The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Hypermarket private-label Hypermarket

products, brand strategies and

spokesperson persuasion
Hsuan-Yi Chou and Tuan-Yu Wang 795
Institute of Marketing Communication, National Sun Yat-sen University,
Kaohsiung City, Taiwan Received 8 February 2015
Revised 9 December 2015
22 July 2016
Accepted 20 September 2016
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of brand strategies and spokesperson
expertise on consumer responses to hypermarket private-label products by combining concepts from
consumer attitude change, resistance to persuasion and construal level theory (CLT).
Design/methodology/approach – Two experiments were conducted to test the propositions.
Findings – Consumers perceived the low-price (low-quality) characteristic of private-label products as a
high-level (low-level) construal consideration when forming purchase decisions. Product relevance negatively
affected consumers’ perceived product distance. Compared with store brands, separate brands enhanced
consumer product attitudes and purchase intentions. Brand strategies and product distance affected
consumer message-processing mindset (i.e. resistant to persuasion or open to persuasion) when processing
advertisements, ultimately moderating the effect of spokesperson expertise.
Practical implications – The findings are useful for hypermarkets seeking to implement brand
strategies and select spokespersons for private-label products. Additionally, the findings show that
advertisers should design advertising elements to match consumers’ construal approaches to product-related
information.
Originality/value – This study contrasts two common hypermarket brand strategies, identifies the
construal levels corresponding to the dual roles of private-label products and expands CLT dimensions.
Additionally, the results bridge two research approaches (persuasion and resistance to persuasion) and
demonstrate the pivotal influence of brand strategies. The findings also advance understanding of the effects
of spokesperson expertise and contribute to resistance theory by showing how to effectively reduce attitude
certainty after resistance to persuasion.
Keywords Construal level theory, Hypermarket, Brand strategies, Private-label products,
Resistance to persuasion, Spokesperson expertise
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Low-priced, private-label brands have had enormous success worldwide. In the USA,
private-label brands’ total market share in retail outlets was approximately 17.4 per cent in 2010,
and this number has continued to rise (StoreBrandsDecisions.com, 2011). As of 2012, private-label
brand sales growth outpaced that of national brands (StoreBrandsDecisions.com, 2013), and sales
reached a new high of US$108bn (PLMA, 2013). In Europe, the growth of private-label brands has
also been impressive (Cuneo et al., 2012; Dawes, 2013). In Taiwan (where the authors conducted
this study), the total revenue from private-label brands owned by the three major hypermarkets
exceeded NT$12.5bn (Tsai, 2009), and hypermarkets continue to expand private-label brands European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 51 No. 4, 2017
across product categories (Liu, 2014; Ping, 2015). According to a report by Nielsen (2014), a pp. 795-820
consultancy, private-label brand sales growth in Taiwan in October of the same year was five © Emerald Publishing Limited
0309-0566
times higher than the growth rate of the overall consumer products market. It is little wonder that DOI 10.1108/EJM-02-2015-0085
EJM retailers around the world continue to accelerate the pace of private-label product development
51,4 (Canning, 2014).
Although hypermarkets have relied on private-label products to greatly increase revenue, few
studies have examined the effects of private-label branding and marketing-communication
strategies. Accordingly, the main purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of different
brand strategies and spokespersons on consumer responses to hypermarket private-label
796 products that take into account consumers’ pre-existing perceptions of private-label products.
On the subject of brand strategies, studies have shown that private-label retailers, such as
hypermarkets, use store brand and separate brand strategies for their private-label products
(Chen, 2008; Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009; Sarkar et al., 2016). Store brands (also called
private brands, retailer name brands or house brands) use the name of the retailer. Separate
brands (also called vice brands or sub-brands) use different names than the retailer’s to
become separate stand-alone brands (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009; Sarkar et al., 2016; Tai,
2010). Separate brands help private-label products stand out without the need to bear the
store’s name, which helps create unique and novel feelings (Chen, 2008; Moran, 2006).
Retailers often use both of these brand strategies. For example, Wal-Mart employed the store
brand strategy for its cellphone service, Wal-Mart Family Mobile, but it has used separate
brands, such as Great Value, Ol’Roy and Equate, for other products (Kapner, 2009; PPSJ,
2010).
Despite frequent usage of these strategies, most studies on private-label products
have neither distinguished nor compared store brand and separate brand strategies,
leaving the relative effects of these strategies unknown. Because brand managers must
choose between these strategies when introducing new private-label products, and
chosen brand names can have important effects on consumer perceptions (Kotler, 2003),
understanding the effects of these two strategies is crucial. Thus, the first research
objective of the current study is to compare the effects of these hypermarket
private-label brand strategies.
In many countries, retailers use celebrity endorsements for their private-label brands
(Byrne et al., 2003; Nenycz-Thiel, 2011; PLMA, 2012). Hypermarkets often use
spokespersons to promote their private-label products (Chang, 2003; Fang, 2013; Hu and
Ho, 2008; Mika, 2009). But few studies have looked at the standards retailers, especially
hypermarkets, use to select their spokespersons for private-label brands or the effects
these spokespersons have on consumer responses. Spokesperson expertise has received
considerable attention in persuasion studies and is considered a primary factor in
influencing consumer purchase intentions (Eisend and Langner, 2010; Gupta and Dang,
2009). While most studies have found that high-expertise spokespersons have favorable
effects on consumer product attitudes and purchase intentions, whether these
spokespersons generate the same effects for private-label products remains untested.
Furthermore, for most consumers, the low price of private-label products is attractive,
but perceptions of low quality might cause them to avoid purchasing these products
(Fan, 2014; Richardson et al., 1996); thereby, making consumers more resistant to
private-label marketing messages. Consequently, determining if advertising can change
consumer negative prejudgments of private-label products is an important research
problem for both theorists and practitioners. As such, the current study also integrates
studies on resistance to persuasion (Lemanski and Lee, 2012; Tormala et al., 2006) to
investigate whether spokesperson messages that are aimed at persuasion-resistant
consumers reduce the certainty of negative attitudes and increase the likelihood of future
persuasion. Established brands and novel brands frequently differ in marketing
approaches (Machleit et al., 1993), and advertised brands might moderate the effects of
different spokespersons used in the ads (Chou and Lien, 2014). Therefore, the second Hypermarket
objective of this study is to investigate the effects of spokesperson expertise on
consumer responses to hypermarket private-label products under different brand
strategies (i.e. store brands vs separate brands).
Construal level theory (CLT) posits that the psychological distance of an event affects
a person’s perceptions of the event in high- or low-level construals. Depending on
psychological distance (near or far), various message and event characteristics affect
attitude formation toward the event (Trope et al., 2007). Bornemann and Homburg (2011)
797
indicated that high-priced products serve dual roles in consumers’ minds (i.e. perceived
quality as a high-level benefit and perceived monetary sacrifice as a low-level cost
consideration) and that psychological distance affects how consumers interpret and
react to high-priced products.
Because consumers frequently associate private-label products with low prices and
poor quality (Chang, 2015; Fan, 2014; Raju et al., 1995; Steve, 2004), some retailers have
spent considerable effort to improve the objective quality of their private-label products.
Despite these efforts, many consumers still perceive private-label products as having
inferior quality compared to national brands (Boyle and Lathrop, 2013; Kadirov, 2015;
Olson, 2012). Taking advantage of these perceptions, national brand manufacturers
have continued to devise methods to widen the perceived quality gap between their
brands and private labels to enhance competitive advantage (Kadirov, 2015). This
brings up the question of whether consumers consider the price and quality of
private-label products in similar or different construal levels as higher-priced products.
The authors of the current study suggest that consumers perceive low prices as saving
money and poor quality as a sacrifice, so the answer should be “different construals”.
Accordingly, the third objective of this study is to empirically investigate the
corresponding construal levels of the dual roles that private-label products play in
consumers’ minds and test whether psychological distance changes consumer
responsiveness to low price and poor quality signals. The authors also examine how
these signals affect consumer product evaluations, message-processing mindset and the
effect of spokespersons in ads. In previous CLT research, psychological distance has
frequently been divided into the dimensions of temporal, spatial, social and hypothetical
distances (Kim et al., 2008; Liberman et al., 2007). The current study examines the role of
consumer-perceived “product distance” because this dimension is more closely related to
consumer purchase decisions. Following Curren and Harich (1994), the authors use
product relevance as an antecedent of product distance.
To sum up, this study investigates the following key issues:
• the relationship between the dual roles of private-label products and consumer
construal levels and the effects of product distance and its antecedent, product
relevance;
• the direct effects of store brand and separate brand strategies on consumer attitudinal
responses; and
• the moderation of brand strategies and product distance on the advertising effects of
spokesperson expertise.

The results contribute to theories of private-label brand strategy, consumer attitude change,
resistance to persuasion and CLT, as well as provide practical implications for managers
who are considering which brand strategy and spokesperson to use for their private-label
products.
EJM 2. Literature review
51,4 2.1 Brand strategies of private-label products
Retailers can use store brands or separate brands for their private-label products (Chen, 2008;
Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009; Sarkar et al., 2016). Relevant studies have taken four
approaches to the private-label products:
(1) explored the characteristics of private-label brands (Hoch, 1996; Manikandan, 2012);
798
(2) compared the differences and investigated consumers’ choice of private-label brands
and national brands Raju et al., 1995; Steenkamp et al., 2010);
(3) examined how different variables affect consumer perceptions, attitudes and
purchase intentions toward private-label brands, such as demographics, individual
characteristics, consumer lifestyle and the image, price, design, quality and perceived
value of private-label products (Beneke et al., 2013; Krishna, 2011; Richardson et al.,
1996; Shukla et al., 2013; Walsh and Mitchell, 2010); and
(4) measured the brand equity of and consumer behavioral loyalty to private-label
brands (Cuneo et al., 2012; Dawes, 2013).

