Brand Love Interpersonal or Parasocial Relationship?
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•1,164 views
Presentation given at the 1st International Consumer Brand Relationships Conference, www.consumer-brand-relationships.org copyright by Marc Fetscherin
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Brand Love Interpersonal or Parasocial Relationship?
Similar to Brand Love Interpersonal or Parasocial Relationship? (20)
More from CBR Conference
More from CBR Conference (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Brand Love Interpersonal or Parasocial Relationship?
- 1. 1 Brand Love Interpersonal or Parasocial Relationship? Marc Fetscherin, Ph.D. & Mary Conway-Dato-On Crummer Graduate School of Business Rollins College
- 2. 2 Brand Love Interpersonal or Parasocial Relationship? Marc Fetscherin, Ph.D. & Mary Conway Dato-on, Ph.D. Rollins College Crummer Graduate School of Business MBA Ranking Financial Times #59 worldwide Business Week #23 nationally, #1 in Florida Forbes #36 nationally, #1 in Florida
- 3. Agenda • Introduction & Literature Review • Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses • Research Method • Analyses and Results • Conclusion and Limitations 3
- 4. 4 Purpose (1)Assess the relationship between brand love and existing branding concepts (2) Assess the suitable underlying relationship theory in which brand love is grounded
- 5. 5 Literature Review • Feelings of love towards products (Ball and Tasaki, 1995; Rozanski et al., 1999; Thomason et al., 2005; Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988) • Feeling of love towards brands (Aggarwal, 2004; Fournier, 1998; Monga, 2002; Swaminathan et al., 2007) • Brands as relationship partners (Keh, Pang & Peng, 2007) with many different brand relationship constructs (Fournier, 1998) • Various types of intensities of relationships (Albert et al., 2008) • Literature review indicates all empirical studies based on the interpersonal love relationship theory (Sternberg, 1986)
- 6. 6 Brand Love • Brand love - one of the least studied brand constructs • Love influences consumer’s emotion and has a strong connection to individual’s self concept and identity (Richins, 1997) • Emotions are linked to product risks and purchase intention (Chaudhuri, 1998) • Definition of brand love – Degree of passionate emotional attachment (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006) – Intimate, passionate, and committed relationship characterized by its reciprocal, purposive and dynamic properties (Keh, Pang & Peng, 2007)
- 7. 7 Few Brand Love Studies Authors Dim. / items Respondents Alpha Limitations Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) 1 / 10 334 Adult Consumers Brand love (.91) Brand loyalty (.84) WOM (.92) • Based on Sternberg (1986) triangular theory of interpersonal love • Brand love -> brand loyalty Keh et al. (2007) 3 / 11 N/A Intimacy (.72) Passion (.88) Commitment (.97) • Based on Sternberg (1986) triangular theory of interpersonal love • No indication of type and # respondents Kamat and Parulekar (2007) 5 / 52 139 respondents N/A • Based on Sternberg (1986) triangular theory of interpersonal love • No validity check (alpha) Heinrich et al. (2008) 3 / 9 299 respondents Intimacy (.94) Passion (.89) Commitment (.88) • Based on Sternberg (1986) triangular theory of interpersonal love • Not product specific
- 8. 8 Limitations of Current Studies • All based on same relationship theory, Sternberg (1986) triangular theory of interpersonal love • Theory is robust but sole theoretical basis is challenged – Yoon and Gutchess (2006) showed consumers process brand relationships in a different part of the brain than is used for interpersonal relationships (see also Ahuvia, 2008*) * Symposium, Advances in Consumer Research, 2008, p. 177
- 9. Agenda • Introduction & Literature Review • Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses • Research Method • Analyses and Results • Conclusion and Limitations 9
- 10. 10 Interpersonal Love • If brand love is grounded by theory of interpersonal love relationship, many other theories: – Love Attitude Scale (Henddrick and Hendrick, 1986) – Relationship Rating Form (Davis and Todd, 1985) – Passionate Love Scale (Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986) – Attachment Styles (Shaver and Hazan, 1987) • Masuda (2003) in the meta-analyses of love scales shows love has two dimensions: erotic and companionate love • Sternberg does not differentiate among love dimensions H1: Interpersonal companionate love relationship has a positive effect on brand love
