The measurement of meaning

Despite recurring concerns about common method variance (CMV) in survey research, the information systems (IS) community remains largely uncertain of the extent of such potential biases. To address this uncertainty, this paper attempts to systematically examine the impact of CMV on the inferences drawn from survey research in the IS area. First, we describe the available approaches for assessing CMV and conduct an empirical study to compare them. From an actual survey involving 227 respondents, we find that although CMV is present in the research areas examined, such biases are not substantial. The results also suggest that few differences exist between the relatively new marker-variable technique and other well-established conventional tools in terms of their ability to detect CMV. Accordingly, the marker-variable technique was employed to infer the effect of CMV on correlations from previously published studies. Our findings, based on the reanalysis of 216 correlations, suggest that the inflated correlation caused by CMV may be expected to be on the order of 0.10 or less, and most of the originally significant correlations remain significant even after controlling for CMV. Finally, by extending the marker-variable technique, we examined the effect of CMV on structural relationships in past literature. Our reanalysis reveals that contrary to the concerns of some skeptics, CMV-adjusted structural relationships not only remain largely significant but also are not statistically differentiable from uncorrected estimates. In summary, this comprehensive and systematic analysis offers initial evidence that (1) the marker-variable technique can serve as a convenient, yet effective, tool for accounting for CMV, and (2) common method biases in the IS domain are not as serious as those found in other disciplines.

Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research

Branding has emerged as a top management priority in the last decade due to the growing realization that brands are one of the most valuable intangible assets that firms have. Driven in part by this intense industry interest, academic researchers have explored a number of different brand-related topics in recent years, generating scores of papers, articles, research reports, and books. This paper identifies some of the influential work in the branding area, highlighting what has been learned from an academic perspective on important topics such as brand positioning, brand integration, brand-equity measurement, brand growth, and brand management. The paper also outlines some gaps that exist in the research of branding and brand equity and formulates a series of related research questions. Choice modeling implications of the branding concept and the challenges of incorporating main and interaction effects of branding as well as the impact of competition are discussed.

/pdf/brands-and-branding-research-findings-and-future-priorities-2n1yuyrxc1.pdf

Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities

The authors conduct a meta-analysis that aggregates empirical findings from the market orientation literature. First, the study provides a quantitative summary of the bivariate findings regarding the antecedents and the consequences of market orientation. Second, the authors use multivariate analyses of aggregate study effects to identify significant antecedents of market orientation and the process variables that mediate the relationship between market orientation and performance. In addition, using regression analysis, the authors find that the market orientation–performance relationship is stronger in samples of manufacturing firms, in low power-distance and uncertainty-avoidance cultures, and in studies that use subjective measures of performance. The authors also find that the market orientation–performance correlation is stronger for both cost-based and revenue-based performance measures in manufacturing firms than in service firms. On the basis of the findings, the authors conclude with a ...

https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~moorman/Marketing-Strategy-Seminar-2015/Session%202/Kirca,%20Jayachandran,%20and%20Bearden.pdf

Market Orientation: A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of Its Antecedents and Impact on Performance

▶ Compact, hands-on and step-by-step introduction to quantitative market research techniques ▶ Presents the most important techniques and shows how to translate theoretical choices into SPSS and how to analyze the output ▶ Range of education elements such as learning objectives, keywords, self-assessment tests, case studies ▶ Innovative supplementary online concept, including mobile tags, sample datasets and additional cases

A Concise Guide to Market Research

The authors investigate the empirical generalizability of Aaker and Keller’s model of how consumers evaluate brand extensions. Various replications have reported different results. Using a comprehensive data set containing the data from the original study and seven replications conducted around the world, the authors undertake a secondary analysis to understand what generalizations emerge. The study has implications for the understanding of how brand extensions are evaluated and how empirical generalizations are made. For brand extensions, Aaker and Keller’s model hypothesizes that evaluations of brand extensions are based on the quality of the original brand, the fit between the parent and extension categories, and the interaction of the two. The authors find support for this full model despite published results, including Aaker and Keller’s own, that support only some of the hypotheses. The authors find evidence that the level of contribution of each of these components varies by brand and culture. With respect to empirical generalizations, the key implication is that it is premature to make firm conclusions about theory on the basis of only one study.

Do we really know how consumers evaluate brand extensions? Empirical generalizations based on secondary analysis of eight studies

This article explores the role that color can play in building brand meaning with two experiments. Without prior conditioning, we demonstrate how an appropriately chosen color for a brand name (logo) can bring inherent and immediate value to a brand. Experiment 1 explores the notion of congruity, showing that it is more appropriate for functional products to be presented in functional colors, and sensorysocial products in sensory-social colors. Experiment 2 examines the effect of red and blue on brands of products that can be classified as both functional and sensory-social, and the ability of color to enhance a brand's desired image. When people know how brands are attempting to position themselves, people consider colors congruent with those positions to be more appropriate.

The interactive effects of colors and products on perceptions of brand logo appropriateness

Given a choice set of two alternatives, the addition of a third alternative that is clearly inferior to one of the existing alternatives (but not the other), can result in a shift of preference to the alternative that dominates the new alternative. The basic asymmetrically dominated effect, as it is called, is first demonstrated under two different buying frames of mind (“What would you buy?” and “What would most people buy?”). It is then shown that the third alternative may be recognized as an unavailable option, yet still cause a preference shift. Finally, the asymmetrically dominated effect is demonstrated for real, in-store purchases. It is concluded that the effect is robust, has a wide scope, is quite sizeable, and is of practical significance. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in‐store purchases

The formation of attitudes towards brand extensions: Testing and generalising Aaker and Keller's model

This paper compares the properties and performance of three weight elicitation methods It is in effect a second round contest in which the Bottomley et al (2000) champion, direct rating (DR), locks horns with two new challengers People using DR rate each attribute in turn on a scale of 0â€“100, whilst people using Max100 first assign to the most important attribute(s) a rating of 100, and then rate the other attributes relative to it/them People using Min10 first assign the least important attribute(s) a rating of 10, and then rate the other attributes relative to it/them

The weights produced by Max100 were somewhat more testâ€“retest reliable than DR Both methods were considerably more reliable than Min10 Using people's testâ€“retest data as attribute weights on simulated alternative values in a multi-attribute choice scenario, the same alternative would be chosen on 91% of occasions using Max100, 87% of occasions using DR, but only 75% of occasions using Min10 Moreover, the three methods are shown to have very distinct â€œsignaturesâ€�, that is profiles relating weights to rank position Finally, people actually preferred using Max100 and DR rather than Min10, an important pragmatic consideration

Paul Andrew Bottomley

Papers

Do we really know how consumers evaluate brand extensions? Empirical generalizations based on secondary analysis of eight studies

The interactive effects of colors and products on perceptions of brand logo appropriateness

The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in‐store purchases

The formation of attitudes towards brand extensions: Testing and generalising Aaker and Keller's model

A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best