
the associations. Morrin et al (2006) have
shown that if a consumer is familiar (versus
unfamiliar) with the association between a
brand and its product category, he or she
596 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
recalls the brand’s category better after
being exposed to diluting stimuli.
In sum, as a consumer directly or indi-
rectly interacts with a certain object more
frequently, he or she becomes more famil-
iar with the object. Consumer’s knowledge
structure of a familiar object is stable because
associative nodes related to the object are
strongly connected or linked to one another
and are not easily affected by external fac-
tors. High familiarity with a brand suggests
that the strength of links among the brand-
related associations is high in the consum-
ers’ brand knowledge structure. Thus,
highly familiar senior brands would not be
affected by such factors as the emergence
of copycats or distinctive new brands. We
predict that in the case of high-familiarity
senior brand, brand personality dilution
attributed to a low-similarity junior brand
would be alleviated.
Hypothesis 2a: When the familiarity
of consumers with a senior brand is
low, a high-similarity junior brand
reinforces senior brand personality,
whereas a low-similarity junior brand
dilutes senior brand personality.
Hypothesis 2b: When the familiarity of
consumers with a senior brand is high,
the effect of a low-similarity junior
brand on the dilution of senior brand
personality diminishes.
The effect of brand personality dilution on
attitude and purchase intention
When two brands (or a senior brand and
junior brand) share a common attribute or
a common brand image, consumers believe
that they can enjoy similar experiential
benefits from either of the two (Lau and
Phau, 2007). Eventually, this perception
influences the choice probability or pur-
chase intention of consumers. Personality
dilution of a low-familiarity senior brand
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607
 New brands diluting the personality of existing brands
would negatively affect a consumer’s buy-
ing intention because the actual brand
choice of a consumer often depends on his
or her perceived uniqueness of brand asso-
ciations (Keller, 2003). Pullig et al (2006)
argue that a valid measure of dilution cap-
tures changes in brand knowledge and
shows that dilution significantly reduces
both the probability of a senior brand being
included in consumer’s consideration set
and the consumers’ buying intention for
the senior brand. Thus, we expect that the
dilution or reinforcement of the senior
brand personality will affect the buying
intention of consumers.
The strength of an association deter-
mines consumer attitude and affects the
degree to which attitude affects later behav-
ior (Fazio, 1986). Strong, favorable and
unique brand associations in consumer
memory generate high perceived quality, a
positive attitude and generally positive
affect (Esch et al, 2006). A weak association
does not activate preference for an encoun-
tered object (Fazio, 1986). The intention
to buy a specific brand is positively affected
by the attitude of a consumer toward the
same brand (Laroche et al, 1996), and thus
the attitude of consumers toward a brand
influences their purchase intention. We
predict that consumer attitude will mediate
the relationship between dilution or rein-
forcement of a senior brand personality and
consumer purchase intention.
In sum, in the case of brand dilution, a
decline in the activation of associations with
senior brand resulting from the emergence
of a unique junior brand increases consum-
ers’ attitude toward the junior brand but
lowers their attitude toward the senior
brand. This weakened attitude toward the
senior brand compared with the junior
brand reduced consumer intention to buy
the senior brand. In contrast, in the case of
brand reinforcement, the emergence of a
similar junior brand does not reduce the
activation of associations with a senior
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
brand. The consumer attitude toward the
senior brand will thus become more favo-
rable than that toward the junior brand,
increasing purchase intention for the senior
brand. Hence, the following mediation
effect hypothesis is given:
Hypothesis 3: Attitude toward a senior
brand compared with a junior brand
mediates the relationship between
senior brand personality and the
change in purchase intention for the
senior brand.
METHOD
Overview
The empirical study examines the idea that
the dilution and reinforcement of the sen-
ior brand personality depend on the brand
similarity between senior and junior brands,
as well as the degree of familiarity of senior
brands. Furthermore, the empirical study
tests whether the dilution or reinforcement
of the senior brand personality affects the
buying intention of consumers for the sen-
ior brand.
We predicted that the emergence of a
high-similarity junior brand will activate
the associations for a senior brand, thus
reinforcing the senior brand personality.
In contrast, the emergence of a low-simi-
larity junior brand interrupts the activation
of associations for a senior brand, thus
resulting in the dilution of the senior brand
personality. However, highly familiar sen-
ior brands will not be affected by the emer-
gence of similar or distinctive junior brands.
The dilution of the senior brand personal-
ity is attributed to the emergence of a
dissimilar or unique junior brand, which
lowers consumers’ attitude toward the
senior brand compared with the junior
brand. Consequently, the buying intention
of consumers for the senior brand will
decrease.
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607 597
 Choy and Kim
