MRM2 – PC Lab 2 – Open book assignment MRM2 – PC Lab 2 – Open book assignment This data set refers to a study exploring differences in consumer attitudes towards new products that brands introduce. It distinguishes 3 strategies to introduce new products under existing brand names. 1. Brands can introduce products in a new category. We call these category extensions, e.g. M&M’s would introduce chocolate milk. 2. Brands can introduce products in categories in which they are already present. We call these line extensions, e.g. M&M’s introduces a dark chocolate version of the product already on the market. 3. Brands can introduce new products together with another brand. We call these brand alliances, e.g. M&M’s would introduce ice cream together with Ben & Jerry’s. Brand equity is a construct that summarizes the strength of a brand (in terms of familiarity, image, perceived quality, loyalty, etc.). We are interested in whether the evaluation of these branding strategies would be different for strong brands (brands with high brand equity) vs. weak brands (brands with low brand equity). To analyze this, we use the following variables from a larger data set: BrandStrat, labeled Branding Strategy. This is a categorical variable, which acts as a PV in your analyses. It has 3 groups: 1 = Category Extension; 2 = Line Extension; 3 = Brand Alliance. BrandEquity, labeled Brand Equity. This is also a categorical variable, which acts as a second PV in your analyses. It has 2 groups: 0 = Low (i.e. a weak brand); 1 = High (i.e. a strong brand). Attitude, labeled Attitude towards Branded Product. This variable measures consumer reactions to the product a brand introduces (via the strategies outlined above) on a 7- point scale, from 1 = Very unfavorable attitude to 7 = Very favorable attitude. You expect that Attitude towards Branded Products will be higher for Brand Alliances than for Line Extensions, while at the same time, attitudes will be higher for Line Extensions than for Category Extensions. Furthermore, you expect that this effect depends on the Brand Equity of the brand; that is for weak brands, Category extensions will have lower Attitude towards Branded Products than Line Extensions and Brand Alliances separately, while for strong brands, Attitude towards Branded Products will be similar across the three branding strategies. You want to run a 2-way independent ANOVA to analyze the impact of the two PVs and their interaction on the OV. Please answer the questions on the following pages: MRM2 – PC Lab 2 – Open book assignment 2 1. A) Draw the conceptual model based on the expectations given, ensure to identify which PV is the moderator. B) Formulate the hypothesis for the expected main effect of Branding strategy on Attitude. C) Formulate the hypothesis for the expected moderating effect of Brand Equity on the relationship between Branding strategy on Attitude. A. B. H0: Category Extensions, Line Extensions, and Brand Alliances will lead to similar attitudes. H1: Line Extensions lead to higher attitudes than Category extensions, but to lower attitudes than Brand Alliances. C. H0: The effect of brand strategy on attitude is not moderated by brand equity. H1: The effect of brand strategy on attitude is moderated by brand equity, such that: – for weak brands, Category extensions will have lower Attitude towards Branded Products than Line Extensions or Brand Alliances – for strong brands Attitude towards Branded Products will not differ across the three branding strategies 2. Run the 2-way independent ANOVA indicated above. A) Manually check the F-statistic for the entire model with the information from the ANOVA table and report your calculation. B) Report the p-value for this F-statistic and draw a conclusion: what can we say about the model C) Calculate the proportion of variance in the OV explained by the model. Report your calculation. Branding Strategy Attitude towards Branded Product Brand Equity MRM2 – PC Lab 2 – Open book assignment 3 A. F = (SSM / dfM) / (SSR / dfR) = (198.67/5) / (260.767 / 193) = 29.408. For 2-way ANOVA, you use the rows containing information about the Corrected Model and the Error. B. p<0,05, thus at least one of the PVs, or their interaction (i.e. the third PV) has a significant impact on the OV. The model significantly explains differences in the outcome variable and further analysis is meaningful. C. R2 = SSM / SST = 198.67 / 459.44 = 0,432. This is the percentage of the total variance in the OV (Attitude) that is explained by the model (i.e. by the 2 PVs and their interaction). 3. Regarding the main effect of branding strategy, say you are mainly interested in whether a Line extension scores different than either a Category Extension or a Brand Alliance. A) Is there a significant main effect of branding strategy on attitude towards the product B) Report the lines of code you add to the syntax to conduct the follow-up tests you are interested in. C) Execute the post-hoc test and report your results: are Line Extensions evaluated differently than Category Extensions or Brand Alliances Is your expectation met A. From the test of Between-Subjects Effects table, we observe a significant main effect of branding strategy on attitude towards the product (F[2, 193] = 38.88, p < .05). MRM2 – PC Lab 2 – Open book assignment 4 B. /EMMEANS=TABLES(BrandStrat) COMPARE(BrandStrat) Alternatively, in SPSS 28, you can tick Analyze → General Linear Model → Univariate → Post Hoc, and select BrandStrat; since the variable has at least 3 categories. Note, this procedure will produce slightly different estimated means and mean differences. C. From the mean estimates table, preceding the Pairwise comparisons table, we find that the mean score of Line Extensions on Attitude is equal to 4.853, this is… (1)… significantly higher than the mean Attitude of Category Extensi
