bs_bs_banner

Japanese Psychological Research doi: 10.1111/jpr.12055

2014, Volume 56, No. 4, 309–319

The effects of brand popularity as an advertising cue on

perceived quality in the context of internet shopping
JI-HERN KIM Sejong University

DONGWON MIN* Dankook University

Abstract: Brand popularity as a descriptive norm has been used as an advertising

cue by internet malls. It is based on the assumption that consumers prefer brands
with popularity claims because they perceive the popularity claim results from
superior quality. However, little research has been done on how popularity cues
affect perceived quality in internet shopping contexts. Particularly, the interaction
effect between brand popularity and price on the quality perception has never been
investigated. This research presents the results of two experiments showing that
brand popularity and price have an interaction effect on the estimation of sales, which
in turn influences perceived quality. Only when consumers believe that the sales
volume is high would the perceived quality increase. This research also analyzes the
manner in which brand popularity reduces consumers’ perceived risk in purchase
decision-making.
Key words: brand popularity, perceived quality, risk perception, price, internet
shopping.

Social norms that affect consumer behaviors
are classified into injunctive and descriptive
norms (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990). The
former (called “ought norm”) refers to what
most people approve or disapprove of, while
the latter (called “is norm”) refers to what most
people do. Most consumer research has focused
on investigating the effect of injunctive norms
on consumer behaviors (e.g., theory of rea-
soned action), and thus less is known about
the role of descriptive norms in consumers’
decision-making process (Magnini, Karande,
Singal, & Kim, 2013). Despite the lack of aca-
demic research, descriptive norms have often
been used by practitioners to influence con-
sumer behaviors.
In particular, it is a common practice for
internet malls to use brand popularity as an
advertising cue (e.g., “No. 1 in sales”). This is
based on the premise that consumers prefer
brands with popularity claims because they per-
ceive that proclaimed popularity results from
superior quality (Dean, 1999). According to
observational learning theory, consumers tend
to adopt the brands most chosen by their peers
because they believe the brand has high quality
and generality to fulfill most consumers’ needs
(Cai, Chen, & Fang, 2009).
Despite the widespread interest in brand
popularity, only a few studies have investigated
its effect on perceived quality, and the results
are also mixed (Hellofs & Jacobson, 1999),
possibly owing to the fact that past research has
used market share as an indicator of brand
popularity in offline shopping contexts. The
brand popularity that internet malls use as an
advertising cue has a distinctive aspect. Internet
malls usually select popular brands based not

*Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to: Dongwon Min, Dankook University, 126 Jukjeon-
dong, Su-ji, Yong-in, Gyeonggi-do, Seoul 448-701, Korea. (E-mail: dwmin@dankook.ac.kr)

© 2014 Japanese Psychological Association. Published by Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.
310 J-H. Kim and D. Min
on the market share but on their own sales.
Accordingly, the sales volume of a brand with a
popularity cue would differ among internet
malls. This indicates that the effect of brand
popularity on perceived quality needs to be
reexamined in internet shopping contexts. Fur-
thermore, internet malls tend to use both brand
popularity and price as advertising cues. Past
research, however, has considered only the
main effect of brand popularity on perceived
quality. Accordingly, the interaction effect
between brand popularity and price on per-
ceived quality needs to be examined.
This research has two objectives, in order to
shed new light on the effect of brand popularity
as a descriptive norm on brand evaluation in
internet shopping contexts. First, it aims to
examine the main effect of brand popularity on
perceived quality in internet shopping contexts.
Second, it seeks to analyze the manner in which
brand popularity affects perceived quality with
price.
Conceptual background
Brand popularity
Brand popularity can be defined as the extent
to which a brand is widely purchased by the
general public (Kim & Chung, 1997). It has
often been operationally defined as the market
share of a product (Hellofs & Jacobson, 1999).
Accordingly, past research has focused primar-
ily on analyzing the effect of market share as
an indicator of brand popularity on perceived
quality; however, the direction of the effect is
mixed (Dean, 1999).
Hellofs and Jacobson (1999) examined the
relationship between market share and per-
ceived quality for 85 brands across 28 product
categories. They concluded that market share
tends to negatively affect perceived quality due
to the loss of exclusivity and a congestion
problem. However, the authors also mentioned
that market share can positively affect per-
ceived quality when the exclusivity of a product
is not important. Furthermore, a high market
share leads consumers to expect a positive indi-
rect network externality. An indirect network
© Japanese Psychological Association 2014.
involves a virtual network (e.g., a network
of Chevrolet owners) rather than a physical
network (e.g., a telephone network; Katz &
Shapiro, 1986). Consumers are likely to believe
that a greater number of purchasers would indi-
cate a higher quality product, as the manufac-
turer would be forced to improve the product
by reflecting the feedback from many custom-
ers (Liebowitz & Margolis, 1994).
Dean (1999) used “most popular” as an
advertising cue instead of the market share and
examined its effect on perceived quality in
offline shopping contexts. Unexpectedly, the
popularity effect was found to be insignificant.
Based on cue utilization theory, the author
explained that the result may have arisen from
inappropriate experimental conditions. Specifi-
cally, participants may have had too much
knowledge and involvement with TV sets as
stimuli products. Thus, the participants may
have evaluated them based on intrinsic cues
rather than popularity claims as extrinsic cues
(Petty et al., 1983).
In this research, the construct “brand popu-
larity” is defined as the extent to which a brand
is popular in a product category offered by a
specific internet mall. The brand popularity is
proclaimed based on sales of a specific shop-
ping mall. Accordingly, despite the mixed
results of past research, brand popularity is
expected to positively affect perceived quality
in internet shopping contexts. First, unlike
market-share claims made in the total market,
popularity claims in a specific mall would not
induce the congestion problem. Additionally,
luxurious brands whose exclusivity is consid-
ered important are less likely to be distributed
through internet malls. Moreover, consumers
feel a greater risk when making a purchase
decision in internet malls than in offline malls
(Tucker & Zhang, 2011); hence, they need more
information to reduce the risk and thus use
both extrinsic and intrinsic cues (Richardson,
Dick, & Jain, 1994).
Taken together, popularity cues of low-
involvement products1 in internet shopping
1
A low-involvement product refers to a product that
entails a low risk in the decision-making process
 Effects of brand popularity on perceived quality
contexts can be used effectively to signal a high
level of quality. This leads to the following
hypothesis:
H1. Brand popularity as an advertising cue
in the context of internet shopping has a
positive effect on the perceived quality of
low-involvement product.
Brand popularity and price
The interaction effect between brand popular-
ity and price on perceived quality can be
explained based on two principles in Kelly’s
attribution theory: discounting and augmenta-
tion principles (Kelly, 1972). The two principles
address how individuals assess the importance
of a particular cause in explaining others’
behaviors when there are multiple potential
causes. The discounting principle states that the
importance of a given cause in explaining a
certain result is discounted if other plausible
causes exist. In contrast, the augmentation prin-
ciple holds that the importance of a given cause
is emphasized if the result occurs, despite the
presence of other inhibitory factors.
Both low price and high quality can be poten-
tial causes of brand popularity. If a product is
not a prestige good, price is likely to negatively
affect brand choice because high prices place
consumers at a greater financial risk (Shimp &
Bearden, 1982). In contrast, product quality
positively affects brand choice (Aaker, 1996).
As such, when consumers are exposed to a
popularity claim with a low price, they discount
the importance of good quality in inferring the
reason for the brand’s popularity. Besides the
high quality, a low price can be a potential
means of explaining brand popularity; this logic
is based on the discounting principle.
On the contrary, when consumers are exposed
to a popularity claim with high price, they would
place greater weight on high quality to explain
the reason for the brand popularity. Consumers
may perceive that a brand is popular despite its
high price because the product quality is over-
(Mittal, 1995). Consumers perceive that a low-
involvement product has relatively less personal rel-
evance and importance on their life.
311
whelmingly high; this inference is based on the
augmentation principle. Therefore, brand popu-
larity and price would have an interaction effect
on perceived quality. This leads to the following
hypothesis:
H2. The effect that brand popularity has on
perceived quality of low-involvement product
is greater when the price is high than when the
price is low.
Study 1
Pretest
Participants should not have too much knowl-
edge and involvement with the stimuli products
because they might not use popularity cues in
inferring the quality (Dean, 1999). Accordingly,
a multivitamin was selected as a candidate
product and was compared with a TV set in
terms of product knowledge and involvement
by 29 Korean students (18 men). Product
knowledge and involvement were measured
with three items (α = .86) adapted from a study
by Park, Mothersbaugh, and Feick (1994) and
five items (α = .91) adapted from a study by
Mittal (1995). All the measures in Studies 1
and 2 were scored on a 7-point scale and are
presented in Table 1. The scores on product
knowledge and involvement were 2.7 and 3.8,
respectively, which are significantly lower than
those of a TV set (M = 3.7, p < .001; M = 4.7,
p < .05).
To control for prior experiences, fictitious
names of a brand and internet malls2 had to be
selected (Keller & Aaker, 1992). Eight multivi-
tamin brand names, 10 complex mall names
for Study 1, and 10 category killer names for
Study 2 were assessed to determine which
was the most adequate: “VitaPlex” (M = 4.64),
2
Category killers refer to specialty stores, providing
consumers with a wide assortment of choices
within a specific product category. Complex malls
refer to department stores, dealing with a variety
of product categories and a narrower assortment of
choices within those categories. The necessity
of classification is described in the Discussion of
Study 1.
© Japanese Psychological Association 2014.
312 J-H. Kim and D. Min

Table 1 Operational measures and scale reliability values in Studies 1 and 2

Construct Operational measures Cronbach’s α
Study 1 Study 2

Perceived • Compared to other multivitamins, the advertised VitaPlex is a .83 .82

quality superior product
• The advertised VitaPlex is the best in its product class
• The advertised VitaPlex will perform better than other multivitamins
Product • How much do you feel you know about multivitamins in general? .88 .90
knowledge • How much do you feel you know about multivitamins compared
to acquaintances?
• How much do you feel you know about multivitamins compared
to experts?
Consumer For me, a multivitamin: .93 .93
involvement • is important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 is not important
• is of no concern 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 is of concern to me
• means a lot to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 means nothing to me
• matters to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not matter
• is significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 is not significant

“ItsMall” (M = 4.68), and “VitaIn” (M = 4.56)
received the highest scores, respectively.
To manipulate the price level, participants
were instructed to estimate the price of a
multivitamin in an advertisement that was
developed by using the selected brand and the
name of the shopping malls. The estimated
prices ranged from approximately US$10–50
(median = US$30), which was similar to the
real price range observed in internet malls.
Accordingly, we selected US$10.95 as a low
price and US$40.95 as a high price.
Methods
A 2 (popularity: present vs. absent) × 2 (price:
high vs. low) between-subjects design was used.
Ninety-seven participants (50 men) were ran-
domly assigned to one of four groups. “No. 1
in sales” was used as a popularity claim as it is
commonly employed by Korean internet malls.
Four different versions of a multivitamin adver-
tisement were developed, with variations in the
presence of the popularity cue and the price
level (see the Appendix).
Participants were instructed to imagine that
they were seeing the advertisement while shop-
ping in an internet mall. They were then asked
to respond to three items (α = .83) adapted
from Dean’s (1999) study to measure the per-
ceived quality of the multivitamin. Product
knowledge and consumer involvement were
measured as in the pretest. Demographics were
requested last.The measures are summarized in
Table 1.
Results
As presented in Table 2, the results of an
ANCOVA controlling for product knowledge
and involvement showed neither a main effect
of brand popularity, F(1, 95) = .45, p = .506, nor
an interaction effect between brand popularity
and price, F(1, 95) = .02, p = .897, on perceived
quality was significant. Therefore, Hypotheses 1
and 2 were not supported.
Discussion
Unexpectedly, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were not
supported. This might result from the wrong
assumption that consumers perceive the sales of
a brand with a popularity cue to be high regard-
less of the price level. If the perceived sales
volume is not high enough to infer high quality,
Kelly’s attribution theory is not adequate to
explain the brand popularity effects.
According to the anchoring and adjustment
judgment process, consumers might adopt price
as an initial anchor for the estimation of sales
and then slightly adjust the estimation based on

© Japanese Psychological Association 2014.

 Effects of brand popularity on perceived quality 313

Table 2 Tests of the effects of brand popularity and price cues on perceived quality in
Studies 1 and 2
Source Study 1 (complex mall) Study 2 (category killer)
F Sig. F p-value

Brand popularity 0.45 .506 0.29 .595

Price 2.79 .098 0.65 .423
Brand popularity × price 0.02 .897 2.72 .102
Knowledge 0.08 .774 0.14 .712
Involvement 0.02 .896 0.02 .876

a popularity claim (Wansink, Kent, & Hoch, hypothesis-supported manner. Consumers

1998). As the sales of a bestselling brand differ
among internet malls, price may act as an
anchor in the estimation of sales. This indi-
cates that the discounting principle would still
be adequate to explain the brand popularity
effects, but not the augmentation principle. Spe-
cifically, when exposed to a low price with a
popularity claim, consumers would believe that
the sales of a brand are high. Both low price
and high quality can be potential causes of high
sales. According to the discounting principle,
consumers discount the importance of good
quality when inferring the reason for the
brand’s high sales.
In contrast, when exposed to a high price
with a popularity claim, consumers might have
doubts about the sales of a brand. Because
brand popularity is limited to a specific shop-
ping mall, consumers may perceive that the
sales of a brand with a popularity cue may not
be high enough to guarantee high quality if
there are some inhibitory factors (e.g., high
price) on the high sales. Accordingly, consumers
would not place greater weight on high quality
to explain the reason for brand popularity;
this indicates that the augmentation principle
cannot be applicable.
In summary, consumers might estimate the
sales of a brand differently depending on
the combination of the popularity cue and the
price. That is, an interaction effect of brand
popularity and price on perceived sales volume
may exist (Kim, 1995). It can also be explained
by hypothesis-consistent testing in the anchor-
ing paradigm (Mussweiler & Strack, 1999);
people tend to interpret new information in a
might develop a hypothesis about the sales of a
brand based on the price level and then inter-
pret a popularity cue in a manner that confirms
their initial belief. Therefore, consumers might
perceive that a popularity cue means higher
sales when the price is lower than when it
is high. Only when consumers believe that
the sales volume is high would the perceived
quality increase. This leads to the following
hypothesis:
H3. The effect of brand popularity on per-
ceived sales volume is greater when the price
is lower than when it is high.
Past research on internet shopping has investi-
gated a way of reducing consumers’ perceived
risk for boosting purchases because consumers
tend to perceive online shopping as more risky
than offline shopping (Tan, 1999). The signal
of high quality through extrinsic cues may be
an effective risk reduction strategy, which
directly increases consumers’ purchase inten-
tion (Biswas & Biswas, 2004). Accordingly, we
need to examine how brand popularity as a
signal of good quality affects consumers’ risk
perceptions.
As mentioned before, brand popularity
would affect perceived sales with price.
Although consumers may estimate a high level
of sales, their perceived risk would not decrease
unless they believe that the sales result from
the high quality of the associated product. That
is, the impact of perceived sales on risk percep-
tion may be mediated by the perceived quality.
Extant research has shown that the sales

© Japanese Psychological Association 2014.

314
volume positively affects perceived quality
(Aaker, 1996; Jun, Huh, & Hong, 2003), which
leads to reduced risk perception (Tucker &
Zhang, 2011). This leads to Hypothesis 4.
All the above discussion is summarized in
Figure 1.
H4. Perceived quality plays a mediating role
in the relationship between perceived sales
volume and consumers’ risk perception.
Meanwhile, the effects of descriptive norms on
consumer behaviors can change as a function of
reference group tied to a normative message
(Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008). The
reference group tied to a popularity claim
might be different depending on the mall type,
as the characteristics of shoppers may vary
depending on whether the internet mall is a
category killer or a complex mall. Specifically,
the shoppers in a category killer could be more
knowledgeable about a specific product cat-
egory than those in a complex mall, because
shoppers in a specialty store have greater
expertise in evaluating category specific prod-
ucts than those in a complex mall (Dash,
Schiffman, & Berenson, 1976).
Moreover, shoppers in a category killer can
get useful information about a specific pro-
duct before making a purchase decision, as
more information tends to be shared among
shoppers through the board of a brand commu-
nity (Bickart & Schindler, 2001). Accordingly, a
popularity cue in a category killer may function
as an endorsement by knowledgeable shoppers
and may be more effective in signaling the high
Brand
popularity
Price
Figure 1 The research model.
© Japanese Psychological Association 2014.
J-H. Kim and D. Min
quality of a product than those in a complex
mall. To test this possibility, we need to retest
Hypotheses 1 and 2 with the category killer in
Study 2. If Hypotheses 1 and 2 are again not
supported in Study 2, external validity would
increase.
Study 2
Methods
One hundred and one Korean students (52 men)
participated in Study 2.The procedures of Study
2 were the same as those of Study 1 except for
using a category killer and measuring the per-
ceived sales volume and the risk. The perceived
sales volume was measured with the following
question:“How many VitaPlex do you think was
sold?” The risk perception was measured with
three items of physical risk (α = .93), adapted
from a study by Jacoby and Kaplan (1972). This
was because physical risk, out of the five risk
components (i.e., financial, performance, physi-
cal, psychological, and social risk), was the most
highly related to the purchase intention regard-
ing vitamins (Jacoby & Kaplan, 1972).
Results
Hypotheses 1 and 2 were again not supported
(Table 2). As presented in Table 3, however,
ANCOVA, by controlling for product knowl-
edge and involvement, indicated that the
interaction effect between brand popularity
and price on perceived sales volume was sig-
nificant, F(1, 99) = 4.64, p < .05. Accordingly,
Perceived
quality
Perceived Risk
sales volume perception
 Effects of brand popularity on perceived quality 315

Table 3 Tests of the effects of brand t = 4.42, p < .001) while other independent vari-
popularity and price cues on perceived ables had no impact on it. Therefore, brand
sales volume in Study 2 popularity and price have an interaction effect
Source F p-value on the perceived sales volume, which in turn
influences the perceived quality.
Brand popularity 17.44 <.001
Price 21.68 <.001 To confirm that the effect of perceived sales
Brand popularity × price 4.64 .034 volume on risk perception was mediated by
Knowledge 1.02 .315 perceived quality, regression analyses were con-
Involvement 0.12 .729 ducted three times (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
First, perceived sales volume had a marginally
significant effect on risk perception (β = −.16,
Table 4 Averages of perceived sales t = −1.66, p < .1). Second, the effect of perceived
volume depending on brand popularity and sales volume on perceived quality was signifi-
price in Study 2 cant (β = .38, t = 4.12, p < .001). Finally, the
Brand popularity Price M SD effect of perceived sales volume on risk percep-
tion after controlling for perceived quality
Absent Low 3.56 0.92
High 3.00 0.00
was no longer significant (β = −.08, t = −0.73,
Total 3.28 0.99 p = .465). Perceived quality had a significant
Present Low 4.96 1.14 effect on risk perception (β = −.23, t = −2.18,
High 3.46 1.24 p < .05). Accordingly, the impact of perceived
Total 4.20 1.40 sales volume on risk perception was fully medi-
Total Low 4.26 1.24 ated by perceived quality (marginally signifi-
High 3.24 1.14
cant: Sobel z = −1.92, p = .055). Accordingly,
Total 3.74 1.29
Hypothesis 4 was supported.
Although it is not hypothesized, in order to
see whether the effect of brand popularity on
Hypothesis 3 was supported.3 The average of
brand evaluation can change depending on the
perceived sales volume depending on the brand
mall type, we asked each participant to answer
popularity and price is summarized in Table 4.
the following question in Studies 1 and 2: “The
Moreover, multiple regression analysis was
shoppers in ItsMall (or VitaIn) have a great
used to see if perceived sales volume positively
deal of knowledge about a multivitamin.” Shop-
affects perceived quality. Perceived quality was
pers in category killers were perceived to be
regressed against the perceived sales volume,
more knowledgeable about a multivitamin
price, product knowledge, and involvement.
than those in complex malls, but the difference
The result showed that perceived sales volume
was not statistically significant (M = 3.82, M =
positively influenced perceived quality (β = .30,
3.48; t = 1.50, p = .135). Moreover, the interac-
tion effect between the mall type and brand
popularity on perceived quality was not signifi-
3
This may be interpreted with another explanation. cant, F(1, 196) = .03, p = .873.
According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model,
extrinsic cues such as a popularity cue tend to
affect consumers’ information processing in low- Discussion
involvement situation than in high involvement situ- The findings of Study 2 demonstrate that brand
ation (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). Low popularity does not directly affect perceived
price may be related to low involvement. This indi-
cates that participants in the low-price condition quality with price, whether the mall is a
may consider a popularity claim to be more impor- complex mall or a category killer. Brand popu-
tant than those in the high-price condition. However, larity and price have an interaction effect on
a statistical difference was not found in involvement
the perceived sales volume, which in turn influ-
depending on the price level (ML = 3.94, MH = 4.24,
p = .245). We appreciate an anonymous reviewer ences perceived quality. The perceived quality
for this insightful comment. increases only when consumers believe that the

© Japanese Psychological Association 2014.

