Tugas Perilaku Konsumen 3

Brand Awareness Effects on Consumer Decision

Making for a Common, Repeat Purchase Product:

A Replication

This article is a replication of a study of Hoyer and Brown that used a keep the brand in the consumer’s consideration set—the set controlled experiment to examine the role of brand awareness in the of brands to which a consumer gives serious attention when consumer choice process. The replication used the same methods, but with making a purchase decision. Brand awareness has been argued a different (but similar) product category, a larger sample, and a sample to have important effects on consumer decision making by group that included experienced as well as inexperienced consumers. Results influencing which brands enter the consideration set, and it support the original study’s findings that brand awareness is a dominant also influences which brands are selected from the considerchoice tactic among awareness group subjects. Subjects choosing from a ation set (Macdonald and Sharp, 1996). Brand awareness afset of brands withmarked awareness differentials showed an overwhelming fects the latter through its use as a heuristic for choice (e.g., preference for the high awareness brand, despite quality and price differen- “I’ll choose the brand I know”) and its influence on perceived tials. They also made their decisions faster than subjects in the nonaware- quality, (“I’ve heard of the brand, so it must be good”). A ness condition and sampled fewer brands. In a surprising finding, respon- study of Hoyer and Brown (1990) carried out pioneering dents use of the awareness choice heuristic did not seem to decline steadily research at the individual decision level by examining the over repeated choice trials, but rather showed something of a U-shaped effects of brand awareness on consumer choice. It examined pattern, with subjects returning to the high awareness brand in the latter the impact of brand awareness as a heuristic, as well as explorchoice trials. Little support was found for Hoyer and Brown’s finding that ing its effect on perceived quality. subjects in the no brand awareness conditions chose the quality brand on Little research has examined the effect of brand awareness

the final trial more often that those in the awareness differential conditions. on choice. Consumer behavior theory in both the marketing In summary, awareness differentials seem to be a powerful influence on and economic literature has tended to see product choice as brand choice in a repeat purchase consumer product context. Consumers a highly involving problem-solving process (Foxall, 1992). show a strong tendency to use awareness as a heuristic and show a degree Marketing research has focused upon more elaborate knowlof inertia in changing from the habit of using this heuristic. J BUSN RES edge structures than awareness, such as attitude and brand 2000. 48.5–15. 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

It has long been held that one of the major goals of market- repeat purchase products, it may be that consumers choose the ing is to generate and maintain brand awareness, this is brand on the basis of a simple heuristic (e.g., brand awareness, seen as particularly important in low-involvement situa package, price). More detailed evaluation, if it happens at all, tions where consumers may engage in little active search for occurs subsequent to purchase (Ray, Sawyer, Rothschild, Heeler, information to aid choice. Repetition of advertising is used to Strong, and Reed, 1973; Olshavsky and Granbois, 1979). The concept of habitual consumer behavior is not new, and limited problem solving has been acknowledged in severaltion in this inclusion: if choice is habitual, than there is no publication of the original study), in a different place (in decision in the sense of conscious cognitive processing before Australia rather than the United States), and the researchers action, habits, if they account for much of consumption, need a in both studies have had no communication. (Requests were better explanation than absence of thought (East, 1996). Behav- made to one of the researchers of the original study to provide ioral theories are one approach to this gap in consumer behav- details of original methods and results. The first mail requestior theory, brand awareness/salience-based choice theory is received no reply. The second request through a colleague, another potential direction that is still cognitivist in nature but received a positive response, but at the time of writing, no needs not to be predicated upon the assumption of conscious material has been received.) cognitive processing and attitude formation prior to purchase. Implicit in this discussion is the assumption that the origiThis article reports on a recent replication of Hoyer and nal study is worth replicating. As discussed, H&B’s study was

Brown’s (H&B) (1990) study which used a controlled experi- exploratory and carried out in an area where little research ment to explore the effects of brand awareness on choice, has been done previously. It is an important study within a brand sampling, and the frequency with which the highest- new low-involvement habitual repeat purchase paradigm of quality brand is chosen following a series of trials. consumer behavior. It consisted of a well-constructed experimental design that used actual brands to enhance its external validity. Because of the exploratory nature of the study, the  Why Replicate Hoyer and sound experimental design employed, and its interesting re-Brown, 1990? sults, it is a study worthy of further examination. Some replications are better than others. Replications conducted early in the history of a particular research program

Methodology

are usually more useful (Monroe, 1992; Rosenthal, 1990).The study of H&B is a pioneering study. As its authors noted: H&B (1990) employed an experimental procedure in whichsubjects were asked to make a series of decisions regardingStudies that pinpoint the impact of brand awareness on brand choice for a common, repeat purchase product: peanut the individual-level choice process are badly needed. This butter, in this replication study: orange cordial (in Australia,article takes a first step toward filling this void by examining a nonalcoholic soft drink). After each selection, subjects were the nature of brand awareness effects on the purchase of asked why they chose a particular brand, and they were then a common household product. (Hoyer and Brown, 1990 permitted to taste it. After five trials, a series of post-taskp.141) questions were asked regarding product usage and experience. A replication that offers insight into the generalizability of The replication differs in the following respects.

H&B’s findings will be particularly useful as consumer behavior begins to address this area.

