Frank H. Alpert & Michael A.

Kamins

An Empirical investigation of Consumer i\/iemory, Attitude, and Perceptions Toward Pioneer and Foilower Brands
The authors' study provides the first survey-based approach for examining consumer cognitions, affect, and reported behavior toward pioneer brands. Prior consumer research on pioneers has largely focused on automatic learning effects that are based on order of exposure. An entirely different issue is whether it matters to consumers to know, years after the product's introduction when follower brands are also available, that a particular brand was the product pioneer. The authors test six hypotheses, focusing on this issue as well as on new consumer behavior explanations for pioneer brand advantage. They find consumers to have a positive attitude toward pioneer brands in general, which is partially explained by their favorable perceptions of pioneer brands. In addition, a similarity is found between pioneer brand image and individual ideal self-image, which suggests that an association or desire for consistency between the two may be another explanation for favorable attitude and positive purchase intentions toward pioneer brands. The authors' findings support the idea that a potentially enduring, relatively inimitable competitive advantage may be created by the act of "pioneership."

ecently, marketing literature has seen a substantial interest in the study of pioneer brand advantage (see, for example, the literature review by Kerin, Varadarajan, and Peterson 1992). Early research on this topic relied on econometric modeling and established data bases such as PIMS (e.g., Robinson 1988; Robinson and Fomell 1985; Urban et al. 1986), but recent empirical research has gone in new directions. A historical perspective (Golder and Tellis 1993) has been tried, but there has been a shift to using laboratory experimental designs to test consumer behavior sources of pioneer advantage (Carpenter and Nakamoto 1989; Kardes and Kalyanaram 1992; Kardes et al. 1993). A survey research perspective regarding consumers' cognitions, attitudes, and behavior toward pioneer brands has yet to be undertaken and is the goal of our study. The lack of survey research examining the sources of pioneer advantage from consumer behavior is puzzling for three reasons. First, pioneer advantage is said to be manifested behaviorally by the consumer as a preference for the pioneer brand. Psychological processes underlying this prefFrank H. Alpert is Associate Professor of Marketing, Department of Management, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Miohael A. Kamins is Associate Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, School of Business, University of Southern Caiifornia. The authors thank the editor and three anonymous JM reviewers for their helpfui comments on previous versions of their article. In addition, the authors thank Lars Perner, a doctoral student at University of Southern California, for computer assistance during various phases of the project. Finally, the ordering of the authors' names was determined by random draw, because they each contributed equally to the article.

erence have been discussed in the literature (Alpert and Kamins 1994; Carpenter and Nakamoto 1989, 1990; Kardes and Kalyanaram 1992; Kerin, Varadarajan, and Peterson 1992). Curiously, however, consumers themselves have never been directly questioned about their general cognitions, attitude, or degree of preference toward pioneer brands. Second, though an experimental approach has the potential advantage of establishing strong internal validity, the typical use of students as subjects raises concerns about the generalizability of findings in an area that directly addresses "real-world" phenomena. Indeed, Wells (1993), for one, urges more use of nonstudent samples for research on consumers. Third, a survey approach, at a minimum, provides an altemative perspective and, hence, convergent validity to the study of a phenomenon that has been traditionally addressed in the literature from other research perspectives (i.e., econometric models or experimentation). Our research fills this gap and, for the first time in the literature, investigates consumer memory, attitude, perceptions, behavioral intentions, and purchase behavior regarding pioneer and follower brands through a survey perspective. We designed the survey approach to be both descriptive and prescriptive in nature. The descriptive approach involves developing and testing an internally consistent set of hypotheses to assess cognitions, attitude, and behavior toward pioneer and follower brands in a structured and consistent manner. Regarding prescription, if consumers favored the pioneer brand because they knew it was the pioJournat of Marifeting Vol. 59 (October 1995), 34-45

34 / Journal of Marketing, October 1995

neer, then companies need to know how to take full advantage of that fact. Variations on one particular tactic, namely, communicating "pioneership" on the package labels, are tested for their impact on consumers. Background Competitive advantage, which accrues to the pioneer brand and led Scherer as early as 1985 to conclude that pioneer advantage is a general phenomenon, was initially explained through economic and analytical factors. More recently, in the marketing literature, various psychologically based explanations have been proposed to explain pioneer advantage. For example. Carpenter and Nakamoto (1989) propose a leaming theory explanation for pioneer advantage under conditions of ambiguity of product evaluation. They experimentally test the concept that, because it is the subject's first experience with the product, the pioneer brand frames a subject's perceptions of the product category and becomes the category prototype. This has the eifect of shifting the consumer's attribute preferences toward the attributes of the pioneer and results in a brand preference advantage. Kardes and Kalyanaram (1992) take an information integration perspective to the topic of pioneer advantage, showing, among other results, that subjects leam more about the pioneer than follower brands. This is because the pioneer, as the first entrant in the product category, has features that are perceived by the consumer as novel and attention-drawing. Hence, there will be more extreme (but generally positive) and more confidently held attitudes and beliefs about the pioneer than about follower brands. From a slightly different perspective, Kardes and colleagues (1993) find evidence for brand retrieval and brand consideration processes contributing to an explanation of the pioneer brand advantage, independent of brand evaluation. In other words, because of factors such as brand distinctiveness and uniqueness, the pioneer brand was found to be retrieved, considered, and selected with greater likelihood than the follower. Finally, in a previous study, we (1994) developed an integrative conceptual framework and propositional inventory for understanding pioneer brand advantage from a consumer behavior perspective. Among other hypotheses, we theorize that because of the pioneer brand's generally favorable image, the pioneer more closely matches the consumer's ideal self-image than the follower brand does. Our goals are twofold. First, we reexamine some of the traditional explanations for the pioneer advantage from a new and important perspective, the consumer's. Second, we extend the research in this area by empirically examining yet untested explanations for the pioneer advantage phenomenon. As Kardes and colleagues (1993, p. 62) conclude, despite early efforts, "relatively little prior research has examined the psychological mechanisms that contribute to the pioneering advantage."

