Please cite this article as: MacInnis, D.J., & Folkes, V.S., Humanizing brands: When brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal ofConsumer Psychology (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.12.003
In the past 20 years, we have witnessed a growing literaturethat can be subsumed within the domain of “humanizingbrands”. This broad topic comprises three subdomains shownin the bottom half of Fig. 1. Each subdomain has developedsomewhat independently, in part because each assumes adifferent reference point. Anthropomorphism, the first of thesesubdomains, takes a human-focused perspective, examiningconsumers' perceptions of brands as having human-likequalities. Here, researchers have studied brands as having(1) human-like features or physiognomy (as when one perceivesa handbag as having features that resemble a human face); (2) ahuman-like mind (as when one infers that a computer has itsown intentions and motives); and (3) a human-like personality(e.g., the brand is friendly). A second stream adopts a moreself-focused perspective, examining not how the brand is likepeople in general, but rather how it is specifically like oneself.This subdomain includes work on the perceived congruitybetween the brand and the self, as well as the extent to whichconsumers are connected to the brand (brand-self connections).A third subdomain takes a relationship-focused perspective,examining how consumers' relationships with brands canresemble their relationships with people. This work
acknowledges that consumers have different types of relation-ships with brands and that such brand relationships can vary intheir strength and affective intensity, as well as in therelationship norms that guide them. Our paper aims tosummarize the literature in this domain, integrate this research,and identify issues that the field should address in moving thisperspective forward.
We review the expansive yet relatively recent literaturepertaining to each subdomain sequentially, following Fig. 1.We first discuss background research from psychology onindividuals' general tendencies to humanize non-human entities.We then review branding research that has emphasized thehuman-focused, self-focused and relationship focused perspec-tives shown in Fig. 1. In reviewing each area, we also show thatfactors noted in the upper portion of Fig. 1 help us understand theconditions under which these tendencies are most likely tooperate. We also draw connections between and within thesubdomains, showing linkages and common drivers that mightotherwise remain obscured given the relative independence ofeach stream's development. We conclude with a set ofpropositions that reflect accumulated knowledge, and we discussfuture research opportunities in the domain of humanizing
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
Cultural Cultural orientation (individualismand collectivism)
Desires for uncertainty avoidance ExperiencesNormsIdeologies
Human-Focused Perceptive (Anthropomorphism):
Brands as Having Human-like….
• Features/Physiognomy
• Mind
• Personalities/Traits
Self-Focused Perspective:Brands as Like Me/ Connected to Me
• Brand-Self Congruity
• Brand Self Connections
Relationship-Focused Perspective:Brands as Relationship Partners
• Brand Relationship Types
• Brand Attachment and Aversion from Betrayal
• Brand Relationship Norms
The Domain of Humanizing Brands
Fig. 1. The domain and drivers of humanizing brands
3D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
brands. Fig. 1 and the propositions noted in Table 2 provide thebroad overview of our understanding of research on humanizingbrands.
Whereas considerable research has focused on branding, ourreview is necessarily selective. We emphasize articles in thefield of consumer psychology rather than articles that highlightmanagerial issues. We consider consumer research on suchtopics as goals and branding (e.g., brands as cultural symbols,brand extensions, brands and social signaling, and brands andself-expression) only to the extent that they bear on the topics inFig. 1. Our review emphasizes brands as opposed to unbrandedpossessions (i.e., non-branded products people own), thoughsome findings extend to the context of unbranded possessions.
A general framework for understanding research onhumanizing non-human entities
Before reviewing the three research streams that investigatehow consumers' humanize brands, we provide a broaderperspective on this domain. Specifically, the tendency forpeople —“to attribute humanlike capacities to other agents”(Waytz, Epley and Cacioppo 2010, p. 58)—varies, even if thatagent is human or nonhuman. At issue is not whether a humanbrand (e.g., Taylor Swift), an organization (e.g., the UnitedWay) or a branded product (e.g., Mazda) should be treated ashuman, but rather whether these entities are humanized in
consumers' minds. Brands may be humanized because they aremade and sold by people, and in fact, in some cases, are people(i.e., celebrity brands). As such brands might be regarded associal categories in much the same way that occupationalgroups (e.g., lawyers), ethnic groups (e.g., Asian Americans),and genders are regarded as social categories (Waytz & Young,2012). Notably, and regrettably, members of certain socialcategories can be dehumanized (which is the opposite ofhumanization), as when members of that category are perceivedto be objects rather than people. Recent consumer psychologyliterature has focused on when, why and to what effecthumanization occurs, rather than dehumanization, an emphasisthat is reflected in our review.
People can humanize both human and nonhuman targets,but the term anthropomorphism is restricted to humanizingnonhuman agents or events (Waytz, Cacioppo, et al., 2010;Waytz, Epley, et al., 2010). We might perceive that a Mazda'sfront grill makes it look like our Uncle Charlie, and we mightdescribe it as having a human-like personality (e.g., it is “sassy”)and a “mind of its own”. Given that anthropomorphism can beseen as the extreme version of humanization and that theoristshave often identified anthropomorphism as the precursor todeveloping a relationship with the brand (Fournier, 1998), amodel of anthropomorphism should provide a basic frameworkfor understanding the consumer psychology literature on brandhumanization.
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
4 D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
Outside of a branding context, Epley, Waytz, and Cacioppo(2007) have developed a model that identifies factors that driveindividuals' tendencies to anthropomorphize objects. According totheir SEEK (Sociality, Effectance, and Elicited agentKnowledge)model, the tendency to perceive non-humans in human-like termsis facilitated by an individual's knowledge of people and how theybehave (called elicited agent knowledge in the top half of Fig. 1).Factors that enhance the accessibility of this knowledge enhanceanthropomorphizing tendencies. Knowledge representations relat-ed to humans “guide inferences about the properties, characteris-tics and mental states of nonhuman agents” (Epley et al., 2007, p.871). This process is often automatic, occurring outside of one'sawareness. When people become cognizant of having anthropo-morphized an object, they often correct for having done so, thoughthe correction or adjustment to their cognitions may beinsufficient.
Countering such correction tendencies are two motivationalfactors that can increase the tendency to view non-human objectsin human-like terms: the drive for a social connection (a socialitymotivation) and the desire to make sense of and/or gain controlover one's environment (an effectance motivation; see the tophalf of Fig. 1). For example, activation of a sociality motivationoccurs when individuals who are lonely, are low in self-esteem,or come from a more individualist culture show greateranthropomorphic tendencies (see Fig. 1). Reflecting activationof an effectance motivation, factors like the need for power, theneed for control and competence and the desire to avoiduncertainty have been linked with tendencies toanthropomorphize.
Agent knowledge and the sociality and effectance motiva-tional forces described by the SEEK model can be activated bydispositional, situational, developmental, and cultural factors. AsFig. 1 shows, a sociality motivation might be triggered byindividual difference variables that are part of one's enduringcharacter (e.g., chronic loneliness), situational factors stimulatedby context (e.g., situational loneliness), developmental factorslearned early in life (e.g., attachment styles), or cultural factors(e.g., individualism and collectivism). As our review suggests,the factors that represent the model (elicited agent knowledge,sociality motivations and effectance motivations) help us tounderstand not just when and why consumers anthropomor-phize brands but also when they might humanize brands inother ways (e.g., seeing brands as like or connected to the self;regarding brands as relationship partners). Next we examineeach of the three research streams identified in the lower halfof Fig. 1.
The human versus nonhuman research stream
Perceiving a non-human object as having human-like features,a human-like mind or human-like traits has been labeled“anthropomorphism” (Epley, Akalis, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2008;Epley et al., 2007). Following Fig. 1, we review consumerresearch that has examined brands as being “like us” as a result ofhaving human-like features, human-like personality characteris-tics, and/or a human-like mind.
Human-like features of brands include having a human name,gender, or human-like physical characteristics (e.g., a face). Anumber of the studies described below show that consumers canperceive a brand in such anthropomorphic terms. Furthermore,several factors identified in Fig. 1 seem to enhance the likelihoodthat consumers do so.
Consistent with the notion of agent knowledge, consumers aremore likely to perceive a brand as having human-like featureswhen the brand is depicted in a way that activates a “human”schema, creating some degree of perceived similarity to humans.A number of studies in consumer research have used visual,verbal and/or rhetorical devices to induce anthropomorphictendencies. Notably, marketers appear to use such devices;giving certain brands a human name (e.g., Amazon's Alexa), ahuman, gendered voice and accent (Siri), or a human form (theMichelin Man).
Activating agent knowledge through visual cuesSome studies have induced anthropomorphism of a brand
through visual cues; for example, by making the brand's featuresresemble a human face (e.g., Hur, Koo, & Hofmann, 2015; Kim,Chen, & Zhang, 2016) or body (e.g., Kim & McGill, 2011;Touré-Tillery & McGill, 2015) or by representing it as an avatar(Nowak & Rauh, 2005). Depicting a set of soda bottles as a“product family” induces greater tendencies to anthropomorphizecompared to describing them as a “product line” (Aggarwal &McGill, 2007, study 2). Images that show the brand engaged intypically human actions, such as sunbathing, can also increasehuman schema accessibility and stimulate anthropomorphism(Puzakova, Kwak, & Rocereto, 2013). Brand characters, like thePillsbury Doughboy, Tony the Tiger and the Jolly Green Giant,strongly evoke a human schema and hence increase perceptionsof the brand as human-like (Wan & Aggarwal, 2015). Whenconsumers imagine that the brand has come to life (Aggarwal &McGill, 2012; Kim & Kramer, 2015) or has human personalitycharacteristics (Chandler & Schwarz, 2010), they are also moreprone to anthropomorphize.
Activating agent knowledge through verbal devicesA variety of verbal marketing tactics also seem to activate
human schemas and encourage consumers to perceive brands inhuman-like terms. Giving the product a human name (Eskine &Locander, 2014; Waytz, Heafner, & Epley, 2014), describingthe product in the first person (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007;Puzakova et al., 2013), and labeling the brand as gendered(e.g., Chandler & Schwarz, 2010; Waytz et al., 2014) increaseconsumers' tendencies to anthropomorphize brands. Websitesthat use avatars who speak, have a gender, and follow socialconventions (e.g., interacting with the audience by askingquestions or saying “goodbye”) also increase anthropomorphictendencies (Nowak & Rauh, 2005). Sociality motivations mayincrease these tendencies. For example, describing the brand inhuman relationship terms (e.g., “the brand is a great ally”) orusing closeness-implying pronouns (e.g., “we” versus “you andthe brand”) when describing the brand can enhance
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
Activating agent knowledge through rhetorical devicesRhetorical devices that use visual or verbal metaphors or
similes to convey a particular meaning about the brand canincrease anthropomorphic tendencies by activating agentknowledge. One such device, called “personification,” depictsthe brand as engaging in human-like actions, even when theimage does not have a human-like form or physiognomy (e.g., aface) (Delbaere, McQuarrie, & Phillips, 2011). Another type ofrhetorical device is the representation of the brand as filling therole of a human character (or archetype) in stories or ads. Brandshave been portrayed by marketers in the roles of the “hero”(coming to the consumer's rescue), the “outlaw” (breaking therules of other brands), the “care-giver” (taking care of theconsumer's physical and mental health) and the “magician”(performing miracles that other brands cannot), among others(Mark & Pearson, 2001). Indeed, consumers' stories about brandsoften depict brands in these anthropomorphic roles (Woodside,Sood, &Miller, 2008). Representing a brand in biographical formas an “underdog” (passionate, determined, under-resourced,arising from humble beginnings, and having some success despitestruggling against the odds) is another rhetorical device that mayincrease consumers' tendencies to perceive the brand in human-like terms (Paharia, Keinan, Avery, & Schor, 2011). Currentresearch on the role of brand archetypes is limited, making thisarea a fruitful one for understanding how consumers perceive,connect with and form relationships with brand in human-likeways. This is particularly so given the emphasis that practicingmarketers are placing on the importance of storytelling as amethod for developing brand perceptions (e.g., Gunelius, 2013).