However, most previous studies have not distinguished between these two brand strategies.
They often use the term “private-label” to refer to both store brands and separate brands.
Sarkar et al. (2016) also indicated that few studies have explored the branding strategies of
private-label products.
Departing from previous studies, the current study distinguishes between store brand
and separate brand strategies, and it examines the effects these have on consumer responses
to private-label products and their subsequent mindset toward processing advertisements,
which may moderate the effects of spokesperson expertise.

2.2 Construal level theory

CLT says that people adopt different construals according to their psychological distance
from an event or target. Specifically, a greater psychological distance results in high-level
construals, which means that individuals adopt simple, abstract and superordinate
approaches to describe events, emphasizing the primary and core characteristics of these
events. In contrast, a close psychological distance results in low-level construals, which
means that individuals adopt complex, concrete and subordinate approaches to describe
events, emphasizing secondary and surface characteristics (Kardes et al., 2006; Trope et al.,
2007).
Many scholars have explored the relationships between psychological distance and
construal levels toward particular events and how event-related preferences, decisions and
judgments are formed (Baskin et al., 2014; Liberman et al., 2007; Liviatan et al., 2008; Pfeiffer
et al., 2014; Savadori and Mittone, 2015). In addition to cognitive outcomes, scholars have also
explored the consequences of psychological distance and construal levels on affect (Williams
et al., 2014) and how psychological distance affects people’s reliance on affective feelings in
decisions (Chang and Pham, 2014). They have also examined a number of
psychological-distance dimensions and the interactions among these dimensions (Kim et al.,
2008; Trope and Liberman, 2010). Additionally, several scholars have applied CLT to
investigate consumer responses to various marketing-related variables (e.g. incentive types,
product prices, the importance of product attributes and message orientation) when differing
construal approaches were adopted according to psychological distance (Bornemann and
Homburg, 2011; Chou and Lien, 2012; Kim et al., 2009; Martin et al., 2009).
 Based on the price-perceived quality and price-perceived sacrifice relationship, Hypermarket
Bornemann and Homburg (2011) posited that the perceived quality of high-priced products
pertains to the core benefits of products (i.e. ends-related, high-level considerations), while
the perceived monetary sacrifice of high-priced products pertains to what is given up to
obtain the benefits (i.e. means-related, low-level considerations). When the purchase is
psychologically distant (near), consumers pay greater attention to ends-related
(means-related) considerations, and they should generate better (worse) evaluations for the
high-priced products due to increased concerns of corresponding high benefits (high costs). 799
Compared with Bornemann and Homburg’s (2011) research on the dual roles of
high-priced products, the current research argues that consumers use different construal
levels for the dual roles of low-priced, private-label products. Additionally, besides the
temporal, social, spatial and hypothetical dimensions of psychological distance that are
frequently used in CLT studies (Kim et al., 2008; Liberman et al., 2007), other distance
dimensions and related antecedents may have significant effects, but they have received
little academic attention.

2.3 Heuristic-systematic model

The heuristic-systematic model (HSM) explains how the information-processing procedures
and methods adopted by recipients affect the formation of and change in attitudes toward
information (Chaiken et al., 1989). Based on considerations such as self-efficacy, information
sufficiency and information processing motivations, individuals employ systematic or
heuristic models (or both) to process information (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993; Trumbo, 1999).
When systematic models are used, people formulate decisions and judgments by searching
for and carefully considering all relevant information (Aydinoğlu and Krishna, 2011). In
contrast, when heuristic models are employed, people avoid exhausting their cognitive
resources by formulating judgments based on simple heuristic cues (Chaiken et al., 1989).
Numerous studies have used HSM to investigate how consumers’ processing models
affect the persuasiveness of advertisements, product messages and online product reviews
(Aydinoğlu and Krishna, 2011; Lin, 2011; Ling and Liu, 2008; Zhang et al., 2014). In this study,
HSM is used to predict the persuasiveness of brand and spokesperson strategies used to
promote private-label products.

2.4 Resistance to persuasion and attitude certainty

Resistance theory was first proposed by Brehm (1966) to explain people’s attitudinal
reactions to perceived threats to their personal freedom. This theory states that people
believe they are free to form attitudes toward particular targets; therefore, when persuasive
messages are used to alter or guide their attitudes and choices, people often perceive that
these messages inhibit personal freedom and thus they resist the information (Sagarin et al.,
2002). Early studies on persuasion and resistance to persuasion argued that the valence or
extremity of individual attitudes does not change after people successfully resist persuasion,
and unsuccessful persuasive attempts do not generate negative effects. However,
subsequent studies have claimed that attitude certainty may increase after resistance to
persuasion (Tormala and Petty, 2002), which can have detrimental effects for persuaders.
Variables that enhance attitude certainty include message strength (Tormala and Petty,
2002), source expertise (Tormala and Petty, 2004), source trustworthiness (Lemanski and
Lee, 2012) and negative framing (Bizer et al., 2011), while resistance performance may reduce
attitude certainty (Tormala et al., 2006).
Attitude certainty refers to the conviction that people feel toward their personal attitudes
or the subjective belief that their attitudes are correct (Abelson, 1988; Gross et al., 1995).
When attitude certainty is low (vs high), attitude has less influence on future behavioral
EJM intentions, and it is more difficult for people to resist future persuasion attempts (Tormala
51,4 et al., 2006).
Although decreasing consumer certainty of existing attitudes should increase the
likelihood of future successful persuasion by counter-attitudinal messages, previous studies
investigating resistance to persuasion have mainly focused on the variables that enhance
attitude certainty (e.g. Lemanski and Lee, 2012; Tormala and Petty, 2002, 2004). Grounded on
800 resistance theory, the current study attempts to fill this gap by exploring whether
spokespersons with different expertise reduce the certainty of consumers’ negative attitudes
when resisting advertising messages.

3. Conceptual framework and research hypotheses

By integrating theories of consumer attitude formation and change/persuasion (i.e. HSM),
resistance to persuasion (i.e. resistance theory) and construal approaches to perceive events
or targets (i.e. CLT), this study examines the effects of brand strategy and spokesperson
expertise on consumers with pre-existing perceptions of hypermarket private-label products.
The study’s conceptual framework is shown in Figure 1.
Hypermarkets primarily market their private-label products in the convenience goods
category. The characteristics of these types of products means that consumers’ attitudinal
responses and behavioral decisions for new private-label products are usually formed under
heuristic processing modes. The type of brand (e.g. store brand or separate brand) might
trigger different heuristic cues that influence consumers’ initial product evaluations and then
determine consumers’ mindset when processing product-relevant persuasive messages (i.e.
making them more open or resistant to persuasion). This might also moderate the effects of
spokesperson endorsements in product advertisements. Specifically, if consumers are open
to persuasion, the persuasive effects of spokesperson expertise on attitudes and purchase

Attitude Formation in HSM

Predictions from CLT Perspective

Brand
Strategy

Product Product
Relevance Distance

Initial Product
Evaluations

Message-Processing
Mindset

Product Attitudes
Spokesperson
Purchase Intentions
Expertise
Attitude Certainty
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework Persuasion/Attitude change in HSM vs. Resisting persuasion in Resistance Theory
intentions should be predicted by HSM. However, if consumers are resistant to persuasion, Hypermarket
the impact of spokesperson expertise on consumer certainty of their negative attitudes
should be predicted by resistance theory. Finally, based on CLT, consumers might
differently perceive/interpret store brand products. The low-price and poor-quality signals of
store brand products might represent different construal-level considerations. Consumers’
relative attention to these two signals might differ according to the psychological distance
with the product (evoked by product relevance), which might alter consumers’ initial product
evaluations, message-processing mindset and therefore the moderation on spokesperson 801
effects. In other words, the interaction of brand strategy and product distance might
moderate the effects of spokesperson expertise. The following sections present several
related hypotheses and the details of how each one was inferred.

3.1 The dual roles of private-label products and consumer construal levels
Retailers often use low-priced, private-label products to compete with national brands (Steve,
2004). Boyle and Lathrop (2013) found that national brands command a price premium over
private labels in all product categories, and this price premium has increased over time. A
string of studies and surveys from around the world, including the USA (Boyle and Lathrop,
2013), New Zealand (Kadirov, 2015), China (Lupton et al., 2010) and Taiwan (ACNielsen
Global Consumer Confidence Survey, 2005; Nielsen, 2014), all found that consumers view
private-label products as having lower quality than national brand products. Based on cue
utilization theory, Richardson et al. (1996) argued that prices affect consumer judgments and
perceptions of product quality and features; therefore, consumers typically associate
private-label products with poor quality.
In a product evaluation context, consumers perceive the core benefits of products with
high-level construals, whereas they perceive the costs to obtain and use products with
low-level construals (Trope et al., 2007). Based on CLT, the authors of the current study
predict that consumers perceive the low price of private-label products a core benefit and an
ends-related desirability consideration. In contrast, consumers perceive the low quality of
private-label products as a sacrifice (i.e. the cost of saving money is low quality) and a
means-related feasibility consideration. The construal level for desirability is higher than
that for feasibility (Liberman and Trope, 1998; Liviatan et al., 2008). The following
hypotheses state these predictions:
H1a. For private-label products, consumers’ perceptions of low prices (vs perceptions of
low quality) are relatively high-level construal considerations.
H1b. For private-label products, consumers’ perceptions of low quality (vs perceptions
of low prices) are relatively low-level construal considerations.