High- and low-familiarity senior brands
were selected through the pretest. The
main study tests the hypothesis by manipu-
lating the degree of verbal (that is, brand
name) and visual (that is, package design)
similarity of the junior brand. Participants
were provided a questionnaire containing
the pictorial stimulus of the brands and
questions that concern our research inter-
ests. Participants were first shown a picture
of the high- or low-familiarity senior brand
before answering the brand personality
items. Thereafter, the participants were
exposed to the high- or low-similarity jun-
ior brand and were asked to answer a list
of questions. Finally, participants were
again asked to answer questions regarding
the senior brand. The following sections
provide the details of the pretest and main
experiment.
Pretest
Brand personality is formed through the
direct or indirect experience of consumers
with the brand (Plummer, 2000). In the
present research, real brands were used as
senior brands, whereas fictitious brands
were used as junior brands to rule out
potential confounding effects on participant
attitude toward existing junior brands (Lau
and Phau, 2007). High- and low-familiarity
senior brands were selected through the
pretest.
A list of beverage brands was presented
to 20 participants (11 females, Mage = 23.7)
drawn from the same subject pool as the
main study. They evaluated familiarity with
the six listed brands on five dimensions
using a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 =
extremely): heard of, know, understand,
familiar with and have experience with this
brand. Consequently, Black Bean Thera-Tea
(a bottled tea) was selected as the high-
familiarity senior brand (Mhigh = 5.26), and
Vono (an instant cup soup) was selected as
the low-familiarity senior brand (Mlow = 3.52;
t = 4.242, P = 0.000).
598 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
Design, sample and stimulus
A total of 167 undergraduate and graduate
students at a major university in Korea par-
ticipated in the study in exchange for com-
pensation. The students were randomly
assigned to the condition of a 2(similarity:
high versus low)×2(familiarity: high versus
low) between-subjects design. After removing
questionnaires with incomplete responses,
data from 160 participants (97 males, Mage =
23.93) were used.
Given the purpose of this research, we
chose a product category in which brand
personality is considered as an important
driver in decision-making. Based on previ-
ous literature (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987),
we identified product categories that com-
municate certain images to users, such as
automobiles, food and beverage, and
clothes. In addition, categories that are both
symbolic and utilitarian, such as automo-
biles, beverages and athletic shoes, were
also considered (Ratchford, 1987; Aaker,
1997). Given the characteristics of the stu-
dent sample and the purpose of this research,
beverage was selected as the appropriate
product category for the experiment.
Manipulation
As experimental stimuli of senior brands, a
picture of an actual brand containing its
brand name and product packaging was
used. To manipulate the familiarity level of
senior brands, aside from the pretest for
selecting the appropriate brands, a short
description about the market position of the
brand was also provided. The amount of
information was even for all conditions.
To manipulate the junior brand similar-
ity conditions into high and low, we used
pictorial stimuli. A research assistant adept
in using the Photoshop program created
images of high- and low-similarity junior
brands. Pictorial stimuli of high-similarity
junior brands contains similar brand name
and package design with the senior brand,
whereas those of low-similarity junior
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607
 New brands diluting the personality of existing brands
brands contains different and unique brand
name and package design.1
Procedure
This research utilized a before–after exper-
imental design, enabling the researchers to
focus on the change in consumer percep-
tion about the personality of the senior
brand attributed to the emergence of a jun-
ior brand. Given that imitators generally
enter the market at a lower price compared
with a market leader (Warlop and Alba,
2004), the effect of the price factor needs
to be controlled. Although beverages are
relatively in the low-involvement product
category, and price is not a decisive factor
when consumers make their choices, the
prices of the two brands were placed on
the same level.
First, the participants were shown the
pictorial stimulus of the high- or low-famil-
iarity senior brand. Below the picture, a
short write-up was provided stating that
this brand is a pioneer brand in its product
category. Participants were instructed to
respond to 14 items on the four brand per-
sonality dimensions for the senior brand.
Next, they were instructed to answer items
on familiarity with and purchase intention
for the senior brand.
In the next page of the questionnaire, a
brief statement introduced a new brand,
explaining that this brand has entered the
market of the same product category as the
brand on the previous page. Then, the
image of the fictitious junior brand, con-
taining the brand name and packaging, and
a short write-up about the junior brand
were presented. Participants were instructed
to respond to the same personality items
and attitude toward the junior brand.
In the subsequent page of the question-
naire, senior brand personality was again
measured. This time, however, participants
were asked to answer the same personality
items following their current feelings and
thoughts without trying to recall their pre-