Other driversOther research identifies additional drivers of anthropomorphic
tendencies beyond the activation of agent knowledge. Relevantto the sociality motivations shown in Fig. 1, Ghuman, Huang,Madden, and Roth (2015) suggest that consumers in collectivistcultures (e.g., China, India) have stronger anthropomorphictendencies because people live closer together, making knowledgeabout humans highly accessible. In contrast, in non-collectivistcultures (e.g., the US), consumers are more frequently exposed tomechanical and technological items, thus making knowledgeabout humans comparatively less accessible. Relevant to theeffectancemotivations shown in Fig. 1, Kim et al. (2016) observedthat consumers enjoyed a computer game less when ananthropomorphized helper facilitated their actions. The use of ahelper made individuals feel less autonomous in their actions,undermining the extent to whichwinning could be attributed to theindividual.
Effects of perceiving brands as having human-like featuresIn general, consumers tend to form more favorable attitudes
toward brands whose features are anthropomorphized (Aggarwal&McGill, 2007, 2012; Kim&Kramer, 2015). As a consequence,and as a prelude to other effects noted in Fig. 1, consumers mightbe more likely to view the brand as similar to or connected to the
self, or to engage in a relationship with the brand when it is (vs. isnot) depicted as having human-like features. We discuss theseeffects later in the paper.
Brands with human-like minds
As the preceding material implies, depicting a brand withhuman-like features can elicit consumers' perceptions that thebrand can form intentions, make moral judgments, formimpressions or evaluate others, have self-serving motives, andhave free will (e.g., Epley & Waytz, 2010; see Fig. 1). The factthat some brands (Alexa, Siri, Watson) are called “intelligentagents” may enhance such perceptions. Some research suggeststhat anthropomorphizing a brand's features prompts the inferencethat it has a human-like mind. For example, brands depicted ashaving human-like features tend to be more negatively evaluated(relative to those that do not display such features) when thebrand engages in a transgression (Puzakova et al., 2013). Thiseffect might occur because the consumer attributes intentionalityfor the action and a lack of goodwill to the anthropomorphizedbrand.
Although viewing a brand as having a human-like mind islikely less common and probably more subject to self-correctionthan perceiving a brand as having human-like features, severalstudies described below suggest that consumers can act or reacttoward a brand as if it had a human-like mind. Regarding a brandas acting with intentions, forming judgments, acting with freewill or acting with benign or self-serving motives can influencehow consumers evaluate the brand's actions, and how consumerschoose to interact with the brand in the future. These effects aredescribed next.
TrustworthinessIf consumers judge a brand as having an anthropomorphized
mind, they might be more inclined to judge the brand in termsof its trustworthiness. Trustworthiness implies that the anthro-pomorphized brand understands the consumer, that it actsmorally and with goodwill, and that brand will use its free willin ways that benefit (or are at least benign to) the consumer.Consistent with this idea, Waytz et al. (2014) observed thatpassengers' trust in a car was greatest for those who drove ananthropomorphized self-driving car because the car seemedmore human-like and more mindful than human car drivers ordrivers of a non-anthropomorphized self-driving car.
However, whether anthropomorphizing a brand affectstrust positively or negatively may depend on (1) how muchconsumers trust other people in general, (2) how deeplyconsumers process the brand's advertising message and (3) thebaseline for comparison (whether the anthropomorphized brandis compared to a non-anthropomorphized brand or a humanagent). People who have low trust in companies are more likelyto trust non-anthropomorphized brands than anthropomorphizedones (Eskine & Locander, 2014), perhaps because the anthropo-morphized brand looks more human and hence seems lesstrustworthy than the non-anthropomorphized brand. Yet, peoplewho generally regard others as untrustworthy tended to evaluateperipherally processed marketing messages more positively and
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
6 D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
attribute more goodwill to the brand when the message comesfrom anthropomorphized vs. human messengers (Touré-Tillery& McGill, 2015). Perhaps this is so because the anthropomor-phized brand looks “less human” in comparison with the humanspokesperson. High trust consumers tend to trust the humanspokesperson more than the anthropomorphized brand, but onlywhen they processed the advertisedmessage attentively.Messageattentiveness may have enhanced consumers' abilities to correctfor having made anthropomorphic judgments.
FairnessAn additional judgment suggesting that consumers can regard
brands as having an anthropomorphized mind is the extent towhich consumers judge the brand and its actions as fair. UsingIRI data, Kwak, Puzakova, and Rocereto (2015) examined theeffect of consumers' beliefs that the brand had a mind of its ownon perceptions of the fairness of price changes. The more thebrand was perceived as having a mind of its own, the moreconsumers were likely to regard a brand that increased its price asunfair and one that decreased its price as fair. Agentic consumers(those focused on the self) were most likely to conclude that abrand that increased its price was trying to take advantage ofthem, as contrasted to communion-oriented consumers (thosefocused on unity with others).
Attributions of credit or blameIf consumers view anthropomorphized brands as having
intentions, their reactions to consumption experiences mayimpact whether they attribute credit versus blame (responsi-bility) to the brand for positive versus negative outcomes.Anthropomorphized brands can even take some of the blamefor the consumer's own bad behavior. For example, consumersexhibit less self-control when a tempting dessert is anthropo-morphized because they regard the anthropomorphized prod-uct as an agent that intentionally supports their indulgence(Hur et al., 2015; see also Kim et al., 2016). This diffusesresponsibility for lack of self-control, and thus, the conflictconsumers feel from indulgence.
Interacting with the brand as if it had a human mindAdditional research finds that consumers, perhaps subcon-
sciously, can interact with brands as if they had human-likeminds. Specifically, consumers seem to want to have an effectiveinteraction with brands that are (vs. are not) anthropomorphized,even though they are unaware of this desire. They are more likelyto assimilate (act similar) to an anthropomorphized brand thatthey like and to contrast (act different) from an anthropomor-phized brand that they dislike (Aggarwal & McGill, 2012).Furthermore, activation of agent knowledge via schema congru-ity between the brand and a human affects the degree to whichindividuals attempt to present themselves in a better light(Sproull, Subramani, Kiesler, Walker, & Waters, 1996). Forexample, people behave in a more relationship-supportive way ina computerized game when the computer screen is depicted withhuman-like eyes (Haley & Fessler, 2005). Ahn, Kim, andAggarwal (2014) observed that depicting cause-related brands ashaving human-like features created more compliance with the
message (i.e., donations to the cause), because consumersanticipated more guilt from not complying with the anthropo-morphized brand. Similarly, people show more concern for anobject when it is (vs. is not) anthropomorphized (Tam, Lee, &Chao, 2013). Individual differences in anthropomorphismtendencies also affect how wrong people feel it is to harminanimate objects like computers or motorcycles (Waytz,Cacioppo, et al., 2010; Waytz, Epley, et al., 2010).
Factors impacting perceptions of brands as having human-likeminds
Related to effectance motivations in Table 1, people whoperceive themselves as low in power felt more vulnerable torisky outcomes when a brand was (vs. was not) given human-like features (Kim & McGill, 2011). In contrast, people whoperceive themselves as high-power felt less vulnerable whenthe brand's features were (vs. were not) human-like. High-power people were less likely than lower power people to feelthe brand could exert control over them. Also related to aneffectance motivation, people seem to imbue even an abstractentity like “time” with a human-like mind (e.g., “time has a willof its own,” May & Monga, 2014, p. 924). Perhaps underlyingthis judgment is the lack of effectance associated with time(i.e., time is difficult to control).
Brands with human-like personalities
To the extent that consumers humanize brands, they maycharacterize them as having human-like personality traits (seeFig. 1). Research using FMRI imaging techniques suggests that abrand's personality traits activate areas of the brain associated withimplicit reasoning, imagery and affective processing – processesthat should be implicated if consumers are thinking about brandsand relating to them in human-like terms (Chen, Nelson, & Hsu,2015). Consumers' representations of brand personality seem toreflect cognitive categories that are activated (though notnecessarily constructed) when consumers are exposed to thebrand. Indeed, these researchers were able to predict whichbrands consumers were thinking about based on the brainactivations associated with personality judgments.
Specific brand personality traitsBecause there are many human-like personality traits,
classifying them into a few broad groups offers a systematic andmanageable way to identify similarities and differences acrossbrands. Fiske and colleagues (e.g., Kervyn et al., 2012; Malone &Fiske, 2013) suggest that two evaluative criteria loom large inpeople's categorizations, descriptions, and judgments of others:warmth and competence. Warmth, which relates to the charac-teristics of another (e.g., warm, friendly, sincere, trustworthy,moral), is judged first. Judgments of warmth are linked withbenevolent intentionals (i.e., a warm entity is more likely to havemy best interests at heart). Competence judgments, on the otherhand, relate to assessments of another's ability and include traitslike intelligence, skill, creativity and efficacy. People judged aswarm and competent (cold and incompetent) are judged most(least) favorably, while warm/incompetent and cold/competent
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
Table 1Brand personality dimensions and characteristics.
Kervyn, Fiske and Malone (2012) Brands as
intentional agents
framework
Aaker (1997) Brand
personality scale
Carpara, Barbaranelli and Gianluigi (2001) Big
5 personality scale
Venable, Rose, Bush and Gilbert (2005) Contextual
generalization across industries
(Non-profit arena)
Sung and Tinkham (2005) Contextual generalization
across cultures (US vs. Korean)
Grohmann (2009) Gender
personality dimensions
Sweeney and Brandon (2006)Circumplex model
Brand Personality
Dimensions,
Facets, (and
Characteristics)
Sophistication: Upper class
(upper class, glamorous, good-
looking), Charming
(charming, feminine, feminine,
smooth)
Sophistication (good looking,
glamorous, upper class)
Sophistication (e.g., elegant,
glamorous, upper-class,
charming, feminine)
Female brand personality:
(expresses tender feelings,
fragile, graceful, sensitive,
sweet, tender)
Integrity (honest, positive
influence, committed to the
public good, reputable reliable)
Agreeableness:
Unassuming/ingenuous;
calculating/ arrogant
Nurturance (compassionate,
caring, loving)
Nurturance: warm;cold hearted
Excitement: Daring (daring,
trendy, exciting); Spirited
(spirited, cool, young),
Imaginative (imaginative,
unique, Up-to-date ( up to date,
independent, contemporary
Conscientiousness/
Extroversion/Openness
(conscientious, constant,
efficient, precise,
productive, regular,
reliable, scrupulous, active,
competitive, dominant,
energetic, happy, lively,
resolute, strong, creative,
fanciful, informed,
innovating, modern,
original, recent, up-to-date)
Trendiness (e.g., different,
new, innovative, trendy);
Western (e.g., Western, free,
technical, outdoorsy, delicate,
professional, down to earth,
healthy, active, neat)
Extroversion:
Gregarious/extraverted;
aloof/introverted
Competence (e.g.,
intelligence,
conscientiousness,
skill, creativity,
efficiency)
Competence: Reliable
(reliable, hardworking,
secure), Intelligent (intelligent,
technical, corporate),
Successful (successful, leader,
confident)
Competence (e.g., reliable,
successful, confident, popular,
well-made, stable, leading,
efficient, satisfying)
Ruggedness: Outdoorsy
(outdoorsy, masculine,
Western) Tough (tough,
rugged)
Ruggedness (tough, masculine,
outdoor, Western)
Ruggedness (e.g., tough,
rugged, masculine, hard-
working)
Male brand personality:
(adventurous, aggressive,
brave, daring, dominant,
sturdy)
Dominance:
Assured/Dominant;
Unassured/submissive
Unique to US Consumers White collar (corporate,
professional, technical) and
Androgyny (feminine,
masculine, expensive)
Warmth (e.g.,
warmth,
trustworthiness,
friendliness,
helpfulness,
sincerity)
Emotional Stability/
Agreeableness (calm, level-
headed, light hearted,
patient, relaxed, serene,
stable, tranquil;
affectionate, altruistic,
authentic, cordial, faithful,
generous, genuine, loyal)
Unique to Korean Consumers Ascendency (e.g., strict,
intelligent, daring, heavy, big)
Sincerity: Down to earth
(down to earth, family
oriented, small town) Honest
(honest, sincere, real,)
Wholesome (wholesome,
original), Cheerful (cheerful,
sentimental, friendly)
Likeableness (e.g., funny,
warm, easy, bubbly, smooth,
family oriented, sentimental,
playful, cheerful, simple,
honest); Traditionalism (e.g.,
traditional, typical, small-town,
original); Unique to Korean Consumers Passive Likeableness (funny, warm, easy, smooth, family oriented;
playful)
7D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
people elicit more ambivalent judgments. Fiske and colleaguessuggest that consumers use these same traits to evaluate brands(Kervyn et al., 2012; Malone & Fiske, 2013). Consistent withthese ideas, Aaker, Vohs, and Mogilner (2010) find thatnon-profit brands are perceived to be warmer but less competentthan for-profit brands. The most admired brands are perceived tobe warm and competent.
