Consumer Perceptions of Rebranding: The Case of Logo Changes

Saleh AlShebil Mark Peterson AMA 2009

August 8, 2009

Agenda
Research Study Overview Qualitative Research Model & Hypotheses Research Methodology Results & Findings Limitations Theoretical Contribution Managerial Implications Future Research

Research Study Overview

Rebranding Importance
Many companies, teams, universities, regions & countries are rebranding Tremendous cost involved $! Lack of academic research

Main Research Question: What do consumers think of rebranding?

How do consumers process and cope with a brand logo change?

Qualitative Research
In Depth Interviews

Perceived degree of logo change Curiosity

12 Interviews: Semi-structured 45 mins to 1 hour for each interview

Whoa! wow!.. wow! thats differentwow!......I probably thought it was a new shoe brand coming out. ..I would not have thought it was the same. Why did they do it?....Yeah whats the purpose of spending all that money to change everything around? I am used to the old logo, so why change it? I dont believe that they changed their product or anything at all. They are just trying to make it seem like something new and its probably not.

Skepticism

Resistance to Change

Baskin Robbins to me has been around for 50 years, leave it alone. Its fine!

Model & Hypotheses

Perceptions of Logo Change

Perceived Degree of Logo Change Perceived Valence of Logo Change

Skepticism Toward Logo Change

Curiosity Toward Logo Change Initial Coping Secondary Coping Resistance Toward Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Interest Curiosity

Brand Attitude After Logo Change

Perceived Degree of Logo Change

Perceived Valence of Logo Change

H8 H2 Skepticism Toward Logo Change

H1a H6

H7a

H1b

H7b

Curiosity Toward Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity H5a H5b Interest Curiosity

H4

H9 H3 Resistance Toward Logo Change H12 H11 Brand Attitude After Logo Change

H10a

H10b

Perceived Degree of Logo Change

+ H2 Skepticism Toward Logo Change

+ + H1b H1a Curiosity Toward Logo Change

Deprivation Curiosity + H3 Resistance Toward Logo Change Interest Curiosity

H1a H1b H2 H3

Perceived Degree of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Degree of Logo Change Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Degree of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Degree of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)

Skepticism Toward Logo Change

Curiosity Toward Logo Change

H6 + Deprivation Curiosity H5a + Resistance Toward Logo Change H5b Interest Curiosity

H4 +

H4 H5a H5b H6

Skepticism Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-) Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)

Perceived Valence of Logo Change

H8 Skepticism Toward Logo Change

H7a
Deprivation Curiosity - H9 Resistance Toward Logo Change

+ H7b
Interest Curiosity

Curiosity Toward Logo Change

H7a H7b H8 H9

Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (-) Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Valence of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (-) Perceived Valence of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-)

Skepticism Toward Logo Change

Curiosity Toward Logo Change

Deprivation Curiosity Interest Curiosity

Resistance Toward Logo Change H11 H12 -

H10a + H10b

Brand Attitude After Logo Change

H10a H10b H11 H12

Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (+) Skepticism Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Resistance Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-)

Hypotheses Summary
No.
H1a H1b H2 H3 H4 H5a H5b H6 H7a H7b H8

Hypotheses
Perceived Degree of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Degree of Logo Change Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Degree of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Degree of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Skepticism Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-) Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (-) Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Valence of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (-)

H9
H10a H10b H11 H12

Perceived Valence of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-)

Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (+) Skepticism Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Resistance Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-)

Research Methodology
Between subject design survey study:
2 brands/2 logo changes

Pilot Study
Sample Size: 73 Manipulation check Reliability >0.90

Brand Logo Changes Used

Brand1 Minor Change Brand1 Major Change Brand2 Minor Change Brand2 Major Change

Main Study
Total sample collected: 427 Final working sample: 406 Manipulation Check

21 removed-incompletes

Balanced sample A one way ANOVA: Minor and Major logo change
Baskin Robbins (F= 127.97, P<0.05) Payless Shoe Source (F= 269.69, P<0.05).

Demographics
Age: Sex:
23.8 18-52

Ethnicity:

52% male 48% female

Education:

45.8% Caucasian/White
52% had some college

Analysis
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 2 Method approach (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988)
Measurement Model Structural Model

LISREL 8.72

Measurement Model
Item purification Convergent validity,
Factor loadings > 0.5 most >0.7 Significant loadings (p<0.01).