- 11. 11 Parasocial Love • Brand love is a one-directional relationship (parasocial) rather than a bi-directional relationship (interpersonal) • Wang et al. (2004, p. 320) “when the target of love is replaced with an object, love becomes uni-directional” • Parasocial interaction (PSI) is a perceived relationship of friendship or intimacy by audience with media person (Horton and Wohl, 1956) • Originally assess the relationship between celebrities and audience or fans (Caughey, 1984) H2: Parasocial love relationship has a positive effect on brand love
- 12. 12 Brand History • Fournier and Yao (1997) stressed that a brand can generate nostalgic remembrances from childhood • Consumers with long history might be more brand loyal, but might also have a positive feeling towards the brand H3a: Brand history has a positive effect on brand loyalty H3b: Brand history has a positive effect on brand love
- 13. 13 Brand Loyalty • Generally positive relationship between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty (Kraft et al., 1973; LaBarbera and Mazursky, 1983; Kasper, 1988; Bloemer and Lemmink, 1992). • Less known relationship between brand loyalty and brand love. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) or Kamat and Parulekar (2007) argue that brand love precedes brand loyalty • We challenge, people who are loyal do not necessarily love the brand but people who love a brand are loyal to that brand H4: Brand loyalty has a positive effect on brand love
- 14. Relationship Theory Brand History Brand Love Brand Loyalty H1, H2 H3b H4H3a Research Model
- 15. Agenda • Introduction & Literature Review • Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses • Research Method • Analyses and Results • Conclusion and Limitations 15
- 16. 16 Research Method • Measurement items – Dependent variables: • Expressed overall love for brand (Albert et al. 2008; Rubin, 1970) – Independent variables • Interpersonal love: Love Attitude scale (Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986; Lee 1977) • Parasocial love: Parasocial Interaction scale (Perse and Rubin, 1989) • Brand history: (Albert et al., 2008) • Brand loyalty: Attitudinal & behavioral brand loyalty (Quester and Lim, 2003) • Product category: Cars - heavily branded products (Albert et al. 2008)
- 17. Data Collection • Data collection: Survey among undergraduate and graduate students in the United States* • Pre-Test with 20 respondents • Surveyed 196; 180 usable questionnaire • Unbiased brand recall of 3 car brands, select favorite as reference brand to answer survey • All Questions use 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). This allows consistent coding 17 * Country image scale (Martin and Eroglu, 1993), buying impulsiveness scale (Rook and Fisher, 1995), brand association scale (Low and Lamb, 2000), consumer-based brand equity scale (Yoo and Donthu, 2001)
- 18. Agenda • Introduction & Literature Review • Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses • Research Method • Analyses and Results • Conclusion and Limitations 18
- 19. 19 Reliability and Validity • Content validity - items based on current literature and consulting other marketing professors • Construct validity – Convergence validity (internal consistency, stability and reliability) • Cronbach alpha. Overall with .922; interpersonal love (.905); parasocial love (.794); brand history (.840); and brand loyalty (.850) • Test-retest reliability by split-half reliability (.728) and odd-even reliability (.927) – Discriminate validity by means of EFA and CFA
- 20. 20 Summary Results Model Parasocial Relationship Model Interpersonal Relationship Hypotheses Testing H1&2: Relationship Theory → Brand Love (+) .75*** (H2) .35*** (H1) H3a: Brand History → Brand Loyalty (+) .44*** .43*** H3b: Brand History → Brand Love (+) .06 .04 H4a: Brand Loyalty → Brand Love (+) .35*** .60*** *** p < .01; ** p < .05; * < .10