Other work has examined traits that include but go beyondwarmth and competence, often with a focus on how brandpersonality should be measured. Table 1 identifies items usedin various brand-personality measurement studies and relatesthem to Fiske et al.’s warmth and competence dimensions. Inher pioneering work in the area, Aaker (1997) examined thebrand personality characteristics associated with well-known
brands. A set of measurement development studies resulted inthe 42 empirically derived brand personality items identified inTable 1. These characteristics mapped onto 15 brand personality“facets” (underlined in Table 1). In turn, these facets werecaptured by 5 global factors: sophistication, sincerity, excitement,competence, and ruggedness (in boldfaced italics in Table 1).
Some research has examined whether brand personalitycharacteristics correspond to major personality characteristicsobserved in humans. Research on human personality has identifiedfive overarching dimensions that encompass a large number ofdistinct personality traits (e.g., Digman, 1990). These “Big 5” traitsare openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeablenessand neuroticism. Yet, when consumers were asked to describebrands using the Big-5 personality scale, only a two-factor
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
8 D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
solution emerged (Carpara et al., 2001). As Table 1 shows, thesefactors correspond with the Big 5's agreeableness trait and theconscientiousness/extraversion/openness traits, respectively.
Several studies have examined whether the dimensionsidentified by Aaker generalize to other contexts (see Table 1).Venable et al. (2005) developed a personality scale specificallyfor the non-profit context. This research revealed a factorlabeled “nurturance” that did not emerge in Aaker's (1997)study of for-profit brands. Cross-cultural studies also suggestdifferences in the traits used to describe brands, suggesting thatcultural orientation (see Fig. 1) might affect when and howconsumers characterize brands in terms of their personality traits.For example, Sung and Tinkham (2005) found that Americanand Korean consumers share similar personality perceptions ofthe same brands on five factors (sophistication, likeableness,trendiness, competence, ruggedness). However, each culturealso showed unique factors. Specifically, traits comprising thelikeableness factor for Koreans included fewer high arousaltraits (e.g., bubbly), leading authors to use the term “passivelikeableness” to describe the likeableness traits used by Koreans.As Table 1 shows, “ascendency” was also unique to Koreans,while “white collar” and “androgyny” were unique to USconsumers. Other work examines brands as having “male” and“female” personality traits (Grohmann, 2009).
Whereas the above-cited studies focus on positive traits andbuild on Aaker's work, Sweeney and Brandon (2006)developed a circumplex model that includes negative as wellas positive personality characteristics. Their model incorporatesthe dimensions of dominance (dominant-submissive), extraversion(extraverted-introverted), nurturance (warm-cold), and agreeable-ness (unassuming-arrogant). Sweeney and Brandon (2006) alsoreplicated the “nurturance” factor identified by Venable et al.(2005).
Debate over brand personality and its measurementBrand personality has stimulated considerable research, but
some researchers have criticized Aaker's scale for including traitsbeyond personality characteristics, such as social class associa-tions (e.g., upper class), cultural factors (e.g., Western), gendercharacteristics (masculine, feminine) and abilities (competence)(Azoulay&Kapferer, 2003). However, Aaker's work is not alonein this wide-ranging approach. These “non-personality”characteristics are relevant to—and, in terms of competencejudgments, perhaps essential for—brands. Moreover, Table 1shows convergence in the diverse traits that consumers use tocharacterize brands, despite different theoretical approaches,different brands, and different cultures. Some criticize Aaker's(1997) scale for its empirical (vs. theoretical) derivation (Bao &Sweeney, 2009). Nevertheless, the Aaker scale demonstratesmarginally better predictive validity than the circumplexapproach advocated by Bao and Sweeney. Aaker's scale alsooffers substantial richness by virtue of its scope and integration(see Table 1).
Factors impacting brand personality impressionsAdditional work has examined the conditions under which
consumers form judgments of a brand's personality. Related to
the activation of agent knowledge, using visual cues that activatea human schema can affect brand personality perceptions(Landwehr, McGill, & Herrmann, 2011). Specifically, comparedto car brands with a downturned grille, brands with an upturnedgrille are evaluated as friendlier. The depiction of the grille,coupled with a depiction of the shape and angle of the headlights,impacts perceptions of the brand's aggressiveness. Relatedly,personified images of brands encourage more positive brandpersonality impressions (brand as cheerful, charming, glamorous,stylish, etc.) than do non-personified visual metaphors (Delbaereet al., 2011). Avatars are rated as more intelligent and crediblewhen they are (vs. are not) anthropomorphized (Nowak & Rauh,2005). Consumers judge websites that use avatars as more“social”, referring to an aspect of a brand's personality that mightbe relevant to how consumers perceive brands as like them or aspotential relationship partners (Wang, Baker, Wagner, &Wakefield, 2007). Seeing one's car in human-like terms alsoenhances judgments of its “warmth” (Chandler & Schwarz,2010).
Also related to agent knowledge, chronics (people for whoma given personality trait is chronically accessible) are morelikely to update their impressions of a brand's personalitycompared to non-chronics (Johar, Sengupta, & Aaker, 2005).Additionally, individual differences in knowledge about howchangeable people are (also called entity orientation) affectbrand personality impressions (see Fig. 1). Compared to entity-oriented theorists, incremental theorists are more likely toupdate information about a brand's personality when theyencounter a low-fit brand extension because they believe thatpersonalities are malleable (vs. fixed) (Mathur, Jain, &Maheswaran, 2012). Park and John (2012) observed that entitytheorists respond more favorably to ads that signal intelligenceand sophistication (desirable personality associations) thanincremental theorists do, because entity theorists seek oppor-tunities for self-enhancement (a sociality motivation in Fig. 1).Using a brand with a desirable personality signals to others thatthe user is like the brand (intelligent and sophisticated).Incremental theorists responded better to brands that suggestself-improvement, consistent with an effectance motivation inFig. 1. Since incremental theorists believe their personalities aremalleable, they are open to appeals that suggest that the brandcan “teach them how” to become more desirable.
Brands that are perceived to have male personalities areassociated with different traits than are brands with femalepersonalities (Grohmann, 2009), as might be consistent withagent knowledge regarding differences between men and women.Perceived self-complexity also appears to influence consumers'preferences for co-brands with distinct personality types (Monga& Lau-Gesk, 2007). When consumers were induced to thinkabout themselves in complex terms, they preferred co-brands thatcombined distinct personalities.
Related to the sociality motivational driver is the role ofattachment style in brand personality impressions (see Fig. 1).Individuals with a high anxiety/high avoidance attachment styleshow a greater preference for brands with exciting (vs. sincere)brand personalities, because they want to avoid intimate relation-ships. Individuals with a high anxiety/low avoidance attachment
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
9D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
style prefer brands with sincere (vs. exciting) personalities becausethey have a positive view of others and the brand's sinceritysymbolizes the person they would like to be (Swaminathan, Stilley,& Ahluwalia, 2009).
Related to an effectance motivation is the role ofregulatory focus on preferences for brands with specificpersonality characteristics. Consumers like brands with asincere personality better when they are exposed toprevention-framed (vs. promotion-framed) messages, per-haps because prevention-framed messages prime thoughtsabout desires to be with others who will support theindividual in times of need. In contrast, brands with asophisticated personality are better liked when apromotion-framed (vs. prevention-framed) message is used(Kim & Sung, 2013), perhaps because a promotion focusactivates thoughts about one's ideal self.
Effects of brand personalityImbuing a brand with a personality appears to affect
judgments beyond those noted in Fig. 1. Brand personalities(including assessments of the brand's warmth and competence)help consumers to distinguish among brands (Kervyn et al., 2012;see alsoMalone& Fiske, 2013), thus enhancing the cultivation ofdistinct brand images (Yang, Cutright, Chartrand, & Fitzsimons,2014; see also Dommer, Swaminathan, & Ahluwalia, 2013).Moreover, brand personalities predict consumers' brand attitudes(Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013) and brand equity (Valette-Florence, Guizani, & Merunka, 2011).
Summary
In sum, considerable research, has investigated consumers'tendencies to perceive a brand as having human-like features(e.g., a name, gender, physical characteristics), human-likepersonality traits (e.g., warm, extraverted, agreeable), and/orhuman-like intentions. Such perceptions can influence infer-ences about a brand's trustworthiness, fairness, or blameworthiness. Activation of a human schema using visualdevices, verbal devices and rhetorical devices can facilitatethese perceptions. Sociality motivations (e.g., collectivism) andeffectance (e.g., consumers' differences in their felt power, theirautonomy) also influence the extent to which anthropomorphi-zation occurs. Perceiving a brand as “like us” can enhance brandevaluations and attitudes, and foster interactions that support aneffective interaction with the brand.
The self-focused research stream
In addition to viewing brands as having human-like features,minds or personalities, consumers may perceive a brand as being“like me” (having brand-self congruity) or as being “close tome” as a person (having brand-self connections) (Fig. 1). Thisperspective on humanizing brands adopts a self-focused perspec-tive. Here, the brand is interwoven into consumers' sense ofself—who they are, who they have been, and who they mightbecome. This incorporation into the self is likely to increasetendencies to humanize the brand because people attribute
personality traits that are perceived as central or typicallyhuman to themselves more than to other people (Haslam, Bain,Douge, Lee, & Bastian, 2005). For example, beliefs that one issincere may lead to inferences that an owned brand is also sincere(Weiss & Johar, 2013).
Brand-self congruity
Research finds that consumers perceive congruities betweenthe brand and aspects of themselves (i.e., the brand is perceivedas similar to me or like me; Sirgy, 1982). Indeed, research findsthat consumers can perceive a congruity between the brandand the self in terms of personalities (e.g., Fennis & Pruyn,2007), user or usage congruity (Liu, Li, Mizerski, & Soh,2012), gender (Grohmann, 2009), reference group identification(e.g., White & Dahl, 2007), and cultural identification(Deshpande, Hoyer, & Donthu, 1986).
Moreover, brand-self congruity may affect or be affected byperceptions of the brand in human-like terms (hence the doublearrow shown in Fig. 1). For example, and suggestive of arelationship between brand-self congruity and anthropomor-phism of a brand's mind, greater personality congruity betweena car brand and the self increased consumers' expectations thatthe car brand would be reliable, would play an important part inconsumers' lives, and would treat consumers well (Kressmannet al., 2006). A meta-analysis of brand congruity effectsrevealed a significant effect of brand personality congruity onbrand attitudes, intentions, and purchase (Aguirre-Rodriguez,Bosnjak, & Sirgy, 2012), perhaps setting the stage for consumers'conceptualization of the brand as a potential relationship partner(Wan & Aggarwal, 2015). These effects were stronger whencongruity reflected similarity between the brand personalityand the consumers' personality than when it reflected thecongruity of the brand's personality with the personality oftypical brand users.
The factors that motivate consumers to anthropomorphizebrands (see Fig. 1) also appear to affect consumers' perceptionsof the brand as similar to the self. Related to agent/self-knowledge, knowledge about the extent to which personalitiesare stable or malleable affects brand-self congruity. Park andJohn (2010) found that entity theorists (those who believe thatpersonalities are stable and do not change across time andsituations) perceived themselves as more good-looking, femi-nine, and glamorous after using a Victoria's Secret shopping bag(studies 1 and 3). They aso viewed themselves as moreintelligent, more hardworking, and more of a leader after usingan MIT pen (studies 2 and 4). These findings suggest that entitytheorists may be sensitive to evaluating brands' personalities interms of their congruity to the self.
