ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH

Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802

The Brand Anchoring Effect: a Judgment Bias Resulting From Brand Awareness and Temporary Accessibility
Franz-Rudolf Esch, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany
Bernd H. Schmitt, Columbia Business School New York, USA
Joern Redler, Madeleine Mode, Germany
Tobias Langner, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany

Following the Selective Activation, Reconstruction, and Anchoring (SARA) and consumer-based brand equity models, we predict a
brand anchoring effect in which high awareness brands are used as anchors in forming impressions of co-branded entities. Comparing
the brand personality profiles of fictitious brand alliances with high and low awareness brands, we find a brand anchoring effect in
studies 1 and 2. Moreover, in study 3 we show that the effect generalizes to specific brand characteristics; we also demonstrate that the
effect is driven by making brand-related information more available. Future research on brand awareness and on anchoring effects is
discussed.

[to cite]:
Franz-Rudolf Esch, Bernd H. Schmitt, Joern Redler, and Tobias Langner (2007) ,"The Brand Anchoring Effect: a Judgment Bias
Resulting From Brand Awareness and Temporary Accessibility", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 34, eds.
Gavan Fitzsimons and Vicki Morwitz, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 498-499.

[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/12660/volumes/v34/NA-34

[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
 The Brand Anchoring Effect: A Judgment Bias Resulting from Brand Awareness and
Temporary Accessibility
Franz-Rudolf Esch, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany
Bernd H. Schmitt, Columbia Business School, USA
Joern Redler, Madeleine Mode, Germany
Tobias Langner, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Introduction
Anchoring refers to a biased judgment on a stimulus based on
the initial assessment of another stimulus and the insufficient
adjustment away from that initial assessment. Previous research
indicates that anchoring seems to be a general phenomenon, under-
lying a wide variety of processing strategies (Epley and Gilovich
2001; Johnson and Puto 1987; Tversky and Kahnemann 1974).
Every time when individuals form an impression or an image about
a stimulus while another stimulus is present, these impressions may
be subject to anchoring effects.
Consumers regularly form images about brands and compare
brands to other brands. We therefore propose that there will be an
anchoring effect in image impressions about brands–a phenom-
enon that we will refer as “the brand anchoring effect.” The brand
anchoring effect can be investigated, for example, in the context of
co-branded identities (e.g., cellular phones offered by the brand
alliance Sony Ericsson). We propose that in these co-branding
cases, one constituent stimulus (Sony or Ericsson) may serve as an
anchor and affect the image structure of the co-branded identity
(Sony Ericsson) as a whole. We test the brand anchoring effect in
three studies, identifying characteristics of the co-branded entities
that lead to one of the constituent entities to become the anchor. We
derive our hypotheses on the basis of the Selective Activation,
Reconstruction, and Anchoring (SARA) model (Pohl, Eisenhauer,
and Hardt 2003), which is specifically designed to explain anchor-
ing effects, and the customer-based brand equity model (Keller
1993, 2003).
Theoretical Background
The SARA model assumes that when individuals are asked a
question that requires a judgment (e.g., what is the brand personal-
ity of the co-branded identity?), they utilize available images about
the “information units” in long term memory (such as an image of
the brand associations of a constituent brand). Each judgment is
associated with a number of images of the brands and the SARA
model specifies which “information units” are chosen as an anchor.
Specifically, the selection of the anchor and the direction of the
judgment bias depend on distinct characteristics of internally rep-
resented brand knowledge. Once a brand has been selected as an
anchor, it will bias the co-branded identity in such a way that its
knowledge structure will be closer to the anchor brand than the
other constituent brand.
Consistently with the SARA model, it has been shown in a
wide range of domains, such as information integration theory (e.g.,
Fazio and Williams 1986), the accessibility-diagnosticity frame-
work (e.g., Feldman and Lynch 1988), brand alliances (e.g., Simonin
and Ruth 1998), and in research on priming, that the accessibility of
information has a strong influence on judgments. In the context of
branding, Keller (1993) identifies brand awareness as one of the
most important factors for retrieval of information about the brand.
Thus, following the SARA model and the brand alliance study by
Simonin and Ruth (1998), we predict that brands with a high level
498
of awareness in a co-branded identity are more likely to be anchors
than those with low awareness.
Method
To test our hypothesis about the brand anchoring effect, we
conducted three studies (each n=80) with fictitious brand alliances
of existing brands from three different product categories. In
studies 1 and 2, respondents evaluated the alliances and the con-
stituent brands on Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale. We
conclude that an anchoring effect was present or not, based on
standard similarity measures (D, X, and q correlation) that compare
the profiles of constituent brands with the brand alliance.
Study 1
In study 1, we tested two brand alliances that either consisted
of two toothpaste brands with different levels of unaided awareness
(high/low) or similar levels of awareness. The results support our