316 J-H. Kim and D. Min

sales volume is high based on the combination sumer behaviors. Cialdini et al. (1990) argued
of brand popularity and price. Moreover, the that when examining the normative influence
impact of perceived sales volume on risk per- on human behaviors, it is necessary to classify
ception was mediated by perceived quality. This social norms into injunctive and descriptive
indicates how brand popularity as an advertis- norms. The two types of norms seem to be con-
ing cue can reduce the risk in internet shopping fusing, as what most people approve is what
contexts. most people do. However, each norm involves
a different source of motivation (Cialdini et al.,
2006). The injunctive norm concerns rules or
General discussion regulations, according to which behavior is
approved or disapproved. Accordingly, a moti-
Theoretical and practical implications
vational source of injunctive norm is a social
The findings of this research have a number of
sanction. In contrast, descriptive norms concern
important theoretical implications. First, this
the statement regarding typical behaviors.
research is one of the first to examine how the
People use it as a decisional shortcut based on a
“No. 1 in sales” cue functions with price as a
belief that what most people do is a sensible
signal of quality in internet shopping contexts.
thing to do (Cialdini et al., 1990). Accordingly,
The findings of past research reveal that brand
the motivational source of descriptive norms is
popularity in general has a negative or insignifi-
an efficient form of information processing.
cant effect on perceived quality (Hellofs &
Although each norm affects human behav-
Jacobson, 1999). In previous literature, market
iors in a different way, most consumer research
share has often been used as a popularity cue,
has mainly focused on the injunctive norm
and the interaction effect between brand popu-
rather than the descriptive norm. After the
larity and price has not been considered. The
theory of reasoned action was introduced
popularity claims by internet malls have a dis-
by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), the injunctive
tinctive aspect. A popularity cue claimed in the
norm has been the focus of consumer attitude-
limited context of an internet mall does not
behavior research as it explains the weak cor-
produce consumer concerns regarding the con-
relations between attitude and behavior (Hale,
gestion problem. Moreover, the popularity
Householder, & Greene, 2002, p. 259). Only a
claim usually does not include detailed data on
few studies have focused on the descriptive
sales; thus, the sales volume that consumers
norm in order to help nonprofit organizations
estimate is not fixed. That is, the perceived sales
with public campaigns. The findings of these
volume varies depending on the combination of
studies show that the messages conveying the
the popularity cue and the price level. Accord-
descriptive norm could be effective in persuad-
ingly, perceived quality can change depending
ing people not to engage in undesirable behav-
on whether consumers believe that the sales
iors such as tax cheating, littering, smoking, and
volume is low or high. Only when consumers
drug abuse (Cialdini, 2003; Cialdini &
believe that the sales volume is high would the
Goldstein, 2004; Kallgren, Reno, & Cialdini,
perceived quality increase.4
2000; Schultz, 1999).
Second, it extends the scope of previous
This research examines how the descriptive
studies on the effects of social norms on con-
norm affects brand evaluation in commercial
advertising contexts by internet malls as profit
4
This argument is consistent with the results of an organizations. The findings of this research
additional experiment. It reveals that the “No. 1 in
sales” cue has more influence on perceived quality show that the descriptive norm (i.e., popularity
than the “Hit product” cue (M = 4.84, M = 4.33, claim) could be used as a persuasive message
F(1, 57) = 3.34, p < .1), although the difference is in commercial advertisements as well as in
marginally significant. The participants exposed to
public campaigns. Furthermore, according to
the former cue were found to perceive a multivita-
min was sold more than those exposed to the latter Goldstein et al.’s (2008) argument, this research
cue (M = 5.13, M = 4.59, F(1, 57) = 3.47, p < .1). examines whether a reference group tied to

© Japanese Psychological Association 2014.