ons (3.821): the difference in means = 1.031 (CI [0.635 to 1.428], and this difference is significantly different from zero (p < .05); (2)… significantly lower than the mean Attitude of Brand Alliances (5.613): the difference in means = -.761 (CI [-1.157 to -.364], and this difference is significantly different from zero (p < .05). So yes, the expectation regarding the main effect of Brand Strategy on Attitude toward the Brand Product is met. 4. Besides the main effects and differences between groups, you are obviously interested in the interaction effect between Branding Strategy and Brand Equity. A) Is there significant interaction in this model Report the relevant F-statistic and p- value, and draw the conclusion. MRM2 – PC Lab 2 – Open book assignment 5 B) Which indication of effect size for the interaction does SPSS report Please check the effect size by manually calculating it and report your calculation below. A. There is a significant interaction effect of Branding Strategy and Brand Equity on attitude towards the product (F[2,193] = 7.15, p < .05). B. Partial η2 = SStreatment / (SStreatment + SSR) = 19,318 / (19,318 + 260,767) = 0,069. According to the rule of thumb, this is a medium effect size. 5. You now want to interpret this interaction effect. You have SPSS plot a graph depicting the interaction between the PVs. A) Based on the information available, which PV would you preferably place on the horizontal axis, and which do you plot as separate lines B) Briefly describe the interaction pattern for this model (you can also copy/paste the graph). A. The conceptual model shows that we expect the effect of Branding Strategy on attitude to be moderated by Brand Equity, so we put Branding Strategy on the horizontal axis and Brand Equity as separate lines. B. Firstly, for completeness we review the main effects. You can see an indication of a main effect of both Branding Strategy and Brand Equity. For Brand Equity, we see that High Equity consistently scores higher than Low Equity, regardless of which type of brand strategy we look at. MRM2 – PC Lab 2 – Open book assignment 6 For Branding Strategy we see a consistent upward trend from Category extension to Line Extension, to Brand Alliance. Moving on to the interaction effect. For both High and Low Brand Equity, Line Extension is evaluated more favorably than a Category Extension, while a Line Extension is evaluated less favorably than a Brand Alliance. However, the increase in evaluation from Line Extension to a Brand Alliance is much larger for Low Equity brands than for High Equity brands. In other words, a low equity brand benefits much more from a brand partner (brand alliance) than a high equity brand, when comparing to other types of branding strategies. In that sense, we see how the effect of PV1 Branding Strategy (‘effect’ in the sense of the differences in scores on attitudes between the branding strategies) is not the same for different levels of PV2 (Brand Equity, where the levels are high vs. low). PV2, Brand Equity, moderates the effect of PV1 (Branding Strategy) on the OV (Attitudes towards Branded Products). 6. Finally, you want to do a follow-up test to further qualify the interaction effect you expected. A) report the lines of code you add to the syntax to conduct the correct follow-up test for the moderation effect that you expect (think about which variable is the moderator). B) Based on the output, between which groups do we see significant differences Are the expectations met A. /EMMEANS=TABLES(BrandStrat*BrandEquity) compare (BrandStrat) We are thus comparing the effect of Branding Strategy on Attitudes, but separately for each level of Brand Equity (high and low), as Brand Equity is our moderator. MRM2 – PC Lab 2 – Open book assignment 7 B. For low equity brands, Brand Alliances (mean = 5.469) lead to higher attitudes than Line Extensions (mean = 4.029), mean difference = 1.1440, p < .05, CI (.754 to 2.127) Brand Alliances (mean = 5.469) lead to higher attitudes than Category Extensions (mean = 3.029), mean difference = 2.439, p < .05, CI (1.748 to 3.131) For high equity brands, Line Extensions (mean = 5.676) lead to higher attitudes than Category Extensions (mean = 4.613, mean difference = 1.064, p < .05, CI (.366 tot 1.761) Brand Alliances (mean = 5.758) lead to higher attitudes than Category Extensions (mean = 4.613, mean difference = 1.145, p < .05, CI (.443 to 1.847) There is no significant difference between Line Extensions (mean = 5.676) and Brand Alliances (mean = 5.758), mean difference = -.81, p = .776, CI (-.767 to .605). The expectation was: H1: The effect of brand strategy on attitude is moderated by brand equity, such that: - for weak brands (low equity brands), Category extensions will have lower Attitude towards Branded Products than Line Extensions or Brand Alliances MRM2 – PC Lab 2 – Open book assignment 8 → this expectation is met as for low equity brands: μcategory extension < μline extension < μbrand alliance - for strong brands (high equity brands), Attitude towards Branded Products will not differ across the three branding strategies → this expectation is partially met as for high equity brands: mcategory extension < μline extension μcategory extension < μbrand alliance μline extension = μbrand alliance So only for line extensions and brand alliances, the difference in attitude means do no differ. Full syntax: UNIANOVA Attitude BY BrandStrat BrandEquity /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /INTERCEPT=INCLUDE /PLOT=PROFILE(BrandStrat*BrandEquity) TYPE=LINE ERRORBAR=NO MEANREFERENCE=NO /EMMEANS=TABLES(BrandStrat) compare (BrandStrat) /EMMEANS=TABLES(BrandEquity) compare (BrandEquity) /EMMEANS=TABLES(BrandStrat*BrandEquity) compare (BrandStrat) /PRINT ETASQ DESCRIPTIVE HOMOGENEITY /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /DESIGN=BrandStrat BrandEquity BrandStrat*BrandEquity.