Skip to main content
  • Research Article
  • Published:

Ownership effects in consumers’ brand extension evaluations


A two levels of product similarity times two levels of brand image consistency times three levels of ownerships factorial experiment was designed to explore the ownership effects when consumers evaluate brand extensions and judge parent brand after receiving brand extension information. Evidence shows that ownership effects do exist in both extension and parent brand evaluations. Brand image consistency is the most influential factor for parent brand owners while product similarity is more important factor for non-users in attitude formation towards the extension. The owners of competitive brands favor low image consistency extension more than high image consistency extension. Furthermore, there is an interaction effect between brand image consistency and product similarity for brand owners, whereas this effect is non-existent for non-owners and non-users. This again shows that brand owners care much more about brand image consistency than other consumer groups do. In evaluating a parent brand, owners and non-owners differ. The authors draw the conclusion that consumers’ brand extension evaluation is more like a “benefit oriented” process rather than a “pure affect transfer” process.


  • Aaker D, Keller K L (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54 (January): 27–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Boush, David M, Loken B (1991). A processing-tracing study of brand extension evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1): 16–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broniarczyk, Susan M, Joseph W, Alba (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2): 214–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarit D, MacInnis D J, Nakamoto K (1990). Product category perception, elaborative processing and brand name extension strategies. In: Goldberg M, ed. Advances in Consumer Research, (17): 119–129

  • Dawar, Niraj (1996). Extensions of broad brands: The role of retrieval in evaluations of fit. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(2): 189–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar P H, Herr P M, Fazio R H, Claremont C A (1990). Relational model for category extensions of brands. In: Goldberg M E, Gorn G J, Polly R W, eds. Advances in Consumer Research, (17): 856–860

  • Keller K L, Aaker D A (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (February): 35–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirmani A, Sood S, Bridges S (1999). The ownership effect in consumer responses to brand line stretches. Journal of Marketing, 63 (January): 88–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Loken B, Roedder D J (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57 (July): 71–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Maoz E, Tybout A M (2002). The moderating role of involvement and differentiation in the evaluation of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12(2): 119–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Ingrid D, David W, Stewart (2001). The differential impact of goal congruency on attitudes, intentions, and the transfer of brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (November): 471–484

  • Milberg S J, Park C W, McCarthy M S (1997). Managing negative feedback effects associated with brand extensions: The impact of alternative branding strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6(2): 119–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrin M (1999). The impact of brand extensions on parent brand memory structures and retrieval processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (November): 517–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Park C W, Milberg S, Lawson R (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (September): 185–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratneshwar S, Shocker A D (1991). Substitution in use and the role of usage context in product category structure. Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (August): 281–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Romeo J B (1991). The effect of negative information on the evaluations of brand extensions and the family brand. In: Rebecca H, Holman, Solomon M R, eds. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18. Provo. UT: Association for Consumer Research, 399–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Swaminathan V, Fox R J, Reddy S K (2001). The impact of brand extension introduction on choice. Journal of Marketing, 65 (October): 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S, Sood S (2002). Deep and surface cues: Brand extension evaluations by children and adults. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June): 129–141

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fu Guoqun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fu, G., Ding, J. Ownership effects in consumers’ brand extension evaluations. Front. Bus. Res. China 1, 193–210 (2007).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: