Detangling consumer attitudes to better

explain co-branding success

Han-Chiang Ho
Department of Management and Marketing, Wenzhou-Kean University, Wenzhou, China
Nora Lado
Department of Business Administration, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Getafe, Spain, and
Pilar Rivera-Torres
Departamento de Dirección de Marketing e Investigación de Mercados, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine consumer attitude toward a new type of co-branded products, which encompass attributes of
high-technology and luxury. The authors named these kinds of co-branded products as “high-tech luxury co-branded products” (HLCPs). Current
theoretical approaches used to study co-branding strategies cannot completely explain consumer attitude toward HLCPs. In this study, the authors
apply the ABC (affect-behavior-cognition) model of attitudes (as opposed to attitude as a whole) to explore how affect and cognition drive consumer
behavior toward HLCPs.
Design/methodology/approach – Questionnaires were used and the respondents totaled 483 in period 1 and 331 in period 2. Respondents were
collected using convenience sampling technique in one university in Spain and analyzed using structural equation modeling.
Findings – The authors finding revealed that consumers use both affect and cognition simultaneously when forming an attitude toward HLCPs.
Also, consumers’ perception of product fit represents a more relevant driver of consumer behavior with respect to brand fit. Appropriate theoretical
and managerial implications are derived from these results.
Originality/value – This study contributes to the understanding of consumers’ preferences toward high-tech luxury co-branded products.
Keywords Cognition, Affect, Co-branding, Brand fit, ABC model of attitude, Product fit
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Although many co-branding products are available in the
market, this study examines the specific category of co-branded
products arising from the alliance between high-tech products
and luxury brands, which we refer to as “high-tech luxury co-
branded products” (HLCPs). Some examples of HLCPs are
Samsung Armani cell phone, LG Prada cell phone, Asus
Lamborghini laptop and Segway Chanel personal transporter,
among others. Co-branded products are increasingly being
introduced into the market. The success of these initiatives is
indirectly demonstrated by the release of new versions of the
same HLCPs. For example, the first LG Prada cell phone was
launched in 2006, and in 2012, LG released the newest
generation, LG Prada 3.0. Thus, HLCPs seem to attract
consumers’ attention and favor.
This study focuses on HLCPs because the existing
literature does not sufficiently explain the reasons for the
success of these co-branding products. From the theoretical
point of view, traditional co-branding models – such as
vertical and horizontal co-branding strategies (Helmig et al.,
2007) – have not fully explained these products’ success and
the mechanisms that influence consumers’ decisions to prefer
such products. For example, Simonin and Ruth’s (1998)
widely used theoretical model studies the effects of brand
alliances on consumer brand attitudes, but only addresses
whether consumers might form either a positive or a negative
attitude toward a co-branded product. Further, their study
does not explain which component of attitude drives
consumers’ preferences. In the context of HLCPs, addressing
which component influences consumers’ preferences is
highly relevant. Indeed, products of such a category
concurrently embed both functional attributes – in which
cognition is predominant – and symbolic attributes – in which
affect is mostly important (Lim and Ang, 2008; Solomon
et al., 2010; Voss et al., 2003). Consequently, this study
assesses consumer preferences toward co-branded products
(and HLCPs in particular) by considering three components
of consumers’ attitudes, according to the ABC model of
attitudes (Ray, 1973; Solomon, 1996). By doing this, it will
be possible to disentangle the complex mechanism that brings
consumers to form an attitude, by associating each attitude

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm Received 18 November 2015
Revised 11 May 2016
22 September 2016
Journal of Product & Brand Management
23 September 2016
26/7 (2017) 704–721 27 March 2017
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] 29 April 2017
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-11-2015-1039] Accepted 30 April 2017