Sociality motivations may also influence considerations ofbrand-self congruity and effects of congruence. Aaker (1999)observed that agent knowledge (knowledge of one's ownpersonality) and sociality motivations (individual differences inself-monitoring) impact whether and to what extent consumersperceive brands as similar to the self. Aguirre-Rodriguez et al.'s(2012) meta-analysis also showed that brand self-congruityeffects were greater when consumers had a self-enhancement
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
10 D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
(vs. a self-consistency) motive, and hence wanted to look goodin front of others. Reflecting sociality and perhaps effectancemotivations, the effect of brand-self congruity on attitudes andintentions was greater when the brand was congruent withone's ideal (vs. actual) self.
Also relevant to effectance motivations, consumers are morelikely to rely on brands whose personality is consistent withconsumers' self-views when self-confidence is temporarilyshaken or cast in doubt (Gao, Wheeler, & Shiv, 2009). Suchshaken self-confidence should activate a motivation for effectance(see Fig. 1). Self-confidence is restored when consumers have theopportunity to choose a product whose personality matches theirown. Also possibly eliciting an effectance motivation is theperception of oneself as an underdog (one who has struggledagainst the odds to become successful). Consumers who stronglyidentify as underdogs themselves react favorably to brands withunderdog-type brand biographies (Paharia et al., 2011).
Brand-self connections
Meaning of brand-self connectionsResearchers have suggested that consumers can feel connected
to a brand in a way that goes beyond being similar to or like thebrand. However, the precise meaning of “brand-self connections”is a bit elusive, as this concept has been used to reference termsthat, while potentially related, have distinct elements. Forexample, to some, brand-self connections reflect congruities (orsimilarities) between the image of the brand and the image of theself, as when consumers view a brand as connected to their senseof self because it is trendy like they are (e.g., Chaplin & John,2005).
The term brand-self connection has also been used toreference the extent to which a brand resonates with one'sidentity (e.g., Escalas & Bettman, 2003, 2005). Not only is thebrand similar to the self, but also its associations can beappropriated from the socio-cultural system to reflect orconstruct one's actual or ideal identity. This perspective mightbe called identity resonance. To the extent that consumers feelthat they are like others who use the brand (i.e., have a self-verification goal) or feel that they want to be like others whouse the brand (i.e., have a self-enhancement goal) they are morelikely to form a strong connection between the brand andthe ideal or actual self. By using brands that reflectself-enhancement and self-verification goals, consumers gainemotional benefits in the form of enhanced self-esteem and theliberty to use the brand for purposes of personal expression.
Fournier (1998) (see also Keller, 2001) offers a somewhatbroader perspective, which might be called goal resonance.Here, the brand is not only important to one's identity but alsorelevant to one's life tasks, themes or current concerns. Park,MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, and Iacobucci (2010) and Park,Eisingerich, and Park (2013a) go further to describe brand-selfconnections as the extent to which the brand overlaps with or isincluded in the self; that is, the extent to which the brand is meand I am the brand. According to these authors, brand-selfconnection varies in closeness, from complete overlap betweenthe brand and the self to extreme distance between the brand
and the self. As the overlap between the brand and the selfincreases (given the brand's resonance with goals, life tasks,themes or current concerns), consumers come to view the brandas part of themselves, thus viewing the brand's resources astheir own. In turn, with overlap, consumers are willing todevote their own resources to the brand because it is part ofthemselves and of who they are. This perspective is alsoconsistent with Aron's self-expansion theory as applied tobrands, where closeness is revealed in a Venn diagram showingthe self as overlapping with the other entity (e.g., the brand). Parket al. (2013a) assume that, as brand-self closeness increases, thepositivity or valence of one's relationship with the brand alsoincreases. They suggest that the sense of self can expand toinclude the brand as part of the self (Reimann & Aron, 2009).This view is consistent with Belk's (1988) notion that consumersmay regard products and brands as extensions of the self.
To a certain extent, these different ways of thinking aboutbrand self-connections are undoubtedly related. When a brandis seen as similar to the self, consumers may come to use thebrand to signal aspects of their own identity. As brands becomemore embedded in the consumer's higher-order goals, life projectsand themes, brand-self connections may be further strengthened.At some point, the brand is so closely connected to the consumerthat it is seen as part of the self. Although definitions of brand-selfconnections as a construct differ, many papers that empiricallyexamine this construct operationalize it similarly, with itemsreflecting the extent to which the brand is “connected to the self”and reflects “me and who I am” (e.g., Chaplin & John, 2005;Escalas & Bettman, 2003, 2005; Park et al., 2010, 2013a).
Definitional issues notwithstanding, the discussion abovesuggests that the field has opportunities to examine variousdimensions along which brand-self connections can be describedand to examine the relative impact of these dimensions onbrand-self closeness. For example, does brand-self closeness varyas a function of the number of brand-self connections, theirvalence, their salience, and/or their importance to life goals?Which factors have the greatest impact on overall judgments ofbrand-self closeness?
Factors impacting brand-self connectionsConsistent with the notion of agent knowledge and effectance
motivations, the tendency to develop brand-self connectionsappears to begin between middle childhood and early adolescence(Chaplin & John, 2005). It is at this stage where consumers'self-concepts develop and they comprehend who uses a brand,what personality a brand has, and what the brand says about one'sidentity. Children are likely to develop a more abstractunderstanding of the brand, its similarity to the self, and theextent to which it can serve as an identity marker as theirreasoning processes develop with age.
Individuals also form stronger brand-self connections tobrands whose meaning is conveyed in the form of a story. Suchnarrative processing, involving the brand as an actor in thestory, may activate agent knowledge (Escalas, 2004). Brand-selfconnections are believed to deepen as brand interactions increasein frequency (Park et al., 2010, 2013a; Reimann, Castano,Zaichkowsky, & Bechara, 2012). Reflecting agent knowledge,
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
11D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
longer brand relationships provide more opportunities forconsumers to understand the brand's benefits and integrate thebrand's meaning into one's sense of self.
Consistent with a sociality motivation, brand-self connectionsare strong for brands that are central to one's identity, referencegroup membership and status (Escalas & Bettman, 2003, 2005).The tendency to form brand-self connections may be particularlystrong in the case of brands that symbolize membership in anin-group, as such brands provide a social signaling function(Chan, Berger, & van Boven, 2012; Escalas & Bettman, 2005). Incontrast, consumers perceive more distance from brands that aretied to outgroups/dissociative reference groups (White & Dahl,2007).
Consumers' brand-self connections also are stronger fornostalgic than non-nostalgic brands, perhaps because nostal-gic brands link an individual to people and events of his or herchildhood or early adulthood (Kessous, Roux, &Chandon, 2015),thus serving sociality motivations. Brand-self connections alsocan be facilitated through methods designed to enhance customerintimacy (activating a sociality motivation). For example, Liu andGal (2011) found that consumers felt closer to a company whencompany representatives asked for their advice about the productversus when asked for their expectations for the product.
When materialists are reminded of their own death, theimportance of brands in staving off loneliness (a socialitymotivation) may be salient, leading materialistic consumers toform stronger brand-self connections (Rindfleisch, Burroughs,& Wong, 2009). The importance of brand-self connections alsomay vary by self-construal. Brand-self connections appear to bemore important as drivers of brand attitudes for consumers fromindependent (vs. interdependent) cultures (see Fig. 1). Forconsumers from interdependent cultures, a brand's country oforigin appears to be more important than brand-self connectionsin driving brand attitudes (Swaminathan, Page, & Gürhan-Canli,2007).
Consistent with an effectance motivation, stronger brand-self connections are likely to arise when the brand enables theself (Park et al., 2013a). This could occur when the brandprotects customers and makes them feel powerful in overcom-ing problems, or when the brand enhances how efficaciousconsumers feel in resolving challenges (Park & John, 2014).Conversely, when consumers are connected to the brand, theyseem to react to a brand failure as if it were a personal failure.Consumers who are strongly connected to a brand may feelgreater threats to their self-esteem when the brand failscompared to consumers who are less strongly connected tothe brand (Cheng, White, & Chaplin, 2012). Moreover, asbrand-self connections increase, consumers are less forgivingof a brand that transgresses against them or acts in unethical ways(Trump, 2014), perhaps because the brand transgression activatesagent knowledge and/or views of the brand as having ananthropomorphized mind that acts unfairly and in morallyinconsistent ways.
The perceived congruity between the brand and the self alsoaffects brand-self connections. In a longitudinal study of newproduct adoption, Lam, Ahearne,Mullins, Hayati, and Schillewaert(2013) observed that the perceived personality congruity between a
consumer and a new brand predicted the extent to which consumersidentified with the brand. Identity was indicated by the extent ofoverlap between the brand's identity and their own (whichmight beregarded as an indicator of brand-self connections). Those whosepersonalities were perceived as congruent with the brand alsoshowed higher rates of growth in brand identification over time.
Effects of brand-self connectionsConsumers appear to show stronger and more positive brand
attitudes (Moore & Homer, 2008) and greater brand loyalty(Tsai, 2011) as the brand becomes closer to the self. Thisappears to be particularly true when there is high congruitybetween the consumer's gender and gender's relevance to theproduct category, as well as when the brand is symbolic of adesired in-group (Moore & Homer, 2008). These findings hintat the potential relationship between brand-self connections andconsumers' view of brands as relationship partners. We discussthis topic next.
Summary
Research investigating a “self-focus” has examined whenthe brand is congruent with the self (the brand is like me) andwhen the brand is connected to the self (the brand is closeto me). These are related issues since brand-self congruitycan influence brand-self connections (see Fig. 1). Socialitymotivations prompted by such factors as congruence with one'sideal self, ingroup relevance and nostalgia, and effectancemotivations, prompted by such factors as concerns about self-efficacy and shaken self-confidence, also influence the conditionsunder which brands are regarded as connected to the self.
The relationship-focused research stream
In addition to the previously discussed human-focused andself-focused perspectives on humanizing brands, some priorwork has studied the humanization of brands from a relationshipperspective. Following Fig. 1, we review research suggesting thatconsumers relate to brands in ways that are analogous to theirrelationships with people, even if the brand is concretelyassociated with an object (e.g., a Big Mac). If a person treats anobject like a human, then it implies that s/he attributes humanmental capacities, such as intentions and feelings, to the object, orperhaps that the object has intentions and feelings about theperson (Waytz, Cacioppo, et al., 2010; Waytz, Epley, et al.,2010). Of particular interest to consumer psychologists is arelationship described as brand attachment and its potential toimpact the consumer's feelings of brand betrayal when the brandtransgresses. Moreover, just as consumers have relational normsthat guide relationships with other people (e.g., exchange norms,communal norms), they also appear to have relational norms thatguide their brand relationships.
Brand relationship types
Fournier (1998; see also Fournier, 2009) pioneered the ideathat consumers can think about their relationships with brands
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
12 D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
in a manner that is analogous to their relationships with people.Some brand relationships are strong and positive (e.g.,committed partnerships, best friends). Others reflect brandrelationships for which consumers have a strong aversion (e.g.,enmities). Still others (dependencies) reflect ambivalentrelationships, such as when consumers need the brand butfeel controlled by it. Secret affairs also reflect a brandrelationship characterized by ambivalence. Consumers feelpassion toward such brands despite anticipating others'disapproval.
Brand relationships also vary in power (Fournier & Alvarez,2012). Sometimes, a consumer perceives that power is equallyshared with the brand (as with committed partnerships and bestfriendships). In other cases, a brand has power over consumerswho are dependent on the brand (i.e., enslavement). Converse-ly, the consumer can have significant power over the brand. Insuch cases, consumers view themselves as “masters” and theyregard the brand as the “servant” (e.g., Aggarwal & McGill,2012; Fournier & Alvarez, 2012; Kim & Kramer, 2015; Miller,Fournier, & Allen, 2012). The types of brand relationships mayemanate from consumers' perceptions of the brand as having ahuman-like mind and competencies that can be used to exertcontrol (power) over the consumer.
Consistent with the sociality motivation that drives anthro-pomorphism tendencies, consumers who are lonely may be morelikely to develop a positive relationship with a brand (Long,Yoon, & Friedman, 2015). However, more research is needed tounderstand why consumers form certain types of relationshipswith brands and the dimensions along which various types ofbrand relationships can be differentiated.Will consumers who arelow in power (effectance motivation), lonely (sociality motiva-tion), high in attachment anxiety (sociality motivation), or high inentity orientation (personal agent motivation) be more likely tocall brands “best friends” and less likely to regard them as“enmities”? Research that links the study of brand relationshiptypes to the other factors identified in Fig. 1 could add substantialrichness to this domain.
