- Teck Ming Tan, University of Oulu (Corresponding author: email@example.com)
- Jari Salo, University of Helsinki
- Jouni Juntunen, University of Oulu
- Ashish Kumar, Aalto University School of Business
In three studies, the authors present both a conceptual basis and a measurement basis for self-presentation by brand (SPB). By using expectancy–value theory, which considers consumers’ beliefs about a brand’s ability to serve as a means of self-presentation and their perceived value of the brand’s ability to reflect their self-concept, our findings show that brand attitude strength and brand familiarity serve as the antecedents of SPB, with SPB mediating both the relationship between brand attitude strength and brand attachment, and the relationship between brand familiarity and brand attachment. We further show that SPB serves as a better indicator than perceived quality for predicting social media response, attitudinal loyalty, and passionate desire to use a brand. The current research contributes to the consumer-psychology model of brands by integrating branding literature with self-presentation.
Self-presentation by brand (SPB-Current Study) (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree)
- I believe that X could help me to present myself effectively in front of my friends
- I believe that X could help me to present myself effectively in front of strangers
- I believe that X could help me to give a positive impression of myself in front of the public
Brand attitude (Spassova and Lee, 2013)
- bad (-3) versus good (3)
- unpleasant (-3) versus pleasant (3)
- unfavorable (-3) versus favorable (3)
Brand familiarity (Kent and Allen, 1994)
- unfamiliar (-3) versus familiar (3)
- inexperienced (-3) versus experienced (3)
- not knowledgeable (-3) versus knowledgeable (3)
Brand attachment (Park et al., 2010)
a. Brand-self connection (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree)
- To what extent is X could reflect part of you and who you are?
- To what extent do you feel personally connected to X?
b. Brand prominence (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree)
- To what extent are your thoughts and feelings towards X often automatic, coming to mind seemingly on their own?
- To what extent do your thoughts and feelings towards X come to you naturally and instantly?
Perceived quality (Dodds, Monre, and Grewal, 1991)
- The likelihood that X would be reliable is: (-3) very low, (3) very high
- The workmanship of X would be: (-3) very low, (3) very high
- X should be of: (-3) very poor quality, (3) very good quality
Attitudinal loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001) (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree)
- I am committed to X
- I would be willing to pay a higher price for X over other brands
Passionate desire to use the brand (Batra et al., 2012) (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree)
- I feel myself craving to use X
- I feel myself desiring X
Social media response (Current study)
Participants were asked to imagine they had seen a picture of the stated brand posted by their friends on a social media site; they were then asked to indicate the extent to which they would like, comment, share, or ignore the post, expressed as a percentage with the total percentage adding up to 100%. We assessed the social media response by excluding the percentage of ignore.
- Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, 76(March), 1–16.
- Chatzipanagiotou, K., Veloutsou, C. & Christodoulides, G. (2016). Decoding the complexity of the consumer-based brand equity process. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5479–5486.
- Chaudhuri, A. & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93.
- Dennis, C., Papagiannidis, S., Alamanos, E., & Bourlakis, M. (2016). The role of brand attachment strength in higher education. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3049–3057.
- Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 307–319.
- Escalas, J. E. & Bettman, J. R. (2009). Self-brand connections: The role of reference groups and celebrity endorsers in the creation of brand meaning. In D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, & J. R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of brand relationships (pp.107–123). NY: Society for Consumer Psychology and M.E. Sharp.
- Keller, K. L. (2016). Reflections on customer-based brand equity: perspectives, progress, and priorities. AMS Review, 6(1), 1–16.
- Kent, R. J. & Allen, C. T. (1994). Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising: the role of brand familiarity. Journal of Marketing, 58(July), 97–105.
- Lam, S. Y., & Shankar, V. (2014). Asymmetries in the effects of drivers of brand loyalty between early and late adopters and across technology generations. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(1), 26–42.
- Merchant, A. &Rose, G.M. (2013). Effects of advertising-evoked vicarious nostalgia on brand heritage. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), 2619–2625.
- Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(November), 1–17.
- Schmitt, B. (2012). The consumer psychology of brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 7–17.
- Spassova, G. & Lee, A. Y. (2013). Looking into the future: A match between self-view and temporal distance. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(June), 159–171.
- Zhou, Z., Zhang, Q., Su, C. & Zhou, N. (2012). How do brand communities generate brand relationships? Intermediate mechanisms. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 890–895.