Mark Lett (2015) 26:619–629

DOI 10.1007/s11002-014-9297-y

The multiple roles of fit between brand alliance

partners in alliance attitude formation

Bendik Meling Samuelsen & Lars Erling Olsen &

Kevin Lane Keller

Published online: 22 April 2014

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract This paper tests the assumption that consumers’ perceptions of fit between
brand alliance partners can serve different roles in attitude formation depending on the
level of elaboration given to a persuasive message about a brand alliance. We exper-
imentally manipulate fit between brand concepts of real brands, situational involve-
ment, and argument quality to test this assumption. A three-way interaction showed a
positive main effect of fit on alliance attitude under low involvement and an interaction
between fit and argument quality on alliance attitude under high involvement.
Consequently, brand owners could expect more beneficial behavioral consequences
of alliance attitudes if they are (a) based on alliances between brands with similar brand
concepts, (b) backed with strong arguments, and (c) perceived as personally relevant by
target consumers. The paper adds insight into how fit between the alliance partners can
assume different roles as persuasion variables, thereby extending our understanding of
theoretical mechanisms explaining when and why fit is important between brand
alliance partners.

Keywords Brand alliances . Perceived fit . Attitudes . Elaboration likelihood model

1 Introduction

At first look, some brand alliances are puzzling, some are not. With sufficient funds,
one can buy a Bentley car with Breitling instruments, or for less money, one can buy a

B. M. Samuelsen (*)
Department of Marketing, BI Norwegian Business School, 0442 Oslo, Norway
e-mail: bendik.samuelsen@bi.no

L. E. Olsen
Department of Marketing, Oslo School of Management, P.O. Box 1195, Sentrum, 0107 Oslo, Norway
e-mail: lars.olsen@mh.no

K. L. Keller
Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, 100 Tuck Hall, Hanover, NH 03755-9011, USA
e-mail: kevin.l.keller@tuck.dartmouth.edu
620 Mark Lett (2015) 26:619–629

Breitling timepiece with a Bentley logo on the dial. However, would not an alliance
between Hyundai and Breitling be more puzzling? Perhaps one might see Timex and
Hyundai as a better match?
Consumers are constantly exposed to brand alliances or co-brand initiatives like these
examples. Previous research has shown that perceptions of fit between brand alliance
partners are important for consumers when forming alliance attitudes (e.g., Arnett et al.
2010; James 2006; Lanseng and Olsen 2012; Park et al. 1996; Simonin and Ruth 1998;
Swaminathan et al. 2012). The straightforward implication could be that both Breitling +
Bentley and Hyundai + Timex can be seen as alliances with relatively high fit, as the
former combines symbolic brand concepts, while the latter combines functional brand
concepts (Park et al. 1986). Being a combination of a functional and a symbolic brand
concept, a Hyundai + Breitling alliance would be perceived as having lower fit.
However, the car + watch alliance examples raise some important questions still not
addressed in the brand alliance literature. Can consumers utilize perceptions of fit
differently in the process of brand alliance attitude formation? Do consumers simply
accept or reject alliances using fit as a cue, or do consumers use fit as a more
meaningful piece of information, i.e., as an argument to be evaluated? And finally,
does fit increase or decrease processing of alliance information?
An approach to these questions can be found in dual process persuasion theories like
the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty and Cacioppo 1986) which posit that
similar attitudes can be developed by different processes. More specifically, any piece
of information may serve multiple roles depending on the recipient’s level of elabora-
tion, with more elaboration given to issues perceived to have higher personal relevance
(Petty and Cacioppo 1986).
The current study investigates the multiple roles of fit between brand alliance
partners. We report the results from an experiment with real brands representing
varying degrees of fit between their respective brand images. Personal relevance was
varied through a situational involvement manipulation, and we varied argument quality
as a means to detect differences in elaboration (Petty and Cacioppo 1986) across
different levels of brand fit.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Fit in brand alliances