Theory and Hypotheses

CognitionPioneer Retrieval We begin our investigation with Kardes and colleagues' (1993) finding that one route for pioneer advantage with consumers starts with a memory accessibility advantage. Drawing on work in memory and recall in psychology, Kardes and colleagues (1993) test their hypothesis that the pioneer brand has an advantage throughout the three stages of the choice process, that is, the universal, retrieval, and consideration sets. An important question then becomes: What factors influence brand retrieval from and incorporation into the retrieval set? Much research in the consumer behavior realm suggests that the accessibility of information in memory determines whether it will be used in subsequent information processing activities regarding beliefs, attitude, and behavior (Fazio, Powell, and Williams 1989). In a brandrelated context. Lynch, Marmorstein, and Weigold (1988) focus on the linkage between the accessibility of brand attribute information and its subsequent influence on brand choice. Relatedly, Herr (1989) shows that the accessibility of a category exemplar influences brand evaluation. Carpenter and Nakamoto (1987) and Alpert (1987) propose that the pioneer brand becomes the category exemplar. Consistent with this perspective, Kardes and colleagues (1993) note that both distinctive brands and brands encountered more frequently are more accessible from memory. The pioneer is distinctive, and, having been on the market the longest, may have the opportunity for the most frequent exposure in stores and advertisements. These factors led Kardes and colleagues (1993, p. 64) to test the hypothesis that a "brand should be more likely to be included in the retrieval set if it was the pioneering brand as opposed to the follower brand." However, a test of the unaided recall of actual pioneer brands by the general populace has yet to be attempted. Therefore, consistent with Kardes and colleagues (1993), we hypothesize: Hij,: Consumers will retrieve pioneer brands to a degree that is significantly higher than any other brand. CognitionPioneer Recall Another memory-related issue is whether consumers can consciously remember the "pioneership status" of brands; that is, can they identify which brand actually was the pioneer? Consumers may be able to remember the name of a brand that was the pioneer without remembering or knowing that it actually had this characteristic. However, because (1) pioneership is a distinctive psychological characteristic that is inherent to the pioneer brand (Kardes et al. 1993) and (2) the pioneer already benefits from enhanced leaming because of its distinctive physical attributes (Kardes and Kalyanaram 1992), we hypothesize that consumers will consciously remember pioneership status. Hn,: Consuniers will be able to correctly recall the pioneer brand in a given product category to a degree greater than chance.

Memory, Attitude, and Perceptions / 35

AffectPioneer Attitude Would it matter to consumers to know that a brand had been the pioneer? To answer this question it is necessary to make a distinction between conscious and automatic or involuntary consumer psychological effects relating to the pioneer advantage. Prior experimental research focuses on explanations that do not require consumers to be consciously aware that one brand is the pioneer. For example, category prototype status arises automatically from being the first brand experienced by consumers, regardless of whether they know it is the true pioneer. If there are such automatic pioneer effects only, then there would be little that companies would need to do to achieve and maximize the pioneer advantage. Simply being the first brand that the consumer is exposed to would be enough. This might be a tenuous potential advantage, though, because a fast follower brand with large resources could nullity it by reaching most consumers first through out-advertising a resource-poor pioneer. In contrast, benefits deriving from consumer awareness of pioneer status would be harder for competitors to take away, because illegitimate pioneership claims constitute false advertising. Such benefits would work through an entirely different process, based on favorable attitude toward pioneer brands. Overall attitude. Prior experimental research in pioneer literature comes to the general conclusion that attitude will be favorable toward pioneer brands (e.g.. Carpenter and Nakamoto 1989; Kardes and Kalyanaram 1992). However, these results arise from leaming effects due to the sequence of exposure without providing indication of pioneership and are measured within the period of the experiment (e.g., same day to several weeks). Will similar results of favorable attitudes toward pioneer brands be gamered by asking a representative sample of consumers? We hypothesize that American consumers recognize and react favorably to the construct of pioneership as it relates to brands, because, as a manifestation of innovation and progress in the product realm, it taps into core American values. (For reference on these core values, see, e.g., Schiffman and Kanuk 1991, p. 414; Yankelovich 1974; for application in advertising as new, modem, or improved, see Pollay 1985.) Furthermore, global attitude toward pioneer brands should be shaped by generally positive attribute-based perceptions of pioneer brands. Therefore, we hypothesize: H2: Consumers have a more favorable overall attitude toward pioneer brands than follower brands.

and innovation. For follower brands, however, a key belief is related to cost. Thus, a central issue is whether consumers will perceive pioneer brands to be generally more positive in key product evaluation attributes. Research by Hoch and Ha (1986) and Carpenter and Nakamoto (1989) imply that this is the case for attributes that are ambiguous or subjective in nature. For such attributes, it was found that simple heuristics, such as pioneer status, play an important role in product evaluation. We predict that attribute-specific perceptions toward the pioneer brand will be generally favorable and will emanate from a generally favorable attitude, with the generalizability of affect observed from overall attitude and attribute specific dimensions (Achenbaum 1972), perceptions that skill is required to be the pioneer, confidence arising from the pioneer having been in the category the longest, and generalization from prior positive experience with pioneer brands. H3: Consumers' perceptions of pioneer brands will be significantly more favorable on multiattribute subjective dimensions relative to follower brands. Pioneer image/Self-image consistency. Another potential explanation for the pioneer advantage is that of the pioneer image/self-image consistency. According to Rosenberg (1979, p. 7), the terms self-concept or self-image denote the "totality of the individual's thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object." Douglas, Field, and Tarpey (1967, p. 65) have even suggested that "self-image is man's most valuable possession and is the key to his behavior." From a theoretical perspective, two social psychological theories address the relationships between a person's selfconcept and his or her interpersonal evaluations and behaviorself-consistency and self-esteem. The central notion of self-consistency theory is that a person's actions, attitudes, and receptivity to information from others is strongly affected by a tendency to create and maintain a consistency with his or her self-image (Heider 1958). Alternatively, selfesteem theory assumes that the person has a need to enhance his or her self-evaluation and increase, maintain, or confirm his or her feelings of personal satisfaction, worth, and effectiveness (Hovland and Janis 1959). Both self-esteem and self-consistency affect and are affected by the person's behavior (Jones 1973), which in marketing applications, involves purchase behavior. Products and services have personality images just as people do (Tucker 1957). There is a research tradition in marketing that has produced results supportive of a relationship between self-concept and purchase decisions (Dolich 1969; Gmbb and Hupp 1968; Sirgy 1982). The underlying theme of this research is that product image interacts with the consumer's self-concept, thus, creating a selfimage/product-image congruity (Dolich 1969; Grubb and Hupp 1968). A person's self-concept can be divided into actual and ideal (Grubb and Hupp 1968) images. The person's actual self-image has been empirically observed to be less favorable then his or her ideal self-image (Dolich 1969; Grubb and Hupp 1968). Thus, consumers are said to purchase brands that fit either their ideal or actual self-concept

Multiattribute attitude. A traditional approach to

explaining overall attitude is to examine its multiattribute components. Empirically based research from the reseller perspective has found that global attitude favoring the pioneer brand over follower brands does exist and can be broken down into a multiattribute item set that reveals significantly more favorable perceptions of pioneer brands than of follower brands (Alpert, Kamins, and Graham 1992). A similar approach can be followed for consumers. A nonempirical study (Alpert and Kamins 1994) reporting on exploratory research regarding various attribute specific beliefs held by student subjects about pioneer and follower brands found that for pioneer brands, beliefs were linked to quality, status.