Discriminant validity,
AVE > 0.5 AVE > 2 Squared Correlations between Constructs

Reliability
> 0.8 and most > 0.9

Construct Reliability & AVE

Code Construct Alpha AVE #Items

PDLC PVLC
SKEP CURI CURD

Perceived Degree of Logo Change Perceived Valence of Logo Change

Skepticism Toward Logo Change Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change

0.95 0.97
0.89 0.96 0.85

0.86 0.92
0.69 0.87 0.68

3 3
4 4 3

RESIS

Resistance Toward Logo Change

0.91
0.98

0.67
0.95

5
3

NBATT Brand Attitude After Logo Change

Measurement Model Fit

Fit Indices Chi-Square RMSEA Value 538.60 (P <0.05) Df=254 0.053

NFI
CFI RMR GFI

0.97
0.98 0.14 0.90

Measurement Model
0.08 0.02 0.06 0.12 0.09 0.20 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.28 0.07 0.19 0.68 0.19 0.07 0.09 0.19 0.35 0.11 0.50 0.35 0.23 0.61 0.15 0.29 NBATT1 NBATT2 NBATT3 PDLC1 PDLC2 PDLC3 PVLC1 PVLC2 PVLC3 SKEP2 SKEP3 SKEP4 0.09 CURI SKEP5 CURI1 CURI2 CURI3 0.81 CURI5 CURD2 CURD3 CURD4 RESIS1 RESIS2 RESIS3 RESIS4 RESIS5 0.94 0.71 0.90 0.97 0.95 0.90 0.20 0.44 0.60 1.00 0.34 -0.63 0.85 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.99 0.56 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.95 -0.53 0.21 0.94 0.96 0.89 0.33

PDLC

1.00

PVLC

1.00

-0.04

SKEP
-0.06

1.00

0.25 0.03

0.02 -0.21

CURD

1.00

0.02 -0.13

0.42 0.23

RESIS

1.00

0.16

0.03 0.81 0.88 0.63 0.92 0.84

NBATT

1.00

Chi-Square=538.60, df=254, P-value=0.00000, RMSEA=0.053

Structural Model Fit

Fit Indices
Chi-Square RMSEA

Value
629.38 (P < 0.05) Df=258 0.060

NFI
CFI RMR GFI

0.96
0.97 0.34 0.89

Perceived Degree of Logo Change

.13** .09* .11** .11*

Perceived Valence of Logo Change

-.53** -.28** .21**

Skepticism Toward Logo Change

.17** .31** -.50**

Curiosity Toward Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity

.18**

Interest Curiosity

Resistance Toward Logo Change

-.25** *< 0.05 **< 0.01 ___ Significant ----- Not Significant

Brand Attitude After Logo Change

.19**

Perceived Degree of Logo Change

.11** Skepticism Toward Logo Change

.13** .11* Curiosity Toward Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity .09* Resistance Toward H3 Logo Change Interest Curiosity

No.
H1a H1b H2 H3

Hypotheses
Perceived Degree of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Degree of Logo Change Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Degree of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Degree of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)

S/N.S
Supported Supported Supported Supported

Estimate
0.11 0.13 0.11 0.09

t-value
2.00 2.80 2.70 2.29

Skepticism Toward Logo Change

Curiosity Toward Logo Change

.17** Deprivation Curiosity .18** Resistance Toward Logo Change Interest Curiosity

.31**

No. H4 H5a H5b H6

Hypotheses Skepticism Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-) Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)

S/N.S Supported Supported Not Supported Supported

Estimate 0.31 0.18 0.03 0.17

t-value 5.98 5.08 0.75 4.62

Perceived Valence of Logo Change

-.53** Skepticism Toward Logo Change

-.28** Deprivation Curiosity -.50** Resistance Toward Logo Change

.21** Interest Curiosity

Curiosity Toward Logo Change

No.
H7a H7b H8 H9

Hypotheses
Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (-) Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Valence of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (-) Perceived Valence of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-)

S/N.S
Supported Supported Supported Supported

Estimate
-0.28 0.21 -0.53 -0.50

t-value
-4.50 3.77 -11.32 -9.46

Skepticism Toward Logo Change

Curiosity Toward Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Interest Curiosity

Resistance Toward Logo Change

-.25**

Brand Attitude After Logo Change

Hypotheses

.19**
S/N.S
Not Supported Supported Supported Not Supported

No.
H10a H10b H11 H12

Estimate
0.09 0.19 -0.25 0.12

t-value
1.87 3.96 -3.86 1.85

Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (+) Skepticism Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Resistance Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-)

