Search results

1 – 4 of 4
Article
Publication date: 15 November 2018

Marie A. Yeh, Robert D. Jewell and Cesar Zamudio

This study aims to investigate age and gender differences in young consumers’ attribute preferences that underlie their choice decisions. This research proposes and finds…

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to investigate age and gender differences in young consumers’ attribute preferences that underlie their choice decisions. This research proposes and finds that attribute preferences are moderated by age but not gender. Understanding how children at different ages evaluate a product’s attributes is essential to new children’s product development.

Design/methodology/approach

Hierarchical Bayesian choice-based conjoint analysis was used to assess attribute importance via a series of choice tasks among children and adults. Adults completed the study by survey, whereas children were interviewed and led through the choice tasks.

Findings

This research finds that the preference structure for a product’s attributes differs systematically based on the age of children. Younger children chose based on perceptually salient attributes of a product, whereas older children chose based on cognitively salient attributes. When children’s attribute preferences are compared to adults, older children value attributes more similarly to adults than younger children. While gender differences were proposed and found, further analysis indicated that these differences were driven by adults in the sample and that no gender differences existed in the children’s age categories.

Originality/value

This study is the first to study children’s preference structure in complex choices with different ages preferring different attributes. By using conjoint analysis, this research is able to understand children’s underlying decision process, as utility scores are obtained providing a level of precision for understanding the underlying process of children’s choices that other studies have not used.

Details

Young Consumers, vol. 20 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1747-3616

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 14 April 2020

Hua (Meg) Meng, César Zamudio and Robert D. Jewell

This paper aims to examine how olfactory imagery, triggered by scent brand names prior to smelling, influences scented-product purchase intention.

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to examine how olfactory imagery, triggered by scent brand names prior to smelling, influences scented-product purchase intention.

Design/methodology/approach

Five studies were conducted. Logistic regression analysis was used to predict likelihood of olfactory imagery formation. ANOVA and t-test analyses were used for scent brand name group comparisons, and serial mediation analysis was used to test how scent brand names impact purchase intention through olfactory imagery vividness and the (dis)confirmation between imagined (i.e. expected) and experienced scents.

Findings

Scent name familiarity stimulates olfactory imagery formation. Scent brand name specificity (e.g. “Lavender Bouquet” vs. “Floral Bouquet”) influences purchase intention, with specific names leading to lower purchase intention, because they generate vivid olfactory imagery and induce a disconfirmation between imagined and experienced scents.

Practical implications

Branding scents on products should be a strategic product design decision. Surprisingly, although specific scent brand names trigger vivid olfactory imagery and precise scent expectations, they mitigate purchase intention and thus are riskier. General scent brand names are safer.

Originality/value

This research contributes by extending the literature on the effect of verbal cues on scent perception by considering the role of scent brand name specificity on purchase intent. It also adds to work on how olfactory imagery influences purchase intention by incorporating olfactory imagery vividness. Finally, it proposes and tests an underlying cognitive mechanism to explain the relationship between scent brand names and purchase intention.

Details

Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 30 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1061-0421

Keywords

Open Access
Article
Publication date: 20 April 2018

Ajay Kumar

Aaker’s brand personality scale (BPS) published in 1997 has revived hitherto sluggish interest in brand personality research. With time, the BPS, most cited work in brand…

25561

Abstract

Purpose

Aaker’s brand personality scale (BPS) published in 1997 has revived hitherto sluggish interest in brand personality research. With time, the BPS, most cited work in brand personality, also faced criticism across dimensions. This paper aims to review the popular journals published after 1997 for criticism related to BPS.

Design/methodology/approach

Papers using Aaker’s BPS without change/with change are identified and scrutinized for reasons for the usage of BPS. Papers on brand personality that have avoided BPS are also scrutinized for reasons of avoidance. Independent efforts of understanding brand personality without Aaker’s framework are also reviewed. In-depth study of all these papers is done to report the criticism of Aaker’s BPS.

Findings

This review identifies the criticism of BPS and classifies it across six categories – definition, dimension, methodology, concept, words and generalizability related criticism. This paper argues that some issues such as definition, conceptual understanding of brand personality and methodology used to develop BPS need further attention of scholars. On the other hand, issues of dimensions, words used and generalizability can be attributed to evident reasons, such as culture and meaning given to words because of native language.