36 / Joumai of iUarketing, October 1995

(Dolich 1969; Sirgy 1982). On the basis of the prior discussion, we (1994) presented the proposition that a potential source of pioneer brand advantage may be linked to consistency between pioneer brand image and consumer selfimage. The population's generally favorable evaluation of the pioneer (see H2 and H3) is more likely to be consistent with a person's ideal self-image tban is the evaluation of the follower brand. In other words, people like to see themselves more like pioneers tban followers. Hence, H4: Pioneer brand image will more closely match ideal selfimage than will follower brand image. Preferences and Betiavior General preference. The previously discussed cognitive and affective advantages for pioneer brands should translate into a preference advantage. A preference advantage has been found in experiments (Carpenter and Nakamoto 1989; Kardes and Kalyanaram 1992) and econometrics (Robinson and Fomel! 1985; Urban et al. 1986). But never have consumers been directly asked if, all things being equal, they would prefer tbe pioneer brand. On the basis of the hypotheses so far, we propose: H5: Other things being equal, consumers prefer the pioneer brand both in terms of purchase preference and actual behavior ' It is important to note, though, tbat otber things are not always equal, and though tbis and other hypotheses favor the pioneer brand, we do not say tbat the continuing success of every pioneer brand is assured. As bas been observed elsewhere (e.g., Golder and Tellis 1993; Kerin, Varadarajan, and Peterson 1992), pioneer advantage is a complex multifaceted phenomenon, and the pioneer brand does not always "stay on top." Tbe effects discussed here can only be determinative when the consumer needs a reason to choose and tbere is no clear reason for bim or her to favor one of the follower brands (e.g., a follower may be favored when it alone has a preferred feature). In a parity products situation, tben, tbe pioneership cue may be enough to determine the purchase. Communicating pioneer status. As our bypotbeses predict, if consumers have favorable attitudes and perceptions toward pioneer brands, then a key managerial implication is that communicating legitimate pioneership in marketing communications, such as on packaging, sbould bave a positive impact. We test if, after product introduction and even into the growtb or maturity phase of a product's life cycle, it matters to consumers wbicb brand is the pioneer. If, as we expect, it does matter, then the next question is what is tbe most effective way to tell consumers wbich brand is the pioneer; tbat is, wbich word or set of words most effectively convey pioneer status? Kardes and Kalyanaram (1992) investigate judgmental mechanisms tbat support tbe contention that the pioneer advantage can be maintained over time, even when consumers are not consciously aware of which brand is tbe pioneer. In tbeir laboratory experiment, tbey find empirical support for their hypothesis tbat, over time, increased exposure to information about tbe pioneer (e.g., through press reports.

package labels) increases the pioneer advantage. Tbis finding is consistent witb predictions based on tbe mere exposure effect proposed by Zajonc (1968), tbat is, enhancement of an attitude toward an object is a result of repeated exposures to tbat object. Because the pioneer is in the market the longest, it has more opportunity for exposure tban follower brands do. However, we base tbe subsequent bypotbesis primarily on our prior hypotheses about tbe positive effect of the awareness of pioneer status. Thus, Hg^: Communication of pioneer status through labeling will have a positive impact on purchase interest even years after product introduction. It may be of interest to compare the impact of communicating pioneer status years after introduction with tbe impact of communicating it at introduction. At introduction tbe pioneer is unique, wbereas years later follower brands are also available. Hence, the impact of communicating pioneership sbould be substantially stronger at introduction and degrade over the ensuing years, though never disappearing completely. Indeed, by modeling time series data across 34 product categories of frequently purchased consumer goods. Huff and Robinson (1994) show that the pioneer market share advantage deteriorates over time as the number of years of competitive rivalry increases. They propose tbat tbis result may be because it is more profitable to sell market share tban hold on to each and every customer. Similar results of pioneer share erosion were found by Brown and Lattin (1994), who used time series data to model the relationship between time in tbe market and tbe pioneering advantage. Similarly, McKee and Varadarajan (1995) claim that competitive advantage may not be sustainable because of competitive action tbat includes tbe imitation and introduction of superior products and services. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hgi,: Communication of pioneer status through labeling has less effect years afterward than at the brand's introduction.

Method
Data Coilection Data were collected through tbe use of the Arkansas Household Research Panel, an omnibus panel of 560 households largely representative of Arkansas, which is operated by the University of Arkansas. The panel has been previously used in research published in marketing literature that bas appeared in such journals as the Joumai of Marketing (Darden, Darden, and Kiser 1981), Joumai of Consumer Research (Jackson, McDaniel, and Rao 1985), and Joumai of Retailing (Jensen and Rao 1988). Although panel data bas previously been criticized, Cburcbill (1988, p.2) favorably compares the "representativeness" of a continuing household panel witb data gatbered from randomly selected telephone samples. Tbe results sbow that population inferences drawn from tbe two data collection approacbes did not differ significantly. Tbis led Cburcbill to conclude that "marketing questions can be addressed very effectively througb controlled mail panels."

Memory, Attitude, and Perceptions / 37

Administration of the survey was handled by the Arkansas Household Research Panel staff. This involved mailing the four page questionnaire, sending a follow-up post card, receiving completed questionnaires, and performing data entry. Respondents were informed that the goal of the questionnaire was simply to measure perceptions and beliefs regarding several aspects of new products. Definitions of key terms were presented at the beginning of the questionnaire, using the subsequent wording: "the very first brand of a new type of product which comes to market will be called the 'pioneer' brand. All brands of that same type of product that enter the market after the pioneer brand will be called 'follower' brands." Respondents were instructed to mark the first response that comes to mind. They were also told that there were no right or wrong answers to the questions and results would only be reported in an aggregate form. A total of 366 respondents completed the questionnaire for an overall response rate of 65.4%.

place a checkmark beside each brand they had ever purchased. Categories were again sought which would have wide appeal, but were not "give aways" in which the pioneer brand name was synonymous with the category (e.g., Xerox). The categories chosen were wine coolers, personal computers, low calorie beer, multibenefit family soap bars, and color television. Affect Overall attitude. The measures of overall attitude toward the concept of a pioneer and follower brand (relevant to a test of H2) are consistent with Marks and Kamins's (1988) measures and are shown with all other attitude and purchase intention scales in the Appendix. The averaged score for the three bipolar items composing the scale indicates overall attitude toward pioneer and follower brands. The Cronbach's alpha intemal consistency measure for coefficient alpha (AQ) was .81 for the pioneer brand and .77 for the follower brand. Multiattribute attitude. Attitude toward the concept of a pioneer and follower brand was also measured on a component basis through the use of 16 bipolar general adjective scales that are essentially subjective in nature (to test H3). The adjectives were derived from three sources. First, because we were essentially measuring the attitude toward the product or brand, we selected items from the multi-item scale of that name in Marketing Scales Handbook (Bruner and Hensel 1992, scale #31, p. 82), which had been compiled from a number of published studies. Items relevant to the concept of attitude toward pioneer and follower brands were selected. Second, we used an exploratory study with 32 evening students at a medium-sized urban midwestem state university. The study used open-ended responses to examine perceptions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of pioneer and follower brands. Third, we selected some of the bipolar adjectives used for measuring self-concept in consumer behavior (Dolich 1969; Grubb and Hupp 1968; Sirgy 1982). These adjectives were required as part of a subset of items used to test the hypothesis regarding the consistency between self-image and brand image (H4) and needed to be flexible enough to make sense when applied to the images of both people and pioneer or follower brands. Culling our results from all sources, we arrived at a set of 16 bipolar adjective scales, measured on a scale of - 3 to +3 (see Appendix and the left-hand column of Table 1). The bolded scales are the ones also used in H4 to link self-concept to pioneer and follower brand image. The standardized Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the full set of 16 items was .78 when describing pioneer brands and .82 when describing follower brands.2 ^A factor analytic approach was undertaken to examine the unidimensionality of the set of constructs relating to global attitude, multiattribute component attitude, and purchase preference. In addition, a factor analytic approach was undertaken to examine the unidimensionality of the eight component scales that compose ideal self-concept. In both cases, results were indicative of unidimensionality and are available on request to the authors.