Subjects

Such replication research helps us establish the scope or H&B selected their sample from U.S. freshman college stuboundaries

of previous outcomes. In this regard, studies using dents (n 5 173). The replication employed a larger sample

different stimuli, samples of people, methods, procedures, selected from a comparable population of undergraduate Ausand analytical techniques, in different situations, over different tralian university students (n 5 472). occasions serve the advancement of knowledge in consumer

behavior (Rosenthal, 1990). The replication reported in this EXPERIENCE WITH THE PRODUCT CATEGORY. The majority of paper, employs the same procedures as H&B but uses a differ- H&B’s subjects had never purchased peanut butter for thement product category (still a common, repeat purchase prod- selves, and the rest indicated they had purchased peanut butter uct), a slightly altered (inclusion of non-novices) and larger only a few times at most. In the replication study, more than sample, and a more realistic experimental setting. half of the 462 included in the sample (56.3%), had purchased Generally, replication research that originates with an inde- cordial before. Two levels of experience with the product

pendent researcher is more highly regarded (Monroe, 1992). category were identified: (1) inexperienced: never bought orOutcomes reproduced by independent researchers reduce ange cordial before or only a few times at most (n 5 226);concerns about the interaction of the researcher and study and (2) experienced: buy cordial at least every few months being a reasonable explanation for the original results. The (n 5 236). value of the results of a replication is maximized for each of Most Australian university students are employed part time the following dimensions that apply: time, physical distance, and even full time, and do not live with parents, and tend to personal attributes of the experimenters, experimenter’s ex- shop in supermarkets. In addition, with the increase of both pectancy, and experimenter’s degree of personal contact with parents working, teenagers are increasingly becoming responeach other (Rosenthal, 1990). According to these dimensions, sible for some or all of the family’s grocery purchases. Therethe replication reported in this paper is of high value, because fore the sample used in the current study, with half being the study was conducted at a different time (several years after experienced and the other half novices (although still more Brand Awareness Effects on Consumer Decision Making J Busn Res 7

2000:48:5–15 experienced than subjects in the original study), is more realis- (77.1% consume cordial often: daily to once per month) tic than H&B’s in terms of the consumption experience of with the flavor orange dominating the category. this cohort. • The category contains a number of brands. In a pretest The decision to extend the replication through the inclu- of unprompted recall, 25 different brands of cordial were

sion of non-novice respondents was in line with the potential identified (n 5 44). theoretical contribution of empirical research on this topic. • A few well-known, national brands exist in addition to

The habitual low involvement paradigm of consumer choice a large number of nonadvertised regional brands and is contrasted with the problem-solving models not only in store brands. Thus, marked awareness differentials exist terms of degree of cognition and attitude formation prior to in the real world, enhancing the external validity of the purchase but also in the implicit assumption that many choice study (at least in terms of generalizing to the tested

decisions are first purchases. The empirical fact that most product category). These awareness differentials indipurchases are repeat or replacement purchases (see Wilkie cated that awareness levels could be easily manipulated and Dickson, 1985) provided a powerful rationale for the in the experimental situation. In the pretest, Cottees had

inclusion of experienced cordial purchasers in the sample. the highest awareness level, which is consistent with the high level of national advertising for the brand. EXPERIENCE WITH THE TEST BRANDS. To be included in H&B’s • As with peanut butter, cordial can be easily tried and study, subjects had to have never purchased any of the brands tasted in an experimental situation, permitting an assessused

in the experiment. ment of the impact of awareness on brand evaluations. Unlike H&B’s study, many of the students in the replication • As with peanut butter, cordial is not a status/symbolic/ had purchased and/or used one of the test brands. The high fashionable product category. awareness brand in question, Cottees, is a brand name used across several product categories including jam and desserts. LIMITATION. One limitation of cordial as a test category is

Many subjects claimed to have used this brand before (87.2%). the need for it to be dilutedwithwater to taste it. To ensure that Few subjects (5.6%) said they had used (or thought they might product quality was standardized, the cordial was premixed in have used) a second brand in the study, Mynor. It was not the ratio recommended by manufacturers of 1:4 parts (corexpected that the small degree of familiarity for this brand dial:water). Spring water was used because of the lamentable would have an impact on the study. variability of the available tap water.

Test Product Experimental Design

In H&B’s study, the chosen product category was peanut See Appendix A. butter because of the availability of a number of well-known, easily identifiable brands, and several lesser-known nonadver-

Independent Variables

tised brands. AWARENESS. As in H&B’s study, awareness was operationaPEANUT BUTTER AS A NATIONAL ICON. Peanut butter is very lized as a two-level blocking factor consisting of awareness much a part of the culture in the United States, where peanut and no-awareness conditions. In the awareness condition, butter and jelly sandwiches are almost a staple in the U.S. subjects were presented with three brands of peanut butter child’s diet, but peanut butter is of less importance in Austra- (in H&B’s study) and three brands of cordial (in the replicalian culture (with the sandwich combination of peanut butter tion). In each study, one of these brands was a well-known and jelly being a specialist taste). national brand that had been heavily advertised and was highly recognized, as indicated by a pretest. Two unknown brands CRUNCHY OR SMOOTH? EXISTENCE OF CUSTOMER SEGMENTS. from other regions of the country completed the three-brand

One difficulty encountered in replicating this study was the set. These brands elicited very low levels of recognition, and

existence of wide variation in types of peanut butter, such as none was recalled by consumers in a pretest of free recall.

crunchy versus smooth. Different segments within the popula- Thus, it was deemed acceptable to use them in the study.

tion may regard one or other of these product attributes as The high awareness brand, Cottees, elicited 97% (296/306)

more preferable, and respondent preferences could potentially recognition and 86% (38/44) free recall; that is, very large

alter, even during the experiment. The researchers of the differences in levels of awareness were recorded across the

original study do not make it clear whether the existence of test brands.

customer segments with different tastes was considered in In the no-awareness condition, subjects were presented

selecting the products used in the original experiment. with three totally unknown brands. Two brands were the

same brands used in the awareness condition. The third was

SELECTION OF DRINKING CORDIAL. The selection of orange

another unknown brand from another region of the country.

cordial in the replication was based on the following reasons:

As discussed previously, unlike the original study, the replica•

It is widely used by those in the sample population tion found some level of awareness, although very low and

J Busn Res E. K. Macdonald and B. M. Sharp

2000:48:5–15

Table 1. Reported reasons for choice on trial one. Awareness cf no-awareness condition subjects. original study and replication.

