Frank H. Alpert & Michael A. Kamins

An Empirical investigation ofConsumer i\/iemory, Attitude, andPerceptions Toward Pioneer and

Foilower BrandsThe authors' study provides the first survey-based approach for examining consumer cognitions, affect, and report-ed behavior toward pioneer brands. Prior consumer research on pioneers has largely focused on automatic learn-ing effects that are based on order of exposure. An entirely different issue is whether it matters to consumers toknow, years after the product's introduction when follower brands are also available, that a particular brand was theproduct pioneer. The authors test six hypotheses, focusing on this issue as well as on new consumer behaviorexplanations for pioneer brand advantage. They find consumers to have a positive attitude toward pioneer brandsin general, which is partially explained by their favorable perceptions of pioneer brands. In addition, a similarity isfound between pioneer brand image and individual ideal self-image, which suggests that an association or desirefor consistency between the two may be another explanation for favorable attitude and positive purchase intentionstoward pioneer brands. The authors' findings support the idea that a potentially enduring, relatively inimitable com-petitive advantage may be created by the act of "pioneership."

R ecently, marketing literature has seen a substantialinterest in the study of pioneer brand advantage (see,for example, the literature review by Kerin,

Varadarajan, and Peterson 1992). Early research on thistopic relied on econometric modeling and established databases such as PIMS (e.g., Robinson 1988; Robinson andFomell 1985; Urban et al. 1986), but recent empiricalresearch has gone in new directions. A historical perspective(Golder and Tellis 1993) has been tried, but there has been ashift to using laboratory experimental designs to test con-sumer behavior sources of pioneer advantage (Carpenter andNakamoto 1989; Kardes and Kalyanaram 1992; Kardes etal. 1993). A survey research perspective regarding con-sumers' cognitions, attitudes, and behavior toward pioneerbrands has yet to be undertaken and is the goal of our study.

The lack of survey research examining the sources ofpioneer advantage from consumer behavior is puzzling forthree reasons. First, pioneer advantage is said to be mani-fested behaviorally by the consumer as a preference for thepioneer brand. Psychological processes underlying this pref-

Frank H. Alpert is Associate Professor of Marketing, Department ofManagement, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.Miohael A. Kamins is Associate Professor of Marketing, Department ofMarketing, School of Business, University of Southern Caiifornia. Theauthors thank the editor and three anonymous JM reviewers for their help-fui comments on previous versions of their article. In addition, the authorsthank Lars Perner, a doctoral student at University of Southern California,for computer assistance during various phases of the project. Finally, theordering of the authors' names was determined by random draw, becausethey each contributed equally to the article.

erence have been discussed in the literature (Alpert andKamins 1994; Carpenter and Nakamoto 1989, 1990; Kardesand Kalyanaram 1992; Kerin, Varadarajan, and Peterson1992). Curiously, however, consumers themselves havenever been directly questioned about their general cogni-tions, attitude, or degree of preference toward pioneerbrands.

Second, though an experimental approach has the poten-tial advantage of establishing strong internal validity, thetypical use of students as subjects raises concerns about thegeneralizability of findings in an area that directly address-es "real-world" phenomena. Indeed, Wells (1993), for one,urges more use of nonstudent samples for research onconsumers.

Third, a survey approach, at a minimum, provides analtemative perspective and, hence, convergent validity to thestudy of a phenomenon that has been traditionally addressedin the literature from other research perspectives (i.e.,econometric models or experimentation).

Our research fills this gap and, for the first time in the lit-erature, investigates consumer memory, attitude, percep-tions, behavioral intentions, and purchase behavior regard-ing pioneer and follower brands through a survey perspec-tive. We designed the survey approach to be both descriptiveand prescriptive in nature. The descriptive approach involvesdeveloping and testing an internally consistent set ofhypotheses to assess cognitions, attitude, and behaviortoward pioneer and follower brands in a structured and con-sistent manner. Regarding prescription, if consumersfavored the pioneer brand because they knew it was the pio-

34 / Journal of Marketing, October 1995Journat of MarifetingVol. 59 (October 1995), 34-45

neer, then companies need to know how to take full advan-tage of that fact. Variations on one particular tactic, namely,communicating "pioneership" on the package labels, aretested for their impact on consumers.

Background

Competitive advantage, which accrues to the pioneer brandand led Scherer as early as 1985 to conclude that pioneeradvantage is a general phenomenon, was initially explainedthrough economic and analytical factors. More recently, inthe marketing literature, various psychologically basedexplanations have been proposed to explain pioneer advan-tage. For example. Carpenter and Nakamoto (1989) proposea leaming theory explanation for pioneer advantage underconditions of ambiguity of product evaluation. They experi-mentally test the concept that, because it is the subject's firstexperience with the product, the pioneer brand frames a sub-ject's perceptions of the product category and becomes thecategory prototype. This has the eifect of shifting the con-sumer's attribute preferences toward the attributes of thepioneer and results in a brand preference advantage.

Kardes and Kalyanaram (1992) take an information inte-gration perspective to the topic of pioneer advantage, show-ing, among other results, that subjects leam more about thepioneer than follower brands. This is because the pioneer, asthe first entrant in the product category, has features that areperceived 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 thepioneer than about follower brands.

From a slightly different perspective, Kardes and col-leagues (1993) find evidence for brand retrieval and brandconsideration processes contributing to an explanation of thepioneer brand advantage, independent of brand evaluation.In other words, because of factors such as brand distinctive-ness and uniqueness, the pioneer brand was found to beretrieved, considered, and selected with greater likelihoodthan the follower.

Finally, in a previous study, we (1994) developed anintegrative conceptual framework and propositional invento-ry for understanding pioneer brand advantage from a con-sumer behavior perspective. Among other hypotheses, wetheorize that because of the pioneer brand's generally favor-able image, the pioneer more closely matches the con-sumer's ideal self-image than the follower brand does.

Our goals are twofold. First, we reexamine some of thetraditional explanations for the pioneer advantage from anew and important perspective, the consumer's. Second, weextend the research in this area by empirically examining yetuntested explanations for the pioneer advantage phenome-non. As Kardes and colleagues (1993, p. 62) conclude,despite early efforts, "relatively little prior research hasexamined the psychological mechanisms that contribute tothe pioneering advantage."

Theory and Hypotheses

Cognition—Pioneer Retrieval

We begin our investigation with Kardes and colleagues'(1993) finding that one route for pioneer advantage withconsumers starts with a memory accessibility advantage.Drawing on work in memory and recall in psychology,Kardes and colleagues (1993) test their hypothesis that thepioneer brand has an advantage throughout the three stagesof the choice process, that is, the universal, retrieval, andconsideration sets.