3.2 Effects of product relevance on product distance

Referring to Liviatan et al.’s (2008) definition of social distance, the authors of the current
study define product distance as the perceived psychological distance between people and
products. This is different than sensory distance, proposed by Kardes et al. (2006), which
focuses on how people sense products (imagining vs actually seeing and touching the
products) and its effects on perceptions of distance. The authors of the current study propose
that people judge the psychological product distance no matter how the products are
presented.
Product relevance refers to whether the results of product evaluations have a direct
influence on and are significant to individuals (Curren and Harich, 1994). When product
relevance is high, the evaluations and decisions concerning products are highly influential
and important. Consumers are likely to pay increased attention to such products, resulting in
EJM lower perceived distance between themselves and the products. The following hypothesis
51,4 states this prediction:
H2. Product relevance negatively affects consumers’ perceived product distance.

3.3 Effects of private-label brand strategies

802 Hypermarkets primarily introduce private-label products in the convenience goods category.
Because consumers tend to spend less time and energy considering convenience goods
purchases, they have less motivation to process relevant information and are likely to
activate heuristic processing modes for their decisions. Consequently, consumer product
judgments and purchasing behaviors may be influenced by simple heuristic cues (Chaiken
et al., 1989), such as brand name and source expertise (Ling and Liu, 2008).
Consumers frequently associate hypermarket private-label products with low prices and
poor quality (Chang, 2015; Fan, 2014; Raju et al., 1995; Steve, 2004), and they are able to
identify which products are private-label by simply observing the brand name. Therefore,
when the stereotypes of low quality are invoked by established store brand names,
consumers show lower product evaluations and reduced purchase intentions. In contrast,
separate brand strategies use new brand names (Chen, 2008), which consumers are
unfamiliar with. Thus, consumers are less likely to be influenced by previous stereotypes,
and so, they will exhibit neutral attitudinal responses. This idea is expressed in the following
hypothesis:
H3. Consumers have more favorable attitudes and higher purchase intentions toward
separate brand products than store brand products.

3.4 Moderation of brand strategies and product distance on spokesperson expertise

Stereotypes regarding store brands cause consumers to develop negative product attitudes
and, therefore, resist relevant persuasive messages. Tormala and Petty (2002) found that
after people resist persuasive messages, they usually reflect on their resistance process using
situational factors to examine the correctness of their initial attitudes. The authors of the
current study surmise that during reflection, the message source factor (i.e. spokesperson
expertise) affects individual attitude certainty. Specifically, after successfully resisting
persuasive messages from a high-expertise spokesperson (i.e. a high-expertise source),
consumers have increased confidence in their initial attitudes and believe that they can
continue to resist future persuasive attacks (Tormala and Petty, 2004). In contrast,
after consumers resist information provided by product spokespersons with low expertise,
consumers are uncertain whether they can resist future persuasion from spokespersons with
high expertise. Furthermore, consumers might equate resisting a spokesperson’s message as
resisting certain social values, which further reduces attitude certainty. This effect might be
stronger in collectivist cultures (Choi et al., 2005).
Due to consumers’ more neutral attitudes toward separate brand products, they are more
open-minded when processing separate brand advertisements, so they are more likely to find
these ads persuasive. Furthermore, spokesperson expertise might evoke the heuristic that all
experts are correct (Briñol et al., 2004), which means that a high-expertise spokesperson
should be more convincing than a low-expertise one, thereby increasing favorable product
attitudes and purchase intentions. Combining these ideas, the authors propose the following
hypotheses:
H4a. Advertising store brands using low-expertise spokespersons reduces consumer
certainty of negative attitudes more than using high-expertise spokespersons.
 H4b. Advertising separate brands using high-expertise spokespersons enhances Hypermarket
consumer product attitudes and purchase intentions more than using low-expertise
spokespersons.
Store brand products with low product relevance have greater psychological distance from
consumers. Therefore, consumer product evaluations and judgments are primarily based on
product-relevant, high-level characteristics and values (Liberman and Trope, 1998; Nan,
2007). Based on H1, because the high-level core benefit (low price) of a store brand product is 803
emphasized, consumers should develop a favorable product attitude and process related
marketing messages with a more positive mindset. Due to consumers’ heuristic processing,
spokesperson expertise positively affects consumer product attitudes and purchase
intentions (Ling and Liu, 2008).
Store brand products with high product relevance have reduced psychological distance,
and consumers’ product judgments and decisions are formed according to product-relevant,
low-level characteristics and values (Castaño et al., 2008). Because the low-level perceived
sacrifice (low product quality) is emphasized, consumers should develop negative product
attitudes and be more resistant to persuasive marketing messages. Based on H4a,
low-expertise spokespersons should reduce consumers’ certainty of their negative attitudes
in these situations.
Conversely, a separate brand strategy uses new brand names to communicate with
consumers. Therefore, consumers possess little existing knowledge about the price and
quality of separate brand products, and they cannot determine corresponding construal
levels. Consequently, product distance should not influence consumer judgments of separate
brands. Furthermore, consumers tend to have neutral attitudes toward these products, so
they are more easily persuaded by high-expertise spokespersons regardless of product
distance. The following hypotheses are inferred from the previous concepts:
H5a. When advertising store brand products that have greater product distance,
high-expertise spokespersons enhance consumer product attitudes and purchase
intentions more than low-expertise spokespersons.
H5b. When advertising store brand products that have nearer product distance,
low-expertise spokespersons reduce consumer certainty of negative attitudes more
than high-expertise spokespersons.
H5c. When advertising separate brand products, high-expertise spokespersons enhance
consumer product attitudes and purchase intentions more than low-expertise
spokespersons, and this relationship holds regardless of product distance.

4. Experiment 1
Experiment 1 tested whether the dual roles of private-label products represent differing consumer
construal levels (H1), and it tested the influence of product relevance on consumers’ perceived
product distance (H2).

4.1 Method
4.1.1 Participants and design. Students constitute a substantial consumer group that purchases
hypermarket private-label products. Additionally, hypermarkets frequently design promotional
activities aimed at students and attempt to attract young consumers with private-label products
(Li, 2012; Wei, 2014). Many previous studies on private-label brands have used students as
research targets (Herstein et al., 2012; Lin and Jie, 2010; Lupton et al., 2010). At the theory-testing
level, student homogeneity (in terms of age, occupation, educational level, income, interest,
thoughts, behaviors and responses) helps to avoid the possibly confounding effects of
EJM heterogeneous groups on the experimental variables, which enhances the internal validity of the
51,4 research results (Calder et al., 1981; Kraus, 1995; Peterson, 2001; Zhu and Hong, 2009). The use of
student samples also enables comparisons with related studies that used student samples to
explore the dual roles of high-priced products (Bornemann and Homburg, 2011) and the effects of
the variables on attitude certainty after resisting persuasion (Tormala and Petty, 2004; Tormala
et al., 2006). Therefore, the sample for Experiment 1 (N ⫽ 80; 46.2 per cent male, 53.8 per cent
804 female, average age of 23.8 years) was taken from undergraduate and graduate students in
Taiwan[1]. Experimenters randomly assigned the participants to two experimental conditions
(product relevance: high vs low).
4.1.2 Stimuli and pretests. The experimental stimulus was a hypermarket private-label
product advertisement. Product relevance was manipulated by differing the advertised products,
resulting in two versions of the ad. The two advertisements contained the same brand name, logo,
layout and design, but they had different product images and product information.
In Pretest 1, a total of 39 participants were asked to evaluate brand awareness of Carrefour,
RT-Mart and Far Eastern A.mart (the three hypermarkets that Taiwanese consumers visit most
frequently; Pollster, 2011) on a seven-point scale (low awareness/high awareness and very
unfamiliar/very familiar; Putrevu, 2008) and their purchase experiences (“I have purchased the
private-label products of YYY hypermarket”: Yes/No). In Pretest 2, a total of 40 participants
assessed purchase experiences (“I have purchased this product”: Yes/No) and product relevance
specific to four convenience goods selected in advance to reflect real private-label products and
common student purchases. Product relevance was measured on a seven-point scale (strongly
disagree/strongly agree) with three statements adapted from Curren and Harich (1994):
(1) “when I need to purchase XXX product, my selection of XXX is a significant
decision”;
(2) “the decision results of my selection among various XXX has great meaning to me”; and
(3) “i pay increased attention to how I make selections among various XXX”.

Results for Carrefour brand awareness (M ⫽ 4.84) and purchase experiences (89.7 per cent)
exceeded those for A.mart (M ⫽ 3.19, p ⬍ 0.05; 20.5 per cent) and RT-Mart (M ⫽ 3.73,
p ⬍ 0.05; 43.6 per cent, X2 ⫽ 38.79, p ⬍ 0.05), respectively. Therefore, Carrefour was selected
as the experimental hypermarket for this experiment. Raincoats and sliced meat represented
low- and high-relevance products, respectively (M ⫽ 4.03 and 5.16, p ⬍ 0.05)[2]. Participants’
purchase experiences with both products exceeded 87.2 per cent.
4.1.3 Procedure. After reading an introduction, participants were instructed to read a
Carrefour private-label product advertisement for a raincoat (a package of sliced meat). After
this, they responded to the questionnaire items and were then thanked, debriefed and
dismissed.
4.1.4 Measures. Participants evaluated all measures in this study on seven-point scales.
Participants assessed product distance with the following statements adapted from Kim
et al. (2008) and Liviatan et al. (2008):
• “the distance between XXX (the advertised product) and me is: very small/very great”;
• “the relationship between XXX and me is: very close/very distant”;
• “when I use XXX, this product is: very close to/very distant from me”; and
• “when I use XXX, I feel very close to it: strongly agree/strongly disagree” (␣ ⫽ 0.89).