Conceptually, fit is an instance where two objects share some commonalities (Aaker and
Keller 1990). The assumption is that each object is represented with an associative
schema in memory (Anderson 1983), and fit exists to the degree that there are similar-
ities between the two schemas in consumer memory. Categorization theory suggests that
an instance fits into a given category pending on the match between its attributes and the
typical attributes of the category as represented by the consumers’ schemas (Rosch
1978). Consider a case where the retailer Old Navy wants to expand its portfolio with a
line of wristwatches where they want to use both Old Navy and the producer’s brand
(e.g., Timex for Old Navy). Old Navy does not extend into watches but joins forces with
an established watch brand which brings its competence to the alliance. Generally,
brands often form alliances outside their own product category, and fit must therefore be
Mark Lett (2015) 26:619–629 621

achieved through other means than product fit. In the Timex for Old Navy case, it is
likely that judgment of fit would be based on more abstract associations (Lanseng and
Olsen 2012). Even though consumers can assess fit holistically based on overall
impressions, we suggest that the abstract content of brand fit perceptions also might
vary depending on the positioning strategy pursued by the brand or brands in question
(Bhat and Reddy 1998). At an abstract level, brand concepts are empirical manifesta-
tions of brand positions (Park et al. 1986). Woods (1960) outlined six product classes,
from which Park et al. (1986) outlined three brand concepts, describing the overall
benefit position of the brand in terms of functional, experiential, or symbolic benefits.
One can say that Old Navy and Timex share similar functional concepts (high concept
fit), yet operate in completely different product categories. Still, fit can be assessed based
on the degree to which they share similar brand concepts (Lanseng and Olsen 2012).
We suggest that when encountering persuasive messages for an alliance like Timex
watches for Old Navy (and importantly, the watch carries both names), consumers will
react with an initial perception of fit between the two brands’ concepts. Subsequently,
this perception of fit is utilized when forming an attitude toward the brand alliance. In
the case of Old Navy + Timex, we expect consumers to perceive fit as being relatively
higher because the two brands both follow a functional brand concept strategy (Park
et al. 1986). If Old Navy chose Omega as alliance partner, perceived concept fit should
be considerably lower, as Omega follows a more symbolic brand concept strategy. It is
crucial to acknowledge that from a theoretical point of view, we assume that the level of
fit (from lower to higher) affects the attitudinal response and that the brand concept
combinations are empirical bases of fit of particular relevance to brand alliances. Other
bases of fit, not used in the current study, could for example be complementarity in
usage situations, overlap in user groups, expertise, and so on. We do not a priori have
any theoretical reason to suggest that high fit obtained through two functional concepts
works through other mechanisms than high fit obtained through two symbolic con-
cepts. Our central question then becomes as follows: how is this fit perception utilized
in the attitude formation process? The basic proposition made in the current research is
that fit will assume different roles depending on level of situational involvement.

2.2 The moderating role of situational involvement

Situational involvement in the ELM literature is different from task involvement. The
former describes the extent to which the issue (i.e., the brand alliance) at hand has
relevance for the recipient’s needs, goals, and desires (Petty et al. 1983). The latter
describes engagement in a task (e.g., solving a riddle) that need not be personally
relevant and does not necessarily motivate the recipient to scrutinize a message to reach
a judgment about the true merits of an issue (Petty et al. 1983). By putting recipients in
different situations, one can manipulate the extent to which they perceive the issue as
more or less personally relevant, hence the term situational involvement. Managers
who consider using brand alliances in their strategy focus more on situational involve-
ment than task involvement. Target groups differ in their needs, goals, and desires and,
thus, differ in how personally relevant they perceive the brand alliance. Managers must
therefore take these differences in personal relevance into account when choosing
alliance partners. Reflecting this priority, we therefore focus on situational involvement
and not task involvement in the current study.
622 Mark Lett (2015) 26:619–629