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
vious responses. Brand personality items
were the same as the previous, except for
the order of items to minimize the rele-
vance of prior measurements. The set of
questions about attitude toward and inten-
tion to buy the senior brand were then
repeated. On the last page, participants
answered the items for manipulation check
and demographics. Finally, they were
debriefed and thanked.
Measures
All items were measured using a 7-point
scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). Brand
similarity between two brands is operation-
alized as the similarity of brand elements,
namely brand name and package design.
The participants rated brand similarity on
three dimensions (Pan and Lehmann, 1993;
Howard et al, 2000): brand name, package
design and overall similarity (Cronbach’s
 = 0.92).
Given that brand personality dimensions
reflect a distinctive cultural background of
consumers (Aaker et al, 2001), four dimen-
sions, namely competence, passion, sincer-
ity and friendliness, were selected from
previous studies done in Korea (for exam-
ple, Kim and Ahn, 2000). Each dimension
has four (reliable, skillful, safe, capable;
Cronbach’s  = 0.80), four (lively, adven-
turous, appealing, cheerful; Cronbach’s
 = 0.80), three (honest, sincere, faithful;
Cronbach’s  = 0.81) and three (friendly,
generous, warm; Cronbach’s  = 0.77) sub-
items, respectively. The senior brand per-
sonality index was created by averaging the
values of [post-exposure value – pre-expo-
sure value] for all brand personality dimen-
sions. If participants rated senior brand
personality lower after being exposed to
the junior brand, the post-exposure value
is smaller than the pre-exposure value.
A negative ( − ) value of the index means
that senior brand personality is diluted,
whereas a positive ( + ) value means that
senior brand personality is reinforced.
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607 599
 Choy and Kim
Items used to measure the degree of
brand familiarity encompass both first- and
second-hand experiences. Based on previ-
ous research (Srinivasan and Ratchford,
1991; Mishra et al, 1993; Cowley and
Mitchell, 2003), brand familiarity was
measured using the following five items: I
have heard of the brand name a lot, I am
knowledgeable about the brand, I have an
understanding of the brand, I am familiar
with the brand and I have experience with
the brand (Cronbach’s  = 0.93).
When dilution occurs and participant
attitude toward the junior brand is higher
than that toward the senior brand, the value
of [senior brand attitude – junior brand
attitude] becomes negative. In contrast, the
value is positive when dilution does not
occur. To measure attitude toward the sen-
ior and junior brands, participants were
asked to evaluate the following three
dimensions (Ruth, 2001): favorable, posi-
tive and attractive (Cronbach’s  = 0.93).
To capture change in purchase intention,
participants rated their buying intention for
the senior brand before and after being
exposed to the junior brand. The negative
value of [ post-exposure value – pre-expo-
sure value] implies a decrease in purchase
intention for the senior brand because of
the emergence of the junior brand. The
participants were instructed to answer the
following three items to measure their buy-
ing intentions (Mackenzie et al, 1986;
Zauberman et al, 2009): probability of buy-
ing this brand when buying, probability of
using this brand when it becomes available
and intention to purchase this brand
(Cronbach’s  = 0.87).
RESULTS
Manipulation check
An ANOVA with the brand similarity and
brand familiarity as the factors and partici-
pants’ brand similarity ratings as the depend-
ent variable was employed to validate brand
600 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
similarity manipulation. As expected, the
main effect of brand similarity was signifi-
cant (Mlow = 3.25, Mhigh = 5.91; F(1, 156) =
234.02, P < 0.001) such that those in the
high-similarity condition perceive the given
junior brand more similar to the senior
brand than those in the low-similarity con-
dition. Neither the main effect of brand
familiarity nor the brand similarity by brand
familiarity interaction was significant.
In addition, senior brand familiarity
manipulation was validated through an
ANOVA with the same factors and par-
ticipant senior brand familiarity ratings as
the dependent variable. As expected, the
main effect of brand familiarity was sig-
nificant (Mlow = 2.80, Mhigh = 4.84; F(1, 156) =
87.68, P < 0.001) such that those in the
high-familiarity condition found the given
senior brand more familiar than those in
the low-familiarity condition. Neither the
main effect of brand similarity nor the
brand familiarity by brand similarity inter-
action was significant.
Hypotheses testing
Test of brand personality dilution
To demonstrate the effect of brand element
similarity between senior and junior brands
on senior brand personality, as well as the
moderating role of senior brand familiarity,
we employed a 2(brand similarity)×2 (brand
familiarity) ANOVA on the index of senior
brand personality. Brand personality dilu-
tion is significantly different depending on
the similarity conditions (F(1, 156) = 5.05,
P < 0.05). The mean value of the senior
brand personality index is negative in the
low-similarity condition (Mlow = − 0.01),
whereas the value is positive in the high-
similarity condition (Mhigh = 0.21). The
results indicate that when a junior brand is
similar to a senior brand, senior brand per-
sonality is reinforced. When a junior brand
is different from a senior brand, the senior
brand personality is diluted, although the
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607

