The authors examine how new brand entries affect consumers’ consideration sets. A within-subject longitudinal experiment examines several entry positions into existing markets. The results suggest that new brand entries produce changes in consideration sets toward dominating, compromise, and assimilated brands, away from extreme brands in two-brand markets, and toward dominating and away from extreme brands in eight-brand markets. These results are confirmed by a second experiment that utilizes a between-subject design and markets with six existing brands.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbaJoseph W., and Wesley HutchinsonJ. (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March), 411–54.
2.
BettmanJames R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
BettmanJames R., and Whan ParkC. (1980), “Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis,”Journal of Consumer Research, 7(December), 234–48.
4.
BiehalGabriel, and ChakravartiDipankar (1986), “Consumers’ Use of Memory and External Information in Choice: Macro and Micro Perspective,”Journal of Consumer Research, 12(March), 382–405.
5.
BrisouxJacques E., and LarocheMichel (1981), “Evoked Set Formation and Composition: An Empirical Investigation under a Routinized Response Behavior Situation,”Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 357–61.
6.
CarpenterGregory S., and NakamotoKent (1989), “Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26(August), 285–98.
7.
CohenJoel B., and BasuKunal (1987), “Alternative Models of Categorization: Toward a Contingent Processing Framework,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March), 455–72.
8.
FarquharPeter H, and PratkanisAnthony R. (1987), “Phantom Choices: The Effects of Unavailable Alternatives on Decision Making,” working paper, Carnegie Mellon University.
GlazerRashi, KahnBarbara E., and MooreWilliam L. (1991), “‘The Influence of External Constraints on Brand Choice: The Lone-Alternative Effect,”Journal of Consumer Research, 18(June), 119–25.
11.
HauserJohn R., and ShuganSteven M (1983), “Defensive Marketing Strategies,”Marketing Science,2(Fall), 319–60.
12.
HauserJohn R., and WernerfeltBirger (1990), “An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets,”Journal of Marketing Research, 27(March), 393–408.
13.
HowardJohn A., and ShethJagdish N. (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
14.
HuberJoel, PayneJohn W., and PutoChristopher (1982), “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis,”Journal of Consumer Research, 9(June), 90–98.
15.
HuberJoel, and PutoChristopher (1983), “Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects,”Journal of Consumer Research, 10(June), 31–44.
16.
KardesFrank R., HerrPaul M., and MarlinoDeborah (1989), “Some New Light on Substitution and Attraction Effects,”Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 203–208.
17.
KardesFrank R., and KalyanaramGurumurthy (1992), “Order-of-Entry Effects on Consumer Memory and Judgment: An Information Integration Perspective,”Journal of Marketing Research, 29(August), 343–57.
18.
KardesFrank R., and ChandrashekaranMurali, and DornoffRonald J. (1993), “Brand Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition, Consumer Choice, and the Pioneering Advantage,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20(June), 62–75.
19.
MahajanVijay, and MullerEitan, and BassFrank M. (1990), “New Product Diffusion Models in Marketing,”Journal of Marketing, 54(January), 1–26.
20.
MishraSanjay, and UmeshU.N., and StemDonald E. (1993), “Antecedents of the Attraction Effect: An Information-Processing Approach,”Journal of Marketing Research, 30(August), 331–49.
21.
NarayanaChem L., and MarkinRon J. (1975), “Consumer Behavior and Product Performance: An Alternative Conceptualization,”Journal of Marketing, 39(October), 1–6.
22.
NedungadiPrakash (1990), “Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice Without Altering Brand Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 17(December), 263–76.
23.
PanYigang, and LehmannDonald R. (1993), “The Influence of New Brand Entry on Subjective Brand Judgments,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20(June), 76–86.
24.
RatneshwarSrinivasan, ShockerAllan D., and StewartDavid W. (1987), “Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March), 520–33.
25.
RobertsJohn H., and LattinJames M. (1991), “Development and Testing of a Model of Consideration Set Composition,”Journal of Marketing Research, 28(November), 429–40.
26.
RumelhartDavid E., and NormanDonald A. (1972), “Accretion, Tuning and Restructuring: Three Models of Learning,” in Organization of Memory, TulvingE., and DonaldsonW., eds. New York: Academic Press, Inc.,197–246.
27.
ShockerAllan D., Ben-AkivaMoshe, BoccaraBruno, and NedungadiPrakash (1991), “Consideration Set Influences on Customer Decision-Making and Choice: Issues, Models and Suggestions,”Marketing Letters, 2(August), 181–98.
28.
ShuganSteven M. (1980), “The Cost of Thinking,”Journal of Consumer Research, 7(September), 99–111.
29.
SimonsonItamar (1989), “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction And Compromise Effects,”Journal of Consumer Research, 16(September), 158–74.
30.
SimonsonItamar (1991), “The Effect of Buying Decisions on Consumers’ Assessment of Their Tastes,”Marketing Letters, 2(January), 5–14.
31.
SimonsonItamar, and TverskyAmos (1992), “Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion,”Journal of Marketing Research, 29(August), 281–95.
32.
SujanMita, and BettmanJames R. (1989), “The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies on Consumers’ Brand and Category Perceptions: Some Insights From Schema Research,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26(November), 454–67.