Hypotheses Summary
No.
H1a H1b H2 H3 H4 H5a H5b H6 H7a H7b H8

Hypotheses
Perceived Degree of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Degree of Logo Change Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Degree of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Degree of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Skepticism Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-) Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (-) Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Perceived Valence of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (-)

S/N.S
Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Not Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported

Estimate 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.31 0.18 0.03 0.17 -0.28 0.21 -0.53

t-value 2.00 2.80 2.70 2.29 5.98 5.08 0.75 4.62 -4.50 3.77 -11.32

H9
H10a H10b H11 H12

Perceived Valence of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-)

Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (+) Skepticism Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Resistance Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-)

Supported
Not Supported Supported Supported Not Supported

-0.50
0.09 0.19 -0.25 0.12

-9.46
1.87 3.96 -3.86 1.85

Perceived Degree of Logo Change

Perceived Valence of Logo Change

Skepticism Toward Logo Change

Curiosity Toward Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Interest Curiosity

Resistance Toward Logo Change

Brand Attitude After Logo Change

Perceived Degree of Logo Change

.13**

Perceived Valence of Logo Change

-.53** -.28** .21**

.11** .11*

Skepticism Toward Logo Change

Curiosity Toward Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity

.09* -.50**

Interest Curiosity

Resistance Toward Logo Change

*< 0.05 **< 0.01 ___ Significant ----- Not Significant

Brand Attitude After Logo Change

Results Discussion
Effect of the Perceived Degree of logo change: Bigger the logo change
More questions raised whys+whats More skepticism, distrust & doubt More resistance toward logo change

Effect of the Perceived Valence of logo change: More favorable the logo change

Critical Criterion to judge a new logo - perceived valence of the logo change
A logo change done right & favorably viewed - even if it is a drastic change More interested in it, as well as less questioning of it. The lower level of questioning would contribute to less skepticism about it, Consumers improved brand attitude. Vice versa

Less questioning about the necessity of the logo change- yet more interest in it Less skepticism, less distrust and less doubt about it Less resistant and more accepting of it.

Limitations
Brands used Degree of Logo Change
Minor/major- no middle

Scales used
Created/adapted

Theoretical Contribution
A coping mechanism for a consumers response toward logo changes
Curiosity (deprivation and interest) Skepticism Resistance

Curiosity as 2 different constructs (state)

Deprivation (-) Interest (+)

Addition to the literature on

Skepticism Resistance to Change

Managerial Implications
Companies should really think of their consumers and see their side of the picture. Marketing communication to their consumers
Announcing such logo changes (especially drastic logo changes) Rationale and more information

Perceived valence of the logo change more critical criterion to judge a new logo than the degree of logo change.
Less Questioning/More interest Less Skepticism Less Resistance-more acceptance Better brand attitude

Future Research
Post hoc analysis
Moderating Role of Perceived valence of logo change Mediating role of coping Mediating role of curiosity Brand involvement Prior brand attitude Skepticism toward marketing Trait cynicism Change-seeking index

Roles played by Individual factors

Moderating roles of fit

Category fit, brand fit & company fit

Future Research

Does the coping model replicate for other types of rebrandinge.g. name changes? Effect of logo changes on perceptions of
Product changes Service changes Company changes.

Design:

Role that marketing communications

factual information humor etc.

Font change versus a symbol change

Reason vs. Not Different types of marketing communications:

Organization perspective getting the employees perceptions International side of rebranding

Effect of culture on consumers views of rebranding/logo changes More or less accepting of change

Thank You!
Questions?

Manipulation Check-Means
Version Type of Change 1 2 3 4 Baskin Robbins- Minor Change Baskin Robbins- Major Change Payless Shoe Source- Minor Change Payless Shoe Source- Major Change Mean (SD) 2.89 (SD= 1.45) 5.09 (SD= 1.31) 3.00 (SD= 1.36) 5.99 (SD= 1.22)

Final Item Loadings

Item Code NBATT1 NBATT2 NBATT3 PDLC1 PDLC2 PDLC3 PVLC1 PVLC2 PVLC3 SKEP2 SKEP3 Loading 0.96 0.99 0.97 0.94 0.96 0.89 0.96 0.97 0.95 0.85 0.96 Item Description Brand Attitude After the Logo Change (Bad/Good) Brand Attitude after the logo change (Dislike/Like) Brand Attitude after the logo change (Unfavorable/Favorable) Perceived Degree of Logo Change (Little difference/Very different) Perceived Degree of Logo Change (Minor modifications/Extensive modifications) Perceived Degree of Logo Change (No change/Completely changed) Perceived Valence of Logo Change (Considerably worse/Considerably better) Perceived Valence of Logo Change (Negative change/Positive change) Perceived Valence of Logo Change (More unfavorable/More favorable) Skepticism Toward Logo Change I feel distrustful about this logo change. Skepticism Toward Logo Change I feel skeptical about this logo change.