absolute value is small. These findings sup-
port Hypotheses 1a and 1b.
The planned contrasts revealed signifi-
cant differences between the low-similarity
condition and high-similarity conditions
(Mlow = − 0.18, Mhigh = 0.17; F(1, 156) =
6.90, P < 0.01) when senior brand familiar-
ity is low (see Table 1). However, when
senior brand familiarity is high, the com-
parison between the low-similarity condi-
tion and high-similarity conditions was not
significantly different (Mlow = 0.17, Mhigh =
0.24; F(1, 156) = 0.28, P > 0.50). This pat-
tern confirmed that when senior brand
familiarity is high, senior brand personality
is reinforced in both high- and low-similar-
ity conditions. In contrast, when senior
brand familiarity is low, senior brand per-
sonality is reinforced in the high-similarity
condition, whereas senior brand personality
is diluted in the low-similarity condition.
These results indicate that when the famil-
iarity of consumers with a senior brand is
high, brand personality is reinforced by
the emergence of a junior brand, regardless
of whether the junior brand is similar or
dissimilar to the senior brand. However,
when the familiarity of consumers with
a senior brand is low, a similar junior
brand reinforces senior brand personality,
whereas a dissimilar junior brand dilutes
senior brand personality. These findings
provide support for Hypotheses 2a and 2b
(see Figure 1).
Table 1: Mean (SD) of senior brand personality
Familiarity
High
Similarity High 0.24 (0.59)a
Low 0.17 (0.54)a
Note: ( + ) value denotes the reinforcement of brand
personality, and ( − ) value denotes the dilution of brand
personality. Differing superscripts denote significant
differences at P < 0.01 within a column.
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
New brands diluting the personality of existing brands
0.3
Senior brand personality index
High-familiarity
0.2
Low-familiarity
0.1
0
High-similarity Low-similarity
-0.1
-0.2
Figure 1: The role of brand familiarity in brand personality
dilution.
Additional analysis: Test of brand personality
dilution on each brand personality
dimension
We further analyze the abovementioned
effects on each of the four brand personal-
ity dimensions. The effects of similar brands
were examined on each brand personality
dimension to test Hypotheses 1a and lb.
With regard to competitiveness, the senior
brand personality did not present significant
differences between low- and high-similar-
ity conditions (Mlow = 0.20, Mhigh = 0.22;
F(1, 156) = 0.02, P > 0.50). Junior brands,
regardless of the level of similarity, rein-
forced the competence personality of the
senior brand. In terms of passion, the dif-
ference between low- and high-similarity
conditions was marginally significant,
implying that the similar junior brand rein-
forced the passion personality of the senior
brand while the distinctive junior brand
diluted the passion personality of the senior
brand (Mlow = − 0.30, Mhigh = 0.03; F(1, 156) =
3.63, P < 0.10). On sincerity, the senior
brand personality did not present a signifi-
cant difference between low- and high-
similarity conditions (Mlow = 0.26, Mhigh =
0.46; F(1, 156) = 1.56, P > 0.10). In both
Low the low- and high-similarity conditions, the
0.17 (0.58)a
junior brand reinforced the sincerity per-
− 0.18 (0.67)b sonality of the senior brand. On the friend-
liness dimension, the difference between
low- and high-similarity conditions was
significant, implying that the similar junior
brand reinforced the friendliness personality
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607 601
 Choy and Kim