assumption: The judgment of the brand alliance was based on the
brands with the higher level of brand awareness. In contrast, in the
similar-brand-awareness condition, none of the brands served as an
anchor.
Study 2
Study 2 was designed to replicate the brand anchoring effect
of high vs. low awareness for a new product category (chocolate).
In addition, we tested whether or not we would observe anchoring
effects for strong image brands (relative to weak image brands)
when the awareness levels of both brands in the alliance are at
comparable high levels.
Our results provided a replication of the brand anchoring
effect of high (vs. low) awareness brands. However, when both
alliance constituents have high awareness, independent of brand
strength, none of the brands served as an anchor.
Study 3
In study 3, we addressed the key question of how brand
awareness creates a brand anchoring effect. Following the SARA
model, it is available information that provides retrieval cues, and
therefore for awareness to produce anchoring effects, brand aware-
ness should make information more available. Thus, we manipu-
lated brand awareness and the availability resulting from it, rather
than just measuring it (as in the previous two studies). Respondents
were exposed to two different packaging designs for the brand
alliance Milka Uncle Ben’s, offering a crispy rice chocolate cereal.
The package design either provided predominantly Milka related
brand elements (e.g., color) or predominantly Uncle Ben’s related
design elements.
As expected, the profile in the Milka focused design was closer
to Milka than Uncle Ben’s whereas the profile of the Uncle Ben’s
focused design was closer to Uncle Ben’s. These results confirmed
that the packaging design made Milka brand-related information
more available when the design first brought to mind Milka. In
contrast, it made Uncle Ben’s brand-related information more
available when the design first brought to mind Uncle Ben’s.
Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 34, © 2007
 Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 34) / 499
Conclusion Tetlock, Philip E. (1979), “Accountability: The Neglected Social
Taken together, the results of the three studies confirm our Context of Judgment and Choice,” Research in Organiza-
overall prediction: brand-related information, once made available, tional Behavior, 7, 297-332.
can result in a brand anchoring effect in the judgment of a co- Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahnemann (1974), “Judgment under
branded entity. Brand-related information may be permanently Uncertainty–Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185, 1124-30.
more available in high awareness brands; alternatively, it can be Wyer, Robert S. (2002), “Language and Advertising Effective-
made more available temporarily by presenting the co-branded ness: Mediating Influences of Comprehension and Cognitive
entity in a particular way. Future research should examine possible Elaboration”, Psychology & Marketing, 19 (July/August),
moderators of the brand anchoring effect, such as brand name order 693-712.
in the alliance or product category fit, and how these factors Yadav, Manjit, S. (1994), “How Buyers Evaluate Product
influence the selection of the brand anchor. Bundles: A Model of Anchoring and Adjustment,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 21 (September), 342-53.
References
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (August), 347-56.
Cronbach, Lee J. and Goldine C. Gleser (1953), “Assessing
Similarity between Profiles,” Psychological Bulletin, 50 (6),
456-73.
Davis, Harry L., Stephen J. Hoch, and E. K. Easton Ragsdale
(2001), “An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Spousal
Predictions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (June), 25-
37.
Edwards, Jeffrey R. (1993), “Problems with the Use of Profile
Similarity Indices in the Study of Congruence in Organiza-
tional Research,” Personnel Psychology, 46, 641-65.
Epley, Nicholas and Thomas Gilovich (2001), “Putting Adjust-
ment Back in the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic:
Differential Processing of Self-Generated and Experimenter-
Provided Anchors,” Psychological Science, 12 (September),
391-96.
Fazio, Russell H. and Carol J. Williams (1986), “Attitude
Accessibility as a Moderator of the Attitude-Perception and
Attitude-Behaviour Relations: An Investigation of the 1984
Presidential Election,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51 (3), 505-14.
Feldman, Jack M. and John G. Jr. Lynch (1988), “Self-Gener-
ated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief,
Attitude, Intention, and Behavior,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73 (3), 421-35.
Johnson, Michael D. and Christopher P. Puto (1987), “A Review
of Consumer Judgment and Choice,” in Review of Marketing,
ed. Michael J. Houston, Chicago: American Marketing
Association, 236-92.
Keller, Kevin L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and
Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of
Marketing, 57 (January), 1-22.
(2003), Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand
Equity, 2nd ed., Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Orbell, John and Robyn Dawes (1991), “A ‘Cognitive Miser’
Theory of Cooperators’ Advantage,” American Political
Science Review, June, 515-28.
Park, C. Whan, Sung Youl Jun, and Allan D. Shocker (1996),
“Composite Branding Alliances: An Investigation of
Extension and Feedback Effects,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 33 (November), 453-66.
Pohl, Rüdiger F., Markus Eisenhauer, and Oliver Hardt (2003),
“SARA: A Cognitive Processing Model to Stimulate the
Anchoring Effect and Hindsight Bias,” Memory, 11 (4/5),
337-56.
Simonin, Bernard L. and Julie A. Ruth (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, 35, 30-42.