Final Item Loadings

Item Code SKEP4 SKEP5 CURI1 CURI2 CURI3 CURI5 CURD2 CURD3 CURD4 RESIS1 RESIS2 Loading 0.9 0.56 0.9 0.97 0.95 0.9 0.81 0.94 0.71 0.81 0.88 Item Description Skepticism Toward Logo Change I feel doubtful about this logo change. Skepticism Toward Logo Change I believe that this logo change is meant to deceive me. Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Im curious to know more about this new logo. Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change I would be interested to find out more about this logo change. Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Im eager to know more about this logo change. Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change I would like to learn more about this logo change. Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change I wonder what the problem was with the old logo. Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change I want to know what was wrong with the old logo. Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change I feel I need to know the reason for this logo change. Resistance Toward Logo Change I don't want the logo to change because I'm used to the old logo. Resistance Toward Logo Change If I had a choice I would stick with the old logo.

Final Item Loadings

Item Code Loading Item Description

RESIS3
RESIS4 RESIS5

0.63
0.92 0.84

Resistance Toward Logo Change I'm not comfortable with this logo change without a good explanation for it.
Resistance Toward Logo Change I prefer they leave the logo alone rather than change it. Resistance Toward Logo Change If it were up to me, I wouldn't have changed the logo.

Perceived Degree of Logo Change

.13*

Perceived Valence of Logo Change

-.48** -.19* .37**

Skepticism Toward Logo Change

.12* .27** -.42**

Curiosity Toward Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity

.16**

Interest Curiosity

Resistance Toward Logo Change

-.17* *< 0.05 **< 0.01 ___ Significant ----- Not Significant

Brand Attitude After Logo Change

.19**

Perceived Degree of Logo Change

.26**

Perceived Valence of Logo Change

-.59** -.40**

.15** .19*

Skepticism Toward Logo Change

.21** .33** -.52**

Curiosity Toward Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity

.17**

Interest Curiosity

Resistance Toward Logo Change

-.28** *< 0.05 **< 0.01 ___ Significant ----- Not Significant ----- Not Supported

Brand Attitude After Logo Change

.24**

Brand Analysis
Baskin Robbins Payless ShoeSource
10/16 hypotheses supported 11/16 hypotheses supported

Both brands seem to differ on

Perceived Degree of logo change

Both Brands seem to agree on

Likely because of higher degree of change perceived for PSS than BR Effect of PVLC as a moderator Testing for mediating/moderating roles

Perceived Valence of logo change Relationships between curiosity, skepticism, & resistance to change Effect on Brand attitude after logo change

Unsupported Hypotheses
Hypotheses not significant
H5b: Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-) H10a: Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) H12: Resistance Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Correlation/Covariance Matrices seem to show the correct hypothesized sign Under high perceived degree of logo change
High interest curiosity & high deprivation curiosity Some washing out effect-one prevails over the other on the effect on brand attitude

Curiosity toward logo change

Resistance toward logo change

H5b H10a H12

Correlation/Covariance Matrices seem to show the correct hypothesized sign Perceived valence of logo change may mitigate any resistance effects
Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported

Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-) Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Resistance Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-)

0.03 0.09 0.12

0.75 1.87 1.85

Hypotheses Summary
No.
H1a H1b H2 H3 H4 H5a H5b H6 H7a H7b H8 H9 H10a H10b H11 H12

Hypotheses
The perceived degree of logo change will positively influence the deprivation curiosity toward the logo change. The perceived degree of logo change will positively influence the interest curiosity toward the logo change. The perceived degree of logo change will positively influence the skepticism toward the logo change. The perceived degree of logo change will positively influence the resistance toward the logo change. Skepticism toward a logo change will positively influence the resistance toward the logo change. Deprivation curiosity toward a logo change will positively influence the resistance toward the logo change. Interest curiosity toward a logo change will negatively influence the resistance toward the logo change. Deprivation curiosity toward a logo change will positively influence the skepticism toward the logo change. The perceived valence of logo change will negatively influence the deprivation curiosity toward the logo change. The perceived valence of logo change will positively influence the interest curiosity toward the logo change. The perceived valence of logo change will negatively influence the skepticism toward the logo change. The perceived valence of logo change will negatively influence the resistance toward the logo change Interest curiosity toward a logo change will positively influence the brand attitude after the logo change Interest curiosity toward a logo change will positively influence the brand attitude after the logo change Skepticism toward a logo change will negatively influence the brand attitude after the logo change. Resistance toward a logo change will negatively influence the brand attitude after the logo change.