Original Study Replication

H&B: H&B: REP: REP:

Not Aware Aware Not Aware Aware

Criteria (n 5 90) (n 5 83) Z (n 5 166) (n 5 296) Z

1. Known brand 0 60.0 11.11** 3.0 48.3 215.55**

2. Taste 4.3 0 NS 0 0 NS

3. Lowest price 2.2 0 NS 10.8 2.7 3.13**

4. Ingredients 10.8 3.3 2.16* 10.2 1.7 3.446**

5. Package 45.2 4.4 6.95** 34.3 8.1 6.53**

6. Try new brand 1.1 0 NS 0.6 1.4 NS

7. Known brand and taste 0 3.3 NS 0 0.7 NS

8. Known brand and price — — — 0.6 18.9 7.78**

9. Known brand and other 0 18.9 4.41** 0 7.1 24.756**

10. Price and taste 1.0 0 NS 0 0 NS

11. Price and other 14.0 4.4 2.63* 30.7 8.5 5.65**

12. Taste and other — — — 0 0 NS

13. Other 21.4 5.7 — 9.6 2.7 —

*p , 0.05.

**p , 0.01.

weak, for two of these brands. One brand in particular, Mynor, Although it is not made clear how price was manipulated

had a 17% level of recognition; however, it was noted that across the entire H&B study, the basis for the price manipularespondents

were far more uncertain of themselves when iden- tion in the replication was as follows: two prices were selected,

tifying this brand as known to them in a prompted recall a high and low price, which were realistic as indicated from a

test. This brand was retained in place of having two totally survey of cordial brands’ pricing in local supermarkets. Using

unknown brands, because it was considered of interest to a counterbalancing procedure for each awareness and quality

determine whether low levels of awareness might be significant condition, price was varied so that, in each condition, one

in terms of choice. brand was marked at the high price, and two brands were

The small impact of this degree of awareness for one of marked at the low price.

the “no awareness” brands can be seen in Table 1, where 3%

of respondents in the no-awareness condition reported the Dependent Variables

reason of “known brand” to explain their first choice. The

consequence is that the experiments are a stronger test of As per H&B (1990, the three dependent variables were the

H&B’s main findings. nature of choice tactic used in brand selection (obtained by

the open-ended question “Can you tell me why you have

QUALITY DIFFERENTIALS. To identify high and low-quality selected the brand you have chosen?”), the number of brands

cordials, seven brands were evaluated by a group of pretest sampled (determined by a count of the number of brands

subjects (n 5 49) in a blind taste test. As in the original study, sampled by subjects across five trials), and whether the highest

these brands ranged from presumably high-quality brands quality brand was finally selected (the analysis involved only

(i.e., national, well-advertised brands) to those of presumably subjects in the quality difference condition: original study n 5

lower quality (e.g., store and generic brands). Pretest subjects 88; replication n 5 401).

ranked these brands in order of preference. The full methodology

and results to identify high- and low-quality brands is Procedure presented in Appendix B. Over the 401 subjects in the quality

difference condition, each brand (i.e., bottle) contained the Based on the original study, an experiment was used to test

high-quality product (cordial) an approximately equal number the three hypotheses. Subjects were run individually andmade

of times. a series of brand choices for orange cordial. After each selection,

they were asked why they chose a particular brand and

PRICE. A third independent variable, not discussed in detail were then permitted to taste it. As in the original study, to

by H&B, is that of price. H&B did not present their pricing complete the session, the subject was asked a series of postresults

in their findings other than to state that the price task questions to check the purity of the sample. The only

manipulation: major procedural differences between the original study and

had little effect on subjects’ choices and was orthogonal to the replication was the use of a more natural setting in the

the other manipulations. Hence, it is not discussed further. replication (a university cafeteria). This research approach is

(p143). gaining support (e.g., see Lutz, 1991) and added more realism

Brand Awareness Effects on Consumer Decision Making J Busn Res 9

2000:48:5–15

to the choice task, because consumers usually make buying The results in Table 1 show substantial use of awareness

choices for this type of product in a supermarket, where as a choice tactic by consumers in the awareness condition

distractions are present. on the first trial with 60 and 48.3% reporting use of this tactic

in the original study and the replication, respectively. A further

Results

22% (original study) and 27% (replication) in both studies reported using a combination of awareness and some other

The questions of interest in this study are how awareness affects tactic as a basis for their decision.

choice probability and sampling of a common, repeat-purchase Contrasting these results with subjects in the no-awareness

product under varying conditions of brand quality and awareness condition in the absence of awareness, consumers used a

(Hoyer and Brown 1990, p. 142): To investigate the extent number of other criteria upon which to base their choice:

to which a simple heuristic based on awareness, such as “buy package (45 H&B, 34% replication), and then price and ingrethe

best known brand,” was utilized in a simple choice task. dients. In the replication (cf. the original), a much larger

proportion of subjects reported choice based on price either

H1: Brand awareness serves as a dominant choice tactic

alone (10%) or in combination with some other factor, such

among inexperienced consumers presented with a

as ingredients (31%).

brand selection task.

Both H&B’s study and the replication indicate that consumThe

hypothesiswas examined by observing actual choice and ers may rely on awareness as a cue for choosing a brand, when

by eliciting subjects’ free responses about their choice strategies. a clear distinction between brands exists on this dimension.

However, when no brands are known, other criteria, such as

Observed Choice

packaging, ingredients, and price, are likely to be employed.

H&B found that subjects’ initial choices provided strong sup- TIME TAKEN TO MAKE THE INITIAL DECISION. Consumers emport

for the hypothesis, and this finding is backed up by the ploy heuristics to simplify decision-making tasks. The results

replication. Specifically 93.5 and 85.5% of subjects in the so far indicate that consumers have used awareness as a simplioriginal

study and the replication, respectively, chose the fa- fying heuristic. A further hypothesis developed in the replicamiliar

brand on the first trial (Analysis of chi-square difference tion that builds on this is that:

in the replication: x2 5 1560.1, df 5 2, p , 0.005). From

the results of both studies, it seems that, when faced with H1a: Consumers choosing from a set of brands which

a choice situation in which a known brand competes with includes one known brand will make a decisionmore

unknown brands, consumers are considerably more likely to quickly than consumers choosing from among a set

choose the known brand. of three unknown brands.

This hypothesis was supported. Consumers in the awareness

Reported Reason for Choice

condition made their initial decisions more quickly than con-

To assess the use of awareness directly as a choice heuristic, sumers in the no-awareness condition, mean of 9.8 seconds

subjects were asked to give their reasons for choosing a partic- cf. 15.1 seconds (t 5 2.61, df 5 227, p 5 0.01, critical

ular brand after the first and last trial. Table 1 presents the interval (29.252, 21.299)). Therefore, it seems that in the

results of this open-ended question. absence of brand awareness as a simplifying choice heuristic,

Of the twelve criteria listed in Table 1, agreement between consumers exert more decision effort by evaluating other

the replication and the original study occurs on nine of the brand attributes. Because the only difference between the two

criteria (Z test scores for criteria 1 and 9 were reported without conditions was the presence or absence of one known brand,

the negative sign in the original study). Of the remaining three it can be assumed that the difference in decision-making time

criteria, two (8 and 12) were not listed in the original study. indicates that brand awareness is important as a heuristic that

The remaining difference between the two studies occurred in simplifies decision making for a common, repeat purchase

the reported use of price as a reason for choice. The replication product.

found a significant price effect difference between consumers

in the awareness and no-awareness conditions. That is, it DECREASE IN IMPORTANCE OF BRAND AWARENESS AS A CHOICE

seems that in the presence of awareness, consumers are less TACTIC OVER TIME. Based on the hierarchy of effects model,

likely to use price as a heuristic. Although this might be seen H&B suggested that:

as an exciting finding for owners of high-awareness, high-

H1b: Over a number of trials, awareness will decrease in

price brands, it should be noted that consumers can use price

importance as a choice tactic. Choice will instead be

as a heuristic in two alternative ways: seek lowest price to

based on previous trials and evaluations.

avoid financial risk; or seek highest price in an effort to gain high

product quality. The original study produced a nonstatistically This would imply that where a known brand exists in a choice

significant result in the same direction, the lack of statistical set, consumers are more likely to choose the known brand

significance presumably caused by the small sample size. on the first trial, but given the opportunity to try other brands

10 J Busn Res E. K. Macdonald and B. M. Sharp

2000:48:5–15

Table 2. Self-reported reasons for choice: first and last trials after the initial trial. This somewhat U-shaped curve was also

Awareness Condition Subjects observed in the awareness–no-quality difference condition

Trial 1 Trial 5 (Figure 2), but did not occur in the condition where noawareness

existed (Figure 3).

Awareness H&B 82% H&B 33% This finding seems to be consistent with the brand-switch-

Rep 75% Rep 51% ing literature, which indicates that consumers are loyal not

Taste H&B 0% H&B 41% only to a single brand but to a repertoire of brands (Ehrenberg,

Rep 0% Rep 24% 1988). Consumers will select from among these brands when

in a purchase situation. In addition, from time to time, consumers

will try a brand from outside the repertoire, most

over a number of trials, they are more likely to base their likely because of some situational event.

choice on their evaluation of the brand, so such factors as The results of this study indicate that consumers demontaste

will become more important. strated curiosity about the other brands available to them, but

To investigate this, we first examined the differences in the still preferred to choose the well-known brand. This could

self-reported reasons for choice on the first and last trials be a result of some of the effects attributed to high-awareness

(Table 2). brands, such as reassurance of popularity and quality (Tybout

H&B found that reported use of awareness as a choice and Artz, 1994) or that they preferred to stick to their awaretactic

dropped from 82% down to 33% between the first and ness heuristic-habit.

last trials. This strongly supports their hypothesis that other The assumption has been that brand awareness is an imporfactors

become important in making a decision over a number tant simplifying heuristic for choice. Therefore H&B (1990)

of trials. For example, reported use of a taste as a tactic hypothesized that, in its absence, consumers would exertmore

increased from 0 to 41% by the final trial. effort in selecting among brands. Therefore, their second hyIt

should be noted, however, that fairly strong experimental pothesis was that:

effects would also encourage the same result. Respondents H2: Consumers choosing among a set of unknown brands

might make their first choice based on awareness, but once are likely to sample more brands across product trials

asked to repeat the choice, might infer that they are required than consumers who choose among a set of brands

to do something different (e.g., choose a different brand). that includes one well-known one.