of the senior brand whereas the unique

− 0.28 (0.99)c
0.07 (0.75)a
junior brand diluted the friendliness per-

Low
sonality of the senior brand (Mlow = − 0.17,

Friendliness
Mhigh = 0.17; F(1, 156) = 5.30, P < 0.05).
The same planned contrasts were con-

− 0.06 (0.88)a
0.28 (1.06)a
ducted to examine Hypotheses 2a and 2b

High
on each brand personality dimension. The
results are presented in Table 2. In the case
of the high-familiarity senior brand, low-

Within a column, differing superscripts (a,b) denote significant differences at P < 0.01; differing superscripts (a,c) denote marginal significance at P < 0.10.
and high-similarity conditions did not signi-

− 0.03 (0.92)c
0.37 (0.81)a
ficantly differ in all of the four personality

Low
dimensions. In the case of the low-familiar-
ity senior brand, the passion dimension
Sincerity

showed a significant difference between

0.55 (1.09)a low- and high-similarity conditions (Mlow =
0.56 (1.04)a − 0.53, Mhigh = 0.12; F(1, 156) = 7.51, P < 0.01)
High

Note: ( + ) value denotes the reinforcement of brand personality, and ( − ) value denotes the dilution of brand personality.
except in the competence dimension (Mlow =
0.11, Mhigh = 0.16; F(1, 156) = 0.09, P > 0.50).
Familiarity

The sincerity dimension (Mlow = − 0.03,

Mhigh = 0.37; F(1, 156) = 3.39, P < 0.10) and
− 0.53 (0.91)b
0.12 (0.96)a

the friendliness dimension (Mlow = − 0.28,

Low

Mhigh = 0.07; F(1, 156) = 2.85, P < 0.10)

showed marginally significant difference bet-
Passion

ween low- and high-similarity conditions.

− 0.07 (1.12)a
− 0.07 (1.22)a
High

Test of the effect of brand personality

dilution on attitude and purchase intention
Attitude toward the senior brand compared
0.16 (0.74)a
0.11 (0.87)a

with the junior brand was hypothesized to

Table 2: Mean (SD) of senior brand personality on each dimension

Low

mediate the relationship between the senior

brand personality and change in purchase
Competence

intention for the senior brand. A set of

regression equations were set up (see Table 3)
0.28 (0.67)a
0.29 (0.75)a

and a series of regression analyses were con-

High

ducted to examine the role of attitude

toward the senior brand compared with the
junior brand as a potential mediator follow-
ing Baron and Kenny (1986).
The results indicate that (a) senior brand
personality dilution results in lower attitude
High
Low

toward the senior brand compared with the

junior brand (1 = 0.50; t = 2.53, P < 0.05);
(b) lower attitude toward the senior brand
compared with the junior brand results
Similarity

in decreased purchase intention for the

senior brand (2 = 0.20; t = 4.55, P < 0.001);

602 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 7, 590–607
 New brands diluting the personality of existing brands
Table 3: Regression equations for mediation analysis
Equations
(a) ATT=1 + 1SBP + e1
(b) PI=2 + 2ATT + e2
(c) PI= 3 + 3SBP + e3
(d) PI=4 + 41SBP + 42ATT + e4
SBP: senior brand personality.
PI: change in senior brand purchase intention.
ATT: attitude toward senior brand compared with junior
brand.
Note: x are constants and ex are errors.
(c) senior brand personality dilution has a
direct effect on change in purchase inten-
tion for the senior brand (3 = 0.32; t = 2.79,
P < 0.01); and (d) when attitude toward the
senior brand compared with the junior
brand is included in the model as a media-
tor, the effect of senior brand personality
on the change in purchase intention was
reduced but remained significant (41 = 0.23;
t = 2.06, P < 0.05), whereas the effect of
attitude toward the senior brand compared
with the junior brand on the change in
purchase intention showed only a minimal
change and remained significant (42 = 0.18;
t = 4.10, P < 0.001). The direct effect of the
senior brand personality on the change in
purchase intention was significant, and
it remained significant when the attitude
was controlled for, but it was significantly
reduced in magnitude, indicating a signifi-
cant partial mediation (Sobel z = 2.22,
P < 0.05). The results provide evidence that
attitude toward the senior brand compared
with the junior brand partially mediates the
effect of senior brand personality on the
change in purchase intention, supporting
Hypothesis 3.
DISCUSSION
Conclusion
This research suggests that a junior brand
with varying degrees of similarity of verbal
element (that is, brand name) and visual
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
one (that is, package design) changes con-
sumer perception of the personality of the
senior brand, which is a component of
brand image. This change in perception
affects consumer attitude and buying inten-
tion. The results show that when consumers
are unfamiliar with the senior brand, a jun-
ior brand with similar brand elements, such
as brand name and package design, rein-
forces personality of the senior brand.
In contrast, a low-similarity junior brand
dilutes personality of the senior brand. When
consumers are highly familiar with the sen-
ior brand, the emergence of a junior brand
reinforces senior brand personality, regard-
less of whether the junior brand is similar
or dissimilar to the senior brand. Finally, the
findings demonstrate that the dilution of
senior brand personality attributed to the
emergence of a dissimilar or unique junior
brand lowers consumers’ attitude toward the
senior brand compared with the junior
brand, consequently decreasing their current
purchase intention for the senior brand as
opposed to their previous purchase intention
before seeing the unique junior brand.
We further examined the dilution effect
on each of the four brand personality
dimensions. In the competence and sincer-
ity dimensions, the senior brand personality
was not significantly different between low-
and high-similarity conditions and was rein-
forced in both conditions. The results
suggest that even when a low-similarity jun-
ior brand emerges, the competence and
sincerity personalities of the senior brand are
reinforced because of the idea that the sen-
ior brand is a pioneer and the true original
does not change. In contrast, a distinctive
junior brand dilutes the passion and friend-
liness personalities of the senior brand
because consumers may perceive the senior
brand as outdated and boring.
Implications
In the context of brand imitation, previous
research has placed more weight on
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607 603
 Choy and Kim
benefits that copycats get and less on the
effect on original brands. Marketing literature
emphasizes the threats that copycats pose to
market-leading brands (Morrin and Jacoby,
2000). Previous studies have demonstrated
that copycats that are more identical to the
leader brand are evaluated more positively
(Loken et al, 1986; Warlop and Alba, 2004).
Although Horen and Pieters (2012a) showed
that copycats can gain or lose from their
resemblance to the leader brand, only the
possibility that the evaluation of the leader
brand might unexpectedly gain from blatant
imitation practice has been suggested. The
present research demonstrated that in the case
of low-familiarity senior brand, when con-
sumers perceive high degrees of similarity
between a junior and a senior brand, their
perception of the senior brand personality is
reinforced. In contrast, low similarity between
the senior and junior brands dilutes senior
brand personality.
Pullig et al (2006), in the context of brand
dilution, examined consumer perception of
senior brands but focused on the weakened
associations between brand names and prod-
uct category. While they employed only a
verbal element (that is, brand name), the
present study included a visual element (that
is, package design), as well. Furthermore, in
the selection of appropriate brand elements
for this imitation context, we applied the
protectability criterion.
Practical implications emerge from this
study. First, our findings contradict ‘what
is often brand management’s gut reaction:
that highly similar junior brands are the
most serious threats’ (Pullig et al, 2006,
p. 65). The results indicate that when a new
brand in the same product category enters
the market with a differentiation (that is,
low similarity) strategy, the new brand can
dilute the personality of an existing brand.
Newcomers entering with their own unique
brand name and package design can increase
consumer attitude toward them compared
with the existing brand. This strategy
604 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
consequently increases the intention of
consumers to buy the new brand.
The finding that the personality of a
highly familiar senior brand is not diluted
by the emergence of a junior brand, regard-
less of brand element similarity, suggests
that marketing efforts to increase consumer
familiarity with a senior brand are critical.
Diluting the personality of a leader brand
is difficult, even for a distinctive new brand,