 Effects of brand popularity on perceived quality
brand popularity affects consumer behaviors.
The shoppers in a category killer are assumed to
be more knowledgeable about a specific product
category than those in a complex mall. However,
this assumption was found to be wrong; that is,
the interaction effect between brand popularity
and the mall type on perceived quality was not
significant. This indicates that Goldstein et al.’s
(2008) argument needs to be approached with
more caution.
Next, this research investigates how observa-
tional learning affects brand evaluation in inter-
net shopping contexts. Observational learning
has to be distinguished from social learning
(Cai et al., 2009); the former involves learn-
ing from observing other consumers’ actual
purchase behavior, regardless of time, space,
and social connection among individuals, while
the latter concerns learning from sharing opin-
ions directly and personally with other consum-
ers. Accordingly, time and temporal proximity
among consumers are more important in social
learning than in observation learning. Although
extant research has focused on examining
how social learning (e.g., word of mouth)
affects internet shoppers’ behaviors, observa-
tion learning (e.g., sales information) has not
been often addressed (Chen, Wang, & Xie,
2011). This research reveals how observational
learning from a popularity cue affects perceived
quality and risk.
This research could also provide practitio-
ners with important managerial insights. It pro-
vides evidence for the recent trend of using
brand popularity as an advertisement cue in
internet malls. It is confirmed that a popularity
cue can be utilized as an extrinsic cue to signal
the quality of a product. However, internet
malls should be cautious when using brand
popularity as an advertisement cue. According
to the findings of this research, consumers are
not likely to perceive that a brand is truly
popular when a popularity cue is paired with a
product that has a high price. In this case,
brand popularity cannot function well as an
indicator of the product quality. Conversely,
when a popularity cue is paired with a product
that has a low price, the perceived sales volume
increases, which in turn positively affects the
317
perceived quality. Therefore, a solution may be
that a popularity claim includes a hard number
when it is presented with a high price. Thus, the
possibility of underestimating the popularity is
expected to reduce.
Limitations and future research
This research has five major shortcomings that
need to be addressed in future research. First,
the price was manipulated at only two levels:
high and low. The medium-priced brand with a
popularity cue was not considered. Perceived
sales may be higher when the price is moderate
than when it is low because an extremely low
price can signal that the product quality is too
poor for usage. Future research should consider
the interaction effects between brand popu-
larity and different levels of price on quality
perceptions.
Second, this research considers only price as
an extrinsic cue affecting perceived quality with
brand popularity. There could be other extrinsic
cues that consumers may use in internet shop-
ping contexts. For example, store reputation
(e.g., awards from neutral sources) may poten-
tially influence perceived quality and risk per-
ception (Biswas & Biswas, 2004).
Third, manipulation checks on brand popu-
larity and price were not conducted in Studies 1
and 2. Although the advertisement was devel-
oped based on the results of the pretest, partici-
pants in the main tests might have responded
differently to the stimuli.
Fourth, this research did not measure and
include the construct “purchase intention” in
the research model despite its importance in
internet shopping contexts. The perceived
quality may not lead to purchase intention
directly. To address this issue, this research con-
sidered “risk perception” as a dependent vari-
able as it directly affects purchase intention in
internet shopping contexts (Biswas & Biswas,
2004). However, in order to make our conclu-
sion more convincing, the purchase intention
needs to be included as a dependent variable in
the research model.
Finally, we should be cautious to generalize
the findings of this research because only a
limited number of product categories and
© Japanese Psychological Association 2014.
318 J-H. Kim and D. Min
internet malls were explored. Particularly as
hypothetical products and malls were used, con-
cerns about the realism of the study are raised.
Future research should replicate this research
with a variety of products and samples, using
real names to increase the external validity.
References
Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York:
The Free Press.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-
mediator variable distinction in social psycho-
logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. (2001). Internet forums as
influential sources of consumer information.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, 31–40.
Biswas, D., & Biswas, A. (2004). The diagnostic
role of signals in the context of perceived risks
in online shopping: Do signals matter more on
the web? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18,
30–45.
Cai, H., Chen, Y., & Fang, H. (2009). Observational
learning: Evidence from a randomized natural
field experiment. American Economic Review,
99, 864–882.
Chen, Y., Wang, Q. I., & Xie, J. (2011). Online social
interactions: A natural experiment on word of
mouth versus observational learning. Journal of
Marketing Research, 48, 238–254.
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to
protect the environment. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 12, 105–109.
Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett,
D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L. (2006). Man-
aging social norms for persuasive impact. Social
Influence, 1, 3–15.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influ-
ence: Compliance and conformity. Annual
Review of Psychology, 55, 591–622.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990).
A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling
the concept of norms to reduce littering in public
places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 58, 1015–1026.
Dash, J., Schiffman, L., & Berenson, C. (1976). Risk-
and personality-related dimensions of store
choice. Journal of Marketing, 40, 32–39.
Dean, D. (1999). Brand endorsement, popularity, and
event sponsorship as advertising cues affecting
consumer pre-purchase attitudes. Journal of
Advertising, 28, 1–12.
© Japanese Psychological Association 2014.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, inten-
tion, and behavior: An introduction to theory and
research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V.
(2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social
norms to motivate environmental conservation
in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472–
482.
Hale, J. L., Householder, B. J., & Greene, K. L. (2002).
The theory of reasoned action. In J. P. Dillard &
M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Devel-
opments in theory and practice (pp. 259–286).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hellofs, L. L., & Jacobson, R. (1999). Market share
and customers’ perception of quality: When can
firms grow their way to higher versus lower
quality. Journal of Marketing, 63, 16–25.
Jacoby, J., & Kaplan, L. (1972). The components
of perceived risk. In M. Venkatesan (Ed.), Pro-
ceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the
Association for Consumer Research (pp. 382–
393). Chicago, IL: Association for Consumer
Research.
Jun, S. Y., Huh, J. H., & Hong, S. M. (2003). The effects
of the types of brand performance information
on brand equity. Journal of Korean Marketing
Association, 18, 1–19.
Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000).
A focus theory of normative conduct: When
norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality
and Social Psychological Bulletin, 26, 1002–1012.
Katz, M., & Shapiro, C. (1986). Technology adoption
in the presence of network externalities. Journal
of Political Economy, 94, 822–841.
Keller, K., & Aaker, D. (1992). The effects of sequen-
tial introduction of brand extensions. Journal of
Marketing Research, 29, 35–50.
Kelly, H. (1972). Causal schemata and the attribution
process. New York: General Learning Press.
Kim, C. K. (1995). Brand popularity and country
image in global competition: Managerial impli-
cations. Journal of Product and Brand Manage-
ment, 4, 21–33.
Kim, C. K., & Chung, J. Y. (1997). Brand popularity,
country image and market share: An empirical
study. Journal of International Business Studies,
28, 361–386.
Liebowitz, S., & Margolis, S. (1994). Network exter-
nality: An uncommon tragedy. Journal of Eco-
nomic Perspectives, 8, 133–150.
Magnini, V. P., Karande, K., Singal, M., & Kim, D.
(2013). The effect of brand popularity statements
on consumers’ purchase intentions: The role of
instrumental attitudes toward the act. Interna-
tional Journal of Hospitality Management, 34,
160–168.
 Effects of brand popularity on perceived quality 319