Some of the aforementioned constructs in Fig. 1 are alsorelated to brand relationship types. For example, consumersappear to gravitate to brands with unique and excitingpersonalities when forming a positive brand relationship(Smit, Bronner, & Tolboom, 2007). Moreover, in the case of“fling”-type relationships, consumers appear to gravitatetoward those brands with exciting personalities (Aaker,Fournier, & Brasel, 2004).
Most brand relationship work has focused on positive brandrelationships (Fournier & Alvarez, 2012), chiefly those charac-terized as best friendships or committed partnerships. The studyof negative brand relationships, particularly those in whichpower is unequally distributed, has received less attention byresearchers. More generally, research should move beyondtypologies to develop an overarching theory that explains whenand why certain types of relationships prevail, what causeschanges in relationships (as when a best friendship becomes anenmity), and why. The discussion below hints at several factorsthat might be relevant to the development of this overarchingtheory.
Recent research has studied a positive brand relationship calledbrand attachment. Brand attachment has been described as thestrength of the bond connecting the consumer to the brand (Parket al., 2010). Brand-self connections (or brand closeness) appearto be critical to attachment-based relationships. As consumersperceive a close connection between the brand and the self, theyare likely to become attached to it in a way that is analogous tointerpersonal attachment (see Fig. 1). This effect has beenobserved with person brands (i.e., celebrities; O'Guinn, 1991;Thomson, 2006), product brands (Park et al., 2010; Thomson,MacInnis, & Park, 2005) and place brands (Debenedetti,Oppewal, & Arsel, 2014).
Park et al. (2010) argue that brand attachment requires not justbrand-self connections/closeness but also brand prominence (orsalience), which can be independent of brand-self connections.Prominence reflects the degree to which the cognitive andemotional bonds that connect the brand to the self are highlysalient in consumers' memories. When brand attachment isstrong, the brand is interwoven into consumers' autobiographicalmemories and is frequently encountered in light of its connectionto (and resonance with) the self and one's goals (Park et al.,2010). When brand attachment is strong, consumers not onlyregard the brand as part of the self, they are also willing to investresources (time, money, reputation) in the brand to ensure thattheir brand relationship remains positive.
By separating prominence from brand-self connections,Park et al. (2013a) identify states beyond attachment.Specifically, in their view, the opposite of brand attachmentis brand aversion, which arises when consumers experiencenegative brand-self connections to a brand that is prominent inmemory. Ambivalence describes a state in which a prominentbrand creates an approach-avoidance conflict. Consumers areindifferent to brands for which prominence is moderate to lowand for which brand-self connections are neither extremelyclose nor extremely distant.
Park et al. (2010, 2013a) developed a brand attachment scaleshowing that brand self-connections and brand prominence areboth important to the measurement of brand attachment. Theirscale also shows that brand attachment predicts outcomes likebrand loyalty and brand advocacy behaviors. (See also Jiménez &Voss, 2014, for a discussion of scales assessing brand attachment).
Increasingly, researchers have examined the construct of brandlove, which seems to predict many of the same effects as thosepredicted by brand attachment (described shortly). However, priorresearch also suggests that the perceived connection between thebrand and the self (e.g., brand-self distance) and brand prominencebetter predict feelings of closeness to the brand than does brandlove (Park et al., 2013a, 2013b). The extent to which consumersdevote resources to the brand may differentiate brand attachmentfrom brand love, which tends to be self-centered (vs. relationshipfocused; Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012). Unfortunately, theterm “brand love” is a bit nebulous, as it has been used to refer to(a) a state that seems similar to brand attachment (Carroll &Ahuvia, 2006), (b) a psychological state that reflects pleasure(i.e., feeling sexy, romantic, sentimental and warmhearted; Laros
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
13D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
& Steenkamp, 2005), (c) a colloquial expression used byconsumers to describe their overall brand affection (Albert,Merunka, & Valette-Florence, 2008), (d) an emotion prototypethat describes the antecedents (e.g., brand-self integration),qualities (brand-self connection), and consequences (e.g., separa-tion distress, long-term relationship, attitude valence, certaintyconfidence, passion driven behaviors) of close brand relationships(Batra et al., 2012), (e) a broad psychological state that describesbrand relationships characterized by varying degrees of intimacy,passion and connection (e.g., Shimp & Madden, 1988), (f) and astate that reflects the degree of passion a consumer has for thebrand. Such diverse usages make it difficult to develop ageneralized understanding of the drivers, concept and effects ofbrand love.
Separation distressOne behavioral indicator of brand attachment is consumers'
separation distress at the prospect of terminating a relationshipwith the brand if it were to go off the market or cease to beavailable to them (Thomson et al., 2005). Indeed, the loss ofmaterial possessions to which one is attached is linked to feelingsof sadness (Ferraro, Escalas, & Bettman, 2011; see also Russell &Schau, 2014). Interestingly, a brand's withdrawal from themarketplace appears to produce phases of loss that resemble thecoping process that follows the loss of interpersonal relationships.That is, consumers' feelings move through the followingstages: (a) a state of denial; (b) negative emotions like anger,disappointment and sadness; (c) a search for remnants of thebrand or other places in the market where the brand might beacquired; (d) hopelessness and despair; and finally (e) recovery,where consumers accept the loss of the brand and move on toalternative options (Russell & Schau, 2015).
Effects of brand attachmentThe more consumers are attached to a brand, the more
they engage in pro-brand behaviors, such as brand advocacy(e.g., positive WOM, defending the brand against criticism) andbrand loyalty behaviors (e.g., brand commitment, refusal toconsider alternative brands; e.g., Park et al., 2010, 2013a;Thomson et al., 2005). Consumers are also more likely toaccept extensions of the brands to which they are attached(Fedorikhin, Park, & Thomson, 2008). Additionally, brandattachment enhances consumers' willingness to pay a pricepremium for the brand (e.g., Orth, Limon, & Rose, 2010; Parket al., 2010, 2013a; Thomson et al., 2005), and it enhanceconsumers' desires to be part of a brand community (e.g., Schau,Muñiz, & Arnould, 2009). These behaviors can sometimes seemextreme, such as when devoted Barry Manilow fans displaypictures and other memorabilia in shrines that reflect theiradoration to Barry (O'Guinn, 1991). Consumers also seem to bemore forgiving of minor brand transgressions as attachment to thebrand increases (Donovan, Priester, MacInnis, & Park, 2012).However, the effects of attachment on consumers' responses tobrand transgressions may be complex, as we suggest later in ourdiscussion of brand betrayal.
Factors impacting brand attachmentEffectance and sociality motivations (see Fig. 1) also
appear to impact the extent of consumers' brand attachments.Dunn and Hoegg (2014) find that consumers are more likely tobecome attached to brands when they are afraid (but not sad,happy or excited), because people cope with fear by seekingout others (people or objects) for comfort and support (asociality motivation). In such cases, consumers' belief that thebrand has shared their (fearful) experiences drives brandattachment. Nevertheless, fearful individuals may be inclinedto affiliate with other people rather than brands when peopleare present.
Also consistent with a sociality motivation, consumers aremore likely to become attached to brands that enrich the self;that is, brands that help consumers develop, maintain andpromote a desired identity and a coherent sense of self (Parket al., 2013a). Consistent with this notion, the more a place(e.g., a retail store) fulfills consumers' sociality motivations(e.g., the more customers bond with service employees), thegreater consumers' attachment to that place becomes (Brocato,Baker, & Voorhees, 2015). Dommer et al. (2013) find that,when low self-esteem consumers feel socially included, theydevelop stronger attachments to brands that reflect status orsuperiority within a group. In contrast, social exclusion leadslow self-esteem consumers to develop stronger attachments tobrands that reflect their individual tastes.
Some research suggests that attachments to brands can, insome situations, compensate for deficiencies in interpersonalrelationships, which may be related to a sociality motivation.The tendency to become attached to possessions, for example, isimpacted by loneliness. Pieters (2013) observed a bi-directionalrelationship between loneliness (which should evoke a socialitymotivation) and attachment to possessions. Specifically, loneli-ness inclines consumers to develop greater attachments to theirpossessions (i.e., exhibit greater materialism) as substitutes forrelationships with other people. In turn, materialism may isolateconsumers from others, thereby fostering greater loneliness.Elderly consumers may be more inclined to developattachments to brands as relationship partners (Jahn, Gaus, &Kiessling, 2012), perhaps because the mobility limitations ofelderly people give them fewer opportunities to connect withother people.
As to effectance motivations, Park et al. (2013a) suggest thatconsumers become increasingly attached to brands that enablethe self, providing a sense of self-efficacy, power, andcompetence, as well as brands that entice the self, by providingcognitive and experiential pleasure. Consumers are also predictedto become attached to brands that enrich the self because theyreflect strongly held values or desired self-identities. The formerperspective accords with an effectance motivation. Similarly,Proksch, Orth, and Cornwell (2015) find that brand attachment ispositively affected by the degree to which the brand makesconsumers feel competent.
Blending effectance and sociality motivations, consumersbecame more attached to celebrities who enhanced consumers'feelings of autonomy (which should be related to an effectancemotivation) and relatedness (which should be related to a
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
14 D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
sociality motivation) (Thomson, 2006). Interestingly, compe-tence (which should also be related to an effectance motivation)was found to be unrelated to attachment strength. This nullfinding might be due to the fact that the study focused oncelebrities, who may be less effective than other brands when itcomes to actualizing on effectance motivations.
Brand personalities may also affect brand attachment. Oneof the few studies using longitudinal data found such an effect.In this study, brand attachment was indicated by the extent towhich consumers were committed to the brand, felt a strongbrand-self connection, regarded their brand relationship asintimate, and were satisfied with the brand (Aaker et al., 2004).Consumers' relationships with (i.e., attachment to) sincerebrands deepened over time. In contrast, their relationships withexciting brands were more like flings, short-lived and intense.However, this effect was contingent on whether the brand had orhad not transgressed against the consumer (e.g., inadvertentlyerased the customer's online photo album). Attachment to sincerebrands was negatively affected by a transgression, but attachmentto exciting brands was somewhat rejuvenated following atransgression.
Finally, the perceived congruity between the brand and theself (see Fig. 1) also affects brand-self connections and brandattachment. A qualitative study revealed that brand-self connec-tions and brand attachment increased as the congruity betweenthe brand and the self-concept increased (Japutra, Ekinci, &Simkin, 2014). Malär, Krohmer, Hoyer, & Nyffenegger (2011)found that the impact of personality congruity was greatest wheneffectance motivations were high – specifically when consumerslacked self-esteem or were high in public self-consciousness. Theconsistency between the brand's personality and the consumer'spersonality is related to brand attachment (Orth et al., 2010).Ghuman et al. (2015) found a positive relationship between thedegree to which a brand is anthropomorphized and the perceivedquality of the consumer-brand relationship.
Brand aversion and brand betrayal
The opposite of brand attachment is brand aversion. Here,consumers regard a brand that is highly prominent in memory asdistant from (vs. close to) the self. Consumers might be averse tobrands that reflect dissociative reference groups with whom theydo not wish to affiliate (White & Dahl, 2007). However, recentresearch suggests that brand aversion can also be created when abrand to which consumers are attached violates consumers' trust.Researchers have labeled this state “brand betrayal” (Grégoire &Fisher, 2008), a state also used to describe human relationshipswhere implicit relationship norms are violated.
Since attachment-based brand relationships evolve over time,consumers come to trust the brand as the brand relationshipdeepens. Although brand attachment and strong/close brand-selfconnections can insulate the brand from the repercussions ofminor brand failures (Donovan et al., 2012), there are limits toconsumers' tolerance of brand transgressions (Schmalz & Orth,2012; see also Loken & John, 2010; Wan, Hui, & Wyer, 2011).When the brand violates the fundamental norms that guide thebrand relationship, the state of attachment changes to one of
betrayal. With betrayal the valence of the relationship changingfrom one of extreme closeness to one of extreme distance(i.e., aversion; e.g., Grégoire & Fisher, 2008; Wiggin & Yalch,2015). Feelings of brand betrayal can be so negative thatconsumers take revenge against the brand (Grégoire & Fisher,2008; Johnson, Matear, & Thomson, 2011).