An important question then becomes: What factorsinfluence brand retrieval from and incorporation into theretrieval set? Much research in the consumer behavior realmsuggests that the accessibility of information in memorydetermines whether it will be used in subsequent informa-tion processing activities regarding beliefs, attitude, andbehavior (Fazio, Powell, and Williams 1989). In a brand-related context. Lynch, Marmorstein, and Weigold (1988)focus on the linkage between the accessibility of brandattribute information and its subsequent influence on brandchoice. Relatedly, Herr (1989) shows that the accessibilityof a category exemplar influences brand evaluation.Carpenter and Nakamoto (1987) and Alpert (1987) proposethat the pioneer brand becomes the category exemplar.Consistent with this perspective, Kardes and colleagues(1993) note that both distinctive brands and brands encoun-tered more frequently are more accessible from memory.The pioneer is distinctive, and, having been on the marketthe longest, may have the opportunity for the most frequentexposure in stores and advertisements. These factors ledKardes and colleagues (1993, p. 64) to test the hypothesisthat a "brand should be more likely to be included in theretrieval set if it was the pioneering brand as opposed to thefollower brand." However, a test of the unaided recall ofactual pioneer brands by the general populace has yet to beattempted. Therefore, consistent with Kardes and colleagues(1993), we hypothesize:

Hij,: Consumers will retrieve pioneer brands to a degree that issignificantly higher than any other brand.

Cognition—Pioneer Recall

Another memory-related issue is whether consumers canconsciously remember the "pioneership status" of brands;that is, can they identify which brand actually was the pio-neer? Consumers may be able to remember the name of abrand that was the pioneer without remembering or knowingthat it actually had this characteristic. However, because (1)pioneership is a distinctive psychological characteristic thatis inherent to the pioneer brand (Kardes et al. 1993) and (2)the pioneer already benefits from enhanced leaming becauseof its distinctive physical attributes (Kardes and Kalyanaram1992), we hypothesize that consumers will consciouslyremember pioneership status.

Hn,: Consuniers will be able to correctly recall the pioneerbrand in a given product category to a degree greater thanchance.

Memory, Attitude, and Perceptions / 35

Affect—Pioneer Attitude

Would it matter to consumers to know that a brand had beenthe pioneer? To answer this question it is necessary to makea distinction between conscious and automatic or involun-tary consumer psychological effects relating to the pioneeradvantage. Prior experimental research focuses on explana-tions that do not require consumers to be consciously awarethat one brand is the pioneer. For example, category proto-type status arises automatically from being the first brandexperienced by consumers, regardless of whether they knowit is the true pioneer. If there are such automatic pioneereffects only, then there would be little that companies wouldneed to do to achieve and maximize the pioneer advantage.Simply being the first brand that the consumer is exposed towould be enough. This might be a tenuous potential advan-tage, though, because a fast follower brand with largeresources could nullity it by reaching most consumers firstthrough out-advertising a resource-poor pioneer. In contrast,benefits deriving from consumer awareness of pioneer statuswould be harder for competitors to take away, because ille-gitimate pioneership claims constitute false advertising.Such benefits would work through an entirely differentprocess, based on favorable attitude toward pioneer brands.

Overall attitude. Prior experimental research in pioneerliterature comes to the general conclusion that attitude willbe favorable toward pioneer brands (e.g.. Carpenter andNakamoto 1989; Kardes and Kalyanaram 1992). However,these results arise from leaming effects due to the sequenceof exposure without providing indication of pioneership andare measured within the period of the experiment (e.g., sameday to several weeks). Will similar results of favorable atti-tudes toward pioneer brands be gamered by asking a repre-sentative sample of consumers? We hypothesize thatAmerican consumers recognize and react favorably to theconstruct of pioneership as it relates to brands, because, as amanifestation of innovation and progress in the productrealm, it taps into core American values. (For reference onthese core values, see, e.g., Schiffman and Kanuk 1991, p.414; Yankelovich 1974; for application in advertising asnew, modem, or improved, see Pollay 1985.) Furthermore,global attitude toward pioneer brands should be shaped bygenerally positive attribute-based perceptions of pioneerbrands. Therefore, we hypothesize:

H2: Consumers have a more favorable overall attitude towardpioneer brands than follower brands.

Multiattribute attitude. A traditional approach toexplaining overall attitude is to examine its multiattributecomponents. Empirically based research from the resellerperspective has found that global attitude favoring the pio-neer brand over follower brands does exist and can be bro-ken down into a multiattribute item set that reveals signifi-cantly more favorable perceptions of pioneer brands than offollower brands (Alpert, Kamins, and Graham 1992). A sim-ilar approach can be followed for consumers. A nonempiri-cal study (Alpert and Kamins 1994) reporting on explorato-ry research regarding various attribute specific beliefs heldby student subjects about pioneer and follower brands foundthat for pioneer brands, beliefs were linked to quality, status.

and innovation. For follower brands, however, a key belief isrelated to cost.

Thus, a central issue is whether consumers will perceivepioneer brands to be generally more positive in key productevaluation attributes. Research by Hoch and Ha (1986) andCarpenter and Nakamoto (1989) imply that this is the casefor attributes that are ambiguous or subjective in nature. Forsuch attributes, it was found that simple heuristics, such aspioneer status, play an important role in product evaluation.We predict that attribute-specific perceptions toward the pio-neer brand will be generally favorable and will emanatefrom a generally favorable attitude, with the generalizabili-ty of affect observed from overall attitude and attribute spe-cific dimensions (Achenbaum 1972), perceptions that skillis required to be the pioneer, confidence arising from thepioneer having been in the category the longest, and gener-alization from prior positive experience with pioneer brands.

H3: Consumers' perceptions of pioneer brands will be signifi-cantly more favorable on multiattribute subjective dimen-sions relative to follower brands.

Pioneer image/Self-image consistency. Another poten-tial explanation for the pioneer advantage is that of the pio-neer 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 ref-erence to himself as an object." Douglas, Field, and Tarpey(1967, p. 65) have even suggested that "self-image is man'smost valuable possession and is the key to his behavior."

From a theoretical perspective, two social psychologicaltheories address the relationships between a person's self-concept and his or her interpersonal evaluations and behav-ior—self-consistency and self-esteem. The central notion ofself-consistency theory is that a person's actions, attitudes,and receptivity to information from others is strongly affect-ed by a tendency to create and maintain a consistency withhis or her self-image (Heider 1958). Alternatively, self-esteem theory assumes that the person has a need to enhancehis or her self-evaluation and increase, maintain, or confirmhis or her feelings of personal satisfaction, worth, and effec-tiveness (Hovland and Janis 1959). Both self-esteem andself-consistency affect and are affected by the person'sbehavior (Jones 1973), which in marketing applications,involves purchase behavior.