Mittal, B. (1995). Comparative analysis of four scales
of involvement. Psychology and Marketing, 12,
663–682.
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-
consistent testing and semantic priming in the
anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility
model. Journal of Experiment Social Psychology,
35, 136–164.
Park, C., Mothersbaugh, D., & Feick, L. (1994).
Consumer knowledge assessment. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21, 71–82.
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J., & Schumann, D. (1983).
Central and peripheral routes to advertising
effectiveness: The moderating role of involve-
ment. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–
145.
Richardson, P., Dick, A., & Jain, A. (1994). Extrinsic
and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of
store brand quality. Journal of Marketing, 58,
28–36.
Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with norma-
tive feedback interventions: A field experiment
on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 21, 25–38.
Shimp, T., & Bearden, W. (1982). Warranty and
other extrinsic cue effects on consumers’ risk
perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9,
38–46.
Tan, S. (1999). Strategies for reducing consumers’ risk
aversion in Internet shopping. Journal of Con-
sumer Marketing, 16, 163–178.
Tucker, C., & Zhang, J. (2011). How does popularity
information affect choices? A field experiment.
Management Science, 57, 828–842.
Wansink, B., Kent, R. J., & Hoch, S. J. (1998). An
anchoring and adjustment model of purchase
quality decisions. Journal of Marketing Research,
35, 71–81.
(Received April 25, 2013; accepted March 8, 2014)

Appendix

Example of advertisements

No.1 in sales

• 29 Multivitamin & Mineral Supplement for 90 Days

• Safe, Gentle and Natural Nutrition

Chewable
• Meet the Recommended Daily Intake of Vitamins
Dietary Supplement
• Take Two Chewable Capsules Daily without Water

Multivitamin
180
Tabs
Artificial Flavors
NO Artificial Color 90
days
Artificial Preservative

Note: Four versions of advertisements were developed according to the combination of brand
popularity and price.

© Japanese Psychological Association 2014.