Under different levels of involvement, the ELM posits that variables in the
persuasion context can serve multiple roles. That is, “variables can affect the
amount and direction of attitude change by (a) serving as persuasive arguments,
(b) serving as peripheral cues and/or (c) affecting the extent or direction of
issue and argument elaboration” (Petty and Cacioppo 1986, p. 16). Which role
might fit assume?
First, in order to assess fit as an argument (role a), one should consider that in ELM,
the term argument refers to any information in a message that permits a person to
evaluate the message target (e.g., issue, object, person, etc.) along whatever dimensions
central for that person (Petty and Cacioppo 1986, p. 18). Brand alliance fit can serve the
role as argument if it provides some meaningful information that can be elaborated
upon in attitude formation. For example, “the benefits of brand A fit with brand B’s
benefits, so together the benefits of A + B > A or B independently.” Such elaboration is
likely to increase with higher situational involvement. If fit works as an argument, we
should thus observe an interaction between fit and situational involvement, with more
positive responses to fit in high involvement, than low involvement conditions.
Second, to assess fit as a cue (role b), one should consider that in the ELM,
peripheral cues refer to stimuli in the persuasion context that can affect attitudes without
processing of message arguments (Petty and Cacioppo 1986, p. 18). Given initial
positive attitudes towards alliance brands A and B, a cue effect would predict that
the mere observation of (higher) fit between these brands should prompt a positive
alliance attitude, i.e., a main effect of fit. A simple inference like “Brand A and B fit
together, and as long as I like brand A and brand B, I like the new A + B” illustrates
such an effect.
Finally, it could also be the case that fit by itself induces recipients to
scrutinize the brand alliance message (role c above). If fit between brand alliance
partners facilitates elaboration, higher fit should increase recipients’ sensitivity to
the quality of the information in the brand alliance message(s) they receive (c.f.
Petty and Wegener 1998). The inference could be “An alliance between A and
B? Let me see what they have to say.” In this case, fit is not elaborated upon as
a piece of information itself; it does not produce like or dislike by itself, rather
fit leads the recipient to elaborate on other parts of the message. With this logic,
we would see an interaction between fit and argument quality (varied across
conditions to detect differences in elaboration).
Summing up, we believe that fit can serve different roles dependent on situational
involvement. Under low situational involvement, we expect fit to work as a cue (a main
effect), with higher fit leading to more positive alliance attitudes. With increasing
situational involvement, fit obtains more informational value in its own right, produc-
ing increased argument quality sensitivity. Consequently, we would expect an interac-
tion between fit and argument quality under high situational involvement. Formally, we
propose the following hypothesis:

H1: There will be a three-way interaction between alliance partners’ brand fit,
situational involvement, and argument quality on alliance attitude. Under low
situational involvement, alliance attitude will be more positive under high com-
pared to low fit. Under high situational involvement, an interaction between fit and
argument quality will show higher argument quality sensitivity in high-fit
Mark Lett (2015) 26:619–629 623

compared to low-fit conditions, leaving alliance attitude most positive in the strong
argument high-fit condition.

3 Method

The purpose of the experiment was to test the assumption that the effects of fit between
the concepts of brand alliance partners on brand alliance attitude are moderated by the
recipients’ level of involvement.
To test this assumption, we developed a 2 (brand concept fit: high vs. low)×2
(situational involvement: high vs. low)×2 (argument quality: strong vs. weak) between
subjects factorial design.

3.1 Pretests

Our hypothesis required two conditions of brand fit: high vs. low. In a real
world, high fit could arguably exist with functional-functional, symbolic-
symbolic, and experiential-experiential alliances. We have not theorized why
these different combinations would predict different effects since our current
concern is the level of fit and not on what dimensions these levels of fit are
based. Consequently, in this initial test of brand alliance fit’s potential multiple
roles, we sought to establish different levels of brand alliance fit by combining a
brand with a functional concept with an alliance partner predominantly associat-
ed with either a functional or symbolic concept (Bhat and Reddy 1998; Park
et al. 1986). To identify candidate brands, 16 brands were elicited from inter-
views with 15 participants from the same sampling frame but different to those
who participated in the main experiment. They produced a list consisting of eight
assumingly functional and eight assumingly symbolic brands. In a second pretest,
160 students assessed these brands’ functional vs. symbolic profile using the
Bhat and Reddy (1998) scale. Each participant rated two brands, yielding 40
observations for each brand. Based on this pretest, we chose the men’s wear
retail chain Dressmann (equivalent to Old Navy) as the base brand. Dressmann
as a functional brand is highly familiar to the target population, and it is a
commonplace strategy that clothing chains extend their portfolios with accesso-
ries like jewelry and watches. Consequently, wristwatches were chosen as prod-
uct category, and Casio (functional–high fit) and Rolex (symbolic–low fit) were
chosen as alliance partners.