Results of the replication show the same trends as in the

original study, although they are substantially weaker. Al- H&B predicted that this hypothesis would be supported by

though 75% of subjects reported use of brand awareness as a significant main effect of awareness in a two-way awarenessa

choice tactic on the first trial, this dropped down to 51% by-quality analysis of variance (ANOVA). In fact, a significant

by the final trial. Thus, the use of brand awareness did decline, main effect for awareness did occur in the analysis for both

but it continued to be important, because over half the respon- studies (H&B F[3,169] 5 7.87, p , 0.01; replication

dents reported using it as a choice criterion, even after having F[1,458] 5 6.040, p , 0.05). Neither the main effect of

the chance to sample other brands over a number of trials. quality, nor the two-way interaction approached significance

This result is not exactly supportive of the hierarchy of effects in either study. These results support H2.

reasoning that lead to the hypothesis, but rather could be Further confirmation of H&B’s results is found in the cominterpreted

as being more supportive of the simpler habitual parison of the mean number of brands sampled between

theories of choice. awareness and no-awareness conditions. The results indicate

Supporting the original study, again, it was found that such that subjects in the no-awareness condition tended to sample

experience factors as taste increased in importance over the more brands than did subjects in the awareness condition

five trials, but the increase in the use of taste over the five (H&B: 2.67 cf. 2.29, replication: 1.86 cf. 1.58 (t 5 3.94, p ,

trials was less pronounced in the replication (0% on the first 0.001). Interestingly, the mean number of brands chosen was

trial, as compared with 24% on the final trial). much lower in the replication than in the original study,

Moving to subjects’ actual behavior, the findings from the despite there being some prior awareness for one of the noreplication

are clearly different from those predicted by H&B. awareness brands, which should have lead to its also enjoying

Instead of observing a decline in choice of the high-awareness the greater chance of trial effect. This lower mean could be

brand over the five trials, a U-shaped curve was observed caused by some variation in the procedure used or the differ(

Figure 1). The majority (86%) of subjects chose the well- ence in product category.

known brand on the first trial, but after selecting this brand H&B reasoned that when no known brand is available in

one or two times on subsequent trials, some were included a choice set, and consumers are given an opportunity to sample

to try one of the brands they didn’t know (31% chose an brands, their perceptions of quality are likely to be unaffected

unknown brand on trial 3). However, most (75%) chose the by the biases and distortions that awareness of the brand can

high awareness brand on the final trial (see Figure 1), indicat- create. They, therefore, hypothesized that consumers in this

ing that the use of awareness as a heuristic continued long situation were more likely to detect “objective” quality differBrand

Awareness Effects on Consumer Decision Making J Busn Res 11

2000:48:5–15

Figure 1. Brand choice: Awareness-quality condition (n 5 265).

ences between brands following a number of trials. Therefore, not statistically significant, difference between the awareness

their third hypothesis was that: and no-awareness groups (41% cf. 59%). Their sample size

was very small with only 44 subjects in each condition, in

H3: After a series of product choices, consumers choosing

the replication the sample size was much larger (n 5 401)

among a set of three totally unknown brands are more

but the differences were still not statistically significant (Pearlikely

to choose the high-quality brand than are conson’s

chi2 5 0.63150, p 5 0.42681). The lack of statistical

sumers who choose among a set of brands that insignificance

in either study makes it impossible to say if the

cludes one well-known and two unknown brands,

results varied meaningfully between the studies but if they

especially when the well-known brand is not the high- did one factor that may account for a difference is that in the

quality brand. replication study subjects selected significantly fewer brands

This hypothesis received the weakest support in both the over the five trials than they did in the original study. This

original study and in the replication. may have affected their ability to choose the ‘high quality’

An analysis of the percentage of subjects who chose the brand as they may not have tried the high quality brand at

quality brand on the final trial in the replication in both any stage during the experiment.

awareness and no-awareness conditions shows a small differ-

ence between the two groups (32% awareness condition cf

Awareness Effect Is Mediated by Price

36% no-awareness condition). Both groups chose the high Price effects were not detailed in H&B (1990), in the replicaquality

brand around a third of the time which is the expected tion, high price had a (realistic) consistent effect to decrease

level owing to chance alone. H&B found a stronger, but again the chance of a brand being chosen (purchased). When the

Figure 2. Brand choice: Awareness no-quality condition. (n 5 31).

12 J Busn Res E. K. Macdonald and B. M. Sharp

2000:48:5–15

Figure 3. Brand choice: No-awareness quality condition (n 5 136).

high-awareness brand was marked at a high price relative to The U-shaped curve observed in the over-all awarenessthe

other two brands, the proportion of subjects choosing it quality condition is still present in Table 3. It is observed

on each trial dropped markedly. Table 3 shows a comparison when subjects in this condition are split into those who saw

between over-all choice of the well-known brand in the aware- the high awareness brand marked at a high price and those

ness-quality condition and the choice of a well-known brand that saw it marked at a low price.

in this condition when it was marked at a high price relative

to the other brands and when it was marked at a low price

Summary relative to the other brands. Even when marked at a higher

relative price, the well-known brand was still chosen more A replication of Hoyer and Brown’s (1990 study exploring

frequently than either of the other two brands. This indicates the effects of brand awareness on consumer decision making

strong support for the brand awareness effect already observed. was carried out using a much larger sample (n 5 462 cf.

When the well-known brand was marked as one of the n 5 173). Not an exact replication, the study used the same

two low-price brands, the number of subjects who chose it procedure but with a broader sample definition, a more realison

each trial was very high (ranging from 93% on the first tic test situation, a different product category, and a larger

trial to 82%). This indicates that brand awareness has a very sample.

strong effect on consumer choice for a common, repeat pur- The results showed strong support for two of the original

chase product; whereas, price has a moderate effect on choice. study’s findings: (1) that brand awareness is an important

If the price of the well-known brand is high relative to compet- choice tactic for consumers facing a new decision task; and

ing brands, then, although a large number of consumers will (2) that subjects who are aware of one brand in a choice set

choose the well-known brand, some consumers will also be tend to sample fewer brands across a series of product trials.

inclined to try other cheaper brands. Thus, the awareness Only extremely weak support was found for H&B’s third

effect is stronger than the price effect. finding that, in the absence of awareness differentials among

Table 3. Choice of High-Awareness Brand: Awareness-Quality Condition

Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial

Chose Cotteesa 1 2 3 4 5

AQ condition

(n 5 265) 86% 77% 69% 73% 75%

AQ condition

Cottees 5 HP

(n 5 88) 72% 59% 50% 59% 60%

AQ condition

Cottees 5 LP

(n 5 177) 93% 85% 79% 80% 82%

a Where Cottees is the “high-awareness” brand.

