Discipline: Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
Subcategory: Social Sciences/Psychology/Economics
Room: Park Tower 8216
Mayumi Fleming - firstname.lastname@example.org
Co-Author(s): Kyle Kelley, University of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC
In this research, we conceptualize ‘design-tech synergy’ and introduce the concepts of design newness and innovation, as well as, technological newness and innovation. Additionally, we look at the impact of varying levels of design newness coupled with technical newness, and consumers’ willingness to purchase new products across developed and emerging economies. We attempt to study how emerging economies and developed economies respond to these design and technological innovations differently given the distinct differences in their country of origin (COO) and country-of-manufacture (COM). Research also shows that having a stronger, more differentiated raw idea plays a critical role in innovation and market success. The purpose of this research is to investigate whether incongruent or conflicting COO-COM scenarios between COO and COM images for parent and diffusion brands affect consumers’ purchase intentions with respect to levels of purchase involvement (high versus low involvement brands); and how these COO-COM situations lead to perceptions of brand contagion and authenticity for everyday consumer products and brands. This article identifies country-of-origin or ‘COO’ as the country where the brand is designed-in or originates from (a.k.a. country of design or country of brand); while country-of-manufacture or ‘COM’ is identified as the country where the brand is assembled or manufactured (a.k.a. country of assembly) (Johansson, Douglas, and Nonaka 1985, Chung et al. 2009, Arora et al. 2015). Authenticity is defined as a multi-dimensional concept that deals with “verifying that the product meets certain quality standards associated with the brand” (Newman and Dhar, 2014, p. 373). “Contagion,” on the other hand, is a belief that “objects can acquire a special aura or essence of a particular source through physical contact” (Newman and Dhar, 2014); and is strongly related to “authenticity.” Diffusion branding deals with presence of both parent and diffused brands for companies, and is impacted by multiplicity of COO-COM situations along with levels of product involvement. Examples of diffused brands are CK (parent brand: Calvin Klein), Armani Exchange A/X (parent brand: Armani), Versus (parent brand: Versace), Miu Miu (Prada), etc. In our research, we used real-life brands and their advertisements to maintain the validity of conflicting COO-COM combinations, similar to Arora et al. (2015); and our audience is ‘French’ nationals. We hypothesize the following: Hypothesis: Differences in conflicting COO-COM scenarios will correspond to differences in consumer preferences and beliefs towards brand authenticity, brand contagion, and subsequent product valuation exhibited through consumers’ purchase intentions for high involvement versus low involvement parent versus diffused brands. Method and Data Study design and sample. There were 72 French adults (Mage = 33.7 years, 51.2% were females) who were recruited from a Web-based survey panel. We designed a 2 (parent and diffused luxury brand name) X 2 (product type – high versus low involvement) between subjects experiment with three dependent measures (authenticity, contagion, and purchase intention) as within-subject factors. Participants first read about parent brands and their corresponding diffusion brands – Renault (Koleos and Dacia Duster) cars and Chloé (Chloé and See by Chloé) handbags along with their correct COO (France) and COM (China) information. Participants completed three sets of dependent measures: authenticity, transferred essence (contagion), and purchase intentions (PI). Each set of dependent measures appear on a different page in a random order in order to avoid any potential contamination (Newman and Dhar 2014). Studies 1 and 2 test conflicting COO-COM situations for high involvement versus low involvement parent and diffusion brands. The goal of these studies is to empirically distinguish the psychological mechanisms of contagion and brand authenticity in relation to COO-COM incongruence. These experiments deal with two scenarios. Study 1 explores the conflicting scenario when consumers confront a parent brand along with its diffused brand from developed COO and developing COM; while Study 2 explores a reverse (and often rare) conflicting scenario when consumers confront a parent and its diffused brand from developing COO and developed COM. Summary of Findings We ran a correlation analysis to test possible confounding effects of gender and age on dependent variables. We found that brand name (parent vs. diffusion) was negatively related with authenticity (Rbrand_Authenticity = -0.382, p< 0.001), while it was not significantly associated with purchase intention and/or contagion. Please refer to the Word document attached.
Funder Acknowledgement(s): Acknowledgements: This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under NSF TIP Award# 1912070. The authors like to thank Dr. Anshu Arora, faculty mentor for the current research and PI for NSF TIP grant, along with all faculty collaborators of TIP grant and NSF funded Logistics and International Trade Analytics Center at the University of the District of Columbia.
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Anshu Arora, email@example.com
Role: My team member, Kyle and I worked on the research. I worked specifically on concepts, Methodology, and Implications sections.