because that brand is a pioneer in its prod-
uct category and is salient with high level
of familiarity or reputation in the memory
of consumers. In this case, a differentiation
strategy of a junior brand would only rein-
force (rather than dilute) the personality of
the senior brand. Thus, through marketing
strategies, such as repeated advertisements
or sales promotions to reach out to a wide
range of consumers, the first comer brand
needs to exert an effort to increase con-
sumer familiarity with the brand as opposed
to potential competitors or imitators.
The results of further analysis on each
brand personality dimension suggest that
when a distinctive junior brand emerges, a
senior brand can maintain an image of
competent pioneer and true original while
losing its passionate image and being per-
ceived as outdated and boring. Thus, for a
senior brand, conveying an image of endur-
ing passion and never boring through mar-
keting communications is an effective way
to be a more attractive brand to consumers.
Limitations and future research
As experimental stimuli of a beverage
brand, ‘Black Bean Thera-Tea’ was used for
the high-familiarity senior brand while
‘Vono’ was used for the low-familiarity sen-
ior brand. These brands pertain to bottled
tea and instant cup soup, respectively.
Although these two brands are known as
beverage products in the country where
this study was conducted, such brands can
be perceived as different categories in other
countries. Thus, future study needs to use
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607
 New brands diluting the personality of existing brands
categories that are more commonly
perceived as the same categories across
various country contexts in high- and low-
familiarity conditions.
This research used one product category
based on criteria suggested by previous
studies. As mentioned in the method sec-
tion, beverage is one of product categories
where brand personality is an important
factor in decision-making. Although previ-
ous studies on brand dilution showed no
difference across different product catego-
ries (for example, Morrin and Jacoby, 2000;
Pullig et al, 2006), the inability to reflect
the diversity of product categories remains
a limitation. Furthermore, in selecting brand
personality dimensions, this research
employed the previously developed dimen-
sions, rather than developing brand-specific
personality dimensions by conducting a
pretest, such as a free-association task.
We constitute the before-after experi-
mental design. Respondents were exposed
to the brands and then we checked whether
a change occurs in the measures. The time
interval between the measures is short.
Although a previous study showed that the
results of an experiment that provided a
5-day delay between the exposure and the
measurements do not differ from those
without a 5-day delay (for example, Pullig
et al, 2006), such a short time between
measures in this research can be an exper-
imental limitation. Consumers are exposed
to original and second comer brands in
various ways, thus future research can
constitute experimental design to reflect
real-life settings better.
The findings have shown that if the
reputation of or familiarity with the leader
brand was formed and clearly established at
the time of the copycat’s entry into the
market, the dilution of the personality of
the leader brand does not occur. However,
even for a highly familiar leader brand, a
number of factors, such as distinctive
brand elements other than brand name and
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
package design, and an interestingly novel
experience with a new brand might result
in the dilution of the personality of the
leader brand. Future research to investigate
these factors could provide more useful
insights for marketing managers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was supported by the Institute
of Management Research at Seoul National
University.
NOTE
1 A more detailed description of these materials is avail-
able on request to the first author.
REFERENCES
Aaker, D.A. (1991) Managing Brand Equity. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Aaker, D.A. (1996a) Building Strong Brands. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Aaker, D.A. (1996b) Measuring brand equity across
products and markets. California Management Review
38(3): 102–120.
Aaker, J.L. (1997) Dimensions of brand personality.
Journal of Marketing Research 34(3): 347–356.
Aaker, J.L., Benet-Martinez, V. and Garolera, J. (2001)
Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: A study
of Japanese and Spanish brand personality con-
structs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
81(3): 492–508.
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987) Dimensions
of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research
13(4): 411–454.
Anderson, J.R. (1983) A spreading activation theory of
memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior 22(3): 261–295.
Anderson, M.C., Green, C. and McCulloch, K.C.
(2000) Similarity and inhibition in long-term
memory: Evidence for a two-factor theory. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition 26(5): 1141–1159.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) The moderator-
mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical con-
siderations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
51(6): 1173–1182.
Biel, A. (1992) How brand image drives brand equity.
Journal of Advertising Research 32(6): 6–12.
Burke, R.R. and Srull, T.K. (1988) Competitive inter-
ference and consumer memory for advertising.
Journal of Consumer Research 15(1): 55–68.
Campbell, M.C. and Keller, K.L. (2003) Brand famil-
iarity and advertising repetition effects. Journal of
Consumer Research 30(2): 292–304.
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607 605
 Choy and Kim
Celsi, R.L. and Olson, J.C. (1988) The role of involve-
ment in attention and comprehension processes.
Journal of Consumer Research 15(2): 210–224.
Cowley, E. and Mitchell, A.A. (2003) The moderating
effect of product knowledge on the learning
and organization of product information. Journal of
Consumer Research 30(3): 443–454.