- 21. Relationship Theory Brand History Brand Love R 2 = 70% Brand Loyalty R 2 = 19% 0.75*** 0.06 0.35*** 0.44*** Summary Results Interpersonal Love Parasocial Love Relationship Theory Brand History Brand Love R 2 = 46% Brand Loyalty R2 = 19% 0.35*** 0.04 0.60*** 0.43***
- 22. 22 Summary Model Fit Model Parasocial Relationship Model Interpersonal Relationship Threshold Brand Love R2 = 70% R2 = 46% Chi-square/df 2.733 2.525 ≤ 3 Normal Fit Index (NFI) .744 .792 ≥ .9 Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) .770 .826 ≥ .9 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .816 .860 ≥ .9 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .098 .092 ≤ .08
- 23. Agenda • Introduction & Literature Review • Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses • Research Method • Analyses and Results • Conclusion and Limitations 23
- 24. 24 Conclusion • Both relationship theories explain some degree of brand love but the construct based on parasocial love theory > interpersonal love theory • Brand history positively influences brand loyalty but does not influence brand love • What is the relationship between brand loyalty and brand love? We show that brand loyalty positively influences brand love • Future research is needed to further understand the concept of brand love and the interaction with other brand constructs
- 25. 25 Limitations • Student sample: Many studies use students still limitation and larger and more diverse pool of respondents needed (e.g., country image scale by Martin and Eroglu (1993) or consumer-based brand equity scale by Yoo and Donthu (2001)) • Other countries (relate culture and brand love) • Other product categories • Independent variables, use other branding constructs • Dependent variable, include behavioral data • Improve overall model fit by adding other variables or measurement items
- 26. 26 Title • Text…. • Text • Financial Times #59 worldwide • Business Week #23 nationally, #1 in Florida • Forbes #36 nationally, #1 in Florida www.consumer-brand-relationship.com Rollins College Crummer Graduate School of Business MBA Ranking Financial Times #59 worldwide Business Week #23 nationally, #1 in Florida Forbes #36 nationally, #1 in Florida
- 27. 27 Thank you
- 28. Relationship Theory Brand History Brand Love R 2 = 70% Brand Loyalty R 2 = 19% 0.75*** 0.06 0.35*** 0.44*** Comparison: Parasocial Love Relationship Theory Brand History Brand Love R 2 = 76% Brand Loyalty R 2 = 52% 0.86*** 0.15 0.66***0.21**
- 29. Relationship Theory Brand History Brand Love R 2 = 46% Brand Loyalty R 2 = 19% 0.35*** 0.04 0.60*** 0.43*** Relationship Theory Brand History Brand Love R 2 = 30% Brand Loyalty R 2 = 49% 0.53*** 0.12 0.63***0.23** Comparison: Interpersonal Love
Editor's Notes
- Heinrich, Daniel, Bauer, Hans & Mühl, Johannes (2008), Measuring Brand Love: Applying Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love in Consumer-Brand Relations, Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference 2008. Retrieved November 15th, 2009 from http://www.anzmac2008.org/_Proceedings/PDF/S05/Heinrich%20Bauer%20&%20Muhl%20S8%20PS%20P3.pdf
- We collected data through a self-administered survey of undergraduate and graduate students. Students have often been used for marketing studies and scale testing. For example hedonic and utilitarian consumer attitude scale (Batra and Ahtolo, 1991), country image scale (Martin and Eroglu, 1993), multi-item measures of values (Herche, 1994), buying impulsiveness scale (Rook and Fisher, 1995), brand association scale (Low and Lamb, 2000), consumer-based brand equity scale (Yoo and Donthu, 2001), revised country-of-origin image scale (Pereira et al., 2005), ad creativity scale (Smith et al., 2007), branded product meanings scale (Strizhakova et al., 2008), country image scale (Lala et al., 2009). Students have also been used in consumer-brand relationship studies (Hayes, et al. 2006; Carlson, et al. 2009) and studies related to cars (Fetscherin and Toncar, 2009). Since student samples are commonly used (Tepper Tian et al., 2001; Voss et al., 2003), they are equally appropriate for the present study. While generalizing findings is always a concern, the fundamental nature of the feeling of love for a brand is more likely to generalize across diverse populations, making the use of student samples more legitimate in this case, than managerial-based scales where business experience is more important (Bello et al., 2009).