i\/leasures
Cognition Brand name retrieval. As a measure of the retrieval set to test Hia, respondents were asked: "Please name all the brand names you can recall that are associated with each category." Categories were sought that would have reasonably broad recognition and in which the pioneership was fairly well known during the product's introduction, though it now no longer dominates the market. Thus, a relatively strong recall of the pioneer brand's name could not be attributed entirely to its current market share. Five categories were selected: video cassette recorders (VCRs) (Sony lost dominance to Panasonic), disposable diapers (Pampers lost dominance to Huggies), video computer game systems (Atari virtually disappeared, and Nintendo later revived the category), microwave ovens (the early pioneership by Amana Radarange eventually resulted in its drop to a current seventh place market share), and clear cola soda (a recent categoryat the time of the study Crystal Pepsi was one of the most highly promoted and talked about pioneer products in the United States).' Respondents were also asked to circle those brand names that they had ever purchased. Pioneer brand recall. Respondents were presented a set of five brands, including the pioneer, in each of five product categories. To test Hn,, they were asked to identify which brand was the pioneer. To minimize wild guessing, a "Don't know" option was available. Respondents were also asked to

'There is often some controversy over which brand was the true pioneer Sony Betamax marketed the first meaningful home-use VCR. JVC was quick to follow with its VHS technology. VHS eventually captured the market because of their (1) two-hour versus one-hour tape length, (2) availability of a video camera, and (3) powerful partnership network (Nayak and Kettedngham 1994). Similarly, we maintain that Pampers was the first meaningful disposable diaper (the other contender, Chux, was not mentioned by any respondents). We believe there is strong support for the other pioneers cited here.
38 / Journai of Marketing, October 1995

Pioneer image/self-image consistency. The standardized Cronbach's alpha for the eight scales regarding ideal selfimage was .61. Because each subject evaluated pioneer and follower brands as well as his or her ideal self-image on the same subset of eight bipolar adjective scales (see bolded items in Table 1), mean absolute difference scores could be derived for the eight attributes. Evidence for H4 requires a significantly smaller summed absolute difference score for attributes between pioneer image and ideal self-image than for the same calculation for follower image and ideal selfimage. Intention and Behavior To test H5 and examine whether consumers have a positive purchase preference for the pioneer brand, they were asked if "other things being equal (e.g., price, quality), [the consumer] would prefer the pioneer brand." Consumers could respond to this question on a range of "Disagree very strongly" (-3) to "Agree very strongly" (+3). In addition, reported purchase behavior was examined using the previously discussed brand name retrieval and pioneership recall questions for each product category. Communicating pioneer status. To test the effects of communicating pioneer status through package labeling (Hg3_(,), consumers were given the subsequent two scenarios. They assumed they became aware of a product (1) within three months of and (2) many years after its introduction. They were then asked to what degree various packaging labels (i.e., "New," "Revolutionary New Product," "Introducing," "The First," "World's First," "The Original," and "The Pioneer") would increase or decrease their interest in purchase. The scale ranged from "strongly decrease my interest" (-3) to "strongly increase my interest" (+3). Only the latter four pioneership labels were meaningful for the second scenario.

Results
Cognition Brand name retrieval. H,j states that consumers can retrieve the pioneer brand's name to a degree that is significantly higher than for any other brand. We focus here on comparing the retrieval of the pioneer and the market leader's names. In general, our findings for the five product classes studied supported our hypothesis. Thus, for VCRs, the market pioneer, Sony, was mentioned in the free recall task by the greatest number of respondents, that is, 157 or 41.1% of the sample. The market leader, Panasonic, was mentioned by only 92 respondents, namely, 24.1% of the sample. A two-tailed pair-wise t-test revealed that the difference in frequency of retrieval between these two brands was statistically significant (t = 5.02, p < .(X)01). For disposable diapers, the pioneer. Pampers, had a significant retrieval advantage of 54.5% versus Huggies's (the market leader) 33.8% (t - 5.76, p < .(K)01). In the category of video computer game systems, Nintendo, the market leader, led all brands with a 37.7% retrieval rate. Atari, the market pioneer, had only a 15.7% retrieval rate, which was significantly lower than Nintendo (t = 6.87, p < .(K)01). For microwave ovens, the market deader. Sharp, had a retrieval rate of 27.7%, which was significantly higher than the 17% achieved by the market pioneer, Amana (t = 3.57, p < .(X)01). Finally, for the category of clear cola soda, the market pioneer. Crystal Pepsi, had the highest retrieval rate (36.1%). However, 7Up also achieved a 36% retrieval rate, which suggests the existence of category confusion. (Both are clear soft drinks, but 7Up is not a cola drink.) In summary, the results show that the pioneer brand was retrieved more than any other brand in three of five product classes, and was among the top four brands in all five categories. These results cannot be explained as reflecting current market dominance, because in only one of five cate-

TABLE1 Consumer Perceptions of Pioneer and Foiiower Brands on 16 Component Scales^

Scale Item Poor-High Quality Not Very-Very Distinctive Useless-Useful U ntrustworthy-Trustworthy Bad-Good Dangerous-Safe Expensive-Inexpensive Unimportant-Important Not a Status Symbol-Status Symbol Conforming-Unconforming Low Tech-High Tech Unreliable-Reliable Complex-Simple Dull-Exciting Unsophisticated-Sophisticated Inferior-Superior
response scale ranged from - 3 to +3. "Significance at .05. "Significance at .01. ""Significance at .001.

