바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
 

logo

  • P-ISSN1738-3110
  • E-ISSN2093-7717
  • SCOPUS, ESCI

The Relationship Between Brand Anthropomorphism, Brand Love, and Brand Advocacy. Moderate Role of Self-brand Connection in Brand Distribution

The Journal of Distribution Science / The Journal of Distribution Science, (P)1738-3110; (E)2093-7717
2023, v.21 no.3, pp.37-46
https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.21.03.202303.37
NGUYEN Ngoc Dan Thanh (Ho Chi Minh City Open University)
Trinh Thuy Anh (Ho Chi Minh City Open University, Vietnam)

Abstract

Purpose: The article focuses on studying the impact of brand anthropomorphism, and brand love, on brand advocacy, and at the same time the moderate role of brand self-connection in the process of customers’ perception of the brand, especially the brand distribution. The survey subjects are customers with millennial consumers in Ho Chi Minh City, who have the behavior of buying brands in the smart mobile device industry many times with a specific brand in terms of brand distribution. Results: The findings show that Brand anthropomorphism and brand love are crucial factors to impact brand advocacy and the role of self-brand connection also is a confirmed positive effect on the relationship between brand anthropomorphism and brand love. Research design, data, and methodology: The article uses quantitative research to test the model and research hypotheses. The way to collect quantitative data is to use questionnaires with 1531 samples in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Conclusion: The research results can help businesses build a long-term brand strategy and expect to get new rewards and value from customers. They can also add to the theory about the relationship between brands and customers.

keywords
Brand Anthropomorphism, Brand Love, Brand Advocacy, Self-brand Connection, Distribution

Reference

1.

Ahuvia, A. (2005). Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers’ identity narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 171-184. doi:10.1086/429607

2.

Ahuvia, A. C., Batra, R. P., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2009). Love, desire and identity: A conditional integration theory of the love of things. In The handbook of brand relationships (pp. 342-357). Armonk, NY: M.E.Sharpe.

3.

Albert, N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2010). Measuring the love feeling for a brand using interpersonal love items. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 5(1), 57-63.

4.

Ali, F., Dogan, S., Amin, M., Hussain, K., & Ryu, K. (2021). Brand anthropomorphism, love and defense: Does attitude towards social distancing matter? The Service Industries Journal, 41(1/2), 58-83.

5.

Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 1-16. doi:10.1509/jm.09.0339

6.

Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477-500.

7.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76- 88.

8.

Birks, D. F., & Malhotra, N. K. (2006). Marketing research: An applied approach. London, UK: Pearson Education.

9.

Brown, S. D. (2010). Between the planes: Deleuze and social science. Deleuzian Intersections: Science, Technology, Anthropology, 101-120.

10.

Bush, A. J., & Hair. J. F., Jr. (1985). An assessment of the mall intercept as a data collection method. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2), 158-167.

11.

Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. doi:10.1007/S11002-006-4219-2

12.

Cheng, S. Y. Y., White, T. B., & Chaplin, L. N. (2012). The effects of self‐brand connections on responses to brand failure: A new look at the consumer-brand relationship. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 280-288.

13.

Coelho, A., Bairrada, C., & Peres, F. (2019). Brand communities’ relational outcomes, through brand love. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28(2), 154-165.

14.

Colliander, J., & Wien, A. H. (2013). Trash talk rebuffed: Consumers’ defense of companies criticized in online communities. European Journal of Marketing, 47(10), 1733- 1757.

15.

Dalman, M. D., Buche, M. W., & Min, J. (2019). The differential influence of identification on ethical judgment: The role of brand love. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(3), 875-891.

16.

Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E. F., & Phillips, B. J. (2011). Personification in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 121-130.

17.

Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99-113.

18.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224-241.

19.

Dwivedi, A., McDonald, R. E., & Johnson, L. W. (2014). The impact of a celebrity endorser’s credibility on consumer selfbrand connection and brand evaluation. Journal of Brand Management, 21(7), 559-578.

20.

Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), Article 864.

21.

Escalas, J. E. (2004). Imagine yourself in the product: Mental simulation, narrative transportation, and persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 37-48. doi:10.1080/00913367.2004.10639163

22.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. (2005). Self‐construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-389. doi:10.1086/497549

23.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2009). Self-brand connections: The role of reference groups and celebrity endorsers in the creation of brand meaning. In D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, & J. R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of brand relationships (pp. 107- 123). New York, NY: M E Sharpe.

24.

Ferreira, J. C. (2020). Brand anthropomorphism and its impact on consumer brand identification, brand advocacy and consumer brand engagement on social media. Retrieved October 15, 2021, from https://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/bitstream/ handle/10438/28996/BRAND%20ANTHROPOMORPHISM %20AND%20ITS%20IMPACT%20ON%20CONSUMER%2 0BRAND%20IDENTIFICATION%2c%20BRAND%20ADV OCACY%20AND%20CONSUMER%20BRAND%20ENGA GEMENT%20ON%20SOCIAL%20MEDIA_Juliana%20Corr ea%20Ferreira.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

25.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications Sage.

26.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-373. doi:10.1086/209515

27.

Garson, G. D. (2016). Partial least squares. Regression and structural equation models. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Publishing Associates.

28.

Golossenko, A., Pillai, K. G., & Aroean, L. (2020). Seeing brands as humans: Development and validation of a brand anthropomorphism scale. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37(4), 737-755.

29.

Gürhan-Canli, Z., Hayran, C., & Sarial-Abi, G. (2016). Customerbased brand equity in a technologically fast-paced, connected, and constrained environment. AMS Review, 6(1), 23-32.

30.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications Sage.

31.

Hart, P. M., Jones, S. R., & Royne, M. B. (2013). The human lens: How anthropomorphic reasoning varies by product complexity and enhances personal value. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(1/2), 105-121. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2012.759993

32.

Hegner, S. M., Fenko, A., & Teravest, A. (2017). Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand brand love. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 26(1), 26-41.

33.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.

34.

Hollebeek, L. D., & Chen, T. (2014). Exploring positively-versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: A conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(1), 62-74.

35.

Hwang, J., & Kandampully, J. (2012). The role of self-construal and emotionsin younger consumers’ commitment to luxury brands. The Research Journal of the Costume Culture, 20(4), 604-615. doi:10.7741/RJCC.2012.20.4.604

36.

Javed, M., Roy, S., & Mansoor, B. (2015). Will you defend your loved brand? In Consumer brand relationships (pp. 31-54). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

37.

Juliana, J., Djakasaputra, A., & Pramono, R. (2020). Green perceived risk, green viral communication, green perceived value against green purchase intention through green satisfaction. Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management Research, 1(2), 124-139.

38.

Kim, H. C., & Kramer, T. (2015). Do materialists prefer the “brand-as-servant”? The interactive effect of anthropomorphized brand roles and materialism on consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 284-299.

39.

Kim, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slot machine? Power, anthropomorphism, and risk perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 94-107.

40.

Kudeshia, C., Sikdar, P., & Mittal, A. (2016). Spreading love through fan page liking: A perspective on small scale entrepreneurs. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 257-270.

41.

Kumar, J., & Nayak, J. K. (2019). Brand engagement without brand ownership: A case of non-brand owner community members. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28(2), 216-230.

42.

Kwak, H., Puzakova, M., & Rocereto, J. F. (2015). Better not smile at the price: The differential role of brand anthropomorphization on perceived price fairness. Journal of Marketing, 79(4), 56-76.

43.

Lastovicka, J. L., & Sirianni, N. J. (2011). Truly, madly, deeply: Consumers in the throes of material possession love. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 323-342.

44.

Lisjak, M., Lee, A. Y., & Gardner, W. L. (2012). When a threat to the brand is a threat to the self: The importance of brand identification and implicit self-esteem in predicting defensiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1120-1132.

45.

MacInnis, D. J., & Folkes, V. S. (2017). Humanizing brands: When brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(3), 355-374.

46.

Mayor, M. G.-O., & Davo, N. B. (2016). Competitive advantages of the mobile phone operators in the Asia Pacific region: Analysis from the strategic groups approach. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(5), 541-554.

47.

Pai, D.-C., Lai, C.-S., Chiu, C.-J., & Yang, C.-F. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and brand advocacy in business-tobusiness market: The mediated moderating effect of attribution. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(4), 685-696.

48.

Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 294-311.

49.

Park, C. W., Macinnis, D., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, Forthcoming, 74(6). doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.6.1

50.

Parment, A. (2013). Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications for retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(2), 189-199.

51.

Pendergast, D., Gürhan-Canli, Z., Hayran, C., Sarial-Abi, G., Parment, A., Birks, D. F., … Churchill, G. A., Jr. (2016). Getting to know the Y generation. AMS Review, 28(2), 541-554. doi:10.1509/jm.09.0339

52.

Puzakova, M., & Kwak, H. (2017). Should anthropomorphized brands engage customers? The impact of social crowding on brand preferences. Journal of Marketing, 81(6), 99-115.

53.

Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2009). Pushing the envelope of brand and personality: Antecedents and moderators of anthropomorphized brands. Advances in Consumer Research, 36, 413-420.

54.

Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When humanizing brands goes wrong: The detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 81-100.

55.

Rauschnabel, P., & Ahuvia, A. (2014). You’re so lovable: Anthropomorphism and brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 21(5), 1-24. doi:10.1057/BM.2014.14

56.

Romero, M., & Craig, A. W. (2017). Costly curves: How humanlike shapes can increase spending. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 80-98.

57.

Sarkar, A., & Sreejesh, S. (2014). Examination of the roles played by brand love and jealousy in shaping customer engagement. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(1), 24-32. doi:10.1108/JPBM-05-2013-0315

58.

Sashittal, H., & Jassawalla, A. (2019). Brand entification as a postanthropomorphic attribution among twitter-using millennials. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 37(7), 741-753.

59.

Sirgy, M. J., & Danes, J. E. (1982). Self-image/product-image congruence models: Testing selected models. San Francisco, CA: ACR North American Advances.

60.

Sprott, D., Czellar, S., & Spangenberg, E. (2009). The importance of a general measure of brand engagement on market behavior: Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 92-104.

61.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), Article 119.

62.

Swaminathan, V. (2016). Branding in the digital era: New directions for research on customer-based brand equity. AMS Review, 6(1), 33-38.

63.

Thomson, M., Macinnis, D., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77-91. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP1501_10

64.

Walz, A. M., & Celuch, K. G. (2010). The effect of retailer communication on customer advocacy: The moderating role of trust. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 23, Article 95.

65.

Wan, E. W., Chen, R. P., & Jin, L. (2017). Judging a book by its cover? The effect of anthropomorphism on product attribute processing and consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1008-1030.

66.

Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219-232.

67.

Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2003). Research methods. Health Economics Research Method, 2.

The Journal of Distribution Science