- The coefficient alpha and test-retest were used to assess the internal consistency, stability and reliability of the proposed brand love construct (Churchill, 1979). The resulting Cronbach’s alpha of .922 suggests a very well-defined item structure and internal consistency. The alpha values for the various dimensions are: interpersonal love (.905), parasocial love (.794), brand history (.840), and brand loyalty (.850). As we only use one survey sample dataset, we conduct a test-retest reliability by using the split-half coefficient estimates method, which is to split the scale items into two groups and then compare the groups as if they were two separate surveys. Two approaches can be used, the split-half reliability and the odd-even reliability. Reliability test results using the first approach yielded .728 and the second approach .927, both of which indicate good reliability. We also calculated the Guttman split-half reliability coefficient, an adaptation of the Spearman-Brown coefficient that does not require equal variances between the two split groups. Again, the reliability coefficients indicated a good internal consistency. We also assessed content and construct validity. Content validity was assured by constructing the proposed items based on the current literature as well as by consulting and validating the proposed measurement scale with other marketing professors. In order to test the construct validity was assessed it by the convergence validity (internal consistency, see above) as well as the discriminant validity, my means of an explorative and confirmative factor analysis.
- We collected data through a self-administered survey of undergraduate and graduate students. Students have often been used for marketing studies and scale testing. For example hedonic and utilitarian consumer attitude scale (Batra and Ahtolo, 1991), country image scale (Martin and Eroglu, 1993), multi-item measures of values (Herche, 1994), buying impulsiveness scale (Rook and Fisher, 1995), brand association scale (Low and Lamb, 2000), consumer-based brand equity scale (Yoo and Donthu, 2001), revised country-of-origin image scale (Pereira et al., 2005), ad creativity scale (Smith et al., 2007), branded product meanings scale (Strizhakova et al., 2008), country image scale (Lala et al., 2009). Students have also been used in consumer-brand relationship studies (Hayes, et al. 2006; Carlson, et al. 2009) and studies related to cars (Fetscherin and Toncar, 2009). Since student samples are commonly used (Tepper Tian et al., 2001; Voss et al., 2003), they are equally appropriate for the present study. While generalizing findings is always a concern, the fundamental nature of the feeling of love for a brand is more likely to generalize across diverse populations, making the use of student samples more legitimate in this case, than managerial-based scales where business experience is more important (Bello et al., 2009).
- We collected data through a self-administered survey of undergraduate and graduate students. Students have often been used for marketing studies and scale testing. For example hedonic and utilitarian consumer attitude scale (Batra and Ahtolo, 1991), country image scale (Martin and Eroglu, 1993), multi-item measures of values (Herche, 1994), buying impulsiveness scale (Rook and Fisher, 1995), brand association scale (Low and Lamb, 2000), consumer-based brand equity scale (Yoo and Donthu, 2001), revised country-of-origin image scale (Pereira et al., 2005), ad creativity scale (Smith et al., 2007), branded product meanings scale (Strizhakova et al., 2008), country image scale (Lala et al., 2009). Students have also been used in consumer-brand relationship studies (Hayes, et al. 2006; Carlson, et al. 2009) and studies related to cars (Fetscherin and Toncar, 2009). Since student samples are commonly used (Tepper Tian et al., 2001; Voss et al., 2003), they are equally appropriate for the present study. While generalizing findings is always a concern, the fundamental nature of the feeling of love for a brand is more likely to generalize across diverse populations, making the use of student samples more legitimate in this case, than managerial-based scales where business experience is more important (Bello et al., 2009).
- We collected data through a self-administered survey of undergraduate and graduate students. Students have often been used for marketing studies and scale testing. For example hedonic and utilitarian consumer attitude scale (Batra and Ahtolo, 1991), country image scale (Martin and Eroglu, 1993), multi-item measures of values (Herche, 1994), buying impulsiveness scale (Rook and Fisher, 1995), brand association scale (Low and Lamb, 2000), consumer-based brand equity scale (Yoo and Donthu, 2001), revised country-of-origin image scale (Pereira et al., 2005), ad creativity scale (Smith et al., 2007), branded product meanings scale (Strizhakova et al., 2008), country image scale (Lala et al., 2009). Students have also been used in consumer-brand relationship studies (Hayes, et al. 2006; Carlson, et al. 2009) and studies related to cars (Fetscherin and Toncar, 2009). Since student samples are commonly used (Tepper Tian et al., 2001; Voss et al., 2003), they are equally appropriate for the present study. While generalizing findings is always a concern, the fundamental nature of the feeling of love for a brand is more likely to generalize across diverse populations, making the use of student samples more legitimate in this case, than managerial-based scales where business experience is more important (Bello et al., 2009).