704
 Detangling consumer attitudes
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres
component to specific product attributes and by assessing
which component–attribute pair mainly drives consumer
preferences.
In addition, one of the major challenges to co-branding
success is consumers’ perceptions of “product fit” and “brand
fit” of co-branded products, which are expected to play a
significant role in how consumers respond to co-branded
products (Simonin and Ruth, 1998). A high degree of fit is
required to stimulate a desirable attitude and positive
association, and eventually influence consumers’ behavioral
intentions (Aaker and Keller, 1990; Helmig et al., 2007;
Simonin and Ruth, 1998). In the specific context of HLCPs,
however, the concept of product fit and brand fit becomes
puzzling. High-tech products and luxury brands have indeed
different attributes. While luxury brands are exclusive (Phau
and Prendergast, 2000) and costly (Keller, 2009), high-tech
products are functional and useful (Hawkins et al., 2000). In
addition, the concept of product fit and brand fit between high-
tech and luxury brand companies might also create disharmony
in consumers’ mind. Lastly, it is important to analyze
consumers’ perceptions regarding product fit and brand fit and
how these perceptions influence consumers’ attitudes. Again,
the adoption of a three-component model of attitude formation
provides us support to disentangle this question.
The findings from this study would thus help marketers
move toward better decision-making on the introduction and
positioning of co-branded products. More specifically, this
study provides firms with an improved understanding of the
mechanisms by which consumers form an attitude toward
HLCPs. In turn, firms may apply this information to define the
content of advertising messages or shape communication
strategies. Similarly, the predominance of one product attribute
over others in influencing consumers’ preferences might lead
producers of HLCPs to define more effective positioning
strategies.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2
reviews the relevant literature and presents the main
hypotheses, Section 3 discusses the empirical tests, Section 4
presents the results and Section 5 concludes with a discussion
of the findings and managerial implications of the study.
2. Literature review and hypotheses
Co-branding is one of the possible forms of a brand alliance
strategy (Simonin and Ruth, 1998; Rao et al., 1999; Geylani
et al., 2008; Cunha et al., 2015), or a specific arrangement
within brand extension possibilities (Washburn et al., 2000).
Geylani et al. (2008) define co-branding as a combination of
two existing brand names to form a separate and single product
with a composite brand name.
Co-branding can provide both benefits and drawbacks to
firms. In terms of benefits, co-branding offers established
brands an opportunity to add immediate credibility to existing
brands and increase sales of existing products (Mazodier and
Merunka, 2014). The likelihood of the success of co-branded
products increases with the degree of awareness, brand equity,
familiarity and quality of the constituent brands. On the
contrary, co-branding also presents risks such as raising
consumer mistrust, damaging the host brand’s image (Chang,
2009), diluting the host brand’s equity (Washburn et al., 2000;
705
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721
Ueltschy and Laroche, 2004) and increasing the host brand’s
financial burden (Blackett and Boad, 1999). The alliance
between two brands may confuse consumers about the image
of constituent brands and consequently damage the brand
equity of each brand (Park et al., 1996).
2.1 The formation of consumers’ attitudes toward
HLCPs
The marketing literature includes several theoretical models to
address the study of consumer attitude. For example, the
theory of planned behavior contends that any social behavior
(or behavioral intention) could be interpreted by a few key
antecedents such as attitude toward the behavior, subjective
norm and perceived behavioral control. When exploring
consumers’ attitudes toward luxury brands, affect and
cognition are the prevailing attitudes used by researchers
(Abbott et al., 2009; Riscinto-Kozub et al., 2013). Ray (1973)
and Solomon (1996) provide the ABC model of attitudes,
which concludes that attitude is formed by three main
components, namely, affect, behavior and cognition, with
affect and cognition influencing consumer behavior (Laurent
and Kapferer, 1985; Putrevu and Lord, 1994; Dubé et al.,
2003). Subsequent studies have shown that, even though both
affect and cognition take part in consumers’ assessment of
intrinsic and extrinsic product characteristics (Da Silva and
Syed Alwi, 2006), the affect seems more relevant in the
evaluation of hedonic products (Mano and Oliver, 1993; Kim
and Morris, 2007), while the cognition is associated with the
evaluation of utilitarian products (Kim and Morris, 2007).
Given that HLCPs include attributes of both types of products,
both affect and cognition should influence consumer behavior.
In general terms, cognition can be considered as the result of
consumer’s thought process, which generates knowledge,
awareness, opinion and perception. The cognition is important
for prospective behavioral motivations to understand product
attributes (Caro and Garcia, 2007). While most literature point
out that both affect and cognition are important for the
evaluation of brands, a few empirical studies show that the
rational part of a brand is assessed prior to its emotional part
(Bhat and Reddy, 1998).
Affect also has received intensive attention by several
marketing studies (Aaker and Shansby, 1982; Burke and Edell,
1989). Affect is based on feelings toward specific stimuli
(Westbrook, 1987; Anand et al., 1988). In daily consumption
events, affect typically represents a crucial determinant of
consumer behavior (Anand et al., 1988). For instance,
consumers often use affect to form a priori consumption
experience in which they form their future behavioral decisions
(Cowley, 2007).
In the specific case of HLCPs, both affect and cognition are
expected to drive consumer behavior. In this case, the hedonic
nature of luxury brands emphasizes the affective component of
attitude, while the functional nature of high-tech products
accentuates the cognitive dimension. For example, a well-
established study supports that utilitarian benefits are relevant
in the customer decision process for the purchase of customized
PCs (Tang et al., 2010). For the purchase of a smartphone,
evidence demonstrates that occasional users primarily use
smartphones to fulfill utilitarian needs and tend to perceive
these devices as functional tools (Dong-Hee, 2012).
 Detangling consumer attitudes
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres
Provided that affect is mainly associated with products’
hedonic attributes (luxury attributes, in our case) and cognition
to utilitarian attributes (high-tech attributes, in our case) (Lim
and Ang, 2008; Solomon et al., 2010; Voss et al., 2003), it is not
clear whether one attitude component will prevail over the
other in driving consumer behavior. We thus prefer to consider
that both components may influence consumer behavior.
Consequently, we hypothesize:
H1a. Affect positively influences consumer behavior toward
HLCPs.
H1b. Cognition positively influences consumer behavior
toward HLCPs.
Many authors conclude that affect dominates over cognition
when predicting consumer behavior (Allen et al., 1992; Morris
et al., 2002; Keer et al., 2014). Other authors (Anand et al.,
1988; Bhat and Reddy, 2001; Saunders and Buehner, 2013)
have shown that cognition is expressed by consumers before
affect, and this process leads to behavioral intention. Lastly, in
an attempt to overcome such contrasting views, other
researchers (Dubé et al., 2003) have introduced a more
complex hierarchical structure of consumer attitudes that both
affect and cognition influence each other (Fink and Yolles,
2015) and neither prevails over the other. In this sense, Shiv
and Fedorikhin (1999) argue that the direction of causality
between affect and cognition remains largely unexplored. It is
thus unclear which component dominates over the other or
whether both components influence each other. Sometimes the
affect and cognition toward a product might occur individually
or exist both at the same time. Consequently, we derive the
following hypothesis:
H1c. Affect is associated positively with cognition.
2.2 The impact of product fit and brand fit on consumer
behavior toward HLCPs
The marketing literature emphasizes that partner selection is the
most important decision for a company in pursuing a co-
branding strategy (Rao and Ruekert, 1994; Simonin and Ruth,
1998; Rao et al., 1999; Sénéchal et al., 2014). Regarding the
concept of brand extension, consumers’ perception of the parent
brand and the extended product itself are the key points when
evaluating extended products (Shen, 2014; Zheng et al., 2015).
Simonin and Ruth (1998) distinguish two main types of fit,
namely, “product fit” and “brand fit”. Product fit represents
the consumers’ perception of the extent of compatibility of two
(or more) product categories, whereas brand fit is the degree of
consistency of brand images of each partner (Park et al., 1991).
If product categories or brand images of two constituent
brands are somehow incompatible, consumers might have
difficulty in understanding why the two constituent brands are
associated and therefore question the competence of
constituent brands to produce high-quality co-branded
products. For instance, adding a hedonic feature to a utilitarian
product would cause an incongruent addition (Azhari and
Afiff, 2015). In this vein, Xiao and Lee (2014) suggest that
consumers must understand the fit between and among the co-
branding products and the constituent brands.
706
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721
A high degree of fit results in a positive assessment of co-
branded products (Aaker and Keller, 1990; Boush and Loken,
1991; Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Ramanathan and Purani, 2014;
Xiao and Lee, 2014) and increases the likelihood of success of
co-branded products (Park et al., 1996; Simonin and Ruth,
1998; Menon and Kahn, 2003; Helmig et al., 2007; Monga and
Lau-Gesk, 2007). By contrast, if product fit and brand fit of
two constituent brands are inconsistent, the co-branded
product might create incompatible beliefs and judgments in
consumers’ minds.
In the case of HLCPs, we expect product fit and brand fit to
positively influence consumer behavior. However, it may be
challenging for consumers to evaluate both in circumstances in
which constituent brands originate from very different product
and brand categories. Based on these assumptions, we draw the
following hypothesis:
H2. Consumer behavior toward HLCPs is positively
influenced by the degree of product fit of constituent
brands.
H3. Consumer behavior toward HLCPs is positively
influenced by the degree of brand fit of constituent
brands.
2.3 Acceptance of high-tech products is a basic
determinant of consumer behavior toward HLCPs
High-tech products are associated with innovation and
characterized by their research and development intensity
(Hansen and Serin, 1997). Sahadev and Jayachandran
(2004) also provide a definition of high-technology
products. They define high-technology products as product
categories characterized by certain attributes such as short
product life cycle, high level of risk in the users’ behavior
changing, indispensability of infrastructure, lack of clearly
defined industry standards and uncertainty on product
functionality.
Because HLCPs involve the congruence of a high-tech
product with luxury attributes, it is essential to consider
consumers’ acceptance of high-tech products in general.
Consumers’ acceptance of high-tech products (i.e. the ability to
appraise the characteristics) plays a critical role in influencing
favorable attitudes about HLCPs. Therefore, the acceptance of
high-tech products should represent a key determinant of
consumer behavior toward HLCPs. In this sense, Davis (1989)
points out that the perception of products’ usefulness and ease-
of-use are essential components that influence consumers’
acceptance of technological products. With the development of
science and technology, high-tech products have become more
delicate and complex, integrating many advanced functions
into one device. Because a significant amount of techno-babble
terminology has been created by high-tech companies and the
technical jargon used by trained salespeople may confuse
consumers, the evaluation of products’ attributes is not an easy
task. As a consequence, shopping for high-tech products may
involve a big challenge.
In addition, a common perception of high-tech products is
that they provide both conveniences and problems for users
(Hawkins et al., 2000). For example, a user may experience
pleasure in using computers to analyze data. However, the
 Detangling consumer attitudes
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres
same user may also feel frustrated by the inability to fully use all
of the functions provided by the software. This paradox causes
anxiety and frustration in users of high-tech products.
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H4. Consumer behavior toward HLCPs is positively
influenced by the acceptance of high-tech products.
2.4 The effect of attitudes toward luxury brands on
consumer behavior toward HLCPs
In brand alliances, existing attitudes toward constituent brands
are highly associated with the attitudes toward partner brands
(Simonin and Ruth, 1998), as a favorable attitude could create
positive spillover to influence consumers’ post-attitude toward
the brand. Consequently, it is appropriate to determine the role
of attitudes toward luxury brands (i.e. the motivations that
bring consumers to possess luxury brands) in explaining
consumers’ attitudes toward the co-branded products,
provided that luxury is one of the two constituent attributes of
HLCPs.
A luxury brand is defined as “those whose ratio of
functionality to price is low, while the ratio of intangible and
situational utility to price is high” (Nueno and Quelch, 1998,
p. 61). Some motivations behind the possession of luxury
brands are owing to social recognition (Park et al., 2008),
parental influence (Prendergast and Wong, 2003) and social
acceptance (Summers et al., 2006). Wilcox et al. (2009) also
pointed out that luxury brands serve two relevant functions for
consumers, namely, the social-adjustive function and the value-
expressive function. The social-adjustive function posits that
consumers are attracted to luxury brands for image-relevant
reasons. Luxury brands also help people maintain relationships
and obtain recognition in the social context. On the other hand,
the value-expressive function refers to intrinsic aspects related
to the functionality of products or their quality. In this sense,
consumers are motivated to possess a luxury brand to form self-
expression. The two functions may occur separately or
simultaneously (Shavitt, 1989).
Sometimes consumers may have a negative reaction
toward luxury brands to the extent that their value
consciousness, personal attitude or social influence results
in a not-to-buy recommendation (Phau and Teah, 2009;
Phau et al., 2009).
All of these effects might have an impact on the success of
HLCPs. Regardless of the function that prevails in consumers’
minds, a positive attitude toward luxury brands should
represent a condition for the development of a positive behavior
toward HLCPs. Based on these considerations, we draw the
following hypothesis:
H5. Consumer behavior toward HLCPs is positively
influenced by their existing attitude toward luxury
brands.
2.5 The mediating role of affect and cognition
According to the standard learning hierarchy of the ABC model
of attitudes, when consumers emphasize a product’s
functionality, price and availability of high-involvement in
“knowing” products, their behavior typically follows a beliefs-
707
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721
affect-behavior sequence (Solomon, 1996). In contrast, based
on the experiential hierarchy, consumers initially act on the basis
of emotional reactions (“feeling”), usually associated with
intangible product attributes (e.g. aesthetic and brand). Thus,
consumer behavior typically follows an affect-beliefs-behavior
sequence (Solomon, 1996).
In the case of HLCPs, it is likely that both emotional
sequences in consumer behavior may occur. On the one hand,
the luxury attribute is expected to provide prestige,
conspicuousness, materialism, hedonism, self-identity,
uniqueness and quality to consumers. All of these attributes
primarily impact the consumers’ affect and exceed the values
that cognition would provide (Wiedmann et al., 2007). As such,
we can expect affect to play a mediating role between existing
attitudes toward luxury brands and consumer behavior toward
HLCPs. On the other hand, the cognition is expected to
mediate the relationship between acceptance of high-tech
products and consumer behavior toward HLCPs. Hence, affect
and cognition are expected to play different roles in the case of
HLCPs, which include attributes associated to both “knowing”
and “feeling” components. In this study, affect and cognition
are not necessarily opposite sides of the same coin; the
characteristics of a product to associate with consumers’ affect
attitude do not imply that consumers dissociate from cognition.
Affect and cognition exist both simultaneously and are relative
levels in consumers’ mind (Shavitt, 1989). As a consequence,
we propose the following hypotheses:
H6a. Affect positively mediates the effect of consumers’
attitude toward luxury brands on consumer behavior
toward HLCPs.
H6b. Cognition positively mediates the effect of consumers’
acceptance of high-tech products on consumer
behavior toward HLCPs.
Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, product-brand fit
influences consumer behavior. However, it is reasonable to
presume that the fit also influences consumer behavior in
different ways, such as by generating distinct affect,
behavior and cognition. In a study by Bhat and Reddy
(1998), the impact of product fit on extension evaluation is
found to be independent of extensions of symbolic and
functional brands. Brand fit is critical to the extension of
symbolic brand only with durable brand extensions (e.g.
brands of wrist watches). For non-durable brand extensions
(e.g. brands of ice creams), brand fit is equally critical to
functional and symbolic brands. When extensions are
symbolic (versus functional), the affect seems more
influential than the cognition, even though the latter is more
important in shaping product fit of extensions.
In the context of this study, it is reasonable to presume that
consumer behavior is influenced by product fit and brand fit
both directly and indirectly. Apart from the direct effect, the
perceived fit between the constituent brands and product
categories should impact consumers’ affect and cognition of the
co-branded product, and in turn, on behavior. Thus, the affect
and cognition partially mediate the relationships between
consumer behavior toward HLCPs and product fit and brand
fit. Based on these considerations, we draw the following
hypotheses (Figure 1):
 Detangling consumer attitudes
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres
Figure 1 Theoretical model I
H7a. Affect positively mediates the effect of product fit on
consumer behavior toward HLCPs.
H7b. Affect positively mediates the effect of brand fit on
consumer behavior toward HLCPs.
H7c. Cognition positively mediates the effect of product fit
on consumer behavior toward HLCPs.
H7d. Cognition positively mediates the effect of brand fit on
consumer behavior toward HLCPs.
3. Methodology
3.1 Data collection process and measures
3.1.1 Research design
The empirical test of the theoretical model uses data collected
through a survey submitted in 2010 to a sample of university
students. The survey has been designed using real-world
examples. Specifically, the first version of the survey used the
“Samsung Giorgio Armani” cell phone, while in a second
version, we used the “LG Prada” cell phone. Such co-branded
products have been considered suitable for our study because
they combine high-tech and luxury attributes. Respondents
were randomly assigned to one of the two versions of the
questionnaire.
To generate robust estimates and increase the
generalizability of results, we replicated the survey three years
later in 2013. In the second survey, real HLCPs have been
replaced with fictitious co-branded products. We adopted
products that consumers have never seen and used and, hence,
do not possess well-formed preferences. The second survey
requires consumers to focus on the evaluation of products
themselves (Zhao et al., 2011). Therefore, consumers’
preferences are not subject to discreet evaluation, nor are they
sensitive to the appraisal context. In this case, our fictitious
HLCPs are:

Sony and Calvin Klein (cK);

Sony and Burberry;

Philips and Calvin Klein (cK); and

Philips and Burberry headphones.
708
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721
Luxury brands used for this survey have been selected among
those ranking the highest in the Digital IQ Score. Furthermore,
with respect to the first survey, we preferred to select high-tech
brands from more than one country (Sony is from Japan and
Philips is from The Netherlands). A similar approach has
guided our choice of luxury brands (Burberry is from the UK
and cK is from the USA). Lastly, we chose headphones as our
tested products because headphones are very common
electronic products among young consumers (e.g. university
students). As for the first survey, respondents were randomly
assigned to one of the two versions of the survey.
3.1.2 Samples
We chose university students in the community of Madrid, Spain
(undergraduate level), as our respondents to increase
homogeneity of the sample and to minimize random error caused
by selecting the general public (Calder et al., 1981). The student
sample was selected based on its internal validity for consumer
behavior analysis recognized by previous related academic work
on attitude formation (Backhaus et al., 2001; Sicilia et al., 2006).
According to the research from Stevens (2011), most objections
to the use of student samples focus on the lack of generalizability.
When there is no theoretical reason to expect that one specific
sample would react in a different way than another, the research
priority is accurate to establish causal relationships. The internal
validity justifies the use of student sample, because, as Peterson’s
(2001) meta-analysis found, college students tend to be more
homogeneous than nonstudents. In addition, because business
students of a prestigious university are expected to attain their
professional career goals or obtain high managerial positions, this
demographic is likely an important potential target group for
high-tech and luxury brands.
Students completed the surveys as a partial fulfillment of
their course in marketing management. In an attempt to
enhance consumers’ understanding of the terms, luxury brands
and high-tech products, definitions of these two terms were
listed at the beginning of the survey. The first survey was
performed in 2010. We obtained a total of 566 responses. To
ensure the validity of the responses, respondents with low levels
of brand familiarity were eliminated from the database. Results
also show that (Table I), on average, brand familiarities of these
four brands are high and similar among them:
1 Samsung (M = 5.95);
2 LG (M = 5.90);
3 Giorgio Armani (M = 5.60); and
4 Prada (M = 5.46).
After excluding invalid and low brand familiarity toward the
products, we were left with 483 valid components (87 per cent)
of which 39 per cent of the respondents were males. The
demographics of respondents are presented in Table II.
In 2013, surveys containing the same questions were
distributed to students at the same university but with different
products and respondents. The selection of valid components
followed the same procedure as the first survey. Again, similar
to the results of our first survey, on average, brand familiarities
among these four brands are also high and close:
1 Sony (M = 5.78);
2 Philips (M = 5.77);
3 Burberry (M = 5.77); and
4 cK (M = 5.80).
 Detangling consumer attitudes Journal of Product & Brand Management
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721

Table I Mean values and standard deviations of items brand familiarity

Year 2010 Year 2013
Samsung-Armani N: 178 LG-Prada N: 153 Sony-cK N: 226 Philips-Burberry N: 257
Brand Familiarity Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
High-tech brand* 5.95 0.94 5.90 0.90 5.78 0.97 5.77 1.01
Luxury brand* 5.60 1.05 5.46 1.35 5.80 1.38 5.77 1.27
Note: *Three items (Appendix)

We obtained 331 valid components (81 per cent) of a total of respondents recognized SAMSUNG and LG as high-tech
407 components of which 49 per cent of the respondents were brands, and that ARMANI and GUCCI as luxury brands.
males. The ratios of the sample size to survey items (30 items) Before testing the model fit of the structural model, it is
for the sample satisfies the minimum requirements specified by recommended to perform a rigorous testing of measurement
Gorsuch (1983) and Thompson (2000). reliability and validity (Close et al., 2006). To measure
affect and cognition, we used the items from Ratchford
3.1.3 Measures
(1987). Acceptance of high-tech products has been
For both sets of surveys, participants completed an online
measured by using the items by Roehm and Sternthal
questionnaire, which provided a product information sheet
(2001). To measure attitude toward luxury brands, we
consisting of three parts – product name, a picture of the followed the scale developed by Wilcox et al. (2009). To
product and a set of product attributes including price. All measure the product fit and brand fit, we used the scale of
measures (Appendix 1 and Table III) used in the two sets of Aaker and Keller (1990). Lastly, consumer behavior has
surveys were evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging been measured by means of a scale related to the
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). We recommendation to buy, which we derived from Baker and
translated our questionnaires into Spanish using a back- Churchill (1977).
translation to ensure comparability and equivalence in the
meaning of questionnaires (Brislin, 1970; Hult et al., 2008).
3.2 Data analysis
We adopted these items from previous studies and
Given the objective of this study, we conduct our analysis in
performed a pretest (participants N = 40) to refine the
two steps. First, we analyze the dimensional structure of the
measurement instruments. In the pretest, all of the
theoretical constructs. We subsequently analyze the respective
measurement models in terms of reliability and construct
Table II Demographics of respondents validity by multi-group analysis. Lastly, to test our hypothesis,
Characteristics Year 2010 (%) Year 2013 (%) we evaluate the results of the structural equation models with
latent variables.
Gender In this research, we used structural equation modeling
Male 46 44 (SEM). SEM enables us to simultaneously analyze our
Female 54 56 observed and latent variables from a perspective multi-
Age sample (Bollen, 1989; Jöreskog, 1993) and to obtain test
Under 20 years 37 28 and estimate measurement and/or structural models based
21-30 year 63 72 on robust statistics with multivariate non-normality
(Bentler, 2006; Muthén and Muthén, 1998-2012). To
Annual household income estimate our models, we selected two programs – MPLUS
Under e6,000 8 7 7.11 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998-2012) and EQS 6.2
e6,001-18,000 28 24 (Bentler, 2006). Thus, for assessing the overall suitability of
e18,001-30,000 49 35 the proposed models, we analyzed:
e30,001-60,000 12 26
the robust chi-square, the root mean square error of
e60,001 or over 3 8 approximation (RMSEA);
Part-time job
the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR, the
Yes 16 35 smaller the coefficient is, the better the model fit is); and
No 84 65
the comparative fit index (CFI).

Electronic device possession* We also conduct the robust Lagrange multiplier test (Bentler,
EBook/PDA 12 18 2006) to assess the multi-group equality constraints. Here, a
Music player 42 35 RMSEA of 0.08 to 0.10 is considered a mediocre fit and below
Mini PC/Netbook 17 40 0.08 provides a good model fit (MacCallum et al., 1996).
Navigation system 18 28 Recommendations for SRMR are less than 0.08 and a cutoff
Digital camera 42 36 criterion of CFI is larger or equal to 0.9 (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
To assess the measurement model, we follow the approach
Notes: N2010 = 483 and N2013 = 331; *Allow to choose more than one
suggested by Bagozzi (1980, 2010). After assessing their fit, we
device
analyze the reliability of the constructs, together with their

709
 Detangling consumer attitudes Journal of Product & Brand Management
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721

Table III Mean and standard deviations of observed variables

Year 2010 Year 2013
Code Construct and items Mean SD Mean SD
ATTLB Attitude toward luxury brands
ATTLB_1 Luxury brands reflect the kind of person I see myself to be 3.03 1.76 3.00 1.63
ATTLB_2 Luxury brands help me communicate my self-identity 2.98 1.75 2.92 1.64
ATTLB_3 Luxury brands help me express myself 2.54 1.60 2.57 1.52
ATTLB_4 Luxury brands help me define myself 2.72 1.62 2.73 1.56
ATTLB_5 Luxury brands are a symbol of social status 5.07 1.62 5.23 1.53
ATTLB_6 Luxury brands help me fit into important social situations 3.84 1.89 3.94 1.92
ATTLB_7 I like to be seen wearing luxury brands 3.13 1.84 3.44 1.84
ATTLB_8 I enjoy it when people know I am wearing a luxury brand 2.81 1.85 3.03 1.60
PF Product fit
PF_1 I think LG’s products and PRADA’s products are a complementary product combination 3.21 1.43 3.24 1.43
PF_2 I think LG’s products and PRADA’s products can be used together in a natural manner 3.72 1.50 3.83 1.43
PF_3 I think LG’s products and PRADA’s products are an appropriate product combination 3.60 1.49 3.52 1.36
BF Brand fit
BF_1 The images or associations that you might have for the brand of LG and PRADA are consistent 3.81 1.53 3.86 1.35
BF_2 The images or associations that you might have for the brand of LG and PRADA are complementary 3.46 1.60 3.52 1.50
BF_3 The images or associations that you might have for the brand of LG and PRADA are expected 2.97 1.54 3.07 1.56
ACCHT Acceptance of high-tech products
ACCHT_1 I like high-tech products 5.20 1.47 5.19 1.44
ACCHT_2 I think high-tech products are useful 5.57 1.25 5.60 1.16
ACCHT_3 I think high-tech products are good 5.32 1.23 5.43 1.14
ACCHT_4 I find that high-tech products are practical 5.42 1.26 5.44 1.25
ACCHT_5 High-tech products are worth owning 5.16 1.34 5.18 1.26
ACCHT_6 High-tech products are impressive 5.49 1.42 5.71 1.26
ACCHT_7 High-tech products are valuable 5.28 1.30 5.38 1.17
ACCHT_8 High-tech products are advanced 6.01 1.12 6.17 0.95
AFF Affect
AFF_1 Owning a LG PRADA cell phone expresses my personality 3.38 1.89 3.44 1.86
AFF_2 Owning a LG PRADA cell phone is based on a lot of feeling 2.82 1.66 3.03 1.59
COG Cognition
COG_1 Owning a LG PRADA cell phone is mainly logical or objective 2.25 1.29 2.23 1.23
COG_2 Owning a LG PRADA cell phone is based mainly on functional facts 2.49 1.45 2.43 1.42
REC Recommendation to Buy
REC_1 Would you like to try the LG PRADA cell phone? 2.21 1.51 2.12 1.38
REC_2 I would patronize this LG PRADA cell phone 2.48 1.53 2.35 1.43
Notes: 2010: LG; 2013: SONY; 2010: SAMSUNG; 2013: PHILIPS; 2010: PRADA; 2013: BURBERRY; 2010: ARMANI: 2013: cK