Pioneer Brand Mean 1.01 .95 1.19 .81 1.13 1.01 -1.43 .88 1.07 -.31 1.11 .89 -.43 .88 .71 .88

Follower Brand Mean .54 -.07 .87 .56 .71 .93 .19 .46 -.40 -.64
.54 .70 .15 .11

Difference .47 1.02 .32 .25 .42 .08 -1.62 .42 1.47 .33 .57 .19 -.58 .77 .59 .46

t-test of difference 4.27"* 3.24*** 8.54*** 2.34" 4.22*** .78 13.82"* 3.98*** 12.80*** 2.88** 5.48*** 1.80* -5.25*** 7.68*" 8.17*" 4.65***

.12 .42

Memory, Attitude, and Perceptions / 39

gories, was the pioneer recently dominant (Crystal Pepsi); and in two cases, the pioneer's current market share is small (Amana Radarange and Atari). Therefore, these results provide limited support for Hi^ and lend field support to Kardes and colleagues' (1993, p. 64) first hypothesis that "a brand should be more likely to be included in the retrieval set if it was the pioneering brand as opposed to a follower brand."^ Pioneer brand recall. Hn, states that consumers will be able to correctly identify the pioneer brand in a given product category to a degree greater than chance. Table 2 presents the findings for the five product classes. When tested against the results that would occur if choice was entirely due to chance (e.g., 20% of the five brands), the use of a one-tailed student's t-test revealed no significant difference for wine coolers (t = .37) and multibenefit family soap bars (t = -2.27). However, a significant difference was evident for personal computers (t = 7.27, p < .0001), low calorie beer (t - 9.09, p < .0001), and color television (t = 14.55, p < .0001). Overall, the findings show that for three of five product classes (i.e., personal computers, low calorie beer, and color television) the pioneer was identified by the consumer sample to a degree significantly greater than chance. This reveals limited support for Hji,. However, the data also reveal that for all product classes, the majority of consumers professed a knowledge of the true market pioneer whether or not they were correct. Attitude Overall attitude. H2 states that consumers will indicate a more favorable attitude toward pioneer brands than follower brands. Results support thiswith attitudes toward pioneer brands (mean = .84, s = 1.04) significantly greater than those toward follower brands (mean = .53, s = .95; t = 3.94, p < .0001). Multiattribute attitude. H3 addresses whether, on the multiattribute dimensions, consumers have significantly more favorable perceptions of pioneer brands than follower brands. Table 1 reveals that for 15 of the 16 attributes, a significant difference was evident from the measurements using a student's pair-wise t-test (the one exception was "safe"). Of these 15 significant differences, the pioneer brand was rated more favorably than the follower on 13 attributes: higher quality, less conforming, more of a status symbol, "goodness," and more distinctive, useful, trustworthy, important, high tech, reliable, exciting, sophisticated, and "superior." The follower brand, however, was perceived
applied a logit procedure to examine the relationship between recalls of the pioneer, market leader, and other significant brands for four product categories for our retrieval data. The results are presented in Table Al in the Appendix. For each category, we used a binary dependent measure that assumed a value of 1 if the pioneer was mentioned by the individual and 0 if not. The independent variables related to the market leader and every other significant brand in the category; they were similarly coded as 1 if mentioned and 0 if not. Finally, a variable called other followers was included as an independent variable representing a count of all other minor brands in the category mentioned by the consumer. The results revealed that for three categories, retrieval of the mar-

TABLE 2 Actual Purchase Behavior in Each of Five Product Categories

# and % of consumers who identify brand as the # and % of consumers who have purchased

Category Wine Coolers Sun Country Seagrams California Cooler* Gallo Sunshine Bartles & Jaymes Don't know Personal Computer Compaq Dell Apple* IBM MITS Don't know Low Calorie Beer Bud Light Miller Lite* Trommers Red Letter Gablingers Michelob Light Don't know

6 32 31 0 77 75 4 0 80 111 2 36 50 71 0 0 19 78

(4.2%) (21.9) (21.2) (0.0) (52.7) (2.0) (0.0) (40.6) (56.3) (1.1)

15 97 49 4 114

(5.7%) (34.8) (17.6) (1.4) (40.9)

4 4 33 94 0

(3.0) (3.0) (24.4) (69.6) (0.0)

(35.7) (50.7) (0.0) (0.0) (13.6)

96 115 0
0

54

(36.2) (43.4) (0.0) (0.0) (20.4)

Multibenefit Famiiy Soap Bars Spirit 8 (4.3) Ivory 96 (51.9) Lever 2000* 23 (12.4) Irish Spring 54 (29.2) Mennen 4 (2.2) 51 Don't know Coior Television Zenith Sharp RCA* Sony General Electric Don't know 53
2

62
188

97 146
1

(12.6) (38.1) (19.6) (29.6)

(1)

123
2

22 45

(26.2) (1.0) (60.9) (1.0) (10.9)

138 24 168 37 76

(31.2) (5.4) (37.9)

(8.4) (17.1)

*indicates pioneer status. aThese percentages reflect people who chose a particular brand as the pioneer. Those who indicated "Don't know" were not included.

to be significantly less expensive than the pioneer, as well as significantly less complex. The largest differences were found in perceptions of the product's distinctiveness. ket leader was associated with significantly higher retrieval of the pioneer brand. Recall of other major brands was significantly related to higher recall of the pioneer in only three of nine cases, but was never significantly related to decreased recall of the pioneer. Similarly, as more minor brands were recalled, recall of the pioneer was significantly higher in one of four categories, and there was no inverse relationship. Such results are consistent with a product class knowledge explanation for the findings; that is, the more knowledge there was of the product class, the more brands were retrieved. However, the pioneer and market leader are the most frequently retrieved of all. Perhaps these are the most salient of general types of brands in a category.

40 / Journal of Marketing, October 1995

TABLE 3 Multiple Regression Results Using Gentleman-Givens Procedure for Overall Attitude as a Function of 16 Component Scales
Pioneer Regression Coefficient -3.08 .509 .169 .031 -.175 .018 -.184 -.043 -.073 a a .520 a .469 .071 a .427 t-test Result -12.58"* 3.62*** 1.58 .21 -1.11 .11 -1.30 -.39 -.53 a a 3.50*** a 4.22*** .52
3

Scale Item Intercept Poor-High Quality Not Very-Very Distinctive Useless-Useful U ntrustworthy-Trustworthy Bad-Good Dangerous-Safe Expensive-Inexpensive Unimportant-Important Not a Status Symbol-Status Symbol Conforming-Unconforming Low tech-High tech Unreliable-Reliable Complex-Simple Dull-Exciting Unsoptiisticated-Sophisticated Inferior-Superior

Follower Regression Coefficient -3.83 .336 -.055 .027 -.238 .582 .131 .135 .042 .003 -.014 .206 -.422 .198 .178 -.117 ^

t-test result -23.73*** 2.73** -.57 .17 -1.56 3.81*" .94 1.46 .32 .02 -.12 1.69 2.83** 1.87 1.39 .89
a

2.35*

^Indicates variable deleted by Gentlemen-Givens procedure because of excessive collinearity. *Significance at .05. **Significanceat .01. ***Significance at .001.