Following Kardes et al. (2006), the construal levels of the private-label product characteristics
were measured with the following statements: “When I consider purchasing Carrefour
private-label products, price (quality) is: my secondary/primary consideration, not the core
objective/the core objective, and the cost I pay/the benefit I pursue” (␣price ⫽ 0.72; ␣quality ⫽ Hypermarket
0.85).
For manipulation checks, product relevance of raincoats (sliced meat) was measured in
the same way as in Pretest 2 (␣ ⫽ 0.77)[3].
To clearly test the effects of product relevance on product distance, the following
product-related variables were controlled for: product involvement (unimportant/important,
irrelevant/relevant, worthless/valuable, means nothing/means a lot to me, boring/interesting,
unexciting/exciting, unappealing/appealing, mundane/fascinating, not needed/needed and 805
uninvolving/involving; ␣ ⫽ 0.94; Zaichkowsky, 1994); product familiarity (very unfamiliar/very
familiar; Machleit et al., 1993); and subjective product knowledge (“I know a lot about XXX”:
strongly disagree/strongly agree; Lee and Lee, 2009).

4.2 Results
4.2.1 Manipulation checks. The product relevance of raincoats was lower than sliced meat
(M ⫽ 4.29 vs 5.17, p ⬍ 0.05). Therefore, the manipulation was successful.
4.2.2 Hypothesis testing. The results of the paired-sample t-tests indicated that
participants perceived the low-price characteristic of private-label products as a relatively
high-level construal consideration (M ⫽ 4.76) and the low-quality characteristic as a
relatively low-level construal consideration (M ⫽ 3.64, p ⬍ 0.05), supporting H1a and H1b.
The results of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) indicated that product relevance
negatively affected product distance (M ⫽ 3.34 vs 4.23, p ⬍ 0.05), supporting H2[4]. As
for the effects of the control variables, consumers’ product involvement (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.26, p ⫽
0.078 ⬍ 0.1) and product familiarity (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.26, p ⬍ 0.05) negatively affected product
distance while subjective product knowledge (␤ ⫽ 0.23, p ⬍ 0.05) had a positive effect.

5. Experiment 2
Experiment 1 demonstrated the soundness of the study’s premises. Experiment 2
investigated the direct effects of brand strategies on consumer attitudinal responses (H3)
and, by altering consumer message-processing mindset, whether brand strategies and
product distance moderated the effects of spokesperson expertise (H4 and H5). In addition,
H2 was retested using a larger sample to enhance the robustness of the results.

5.1 Method
5.1.1 Participants and design. Participants in this experiment consisted of 292 Taiwanese
students (49.7 per cent male, 50.3 per cent female; average age of 20.6 years). They
were randomly assigned to one of ten groups. The experiment featured a 2 (brand
strategy: store brand vs separate brand) ⫻ 2 (product relevance: high vs low) ⫻ 2
(spokesperson expertise: high vs low) between-subjects design, yielding eight
experimental groups. In addition, two control groups (in which two store brand products
without spokespersons exhibited high or low product relevance) were introduced for
comparison with the experimental groups. If the control and store brand experimental
groups did not exhibit significantly different product attitudes, then the participants in
the store brand experimental groups resisted spokesperson persuasion (Tormala and
Petty, 2004). Furthermore, comparing the control and the store brand experimental
groups helped to reveal changes in participant attitude certainty[5].
5.1.2 Stimuli and pretests. The experimental stimulus was an advertisement for a
hypermarket private-label product. The Carrefour trademark was used as the ad
background image and a small version of the trademark was placed in the lower right
corner of the advertisements. Brand strategy, product relevance (again manipulated as
EJM raincoats and sliced meat) and spokesperson expertise were manipulated in the ads used
51,4 with the experimental groups. The eight versions of advertisements in the experimental
groups contained advertising headlines (emphasizing the brand names), product images,
product information and spokesperson images and recommendations. For the control
groups, only product relevance was manipulated in the advertisements. Other than
removing the spokesperson-related images and recommendations, the design and layout
806 of the two versions of the advertisements in the control groups were the same as those in
the experimental groups.
In Pretest 3, a total of 40 participants assessed several male celebrities’ awareness
(low awareness/high awareness and very unfamiliar/very familiar; Putrevu, 2008)
and expertise in various product areas (without/with expertise and not knowledgeable/
knowledgeable; Ohanian, 1990) on seven-point scales. Next, participant attitudes toward
several fictitious brands (unfavorable/favorable and bad/good; Putrevu, 2008) were
measured. Following the analysis, two celebrities – Wynn H. T. Pan (Ph.D. in analytical
chemistry and neurochemistry, a professor of medicine and the host and frequent guest
of health-, life- and general education-related programs) and Baojie Liu (the host of a
popular talk show discussing various topics, such as history, politics, economics,
military affairs, extraterrestrials and urban legends) – were selected as the
high-expertise and low-expertise spokespersons, respectively, because significant
differences were observed in their perceived expertise of products for daily use (MPan ⫽
5.00 vs MLiu ⫽ 3.57, p ⬍ 0.05) and food (MPan ⫽ 5.05 vs MLiu ⫽ 3.17, p ⬍ 0.05).
Participants’ awareness of both celebrities was high (both Ms ⬎ 4, both ps ⬍ 0.05), and
no significant differences were noted (p ⫽ 0.790 ⬎ 0.05). “Shunyi” was selected as the
separate brand, which yielded neutral brand attitudes (M ⫽ 4.17 ⫽ 4, p ⫽ 0.297 ⬎ 0.05).
Pretest 4 (N ⫽ 46) showed that Pan was, as expected, perceived to have higher expertise
than Liu for endorsing both raincoats (M ⫽ 3.87 vs 2.74, p ⬍ 0.05) and sliced meat (M ⫽
4.78 vs 2.61, p ⬍ 0.05)[6]. Participants’ likeability for the two figures was similar (p ⫽
0.175 ⬎ 0.05).
5.1.3 Procedures and measures. The experimental procedures were the same as those
employed in Experiment 1. Using seven-point scales, participants assessed their
attitudes toward the advertised products (bad/good, unfavorable/favorable and
worthless/valuable; ␣ ⫽ 0.89; Muehling and Sprott, 2004) and attitude certainty with the
following two statements adapted from Rajagopal and Montgomery (2011) and Tormala
et al. (2006): “I am ___ (not certain at all/extremely certain and not confident at all/
extremely confident) of my attitude concerning the advertised product”; and “Overall, I
consider that the previously mentioned product attitude evaluations are: probably not
accurate/extremely accurate” (␣ ⫽ 0.80). Additionally, participants indicated the
likelihood of purchasing the advertised product (impossible/possible, unlikely/likely
and improbable/probable; ␣ ⫽ 0.94; Pascal et al., 2002). Product distance was assessed
with the same items used in Experiment 1 (␣ ⫽ 0.90).
For manipulation checks, brand awareness (␣ ⫽ 0.84), perceived product price and
quality (␣ ⫽ 0.79 and 0.75, respectively), spokesperson awareness (␣ ⫽ 0.90),
spokesperson expertise (␣ ⫽ 0.92) and product relevance (␣ ⫽ 0.89) were measured with
the same items used in the pretests and Experiment 1.
As in Experiment 1, product involvement (␣ ⫽ 0.88), product familiarity and subjective
product knowledge were controlled. Following Ohanian (1990), spokesperson
trustworthiness (untrustworthy/trustworthy) and attractiveness (unattractive/attractive)
were also measured to prevent these factors from confounding the effects of expertise[7].
5.2 Results Hypermarket
5.2.1 Manipulation checks. Awareness of the Carrefour brand was higher than that of Shunyi
(M ⫽ 4.01 vs 1.90, p ⬍ 0.05). The product relevance of sliced meat was greater than that of
raincoats (M ⫽ 4.85 vs 3.53, p ⬍ 0.05). Compared with Liu, Pan was perceived to have higher
expertise in both raincoats (M ⫽ 4.35 vs 3.42, p ⬍ 0.05) and sliced meat (M ⫽ 4.69 vs 2.66,
p ⬍ 0.05). No significant differences were observed for public awareness (p ⫽ 0.618 ⬎ 0.05),
attractiveness (p ⫽ 0.250 ⬎ 0.05) and trustworthiness (p ⫽ 0.220 ⬎ 0.05) of the two
spokespersons; therefore, these variables were dropped from further analyses.
807
The Carrefour store brand products were perceived to have both low prices and poor
quality (Mprice ⫽ 2.55 ⬍ 4, p ⬍ 0.05; Mquality ⫽ 2.96 ⬍ 4, p ⬍ 0.05). Participants exhibited
more neutral evaluations regarding the price and quality of Shunyi, the separate brand
(Mprice ⫽ 3.60; Mquality ⫽ 3.75).
5.2.2 Hypothesis testing. For experimental groups, three-way ANCOVAs were conducted
to test the effects of brand strategy, product relevance and spokesperson expertise on
participant perceived product distance, product attitudes, attitude certainty and purchase
intentions. The results are shown in Table I (the control variables are omitted from the table).
Product relevance negatively affected product distance (M ⫽ 3.56 vs 4.55, p ⬍ 0.05),
providing additional evidence to support H2[8].
Compared with the private brand, the separate brand yielded more favorable product
attitudes (M ⫽ 4.29 vs 3.52, p ⬍ 0.05) and purchase intentions (M ⫽ 4.21 vs 3.31, p ⬍
0.05), supporting H3. Product relevance negatively affected product attitudes (M ⫽ 3.72
vs 4.09, p ⬍ 0.05), whereas spokesperson expertise positively affected product attitudes
(M ⫽ 4.15 vs 3.66, p ⬍ 0.05), attitude certainty (M ⫽ 4.32 vs 3.69, p ⬍ 0.05) and purchase
intentions (M ⫽ 4.02 vs 3.50, p ⬍ 0.05).
The two-way interactions between brand strategy and spokesperson expertise were
significant (all ps ⬍ 0.05). Specifically, in the store brand groups, spokesperson expertise had
significant positive effects on attitude certainty (M ⫽ 4.66 and 3.56, p ⬍ 0.05), but no effect on
product attitudes (p ⫽ 0.340 ⬎ 0.05) and purchase intentions (p ⫽ 0.236 ⬎ 0.05). To further
examine the changes in participant responses, ANCOVA comparisons were made with these
two experimental groups, in which spokespersons possessed high or low expertise, with the
control groups without spokespersons. No significant differences in product attitudes and
purchase intentions were found across these groups (all ps ⬎ 0.05). However, compared with
the high-expertise spokesperson (M ⫽ 4.66) and the control groups (M ⫽ 4.28), the
low-expertise spokesperson significantly reduced participant attitude certainty (M ⫽
3.54, both ps ⬍ 0.05). Furthermore, participants’ product attitudes tended to be negative
(all Ms ⬍ 4, all ps ⬍ 0.05). In sum, though participants in the store brand groups resisted the
persuasive attempt (i.e. their product attitudes and purchase intentions remained unaffected
by the spokesperson), the low-expertise spokesperson effectively reduced participant
certainty of negative attitudes, supporting H4a. In the separate brand groups, spokesperson
expertise generated significant positive effects on product attitudes (M ⫽ 4.85 vs 3.73, p ⬍
0.05) and purchase intentions (M ⫽ 4.84 vs 3.56, p ⬍ 0.05), but no effects on attitude certainty
(p ⫽ 0.399 ⬎ 0.05). These results support H4b.
The three-way interactions were not significant (all ps ⬎ 0.05). However, the simple main
effects were examined to investigate whether the effects of spokesperson expertise varied
when the combinations of brand strategies and product relevance changed.
When store brand products exhibiting low product relevance (i.e. greater product
distance) were advertised, spokesperson expertise did not affect product attitudes and
purchase intentions (both ps ⬎ 0.05). These results do not support H5a. However,
spokesperson expertise positively affected attitude certainty (M ⫽ 4.58 vs 3.43, p ⬍ 0.05).
 51,4
EJM