convergent and discriminant validity. The reliability of the
observed variables is evaluated with the standardized factor
loadings of the indicators for each construct and their reliability
coefficients. Furthermore, to evaluate the precision for each of
the latent variables, we used the composite reliability coefficient
(CRC) (McDonald, 1985) and the average variance extracted
(AVE) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). With a given model of
measurement, the parameters of interest for the evaluation of
discriminant validity are the AVE. The estimation of the
squared correlations among the latent variables, in parallel, will
be analyzed to determine whether 1 lies inside all the
confidence intervals around the correlation estimate between
any two factors (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Lastly, to test
our theoretical framework, we consider the statistical
significance of the estimated parameters and the percentages of
explained variance.
4. Analysis of results
4.1 Measurement model
To test the hypotheses in the empirical model of the year
2010 and 2013 samples concurrently, it is necessary to
assess the factor structure. We applied a confirmatory factor
analysis of the observed variables. The complete theoretical
M. model is a first-order seven-factor model in which each
scale indicated a distinct latent factor. Tables IV, V and VI
show the results of the measurement models. The measure
of goodness-of-fitness indicates a poor fit of the data to the
model in both studies (Study 2010: x 2[329] = 1287.39,

710
 Detangling consumer attitudes Journal of Product & Brand Management
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721

Table IV Results of the complete measurements models: theoretical and empirical across year
Complete theoretical M. model Complete empirical M. model
Year 2010 Year 2013 Year 2010 Year 2013
Code l* R2 Rel. l* R2 Rel. l* R2 Rel. l* R2 Rel.
Attitude toward luxury brands ATTLB
ATTLB_1 0.84* 0.71 0.77 0.84 0.71 0.75 0.84* 0.71 0.77 0.84 0.71 0.75
ATTLB_2 0.92* 0.85 0.61 0.93 0.86 0.59 0.92* 0.85 0.61 0.93 0.86 0.59
ATTLB_3 0.89* 0.79 0.92 0.85 0.89* 0.79 0.92 0.85
ATTLB_4 0.90* 0.81 0.92 0.85 0.90* 0.81 0.92 0.85
ATTLB_5 0.45* 0.20 0.37 0.14 0.45* 0.20 0.37 0.14
ATTLB_6 0.70* 0.49 0.64 0.41 0.70* 0.49 0.64 0.41
ATTLB_7 0.72* 0.52 0.67 0.45 0.72* 0.52 0.67 0.45
ATTLB_8 0.72* 0.52 0.70 0.49 0.72* 0.52 0.68 0.46
Product fit PF
PF_1 0.84* 0.71 0.78 0.84 0.71 0.80 0.84* 0.71 0.73 0.84 0.71 0.73
PF_2 0.72* 0.52 0.62 0.74 0.55 0.64 0.72* 0.52 0.62 0.75 0.56 0.61
PF_3 0.79* 0.62 0.82 0.67 0.79* 0.62 0.82 0.67
Brand fit BF
BF_1 0.74* 0.55 0.68 0.65 0.42 0.65 0.74* 0.55 0.68 0.46
BF_2 0.84* 0.71 0.49 0.82 0.67 0.45 0.83* 0.69 0.81 0.66
BF_3 0.46* 0.21 0.49 0.24 0.46* 0.21 0.50 0.25
Acceptance of high-tech products ACCHT
ACCHT_1 0.76* 0.58 0.77 0.81 0.66 0.75 0.76* 0.58 0.77 0.81 0.66 0.75
ACCHT_2 0.88* 0.77 0.59 0.90 0.81 0.57 0.88* 0.77 0.59 0.90 0.81 0.57
ACCHT_3 0.83* 0.69 0.85 0.72 0.83* 0.69 0.85 0.72
ACCHT_4 0.86* 0.74 0.83 0.69 0.86* 0.74 0.83 0.69
ACCHT_5 0.81* 0.66 0.74 0.55 0.81* 0.66 0.74 0.55
ACCHT_6 0.57* 0.32 0.57 0.32 0.57* 0.32 0.57 0.32
ACCHT_7 0.72* 0.52 0.68 0.46 0.72* 0.52 0.68 0.46
ACCHT_8 0.69* 0.48 0.59 0.35 0.69* 0.48 0.59 0.35
AffectAFF
AFF_1 0.76* 0.58 0.78 0.74 0.55 0.80 0.76* 0.58 0.78 0.74 0.55 0.80
AFF_2 0.79* 0.62 0.60 0.86 0.74 0.64 0.79* 0.62 0.60 0.85 0.72 0.64
Cognition COG
COG_1 0.89* 0.79 0.86 0.85 0.72 0.83 0.89* 0.79 0.86 0.85 0.72 0.83
COG_2 0.83* 0.69 0.74 0.80 0.64 0.68 0.83* 0.69 0.74 0.80 0.64 0.68
Recommendation to buy REC
REC_1 0.87* 0.76 0.87 0.77 0.59 0.82 0.87* 0.76 0.87 0.77 0.59 0.82
REC_2 0.87* 0.76 0.76 0.86 0.74 0.67 0.87* 0.76 0.76 0.86 0.74 0.67
Goodness x 2 [329] = 1287.39 RMSEA = x 2 [329] = 1595.36 RMSEA = x 2 [335] = 1285.75 RMSEA = x 2 [335] = 1612.08 RMSEA =
of Fit 0.08 SRMR = 0.05 CFI = 0.88 0.11 SRMR = 0.08 CFI = 0.78 0.08 SRMR = 0.05 CFI = 0.88 0.11 SRMR = 0.08 CFI = 0.78
Notes: Standardized path coefficients are reported and all l are significant at *p < 0.00; reliability of the latent variables: CRC/AVE. Complete Theoretical
M. Model: Complete Theoretical Measurement Model. Complete Empirical M. Model: Complete Empirical Measurement Model: with PRODUCT-BRAND
FIT (P-BF)

RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.05 and CFI = 0.88; Study 2013:
x 2[329] = 1595.36, RMSEA = 0.11, SRMR = 0.08 and
CFI = 0.78). The standardized parameter estimates
obtained do not provide clear evidence of the reliability and
convergent discriminate of our seven dimensions across the
samples. The most important issue is the high correlation
between product fit and brand fit that shows the existence of
one unique latent variable (U2010 = 0.98 [0.88, 1.08] and
U2013 = 0.99 [0.88, 1.08]). We decided to make one unique
latent variable product-brand fit.
Thus, we estimated a first-order six-factor model (complete
empirical measurement model). The measures of goodness-of-
fitness show reasonable fit of the data to the model in both
studies (Study 2010: x 2[335] = 1285.75, RMSEA = 0.08,
SRMR = 0.05 and CFI = 0.88; Study 2013: x 2[335] =
1612.08, RMSEA = 0.11, SRMR = 0.08 and CFI = 0.78). Our
results provided no problems with the discriminate validity, but
the complete empirical measurement model yielded significant
problems of reliability and convergent validity of the observed
variables (l < 0.70, R2 < 0.50). Thus, we eliminated the

711
 Detangling consumer attitudes Journal of Product & Brand Management
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721

Table V Results of the reduced empirical measurements model and invariance factorial across years
Reduced empirical M. model: Reduced empirical M. model:
without constraints with constraints
Year 2010 Year 2013 Year 2010 Year 2013
Code l* R2 Rel. l* R2 Rel. l* R2 Rel. Constraints x 2[1] Constraints x 2[1]
Attitude toward luxury brands ATTLB
ATTLB_1 0.86* 0.74 0.90 0.85 0.72 0.91 0.85* 0.72 0.90 kATTLB_1 0.74 r2ATTLB_1 1.06
ATTLB_2 0.94* 0.88 0.81 0.94 0.88 0.83 0.94* 0.88 0.81 kATTLB_2 1.29 r2ATTLB_2 1.69
ATTLB_3 0.89* 0.79 0.93 0.86 0.90* 0.81 kATTLB_3 0.29 r2ATTLB_3 4.58
ATTLB_4 0.90* 0.81 0.92 0.85 0.91* 0.83 kATTLB_4 0.46 r2ATTLB_4 2.81
Product-brand fit p-BF
PF_1 0.85* 0.72 0.80 0.83 0.69 0.81 0.84* 0.71 0.80 kPF_1 1.17 r2PF_1 0.00
PF_2 0.72* 0.52 0.63 0.76 0.58 0.65 0.74* 0.55 0.64 kPF_2 0.03 r2PF_2 1.64
PF_3 0.78* 0.61 0.82 0.67 0.79* 0.62 kPF_3 0.95 r2PF_3 4.21
BF_2 0.83* 0.69 0.81 0.66 0.82* 0.67 kBF_2 1.00 r2BF_2 1.50
Acceptance of high-tech products ACCHT
ACCHT_1 0.76* 0.58 0.83* 0.81 0.66 0.83 0.76* 0.58 0.83 kACCHT_1 2.64 r2ACCHT_1 1.89
ACCHT_2 0.90* 0.81 0.69 0.91 0.83 0.69 0.91* 0.83 0.70 kACCHT_2 1.80 r2ACCHT_2 0.95
ACCHT_3 0.82* 0.67 0.84 0.71 0.83* 0.69 kACCHT_3 0.26 r2ACCHT_3 4.20
ACCHT_4 0.87* 0.76 0.86 0.74 0.87* 0.76 kACCHT_4 1.47 r2ACCHT_4 0.17
ACCHT_5 0.81* 0.66 0.73 0.53 0.79* 0.62 kACCHT_5 4.14 r2ACCHT_5 0.71
Affect AFF
AFF_1 0.76* 0.58 0.78 0.75 0.56 0.80 0.76* 0.58 0.79 kAFF_1 0.44 r2AFF_1 0.08
AFF_2 0.79* 0.62 0.60 0.85 0.72 0.64 0.81* 0.66 0.62 kAFF_2 0.01 r2AFF_2 1.39
Cognition COG
COG_1 0.89* 0.79 0.86 0.86 0.74 0.83 0.88* 0.77 0.85 kCOG_1 0.10 r2COG_1 0.29
COG_2 0.83* 0.69 0.74 0.80 0.64 0.69 0.82* 0.67 0.72 kCOG_2 0.00 r2COG_2 0.51
Recommendation to buy REC
REC_1 0.87* 0.76 0.87 0.77 0.59 0.82 0.83* 0.69 0.85 kREC_1 1.89 r2REC_1 0.64
REC_2 0.87* 0.76 0.76 0.86 0.74 0.67 0.87* 0.76 0.72 kREC_2 0.11 r2REC_2 0.25
Goodness of Fit x 2 [137] = 311.73 x 2 [137] = 464.23 x 2 [312] = 832.21 RMSEA = 0.06 SRMR = 0.06 CFI = 0.95
RMSEA = 0.05 SRMR = RMSEA = 0.08 SRMR =
0.04 CFI = 0.97 0.05 CFI = 0.90
x 2 [274] = 781.83 RMSEA = 0.07 SRMR = 0.05 CFI
= 0.95
Notes: Standardized path coefficients are reported and all l are significant at *p < 0.00; Reliability of the latent variables: CRC/AVE. Reduced Empirical
M. Model: Reduced Empirical Measurement Model: with PRODUCT-BRAND FIT (P-BF) and without ATTLB_5-ATTLB_6-ATTLB_7 ATTLB_8- BF_1- BF_3-
ACCHT_6- ACCHT_7- ACCHT_8