expense, and excitement, as well as how much of a status symbol it was. Hence, H3 was supported. To examine whether these 16 component scales were linked with overall attitude for both pioneer and follower brands, a multiple regression analysis utilizing a GentlemanGivens orthogonalization procedure (Gentleman 1974) was used. Orthogonalization was used because of the existence of collinearity among the 16 attributes, which was detected by Farrar and Glaubner's (1967) test procedure. The attribute set significantly predicted overall attitude toward that brand (r^ = .398, p < .0001). The same set used to measure perceptions of the follower brand also significantly predicted overall attitude toward the follower brand (r^ = .528, p < .0001). The findings are presented in Table 3. Regarding the statistical significance of individual variables for predicting overall attitude toward the pioneer brand, the subsequent scale items had a strong enough relationship with attitude to stand out from the irreducible collinearity still remaining in the data after orthogonalization: a perception of being "high tech" (coefficient = .520), simple as opposed to complex (.469), high quality (.509), and an effect due to the degree that pioneer brands are viewed as superior instead of inferior (.427). In other words, when pioneer brands are perceived as high quality, superior, high tech, and/or simpler, they are liked noticeably more. The result with regard to "simpler" seems to reflect Rogers and Shoemaker's (1971) conclusion that the degree of complexity of an innovation can slow down its diffusion. For follower brands, results showed a significant impact from "goodness" (.582), quality (.336), and reliability (.422), that is, when follower brands are perceived as higher in quality, "goodness," and/or reliability, attitude toward them

improves noticeably (though the level of attitude usually remains below that of pioneers)."* Pioneer image/self-image consistency. H4 states that the pioneer profile more closely matches the subject's ideal selfimage than the follower brand does. This can be stated as | P - l | < | F - I | (i.e., pioneer minus ideal is less than follower minus ideal). The results of a paired comparison one-tailed t-test show a significant difference (t = 2.002, p < .025), with IP -11 (mean = 1.52) less than | F -11 (mean = 1.64) as predicted, which supports H4. Thus, consumers' ideal self-image is significantly closer to that of the pioneer than the follower brand. Preferences and Behavior H5 states that other things being equal, consumers prefer the pioneer brand both in terms of purchase preference and actual behavior. This hypothesis was initially examined using the purchase preference scale discussed previously. The use of a one-tailed student's t-test reveals a finding that was significantly more positive than the neutral opinion score of zero (mean = .65, t = 8.49, p < .CXK)1), which supports H5. Data regarding actual purchase behavior were derived from the brand name retrieval and recall data reported previously. Respondents had been asked to indicate which have also examined the data using a differences regression (i.e., overall attitude toward pioneer brands minus overall attitude toward follower brands) as the dependent variable and a rating of the pioneer minus a rating of the follower on each attribute as the independent variables. The results are consistent with Table 3, with quality, "goodness," superiority, and simplicity being significantly associated with greater pioneer brand advantage (i.e., larger difference in attitude).

Memory, Attitude, and Perceptions / 41

brands they had ever purchased. The data provide a rough complementary analysis to econometric studies on market share (e.g.. Urban et al. 1986) and PIMS data (e.g., Robinson and Fomell 1985), because they stem from a different data sourcea consumer survey. Table 2, column 4, shows that in no case was the pioneer purchased by significantly fewer people than the market leader, and in one case (disposable diapers), the pioneer was purchased by significantly more respondents. The pioneer. Pampers, was purchased by 18.6% of the sample, whereas the market leader, Huggies, was purchased by 10.4% (t = 2.51, p < .01). For VCRs, the market pioneer, Sony, was purchased by 4.4% of the sample, whereas the market leader, Panasonic, was purchased by 6%. However, this difference was observed to be nonsignificant (t = 1.00). Nonsignificance in purchase rates between the pioneer and market leader was also evident for video computer games (Atari 10.9%, Nintendo 13.1%, t = .69) and microwave ovens (Amana 7.7%, Sharp 6.6%, t = .57). Finally, for the category of clear cola soda, the market pioneer (Crystal Pepsi) had a purchase rate of 14.9%. Although this was significantly higher than all legitimate competitors (e.g.. Tab Clear), it fell significantly below the purchase rate of 24.3% for 7Up. This finding suggests that category confusion was again evident. In summary, for this set of results the pioneer brand was purchased more than any other brand in two of five product classes and was among the top four brands in all five categories. Similar results were found in the purchase data for brands in the pioneer recall data (Table 2, right-hand column). The pioneer brand was purchased the most in three categories, second in one category, and third in the other category. Taken together, these findings also suggest some support for Hjthe categories were chosen primarily because the pioneer was not the current market leader to provide challenging tests of consumer memory of pioneers. Communicating pioneer status. Because of the limited support regarding knowledge of pioneer identity across product classes, which was evident in the test of Hn,, the need to effectively identify the pioneer through labeling increases in importance. H^^ maintains that communication of pioneer status through labeling has an impact years after introduction. Results shown in Table 4 indicate that this hypothesis was supported for all four package labeling

terms examined (i.e.. The First, World's First, The Original, The Pioneer). Of the terms used. Table 4 shows that The Original was the most effective (mean increase in purchase interest of .64 versus next closest mean increase of .46). A pair-wise student's two-tailed t-test reveals that this mean difference is marginally significant (t = 1.76, p < .10). Thus, the current industry practice of using The Original more than other terms is effective. Consumers were also given the scenario in which the previous terms were on the package label when the product was introduced in addition to three altematives appropriate for that situation (i.e.. New, Introducing, and Revolutionary New Product). Table 4 shows that all terms had a substantial positive impact on purchase interest, and, in each case, the impact was greater than that of the same term in the "years later" scenario, as we predicted in H^^,. The significant point is the clear drop in the impact of pioneers status over time, though it does not drop to zero for any term. Also of note is how The Original remains almost as potent years after as it was at introduction.

Discussion and Conciusions

Our findings strongly suggest that consumers have positive attitudes (H2) and positive perceptions toward pioneer brands (H3). These factors, as well as pioneer image/selfimage consistency (H4) may help lead to positive behavioral intentions toward pioneer brands (H5). Results for retrieval, recall, and actual purchase tjehavior were somewhat less dramatic, though they were generally supportive: For three of five product categories, consumers retrieved the pioneer brand at a significantly higher rate than any other brand (Hia) and recalled the pioneer to a degree greater than chance (Hn,). Finally, in five of the ten product categories examined, the pioneer was purchased more than any other brand. Why, however, were perceptions, overall attitude, and purchase intentions clearly favorable for the pioneer brand, whereas the results for retrieval, recall, and actual purchase behavior were less so? The answer lies in a close examination of the measured constructs. Asking consumers to evaluate the global concept of a pioneer or follower brand (i.e., our measurement of perceptions, overall attitude, and pur-

TABLE 4 Effectiveness of Various Package Labels Identifying a Brand as the Pioneer^

A) At Introduction Label New Introducing Revolutionary New Product The First World's First The Original Ttie Pioneer Mean .77 .70 .72 .54 .64 .75 .72 S.D. 1.23 1.23 1.31 1.29 1.44 1.32 1.31 t-test Result* 11.72 10.66 10.39 7.78 8.28 10.57 10.39 B) Years After Introduction Mean S.D. t-test Result*

38 37 64 46

1.33 1.42 1.39 1.38

5.27 4.91 8.63 6.26

^Response scale was Strongly decreeise my interest (-3) to Strongly increase my interest (+3). *T-test versus null hypothesis of no effect (mean equal zero). All were significant at p < .0001.

