Role of Relationship Norms in Processing Brand Information Journal Article Review

The journal article, Role of Relationship Norms in Processing Brand reading by Pankaj Aggarwal and Sharmistha Law, two pillowcases of kinships argon examined. The initial is the common human blood, in which headache for a partners indispensableness is paramount (Aggarwal & Law, 2005) and the exchange kindred in which a matched bene enclothe is swayed back from the partner. This deliberate explored the kind between business partners as being an exchange affinity and family members and friends as common.In the first see out of ternion, is about near versus remote-off proceeds extensions. To easily describe what is meant by this, the researchers comp bed a chair and furniture. A chair is easily accessed and has the greatest amount of feature-related information. Furniture is going from a specific item to a general direct. The subscribe was trying to draw that depending on the context, consumers have been establish to use harvesting features at unathe likes of levels of abstraction.The first hypothesis in the first study was, Comp bed to a communal alliance, when the norms of an exchange relationship are salient stack evaluate far extensions of a product poorly relative to near extensions (Aggarwal & Law, 2005). The method for this study was using 64 undergraduate students for the 15 atomic number 42 study. In the study they tried communal and exchange relationship norms purely as contextual constructs an examine their influence on a subsequent, unrelated decision test.Participants rent a brief description of the interaction with a nonher person think to manipulate one of the two relationships. The exchange relationship scenario used phrases such(prenominal) as keep things even, return favors as early as possible, and expect to reciprocate. In the C. Cox Page 2 communal relationship, the phrases were is there whenever they need her, does things to turn in she cares, and expects friends to be there for her. Participants then had to answer an open-ended doubtfulness that made them assume the role of the person described in the scenario and reconcile how to split a lunch bill with a friend.The result of this first study showed that the norms of relationship moderate to the degree to which far product extensions are seen as similar to the original product, as revealed by the differences in the evaluations of the product extensions across communal and exchange relationships (Aggarwal & Law, 2005). The findings suggest the salience of communal relationship norms are to a greater extent(prenominal) likely than exchange relationship norms to lead to tag information being processed at a higher level of abstraction (Aggarwal & Law, 2005).The snatch study was about measuring memory for crisscross information at different levels of abstraction. The purpose of this study was to prove if nation in both relationships were presented with abstract as well as more specific (or concrete) information about a steel, indi viduals in a communal relationship context would encode the abstract information, whereas those in an exchange relationship would at fly the coop relatively more to the concrete brand information. The hypothesis for the atomic number 16 study is separated into three parts.The first is relative to participants in the communal condition, those in the exchange condition impart show higher deferred payment place for correct concrete brand information and lower rates of acceptance of incorrect concrete brand information, the second, Relative to participants in the communal condition, those in the exchange condition would respond more belatedly when correctly identifying abstract brand information, and Relative to participants in the communal condition, C. Cox Page 3 hose in the exchange condition would respond more slowly when identifying slick inferences (Aggarwal & Law, 2005). The study had 56 undergraduate students. Participants were presented with one of the two relationships, the same statements as the previous study and a 12-item questionnaire. Participants were asked to read a 450-word description about a hypothetical clothes store. The reading contained concrete and abstract brand information. After the reading and a makeweight exercise, the participants completed a multiple choice recognition test.The questions tested for memory for the concrete brand and abstract brand. The results of the second study showed that participants in a communal condition, relative to those in an exchange condition, have winged access to both correct abstract brand information and plausible inferences, suggesting that they particularly attend to and elaborate on brand information presented at a higher level of abstraction. Participants in the exchange condition plain ask to construct the abstract brand information be relying on their knowledge of concrete information.Together, these finding support the overall premise that brand-related information is processed at a b road overall level in a communal relation, compared to an exchange relationship in which it is processed at a more detailed and nitty-gritty level (Aggarwal & Law, 2005). The third and concluding study was about generating brand features at different levels of abstraction. Study threes hypothesis was, Compared to consumers with an exchange relationship, those with a communal brand relationship will generate brand features at a higher level of abstraction (Aggarwal & Law, 2005).C. Cox Page 4 One hundred and 14 undergraduate students were used for the study. Students were asked to fill out a 15 minute paper and pencil study to act as a filler for an unrelated computer based study. Just like the first and second study, students were given a scenario to read. The difference between this study was that the scenarios described a relationship between a person and a product. After the students study the person and product they filled out a questionnaire about the product and how the pers on related to it.Students were then asked to rate to the extent to which the brand was like a close friend, a family member, a business person or a merchant. The study showed that the number of words that it took to describe the product in the reading did not make a difference in the communal or exchange relationship. The study did, however, show, the type of relationship with a brand in fact leads consumers to digest on different gestures that vary on their level of abstraction (Aggarwal & Law, 2005).The perceived brand quality did not fix the results since the students were asked to compare it to people. The findings in study number three were the same as in the first two, but were different in context. The results of the whole study found that when interacting with a brand, the type of consumer-brand relationship influence what information becomes salient. Hence, in an exchange relation, since the focus is on balancing the input and outcomes, people tend to focus on every detai l which results in impact information at a lower level of abstraction.In a communal relationship, the focus is on satisfying the partners needs quite an than the individual (Aggarwal & Law, 2005). C. Cox Page 5 CRITIQUE Studying relationship norms in processing information about brands in the field of psychology enriches our understanding of consumer behavior by letting us know how people process brand information when they are in certain relationships. The relationship does not mean a marriage relationship, but rather if they are with a friend, family member, business person or just someone they but know.This study was interesting because it let me know who are the people who actor the most into their brand relationships and who does not. The problems with this study are that the studies still need push investigation before everything can be fully understood. Boundaries are needed such as differences in brands to sincerely understand how the process is being thought through. Also, the study did use a control group, it was not ordinarily helpful within the study. The results found not difference in what was found previously. Time was also a factor that they did not seem to fit into the study.The study needed to find out if people in a communal relationship take a languisher snip to focus relative to those in the exchange relationship since the communal people are more concerned of others. The research in this study implies that people will think differently of brands depending in the relationship they are in. The processing time mightiness be longer, shorter, faster or slower. The way of someone see about someone else is also a factor due to not thinking of themselves. Managers could use the information given in the study to show different brand features, or use a brand cry for other products depending on the relationship.Pricing could also become an issue with relationships. Consumers in an exchange relationship might prefer itemized pay as you go methods while communal relationship people like it in a lump sum price. People could also figure out what type of relationship they have and how people look at them. Those people might C. Cox Page 6 be able to, in the long run, ensure continuous, smooth and more efficient interactions along with longer and more meaningful relationships. This study could be improved if they would have used a wider range of participants.Most undergraduate students would have a different view of a business relationship than someone who is actually in one. Also, everyone is everyones scoop friend at that age group so they may not appreciate the scenarios for the communal relationship. Although the study could have been called biased for those same reasons, it really was very fair and went smoothly. REFERENCE Aggarwal, P, & Law, S. (2005). Role of relationship norms in processing brand information. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), Retrieved from http//search. ebscohost. com. www. libproxy. wvu. e du/login. aspx? direct=true&db=ufh&AN=19141303&site=ehost-live.