3.2 Participants and procedure main study

Two hundred thirty-one business school students (52.4 % male, Mage =25) participated
voluntarily and were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions. Participants
received booklets to read and fill out without flipping back and with no time con-
straints. The first two pages contained a cover story and attitude measures for a variety
of brands. Page three presented a new cover story, designed to manipulate involvement,
and the fourth page contained an advertisement informing participants of the new brand
624 Mark Lett (2015) 26:619–629

alliance. On the following pages, participants rated attitudinal responses towards the
brand alliance, attitudes towards the ad, and manipulations checks. Upon leaving the
premises, participants were thanked and debriefed.

3.3 Manipulations and measurement

Based on the pretest, the functional brand Dressmann was chosen as a base brand. High
fit was obtained by combining Dressmann with Casio (also functional), whereas low fit
was obtained by combining Dressmann with Rolex (highly symbolic). In the stimuli
material, the alliance would be presented as Casio for Dressmann or Rolex for
Dressmann. According to composite brand alliance theory (Park et al. 1996), Casio
and Rolex would then be header brands, and Dressmann would be the modifier. We
used the term “for” not “by” to clarify who were producing for whom. In a pretest, 23
participants were asked to rate their familiarity with the three brands on a seven-point
scale. The result was an equivalent high familiarity for the three brands (MDressmann =
6.39, MCasio =6.00, and MRolex =6.09). The brands were also equally well-liked on a
seven-point scale (MDressmann =4.15, MCasio =3.95, and MRolex =4.05). Consequently, we
could assume that the brands were equally likable and well-known.
Following the recommendations from Petty et al. (1983), we manipulated situational
involvement prior to advertisement exposure. Across conditions, all participants read
on the page preceding the advertisement a header saying “IMPORTANT
INFORMATION!” followed by an encouragement to read the following material
carefully. This was done to keep task involvement constant across groups. High-
involvement participants read that they would see an ad for a bold new alliance, soon
to be marketed in their domestic market. In addition, because their answers were so
important, 100 participants would receive an exemplar of the new product. Low-
involvement participants read that the product was to be test-marketed 2 years from
now, most probably in Southern Europe. Through these means, we sought situationally
to induce a feeling of higher vs. lower personal relevance of the brand alliance by
adhering to the recommendations of Petty et al. (1983).
The verbal arguments in the advertisement contained seven statements, out of
which six were typical product attributes (glass quality, waterproof rating, casing
material, warranty, country of origin, energy source), and the seventh was more like a
slogan. The strong and weak argument versions of these six product attributes (Petty
et al. 1983) varied in strength. Twenty-eight participants rated the perceived quality of
each message claim (either strong or weak) on a seven-point scale (1=very weak, 4=
neutral, 7=very strong), and the claims were presented together with a picture of the
wristwatch without the brand name. Combined into an index, the strong argument
claims had M=5.81, significantly higher than the scale midpoint (t=17.86, p<.001),
whereas the weak argument claim index had M=1.96, significantly lower than the
scale midpoint (t=27.57, p<.001).
The advertisement featured both brands’ logos (Rolex for Dressmann vs. Casio for
Dressmann). The verbal content varied as described above according to the argument
quality manipulation. The ad also featured a picture of the same male model across
conditions wearing a wristwatch. A second picture in the ad showed the watch with the
names of Casio and Dressmann vs. Rolex and Dressmann, respectively, on the dial; all
other visual aspects were held constant across conditions.
Mark Lett (2015) 26:619–629 625

We measured attitude towards the brand alliance with three semantic differential
scales (1=bad/unfavorable/negative, and 7=good/favorable/positive; Petty et al. 1983).