results
808

Table I.
Three-way ANCOVA
ANCOVA F Values (sig.)
Brand strategy ⫻
Dependent Brand Product Spokesperson Brand strategy ⫻ Brand strategy ⫻ Product relevance. ⫻ Product relevance ⫻
variables strategy relevance expertise Product relevance Spokesperson expertise Spokesperson expertise Spokesperson expertise

Product
distance 0.023 (0.880) 52.151 (0.000)*** 2.122 (0.147) 0.051 (0.821) 0.071 (0.791) 0.014 (0.905) 0.224 (0.636)
Product
attitude 47.231 (0.000)*** 10.889 (0.001)*** 18.520 (0.000)*** 3.441 (0.065) 30.709 (0.000)*** 2.764 (0.098) 0.333 (0.565)
Attitude
certainty 2.849 (0.093) 0.376 (0.540) 26.754 (0.000)*** 1.452 (0.229) 16.388 (0.000)*** 0.235 (0.629) 0.100 (0.753)
Purchase
intention 42.508 (0.000)*** 3.577 (0.060) 13.984 (0.000)*** 1.771 (0.185) 26.160 (0.000)*** 0.514 (0.474) 0.080 (0.777)

Note: *** Significant at p ⬍ 0.01

When store brand products with high product relevance (i.e. nearer product distance) were Hypermarket
advertised, spokesperson expertise had significant positive effects on attitude certainty
(M ⫽ 4.74 vs 3.70, p ⬍ 0.05) but no effects on product attitudes and purchase intentions (both
ps ⬎ 0.05). Further ANCOVAs were conducted to compare participant responses among the
three groups (high-expertise spokesperson, low-expertise spokesperson and the high
product relevance control group without spokesperson). No significant differences in
product attitudes and purchase intentions were found among the three groups (all ps ⬎ 0.05), 809
indicating that the participants resisted spokesperson persuasion. Additionally,
participants’ product attitudes tended to be negative (all Ms ⬍ 4, all ps ⬍ 0.05). Compared
with the high-expertise spokesperson (M ⫽ 4.74) and the control group (M ⫽ 4.71), the
low-expertise spokesperson significantly reduced participant certainty of negative attitudes
(M ⫽ 3.70, both ps ⬍ 0.05). Thus, H5b is supported.
For both low- and high-relevance (i.e. greater and nearer product distance) separate brand
products, spokesperson expertise exerted significant positive effects on product attitudes
(M ⫽ 4.77 vs 3.92, p ⬍ 0.05; M ⫽ 4.91 vs 3.55, p ⬍ 0.05) and purchase intentions (M ⫽ 4.82
vs 3.64, p ⬍ 0.05; M ⫽ 4.87 vs 3.47, p ⬍ 0.05), but no effects on attitude certainty (both ps ⬎
0.05). These results support H5c. Table II shows the summarized results for all hypotheses.

Hypothesis Result

H1a. For private-label products, consumers’ perceptions of low Supported

prices (vs perceptions of low quality) are relatively high-level
construal considerations
H1b. For private-label products, consumers’ perceptions of low Supported
quality (vs perceptions of low prices) are relatively low-level
construal considerations
H2. Product relevance negatively affects consumers’ perceived Supported
product distance
H3. Consumers have more favorable attitudes and higher Supported
purchase intentions toward separate brand products than store
brand products
H4a. Advertising store brands using low-expertise Supported
spokespersons reduces consumer certainty of negative attitudes
more than using high-expertise spokespersons
H4b. Advertising separate brands using high-expertise Supported
spokespersons enhances consumer product attitudes and
purchase intentions more than using low-expertise
spokespersons
H5a. When advertising store brand products that have greater Not supported (spokesperson
product distance, high-expertise spokespersons enhance expertise did not affect
consumer product attitudes and purchase intentions more than product attitudes and
low-expertise spokespersons purchase intentions)
H5b. When advertising store brand products that have nearer Supported
product distance, low-expertise spokespersons reduce consumer
certainty of negative attitudes more than high-expertise
spokespersons
H5c. When advertising separate brand products, high-expertise Supported Table II.
spokespersons enhance consumer product attitudes and Summary of
purchase intentions more than low-expertise spokespersons, hypotheses and test
and this relationship holds regardless of product distance results
EJM 5.3 Supplementary analysis
51,4 As H5a was not supported, the authors conducted additional analyses to test the
appropriateness of their inferences. When formulating purchase decisions for store brand
products, the participants in the greater product distance group cared more about low prices
(the high-level benefit) than poor quality, the low-level sacrifice (M ⫽ 5.80 and 5.05,
p ⬍ 0.05)[9]. Their focus on the low-price benefit generated better product attitudes (M ⫽
810 3.80) and purchase intentions (M ⫽ 3.52) than participants in the nearer product distance
group (M ⫽ 3.24, p ⬍ 0.05; M ⫽ 3.09, p ⬍ 0.05) and control groups (M ⫽ 3.38, p ⬍ 0.05; M ⫽
3.07, p ⬍ 0.05). Because the greater product distance group participants had already used the
low price as an effective heuristic cue to form their attitudinal responses, they may not have
considered the spokesperson cue, following the principle of least effort in the heuristic
models (Griffin et al., 2002). Therefore, spokesperson expertise did not cause these participants
to change their attitudes, as indicated in the analysis of H5a. In contrast, the participants in the
nearer product distance group had poorer product attitudes and purchase intentions because of
their focus on low product quality rather than low price (M ⫽ 5.80 vs 5.30, p ⬍ 0.05).
Similar analyses were conducted for the separate brand product groups. The participants
exhibited no differences in their attention to prices and quality regardless of product
relevance (both ps ⬎ 0.05), and participant product attitudes and purchase intentions were
unaffected by product relevance (both ps ⬎ 0.05). Thus, product distance did not affect
participant interpretations of and responses to separate brand products, echoing the
inferences of H5c.

6. General discussion
6.1 Conclusions
Combining studies on consumer attitude changes, resistance to persuasion and CLT, the two
experiments reported here examined how consumers’ responses to hypermarket
private-label products are affected by store brand and separate brand strategies and
spokesperson expertise, which is based on consumers’ pre-existing perceptions of
private-label products. Several important conclusions can be drawn from the empirical
results. First, as expected, consumers view hypermarket private-label products as cheap and
low quality. At a deeper level, the results show that consumers perceive the low-price
(low-quality) characteristic of private-label products as a high-level (low-level) construal
consideration when forming purchase decisions. Second, product relevance negatively
affects consumers’ perceived product distance. Third, the separate brand strategy yields
more favorable product attitudes and purchase intentions than the store brand strategy.
Fourth, when advertising separate brand products, spokesperson expertise positively affects
consumer product attitudes and purchase intentions regardless of product distance. Fifth,
low-expertise spokespersons for store brand products reduce consumer certainty of negative
product attitudes even though consumers resist spokesperson persuasion. Sixth, for store
brand products with greater product distance, consumers focus on the low price of the
products, which produces positive attitudinal responses; therefore, advertisements with
high-expertise spokespersons can enhance consumer certainty of positive attitudes.
However, for store brand products with nearer product distance, consumers focus on the low
quality of the products. Thus, the use of low-expertise spokespersons in advertising for these
products can effectively reduce consumer certainty of negative attitudes.