Brand Awareness Effects on Consumer Decision Making J Busn Res 13

2000:48:5–15

brands, consumers are more likely to choose the highest qual-

Number of Trials

ity product; H&B also only found weak support. Five trials were used in the original study. A pretest carried

H&B’s hierarchy of effects derived hypothesis, that aware- out before the replication found that over five trials, 86.5%

ness would reduce in prevalence as a choice tactic over re- of subjects selected each brand at least once (n 5 37), and

peated trials, received mixed support with the choice of high the average number of brands chosen over the five trials was

awareness brand typically declining over the first few trials 2.811 (from a possible 3). Therefore, five trials was deemed

but then increasing over the latter trials. adequate for consumers to make a choice between three

Additional findings from this replication include: brands and to determine a preference. A not unreasonable

1. that brand awareness seems to be an important choice expectation would be that the majority of subjects would

tactic for consumers, even when facing a familiar or experiment somewhat and then settle on the brand for which

they had highest preference.

repeat choice task; and

2. although some consumers can be enticed to break their

habit using an awareness heuristic many show a ten- Appendix B

dency to return to this habit.

In summary, brand awareness seems to play an important

Quality Differentials

part in explaining habitual choice patterns. The research re- To identify high-quality and low-quality brands, seven brands

sults fit with the observed empirical regularity that consumers were evaluated by a group of pretest subjects (n 5 49) in a

tend to maintain brand repertoires from which choice is made. blind taste test. As in the original study, these brands ranged

It would seem that the habit or inertia theories of consumer from presumably high-quality brands (i.e., national, wellchoice,

based upon an understanding of the use of awareness advertised brands) to those of presumably lower quality (e.g.,

as a choice heuristic, offer considerable potential in explaining store and generic brands). Pretest subjects ranked these brands

low-involvement, repeat purchase patterns. For example, Eh- in order of preference.

renberg et al. (1990) use awareness differentials to explain

the widely observed double jeopardy pattern. Such explana-

Ranking as a Sensory Evaluation Technique

tions may prove superior to competing attitude or hierarchy Ranking samples as a sensory evaluation technique is acceptof

effect-based theories, which seem to be more appropriate able when aiming to compare samples according to a single

for a small subset of buying behavior, that is, high-involve- attribute, such as preference (see Meilgaard, Civille, and Carr,

ment, first purchase choice scenarios. 1991). It has the advantage of being a very simple technique,

but it does have these disadvantages: (1) the resultant data

are merely ordinal, and no measure of the degree of difference

Appendix A. Experimental Design is obtained from each respondent; and (2) consecutive samples

that differ widely, as well as those that differ slightly, will be

separated by one rank unit.

Consideration Set Size

The purpose of this study was to examine consumer’s decision

Pretest for Quality

making under varying conditions of awareness and quality.

For the purpose of this study, ranking of the cordial brands

Consumers usually make a decision from a set of brands they

was considered acceptable. Each cordial brand was identified

recall from memory, and/or they recognize in their environby

a letter from A–G. For the purposes of effective sensory

ment, known as their consideration set. In this experiment evaluation, samples should be presented to subjects in a balthe

consideration set has been decided for the consumer so anced, random order (Meilgaard, Civille, and Carr, 1991).

that all the subject is required to do is choose from this limited In this study, to ensure there was no ordering effect, three

set of brands. In H&B’s study, the choice set included three conditions were designed, and in each condition, the seven

brands, and in the replication it was decided not to vary the brands were labeled differently.

number of brands. This is partly to allow for a more complete The use of three conditions also ensured that no profesreplication

of the original study, partly because a consideration sional letter effect could bias the results. A study by Ehrenberg

set of three was not unrealistic for cordial choice, and partly and Charlton (1973) found markedly different consumer rebecause

with three independent variables employed in this peat buying for four brand names, even when the brand names

study (i.e., awareness, quality, and price) and three brands, were only letters of the alphabet: M, J, C, and V respectively.

the study requires 24 different variations in these factors. The By varying which brands were labeled by particular letters,

addition of one or more brands would quickly increase the we were able to avoid this problem. The results indicated no

complexity of the study. The opportunity exists for further significant preference for any one of the letters used.

research using larger consideration set sizes. The use of ranking data instead of rating data means that

14 J Busn Res E. K. Macdonald and B. M. Sharp

2000:48:5–15

Table 4. Testing for Low-Quality Brand

Lowest Rating Brand vs. Others Lowest Two Rating Brands vs. Others

Compare subjects who rated brand as Compare subjects who rated brand as

lowest in quality with other subjects) one of the two lowest with other subjects)

Brand (1 vs. 2–7) (1–2 vs. 2–7)

Cottees Country Blend Not significant Not significant

(x2 5 0.2301, df 5 2, a 5 0.89133) (x2 5 0.1798, df 5 2, a 5 0.91405)

(Low 5 21, high 5 26) (Low 5 29, High 5 18)

Coles Savings Cannot test (L 5 8, H 5 39) Not significant

(x2 5 0.7929, df 5 2, a 5 0.67272)

(L 5 21, H 5 26)

Cottees Cannot test (L 5 1, H 5 46) Cannot test (L 5 9, H 5 38)

Farmland Cannot test (L 5 2, H 5 45) Cannot test (L 5 8, H 5 39)