Products and services have personality images just aspeople do (Tucker 1957). There is a research tradition inmarketing that has produced results supportive of a relation-ship between self-concept and purchase decisions (Dolich1969; Gmbb and Hupp 1968; Sirgy 1982). The underlyingtheme of this research is that product image interacts withthe consumer's self-concept, thus, creating a self-image/product-image congruity (Dolich 1969; Grubb andHupp 1968).

A person's self-concept can be divided into actual andideal (Grubb and Hupp 1968) images. The person's actualself-image has been empirically observed to be less favor-able then his or her ideal self-image (Dolich 1969; Grubband Hupp 1968). Thus, consumers are said to purchasebrands that fit either their ideal or actual self-concept

36 / Joumai of iUarketing, October 1995

(Dolich 1969; Sirgy 1982). On the basis of the prior discus-sion, we (1994) presented the proposition that a potentialsource of pioneer brand advantage may be linked to consis-tency between pioneer brand image and consumer self-image. The population's generally favorable evaluation ofthe pioneer (see H2 and H3) is more likely to be consistentwith a person's ideal self-image tban is the evaluation of thefollower brand. In other words, people like to see them-selves more like pioneers tban followers. Hence,

H4: Pioneer brand image will more closely match ideal self-image than will follower brand image.

Preferences and Betiavior

General preference. The previously discussed cognitiveand affective advantages for pioneer brands should translateinto a preference advantage. A preference advantage hasbeen found in experiments (Carpenter and Nakamoto 1989;Kardes and Kalyanaram 1992) and econometrics (Robinsonand Fomel! 1985; Urban et al. 1986). But never have con-sumers been directly asked if, all things being equal, theywould prefer tbe pioneer brand. On the basis of the hypothe-ses so far, we propose:

H5: Other things being equal, consumers prefer the pioneerbrand both in terms of purchase preference and actualbehavior '

It is important to note, though, tbat otber things are notalways equal, and though tbis and other hypotheses favor thepioneer brand, we do not say tbat the continuing success ofevery pioneer brand is assured. As bas been observed else-where (e.g., Golder and Tellis 1993; Kerin, Varadarajan, andPeterson 1992), pioneer advantage is a complex multifac-eted phenomenon, and the pioneer brand does not always"stay on top." Tbe effects discussed here can only be deter-minative when the consumer needs a reason to choose andtbere is no clear reason for bim or her to favor one of the fol-lower brands (e.g., a follower may be favored when it alonehas a preferred feature). In a parity products situation, tben,tbe pioneership cue may be enough to determine thepurchase.

Communicating pioneer status. As our bypotbeses pre-dict, if consumers have favorable attitudes and perceptionstoward pioneer brands, then a key managerial implication isthat communicating legitimate pioneership in marketingcommunications, such as on packaging, sbould bave a posi-tive impact. We test if, after product introduction and eveninto the growtb or maturity phase of a product's life cycle, itmatters to consumers wbicb brand is the pioneer. If, as weexpect, it does matter, then the next question is what is tbemost effective way to tell consumers wbich brand is the pio-neer; tbat is, wbich word or set of words most effectivelyconvey pioneer status?

Kardes and Kalyanaram (1992) investigate judgmentalmechanisms tbat support tbe contention that the pioneeradvantage can be maintained over time, even when con-sumers are not consciously aware of which brand is tbe pio-neer. In tbeir laboratory experiment, tbey find empirical sup-port for their hypothesis tbat, over time, increased exposureto information about tbe pioneer (e.g., through press reports.

package labels) increases the pioneer advantage. Tbis find-ing is consistent witb predictions based on tbe mere expo-sure effect proposed by Zajonc (1968), tbat is, enhancementof an attitude toward an object is a result of repeated expo-sures to tbat object. Because the pioneer is in the market thelongest, it has more opportunity for exposure tban followerbrands do. However, we base tbe subsequent bypotbesis pri-marily on our prior hypotheses about tbe positive effect ofthe awareness of pioneer status. Thus,

Hg : Communication of pioneer status through labeling willhave a positive impact on purchase interest even yearsafter product introduction.

It may be of interest to compare the impact of commu-nicating pioneer status years after introduction with tbeimpact of communicating it at introduction. At introductiontbe pioneer is unique, wbereas years later follower brandsare also available. Hence, the impact of communicating pio-neership sbould be substantially stronger at introduction anddegrade over the ensuing years, though never disappearingcompletely. Indeed, by modeling time series data across 34product categories of frequently purchased consumer goods.Huff and Robinson (1994) show that the pioneer marketshare advantage deteriorates over time as the number ofyears of competitive rivalry increases. They propose tbat tbisresult may be because it is more profitable to sell marketshare tban hold on to each and every customer. Similarresults of pioneer share erosion were found by Brown andLattin (1994), who used time series data to model the rela-tionship between time in tbe market and tbe pioneeringadvantage. Similarly, McKee and Varadarajan (1995) claimthat competitive advantage may not be sustainable becauseof competitive action tbat includes tbe imitation and intro-duction of superior products and services. Therefore, wehypothesize:

Hgi,: Communication of pioneer status through labeling hasless effect years afterward than at the brand'sintroduction.

MethodData Coilection

Data were collected through tbe use of the ArkansasHousehold Research Panel, an omnibus panel of 560 house-holds largely representative of Arkansas, which is operatedby the University of Arkansas. The panel has been previous-ly used in research published in marketing literature that basappeared in such journals as the Joumai of Marketing(Darden, Darden, and Kiser 1981), Joumai of ConsumerResearch (Jackson, McDaniel, and Rao 1985), and Joumaiof Retailing (Jensen and Rao 1988).

Although panel data bas previously been criticized,Cburcbill (1988, p.2) favorably compares the "representa-tiveness" of a continuing household panel witb data gatb-ered from randomly selected telephone samples. Tbe resultssbow that population inferences drawn from tbe two datacollection approacbes did not differ significantly. Tbis ledCburcbill to conclude that "marketing questions can beaddressed very effectively througb controlled mail panels."