42 / Joumal of Marketing, October 1995

cbase intention) is a concept-level question (i.e., pioneer versus follower). Hence, responses should reflect the general impression that consumers consciously have of such brand types (i.e., mostly favorable for pioneer brands and less favorable for follower brands). However, when asked for specific brand retrieval, recall, and/or actual purchase behavior in a given product class, the measurement was taken at the brand level, and the identity of the true pioneer was not provided. Thus, consumers needed to identify the pioneer brand on their own, which can result in the true pioneer's favorable advantage being conveyed to a brand that was misperceived to be the pioneer. In our study, respondents correctly identified the pioneer 37.2% of the time, but misidentified the pioneer slightly more often, 38.1% of the time (despite the option to choose "Don't know"). Thus, misperception of pioneer status is a serious problem that points to the pioneer's dramatic need to communicate its pioneership. The present study included a built-in test of various package labels that advertise a pioneer's first-entry status. The results suggest that years after product introduction, it is still effective to communicate pioneer status (Hg^). More pioneer brands should consider using the most effective term. The Original, to communicate their pioneer status. Doing so informs those consumers who are unaware, reminds those who are forgetful (24.7% of responses were "Don't know"), and clarifies the issue for those who have misperceptions (38.1% of responses). This is important for taking full advantage of the gains that can be available from pioneership awareness. In simpler language, the managerial implications of the findings can be summarized as, "Be first. Let consumers know it. Don't let them forget it." There is an additional implication from this study, which pertains to possible direct applications for H4 (pioneer image/self-image consistency). For example. Club Med, which pioneered the membership/all-inclusive resort vacation (Nayak and Ketteringham 1994), could have soon thereafter emphasized that the consumer who experiences a Club Med vacation will be a trailblazer, who is both creative and sophisticated. In addition, Chrysler has advertised, "We invented the minivan." A more effective communication strategy might be to emphasize a link between consumer self-image and Chrysler's innovativeness by focusing on the enhancement of the consumer's self-identity and self-esteem when using the product. Consistent with this suggestion, Chrysler could tout, "We invented the minivan so that you could invent new uses for it." In summary, our findings contribute evidence for new explanations for pioneer brand advantage (1) beyond that explained in the economics and analytical literatures and (2) beyond the key early leaming effects from the first studies on the consumer psychology of pioneer advantage (e.g., category prototype, shaping attribute preference structure, information integration, retrieval set advantage). The early consumer psychology sources of pioneer advantage focused on automatic leaming processes. Our findings support the existence of conscious pioneering effects based on positive general perceptions and attitudes toward pioneer brands that are attribute- and image-based. These findings help explain

the key managerial result that pioneer status can be of lasting benefit with consumers. The act of being a pioneer is more important than the status of having been one, as was indicated by the generally greater purchase interest for the pioneer at introduction than years later (Hg^). Again, we must emphasize that the merits discussed here (i.e., Hj to H5) should only accrue when consumers are aware of the category and know who was the pioneer. Limitations No study is without limitations, and the present one is no exception. A major critique of survey research in general is that people's responses may be made "on the spot" without prior thought involved. In this study, responses could be based on the meaning of the terms involved (i.e., pioneer and follower brands). In other words, there may be a demand effect from leading terms, such as positive connotations from pioneer and negative connotations from follower. Many precautions were taken to minimize biases, such as those mentioned previously and the use of semantic differential scales with a neutral point, which, thus, did not force a choice. Regardless, we argue that even if consumers are to some degree reacting to the terms pioneer and follower, the managerial implications are still essentially the same: Managers can tap into the positive associations with pioneership by prompting consumer attention to pioneership in marketing communicationsa successful tactic with package labels in our study. Because this is the first survey on these issues, further replication and extension would be wise before the findings could be considered definitive. In particular, consumer memory retrieval of pioneer brands and identification of pioneership are important issues for which additional sets of real product categories should be tested. A number of additional issues remain to be addressed in further research. For example, what is it about The Original that makes this term more powerful than other terms that communicate pioneer status (including The Pioneer)? Why do consumers misperceive pioneer status?what leads them to misidentify a particular brand as the pioneer? Finally, cross-cultural replication might find differing degrees of enthusiasm for pioneer brands on the basis of differing core cultural values toward change (e.g., the English are reputed to be more skeptical about change and the idea of progress). With the present research, we continue to leam what a mutifaceted phenomenon pioneer advantage is. Because pioneer advantage, though imperfect, is one of the few sources of major long-term competitive advantage, the challenge of understanding its full complexity is clearly worth our effort.

Appendix
Information About Scales Attitude. Attitude was measured both globally and on a component specific basis through the use of 7-point semantic differential scales. A^ for the overall pioneer attitude was .81, and .77 for followers. In addition, multiattribute attitude

Memory, Attitude, and Perceptions / 43

TABLE A l Logit Results Across Four Product Classes Product Class Video Cassette Recorders Market Leader (Panasonic) RCA General Electric Magnavox All Other Followers Disposable Diapers iMarlcet Leader (Huggies) Luvs All Other Followers Video Computer Game Systems iUlaricet Leader (Nintendo) Sega Genesis All Other Followers iMicrowave Ovens Market Leader (Sharp) General Electric Sears Panasonic Tappan All Other followers Estimated Coefficient 1.2521 .8314 .5783 .4620 .4058 1.2577 1.8674 .5989 1.5689 .7196 .2864 .4833 .4488 -.0296 .5710 -.0669 .0123 .1623 Wald's Statistic 19.7860 10.7659 4.5789 2.6928 11.1888 21.1339 27.5151 1.8374 17.8912 3.7535 .2936 1.8397 2.1936 .0099 2.3334 .0221 .0008 1.0009

Significance .0001 .0010 .0324 .1008 .0008 .0001 .0001 .1753 .0001 .0527 .5879 .1750 .1386 .9208 .1266 .8818 .9768 .3171

was measured with the subsequent 16 scales. For pioneer brands, A^ was .78, and .82 for follower brands. Finally, subjects were asked about their ideal self-image, using the subsequent bolded scales. A^ was .61. Overall Attitude. Subjects were asked: "Overall what is your attitude toward pioneer (follower) brands:" Extremely favorable (3) - Extremely unfavorable (-3) Dislike very much (-3) - Like very much (3) Extremely positive (3) - Extremely negative (-3) Multiattribute Attitude. Subjects were asked: "Please indicate your general perception of pioneer and follower brands on the following characteristics:" Pioneer (follower) brands tend to be: Poor quality (-3) - High quality (3) Not very distinctive (-3) - Very distinctive (3) Useless (-3) - Useful (3) Untrustworthy (-3) - Trustworthy (3) Bad (-3) - Good (3) Dangerous (-3) - Safe (3) Expensive (-3) - Inexpensive (3) Unimportant (-3) - Important (3) Not a status symbol (-3) - Status symbol (3) Conforming (-3) - Unconforming (3) Low tech (-3) - High tech (3) Unreliable (-3) - Reliable (3) Complex (-3) - Simple (3) DuU (-3) - Exciting (3) Unsophisticated (-3) - Sophisticated (3) Inferior (-3) - Superior (3)

Ideal Self-image. Subjects were asked to describe "The person I would like to be" using the previous bolded response items. Purchase Intention. Subjects were asked to indicate on a range of Disagree very strongly (-3) to Agree very strongly (3) the degree to which "other things being equal (e.g., price, quality), [they] would prefer the pioneer brand."