Cottees All Natural Cannot test (L 5 8, H 5 39) Cannot test (L 5 14, H 5 33)

Berri Cannot test (L 5 2, H 5 45) Cannot test (L 5 4, H 5 43)

Golden Circle Cannot test (L 5 5, H 5 42) Cannot test (L 5 9, H 5 38)

1 is the lowest quality ranking and 7 is the highest ranking.

a parametric statistical test, such as ANOVA, cannot be un- as the lowest quality brand overall). Coles Savings brand was

employed, because it would be violating the test’s underlying testable as one of the two lowest ranking brands with 21

assumptions: (1) normality; (2) independence; and (3) con- responses (45%).

stant variance. Therefore a nonparametric test, the chi-square

HIGH-QUALITY BRAND. Golden Circle was ranked as the top

analysis, has been employed. The underlying assumption of

quality brand by far, with 20 subjects rating it as the highest

chi-square analysis is that for a contingency table where r or

quality brand, although this result is not significant (Table 5).

c are greater than 2, then the sample size must be large enough Thirty subjects (64%) ranked it as one of the two top quality

so that there is a minimum sample size of 5 in each cell. brands. Berri was ranked as one of the top two brands by 24

Because of the small sample size in this study, it was necessary (51%) of subjects. The other five brands were ranked as one

to combine cells to carry out the test. This is acceptable, of the top two brands with much lower frequency.

because the purpose of this test is only to identify two extreme

brands—a high-quality brand and a low-quality brand.

Quality Manipulations

LOW-QUALITY BRAND. No significant difference was found Although the quality ranking for none of the brands was

in terms of the low-quality rating for each brand versus the significant, by observation Golden Circle was ranked as highestother

ratings it received (Table 4). Only Cottees Country Blend quality more frequently than any other brand. For this reason,

was ranked as the lowest-quality brand with enough frequency it was used as the high-quality cordial in the quality manipulato

be testable (i.e., 21 (45%) (consumers ranked this brand tion in the experiment. Although, Cottees Country Blend was

Table 5. Testing for High-Quality Brand

Highest Rating vs. Others Highest Two Ratings vs. Others

(Compare subjects who rated brand as (Compare subjects who rated brand as

highest in quality with other subjects) one of the two highest with other subjects)

Brand (1–6 vs. 7) (1–5 vs. 6–7)

Golden Circle Not significant Cannot test

x2 5 3.586, df 5 2, a 5 0.16647 (Low 5 17, high 5 30)

(Low 5 27, high 5 20)

Berri Cannot test not significant

(Low 5 38, high 5 9) x2 5 2.438, df 5 2, a 5 0.29546

(Low 5 24, high 5 23)

Cottees Country Blend Cannot test (L 5 45, H 5 2) Cannot test (L 5 39, H 5 8)

Coles Savings Cannot test (L 5 47, H 5 0) Cannot test (L 5 44, H 5 3)

Cottees Cannot test (L 5 44, H 5 3) Cannot test (L 5 37, H 5 10)

Farmland Cannot test (L 5 44, H 5 3) Cannot test (L 5 40, H 5 7)

Cottees All Natural Cannot test (L 5 37, H 5 10) Cannot test (L 5 34, H 5 13)

1 is the lowest quality ranking, and 7 is the highest ranking.

Brand Awareness Effects on Consumer Decision Making J Busn Res 15

2000:48:5–15

ranked as the lowest-quality brand overall, it was a much paler Hoyer, W. D.: An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a

orange color than many of the other brands and for this Common Repeat Purchase Product. Journal of Consumer Research

11 (1984): 822–829.

reason, was not selected for the main experiment to avoid

adding another distracting cue to the choice situation. There- Hoyer, W. D., and Brown, S. P.: Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common, Repeat Purchase Product. Journal of Confore,

the brand ranked as one of the two lowest-quality brands sumer Research 17 (1990): 141–148.

was selected, Coles Savings brand. Over the 401 subjects in Lutz, R. J.: Editorial. Journal of Consumer Research 17 (1991): i–vii.

the quality-difference condition, each brand contained the Macdonald, E., and Sharp, B.: Management Perceptions of the Imporhigh-

quality product an approximately equal number of times. tance of Brand Awareness as an Indication of Advertising Effectiveness.

Marketing Research On-Line 1 (1996): 1–15.

Foxall, G. R.: The Behavioral Perspective Model of Purchase and Wilkie, W. L., and Dickson, P. R.: Shopping for Appliances: Consum-

Consumption: From Consumer Theory to Marketing Practice. ers’ Strategies and Patterns of Information Search. Marketing SciJournal

of the Academy of Marketing Science 29 (1992): 189–198. ence Institute, Report No. 85–108, Cambridge, MA. 1985.

Latar Belakang :