Crocker, J., Fiske, S.T. and Tayler, S.E. (1984)
Schematic bases of belief change. In: J.R. Eiser (ed.)
Attitudinal Judgment. New York: Springer-Verlag,
pp. 197–226.
Esch, F.R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B.H. and Geus, P.
(2006) Are brands forever? How brand knowledge
and relationships affect current and future purchase.
Journal of Product and Brand Management 15(2):
98–105.
Fazio, R.H. (1986) How do attitudes guide behavior?. In:
R.M. Sorrentino and E.T. Higgins (eds.) The Handbook
of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior.
New York, NY: Guilford, pp. 204–243.
Freling, T.H. and Forbes, L.P. (2005) An empirical
analysis of the brand personality effect. Journal of
Product and Brand Management 14(7): 404–413.
Horen, F. and Pieters, R. (2012a) When high-similarity
copycats lose and moderate-similarity copycats gain:
The impact of comparative evaluation. Journal of
Marketing Research 49(1): 83–91.
Horen, F. and Pieters, R. (2012b) Consumer evaluation
of copycat brands: The effect of imitation type.
International Journal of Research in Marketing 29(3):
246–255.
Howard, D.J., Kerin, R.A. and Gengler, C. (2000) The
effects of brand name similarity on brand source con-
fusion: Implications for trademark infringement.
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 19(2): 250–264.
Humphreys, M.S., Tehan, G., O’Shea, A. and Bolland,
S.W. (2000) Target similarity effects: Support for
the parallel distributed processing assumptions.
Memory and Cognition 28(5): 798–821.
Jacoby, J. (2001) The psychological foundations of
trademark law: Secondary meaning, genericism,
fame, confusion, and dilution. The Trademark Reporter
91(5): 1013–1071.
Keller, K.L. (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and
managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of
Marketing 57(1): 1–22.
Keller, K.L. (eds.) (2003) Strategic Brand Management:
Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Kent, R.J. and Allen, C.T. (1994) Competitive inter-
ference effects in consumer memory for advertising:
The role of brand familiarity. Journal of Marketing
58(3): 97–105.
Kim, C.K. and Ahn, Y.H. (2000) The role of brand
personality based on the FCB grid model. The
Korean Journal of Advertising 11(4): 65–85.
Kotler, P. (eds.) (2002) Marketing Management: Analysis,
Planning, Implementation, and Control. Engelwood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Laroche, M., Kim, C. and Zhou, L. (1996) Brand
familiarity and confidence as determinants of
606 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management
purchase intention: An empirical test in a multiple
brand context. Journal of Business Research 37(2):
115–120.
Lau, K.C. and Phau, I. (2007) Extending symbolic
brands using their personality: Examining anteced-
ents and implications towards brand image fit
and brand dilution. Psychology and Marketing 24(5):
421–444.
Loken, B., Ross, I. and Hinkle, R.L. (1986) Consumer
‘confusion’ of origin and brand similarity perceptions.
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 5: 195–211.
Mackenzie, S.B., Lutz, R. and Belch, G.E. (1986) The
role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of adver-
tising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations.
Journal of Marketing Research 23(2): 130–143.
Mishra, S., Umesh, U.N. and Stem Jr, D.E. (1993)
Antecedents of the attraction effect: An informa-
tion-processing approach. Journal of Marketing
Research 30(3): 331–349.
Morrin, M. and Jacoby, J. (2000) Trademark dilution:
Empirical measures for an elusive concept. Journal
of Public Policy and Marketing 19(2): 265–276.
Morrin, M., Lee, J. and Allenby, G.M. (2006) Deter-
minants of trademark dilution. Journal of Consumer
Research 33(2): 248–257.
Murphy, G.L. and Wright, J.C. (1984) Changes in
conceptual structure with expertise: Differences
between real-world experts and novices. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cog-
nition 10(1): 144–155.
Onkvisit, S. and Shaw, J. (1987) Self-concept and image
congruence: Some research and managerial implica-
tions. Journal of Consumer Marketing 4(1): 13–23.
Pan, Y. and Lehmann, D.R. (1993) The influence of
new brand entry on subjective brand judgments.
Journal of Consumer Research 20(2): 76–86.
Pattishall, B.W. (1984) Dawning acceptance of the
dilution rationale for trademark-trade identity pro-
tection. The Trademark Reporter 74(4): 289–310.
Plummer, J.T. (2000) How personality makes a differ-
ence? Journal of Advertising Research 40(6): 79–84.
Pullig, C., Simmons, C.J. and Netemeyer, R.G. (2006)
Brand dilution: When do new brands hurts existing
brands? Journal of Marketing 70(2): 52–66.
Ratchford, B. (1987) New insights about the FCB grid.
Journal of Advertising Research 27(4): 24–38.
Ruth, J.A. (2001) Promoting a brand’s emotion ben-
efits: The influence of emotion categorization proc-
esses on consumer evaluations. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 11(2): 99–113.
Rutherford, D.G., Perkins, A.W. and Spangenberg,
E.R. (2000) Trade dress and consumer perception
of product similarity. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research 24(2): 163–179.
Simonson, A. (1993) How and when do trademarks
dilute: A behavioral framework to judge ‘likelihood’
of dilution. The Trademark Reporter 83(2): 149–174.
Simonson, I. (1994) Trademark infringement from the
buyer perspective: Conceptual analysis and meas-
urement implications. Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing 13(2): 181–199.
Vol. 20, 7, 590–607
 New brands diluting the personality of existing brands

Sirgy, J. (1982) Self-concept in consumer behavior: a
critical review. Journal of Consumer Research 9(3):
287–300.
Srinivasan, N. and Ratchford, B.I. (1991) An
empirical test of an external search for auto-
mobiles. Journal of Consumer Research 18(9):
233–242.
Warlop, L. and Alba, J.W. (2004) Sincere flattery:
Trade-dress imitation and consumer choice. Journal
of Consumer Psychology 14(1&2): 21–27.
Zauberman, G., Ratner, R.K. and Kim, B.K. (2009)
Memories as assets: Strategic memory protection in
choice over time. Journal of Consumer Research 35(5):
715–728.

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 20, 7, 590–607 607