4 Results

4.1 Manipulation checks

To assess the argument quality manipulation, two questions were asked in the last part
of the booklet: to what extent did you perceive the information presented in the
advertisement as being “weak–very strong” and “bad–good”? On seven-point scales
anchored 1 and 7. The items were collapsed into an index (Cronbach’s alpha=.92).
Participants in the strong argument condition rated the information significantly stron-
ger than did participants in the weak argument condition (Mstrong =4.65 vs. Mweak =
3.13, F(1,230)=75.22, p<.001).
Perceptions of fit between brand alliance partners were assessed through three items:
“to me, the alliance [brand] for Dressmann makes sense,” “[Brand] for Dressmann is a
natural alliance,” and “[Brand] and Dressmann fit well together.” An index of these
three items (Cronbach’s alpha=.89) revealed that fit was perceived as significantly
higher in the high-fit compared with the low-fit condition (Mhigh fit =4.92 vs. Mlow fit =
2.38, F(1,230)=268. 39, p<.001).
We used the Zaichkowsky (1994) involvement scale to test the situational involve-
ment manipulation. An involvement index (Cronbach’s alpha=.89) revealed that the
high-involvement participants felt significantly more personally involved than the low-
involvement participants (Mhigh =2.76 vs. Mlow =2.44, F(1,230)=4.23, p<.05).

4.2 Test of hypothesis

We hypothesized that a three-way interaction would show a positive main effect of fit in
the low situational involvement condition, and an interaction between fit and argument
quality in the high situational involvement condition where sensitivity to argument
quality should be higher for high compared to low fit.
A composite measure of brand alliance attitude (Cronbach’s alpha=.93) served as a
dependent variable in a 2 (brand concept fit: high vs. low)×2 (situational involvement:
high vs. low)×2 (argument quality: strong vs. weak) ANOVA; see results in Table 1.
First, there was a significant main effect of fit, with higher fit producing in general
more positive brand alliance attitude than low fit (Mhigh fit =4.60 vs. Mlow fit =3.22,
F(1,223)=70.23, p<.001). Second, the main effect of situational involvement was not
significant (Mhigh involvement =3.93 vs. Mlow involvement =3.89, F(1,223)<1.0). Third,
argument quality had a significant main effect (Mstrong = 4.52 vs. Mweak =3.30,
F(1,223)=55.14, p<.001) on brand alliance attitude, with stronger arguments giving
more positive attitudes. More importantly, these main effects were qualified by a
significant three-way interaction (F(1,223)=8.27, p<.005).
The pattern of results is visualized in Fig. 1a (low situational involvement) and Fig. 1b
(high situational involvement). The interaction between brand concept fit and argument
quality was significant for high involvement (F(1,111)=8.22, p=.005) but not low involve-
ment (F(1,112)=1.38, n.s.). Essentially, this shows that brand concept fit only increased
626 Mark Lett (2015) 26:619–629

Table 1 Brand alliance attitude scores

Low-situational involvement High situational-involvement

Mean SD (n) Mean SD (n)

