The brand, me, and the other the influence of

Marina Carnevale and Lauren BlockBaruch College, City University of New York

Introduction

Current ResearchDo social, external (to consumer-brand) relationships

impact consumer brand relationships? What are the mechanisms underlying these effects?

Current research

Social External Relationships

Consumer-Brand Relationships

(e.g., Fournier 1998; Johnson, Matear, Thompson 2011)

(e.g., Sherry 1983; Ruthet al. 1999)

Theoretical Model

Self-Brand Connection

c

Study 1Study 2

External Relationship

Episode

Affect towards the external party

Brand-related Behaviors

Study 1: Method Three sessions, 3 weeks apart

Pretest: brand stimulus selection

Part 1: prior SBC

Part II: Relationship episode (Reinforcement vs. Dissolution)

N=39• Relationship story development; manipulation• Affect towards the external party • Filler tasks• Dependent Variable (SBC)• Manipulation checks

Study 1- Results Affect towards the external partyNegative

(F (1, 38) = 41.12; p < .001)

***

Positive

(F (1, 38) = 137.9; p < .001)

***

Participants in the dissolution (reinforcement) condition experienced significantly higher levels of negative (positive) affect towards the external party

Study 1-Results•Participants in the dissolution (reinforcement) condition displayed significantly lower (higher) levels of SBC (F (1, 37) = 5.25; p <.05)

•Bootstrapping method, cross sectional mediation (Preacher and

Hayes 2004, 2008; Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010): •Negative affect mediates the effects of relationship episode on SBC (a x b = -.80; CI: -1.89 to -.01 ) while positive affect does not (CI: -1.73 to 2.11)•Stronger impact of negative (vs. positive) information on consumer’s evaluations (e.g., Ito, Larsen, Smith, and Cacioppo 1998) -> significant difference of SBC largely explained by negative affect in the dissolution condition

Self-Brand Connection

External Relationship

Episode

Study 2- MethodObjectiveReplicate and build on study 1 (brand-related behaviors)

Design • Relationship episode (Reinforcement vs. Dissolution)

Procedure (study 1-part II)• N= 117• Manipulation: same as study 1, except for pdt category

(cell phone) and brand (fictitious)• Process measures (affect towards external party,

association with the external party and pdt/brand)• DVs (SBC, Attitude, PI, Avoidance pdt/brand)

Study 2- ResultsDesire of avoidance: significantly higher (lower) for

those in the dissolution (reinforcement) conditionProduct (MD = 4.11 vs. MR = 2.04; F (1, 113) =99.94; p < .001)Brand (MD = 3.52 vs. MR = 1.95; F (1, 113) =23.97; p < .001) Changes in external relationships go beyond those on the gifted product; rather, they spill over to the brand

Participants in the dissolution (vs. reinforcement) condition displayed significantly lower:Self-Brand Connections (MD = 3.51 vs. MR = 5.00)

Attitude towards the Brand (MD = 3.98 vs. MR = 5.25)

(All Fs (1,116) > 10, p ≤ .001)

Study 2- Results Purchase Intentions

(F (1, 116) = 14. 68; p < .001)

•Participants in the dissolution (vs. reinforcement) condition displayed significantly lower (higher) purchase intentions •However, this only happened for relatively more fitting product categories

***

(F (1, 116) =.02; p > .1)

High Fit Low Fit

Study 2- ResultsProcess measuresAs in study 1, participants in the dissolution (vs.

reinforcement) condition experienced significantly higher levels of negative affect (F (1, 115) = 347.48; p < .001 ) and

lower levels of positive affect towards the external party (F (1, 116) = 588.84; p < .001)

Associations of the external party with both the product and the brand did not vary significantly across conditions (p>. 10)

-> High association of the external party with the product/brand, regardless of relationship episode

Study 2- Mediation Analysis

Self-Brand Connection

cExternal Relationship

Episode

Affect towards the external party

a x b = -1.59; CI: -2.99 to -.04

Bootstrapping method; 5,000 bootstrap resamples, 95% bias-corrected and accelerated CI (Preacher and Hayes 2004, 2008; Zhao et al. 2010)

a x b = -1.59; CI: -2.99 to -.04

a x b = -0.07; CI: -.17 to -.01

All a x bs >o and significant

DiscussionStudy 1 and 2

Changes in an external relationship impact feelings of SBC, because of the negative affect associated with the external party

Study 2Lower (higher) SBC that follow explain less (more)

favorable brand-related behaviors, such as attitude towards the brand, purchase intentions (PI), desires of product and brand avoidance

The effects of relationship episode on PI are limited to product categories more strictly related to the product that symbolizes the external relationship

ContributionSocial, external relationships impact consumer-brand RelationshipsThe effects go beyond those on the gifted product; rather, they spill over

to the brand and to brand-related responses

Relationship Theory: not only consumer-brand relationships mirror interpersonal ones; they also are affected by them

Consumer-brand relationships-> new avenue for future research

New perspectives on gift experience

Influence of SBC

Practical implications: brands as means to reinforce desirable external social relationships (communication/brand positioning)

Future ResearchShort-term plan: Enhance external validity

“Non-student” participantsField experiment

Rule out incidental mood as an alternative explanation

Other future research: Persistence of the effects across timeExplore different types of relationships and of

reinforcements/dissolution