To date, limited research has examined whether themotivational drivers that stimulate consumers' tendencies toperceive brands in human-like terms (see Fig. 1) affect theintensity of brand betrayal. One study focusing on attachmentstyles found that when a brand engaged in a transgression,anti-brand reactions were greater as the attachment style wascharacterized by greater levels of anxiety and avoidance.Consumers who were high on these attachment style dimen-sions experienced greater loss of benefits and self-esteem thanother consumers as a result of the brand's transgression(Thomson, Whelan, & Johnson, 2012).
Brand betrayal has spurred recent interest, but much remainsto be learned about what causes consumers to feel betrayed bybrands and how firms can recover from this negative affectivestate. If strong brand attachment moderates the relationshipbetween a brand's actions and betrayal, firms risk losing theirbest customers (and rousing them to take revenge) when theirtransgressions are perceived as a betrayal. Future work on whenand why consumers will experience betrayal and how firms canrecover is clearly important in order to better understand howconsumers relate to brands in human-like terms. Opportunitiesto advance our understanding of brand betrayal and itsrelationship to the topics noted in Fig. 1 are numerous, sincethe study of brand betrayal is still in its infancy.
Feelings of brand betrayal may be more likely to arise whenconsumers make anthropomorphic inferences about brands ashaving a human-like mind and acting with intentionality. In otherwords, inferring that the brand has intentionally misled them(Parmentier & Fischer, 2015), exploited them (Sayin & Gürhan-Canli, 2015), violated fairness-related relational norms (Grégoire& Fisher, 2008), behaved in a highly unethical way (Schmalz &Orth, 2012; Trump, 2014) or shown disloyalty toward them(Luedicke & Pichler-Luedicke, 2015) may increase the intensityof consumers' feelings of brand betrayal.
Brand relationship norms
A fruitful direction for understanding brand attachment andbrand betrayal, as well as other brand relationship states and brandrelationship types, draws on theories about social relationshipnorms. Aggarwal (2004) proposes that brand relationships vary interms of the norms that guide them; specifically, whether and towhat extent they are based on “exchange” or “communal” norms.Exchange relationships involve a shared understanding that arelationship is based on a quid pro quo mode of interaction.Exchange relationship norms dictate a match between whatcustomers give to obtain and interact with the brand (e.g., pricepaid, time spent) andwhat the brand provides in return (e.g., brandbenefits, service benefits). Consumers for whom exchangerelationship norms are salient become unhappy when a relation-ship is out of balance in terms of the give–get interchange, such as
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
15D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
when the consumer puts more (e.g., more money, more time,more effort) into the brand relationship than he she gets in return.
Communal relationship norms, on the other hand, are basedon a shared understanding that a relationship partner (e.g., thebrand) receives benefits or accrues costs depending on whatthe other relationship partner (e.g., the consumer) needs at agiven point in time. With communal relationships, the brand ispart of one's “in group”. Contributions to the partner (i.e., theconsumer's contributions to the brand or vice versa) are made onbehalf of the consumer-brand unit (vs. one's self-interests). Forexample, if one member of a brand relationship (e.g., theconsumer) needs help, communal relationship norms woulddictate that the brand would proffer help without the expectationof compensation. What is new and relevant to the relationshipnorm literature are the ideas that (a) brand relationships can becommunal in nature, (b) different relationship norms may be morevs. less salient in a given situation or for a particular type ofconsumer, and (c) a mismatch between the type of relationshipnorm implied by the brand's action (i.e., exchange) and the type ofrelationship norm expected by consumers (i.e., communal) candamage brand relationships.
Summary
Consumers sometimes relate to a brand in human-like ways,with distinctions across types of relationships based on brandcloseness/distance, brand prominence, relationship valence andrelative power in the relationship. Research has studiedconsumers' feeling of attachment to the brand, perhaps partlybecause of its significant consequences to marketers, whichrange from brand loyalty and defending the brand againstcriticism to brand aversion and taking vengeance against thebrand. A promising research direction involves comparingbrand relationships guided by communal norms to those guidedby exchange norms (Aggarwal, 2004). Considering the growingfocus of research on brand attachment, it is not surprising that theeffects of sociality motivations (e.g., loneliness, brands as groupstatus markers, self-esteem) on how consumers relate to brandshave been more thoroughly studied compared to those ofeffectance motivations (self-efficacy).
Future research directions for this general domain
As we show in this review, a substantial and recent body ofresearch has examined consumers' perceptions of brands inhuman-like terms. Activity in this young field reveals apromising trajectory, with most studies published within thelast decade and with considerable potential for future researchon important issues. In Table 2, we present a set of propositionsthat summarize research findings to date. We use thesepropositions to develop some concluding thoughts.
Throughout this review, we have identified specific futureresearch directions. Here, we identify a set of research directionsthat relate to the domain of humanizing brands as a whole,including the propositions noted in Table 2.
Whereas the literature reviewed above suggests that con-sumers can perceive and relate to brands in human-like terms,two considerations must be kept in mind when carrying thisresearch forward. First, the fact that consumers can relate tobrands in human-like terms should not be taken as evidence thatthey always do (see Aggarwal, 2004; Alba & Lutz, 2013; Batraet al., 2012; Miller et al., 2012; Park et al., 2013b). Individualsmay correct for anthropomorphic tendencies when they becomecognizant of having done so (even if the correction is insufficient).
Indeed, there is an opportunity in consumer research todemarcate the boundaries of human and brand relationships.Swaminathan and Dommer (2012) suggest that brand relation-ships typically involve an economic exchange, whereas mosthuman relationships do not. As such, compared to interpersonalrelationships, consumers may have more of an exchange thana communal orientation toward brands. Moreover, whereasindividuals can feel betrayed by relationship partners whoare unfaithful to them, consumers do not seem to believethat brands experience feelings of betrayal or other negativeresponses to the consumers' polygamous brand relationships(though see Luedicke & Pichler-Luedicke, 2015, who finddifferent results).
Is humanizing brands an accelerating trend?
The recency of research supporting P1 might suggest thatconsumers' humanization of brands is a contemporary phenom-enon. It may be partly true in that brands have played anincreasingly important role in the modern marketplace. Addi-tionally, social changes may have enhanced consumers' motiva-tions, abilities or opportunities to humanize brands, which raisesnumerous questions. Have consumers as a whole become moredependent on brands for enhancing a sense of effectance? Havesocietal changes, such as greater stress and time–pressure, ormore shallow human relationships, led contemporary consumersto relate to brands differently today than in previous generations?Do consumers look to brands as sources of emotionalgratification more now because consumers receive less emotionalsupport elsewhere? Do consumers look more to brands asrelationship partners because global competition creates a world-view of unpredictable, hostile or tenuous relationships amongpeople? Have wealth and high standards of living in the Westmade for a more entitled population that looks to the marketplacefor certain types of brand relationships (e.g., relationships wherethe consumer is the master and the brand the slave)? Consumerresearch can benefit from historical, sociological, and politicalscience perspectives (as well as psychological perspectives) onwhether and to what extent consumers' relationships with brandstoday differ from those of prior generations, and if so, what drivesthese differences.
P1 also raises the question of whether technological innova-tions interact with societal changes to offer more opportunities forconsumers to view brands in human-like terms. The increasingtendency for consumers to spend more time alone (e.g., Putnam,2000), coupled with the aging of the population and needs for
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
16 D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
assisted living tools, herald the advent of robots with humanfeatures, voices, and actions, as well as the increased use of virtualreality and technologies, like self-driving cars, all of which willlikely further impact our perception and experiences of brands.Such technological advances may actually exaggerate consumers'tendency to see brands in human-like terms because they cuehuman knowledge schemas, they offer a way to connect sociallyand they offer a way to exert control over an increasingly complexworld. For example, as consumers become increasingly dependenton technology and brands to perform functions that previouslyrequired human skills (e.g., reading maps, mathematical calcula-tions, translation), these dependencies may lower effectance incertain domains of our lives. A reduced sense of effectance mayheighten consumers' tendencies to anthropomorphize brands, asprior research suggests. A tendency to humanize may be even
Table 2Summary propositions.
P1: Consumers can humanize brands in the following ways:
• By perceiving them in anthropomorphic ways (with human-like features,minds, and personalities)
• By perceiving them as similar to or connected to the self• By perceiving them as relationship partners
P2: The humanization of brands (in ways suggested by P1) can be heightenedby a variety of dispositional, situational, developmental, and cultural factorsrelated to activated agent knowledge, motivations for sociality and motivationsfor effectance.
P3: The various perspectives on how consumers humanize brands areinter-related and may be mutually reinforcing. That is, consumers may feelgreater congruity between the brand and the self and stronger brand attachmentas they anthropomorphize the brand more.
P4: Marketers can use a variety of visual, verbal and metaphorical tools toactivate knowledge of a “human” schema and, thereby, enhance consumers'tendencies to perceive brands in anthropomorphic ways.
P5: Consumers can perceive brands as having human-like personality traits,although these traits differ from the “Big 5” traits that describe humanpersonalities.
P6. Consumer-brand relationships vary in their degree of brand-self-connect-edness, brand prominence, attachment, relative power, and the communalversus exchange norms that undergird the brand relationship.
P7: The act of humanizing brands has the potential to contribute to humanhappiness.• Consumers often, but not always, form positive attitudes and attachments
toward brands that they humanize.• Brand-self connections developed by the brand's relevance to various life
goals (e.g., satisfying needs for safety and control), power (effectancemotivations), connections to others, expression of one's identity (socialitymotivation), and sensory stimulation incline consumers toward brandrelationships characterized by stronger attachment and minimal aversion.
P8: Consumers exhibit considerable variation in their attachment to brands.They are indifferent to many brands, and may experience a state of ambivalenceor aversion with respect to others.
P9: Brand relationships are dynamic. Certain types of brand transgressions canturn a state of extreme happiness (brand attachment) into unhappiness (brandbetrayal).
more pronounced with the development of algorithms that “learn”customers' habits and can be customized to the consumer's needs(see Kozinets, 2015, for a discussion).
What else impacts tendencies to humanize brands?
P2 suggests that dispositional, situational, development, andcultural factors related to agent knowledge and motivations forsociality and effectance can heighten consumers' tendencies tohumanize brands. Indeed, in this review, we have identified a setof variables that can be broadly subsumed within the categoriesof sociality motivations, effectance motivations and elicited agentknowledge. These constructs appear to influence whether, when,and why consumers perceive and relate to brands in human-liketerms (see Fig. 1). For example, we see that consumers are morelikely to perceive and relate to brands in human like terms whensituational (e.g., situational loneliness), dispositional (e.g.,chronic loneliness), developmental (e.g., attachment styles) andcultural factors (individualism/collectivism) activate a socialitymotivation.
Yet, other variables that reflect these higher-level factors notedin Fig. 1 offer additional opportunities to test the boundaries ofthe model. For example, individual differences in introversion/extroversion, an instantiation of sociality motivations, mightpredict that introverts (who gain less emotional energy frominteractions with people) are more likely to humanize brands thanextraverts. Relatedly, research might examine whether con-sumers are more likely to humanize brands when they interactwith the brand themselves versus when they observe otherswith the brand. In sum, we have the opportunity to buildtheory by examining other situational, dispositional, develop-mental and cultural factors that are associated with socialitymotivations, effectance motivations, and elicited agent knowledge.
What bi-directional causality relationships exist amongconstructs?
P3 suggests that the various ways in which people humanizebrands (as shown in Fig. 1) can be mutually reinforcing. Yetalternative paths that reflect the causal relationships betweenthese ways of humanizing brands have yet to be studied. Forexample, whereas consumers may be more likely to see a brandas having a personality after they anthropomorphize it, doesthe evocation of the brand as having a personality enhanceanthropomorphism tendencies? Whereas seeing the brand ashaving an anthropomorphized mind and being trustworthy mightenhance brand-self connections and attachment, is it possible thatgreater levels of brand attachment enhance perceptions of thebrand as a trusted partner? Future research should consider thepotential for bi-directional relationships among the constructsidentified in Fig. 1, particularly as brand relationships developover time.