Memory, Attitude, and Perceptions / 37

Administration of the survey was handled by theArkansas Household Research Panel staff. This involvedmailing the four page questionnaire, sending a follow-uppost card, receiving completed questionnaires, and perform-ing data entry. Respondents were informed that the goal ofthe questionnaire was simply to measure perceptions andbeliefs regarding several aspects of new products.Definitions of key terms were presented at the beginning ofthe questionnaire, using the subsequent wording: "the veryfirst brand of a new type of product which comes to marketwill be called the 'pioneer' brand. All brands of that sametype of product that enter the market after the pioneer brandwill be called 'follower' brands." Respondents wereinstructed to mark the first response that comes to mind.They were also told that there were no right or wronganswers to the questions and results would only be reportedin an aggregate form. A total of 366 respondents completedthe questionnaire for an overall response rate of 65.4%.

i\/leasuresCognition

Brand name retrieval. As a measure of the retrieval setto test Hia, respondents were asked: "Please name all thebrand names you can recall that are associated with eachcategory." Categories were sought that would have reason-ably broad recognition and in which the pioneership wasfairly well known during the product's introduction, thoughit now no longer dominates the market. Thus, a relativelystrong recall of the pioneer brand's name could not be attrib-uted entirely to its current market share.

Five categories were selected: video cassette recorders(VCRs) (Sony lost dominance to Panasonic), disposable dia-pers (Pampers lost dominance to Huggies), video computergame systems (Atari virtually disappeared, and Nintendolater revived the category), microwave ovens (the early pio-neership by Amana Radarange eventually resulted in itsdrop to a current seventh place market share), and clear colasoda (a recent category—at the time of the study CrystalPepsi was one of the most highly promoted and talked aboutpioneer products in the United States).' Respondents werealso asked to circle those brand names that they had everpurchased.

Pioneer brand recall. Respondents were presented a setof five brands, including the pioneer, in each of five productcategories. To test Hn,, they were asked to identify whichbrand was the pioneer. To minimize wild guessing, a "Don'tknow" option was available. Respondents were also asked to

'There is often some controversy over which brand was the truepioneer Sony Betamax marketed the first meaningful home-useVCR. JVC was quick to follow with its VHS technology. VHSeventually captured the market because of their (1) two-hour ver-sus 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 dis-posable diaper (the other contender, Chux, was not mentioned byany respondents). We believe there is strong support for the otherpioneers cited here.

place a checkmark beside each brand they had everpurchased.

Categories were again sought which would have wideappeal, but were not "give aways" in which the pioneerbrand name was synonymous with the category (e.g.,Xerox). The categories chosen were wine coolers, personalcomputers, low calorie beer, multibenefit family soap bars,and color television.

Affect

Overall attitude. The measures of overall attitude towardthe concept of a pioneer and follower brand (relevant to atest of H2) are consistent with Marks and Kamins's (1988)measures and are shown with all other attitude and purchaseintention scales in the Appendix. The averaged score for thethree bipolar items composing the scale indicates overallattitude toward pioneer and follower brands. TheCronbach's alpha intemal consistency measure for coeffi-cient alpha (AQ) was .81 for the pioneer brand and .77 for thefollower brand.

Multiattribute attitude. Attitude toward the concept of apioneer and follower brand was also measured on a compo-nent basis through the use of 16 bipolar general adjectivescales that are essentially subjective in nature (to test H3).The adjectives were derived from three sources. First,because we were essentially measuring the attitude towardthe product or brand, we selected items from the multi-itemscale of that name in Marketing Scales Handbook (Brunerand Hensel 1992, scale #31, p. 82), which had been com-piled from a number of published studies. Items relevant tothe concept of attitude toward pioneer and follower brandswere selected. Second, we used an exploratory study with 32evening students at a medium-sized urban midwestem stateuniversity. The study used open-ended responses to examineperceptions regarding the advantages and disadvantages ofpioneer and follower brands. Third, we selected some of thebipolar adjectives used for measuring self-concept in con-sumer behavior (Dolich 1969; Grubb and Hupp 1968; Sirgy1982). These adjectives were required as part of a subset ofitems used to test the hypothesis regarding the consistencybetween self-image and brand image (H4) and needed to beflexible enough to make sense when applied to the imagesof both people and pioneer or follower brands.

Culling our results from all sources, we arrived at a setof 16 bipolar adjective scales, measured on a scale of -3 to+3 (see Appendix and the left-hand column of Table 1). Thebolded scales are the ones also used in H4 to link self-con-cept to pioneer and follower brand image. The standardizedCronbach's alpha coefficient for the full set of 16 items was.78 when describing pioneer brands and .82 when describingfollower brands.2

A factor analytic approach was undertaken to examine the uni-dimensionality of the set of constructs relating to global attitude,multiattribute component attitude, and purchase preference. Inaddition, a factor analytic approach was undertaken to examine theunidimensionality of the eight component scales that composeideal self-concept. In both cases, results were indicative of unidi-mensionality and are available on request to the authors.

38 / Journai of Marketing, October 1995

Pioneer image/self-image consistency. The standardizedCronbach's alpha for the eight scales regarding ideal self-image was .61. Because each subject evaluated pioneer andfollower brands as well as his or her ideal self-image on thesame subset of eight bipolar adjective scales (see boldeditems in Table 1), mean absolute difference scores could bederived for the eight attributes. Evidence for H4 requires asignificantly smaller summed absolute difference score forattributes between pioneer image and ideal self-image thanfor the same calculation for follower image and ideal self-image.

Intention and Behavior

To test H5 and examine whether consumers have a positivepurchase preference for the pioneer brand, they were askedif "other things being equal (e.g., price, quality), [the con-sumer] would prefer the pioneer brand." Consumers couldrespond to this question on a range of "Disagree very strong-ly" (-3) to "Agree very strongly" (+3). In addition, reportedpurchase behavior was examined using the previously dis-cussed brand name retrieval and pioneership recall questionsfor each product category.

Communicating pioneer status. To test the effects ofcommunicating pioneer status through package labeling(Hg3_(,), consumers were given the subsequent two scenar-ios. They assumed they became aware of a product (1) with-in three months of and (2) many years after its introduction.They were then asked to what degree various packaginglabels (i.e., "New," "Revolutionary New Product,""Introducing," "The First," "World's First," "The Original,"and "The Pioneer") would increase or decrease their interestin purchase. The scale ranged from "strongly decrease myinterest" (-3) to "strongly increase my interest" (+3). Onlythe latter four pioneership labels were meaningful for thesecond scenario.