observed variables with reliability problems in both samples;
ATTLB_5, ATTLB_6, ATTLB_7, ATTLB_8, BF_1, BF_3,
ACCHT_6, ACCHT_7 and ACCHT_8.
The new measurement model has six latent variables and
19 observed variables. The indexes of goodness-of-fit index,
of the reduced empirical measurement model, show that this
model fits the data reasonably well (Study 2010: x 2[137] =
311.73, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.04 and CFI = 0.97;
Study 2013: x 2[137] = 464.23, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR =
0.05 and CFI = 0.90). Table V shows that the standardized
parameter estimates obtained are the evidence of the
reliability and convergent validity of six factors (l > 0.70,
R2 > 0.50, AVE > 0.50 and CRC > 0.70). The AVEs are
above the squared correlation among the latent variables
(AVE > U1/2) and of course, 1 is outside the confidence
intervals around the correlation estimate between any two
latent variables (Table VI). As such, this measurement
model is deemed to demonstrate adequate reliability,
convergent and discriminant validity.
At this point, we evaluated the factorial invariance between
the two different samples (year 2010 and year 2013) applied to
the covariance structure; this is the measurement equivalence
or metric invariance across the factor loadings and the
measurement error variances. First, we estimated the reduced
empirical measurement model simultaneously in both samples
without constraints. The goodness-of-fitness of this model is:
x 2[274] = 781.83, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.05 and CFI =
0.95. Second, we estimated the same model with 38 equality
constraints on parameter – 19 factor loadings and 19 error
variances (Table V). The goodness-of-fitness reveals a
reasonable fit of the data: x 2[312] = 832.21, RMSEA = 0.06,
SRMR = 0.06 and CFI = 0.95. Table V shows the x 2[1] for
each factor loading and for each measurement error variance:
38 individual contrasts of equal the parameters across the two

712
 Table VI Correlation matrix and confidence intervals of the latent variables

Model Year 2010 Year 2013

Complete theoretical
M. Model ATTLB PF BF ACCHT AFF COG ATTLB PF BF ACCHT AFF COG

0.21*** 0.07
Product fit PF (0.13, 0.29) (0.03, 0.17)
0.23*** 0.98*** 0.10 0.99***
Brand fit BF (0.14, 0.31) (0.88, 1.08) (0.02, 0.22) (0.89, 1.09)
Acceptance of
high-tech products 0.14*** 0.19*** 0.24** 0.14** 0.21*** 0.24**
ACCHT (0.06, 0.22) (0.11, 0.27) (0.16, 0.32) (0.06, 0.22) (0.13, 0.29) (0.16, 0.32)
0.66*** 0.41*** 0.40*** 0.14** 0.67*** 0.26*** 0.15*** 0.11*
Affect AFF (0.58, 0.74) (0.33, 0.49) (0.32, 0.48) (0.06, 0.22) (0.59, 0.75) (0.18, 0.34) (0.05, 0.25) (0.01, 0.19)
0.21*** 0.49*** 0.48*** 0.11** 0.41*** 0.25*** 0.38*** 0.31*** 0.03 0.42***
Detangling consumer attitudes

Cognition COG (0.13, 0.29) (0.41, 0.57) (0.42, 0.56) (0.03, 0.19) (0.33, 0.49) (0.17, 0.33) (0.30, 0.46) (0.25, 0.39) (0.11, 0.05) (0.34, 0.50)
Recommendation 0.33*** 0.47*** 0.47*** 0.10* 0.56*** 0.61*** 0.37*** 0.37*** 0.32*** 0.03 0.53*** 0.64***
to buy REC (0.25, 0.41) (0.39, 0.55) (0.41, 0.55) (0.02, 0.18) (0.48, 0.64) (0.53, 0.69) (0.29, 0.45) (0.29, 0.45) (0.26, 0.40) (0.11, 0.05) (0.45, 0.61) (0.56, 0.72)
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres

Complete
Empirical M. Model ATTLB P-BF ACCHT AFF COG ATTLB P-BF ACCHT AFF COG
Product-brand fit 0.22*** 0.08
P-BF (0.14, 0.30) (0.04, 0.18)
Acceptance of
high-tech products 0.14*** 0.21*** 0.14** 0.22***

713
ACCHT (0.06, 0.22) (0.13, 0.29) (0.06, 0.22) (0.14, 0.30)
0.66*** 0.41*** 0.14** 0.68*** 0.22*** 0.11*
Affect AFF (0.58, 0.74) (0.33, 0.98) (0.06, 0.22) (0.60, 0.76) (0.14, 0.30) (0.03, 0.19)
0.21*** 0.48*** 0.11** 0.41*** 0.25*** 0.36*** 0.03 0.42***
Cognition COG (0.13, 0.29) (0.40, 0.56) (0.03, 0.19) (0.33, 0.49) (0.17, 0.33) (0.28, 0.44) (0.11, 0.05) (0.34, 0.50)
Recommendation 0.33*** 0.47*** 0.10* 0.56*** 0.61*** 0.37*** 0.35*** 0.03 0.53*** 0.64***
to buy REC (0.25, 0.41) (0.39, 0.55) (0.04, 0.18) (0.48, 0.64) (0.53, 0.69) (0.29, 0.45) (0.27, 0.43) (0.09, 0.05) (0.45, 0.61) (056, 0.72)

Reduced Empirical
M. Model ATTLB P-BF ACCHT AFF COG ATTLB P-BF ACCHT AFF COG
0.22*** 0.09
Product-brand fit (0.14, 0.30) (0.03, 0.19)
Acceptance of
high-tech products 0.10** 0.20*** 0.12** 0.24***
ACCHT (0.02, 0.18) (0.12, 0.28) (0.04, 0.20) (0.16, 0.32)
0.64*** 0.40*** 0.11** 0.67*** 0.20*** 0.10*
Affect (0.56, 0.72) (0.32, 0.48) (0.03, 0.19) (0.59, 0.75) (0.12, 0.28) (0.02, 0.18)
0.21*** 0.47*** 0.10* 0.41*** 0.27*** 0.33*** 0.04 0.42***
Cognition (0.13, 0.29) (0.39, 0.55) (0.02, 0.18) (0.33, 0.49) (0.19, 0.35) (0.25, 0.41) (0.12, 0.04) (0.34, 0.50)
Recommendation 0.32*** 0.46*** 0.08* 0.56*** 0.61*** 0.37*** 0.33*** 0.03 0.53*** 0.64***
Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721
Journal of Product & Brand Management

to buy (0.24, 0.40) (0.38, 0.54) (0.02, 0.16) (0.48, 0.64) (0.53, 0.69) (0.29, 0.45) (0.26, 0.40) (0.09, 0.05) (0.45, 0.61) (056, 0.72)
Notes: ATTLB: Attitude toward Luxury Brands. In brackets: Confidence intervals at 95%; and ***p < 0.00; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10; Complete Theoretical M. Model: Complete Theoretical Measurement
Model. Complete Empirical M. Model: Complete Empirical Measurement Model: with PRODUCT-BRAND FIT (P-BF). Reduced Empirical M. Model: Reduced Empirical Measurement Model: with PRODUCT-
BRAND FIT (P-BF) and without ATTLB_5-ATTLB_6-ATTLB_7 ATTLB_8- BF_1- BF_3- ACCHT_6- ACCHT_7- ACCHT_8
 Detangling consumer attitudes
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres
samples (Rivera and Satorra, 2002). For the factor loadings,
only one hypothesis of equal the parameters is rejected
(l ACCHT_5: 2010 = l ACCHT_5: 2013; x 2[1] = 4.14, p > 0.04).
Regarding the error variance, only three of the 19 tests conducted
lead us to reject the null hypothesis of equality the error variance
(s 2ATTLB_3: 2010 = s 2ATTLB_3: 2013, s 2PF_3: 2010 = s 2PF_3: 2013
and s 2ACCHT_3: 2010 = s 2ACCHT_3: 2013 with p > 0.04). Lastly, we
evaluated simultaneously the 38 equality constraints on the
parameter. We used SBDIFF.EXE to compute significance
test on the difference between Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-
square statistics (Crawford and Henry, 2003; Satorra, 2000;
Satorra and Bentler, 2001). It is used for the calculation of
these statistics:

the Satorra–Bentler x 2 for the more constrained model
 x 2 [312] = 832.21;

the Normal x 2 for the more constrained model  x 2
[312] = 1013.95;