Artikel ini adalah replikasi dari studi Hoyer dan Brown yang menggunakan menjaga merek dalam pertimbangan konsumen set-set dikontrol percobaan untuk meneliti peran brand awareness dalam merek yang konsumen memberikan perhatian serius ketika proses pilihan konsumen . Replikasi menggunakan metode yang sama, tetapi dengan membuat keputusan pembelian. Kesadaran merek telah berpendapat kategori yang berbeda (tapi mirip) produk, sampel yang lebih besar, dan sampel memiliki efek penting pada pengambilan keputusan konsumen dengan kelompok yang termasuk berpengalaman serta konsumen berpengalaman. Hasil yang mempengaruhi yang Merek memasuki set pertimbangan, dan mendukung temuan penelitian asli yang kesadaran merek adalah pengaruh juga dominan yang merek dipilih dari taktik considerchoice antara subyek kelompok kesadaran. Subyek memilih dari satu set asi (Macdonald dan Sharp, 1996). Merek afset kesadaran merek withmarked perbedaan kesadaran menunjukkan efek-besar yang terakhir melalui penggunaannya sebagai heuristik untuk pilihan (misalnya, preferensi untuk brand awareness yang tinggi, meskipun kualitas dan harga diferensiasi "Saya akan memilih merek yang saya tahu") dan pengaruhnya terhadap tials dirasakan. Mereka juga membuat keputusan mereka lebih cepat dari mata pelajaran dalam kualitas nonaware-, ("Aku pernah mendengar dari merek, sehingga harus menjadi baik"). Sebuah kondisi ness dan sampel merek lebih sedikit. Dalam sebuah temuan mengejutkan, studi jawab dari Hoyer dan Brown (1990) dilakukan penyok perintis menggunakan satu heuristik pilihan kesadaran tampaknya tidak menurun terus penelitian di tingkat keputusan individu dengan memeriksa uji pilihan atas diulang, melainkan menunjukkan sesuatu efek berbentuk U kesadaran merek pada pilihan konsumen. Ini diperiksa pola, dengan subyek kembali ke brand awareness yang tinggi di kedua dampak kesadaran merek sebagai heuristik, serta uji explorchoice. Sedikit dukungan yang ditemukan untuk Hoyer dan Brown temuan bahwa ing efeknya pada persepsi kualitas. subyek dalam kondisi tidak kesadaran merek memilih merek kualitas tentang Little penelitian telah meneliti efek dari kesadaran merek

sidang akhir lebih sering bahwa mereka dalam kondisi diferensial kesadaran. pada pilihan. Teori perilaku konsumen baik dalam pemasaran Singkatnya, perbedaan kesadaran tampaknya menjadi pengaruh kuat dan literatur ekonomi cenderung untuk melihat pilihan produk sebagai pilihan merek dalam pembelian ulang konteks produk konsumen. Konsumen pemecahan masalah proses yang sangat melibatkan (Foxall, 1992). menunjukkan kecenderungan yang kuat untuk menggunakan kesadaran sebagai heuristik dan menunjukkan penelitian gelar Pemasaran telah difokuskan pada lebih rumit knowlof inersia dalam mengubah dari kebiasaan menggunakan heuristik ini. J BUSN RES tepi struktur dari kesadaran, seperti sikap dan merek 2000. 48,5-15. Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Inc All rights reserved.

Telah lama berpendapat bahwa salah satu tujuan utama produk pembelian ulang pasar-, mungkin bahwa konsumen memilih ing adalah untuk menghasilkan dan mempertahankan kesadaran merek, ini adalah merek atas dasar heuristik sederhana (misalnya, kesadaran merek, dipandang sebagai sangat penting dalam paket situa keterlibatan rendah, harga). Evaluasi yang lebih rinci, jika hal itu terjadi sama sekali, tions di mana konsumen dapat terlibat dalam sedikit pencarian aktif untuk terjadi selanjutnya untuk membeli (Ray, Sawyer, Rothschild, Heeler, informasi untuk membantu pilihan. Pengulangan iklan digunakan untuk kuat, dan Reed, 1973 ; Olshavsky dan Granbois, 1979). Konsep perilaku konsumen kebiasaan bukanlah hal yang baru, dan pemecahan masalah yang terbatas telah diakui di severaltion di inklusi ini: jika pilihan adalah kebiasaan, daripada tidak ada publikasi penelitian asli), di tempat yang berbeda (dalam keputusan dalam arti proses kognitif sadar sebelum Australia daripada Amerika Serikat), dan tindakan peneliti, kebiasaan, jika mereka account untuk banyak konsumsi, perlu dalam kedua studi telah ada komunikasi. (Permintaan itu penjelasan yang lebih baik daripada tidak adanya pemikiran (East, 1996). Prilaku dibuat untuk salah satu peneliti dari studi asli untuk memberikan teori ioral adalah salah satu pendekatan untuk kesenjangan ini di konsumen prilaku rincian metode asli dan hasil. Pertama surat requestior teori, kesadaran merek / teori pilihan berbasis arti-penting yang tidak mendapat jawaban. Permintaan kedua melalui kolega, potensi ke arah lain yang masih cognitivist di alam tetapi mendapat respon positif, tetapi pada saat penulisan, tidak ada kebutuhan untuk tidak akan didasarkan pada asumsi bahan sadar telah diterima.) proses kognitif dan pembentukan sikap sebelum membeli.

Metode :

biasanya lebih berguna (Monroe, 1992; Rosenthal, 1990) studi .suatu dari H & B adalah studi perintis. Sebagai penulis yang mencatat: H & B (1990) digunakan prosedur eksperimental di whichsubjects diminta untuk membuat serangkaian keputusan regardingStudies yang menentukan dampak dari kesadaran merek pada pilihan merek untuk umum, produk pembelian ulang: kacang proses pilihan individu-tingkat yang sangat dibutuhkan. Mentega ini, dalam penelitian replikasi ini: ramah jeruk (di Australia, artikel mengambil langkah pertama menuju mengisi kekosongan ini dengan memeriksa minuman ringan non-alkohol). Setelah setiap seleksi, subjek sifat efek kesadaran merek pada pembelian bertanya mengapa mereka memilih merek tertentu, dan mereka kemudian produk rumah tangga biasa. (Hoyer dan Brown, 1990 diizinkan untuk mencicipinya. Setelah lima percobaan, serangkaian pasca-taskp.141) pertanyaan ditanya tentang penggunaan produk dan pengalaman. Sebuah replikasi yang menawarkan wawasan ke dalam generalisasi replikasi ini berbeda dalam hal berikut.

H & temuan B akan sangat berguna sebagai perilaku konsumen mulai untuk mengatasi daerah ini.