ResultsCognition

Brand name retrieval. H,j states that consumers canretrieve the pioneer brand's name to a degree that is signifi-cantly higher than for any other brand. We focus here oncomparing the retrieval of the pioneer and the marketleader's names. In general, our findings for the five productclasses studied supported our hypothesis. Thus, for VCRs,the market pioneer, Sony, was mentioned in the free recalltask by the greatest number of respondents, that is, 157 or41.1% of the sample. The market leader, Panasonic, wasmentioned by only 92 respondents, namely, 24.1% of thesample. A two-tailed pair-wise t-test revealed that the differ-ence in frequency of retrieval between these two brands wasstatistically significant (t = 5.02, p < .(X)01). For disposablediapers, the pioneer. Pampers, had a significant retrievaladvantage of 54.5% versus Huggies's (the market leader)33.8% (t - 5.76, p < .(K)01). In the category of video com-puter game systems, Nintendo, the market leader, led allbrands with a 37.7% retrieval rate. Atari, the market pioneer,had only a 15.7% retrieval rate, which was significantlylower than Nintendo (t = 6.87, p < .(K)01). For microwaveovens, the market deader. Sharp, had a retrieval rate of27.7%, 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 pio-neer. Crystal Pepsi, had the highest retrieval rate (36.1%).However, 7Up also achieved a 36% retrieval rate, whichsuggests the existence of category confusion. (Both are clearsoft drinks, but 7Up is not a cola drink.)

In summary, the results show that the pioneer brand wasretrieved more than any other brand in three of five productclasses, and was among the top four brands in all five cate-gories. These results cannot be explained as reflecting cur-rent market dominance, because in only one of five cate-

TABLE1Consumer Perceptions of Pioneer and Foiiower Brands on 16 Component Scales^

Scale Item

Poor-High QualityNot Very-Very DistinctiveUseless-UsefulU ntrustworthy-TrustworthyBad-GoodDangerous-SafeExpensive-InexpensiveUnimportant-ImportantNot a Status Symbol-Status SymbolConforming-UnconformingLow Tech-High TechUnreliable-ReliableComplex-SimpleDull-ExcitingUnsophisticated-SophisticatedInferior-Superior

PioneerBrand Mean

1.01.95

1.19.81

1.131.01

-1.43.88

1.07-.311.11.89

-.43.88.71.88

FollowerBrand Mean

.54-.07

.87

.56

.71

.93

.19

.46-.40-.64

.54

.70

.15

.11

.12

.42

Difference

.471.02.32.25.42.08

-1.62.42

1.47.33.57.19

-.58.77.59.46

t-test ofdifference

4.27"*3.24***8.54***2.34"4.22***

.7813.82"*3.98***

12.80***2.88**5.48***1.80*

-5.25***7.68*"8.17*"4.65***

response scale ranged from - 3 to +3."Significance at .05."Significance at .01.""Significance at .001.

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 pro-vide limited support for Hi^ and lend field support to Kardesand colleagues' (1993, p. 64) first hypothesis that "a brandshould be more likely to be included in the retrieval set if itwas the pioneering brand as opposed to a follower brand."^

Pioneer brand recall. Hn, states that consumers will beable to correctly identify the pioneer brand in a given prod-uct category to a degree greater than chance. Table 2 pre-sents the findings for the five product classes. When testedagainst the results that would occur if choice was entirelydue to chance (e.g., 20% of the five brands), the use of aone-tailed student's t-test revealed no significant differencefor wine coolers (t = .37) and multibenefit family soap bars(t = -2.27). However, a significant difference was evidentfor personal computers (t = 7.27, p < .0001), low caloriebeer (t - 9.09, p < .0001), and color television (t = 14.55, p< .0001).

Overall, the findings show that for three of five productclasses (i.e., personal computers, low calorie beer, and colortelevision) the pioneer was identified by the consumer sam-ple to a degree significantly greater than chance. Thisreveals limited support for Hji,. However, the data alsoreveal that for all product classes, the majority of consumersprofessed a knowledge of the true market pioneer whether ornot they were correct.

Attitude

Overall attitude. H2 states that consumers will indicate amore favorable attitude toward pioneer brands than followerbrands. Results support this—with attitudes toward pioneerbrands (mean = .84, s = 1.04) significantly greater than thosetoward follower brands (mean = .53, s = .95; t = 3.94, p <.0001).

Multiattribute attitude. H3 addresses whether, on themultiattribute dimensions, consumers have significantlymore favorable perceptions of pioneer brands than followerbrands. Table 1 reveals that for 15 of the 16 attributes, a sig-nificant difference was evident from the measurementsusing a student's pair-wise t-test (the one exception was"safe"). Of these 15 significant differences, the pioneerbrand was rated more favorably than the follower on 13attributes: higher quality, less conforming, more of a statussymbol, "goodness," and more distinctive, useful, trustwor-thy, important, high tech, reliable, exciting, sophisticated,and "superior." The follower brand, however, was perceived

TABLE 2Actual Purchase Behavior in Each of Five

Product Categories

Category

Wine CoolersSun CountrySeagramsCalifornia Cooler*Gallo SunshineBartles & JaymesDon't know

Personal ComputerCompaqDellApple*IBMMITSDon't know

Low Calorie BeerBud LightMiller Lite*Trommers Red LetterGablingersMichelob LightDon't know

# and % ofconsumers

who identifybrand as the

63231

07775

40

80111

236

5071

00

1978

(4.2%)(21.9)(21.2)

(0.0)(52.7)—

(2.0)(0.0)

(40.6)(56.3)

(1.1)

(35.7)(50.7)

(0.0)(0.0)

(13.6)

Multibenefit Famiiy Soap BarsSpiritIvoryLever 2000*Irish SpringMennenDon't know

Coior TelevisionZenithSharpRCA*SonyGeneral ElectricDon't know

8962354

451

532

1232

2245

(4.3)(51.9)(12.4)(29.2)

(2.2)

(26.2)(1.0)

(60.9)(1.0)

(10.9)

# and % ofconsumerswho havepurchased

159749

4114

44

3394

0

96115

00

54

6218897

1461

13824

1683776

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

(40.9)

(3.0)(3.0)

(24.4)(69.6)

(0.0)

(36.2)(43.4)

(0.0)(0.0)

(20.4)

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

(•1)

(31.2)(5.4)

(37.9)(8.4)

(17.1)

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

to be significantly less expensive than the pioneer, as well assignificantly less complex. The largest differences werefound in perceptions of the product's distinctiveness.

applied a logit procedure to examine the relationshipbetween recalls of the pioneer, market leader, and other significantbrands for four product categories for our retrieval data. The resultsare presented in Table Al in the Appendix. For each category, weused a binary dependent measure that assumed a value of 1 if thepioneer was mentioned by the individual and 0 if not. The inde-pendent variables related to the market leader and every other sig-nificant brand in the category; they were similarly coded as 1 ifmentioned and 0 if not. Finally, a variable called other followerswas included as an independent variable representing a count of allother minor brands in the category mentioned by the consumer.The results revealed that for three categories, retrieval of the mar-

ket leader was associated with significantly higher retrieval of thepioneer brand. Recall of other major brands was significantly relat-ed to higher recall of the pioneer in only three of nine cases, butwas never significantly related to decreased recall of the pioneer.Similarly, as more minor brands were recalled, recall of the pioneerwas significantly higher in one of four categories, and there was noinverse relationship. Such results are consistent with a productclass knowledge explanation for the findings; that is, the moreknowledge there was of the product class, the more brands wereretrieved. However, the pioneer and market leader are the most fre-quently retrieved of all. Perhaps these are the most salient of gen-eral types of brands in a category.