S/N.S
Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Not Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Not Supported Supported Supported Not Supported

Estimate 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.31 0.18 0.03 0.17 -0.28 0.21 -0.53 -0.50 0.09 0.19 -0.25 0.12

t-value 2.00 2.80 2.70 2.29 5.98 5.08 0.75 4.62 -4.50 3.77 -11.32 -9.46 1.87 3.96 -3.86 1.85

Structural Model
SKEP
0.21 0.65

0.12

1.00

PDLC

0.15

CURI
0.03 0.29

0.92

-0.53
0.09 0.33 0.20

RESIS
0.21 -0.47 1.00

0.46

PVLC

0.11 -0.25 0.19

0.12

NBATT
-0.24
0.10

0.91

CURD

0.95

Chi-Square=639.17, df=258, P-value=0.00000, RMSEA=0.060

Results Discussion
Perceived degree of logo change Deprivation curiosity toward logo change (+)
Lowensteins (1994) information gap theory Logo change violation of expectations-Incongruity (old and new logo) curiosity-Incongruity theories-people curious about unexpected events or that they cant explain- asking "why" questions New product advertising generated increased curiosity (Olson, Schlinger, and Young, 1982; Olson, Toy and Dover, 1981)
Experience advertising claim Greater skepticism was found for experience advertising claims than for search claims (Ford et al., 1990; Feick and Gierl, 1996) Organizational change can generate skepticism and resistance in employees (Folger and Skarlicki, 1999)

Perceived Degree of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (+)

Perceived Degree of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)

Greater resistance to change for strategic changes (radical) than evolutionary changes (minor) (del Val and Fuentes, 2003) Greater resistance for new product innovation (Ram and Sheth, 1989; Ram, 1985).

Results Discussion
Skepticism Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)

Deprivation/Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-/+)

Stanley, Meyer and Topolnytsky (2005) found that skepticism, accounted for a unique variance in the intention to resist change.

Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)

Trait Interest dimension (Peterson and Seligman, 2004; Kashdan et al., 2004; Collins et al., 2004) Trait Deprivation dimension (Litman and Jimerson, 2004; Litman and Silvia, 2006). Applicable to our state or situational case for logo changes. Prior evidence that logo changes are generally not preferred and disliked (Pimentel and Heckler, 2003; Walsh et al., 2006) especially for extreme/drastic changes. why questions result of an event that is negative and unexpected (Wong and Weiner, 1981)- which a logo change seems to resemble.
Reichers, Wanous and Austin (1997) state that cynicism may simply help people make sense of puzzling events in their environment as when changes are announced with little groundwork explaining why the changes are necessary.

Exposed to a logo change why the logo has changed? begin filling in this knowledge gap with possible skepticism.

Thus such people begin filling in information gaps with the explanation that things must not have gone well and they begin feeding their cynicism about change by creating such information that would help them make sense of their world.

Results Discussion
Perceived Valence of logo change curiosity, skepticism, resistance
Attitude theory (Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975)

Belief of some object x evaluative strength of that belief will ultimately affect attitude towards that object. E.g. employees who would have more positive views about organizational change would likely have a better attitude towards it Based on our previous discussion on curiosity, skepticism and resistance to change, we would expect that this employee would likely have less skepticism, more curiosity (positive) and be less resistant to the change. Similarly for a logo change

Results Discussion
Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (+)
Menon and Soman (2002) found that curiosity-based processing of advertising resulted in better product evaluation and greater perceived novelty (p. 11).

Skepticism Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-)
Mostafa (2006) found that skepticism towards environmental claims was negatively related to consumers intention to buy green products

Obermiller & Spangenberg (1998) found that skepticism toward advertising had a positive correlation with negative attitudes toward advertising,
The higher the skepticism towards advertising the more negative the attitudes toward advertising.

Indirectly we can say that skepticism would be negatively related to brand attitude.