What would a broadened set of relationship types reveal?
Consumers' relationships with brands vary on a number ofdimensions (P6), among which include brand-self connectedness,
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
17D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
prominence, attachment, power, and relationship norms. Yet,as Fournier and Alvarez (2012) note, we have tended to focuson brand relationships characterized by strong levelsof attachment. This is not surprising given the importanceof attachment-based brand relationships to marketers. Yet, asthese authors eloquently note, there is clearly opportunity tostudy brand relationship types and forms beyond brandattachment. For example, under what conditions is powerunequally distributed such that the consumer feels dependenton the brand (as when the brand has more power than theconsumer) or the consumer feels that the brand is a slave(where the consumer has more power)? How does the brandrelationship change when an exchange relationship evolves toa communal one?
How does humanizing brands influence consumer happiness?
When consumers perceive, relate to and treat brandspositively, marketers enjoy numerous benefits. These includebrand loyalty and commitment, enhanced consumer willingnessto disparage competing brands, greater willingness to spreadpositive WOM, and a willingness to pay a price premium. Thesepotential benefits can justify increasing consumer attachment andbrand anthropomorphism as goals for marketing managers, evenif the firm has relatively few attached customers or customers thatanthropomorphize the brand.
Whereas marketers might benefit when strong brandattachments form, P7 suggests that consumers could be happierwhen they become attached to brands that satisfy various lifegoals (in particular, brands that enable, enrich and entice thosegoals). Yet, one cannot help but ask whether, when, and whybrand relationships induce greater degrees of happiness thanhuman relationships do. Is it psychologically healthy forconsumers to form attachments to brands? Does evidence ofbrand attachment signify an absence of other sources ofgratification in consumers' lives?
How does humanizing a brand change over time?
P9 suggests that brand relationships are dynamic. Yet, littleis known about the dynamic nature of brand relationships.Research on brand betrayal is a step in this direction, butbasic questions remain. Recent research points to theimportance of studying velocity or change in brand relation-ships (e.g., Harmeling, Palmatier, Houston, Arnold, &Samaha, 2015), which is a useful step in this direction. Wehave yet to understand what drives the pace at which brandrelationships develop, what psychological, social and market-place factors can create an ebb and flow in these relationships,and when certain types of brand relationships (e.g., flings)morph into different relationship types (e.g., dependencies). Astudy of how brand relationships evolve over time will likelyrequire the development of novel constructs, such asrelationship volatility, stability, productivity, interdepen-dence, immutability, and discontinuity. Important questionsexist at the interface of consumer research and marketing onhow brand relationships can maintain consumers' passion and
excitement, how they can be revived after a period of dormancy,and what factors encourage relationship continuity despitemarketplace mishaps (mishaps that evoke brand betrayal as wellas those that evoke other feelings, like abandonment, exploitation,and rejection).
Also related to P9 is understanding the role of ownership.Whereas brand ownership provides opportunities for thedevelopment and potential deepening of brand-self connec-tions, we know little about how or whether ownershipissues impact perceptions of brands as having human-likecharacteristics, traits, or minds. Do anthropomorphizationtendencies increase as brand relationships develop and/orproducts are owned over longer periods of time? Owning aproduct may facilitate its being perceived as a human-likeentity, but this sense of its human-like qualities may nottransfer over to identical replacements. Research on theprocess by which consumers detach from brands to whichthey have previously been attached would also help usunderstand the dynamic nature of brand relationships.Moreover, once consumers have detached from a brand(e.g., one's childhood Barbie dolls), is it possible that factorsrelated to sociality (e.g., nostalgia), effectance (shaken self)and elicited agent knowledge (e.g., entity orientation)facilitate re-attachment?
How does humanization of products differ from humanizationof brands?
Finally, although our focus has been on the humanization ofbrands, at the product level, consumers are also capable ofhumanizing product categories (e.g., cars as a product class vs.VW's as a brand). Developmental issues related to brandsgenerally being more abstract categories and being learned laterin life, may lead to different tendencies to anthropomorphizeproducts (e.g., computers) vs. brands within a product class(e.g., Mac's).
One might also ask whether consumers are likely toanthropomorphize an individual branded possession (e.g., myVW Beetle) more so than the brand? Some research suggeststhe opposite, at least for services. That is, humanizing a brandmay decrease the likelihood of humanizing any one of thebrand's individual service providers. People who attribute agroup mind to a company (e.g., Burger King) are less likely toattribute a mind to an individual employee (Waytz & Young,2012). These distinctions between a product class, a brand andan individually branded product are relevant for the proposi-tions shown in Table 2, and raise interesting researchquestions. Do consumers develop deeper or more differentiat-ed personality impressions of brands than of products? Howdoes characterizing a marketplace entity as a brand versus aproduct impact brand self-congruity and brand attachment?Will consumers feel a greater sense of betrayal when a brand ora product acts in ways that counter relationship norms? Inshort, while P1–P9 delineate a set of issues related to brands,whether all these hold true to the same extent for productsremains to be seen.
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
18 D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
References
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of MarketingResearch, 34(3), 347–356.
Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression inpersuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 45–57.
Aaker, J. L., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad.Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 1–16.
Aaker, J. L., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warmand for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 37(2), 224–237.
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumerattitudes and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87–101.
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schemacongruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal ofConsumer Research, 34(4), 468–479.
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2012). When brands seem human, do humansact like brands? Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropo-morphism. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 307–323.
Aguirre-Rodriguez, A., Bosnjak, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2012). Moderators of theself-congruity effect on consumer decision-making: A meta-analysis.Journal of Business Research, 65(8), 1179–1188.
Ahn, H. K., Kim, H. J., & Aggarwal, P. (2014). Helping fellow beings:Anthropomorphized social causes and the role of anticipatory guilt.Psychological Science, 25(1), 224–229.
Alba, J. W., & Lutz, R. (2013). Broadening (and narrowing) the scope of brandrelationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 269–274.
Albert, N., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2008). When consumers lovetheir brands: Exploring the concept and its dimensions. Journal of BusinessResearch, 61(1), 1062–1075.
Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measurebrand personality? Journal of Brand Management, 11(2), 143–155.
Bao, J. E., & Sweeney, J. C. (2009). Comparing factor analytical andcircumplex models of brand personality in brand positioning. Psychologyand Marketing, 26(10), 927–949.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal ofMarketing, 76(2), 1–16.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 15(2), 139–168.
Brocato, E. D., Baker, J., & Voorhees, C. M. (2015). Creating consumerattachment to retail service firms through sense of place. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 200–220.
Carpara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Gianlguigi, G. (2001). Brand personality: Howto make the metaphor fit. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22(3), 377–395.
Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes ofbrand love. Marketing Letters, 17(2), 79–89.
Chan, C., Berger, J., & Van Boven, L. (2012). Identifiable but not identical:Combining social identity and uniqueness motives in choice. Journal ofConsumer Research, 39(3), 561–573.
Chandler, J., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Use does not wear ragged the fabric offriendship: Thinking of objects as alive makes people less willing to replacethem. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 138–145.
Chaplin, L. N., & John, D. R. (2005). The development of self-brand connectionsin children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 119–129.
Chen, Y. P., Nelson, L. D., & Hsu, M. (2015). From “where” to “what”:Distributed representations of brand associations in the human brain.Journal of Marketing Research, 52(4), 453–466.
Cheng, S. Y., White, T. B., & Chaplin, L. N. (2012). The effects of self-brandconnections on responses to brand failure: A new look at the consumer–brand relationship. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 280–288.
Debenedetti, A., Oppewal, H., & Arsel, Z. (2014). Place attachment in commercialsettings: A gift economy perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5),904–923.
Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E. F., & Phillips, B. J. (2011). Personification inadvertising. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 121–130.
Deshpande, R., Hoyer, W. D., & Donthu, N. (1986). The intensity of ethnicaffiliation: A study of the sociology of Hispanic consumption. Journal ofConsumer Research, 13(2), 214–220.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factormodel. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417–440.
Dommer, S. L., Swaminathan, V., & Ahluwalia, R. (2013). Using differentiatedbrands to deflect exclusion and protect inclusion: The moderating role ofself-esteem on attachment to differentiated brands. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 40(4), 657–675.
Donovan, L. A. N., Priester, J., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2012).Brand forgiveness: How close brand relationships influence forgiveness. InS. Fournier, M. Breazeale, & M. Fetscherin (Eds.), Consumer-brandrelationships: Theory and practice (pp. 281–304). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dunn, L., & Hoegg, J. (2014). The impact of fear on emotional brandattachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 152–168.
Eisend, M., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2013). Measurement characteristics ofAaker's brand personality dimensions: Lessons to be learned from humanpersonality research. Psychology and Marketing, 30(11), 950–958.
Epley, N., & Waytz, A. (2010). Mind perception. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, &G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed.)1. (pp. 498–541).Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Creating socialconnection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agencyin gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19(2), 114–120.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factortheory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.
Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections tobrands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1), 168–179.
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence ofreference groups on consumers' connections to brands. Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 13(3), 339–348.
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, andbrand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378–389.
Eskine, K. J., & Locander, W. H. (2014). A name you can trust? Personificationeffects are influenced by beliefs about company values. Psychology andMarketing, 31(1), 48–53.
Fedorikhin, A., Park, C. W., & Thomson, M. (2008). Beyond fit and attitude:The effect of emotional attachment on consumer responses to brandextensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 281–291.
Fennis, B. M., & Pruyn, A. T. H. (2007). You are what you wear: Brandpersonality influences on consumer impression formation. Journal ofBusiness Research, 60(6), 634–639.
Ferraro, R., Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2011). Our possessions, our selves:Domains of self-worth and the possession–self link. Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 21(2), 169–177.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationshiptheory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4),343–373.
Fournier, S. (2009). Lessons learned about consumers' relationships with theirbrands. In D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, & J. R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook ofbrand relationships (pp. 5–23). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2012). Brands as relationship partners: Warmth,competence, and in-between. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2),177–185.
Gao, L., Wheeler, S. C., & Shiv, B. (2009). The “shaken self”: Product choices as ameans of restoring self-view confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1),29–38.
Ghuman, M. K., Huang, L., Madden, T. J., & Roth, M. S. (2015).Anthropomorphization and consumer-brand relationships: A cross-culturalanalysis. In S. Fournier, M. Breazeale, & J. Avery (Eds.), Strong brands,strong relationships (pp. 135–148). New York, NY: Routledge.
Grégoire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: Whenyour best customers become your worst enemies. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 36(2), 247–261.
Grohmann, B. (2009). Gender dimensions of brand personality. Journal ofMarketing Research, 46(1), 105–119.
Gunelius, S. (2013). 5 secrets to using storytelling for brand marketing success.Forbes February 5, 2013.
Haley, K. J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2005). Nobody's watching? Subtle cues affectgenerosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and HumanBehavior, 26(3), 245–256.
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
19D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
Harmeling, C. M., Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., Arnold, M. J., & Samaha,S. A. (2015). Transformational relationship events. Journal of Marketing,79(5), 39–62.
Haslam, N., Bain, P., Douge, L., Lee, M., & Bastian, B. (2005). More humanthan you: Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 89(6), 937–950.
Hur, J. D., Koo, M., & Hofmann, W. (2015). When temptations come alive:How anthropomorphism undermines self-control. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 42(2), 340–358.
Jahn, S., Gaus, H., & Kiessling, T. (2012). Trust, commitment, and olderwomen: Exploring brand attachment differences in the elderly segment.Psychology and Marketing, 29(6), 445–457.
Japutra, A., Ekinci, Y., & Simkin, L. (2014). Exploring brand attachment,its determinants and outcomes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(7),616–630.
Jiménez, F. R., & Voss, K. E. (2014). An alternative approach to the measurementof emotional attachment. Psychology and Marketing, 31(5), 360–370.
Johar, G. V., Sengupta, J., & Aaker, J. L. (2005). Two roads to updating brandpersonality impressions: Trait versus evaluative inferences. Journal ofMarketing Research, 42(4), 458–469.
Johnson, A. R., Matear, M., & Thomson, M. (2011). A coal in the heart: Self-relevance as a post-exit predictor of consumer anti-brand actions. Journal ofConsumer Research, 38(1), 108–125.