40 / Journal of Marketing, October 1995

TABLE 3Multiple Regression Results Using Gentleman-Givens Procedure for

Overall Attitude as a Function of 16 Component Scales

Scale Item

InterceptPoor-High QualityNot Very-Very DistinctiveUseless-UsefulU ntrustworthy-TrustworthyBad-GoodDangerous-SafeExpensive-InexpensiveUnimportant-ImportantNot a Status Symbol-Status SymbolConforming-UnconformingLow tech-High techUnreliable-ReliableComplex-SimpleDull-ExcitingUnsoptiisticated-SophisticatedInferior-Superior

PioneerRegressionCoefficient

-3.08.509.169.031

-.175.018

-.184-.043-.073

—a—a.520—a.469.071—a.427

t-testResult

-12.58"*3.62***1.58.21

-1.11.11

-1.30-.39-.53

—a—a

3.50***—a

4.22***.52—3

2.35*

FollowerRegressionCoefficient

-3.83.336

-.055.027

-.238.582.131.135.042.003

-.014.206

-.422.198.178

-.117—^

t-testresult

-23.73***2.73**-.57

.17-1.56

3.81*".94

1.46.32.02

-.121.692.83**1.871.39.89

a

^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 statussymbol it was. Hence, H3 was supported.

To examine whether these 16 component scales werelinked with overall attitude for both pioneer and followerbrands, a multiple regression analysis utilizing a Gentleman-Givens orthogonalization procedure (Gentleman 1974) wasused. Orthogonalization was used because of the existenceof collinearity among the 16 attributes, which was detectedby Farrar and Glaubner's (1967) test procedure. Theattribute set significantly predicted overall attitude towardthat brand (r^ = .398, p < .0001). The same set used to mea-sure perceptions of the follower brand also significantly pre-dicted overall attitude toward the follower brand (r^ = .528,p < .0001). The findings are presented in Table 3.

Regarding the statistical significance of individual vari-ables for predicting overall attitude toward the pioneerbrand, the subsequent scale items had a strong enough rela-tionship with attitude to stand out from the irreduciblecollinearity still remaining in the data after orthogonaliza-tion: 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 areviewed 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 Rogersand Shoemaker's (1971) conclusion that the degree of com-plexity of an innovation can slow down its diffusion. For fol-lower brands, results showed a significant impact from"goodness" (.582), quality (.336), and reliability (.422), thatis, when follower brands are perceived as higher in quality,"goodness," and/or reliability, attitude toward them

improves noticeably (though the level of attitude usuallyremains below that of pioneers)."*

Pioneer image/self-image consistency. H4 states that thepioneer profile more closely matches the subject's ideal self-image than the follower brand does. This can be statedas | P - l | < | F - I | (i.e., pioneer minus ideal is less thanfollower minus ideal). The results of a paired comparisonone-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 pioneerthan the follower brand.

Preferences and Behavior

H5 states that other things being equal, consumers prefer thepioneer brand both in terms of purchase preference andactual behavior. This hypothesis was initially examinedusing the purchase preference scale discussed previously.The use of a one-tailed student's t-test reveals a finding thatwas significantly more positive than the neutral opinionscore of zero (mean = .65, t = 8.49, p < .CXK)1), which sup-ports H5.

Data regarding actual purchase behavior were derivedfrom the brand name retrieval and recall data reported pre-viously. 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 attitudetoward follower brands) as the dependent variable and a rating ofthe pioneer minus a rating of the follower on each attribute as theindependent variables. The results are consistent with Table 3, withquality, "goodness," superiority, and simplicity being significantlyassociated with greater pioneer brand advantage (i.e., larger differ-ence in attitude).

Memory, Attitude, and Perceptions / 41

brands they had ever purchased. The data provide a roughcomplementary analysis to econometric studies on marketshare (e.g.. Urban et al. 1986) and PIMS data (e.g.,Robinson and Fomell 1985), because they stem from a dif-ferent data source—a consumer survey. Table 2, column 4,shows that in no case was the pioneer purchased by signifi-cantly fewer people than the market leader, and in one case(disposable diapers), the pioneer was purchased by signifi-cantly more respondents. The pioneer. Pampers, was pur-chased by 18.6% of the sample, whereas the market leader,Huggies, was purchased by 10.4% (t = 2.51, p < .01). ForVCRs, the market pioneer, Sony, was purchased by 4.4% ofthe sample, whereas the market leader, Panasonic, was pur-chased by 6%. However, this difference was observed to benonsignificant (t = 1.00). Nonsignificance in purchase ratesbetween the pioneer and market leader was also evident forvideo 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 marketpioneer (Crystal Pepsi) had a purchase rate of 14.9%.Although this was significantly higher than all legitimatecompetitors (e.g.. Tab Clear), it fell significantly below thepurchase rate of 24.3% for 7Up. This finding suggests thatcategory confusion was again evident. In summary, for thisset of results the pioneer brand was purchased more than anyother brand in two of five product classes and was amongthe top four brands in all five categories.

Similar results were found in the purchase data forbrands in the pioneer recall data (Table 2, right-hand col-umn). The pioneer brand was purchased the most in threecategories, second in one category, and third in the other cat-egory. Taken together, these findings also suggest some sup-port for Hj—the categories were chosen primarily becausethe pioneer was not the current market leader to providechallenging tests of consumer memory of pioneers.

Communicating pioneer status. Because of the limitedsupport regarding knowledge of pioneer identity acrossproduct classes, which was evident in the test of Hn,, theneed to effectively identify the pioneer through labelingincreases in importance. H^^ maintains that communicationof pioneer status through labeling has an impact years afterintroduction. Results shown in Table 4 indicate that thishypothesis 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 TheOriginal was the most effective (mean increase in purchaseinterest of .64 versus next closest mean increase of .46). Apair-wise student's two-tailed t-test reveals that this meandifference is marginally significant (t = 1.76, p < .10). Thus,the current industry practice of using The Original morethan other terms is effective.

Consumers were also given the scenario in which theprevious terms were on the package label when the productwas introduced in addition to three altematives appropriatefor that situation (i.e.. New, Introducing, and RevolutionaryNew Product). Table 4 shows that all terms had a substantialpositive impact on purchase interest, and, in each case, theimpact was greater than that of the same term in the "yearslater" scenario, as we predicted in H^^,. The significant pointis the clear drop in the impact of pioneers status over time,though it does not drop to zero for any term. Also of note ishow The Original remains almost as potent years after as itwas at introduction.