the Satorra–Bentler x 2 for the less constrained model  x 2
[274] = 781.83; and

the Normal x 2 for the less constrained model  x 2[274] =
943.62.
The Satorra–Bentler Scaled Difference reach 54.06, with 38
degrees of freedom and the p > 0.04 (Table VII).
Accordingly, we cannot reject the hypothesis of equal the
factor loadings and the measurement error variances in the
Reduced Empirical Measurement Model, but we can reject
the hypothesis of equal the correlations between the latent
variables (D x 2 = 1.98, df = 53, p < 0.00). As such, this
measurement model is deemed to demonstrate strict
invariance in the covariance structure about loading
invariance and homogeneity measurement error but not in
the correlation matrix (Meredith, 1993). Consequently, the
covariance structures across the time periods are not
invariants, and we cannot combine the two samples for
estimation of our structural model.
4.2 Structural model
Having tested the dimensional structure of the variables,
first owing to combine product fit and brand fit into one
construct, product-brand fit, this study uses reduced
empirical measurement model to get the empirical results.
In addition, apart from H1a, H1b, H1c, H4, H5, H6a and
H6b, maintain the same hypotheses as the theoretical
measurement model. The new hypotheses are as follows:
“H2-H3: Consumer behavior toward HLCPs is positively
influenced by the degree of product-brand fit of constituent
brands”; “H7a-H7b: Affect positively mediates the effect of
product-brand fit on consumer behavior toward HLCPs” and
“H7c-H7d: Cognition positively mediates the effect of
Table VII Fit indices for the nested sequence in the multiple group confirmatory factor analysis
Model Normal x 2
Configural invariance 943.62
Loading invariance 964.65
Homogeneity of measurement errors 1013.95
Equality of correlations 1063.49
Note: Each nested model contains its constraints, plus the constraints of all previous, tenable models
714
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721
Figure 2 Theoretical model II
product-brand fit on consumer behavior toward HLCPs”.
Figure 2 shows the new conceptual model.
We estimated our structural model. The goodness-of-
fitness reveals reasonable fit of the data: Study 2010:
x 2[139] = 367.98, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.04 and
CFI = 0.96; Study 2013: x 2[139] = 483.76, RMSEA =
0.08, SRMR = 0.06 and CFI = 0.90. Table VIII shows the
relationship among all constructs. It describes the effects of
affect and cognition on recommendation to buy. Both affect
(AffR (2013) = 0.26, p < 0.01; AffR (2010) = 0.35, p < 0.01)
and cognition (CogR (2013) = 0.46, p < 0.01; CogR (2010) =
0.41, p < 0.01) positively influence recommendation to buy in
both periods. Thus, H1a and H1b fail to reject. In addition,
H1c is no rejection because there exists a correlation
significant and positive between affect and cognition
(CorreAC (2013) = 0.32, p < 0.01; CorreAC (2010) = 0.25, p <
0.01) (Figure 3).
Table VIII represents the relationship between product-brand
fit and recommendation to buy that is significant in both periods
(PBFR (2013) = 0.15, p < 0.01; PBFR (2010) = 0.13, p < 0.01).
“H2-H3” is no rejection. Acceptance of high-tech products has no
impact on recommendation to buy in both periods (AccR (2013) =
0.09, p > 0.10; AccR (2010) = 0.02, p > 0.10). Therefore, H4
is rejected. Attitude toward luxury brands does not influence
recommendation to buy (AttR (2013) = 0.10, p > 0.10; AttR (2010) =
0.02, p > 0.10). It concludes that H5 is rejected.
With regard to the results of affect and cognition as mediators,
in both periods, attitude toward luxury brands positively
influences affect (AttA (2013) = 0.62, p < 0.01; AttA (2010) = 0.57,
p < 0.01), affect positively influences recommendation to buy
(AffR (2013) = 0.26, p < 0.01; AffR (2010) = 0.35, p < 0.01) and
the indirect effect is positive and significant (AttA ! AffR (2013) =
0.16, p < 0.01; AttA ! AffR (2010) = 0.20, p < 0.01), failing to
reject H6a.
S-B x 2 df Dx 2 Ddf p
781.83 274 – – –
812.32 293 23.15 19 >0.233
832.21 312 54.06 38 >0.042
851.56 327 71.98 53 <0.001
 Detangling consumer attitudes Journal of Product & Brand Management
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721

Table VIII Results of the structural model

Attitude Acceptance of
toward luxury Product-brand high-tech
Year 2010 brands fit products Affect Cognition R2
Direct effects
Affect 0.57*** 0.28*** 0.47
Cognition 0.48*** 0.01 0.23
Recommendation to buy 0.02 0.13** 0.02 0.35*** 0.41*** 0.50
Indirect effects
Affect fi Recommendation to buy 0.20*** 0.10**
Cognition fi Recommendation to buy 0.20*** 0.01
Year 2013
Direct effects
Affect 0.62*** 0.15** 0.43
Cognition 0.36*** 0.10 0.12
Recommendation to buy 0.10 0.15** 0.09 0.26*** 0.46*** 0.48
Indirect effect
Affect fi Recommendation to buy 0.16** 0.04
Cognition fi Recommendation to buy 0.16*** 0.06
Notes: Standardized path coefficients are reported. ***p < 0.00; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10. Goodness of Fit of the Structural Model 2010: x 2 [139] =
367.98, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.04 and CFI = 0.96. Goodness of Fit of the Structural Model 2013: x 2 [139] = 483.76, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.06 and
CFI = 0.90

Figure 3 Estimated model (2010/2013)

In 2013, the relationship between acceptance of high-tech
products and cognition is insignificant (AccC (2013) = 0.10, p >
0.10). In addition, the relationship is insignificant in 2010
(AccC (2010) = 0.01, p > 0.10) either. Hence, H6b is not
supported.
Product-brand fit positively influences affect (ProA (2013) =
0.15, p < 0.01; ProA (2010) = 0.28, p < 0.01), and affect
positively influences recommendation to buy in both periods
(AffR (2013) = 0.26, p < 0.01; AffR (2010) = 0.35, p < 0.01). In
this case, the indirect effect is positive and significant in 2010,
but not in 2013 (ProA (2013) ! AffR (2013) = 0.04, p > 0.01;
ProA (2010) ! AffR (2010) = 0.10, p < 0.01). H7a-H7b is thus
partially supported.
H7c-H7d states that cognition plays a mediator role in the
relationship between product-brand fit and consumers’
recommendation to buy. This hypothesis is not rejected as
product-brand fit positively influences cognition (ProC (2013) =
0.36, p < 0.01; ProC (2010) = 0.48, p < 0.01), cognition
positively impacts recommendation to buy in both periods
(CogR (2013) = 0.46, p < 0.01; CogR (2010) = 0.41, p < 0.01)
and the indirect effects are positive and significant in both
periods (ProC (2013) ! CogR (2013) = 0.16, p < 0.00;
ProC (2010) ! CogR (2013) = 0.20, p < 0.01).
Furthermore, concerning the entire model, it demonstrates
a similar percentage of variance of recommendation to buy in
both periods (R22013 = 0.48; R22010 = 0.50), and the