Strong arguments
High fit 4.87 0.98 (29) 5.73 0.94(30)
Low fit 3.53 1.59 (30) 3.93 1.40 (27)
Weak arguments
High fit 4.52 0.90 (27) 3.25 1.45 (29)
Low fit 2.64 1.27 (30) 2.79 1.20 (29)

sensitivity to the argument quality manipulation for high-involvement subjects. To sum-

marize, these results lend support to our hypothesis and our general prediction that fit
assumes different roles depending on elaboration likelihood. Figure 1b shows that at equal
argument quality, fit ads considerably to brand alliance attitude when arguments are
strong. It does not seem like fit penalizes weak arguments, but rather rewards strong
arguments. This pattern is not evident under low situational involvement (Fig. 1a).
Concept fit had a main effect on brand alliance attitude within low involvement (Mlow
fit =3.09, Mhigh fit =4.7, F(1,112)=49.89, p<.001) and high involvement (Mlow fit =3.36,
Mhigh fit =4.49, F(1,111)=23.27, p<.001). Argument quality also showed a significant
main effect within low involvement (Mweak =3.58, Mstrong =4.2, F(1,112)=7.47, p=.007)
and high involvement (Mweak =3.03, Mstrong =4.83, F(1,112)=59.11, p<.001).
Planned contrasts show that within the low fit, low situational involvement condi-
tion, brand alliance attitude was significantly different between strong and weak
argument conditions (Mstrong =3.53 vs. Mweak =2.64, F(1,223)=7.69, p<.01). There
was no significant difference in the high fit, low situational involvement condition
(Fig. 1a). In the high situational involvement condition (Fig. 1b), the difference in
brand alliance attitude was significantly lower in the low fit, weak arguments compared
to low fit, strong arguments condition (Mstrong =3.93 vs. Mweak =2.79, F(1,223)=11.64,
p<.005). This difference was also significant in the high-fit condition (Mstrong =5.73 vs.
Mweak =3.25, F(1,223)=58.85, p<.001).

5 Discussion

Previous research has pointed to the importance of fit in brand alliances (James 2006;
Lanseng and Olsen 2012; Park et al. 1996; Simonin and Ruth 1998). Still, none of these
studies have examined how fit between the alliance partners can serve different roles in
explaining attitudinal responses depending on elaboration likelihood. In the current
study, we obtained support for our prediction that fit can serve multiple roles. These
results are important for several reasons.
First, the reported study adds insight into how fit between the alliance partners can play
different roles as persuasion variables, and thereby extending our understanding of
theoretical mechanisms explaining when and why fit is important between brand alliance
Mark Lett (2015) 26:619–629 627

a
7
Strong arguments Weak arguments
6

4.87
5 4.52

4 3.53

3 2.64

0
Low fit High fit

b
7
Strong arguments Weak arguments
6 5.73

3.93
4
3.25
3 2.79

0
Low fit High fit
Fig. 1 Patterns of alliance attitudes of a low situational involvement condition and b high situational
involvement condition
628 Mark Lett (2015) 26:619–629