Discussion and ConciusionsOur findings strongly suggest that consumers have positiveattitudes (H2) and positive perceptions toward pioneerbrands (H3). These factors, as well as pioneer image/self-image consistency (H4) may help lead to positive behavioralintentions toward pioneer brands (H5). Results for retrieval,recall, and actual purchase tjehavior were somewhat lessdramatic, though they were generally supportive: For threeof five product categories, consumers retrieved the pioneerbrand at a significantly higher rate than any other brand(Hia) and recalled the pioneer to a degree greater thanchance (Hn,). Finally, in five of the ten product categoriesexamined, the pioneer was purchased more than any otherbrand.

Why, however, were perceptions, overall attitude, andpurchase intentions clearly favorable for the pioneer brand,whereas the results for retrieval, recall, and actual purchasebehavior were less so? The answer lies in a close examina-tion of the measured constructs. Asking consumers to eval-uate the global concept of a pioneer or follower brand (i.e.,our measurement of perceptions, overall attitude, and pur-

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

A) At Introduction

Label

NewIntroducingRevolutionary

New ProductThe FirstWorld's FirstThe OriginalTtie Pioneer

Mean

.77

.70

.72

.54

.64

.75

.72

S.D.

1.231.23

1.311.291.441.321.31

t-testResult*

11.7210.66

10.397.788.28

10.5710.39

B) Years After Introduction

t-testMean S.D. Result*

38376446

1.331.421.391.38

5.274.918.636.26

^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., pioneerversus follower). Hence, responses should reflect the gener-al impression that consumers consciously have of suchbrand types (i.e., mostly favorable for pioneer brands andless favorable for follower brands). However, when askedfor specific brand retrieval, recall, and/or actual purchasebehavior in a given product class, the measurement wastaken at the brand level, and the identity of the true pioneerwas not provided. Thus, consumers needed to identify thepioneer brand on their own, which can result in the true pio-neer's favorable advantage being conveyed to a brand thatwas misperceived to be the pioneer. In our study, respon-dents correctly identified the pioneer 37.2% of the time, butmisidentified the pioneer slightly more often, 38.1% of thetime (despite the option to choose "Don't know"). Thus,misperception of pioneer status is a serious problem thatpoints to the pioneer's dramatic need to communicate itspioneership.

The present study included a built-in test of variouspackage labels that advertise a pioneer's first-entry status.The results suggest that years after product introduction, it isstill effective to communicate pioneer status (Hg^). Morepioneer brands should consider using the most effectiveterm. 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 havemisperceptions (38.1% of responses). This is important fortaking full advantage of the gains that can be available frompioneership awareness. In simpler language, the managerialimplications 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, whichpertains to possible direct applications for H4 (pioneerimage/self-image consistency). For example. Club Med,which pioneered the membership/all-inclusive resort vaca-tion (Nayak and Ketteringham 1994), could have soon there-after emphasized that the consumer who experiences a ClubMed vacation will be a trailblazer, who is both creative andsophisticated. In addition, Chrysler has advertised, "Weinvented the minivan." A more effective communicationstrategy might be to emphasize a link between consumerself-image and Chrysler's innovativeness by focusing on theenhancement of the consumer's self-identity and self-esteemwhen using the product. Consistent with this suggestion,Chrysler could tout, "We invented the minivan so that youcould invent new uses for it."

In summary, our findings contribute evidence for newexplanations for pioneer brand advantage (1) beyond thatexplained in the economics and analytical literatures and (2)beyond the key early leaming effects from the first studieson the consumer psychology of pioneer advantage (e.g., cat-egory prototype, shaping attribute preference structure,information integration, retrieval set advantage). The earlyconsumer psychology sources of pioneer advantage focusedon automatic leaming processes. Our findings support theexistence of conscious pioneering effects based on positivegeneral perceptions and attitudes toward pioneer brands thatare attribute- and image-based. These findings help explain

the key managerial result that pioneer status can be of last-ing benefit with consumers.

The act of being a pioneer is more important than thestatus of having been one, as was indicated by the generallygreater purchase interest for the pioneer at introduction thanyears later (Hg^). Again, we must emphasize that the meritsdiscussed here (i.e., Hj to H5) should only accrue when con-sumers are aware of the category and know who was thepioneer.

Limitations

No study is without limitations, and the present one is noexception. A major critique of survey research in general isthat people's responses may be made "on the spot" withoutprior thought involved. In this study, responses could bebased on the meaning of the terms involved (i.e., pioneerand follower brands). In other words, there may be ademand effect from leading terms, such as positive connota-tions from pioneer and negative connotations from follower.Many precautions were taken to minimize biases, such asthose mentioned previously and the use of semantic differ-ential scales with a neutral point, which, thus, did not forcea choice. Regardless, we argue that even if consumers are tosome degree reacting to the terms pioneer and follower, themanagerial implications are still essentially the same:Managers can tap into the positive associations with pio-neership by prompting consumer attention to pioneership inmarketing communications—a successful tactic with pack-age labels in our study.

Because this is the first survey on these issues, furtherreplication and extension would be wise before the findingscould be considered definitive. In particular, consumermemory retrieval of pioneer brands and identification ofpioneership are important issues for which additional sets ofreal product categories should be tested. A number of addi-tional issues remain to be addressed in further research. Forexample, what is it about The Original that makes this termmore powerful than other terms that communicate pioneerstatus (including The Pioneer)? Why do consumers misper-ceive pioneer status?—what leads them to misidentify a par-ticular brand as the pioneer? Finally, cross-cultural replica-tion might find differing degrees of enthusiasm for pioneerbrands on the basis of differing core cultural values towardchange (e.g., the English are reputed to be more skepticalabout change and the idea of progress).

With the present research, we continue to leam what amutifaceted phenomenon pioneer advantage is. Becausepioneer advantage, though imperfect, is one of the fewsources of major long-term competitive advantage, the chal-lenge of understanding its full complexity is clearly worthour effort.