715
 Detangling consumer attitudes
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres
significant results shown in Table VII reveal a similar model
for two periods. For both periods, attitude toward luxury
brands and acceptance of high-tech products do not have any
direct effect on consumers’ recommendation to buy HLCPs.
The effects of attitude toward luxury brands and product-brand
fit on recommendation to buy are mediated by affect and
cognition.
5. Conclusions
5.1 Discussion
The central aim of this study is to identify the success drivers of
co-branded products, especially for HLCPs, by detangling
consumer attitudes. This study provides new insights into
important issues regarding product preference development and
the exact direction in which to strengthen product evaluation.
Much of the previous research on co-branding primarily analyzed
the impact of behavioral intention, without untangling the
different paths through which the various successful drivers of co-
branding may impact consumer behavior. By detangling
consumers’ attitudes into their three main components, this
paper sheds light on the subtle routes underlying consumer
behavior in the case of co-branded products.
Our results from both 2010 and 2013 offer significant
theoretical and managerial contributions to co-branding
literature in several ways. First, consumers’ affect and cognition
do influence their consumer behavior directly. This is most likely
caused by the two specific attributes of HLCPs that arouse both
consumers’ affect and cognition. As the study of Kempf (1999)
suggests, while the evaluations of functional products are mainly
impacted by affect and cognition, the evaluations of hedonic
products are mainly influenced by affect.
Second, concerning brand fit and product fit, the results
demonstrate that the convergence of these two constructs also
impact consumer behavior regarding HLCPs. Our results
suggest that potential clients should consider both constructs as
intrinsically joined. They should evaluate the fit between the
products and the fit between the brands in a very close way, not
discriminating between either construct. In this case, the
complementarity among both brands is the key driver concept.
Product-brand fit is a very important component driving
consumer behavior. It is the only construct with both direct and
indirect effects on consumers’ recommendation to buy
HLCPs. Its indirect impact is mediated by both the affect and
cognition.
Third, in terms of the total impact of the two periods, the
total effect of product-brand fit (PBFTC (2013) = 0.36;
PBFTC (2010) = 0.48) on cognition is larger than those of
affect (PBFTA (2013) = 0.15; PBFTA (2010) = 0.28).
Fourth, our results show that the correlations between affect
and cognition in the two periods are positive. This is in line with
the ABC model of attitudes formation, which demonstrates
that consumers perceive both affect and cognition as essential
to recommendation intention when assessing HLCPs.
Fifth, according to the annual report of the management
consulting firm Bain & Co.[1], the luxury brands sales in
2012 have shown a 10 per cent increase with respect to 2010,
notwithstanding the financial crisis. The total effect of
attitudes toward luxury brands on recommendation to buy
are significant, and the effect in 2013 is larger than 2010
716
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721
(ACCR (2013) = 0.26 > ACCR (2010) = 0.20). It implies that,
even though consumers may suffer a serious economic crisis
and have passive expectation for future economic growth,
their desires to have luxury brands are not stopped by the
financial crisis. In this sense, these results seem to contrast
prior studies by Kim et al. (2009), which point out that a
financial crisis changes consumers’ perceptions, and
consumers become more conservative leading them to prefer
more security and trust. Also, the results are inconsistent with
prior studies by Reyneke et al. (2012), which show that
economic and financial crisis influence the perception of
customers.
Sixth, the effects of acceptance of high-tech products on
cognition are negative in the two periods. The reason for this
phenomenon might be caused by the features of HLCPs.
Because HLCPs combine the features of high-tech technology
and luxury, the price of HLCPs is much higher than the cell
phones with similar specifications. It also suggests that
consumers perceive HLCPs as luxury brands, not only high-
tech products.
Taken together, our findings thus confirm that both affect
and cognition, and product-brand fit play significant roles in
driving consumer behavior toward HLCPs.
5.2 Managerial implications
Co-branding may offer a solid strategy to help companies
survive the current financial crisis (Lee et al., 2006), by
contrasting sales decline and worsening business performance.
For example, because HLCPs provide consumers with both
high-tech and luxury attributes, they may represent a relatively
easy possibility for constituent companies to extend their
product lines and increase consumers’ loyalty. The high-tech
attribute may help luxury brands enhance exclusivity and high-
end brand image; for high-tech products, a luxury attribute
may provide added value to more practical functions.
Therefore, our results have critical implications for
marketing managers. First, although HLCPs combine two
diverse components within one product, consumer behavior is
still symmetrically influenced by the two types of attributes:
high-tech and luxury attributes. Second, because luxury brands
could extend to more product categories than high-tech brands
(Park et al., 1991), it is recommended that high-tech producers
align with well-known luxury partners to take advantage of
luxury attributes.
This implies that marketers could emphasize the luxury
attributes of these HLCPs with advertising and promoting.
This may also increase the unique feature of HLCPs and
positively impact consumers’ purchase motivation (Mazodier
and Merunka, 2014). Third, product-brand fit has a direct and
positive impact on consumer behavior and also an indirect and
positive impact on it via the affect and cognition. This result
suggests that firms should meaningfully focus on finding the
most harmonious product categories when forming a co-
branding alliance. Therefore, in selecting a partner with whom
to align, firms should strongly consider how their respective
product categories fit in consumers’ minds. Last, acceptance of
high-tech products plays no role in 2010, but has a negative role
in 2013. This finding implies that the attribute of high-
technology does not promote favorable preferences in
consumers. We can deduce that, when advertising HLCPs, an
 Detangling consumer attitudes
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres
over-emphasis on the high-tech attribute might lower (rather
than enhance) consumer attitudes.
5.3 Limitations and further research
This study suffers from several limitations that deserve new
avenues for future research. First, all participants in this study
were university students. Although student samples reduce the
problems of heterogeneity, caution is needed when generalizing
these results to the general public. Future research should aim
to extend respondents to other groups (e.g. office workers).
Second, this only considered consumers of one country to test
consumer attitude. This may result in the lack of generality.
Cross-cultural differences are also an important issue when
discussing consumer behavior. Hofstede (2001) suggests that
Eastern and Western consumers have varying perspectives
when faced with the same event. Future research that
incorporates cross-cultural differences would be valuable in this
respect. Third, this study exclusively relies on the ABC model
of theoretical approach to analyze attitudes formation.
However, other theories of consumer attitude and behavior also
exist. Future research could apply theories such as the
functional theory of attitudes by Katz (1960) and multi-
attribute attitude model by Wilkie and Pessemier (1973) to
assess the robustness of our results.
Fourth, gender differences have been considered an
important variable of difference in consumers’ product use and
brand choice (Gould and Stern, 1989). Further research that
encompasses attitudinal differences between males and females
would be fruitful toward the development of a full
comprehension of HLCPs. Lastly, in our theoretical approach,
we have considered consumer behavior as the main dependent
variable. However, from the viewpoint of firms, other variables
might play a more relevant role, such as brand equity
(Washburn et al., 2000). Consequently, future research could
explore whether the co-branding weakens or strengthens the
brand equity of constituent brands before and after
implementing the co-branding strategy.
Note
1 www.ipmark.com/pdf/lujo_2012.pdf [Last accessed: June
10, 2014].
Reference
Aaker, D.A. and Shansby, J.G. (1982), “Positioning your
product”, Business Horizons, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 56-62.
Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990), “Consumer evaluations
of brand extensions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1,
pp. 27-41.
Abbott, M., Holland, R., Giacomin, J. and Shackleton, J.
(2009), “Changing affective content in brand and product
attributes”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 17-26.
Allen, C.T., Machleit, K.A. and Kleine, S.S. (1992), “A
comparison of attitudes and emotions as predictors of
behavior at diverse levels of behavioral experience”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 493-504.
717
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721
Anand, P., Holbrook, M.B. and Stephens, D. (1988), “The
formation of affective judgments: the cognitive-affective
model versus the independence hypothesis”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 386-391.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural
equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended
two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3,
pp. 411-423.
Azhari, M.Z. and Afiff, A.Z. (2015), “The coherence and
congruence of convergence in consumer electronics”, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 377-385.
Backhaus, K., Muhlfeld, K. and Van Doorn, J. (2001),
“Consumer perspectives on standardization in international
advertising: a student sample”, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 53-61.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1980), Causal Models in Marketing, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
Bagozzi, R.P. (2010), “Structural equation models are modelling
tools with many ambiguities: comments acknowledging the
need for caution and humility in their use”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 208-214.
Baker, M.J. and Churchill, G.A. (1977), “The impact of
physically attractive models on advertising evaluations”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 538-555.
Bentler, P.M. (2006), EQS 6 Structural Equations Program
Manual, Multivariate Software, Encino, CA.
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), “Symbolic and functional
positioning of brands”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (2001), “The impact of parent brand
attribute associations and affect on brand extension evaluation”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 111-122.
Blackett, T. and Boad, B. (1999), Co-branding: The Science of
Alliance, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Boush, D.M. and Loken, B. (1991), “A process-tracing study
of brand extension evaluation”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 16-28.
Brislin, R.W. (1970), “Back-translation for cross-cultural
research”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 185-216.
Burke, M.C. and Edell, J.A. (1989), “The impact of feeling on
ad-based affect and cognition”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 69-83.
Calder, B.J., Phillips, L.W. and Tybout, A.M. (1981),
“Designing research for application”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 197-207.
Caro, L.M. and Garcia, J.A.M. (2007), “Cognitive–affective
model of consumer satisfaction: an exploratory study within
the framework of a sporting event”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 108-114.
Chang, W.L. (2009), “Roadmap of co-branding positions and
strategies”, The Journal of American academy of Business,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-84.
Close, A.G., Finney, R.Z., Lacey, R.Z. and Sneath, J.Z.
(2006), “Engaging the consumer through event marketing:
linking attendees with the sponsor, community, and brand”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 420-433.
 Detangling consumer attitudes
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres
Cowley, E. (2007), “How enjoyable was it? Remembering an
affective reaction to a previous consumption experience”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 494-505.
Crawford, J.R. and Henry, J.D. (2003), “The depression
anxiety stress scales: normative data and latent structure in a
large non-clinical sample”, British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 111-131.
Cunha, M. Jr., Forehand, M.R. and Angle, J.W. (2015),
“Riding Coattails: when co-branding helps versus hurts less-
known brands”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 41 No. 5,
pp. 1284-1300.
Da Silva, R.V. and Syed Alwi, S.F. (2006), “Cognitive,
affective attributes and conative, behavioural responses in
retail corporate branding”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 293-305.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
Dong-Hee, S. (2012), “Cross-analysis of usability and
aesthetic in smart devices: what influences users’
preferences?”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 563-587.
Dubé, L., Cervellon, M.C. and Jingyuan, H. (2003), “Should
consumer attitudes be reduced to their affective and
cognitive bases? Validation of a hierarchical model”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 259-272.
Fink, G. and Yolles, M. (2015), “Collective emotion regulation
in an organisation – a plural agency with cognition and
affect”, Journal of Organizational Change Management,
Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 832-871.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Geylani, T., Inman, J.J. and Hofstede, F.T. (2008), “Image
reinforcement or impairment: the effects of co-branding on
attribute uncertainty”, Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 730-744.
Gorsuch, R.L. (1983), Factor Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Gillsdale, NJ.
Gould, S.J. and Stern, B.B. (1989), “Gender schema and
fashion consciousness”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 129-145.
Hansen, P.A. and Serin, G. (1997), “Will low technology
products disappear? The hidden innovation processes in low
technology industries”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 179-191.
Hawkins, D.I., Best, R.J. and Coney, K.A. (2000), Consumer
Behavior, Building Marketing Strategy, 8th ed., Irwin,
McGraw-Hill, Homewood, IL, New York, NY.
Helmig, B., Huber, J.A. and Leeflang, P.S.H. (2007),
“Explaining behavioural intentions toward co-branded
products”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23
Nos 3/4, pp. 285-304.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values,
Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd
ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria
718
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721
versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J. Jr., Griffith, D.A., Gonzalez-
Padron, T., Harmancioglu, N., Hung, Y., Talay, M.B. and
Cavusgil, S.T. (2008), “Data equivalence in cross-cultural
international business research: assessment and guidelines”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 39 No. 6,
pp. 1027-1044.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1993), “Testing structural equation
models”, in Bollen, K. and Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing
Structural Equation Models, Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, CA, pp. 294-316.
Katz, D. (1960), “The functional approach to the study of
attitudes”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 163-204.
Keller, K.L. (2009), “Managing the growth tradeoff:
challenges and opportunities in luxury branding”, Brand
Management, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 290-301.
Kempf, D.S. (1999), “Attitude formation from product trial:
distinct roles of cognition and affect for hedonic and
functional products”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 35-50.
Keer, M., Conner, M., Van den Putte, B. and Neijens, P.
(2014), “The temporal stability and predictive validity of
affect-based and cognition-based intentions”, British Journal
of Social Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 315-327.
Kim, J. and Morris, J.D. (2007), “The power of affective
response and cognitive structure in product-trial attitude
formation”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 95-106.
Kim, M., Lado, N. and Torres, A. (2009), “Evolutionary
changes in services attribute importance in a crisis scenario”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 429-440.
Laurent, G. and Kapferer, J.N. (1985), “Measuring consumer
involvement profiles”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 41-53.
Lee, S.J., Kim, W.G. and Kim, H.J. (2006), “The impact of co-
branding on post-purchase behaviors in family restaurants”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 245-261.
Lim, E.A.C. and Ang, S.H. (2008), “Hedonic vs. utilitarian
consumption: a cross-cultural perspective based on cultural
conditioning”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 3,
pp. 225-232.
McDonald, R.P. (1985), Factor analysis and related methods,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ.
MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W. and Sugawara, H.M.
(1996), “Power analysis and determination of sample size for
covariance structure modeling”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 130-149.
Mano, H. and Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Assessing the
dimensionality and structure of the consumption experience:
evaluation, feeling and satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 451-466.
Mazodier, M. and Merunka, D. (2014), “Beyond brand
attitude: individual drivers of purchase for symbolic
cobranded products”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67
No. 7, pp. 1552-1558.
Menon, S. and Kahn, B.E. (2003), “Corporate sponsorships of
philanthropic activities: when do they impact perception of
 Detangling consumer attitudes
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres
sponsor brand?”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 316-327.
Meredith, W. (1993), “MI, factor analysis and factorial
invariance”, Psychometrika, Vol. 58, pp. 525-543.
Monga, A.B. and Lau-Gesk, L. (2007), “Blending cobrand
personalities: an examination of the complex self”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 389-400.
Morris, J.D., Woo, C., Geason, J.A. and Kim, J. (2002), “The
power of affect: predicting intention”, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 7-17.
Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2012), Mplus User’s
Guide, 5th ed., Muthén and Muthén, Los Angeles, CA.
Nueno, J.L. and Quelch, J.A. (1998), “The mass marketing of
luxury”, Business Horizons, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 61-68.
Park, C.W., Jun, S.Y. and Shocker, A.D. (1996), “Composite
branding alliances: an investigation of extension and
feedback effect”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33
No. 4, pp. 453-466.
Park, C.W., Milberg, S. and Lawson, R. (1991), “Evaluation of
brand extensions: the role of product feature similarity and
brand concept consistency”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 185-193.
Park, H.J., Rabolt, N.J. and Jeon, K.S. (2008), “Purchasing
global luxury brands among young Korean consumers”,
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 244-259.
Peterson, R.A. (2001), “On the use of college students in social
science research insights from a second-order meta-
analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 450-461.
Phau, I. and Prendergast, G. (2000), “Consuming luxury
brands: the relevance of the ‘rarity principle”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 122-138.
Phau, I. and Teah, M. (2009), “Devil wears (counterfeit)
prada: a study of antecedents and outcomes of attitudes
toward counterfeits of luxury brands”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 15-27.
Phau, I., Teah, M. and Lee, A. (2009), “Targeting buyers of
counterfeits of luxury brands: a study on attitudes of
Singaporean consumers”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement
and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Prendergast, G. and Wong, C. (2003), “Parental influence on
the purchase of luxury brands of infant apparel: an
exploratory study in Hong Kong”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 157-169.
Putrevu, S. and Lord, K.R. (1994), “Comparative and
noncomparative advertising: attitudinal effects under
cognitive and affective involvement conditions”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 77-91.
Ramanathan, J. and Purani, K. (2014), “Brand extension
evaluation: real world and virtual world”, Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 504-515.
Rao, A.R. and Ruekert, R.W. (1994), “Branding alliances as
signals of product quality”, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 87-97.
Rao, A.R., Qu, L. and Ruekert, R.W. (1999), “Signaling
unobservable product quality through a brand ally”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 258-268.
Ratchford, B.T. (1987), “New insights about the FCB grid”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 24-38.
719
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721
Ray, M. (1973), “Marketing communications and the
hierarch-of-effects”, in Clarke, P. (Ed.), New Models for Mass
Communications, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 147-176.
Reyneke, M., Sorokácová, A. and Pitt, L. (2012), “Managing
brands in times of economic downturn: how do luxury
brands fare?”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 457-466.
Riscinto-Kozub, K., Anthony O’Neill, M. and Palmer, A.A.
(2013), “Emotional antecedents and outcomes of service
recovery: an exploratory study in the luxury hotel industry”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 233-243.
Rivera, P. and Satorra, A. (2002), “Analysing group
differences: a comparison of SEM approaches”, in
Marcoulides, G. and Moustaki, I. (Eds.), Latent Variable and
Latent Structure Models, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New
Jersey, pp. 86-104.
Roehm, M.L. and Sternthal, B. (2001), “The moderating
effect of knowledge and resources on the persuasive impact
of analogies”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 257-272.
Sahadev, S. and Jayachandran, S. (2004), “Managing the
distribution channels for high-technology products”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 1/2, pp. 121-149.
Satorra, A. (2000), “Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in
multi-sample analysis of moment structures”, in
Heijmans, R.D.H., Pollock, D.S.G. and Satorra, A.
(Eds), Innovations in Multivariate Statistical Analysis: A
Festschrift for Heinz Neudecker, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, London, pp. 233-247.
Satorra, A. and Bentler, P.M. (2001), “A scaled difference chi-
square test statistic for moment structure analysis”,
Psychometrika, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 507-514.
Saunders, T.S. and Buehner, M.J. (2013), “The gut chooses
faster than the mind: a latency advantage of affective over
cognitive decisions”, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 381-388.
Sénéchal, S., Georges, L. and Pernin, J.L. (2014), “Alliances
between corporate and fair trade brands: examining the
antecedents of overall evaluation of the co-branded product”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 124 No. 3, pp. 365-381.
Shavitt, S. (1989), “Products, personalities and situations in
attitude functions: implications for consumer behavior”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 300-305.
Shen, F. (2014), “Perceived fit and deal framing: the
moderating effect of perceived fit on sales promotions in line
and brand extensions”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 23 Nos 4/5, pp. 295-303.
Shiv, B. and Fedorikhin, A. (1999), “Heart and mind in
conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in consumer
decision making”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26
No.3, pp. 278-292.
Sicilia, M., Ruiz, S. and Reynolds, N. (2006), “Attitude
formation online: how the consumer’s need for cognition
affects the relationship between attitude towards the website
and attitude towards the brand”, International Journal of
Market Research, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 139-154.
Simonin, B.L. and Ruth, J.A. (1998), “Is a company known by
the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand
alliances on consumer brand attitudes”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
 Detangling consumer attitudes
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres
Solomon, M.R. (1996), Consumer Behaviour, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Solomon, M.R., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S. and Hogg, M.K.
(2010), Consumer Behaviour: A European Perspective, 4th ed.,
Prentice Hall, London.
Stevens, C.K. (2011), “Questions to consider when selecting
student samples”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 19-21.
Summers, T.A., Belleau, B.D. and Xu, Y. (2006), “Predicting
purchase intention of a controversial luxury apparel
product”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 405-419.
Tang, Z., Chen, X. and Xiao, J. (2010), “Using the classic
grounded theory approach to understand consumer
purchase decision in relation to the first customized
products”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 181-197.
Thompson, B. (2000), “Ten commandments of structural
equation modeling”, in Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R.
(Eds), Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp 261-283.
Ueltschy, L.C. and Laroche, M. (2004), “Co-branding
internationally: everyone wins?”, Journal of Applied Business
Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 91-102.
Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R. and Grohmann, B. (2003),
“Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of
consumer attitude”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 310-320.
Washburn, J.H., Till, B.D. and Priluck, R. (2000), “Co-
branding: brand equity and trial effects”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 591-604.
720
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721
Westbrook, R.A. (1987), “Product/consumption-based
affective responses and postpurchase processes”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 258-270.
Wiedmann, K.P., Hennigs, N. and Siebels, A. (2007),
“Measuring consumers’ luxury value perception: a cross-
cultural framework”, Academy of Marketing Science Review,
Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 1-21.
Wilcox, K., Kim, H.M. and Sen, S. (2009), “Why do
consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands?”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 247-259.
Wilkie, W.L. and Pessemier, E. (1973), “Issues in marketing’s
use of multi-attribute attitude models”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 428-441.
Xiao, N. and Lee, S.H. (2014), “Brand identity fit in co-
branding: the moderating role of C-B identification and
consumer coping”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48
Nos 7/8, pp. 1239-1254.
Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S. and ZauberMan, G. (2011), “Mental
simulation and product evaluation: the affective and
cognitive dimensions of process versus outcome simulation”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 827-839.
Zheng, C., Ma, K., Duan, Q. and Wang, H. (2015),
“Ineffective brand extensions and the Sisyphus effect”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 165-171.
Further reading
Conway, J.M. and Lance, C.E. (2010), “What reviewers
should expect from authors regarding common method bias
in organizational research”, Journal of Business & Psychology,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 325-334.
 Detangling consumer attitudes Journal of Product & Brand Management
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721