6.2 Theoretical implications

This study makes several important theoretical contributions. First, previous studies did not
consider the effects of different brand strategies on private-label products (Bao et al., 2011;
Dawes, 2013; Kadirov, 2015; Krishna, 2011; Walsh and Mitchell, 2010), so the current authors
examined two commonly used hypermarket private-label brand strategies, and the empirical Hypermarket
results demonstrated that these strategies have important direct effects on consumer product
attitudes and purchase intentions and moderate the effects of spokesperson expertise. These
findings suggest that scholars should include the influence of brand strategies in their
models of consumer decision-making for private-label products. Moreover, this study is the
first to integrate theories of consumer attitude change (HSM), resistance to persuasion
(resistance theory) and construal approaches to perceived events or targets (CLT). The
resulting comprehensive framework helps explain the effects of brand strategies and
811
spokespersons employed by hypermarkets for private-label products with different product
relevance.
Second, this study identified the construal levels corresponding to the dual roles of
low-priced, private-label products, which complements Bornemann and Homburg’s (2011)
study that focused exclusively on the dual roles of high-priced products. The current
research results suggest that the construal levels represented by price and quality vary when
product prices change. The findings also provide evidence for a new role (i.e. high-level
construed, desirability consideration) that price might play in CLT studies because price is
usually treated as a low-level construed feasibility consideration when consumers form their
purchase decisions (Lee and Zhao, 2014; Liberman and Trope, 1998).
Third, the four dimensions of psychological distance (temporal, social, spatial and
hypothetical) frequently mentioned in CLT studies (Chang and Pham, 2014; Liberman et al.,
2007) cannot explain the distance perceptions existing between people and products. The
current authors introduced and tested a new psychological distance dimension (i.e. product
distance) and its antecedent (i.e. product relevance). Furthermore, this study also
demonstrated a new functional mechanism for the product relevance effect that is different
from the elaboration likelihood model mechanism discussed in previous research (Haugtvedt
and Strathman, 1990). Scholars should note the possible impact of product distance in future
product-related studies.
Fourth, previous studies on persuasion (i.e. attitude change) and resistance to persuasion
examined these effects separately. The model tested in this study integrates these two
approaches, and the research results demonstrate the pivotal influence of brand strategies.
Fifth, in addition to the persuasion effects emphasized in previous studies (Clow et al.,
2011; Eisend and Langner, 2010; Gupta and Dang, 2009), this study demonstrated that
spokesperson expertise exerts different effects on changing consumer attitude certainty
depending on the brand strategy and product distance. For example, there are some
conditions under which low-expertise spokespersons actually generate better results than
high-expertise spokespersons. These findings are interesting and advance understanding of
the role of spokesperson expertise, and they contribute to resistance theory by showing
attitude certainty can be reduced after people initially resist persuasion. This fills a gap left
by previous studies, which primarily focused on variables that enhance attitude certainty
(Lemanski and Lee, 2012; Tormala and Petty, 2002, 2004).
Sixth, Tormala and Petty (2004) explored the effects of source expertise when people
resist persuasion and found that resisting a message from a low-expertise source (i.e. a high
school student or a part-time instructor) had no significant effect on reducing attitude
certainty compared to a control group. The current study used a more rigorously controlled
experiment to demonstrate that low-expertise spokespersons can reduce consumer attitude
certainty. Future studies should consider the possible influences caused by different
manipulations of source expertise.
Finally, in contrast to previous studies that manually induced participant resistance
using prompts for counterarguments and forewarning (Lemanski and Lee, 2012; Tormala
EJM and Petty, 2002, 2004), the current study induced voluntary resistance using consumers’ own
51,4 prejudgment of store brand reputation. Therefore, the results are more generalizable to
reality and should exhibit enhanced theoretical applicability.

6.3 Practical implications

The research results provide the following practical suggestions. First, the findings can help
812 practitioners better grasp consumers’ initial responses to store brand products, which can
enable more effective communication strategies. When consumers’ perceived psychological
distance with store brand products is greater (e.g. low-relevance products), they have more
favorable product attitudes and higher purchase intentions. Hypermarket marketers can
increase the appeal of these products by using promotions that focus on the low price.
However, when perceived psychological distance is nearer (e.g. high-relevance products), the
low-quality reputation of these products is made more salient in consumers’ minds, who then
develop poor initial attitudes toward these products. In this scenario, marketers should focus
on persuading consumers of the enhanced product quality of store brand products.
Second, hypermarkets can generate more favorable consumer attitudes and purchase
intentions if they use the separate brand strategy for new private-label products.
Furthermore, because brand strategies affect a consumer’s mindset when processing
relevant persuasive messages, designing persuasive messages that are suitable for a
particular brand strategy is a key to success. Results suggest that consumers are more open
to persuasion (resistant to persuasion) when they encounter separate brand (store brand) ads.
Third, the current study found evidence that under certain conditions marketing
messages from high-expertise spokespersons are not always the most persuasive. Both
brand strategy and perceived product relevance influence the effects of spokesperson
messages. Marketers should take into account these factors before choosing a spokesperson.
For example, when store brand products with low relevance are promoted, high-expertise
spokespersons should be employed to enhance consumer certainty of positive product
attitudes. This strategy can transform positive product attitudes into actual purchases
(Gross et al., 1995). In contrast, when store brand products with high relevance are promoted,
low-expertise spokespersons should be employed to reduce consumer certainty of negative
attitudes. Consequently, the possibility of unfavorable decisions resulting from negative
consumer attitudes can be reduced and the likelihood of successful future persuasion
enhanced (Tormala et al., 2006). For separate brand products, high-expertise spokespersons
should be employed to enhance consumer product attitudes and purchase intentions.
Fourth, the research findings should remind advertisers of the importance of product
relevance and distance. Product advertisements usually stimulate consumers’ perceptions of
product distance. Therefore, advertisers should consider consumers’ construal approaches
to product-related information and then design advertising elements to match these views
[i.e. feature high-level (low-level) construed advertising messages/elements under the
condition of far (near) product distance; Kim et al., 2009] to generate better advertising
effects.
Finally, the use of low-expertise spokespersons to provide persuasive messages can help
reduce persuasion-resistant consumers’ attitude certainty, which can increase the likelihood
of future persuasion, especially in collectivist cultures. Messages from high-expertise
spokespersons can cause these consumers to have higher attitude certainty, making future
persuasion more difficult. The takeaway is that marketers need pay more attention to
consumers’ message-processing mindset and the possible consequences of persuasion
failure.
6.4 Limitations and future research Hypermarket
The authors carefully designed the experiments to create accurate, reproducible and
generalizable results; however, some limitations remain. For one, a relatively homogenous group
of undergraduate and graduate students participated in the experiments. Age, education and
income might also affect consumer purchase intentions of private-label products (Richardson
et al., 1996). Additionally, young people are more susceptible to the influence of celebrity
endorsements/recommendations (Jackson and Darrow, 2005), which might strengthen the effects
of the celebrity spokespersons used in this study’s experimental ads. Furthermore, only raincoats 813
and sliced meat were used as the experimental products. Future research should expand the
experiment to include additional demographic and socioeconomic segments and use different
experimental products to increase the generalizability of the findings.
Future studies can extend the findings in several ways. For one, this study used a new brand
name to manipulate the separate brand strategy. However, hypermarkets often introduce new
products under existing separate brands. Consumers may gradually develop perceptions,
associations and attitudes toward these separate brands. The effects of mature separate brands
are worthy of future research. In addition to store brands and separate brands, retailers often use
endorsed sub-brands (which use both the retailer’s name and a separate brand name for the
product) for their private-label products (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009). Examining the relative
effects of this type of sub-brand might further clarify the differences of various brand strategies.
Future studies can also explore the effects of factors other than product relevance on product
distance. Examination of differences in consumer perceptions of national vs private-label brands,
such as perceived authenticity gap (Kadirov, 2015), is another interesting future research track.
Culture also offers many avenues for future related and confirmatory research. The
implementation, effects and consumer perceptions of celebrity endorsements might vary
according to country culture (Biswas et al., 2009; Choi et al., 2005). Scholars have also found
cross-cultural (Western individualist shoppers vs Eastern collectivist shoppers) and
cross-national (USA vs Chinese undergraduates) differences in consumers’ beliefs, perceptions,
attitudes and behavioral responses to private-label branding (Boyle and Lathrop, 2013; Lupton
et al., 2010; Shannon and Mandhachitara, 2005). For example, although US consumers still
perceive a private-label and national-brand quality gap (Boyle and Lathrop, 2013), they perceive
less quality variation between private-label brands and national brands compared to Thai and
Chinese consumers (Lupton et al., 2010; Shannon and Mandhachitara, 2005). Whether a smaller
quality gap weakens the anticipated effects of perceived low quality of private-label brands is a
topic worth further exploration. Future research should compare consumer perceptions of price
and quality of private-label products across cultures, and re-test how brand strategies and
product distance moderate the effects of celebrity spokespersons’ expertise in different cultural
contexts.
Finally, this study only examined the effects of spokesperson expertise when consumers
resisted persuasion attempts. Future studies should explore additional variables that might
reduce consumer certainty of negative attitudes and increase the likelihood of future persuasion.