Keller, K. L. (2001). Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint forcreating strong brands. MSI working paper (pp. 3–38).
Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agentsframework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 166–176.
Kessous, A., Roux, E., & Chandon, J. L. (2015). Consumer–brand relationships:A contrast of nostalgic and non-nostalgic brands. Psychology and Marketing,32(2), 187–202.
Kim, H. C., & Kramer, T. (2015). Do materialists prefer the “brand-as-servant”? The interactive effect of anthropomorphized brand roles andmaterialism on consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2),284–299.
Kim, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slotmachine? Power, anthropomorphism, and risk perception. Journal ofConsumer Research, 38(1), 94–107.
Kim, D. H., & Sung, Y. (2013). Gucci versus Old Navy: Interplay of brandpersonality and regulatory focus in advertising persuasion. Psychology andMarketing, 30(12), 1076–1087.
Kim, S., Chen, R. P., & Zhang, K. (2016). Anthropomorphized helpersundermine autonomy and enjoyment in computer games. Journal ofConsumer Research, 43(2), 282–302.
Kozinets, R. V. (2015). The post-human future of brands. In S. Fournier, M.Breazeale, & J. Avery (Eds.), Strong brands, strong relationships(pp. 149–158). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D. J.(2006). Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brandloyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 955–964.
Kwak, H., Puzakova, M., & Rocereto, J. F. (2015). Better not smile at the price:The differential role of brand anthropomorphization on perceived pricefairness. Journal of Marketing, 79(4), 56–76.
Lam, S. K., Ahearne, M., Mullins, R., Hayati, B., & Schillewaert, N. (2013).Exploring the dynamics of antecedents to consumer–brand identificationwith a new brand. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2),234–252.
Landwehr, J. R., McGill, A. L., & Herrmann, A. (2011). It's got the look: Theeffect of friendly and aggressive “facial” expressions on product liking andsales. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 132–146.
Laros, F., & Steenkamp, J. B. (2005). Emotions in consumer behavior: Ahierarchical approach. Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1437–1445.
Liu, W., & Gal, D. (2011). Bringing us together or driving us apart: The effectof soliciting consumer input on consumers' propensity to transact with anorganization. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 242–259.
Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D., & Soh, H. (2012). Self-congruity, brand attitude, andbrand loyalty: A study on luxury brands. European Journal of Marketing,46(7/8), 922–937.
Loken, B., & John, D. R. (2010). When do bad things happen to good brands?Understanding internal and external sources of brand dilution. In B. Loken,R. Ahluwalia, & M. J. Houston (Eds.), Brands and brand management:Contemporary research perspectives (pp. 233–270). NY: Routledge.
Long, C., Yoon, S., & Friedman, M. (2015). How lonely consumers relate tobrands: Insights from psychological and marketing research. In S. Fournier,M. Breazaele, & J. Avery (Eds.), Strong brands, strong relationships(pp. 95–105). New York, NY: Routledge.
Luedicke, M. K., & Pichler-Luedicke, E. A. (2015). The unfaithful brand:When flirting with new customer segments, make sure you are not alreadymarried. In S. Fournier, M. Breazeale, & J. Avery (Eds.), Strong brands,strong relationships (pp. 203–215). New York, NY: Routledge.
Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotionalbrand attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of theactual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 35–52.
Malone, C., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). The human brand: How we relate to people,products and companies. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
Mark, M., & Pearson, C. (2001). The hero and the outlaw: Building extraordinarybrands through the power of archetypes. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Mathur, P., Jain, S. P., & Maheswaran, D. (2012). Consumers' implicit theoriesabout personality influence their brand personality judgments. Journal ofConsumer Psychology, 22(4), 545–557.
May, F., & Monga, A. (2014). When time has a will of its own, the powerlessdon't have the will to wait: Anthropomorphism of time can decreasepatience. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 924–942.
Miller, F. M., Fournier, S., & Allen, C. (2012). Exploring relationshipanalogues in the brand space. In S. Fournier, M. Breazeale, & M. Fetscherin(Eds.), Consumer-brand relationships (pp. 30–56). New York, NY:Routledge.
Monga, A. B., & Lau-Gesk, L. (2007). Blending cobrand personalities: Anexamination of the complex self. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3),389–400.
Moore, D. J., & Homer, P. M. (2008). Self-brand connections: The role ofattitude strength and autobiographical memory primes. Journal of BusinessResearch, 61, 707–714.
Nowak, K. L., & Rauh, C. (2005). The influence of the avatar on onlineperceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, andattraction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 153–178.
O'Guinn, T. C. (1991). Touching greatness: the Central Midwest BarryManilow fanclub.Highways and buyways: Naturalistic research from the consumer behaviorodyssey (pp. 102–111). Provo UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Orth, U. R., Limon, Y., & Rose, G. (2010). Store-evoked affect, personalities,and consumer emotional attachments to brands. Journal of BusinessResearch, 63(11), 1202–1208.
Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J., & Schor, J. B. (2011). The underdog effect:The marketing of disadvantage and determination through brand biography.Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 775–790.
Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2010). Got to get you into my life: Do brandpersonalities rub off on consumers? Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4),655–669.
Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2012). Capitalizing on brand personalities inadvertising: The influence of implicit self-theories on ad appeal effectiveness.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 424–432.
Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2014). I think I can, I think I can: Brand use, self-efficacy, and performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(2), 233–247.
Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., & Park, J. W. (2013a). Attachment–aversion(AA) model of customer–brand relationships. Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 23(2), 229–248.
Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., & Park, J. W. (2013b). From brand aversion orindifference to brand attachment: Authors' response to commentaries toPark, Eisingerich, and Park's brand attachment–aversion model. Journal ofConsumer Psychology, 23(2), 269–274.
Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D.(2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual andempirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal ofMarketing, 74(6), 1–17.
Parmentier, M. A., & Fischer, E. (2015). Things fall apart: The dynamics of brandaudience dissipation. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(5), 1228–1251.
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
20 D.J. MacInnis, V.S. Folkes / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2017) xxx–xxx
Pieters, R. (2013). Bidirectional dynamics of materialism and loneliness: Notjust a vicious cycle. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 615–631.
Proksch, M., Orth, U. R., & Cornwell, T. B. (2015). Competence enhancementand anticipated emotion as motivational drivers of brand attachment.Psychology and Marketing, 32(9), 934–949.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of Americancommunity. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When humanizing brandsgoes wrong: The detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amidproduct wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 81–100.
Reimann, M., & Aron, A. (2009). Self-expansion motivation and inclusion ofbrands in self: Toward a theory of brand relationships. In D. J.MacInnis, C.W.Park, & J. R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of brand relationships (pp. 65–81).Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Reimann, M., Castano, R., Zaichkowsky, J., & Bechara, A. (2012). How we relateto brands: Psychological and neurophysiological insights into consumer-brandrelationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 128–142.
Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J. E., & Wong, N. (2009). The safety of objects:Materialism, existential insecurity, and brand connection. Journal ofConsumer Research, 36(1), 1–16.
Russell, C. A., & Schau, H. J. (2014). When narrative brands end: The impactof narrative closure and consumption sociality on loss accommodation.Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1039–1062.
Russell, C. A., & Schau, H. J. (2015). Consumers' experience of brandwithdrawal: Unfolding consumption bereavement theory. In S. Fournier, M.Breazeale, & J. Avery (Eds.), Strong brands, strong relationships(pp. 263–281). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sayin, E., & Gürhan-Canli, A. (2015). Feeling attached to symbolic brandswithin the context of brand transgressions. Brand Meaning Management:Review of Marketing Research, 12, 233–256.
Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M., Jr., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand communitypractices create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51.
Schmalz, S., & Orth, U. R. (2012). Brand attachment and consumer emotionalresponse to unethical firm behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 29(11),869–884.
Sela, A., Wheeler, S. C., & Sarial-Abi, G. (2012). We are not the same as youand I: Causal effects of minor language variations on consumers' attitudestoward brands. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 644–661.
Shimp, T. A., & Madden, T. J. (1988). Consumer-object relations: A conceptualframework based analogously on Sternberg's triangular theory of love.Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 163–168.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 9(3), 287–300.
Smit, E., Bronner, F., & Tolboom, M. (2007). Brand relationship quality and itsvalue for personal contact. Journal of Business Research, 60(6), 627–633.
Sproull, L., Subramani, R., Kiesler, S., Walker, J., & Waters, K. (1996). Whenthe interface is a face. Human Computer Interaction, 11(1), 97–124.
Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand personality structures in the UnitedStates and Korea: Common and culture-specific factors. Journal ofConsumer Psychology, 15(4), 334–350.
Swaminathan, V., & Dommer, S. L. (2012). When is our connection to brandslike our connection to people? Differentiating between consumer-brandrelationships and interpersonal relationships. In S. Fournier, M. Breazeale,& M. Fetscherin (Eds.), Consumer-brand relationships: Theory andpractice (pp. 30–56). NY: Routledge.
Swaminathan, V., Page, K. L., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2007). “My” brand or “our”brand: The effects of brand relationship dimensions and self-construal onbrand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 248–259.
Swaminathan, V., Stilley, K. M., & Ahluwalia, R. (2009). When brandpersonality matters: The moderating role of attachment styles. Journal ofConsumer Research, 35(6), 985–1002.
Sweeney, J. C., & Brandon, C. (2006). Brand personality: Exploring thepotential to move from factor analytical to circumplex models. Psychologyand Marketing, 23(8), 639–663.
Tam, K., Lee, S., & Chao, M. M. (2013). Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomor-phism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journalof Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 514–521.
Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: Investigating antecedents to consumers'strong attachments to celebrities. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 104–119.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & 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.
Thomson, M., Whelan, J., & Johnson, A. R. (2012). Why brands should fearfearful consumers: How attachment style predicts retaliation. Journal ofConsumer Psychology, 22(2), 289–298.
Touré-Tillery, M., & McGill, A. L. (2015). Who or what to believe: Trust andthe differential persuasiveness of human and anthropomorphized messen-gers. Journal of Marketing, 79(4), 94–110.
Tsai, S. P. (2011). Strategic relationship management and service brandmarketing. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8), 1194–1213.
Trump, R. K. (2014). Connected consumers' responses to negative brandactions: The roles of transgression self-relevance and domain. Journal ofBusiness Research, 67(9), 1824–1830.
Valette-Florence, P., Guizani, H., & Merunka, D. (2011). The impact of brandpersonality and sales promotions on brand equity. Journal of BusinessResearch, 64(1), 24–28.
Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Gilbert, F. W. (2005). The role ofbrand personality in charitable giving: An assessment and validation.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 295–312.
Wan, J., & Aggarwal, P. (2015). Befriending Mr. Clean: The role ofanthropomorphism in consumer-brand relationships. In S. Fournier, M.Breazeale, & J. Avery (Eds.), Strong brands, strong relationships(pp. 119–134). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wan, L. C., Hui,M.K., &Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2011). The role of relationship norms inresponses to service failures. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 260–277.
Wang, L. C., Baker, J., Wagner, J. A., & Wakefield, K. (2007). Can a retail website be social? Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 143–157.
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010a). Who sees human? The stabilityand importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectiveson Psychological Science, 5(3), 219–232.
Waytz, A., Epley, N., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010b). Social cognition unbound:Insights into anthropomorphism and dehumanization. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 19(1), 58–62.
Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the machine:Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 52(May), 113–117.
Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2012). The group-member mind trade-off attributingmind to groups versus group members. Psychological Science, 23(1),77–85.
Weiss, L., & Johar, G. V. (2013). Egocentric categorization and productjudgment: Seeing your traits in what you own (and their opposite in whatyou don't). Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 185–201.
White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2007). Are all out-groups created equal? Consumeridentity and dissociative influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4),525–536.
Wiggin, K. L., & Yalch, R. F. (2015). Whose fault is it? Effects of relational self-views and outcome counterfactuals on self-serving attribution biases followingbrand policy changes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(3), 459–472.
Woodside, A. G., Sood, S., & Miller, K. E. (2008). When consumers and brandstalk: Storytelling theory and research in psychology and marketing.Psychology and Marketing, 25(2), 97–145.
Yang, L. W., Cutright, K. M., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2014).Distinctively different: Exposure to multiple brands in low-elaborationsettings. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 973–992.
brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me, Journal of