Appendix

Table AI Measures
No. Questions
Attitude toward Luxury brands (Wilcox et al., 2009)
1 Luxury brands reflect the kind of person I see myself to be
2 Luxury brands help me communicate my self-identity
3 Luxury brands help me express myself
4 Luxury brands help me define myself
5 Luxury brands are a symbol of social status
6 Luxury brands help me fit into important social situations
7 I like to be seen wearing luxury brands
8 I enjoy it when people know I am wearing a luxury brand
Product fit (Aaker and Keller, 1990)
1 I think LG’s products and PRADA’s products are a complementary product combination
2 I think LG’s products and PRADA’s products can be used together in a natural manner
3 I think LG’s products and PRADA’s products are an appropriate product combination
Brand fit (Aaker and Keller, 1990)
1 The images or associations that you might have for the brand of LG and PRADA are consistent
2 The images or associations that you might have for the brand of LG and PRADA are complementary
3 The images or associations that you might have for the brand of LG and PRADA are expected
Acceptance of High-tech products (Roehm and Sternthal, 2001)
1 I like High-tech products
2 I think high-tech products are useful
3 I think high-tech products are good
4 I find that high-tech products are practical
5 High-tech products are worth owning
6 High-tech products are impressive
7 High-tech products are valuable
8 High-tech products are advanced
Affect (Ratchford, 1987)
1 Owning a LG PRADA cell phone expresses my personality
2 Owning a LG PRADA cell phone is based on a lot of feeling
Cognition (Ratchford, 1987)
1 Owning a LG PRADA cell phone is mainly logical or objective
2 Owning a LG PRADA cell phone is based mainly on functional facts
Recommendation to buy (Baker and Churchill, 1977)
1 Would you like to try the LG PRADA cell phone?
2 I would patronize this LG PRADA cell phone
Brand familiarity (Simonin and Ruth (1998)
1 I am extremely familiar with the LG brand name
2 I definitely recognize the LG brand name
3 I definitely have heard of the LG brand name before

Corresponding author
Han-Chiang Ho can be contacted at: sausare@yahoo.com.tw

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

721