Notes
1. To further enhance student representativeness, the hypermarket and products used in the
experiments were selected after analyzing the pretest results for student purchase experiences.
2. The levels of heuristic processing were also measured with items adapted from Trumbo (2002). The
analytical results demonstrated that consumer evaluations and purchase decisions for both
experimental products were formed according to heuristic models (both Ms ⬎ 4, both ps ⬍ 0.05).
3. To test the study premise (i.e. consumers generally characterize private-label products as having
low prices and poor quality), the perceived price and quality of Carrefour private-label products
EJM were measured using seven-point scales (strongly disagree/strongly agree) in response to the
following statements: “I think Carrefour private-label products are high in price (quality)” and
51,4 “Compared with national brands, similar Carrefour private-label products are higher in price
(quality)” (␣price ⫽ 0.74; ␣quality ⫽ 0.85). The analytical results showed that Carrefour private-label
products were perceived to have both low price (M ⫽ 2.59 ⬍ 4) and poor quality (M ⫽ 3.11 ⬍ 4; both
ps ⬍ 0.05).
4. Following Kardes et al. (2006) and Liviatan et al. (2008), a supplementary experiment consisting of
814 40 valid participants (50 per cent male, 50 per cent female; average age of 22.7 years) was conducted
with a between-subjects design (product relevance: high vs low). It demonstrated that product
distance was one of the psychological distance dimensions because it positively affected the
percentage of high-level construals of consumers regarding product information, echoing CLT
mechanisms. Additionally, product distance completely mediated the effects of product relevance
on the percentage of high-level construals.
5. The control groups (without spokespersons) were set only for the store brand (rather than the
separate brand) because the authors posited that consumers’ resistance to persuasion might happen
only when exposed to the product advertisements for store brands. Therefore, referring to previous
studies on resistance to persuasion (Tormala and Petty, 2002, 2004), the design of the control groups
for the store brand should be helpful in understanding consumers’ existing attitudinal responses
toward store brands and thus clarify if consumers did resist spokesperson persuasion and how they
revised the certainty of existing attitudes. Under the persuasion context, the control groups for the
separate brand provided less additional valuable information, so they were not included in the
experiment.
6. Pan could be seen as an expert on sliced meat (raincoats) because he can speak about nutritional
value (chemical composition, such as presence of plasticizers and heavy metals) and food safety
(physical risk) for sliced meat (raincoats).
7. Other than removing the spokesperson-related items, other items in the questionnaire for the
control groups were identical to those used for the experimental groups.
8. As in Experiment 1, consumers’ product involvement (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.37, p ⬍ 0.05) and product familiarity
(␤ ⫽ ⫺0.12, p ⬍ 0.05) negatively affected product distance while subjective product knowledge
(␤ ⫽ 0.18, p ⬍ 0.05) had a positive effect.
9. The criteria for formulating purchase decisions were assessed on a seven-point scale (strongly
disagree/strongly agree) with the statement, “When considering purchasing XXX, I pay great
attention to the quality (prices) of various XXX brands”.

