IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ijrema/v39y2022i4p1082-1092.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Brand effect on extended warranty valuation: Subjective value versus popularity

Author

Listed:
  • Chark, Robin
  • Muthukrishnan, A.V.

Abstract

In five experiments, we explore the effect of brands on warranty valuation and the conditions under which two mechanisms – liking based and availability based – determine the effect. We explore the moderating role of focused deliberation, which accentuates the brand effect under availability mechanism but reduces the effect under subjective value-based mechanism. In Experiment 1, we consider brands that vary in terms of both subjective value and popularity. When a brand is better in both subjective value and popularity, it commands higher warranty WTP. Focused deliberation moderates this effect of brand on warranty valuation. In Experiment 2, we consider brands that vary only in terms of subjective values (but not popularity). While the warranty valuation of the two brands does not differ under no deliberation, deliberation decreases WTP for brands with higher subjective value. In Experiment 3, we consider brands that differ only in terms of popularity (and not subjective value). In this context, deliberation increases warranty WTP for the more popular brand. Experiments 2A and 3A use warranty choice as the dependent variable and conceptually replicate the effects obtained in experiments 2 and 3, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Chark, Robin & Muthukrishnan, A.V., 2022. "Brand effect on extended warranty valuation: Subjective value versus popularity," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1082-1092.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ijrema:v:39:y:2022:i:4:p:1082-1092
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.01.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167811622000040
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.01.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pranav Jindal, 2015. "Risk Preferences and Demand Drivers of Extended Warranties," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 39-58, January.
    2. Marieke Huysentruyt & Daniel Read, 2010. "How do people value extended warranties? Evidence from two field surveys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 197-218, June.
    3. Alison Jing Xu & Robert S. Wyer Jr., 2007. "The Effect of Mind-Sets on Consumer Decision Strategies," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(4), pages 556-566, June.
    4. Tao Chen & Ajay Kalra & Baohong Sun, 2009. "Why Do Consumers Buy Extended Service Contracts?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(4), pages 611-623, December.
    5. Hsee, Christopher K & Kunreuther, Howard C, 2000. "The Affection Effect in Insurance Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 141-159, March.
    6. Chark, Robin & Muthukrishnan, A.V., 2013. "The effect of physical possession on preference for product warranty," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 424-425.
    7. Robin Chark & Vincent Mak & A. V. Muthukrishnan, 2020. "The premium as informational cue in insurance decision making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(3), pages 369-404, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robin Chark & Vincent Mak & A. V. Muthukrishnan, 2020. "The premium as informational cue in insurance decision making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(3), pages 369-404, April.
    2. Johannes G. Jaspersen, 2016. "Hypothetical Surveys And Experimental Studies Of Insurance Demand: A Review," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(1), pages 217-255, January.
    3. Michel, Christian, 2016. "Market Regulation of Voluntary Add-on Contracts," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145892, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Pranav Jindal, 2015. "Risk Preferences and Demand Drivers of Extended Warranties," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 39-58, January.
    5. Michel, Christian, 2017. "Market regulation of voluntary add-on contracts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 239-268.
    6. Mark Browne & Christian Knoller & Andreas Richter, 2015. "Behavioral bias and the demand for bicycle and flood insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 141-160, April.
    7. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    8. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Vijay Aseervatham, 2017. "The Influence of Affect on Heuristic Thinking in Insurance Demand," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 84(1), pages 239-266, March.
    9. Wang, Xiaolin & Zhao, Xiujie & Liu, Bin, 2020. "Design and pricing of extended warranty menus based on the multinomial logit choice model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(1), pages 237-250.
    10. Marieke Huysentruyt & Daniel Read, 2010. "How do people value extended warranties? Evidence from two field surveys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 197-218, June.
    11. Toshio Fujimi & Hirokazu Tatano, 2013. "Promoting Seismic Retrofit Implementation Through “Nudge”: Using Warranty as a Driver," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1858-1883, October.
    12. Suwelack, Thomas & Hogreve, Jens & Hoyer, Wayne D., 2011. "Understanding Money-Back Guarantees: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 462-478.
    13. Ching, Andrew T. & Erdem, Tülin & Keane, Michael P., 2014. "A simple method to estimate the roles of learning, inventories and category consideration in consumer choice," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 60-72.
    14. Muthaffar, Aisha & Vilches-Montero, Sonia, 2023. "Empowering retailers: A bounded rationality perspective to enhancing omnichannel journey satisfaction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    15. Alrawad, Mahmaod & Lutfi, Abdalwali & Alyatama, Sundus & Al Khattab, Adel & Alsoboa, Sliman S. & Almaiah, Mohammed Amin & Ramadan, Mujtaba Hashim & Arafa, Hussin Mostafa & Ahmed, Nazar Ali & Alsyouf, , 2023. "Assessing customers perception of online shopping risks: A structural equation modeling–based multigroup analysis," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    16. Zhan, Mengmeng & Huang, Minxue & Li, Aoqi & Yang, Yvmeng, 2023. "The role of impulsive behaviour and meta-perception in referral reward programs," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    17. Andrew T. Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 2020. "How much do consumers know about the quality of products? Evidence from the diaper market," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 541-569, October.
    18. Sara Loughran Dommer & Jeffrey R. Parker, 2023. "Cued-recall asymmetries: the case of brand names and logos," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 669-684, December.
    19. Aseervatham, Vijay & Jaspersen, Johannes G. & Richter, Andreas, 2015. "The affection effect in an incentive compatible insurance demand experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 34-37.
    20. Hongfei Li & Jing Peng & Xinxin Li & Jan Stallaert, 2023. "When More Can Be Less: The Effect of Add-On Insurance on the Consumption of Professional Services," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 363-382, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ijrema:v:39:y:2022:i:4:p:1082-1092. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-research-in-marketing/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.