brand love interpersonal or parasocial relationship?
TRANSCRIPT
1
Brand LoveInterpersonal or Parasocial Relationship?
Marc Fetscherin, Ph.D. & Mary Conway-Dato-On
Crummer Graduate School of BusinessRollins College
2
Brand LoveInterpersonal or Parasocial Relationship?
Marc Fetscherin, Ph.D. & Mary Conway Dato-on, Ph.D.
Rollins College Crummer Graduate School of Business
MBA RankingFinancial Times #59 worldwide
Business Week #23 nationally, #1 in FloridaForbes #36 nationally, #1 in Florida
Agenda
• Introduction & Literature Review
• Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
• Research Method
• Analyses and Results
• Conclusion and Limitations
3
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
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
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
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 loyaltyKeh 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 299respondents
Intimacy (.94)Passion (.89)Commitment (.88)
• Based on Sternberg (1986) triangular theory of interpersonal love
• Not product specific
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
Agenda
• Introduction & Literature Review
• Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
• Research Method
• Analyses and Results
• Conclusion and Limitations
9
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
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
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
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
RelationshipTheory
Brand History Brand Love
Brand Loyalty
H1, H2
H3b
H4H3a
Research Model
Agenda
• Introduction & Literature Review
• Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
• Research Method
• Analyses and Results
• Conclusion and Limitations
15
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)
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)
Agenda
• Introduction & Literature Review
• Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
• Research Method
• Analyses and Results
• Conclusion and Limitations
18
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
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 .04H4a: Brand Loyalty → Brand Love (+) .35*** .60***
*** p < .01; ** p < .05; * < .10
RelationshipTheory
Brand HistoryBrand Love
R2 = 70%
Brand LoyaltyR2= 19%
0.75***
0.06
0.35***0.44***
Summary Results
Interpersonal Love
Parasocial Love
RelationshipTheory
Brand HistoryBrand Love
R2 = 46%
Brand LoyaltyR2= 19%
0.35***
0.04
0.60***0.43***
22
Summary Model Fit
ModelParasocial
Relationship
ModelInterpersonal 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
Agenda
• Introduction & Literature Review
• Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
• Research Method
• Analyses and Results
• Conclusion and Limitations
23
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
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
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 RankingFinancial Times #59 worldwide
Business Week #23 nationally, #1 in FloridaForbes #36 nationally, #1 in Florida
27
Thank you
RelationshipTheory
Brand HistoryBrand Love
R2 = 70%
Brand LoyaltyR2= 19%
0.75***
0.06
0.35***0.44***
Comparison: Parasocial Love
RelationshipTheory
Brand HistoryBrand Love
R2= 76%
Brand LoyaltyR2= 52%
0.86***
0.15
0.66***0.21**
RelationshipTheory
Brand HistoryBrand Love
R2 = 46%
Brand LoyaltyR2= 19%
0.35***
0.04
0.60***0.43***
RelationshipTheory
Brand HistoryBrand Love
R2 = 30%
Brand Loyalty R2= 49%
0.53***
0.12
0.63***0.23**
Comparison: Interpersonal Love