References
Abelson, R.P. (1988), “Conviction”, American Psychologist, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 267-275.
ACNielsen Global Consumer Confidence Survey (2005), “Global consumer confidence survey 2005: the
rise of private-label brands”, available at: http://magazine.sina.com/bg/adm/200510/
20060104/234313509.html (accessed 12 November 2013).
Aydinoğlu, N.Z. and Krishna, A. (2011), “Guiltless gluttony: the asymmetric effect of size labels on size
perceptions and consumption”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1095-1112.
Bao, Y., Bao, Y. and Sheng, S. (2011), “Motivating purchase of private brands: effects of store image,
product signatureness, and quality variation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 2,
pp. 220-226.
Baskin, E., Wakslak, C.J., Trope, Y. and Novemsky, N. (2014), “Why feasibility matters more to gift
receivers than givers: a construal-level approach to gift giving”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 169-182.
Beneke, J., Flynn, R., Greig, T. and Mukaiwa, M. (2013), “The influence on perceived product quality,
relative price and risk on consumer value and willingness to buy: a study of private label
mechandise”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 218-228.
Biswas, S., Hussain, M. and O’Donnell, K. (2009), “Celebrity endorsements in advertisements and Hypermarket
consumer perceptions: a cross-cultural study”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 121-137.
Bizer, G.Y., Larsen, J.T. and Petty, R.E. (2011), “Exploring the valence-framing effect: negative framing
enhances attitude strength”, Political Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 59-80.
Bornemann, T. and Homburg, C. (2011), “Psychological distance and the dual role of price”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 490-504.
Boyle, P.J. and Lathrop, E.S. (2013), “The value of private label brands to US consumers: an objective
815
and subjective assessment”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 80-86.
Brehm, J.W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Briñol, P., Petty, R.E. and Tormala, Z.L. (2004), “Self-validation of cognitive responses to
advertisements”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 559-573.
Byrne, A., Whitehead, M. and Breen, S. (2003), “The naked truth of celebrity endorsement”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 105 Nos 4/5, pp. 288-296.
Calder, B., Phillips, L. and Tybout, A. (1981), “Designing research for application”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 197-207.
Canning, K. (2014), “State of the industry research study: full speed ahead”, StoreBrands, available at: www.
storebrands.info/2014-state-industry-research-study-full-speed-ahead (accessed 20 December 2014).
Castaño, R., Sujan, M., Kacher, M. and Sujan, H. (2008), “Managing consumer uncertainty in the
adoption of new products: temporal distance and mental simulation”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 320-336.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A. and Eagly, A.H. (1989), “Heuristic and systematic information processing
within and beyond the persuasion context”, in Uleman, J.S. and Bargh, J.A. (Eds), Unintended
Thought, Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 212-252.
Chang, C.-L. (2003), “Celebrity endorsement increases bra sales”, Apple Daily, available at: www.
appledaily.com.tw/appledaily/article/finance/20030914/350756/ (accessed 1 July 2016).
Chang, H.H. and Pham, M.T. (2014), “Affect as a decision-making system of the present”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 42-63.
Chang, S.-S. (2015), “The changing dule role of price under different brand equity and brand
sponsorship”, Taiwan Journal of Marketing Science, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 167-182.
Chen, S.-C. (2008), “Exploration of carrefour private-label brand strategies”, ISURVEY, available at:
http://blog.sina.com.tw/mok_mba/article.php?entryid⫽578379 (accessed 14 June 2016).
Choi, S.M., Lee, W.N. and Kim, H.J. (2005), “Lessons from the rich and famous: a cross-cultural
comparison of celebrity endorsement in advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 85-98.
Chou, H.-Y. and Lien, N.-H. (2012), “The effects of incentive types and appeal regulatory framing in
travel advertising”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 883-897.
Chou, H.-Y. and Lien, N.-H. (2014), “Effects of SMS teaser ads on product curiosity”, International
Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 328-345.
Clow, K.E., James, K.E., Sisk, S.E. and Cole, H.S. (2011), “Source credibility, visual strategy and the
model in print advertisements”, Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 24-31.
Cuneo, A., Lopez, P. and Yagüe, M.J. (2012), “Measuring private labels brand equity: a consumer
perspective”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 952-964.
Curren, M.T. and Harich, K.R. (1994), “Consumers’ mood states: the mitigating influence of personal
relevance on product evaluations”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 91-107.
Dawes, J. (2013), “Reasons for variation in SCR for private label brands”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47 Nos 11/12, pp. 1804-1824.
EJM Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers, Fort Worth, TX.
51,4
Eisend, M. and Langner, T. (2010), “Immediate and delayed advertising effects of celebrity endorsers
attractiveness and expertise”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 527-546.
Fan, S.-M. (2014), “Big channel brands fight using private labels: 72 per cent of respondents care most about
price”, Cardu.com, available at: www.cardu.com.tw/news/detail.php?nt_pk⫽6&ns_pk⫽24833
816 (accessed 6 November 2015).
Fang, C.-C. (2013), “Chris Ke returns to endorse RT-Mart’s low-priced clothes after delivering her baby”,
Chinatimes.com, available at: www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20131030004499-260404
(accessed 20 June 2016).
Griffin, R.J., Neuwirth, K., Giese, J. and Dunwoody, S. (2002), “Linking the heuristic-systematic model
and depth of processing”, Communication Research, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 705-732.
Gross, S.R., Holtz, R. and Miller, N. (1995), “Attitude certainty”, in Petty, R.E and Krosnick, J.A. (Eds),
Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 215-245.
Gupta, M.A. and Dang, P.J. (2009), “Examining celebrity expertise and advertising effectiveness in
India”, South Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 61-75.
Haugtvedt, C.P. and Strathman, A.J. (1990), “Situational product relevance and attitude persistence”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 766-769.
Herstein, R., Tifferet, S., Abrantes, J.L., Lymperopoulos, C., Albayrak, T. and Caber, M. (2012), “The
effect of personality traits on private brand consumer tendencies: a cross-cultural study of
Mediterranean countries”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 196-214.
Hoch, S.J. (1996), “How should national brands think about private labels?”, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 89-102.
Hu, H.-H. and Ho, Y.-C. (2008), “A study of consumer’s purchase intention toward retail store brands in
the food sector”, Journal of Hospitality and Home Economics, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 273-293.
Jackson, D.J. and Darrow, T.I.A. (2005), “The influence of celebrity endorsements on young adults’
political opinions”, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 80-98.
Kadirov, D. (2015), “Private labels ain’t bona fide! Perceived authenticity and willingness to pay a price
premium for national brands over private labels”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 31
Nos 17/18, pp. 1773-1798.
Kapner, S. (2009), “Wal-Mart is reshaping private-label brands”, CNFOL.com, available at: http://news.
cnfol.com/090318/101,1280,5604677,00.shtml (accessed 23 November 2013).
Kardes, F.R., Cronley, M.L. and Kim, J. (2006), “Construal-level effects on preference stability,
preference-behavior correspondence and the suppression of competing brands”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 135-144.
Kim, H., Rao, A.R. and Lee, A.Y. (2009), “It’s time to vote: the effect of matching message orientation and
temporal frame on political persuasion”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 877-889.
Kim, K., Zhang, M. and Li, X. (2008), “Effects of temporal and social distance on consumer evaluations”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 706-713.
Kotler, P. (2003), Marketing Management, 11th ed., Pearson Education International, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Kraus, S.J. (1995), “Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature”,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 58-75.
Krishna, C.V. (2011), “Determinants of consumer buying behaviour: an empirical study of private label
brands in apparel retail”, Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 43-56.
Lee, J.K. and Lee, W.-N. (2009), “Country-of-origin effects on consumer product evaluation and purchase Hypermarket
intention: the role of objective versus subjective knowledge”, Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 137-151.
Lee, K.K. and Zhao, M. (2014), “The effect of price on preference consistency over time”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 109-118.
Lemanski, J.L. and Lee, H.-S. (2012), “Attitude certainty and resistance to persuasion: investigating the
impact of source trustworthiness in advertising”, International Journal of Business and Social 817
Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 66-75.
Li, Z.-H. (2012), “The three major hypermarkets start to compete in the value-clothing market”,
Economic Daily News, available at: www.tcfa.org.tw/asp/left_main.asp?act⫽anndetail&sn⫽
9182573&class⫽4 (accessed 18 Debember 2013).
Liberman, N. and Trope, Y. (1998), “The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and
distant future decisions: a test of temporal construal theory”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Liberman, N., Trope, Y. and Wakslak, C. (2007), “Construal level theory and consumer behavior”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 113-117.
Lin, H.-M. (2011), “Effects of regulatory focus on advertising persuasion – the role of information
processing”, International Journal of Commerce and Strategy, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 39-52.
Lin, J. and Jie, H. (2010), “The effect of brand similarity on perceived quality of private brand:
comparison between private brand and national brand based on external clue”, Journal of Capital
University of Economics and Business, Vol. 4, pp. 63-71.
Ling, I.-L. and Liu, Y.-F. (2008), “Comprehension and persuasion on advertising message:
heuristic-systematic model approach”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 487-503.
Liu, H.-H. (2014), “The evolution of hypermarket private labels: the introduction of co-branded
products”, Apple Daily, available at: www.appledaily.com.tw/appledaily/article/supplement/201
40209/35628011/ (accessed 12 November 2015).
Liviatan, I., Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2008), “Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension:
implications for perception of others’ actions”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 44
No. 5, pp. 1256-1269.
Lupton, R.A., Rawlinson, D.R. and Braunstein, L.A. (2010), “Private label branding in China: what do US
and Chinese students think?”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 104-113.
Machleit, K.A., Allen, C.T. and Madden, T.J. (1993), “The mature brand and brand interest: an
alternative consequence of ad-evoked affect”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 72-82.
Manikandan, M.K.M. (2012), “Theory building on private label brands: a literature review”, The IUP
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 64-77.
Martin, B.A.S., Gnoth, J. and Strong, C. (2009), “Temporal construal in advertising: the moderating role
of temporal orientation and attribute importance in consumer evaluations”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 5-19.
Mika (2009), “Hypermarkets become fashionable: Miley Cyrus and Max Azria are only sold in
Wal-Mart”, available at: www.jabamay.com/2009/08/miley-cyrus-max-azriawal-mart.html
(accessed 14 June 2016).
Moran, M. (2006), “Discovering your own private label”, Gourmet Retailer, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 62-65.
Muehling, D.D. and Sprott, D.E. (2004), “The power of reflection: an empirical examination of nostalgia
advertising effects”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 25-35.
Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M.C. (2009), “Corporate branding and brand architecture: a conceptual
framework”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
EJM Nan, X.I. (2007), “Social distance, framing, and judgment: a construal level perspective”, Human
Communication Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 489-514.
51,4
Nenycz-Thiel, M. (2011), “Private labels in Australia: a case where retailer concentration does not
predicate private labels share”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 624-633.
Nielsen (2014), “The acceptance of private labels increases in Taiwan: price is still the main determinant
of consumer purchases”, available at: www.nielsen.com/tw/zh/press-room/2014/news2014
818 TaiwanPrivateLabel20141222.html (accessed 2 November 2015).
Ohanian, R. (1990), “Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’
perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 39-52.
Olson, E.L. (2012), “‘Outing’ the supplier: implications for manufacturers and retailers”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 47-52.
Pascal, V.J., Sprott, D.E. and Muehling, D.D. (2002), “The influence of evoked nostalgia on consumers’
responses to advertising: an exploratory study”, Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 39-49.
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.
Pfeiffer, B.E., Deval, H., Kardes, F.R., Ewing, D.R., Han, X. and Cronley, M.L. (2014), “Effects of construal
level on omission detection and multiattribute evaluation”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 31
No. 11, pp. 992-1007.
Ping, I.-N. (2015), “The discount era: sales of private-label products lead the way”, Liberty Times,
available at: http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/consumer/paper/860136 (accessed 25 October 2015).
PLMA (2012), “US retail trends: future trends and forces”, PLMA’s 2012 Private Label Trade Show,
available at: http://plma.com/share/press/PLMAChicago2012/HubbardM_PLMALiveBkfst.pdf
(accessed 1 June 2016).
PLMA (2013), “Store brands growing across all channels”, PLMA’s 2013 Private Label Trade Show,
available at: http://plma.com/storeBrands/sbt13.html (accessed 12 November 2013).
Pollster (2011), “Pollster: consumers’ favorite hypermarkets?”, available at: www.pollster.com.tw/
Aboutlook/lookview_item.aspx?ms_sn⫽1622 (accessed 17 August 2013).
PPSJ (2010), “Wal-Mart scheduled to launch private brand cell phone services”, available at: http://biz.
ppsj.com.cn/2010-9-26/291720466.html (accessed 17 August 2013).
Putrevu, S. (2008), “Consumer responses toward sexual and nonsexual appeals: the influence of
involvement, need for cognition (NFC), and gender”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 57-70.
Rajagopal, P. and Montgomery, N.V. (2011), “I imagine, I experience, I like: the false experience effect”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 578-594.
Raju, J.S., Sethuraman, R. and Dhar, S.K. (1995), “The introduction and performance of store brands”,
Management Science, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 957-978.
Richardson, P.S., Jain, A.K. and Dick, A. (1996), “Household store brand proneness: a framework”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 159-185.
Sagarin, B.J., Cialdini, R.B., Rice, W.E. and Serna, S.B. (2002), “Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability:
the motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 526-541.
Sarkar, S., Sharma, D. and Kalro, A.D. (2016), “Private label brands in an emerging economy: an
exploratory study in India”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 44
No. 2, pp. 203-222.
Savadori, L. and Mittone, L. (2015), “Temporal distance reduces the attractiveness of p-bets compared to Hypermarket
$-bets”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 26-38.
Shannon, R. and Mandhachitara, R. (2005), “Private-label grocery shopping attitudes and behaviour: a
cross-cultural study”, Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 461-474.
Shukla, P., Banerjee, M. and Adidam, P.T. (2013), “The moderating influence of socio-demograhic
factors on the relationship between consumer psychographics and the attitude towards private
label brands”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 423-435.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., Van Heerde, H.J. and Geyskens, I. (2010), “What makes consumers willing to pay
819
a price premium for national brands over private labels”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 47
No. 6, pp. 1011-1024.
Steve, B. (2004), “The buying of private brands and manufacturer brands in grocery retailing: a
comparative study of buying processes in the UK, Sweden and Italy”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 799-824.
StoreBrandsDecisions.com (2011), “Private label market share sets a new record”, available at:www.storeb
randsdecisions.com/news/2011/06/28/private-label-market-share-sets-a-new-record- (accessed 18
November 2013).
StoreBrandsDecisions.com (2013), “Private label growth outpaces national brands”, available at: www.stor
ebrandsdecisions.com/news/2013/07/02/private-label-growth-outpaces-national-brands- (accessed
29 November 2013).
Tai, K.-L. (2010), Brand Marketing & Management, Wu-Nan Culture Enterprise, Taipei.
Tormala, Z.L. and Petty, R.E. (2002), “What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger: the effects of resisting
persuasion on attitude certainty”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 6,
pp. 1298-1313.
Tormala, Z.L. and Petty, R.E. (2004), “Source credibility and attitude certainty: a metacognitive analysis
of resistance to persuasion”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 427-442.
Tormala, Z.L., Clarkson, J.J. and Petty, R.E. (2006), “Resisting persuasion by the skin of one’s teeth: the
hidden success of resisted persuasive messages”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 423-435.
Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2010), “Construal-level theory of psychological distance”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 117 No. 2, pp. 440-463.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N. and Wakslak, C. (2007), “Construal levels and psychological distance: effects on
representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 83-95.
Trumbo, C.W. (1999), “Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment”, Risk Analysis,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 391-400.
Trumbo, C.W. (2002), “Information processing and risk perception: an adaptation of the
heuristic-systematic model”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 367-382.
Tsai, P.-L. (2009), “Hypermarkets and supermarkets are fighting with their private-label brands for
billions of dollars worth of business”, TVBS, available at: www.tvbs.com.tw/news/news_list.
asp?no⫽blue20091222194252 (accessed 10 November 2013).
Walsh, G. and Mitchell, V.-W. (2010), “Consumers’ intention to buy private label brands revisited”,
Journal of General Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 3-24.
Wei, Y.-T. (2014), “Hypermarkets start promotional activities before the school year: deepest discounts
for school supplies and electronics are 62 percent off”, ETtoday, available at: www.ettoday.net/
news/20140818/391064.htm (accessed 3 October 2014).
Williams, L.E., Stein, R. and Galguera, L. (2014), “The distinct affective consequences of psychological
distance and construal level”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1123-1138.
EJM Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1994), “The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision, and application to
advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 59-70.
51,4
Zhang, K.Z.K., Zhao, S.J., Cheung, C.M.K. and Lee, M.K.O. (2014), “Examining the influence of online
reviews on consumers’ decision-making: a heuristic-systematic model”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 67, pp. 78-89.
Zhu, D.-S. and Hong, C.-H. (2009), “Guanxi and consumers’ perceived pre-purchased risk: a moderating
820 effect of consumer expertise”, NTU Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 197-232.

Corresponding author
Hsuan-Yi Chou can be contacted at: hsuanyi@mail.nsysu.edu.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