AppendixInformation About Scales

Attitude. Attitude was measured both globally and on acomponent specific basis through the use of 7-point seman-tic differential scales. A^ for the overall pioneer attitude was.81, and .77 for followers. In addition, multiattribute attitude

Memory, Attitude, and Perceptions / 43

TABLE AlLogit Results Across Four Product Classes

Product ClassEstimatedCoefficient

1.2521.8314.5783.4620.4058

1.25771.8674.5989

1.5689.7196.2864.4833

.4488-.0296

.5710-.0669

.0123

.1623

Wald'sStatistic

19.786010.76594.57892.6928

11.1888

21.133927.5151

1.8374

17.89123.7535

.29361.8397

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

Video Cassette RecordersMarket Leader (Panasonic)RCAGeneral ElectricMagnavoxAll Other Followers

Disposable DiapersiMarlcet Leader (Huggies)LuvsAll Other Followers

Video Computer Game SystemsiUlaricet Leader (Nintendo)SegaGenesisAll Other Followers

iMicrowave OvensMarket Leader (Sharp)General ElectricSearsPanasonicTappanAll Other followers

was measured with the subsequent 16 scales. For pioneerbrands, A^ was .78, and .82 for follower brands. Finally,subjects were asked about their ideal self-image, using thesubsequent bolded scales. A^ was .61.

Overall Attitude. Subjects were asked: "Overall what isyour 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: "Pleaseindicate your general perception of pioneer and followerbrands 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 "Theperson I would like to be" using the previous boldedresponse items.

Purchase Intention. Subjects were asked to indicate on arange 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."

REFERENCESAchenbaum, Alvin A. (1972), Advertising Doesn't Manipulate

Consumers," Joumai of Advertising Research, 12 (April), 3-13.Alpert, Frank (1987), "Product Categories, Product Hierarchy, and

Pioneership: A Consumer Behavior Explanation for PioneerBrand Advantage," in 1987 AMA Summer Educators'Conference Proceedings, Michael Solomon, Susan Douglas, etal., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 133-38.

and Michael A. Kamins (1994), "Pioneer Brand Advantageand Consumer Behavior: A Conceptual Framework andPropositional Inventory," Joumai of the Academy of MarketingScience, 22 (Summer), 244-53.

-, and John L. Graham (1992), "An Examination ofReseller Buyer Attitudes Toward Order of Entry," Joumai ofMarketing, 56 (July), 25-37.

Brown, Christina L. and James M. Lattin (1994), "Investigating theRelationship Between Time in Market and PioneeringAdvantage," Management Science, 40 (October), 1361-69.

Bruner, Gordon C. and Paul J. Hensel (1992), Marketing ScalesHandbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures. Chicago:American Marketing Association.

Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto (1987), "MarketPioneering, Learning, and Preference," in Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 15, M. Houston, ed. Provo, UT:Association for Consumer Research.

44/Journal of Marketing, October 1995

-and • (1989), "Consumer Preference Formation andPioneer Advantage," Journal of Marketing Research, 26(August), 285-98.

and (1990), "Competitive Strategies for Late Entryinto a Market with a Dominant Brand," Management Science,36 (October), 1268-78.

Churchill, Veme B. (1988), "Leaming to Live with ContinuingHousehold Panels," Telenation Reports, 1 (Summer), 1-8.

Darden, Donna K., William R. Darden, and William R, Kiser(1981), "The Marketing of Legal Services," Journal ofMarketing, 45 (Spring), 123-134.

Dolich, Ira (1969), "Congruence Relationship Between Self-Imageand 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 inRegression Analysis: The Problem Revisitied," Review ofEconomics 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-BehaviorProcess," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (December),280-88.

Gentleman, Morven W. (1974), "Regression Problems and the QRDecomposition," Bulletin of the Institute of Mathematics and ItsApplications, 10 (2), 195-97.

Golder, Peter N. and Gerard J. Tellis (1993), "Pioneer Advantage:Marketing Logic or Marketing Legend?" Joumai of MarketingResearch, 30 (May), 158-70.

Grubb, Edward L. and Gregg Hupp (1968), "Perception of Self,Generalized Stereotypes, and Brand Selection," Journal ofMarketing Research, 5 (February), 58-63.

Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Herr, Paul M. (1989), "Priming Price: Prior Knowledge andContext 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," Joumaiof Consumer Research, 13 (September), 221-33.

Hovland, Carl I. and I. L. Janis (1959), Personality andFersuasibility. New Haven. CT: Yale University Press.

Huff, Lenard C. and William T. Robinson (1994), "Note: TheImpact of Leadtime and Years of Competitive Rivalry onPioneer 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 ofWorking Wives and Housewives," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12 (June), 110-13.

Jensen, Thomas D. and C. P. Rao (1988), "Inflation, ConsumerAdaptations and Retailing," Joumai of Retailing, 64 (Winter),453-70.

Jones, Stephen C. (1973), "Self- and Interpersonal Evaluations:Esteem Theories Versus Consistency Theories," PsychologicalBulletin, 19 0), 185-199.

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

Information Integration Perspective," Joumai of MarketingResearch, 29 (August), 343-57.

-, Murali Chandrashekaran, and Ronald J. Domoff(1993), "Brand Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition,Consumer Choice, and the Pioneering Advantage," Joumai ofConsumer Research, 20 (June), 62-75.

Kerin, Roger A., P. Rajan Varadarajan, and Robert A. Peterson(1992), "First-Mover Advantage: A Synthesis, ConceptualFramework, 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), "AnInvestigation into the Use of Product Sampling andAdvertising: The Effect of Sequence of Exposure and Degree ofAdvertising Claim Exaggeration on Consumers' BeliefStrength, Belief Confidence and Attitudes," Journal ofMarketing Research, 25 (August), 266-81.

McKee, Daryl and P. Rajan Varadarajan (1995), "Introduction:Special Issue on Sustainable Competitive Advantage," Journalof 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 ValuesManifest in Advertising," Current Issues in Research inAdvertising, 2 (1), 71-92.

Robinson, William T. (1988), "Sources of Market PioneerAdvantages: The Case of Industrial Goods Industries," Joumaiof Marketing Research, 25 (Febmary), 87-94.

and Claes Fomell (1985), "Sources of Market PioneerAdvantages in Consumer Goods Industries," Journal ofMarketing 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: BasicBooks.

Scherer, Frederick M. (1985), "Editorial: Post-Patent Barriers toEntry in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Joumai of HealthEconomics, 4 (March), 83-87.

Schiffman, Leon G. and Leslie L. Kanuk (1991), ConsumerBehavior. Engiewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982), "Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: ACritical Review," Journal of Consumer Research, 9(December), 287-300.

Tucker, William Thomas (1957), Foundations for a Theory ofConsumer Behavior. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Urban, Glen, Theresa Carter, Steven Gaskin, and Zofia Mucha(1986), "Market Share Rewards to Pioneering Brands: AnEmpirical Analysis and Strategic Implications," ManagementScience, 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 MereExposure," Joumai of Personality and Social PsychologyMonograph Supplement, 9, (June), 1-27.

Memory, Attitude, and Perceptions / 45