REFERENCES
Achenbaum, Alvin A. (1972), Advertising Doesn't Manipulate Consumers," Joumai ofAdvertising Research, 12 (April), 3-13. Alpert, Frank (1987), "Product Categories, Product Hierarchy, and Pioneership: A Consumer Behavior Explanation for Pioneer Brand Advantage," in 1987 AMA Summer Educators' Conference Proceedings, Michael Solomon, Susan Douglas, et al., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 133-38. and Michael A. Kamins (1994), "Pioneer Brand Advantage and Consumer Behavior: A Conceptual Framework and Propositional Inventory," Joumai of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (Summer), 244-53. -, and John L. Graham (1992), "An Examination of Reseller Buyer Attitudes Toward Order of Entry," Joumai of Marketing, 56 (July), 25-37. Brown, Christina L. and James M. Lattin (1994), "Investigating the Relationship Between Time in Market and Pioneering Advantage," Management Science, 40 (October), 1361-69. Bruner, Gordon C. and Paul J. Hensel (1992), Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures. Chicago: American Marketing Association. Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto (1987), "Market Pioneering, Learning, and Preference," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, M. Houston, ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

44/Journal of Marketing, October 1995

-and (1989), "Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneer Advantage," Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (August), 285-98. and (1990), "Competitive Strategies for Late Entry into a Market with a Dominant Brand," Management Science, 36 (October), 1268-78. Churchill, Veme B. (1988), "Leaming to Live with Continuing Household Panels," Telenation Reports, 1 (Summer), 1-8. Darden, Donna K., William R. Darden, and William R, Kiser (1981), "The Marketing of Legal Services," Journal of Marketing, 45 (Spring), 123-134. Dolich, Ira (1969), "Congruence Relationship Between Self-Image and Product Brands," Joumai of Marketing Research, 6 (February), 80-84. Douglas, John., George A. Field, and Lawrence X. Tarpey (1967), Human Behavior in Marketing. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc. Farrar, D. E. and R. R. Glaubner (1967), "Multicollinearity in Regression Analysis: The Problem Revisitied," Review of Economics and Statistics, 49 (February), 92-107. Fazio, Russell H., Martha C. Powell, and Carol J. Williams (1989), "The Role of Attitude Accessibility in the Attitude-to-Behavior Process," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (December), 280-88. Gentleman, Morven W. (1974), "Regression Problems and the QR Decomposition," Bulletin of the Institute of Mathematics and Its Applications, 10 (2), 195-97. Golder, Peter N. and Gerard J. Tellis (1993), "Pioneer Advantage: Marketing Logic or Marketing Legend?" Joumai of Marketing Research, 30 (May), 158-70. Grubb, Edward L. and Gregg Hupp (1968), "Perception of Self, Generalized Stereotypes, and Brand Selection," Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (February), 58-63. Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Herr, Paul M. (1989), "Priming Price: Prior Knowledge and Context Effects," Joumai of Consumer Research, 16 (June), 67-75. Hoch, Stephen J. and Young-Wa Ha (1986), "Consumer Leaming: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience," Joumai of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 221-33. Hovland, Carl I. and I. L. Janis (1959), Personality and Fersuasibility. New Haven. CT: Yale University Press. Huff, Lenard C. and William T. Robinson (1994), "Note: The Impact of Leadtime and Years of Competitive Rivalry on Pioneer Market Share Advantages," Management Science, 40 (October), 1370-77. Jackson, Ralph., Stephan W. McDaniel, and C. P Rao (1985), "Food Shopping and Preparation: Psychographic Differences of Working Wives and Housewives," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June), 110-13. Jensen, Thomas D. and C. P. Rao (1988), "Inflation, Consumer Adaptations and Retailing," Joumai of Retailing, 64 (Winter), 453-70. Jones, Stephen C. (1973), "Self- and Interpersonal Evaluations: Esteem Theories Versus Consistency Theories," Psychological

Bulletin, 19 0), 185-199.

Kardes, Frank R. and Gurumurthy Kalyanaram (1992), "Order-ofEntry Effects on Consumer Memory and Judgment: An

Information Integration Perspective," Joumai of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 343-57. -, Murali Chandrashekaran, and Ronald J. Domoff (1993), "Brand Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition, Consumer Choice, and the Pioneering Advantage," Joumai of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 62-75. Kerin, Roger A., P. Rajan Varadarajan, and Robert A. Peterson (1992), "First-Mover Advantage: A Synthesis, Conceptual Framework, and Research Propositions," Joumai of Marketing, 56 (October), 33-52. Lynch, John G., Jr., Howard Marmorstein, and Michael F. Weigold (1988), "Choices from Sets Including Remembered Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations," Joumai of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 169-84. Marks, Lawrence J. and Michael A. Kamins (1988), "An Investigation into the Use of Product Sampling and Advertising: The Effect of Sequence of Exposure and Degree of Advertising Claim Exaggeration on Consumers' Belief Strength, Belief Confidence and Attitudes," Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (August), 266-81. McKee, Daryl and P. Rajan Varadarajan (1995), "Introduction: Special Issue on Sustainable Competitive Advantage," Journal of Business Research, 33 (June), 77-79. Nayak, R. Ranganath and John M. Ketteringham (1994), Breakthroughs. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer and Company. PoUay, Richard W. (1985), "Measuring the Cultural Values Manifest in Advertising," Current Issues in Research in Advertising, 2 (1), 71-92. Robinson, William T. (1988), "Sources of Market Pioneer Advantages: The Case of Industrial Goods Industries," Joumai of Marketing Research, 25 (Febmary), 87-94. and Claes Fomell (1985), "Sources of Market Pioneer Advantages in Consumer Goods Industries," Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (August), 305-17. Rogers, Everett M. and F. Floyd Shoemaker (1971), Communication in Innovations. New York: The Free Press. Rosenberg, Morris (1979), Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books. Scherer, Frederick M. (1985), "Editorial: Post-Patent Barriers to Entry in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Joumai of Health Economics, 4 (March), 83-87. Schiffman, Leon G. and Leslie L. Kanuk (1991), Consumer Behavior. Engiewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982), "Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (December), 287-300. Tucker, William Thomas (1957), Foundations for a Theory of Consumer Behavior. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Urban, Glen, Theresa Carter, Steven Gaskin, and Zofia Mucha (1986), "Market Share Rewards to Pioneering Brands: An Empirical Analysis and Strategic Implications," Management Science, 32 (June), 645-59. Wells, William (1993), "Discovery Oriented Consumer Research," Joumai of Consumer Research, 19 (March), 489-504. Yankelovich, Daniel (1974), The Yankelovich Monitor. New York: Daniel Yankelovich. Zajonc, Robert B. (1968), "Attributional Effects of Mere Exposure," Joumai of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9, (June), 1-27.

Memory, Attitude, and Perceptions / 45