partners in line with the information processing paradigm. An important finding in the
current study is that higher fit could not negate the negative impact of weak message
arguments for the more involved participants. In other words, high fit might not be
sufficient for positive brand alliance attitudes for involved consumers. For example,
perceptions of high fit of the brand alliance between Nike and iPod might not be enough
for active runners, if Nike does not also provide strong arguments to support the quality of
their running gear. For less involved consumers on the other hand, high fit could be
sufficient for positive brand alliance attitudes even when arguments are weak. For
example, Disney’s cartoon characters co-promoted with Kellogg’s cereals would fit well
based on their experiential images, but Disney can hardly provide strong arguments in the
cereal category. However, concept fit might be sufficient for children. A practical impli-
cation of these findings is that brand owners should be cautious in selecting brand alliance
initiatives based solely on fit. If it is likely that the consumers find the brand alliance
personally relevant, and the brand alliance in itself cannot be supported by strong
attributes and benefits (arguments) of relevance for the target market, fit in itself between
the alliance partners will not be sufficient. Less involved consumers respond just as well to
a low-fitting alliance with strong arguments, as more highly involved consumers respond
to a high-fitting alliance backed with weak arguments. If well-fitting alliance partners are
hard to find, low-fitting partners in alliance backed with strong arguments can be just as
viable, especially if one considers the opportunity to increase fit perceptions by exposing
the target audience repeatedly to the alliance message (Lane 2000).
Second, the current study finds that brand alliance attitudes were significantly higher
for strong arguments than for weak arguments in the low-fit conditions. These findings
are consistent with prior research on how incongruent information can increase cogni-
tive elaboration (e.g., Gürhan-Canli and Maheswaran 1998; Maheswaran and Chaiken
1991; Mandler 1982; Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989). Low-fitting alliances would
probably trigger curiosity as to why these two brands have joined together in an
alliance (Lee and Schumann 2004). Curiosity could lead to elaboration to resolve the
low-fit perceptions and thereby increase argument quality sensitivity. Brand managers
should take these findings into account and be especially careful with low-fitting brand
alliances if these are not supported by strong arguments. As shown by both Meyers-
Levy and Tybout (1989) and Gürhan-Canli and Maheswaran (1998), brand managers
should keep incongruence moderate, since highly incongruent brand alliances that
cannot be made sense of most likely will result in less favorable responses.
The restrictive operationalization of fit and use of only two product categories
potentially limit the current study’s generalizability. There are many bases of fit. The
current study conceptualizes fit as degree of similarities between two schemas in
consumer memory, using the overall brand concepts (Park et al. 1986) as bases of fit.
However, fit between alliance partners could be achieved in many ways—e.g., com-
plementarity in usage situations, overlap in user groups, and expertise to name a few.
Future research should apply other bases of fit and theorize how these combinations
could moderate the current study’s results. Could for example high product fit based on
complimentary products by itself provide strong arguments for the brand alliance? Is
high fit in a symbolic brand alliance less sensitive to high-involvement elaboration
since it is harder to assess the merits of symbolic arguments? These and other research
questions decomposing the fit variable should be fruitful avenues for future research.
Another limitation in the current study is that task involvement is kept constant. Future
Mark Lett (2015) 26:619–629 629

research could benefit from manipulating both task and situational involvement in the
same study. In addition, multiple roles of fit could affect not only brand alliance
attitudes but also post-alliance attitudes towards the individual brands in the brand
alliance. Future research should therefore look into spillover effects on partner brands
under different levels of elaboration.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank student Martin Stenstad for his efforts in data collection
and Luk Warlop for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

References

Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1),
27–41.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Arnett, D. B., Laverie, D. A., & Willcox, J. B. (2010). A longitudinal examination of the effects of retailer-
manufacturer brand alliances: the role of perceived fit. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(1–2), 5–27.
Bhat, S., & Reddy, S. K. (1998). Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 15(1), 32–43.
Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (1998). The effects of extensions on brand name dilution and
enhancement. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(November), 464–473.
James, D. O. (2006). Extension to alliance: Aaker and Keller’s model revisited. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 15(1), 15–22.
Lane, V. R. (2000). The impact of ad repetition and ad content on consumer perception of incongruent brand
extensions. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 80–91.
Lanseng, E. J., & Olsen, L. E. (2012). Brand alliances: the role of brand concept consistency. European
Journal of Marketing, 46(9), 1108–1126.
Lee, E.-J., & Schumann, D. W. (2004). Explaining the special case of incongruity in advertising: combining
classic theoretic approaches. Marketing Theory, 4(1/2), 59–90.
Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low motivation settings: the effect
of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61(July), 13–25.
Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: accounting for taste. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and
cognition: the 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a base for product evaluation. Journal of
Consumer Research, 16(June), 39–54.
Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. (1986). Strategic brand concept image management. Journal of
Marketing, 50(4), 134–145.
Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Composite branding alliances: an investigation of extension
and feedback-effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(4), 453–466.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to
attitude change. New York: Springer Verlag.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: implications for
scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(3), 227–240.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. W. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising
effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categoriza-
tion (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover
effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30–42.
Swaminathan, V., Reddy, S., & Dommer, S. (2012). Spillover effects of ingredient branded strategies on brand
choice: A field study. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 237–251.
Woods, W. A. (1960). Psychological dimensions of consumer decision. Journal of Marketing, 24(3), 15–19.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision, and application to
advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59–70.
Copyright of Marketing Letters is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.