Originality/value

This criticism and interest in Aaker’s BPS are unprecedented. It has been 20 years since BPS was published. Many scholars have countered the Aaker’s BPS through their work; however, a comprehensive review covering all criticisms and issues of BPS is still missing in literature. This paper is filling this gap in literature.

Objetivo

La Escala de Personalidad de Marca de Aaker fue publicada en 1997 y desde entonces ha motivado el interés por la investigación de la personalidad de la marca. Con el tiempo, esta escala se ha convertido en la más citada, pero también ha sido objeto de crítica. Este artículo revisa las principales críticas a la escala desde su publicación en 1997.

Diseño/metodología/enfoque

Se analizaron los artículos que utilizaron la escala de personalidad de marca de Aaker sin cambios o con cambios y los motivos de uso. Se examinaron los trabajos que evitaron utilizar la escala y las razones argumentadas. También se analizaron los esfuerzos realizados para comprender la personalidad de marca al margen de este enfoque. El análisis en profundidad de todos estos trabajos permitió sintetizar las principales críticas vertidas hacia la escala de personalidad de marca de Aaker.

Resultados

Las críticas a la escala de personalidad de marca fueron clasificadas en seis categorías - Definición, Dimensión, Metodología, Concepto, Palabras utilizadas y Capacidad de generalización. El artículo argumenta que algunas cuestiones como la definición, la comprensión conceptual de la personalidad de la marca y la metodología utilizada para desarrollar la escala requieren mayor atención por parte de los académicos. Por otra parte, los problemas relacionados con las dimensiones, las palabras utilizadas y la capacidad de generalización pueden atribuirse a razones evidentes como la cultura, diferente significado de las palabras en distintos países, etc.

Originalidad/valor

Las críticas e interés generado por la escala de personalidad de marca de Aaker no tienen precedentes. Han pasado 20 años desde su publicación y son muchos los investigadores han vertido sus críticas específicas. Sin embargo, en la literatura se echa en falta algún trabajo que revise todas estas críticas de forma integrada. Este artículo pretende cubrir este vacío en la literatura.

Article
Publication date: 1 March 2019

Sukran Kose, Pelin Adar, Ayhan Gozaydin, Lutfiye Kuzucu and Gulgun Akkoclu

Prisons, which are hazardous places for various contagious diseases, carry additional risks for HBV and HCV because of the communal lifestyle (common use of tools like…

Abstract

Purpose

Prisons, which are hazardous places for various contagious diseases, carry additional risks for HBV and HCV because of the communal lifestyle (common use of tools like razor blades, tattoo applications, intravenous drug use and homosexual intercourse). The purpose of this paper is to determine the prevalence of HBV and HCV, and also provide information for prisoners in this respect.

Design/methodology/approach

This study included 180 prisoners from the Buca F-Type Closed Prison, and 180 prisoners from the Foça Open Prison in Turkey. After the training seminars, serum levels of HBsAg, anti HBs, anti HBc total and anti HCV in the prisoners were assessed using the MICROELISA method.

Findings

All the prisoners were male. The mean age was 40(21–73) years. According to the results of 360 prisoners from both prisons, 17 (4.7 percent) prisoners were HBsAg positive and were diagnosed as HBV. Isolated anti HBs was positive in 33 (9.1 percent) prisoners who had been previously vaccinated. In 25 (6.9 percent) prisoners isolated Anti HBc total was positive, and in 61 (16.9 percent) prisoners both Anti HBs and Anti HBc total was positive in those who were considered to be recovered from the HBV. Anti HCV was positive in 2 (0.5 percent) prisoners; the process was repeated twice, and found to be repeatedly positive. Coinfection of HBV and HCV was not detected.

Research limitations/implications

In this study, the prevalence of HBV and HCV was determined to be similar to those in the normal population. However, it is not expedient to generalize this result and apply it to all prisons. For the sake of public health, prisons should be scanned for infectious diseases, and vaccinations must be applied as necessary, in order to provide protection.

Originality/value

It is a study to determine the prevalence of HBV and HCV in the prisoner population, which constitute one of the risk groups because of the communal lifestyle (common use of some tools such as the razor blade, tattoo applications, intravenous drug use and homosexual intercourse), and to compare the results with other groups in Turkey and globally.

Details

International Journal of Prisoner Health, vol. 15 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1744-9200

Keywords

1 – 4 of 4