the role of imagination and brand personification in brand relationships

The Role of Imagination and BrandPersonification in Brand RelationshipsHazel H. HuangDurham University Business School

Vincent-Wayne MitchellCity University London

ABSTRACT

Brand relationships have traditionally been theorized as simulating interpersonal relationships,which are reflected in self-identity or self-expansion theory. However, such a perspective oftenignores or overlooks conceptual differences between true interpersonal relationships and parasocialbrand relationships. Considering the characteristics of parasocial relationships, the present studyexplored the role of imagination and brand personification in the formation of brand relationships. Atotal of 468 subjects evaluated their favorite brands in a 2 (high vs. low product involvement) × 2(utilitarian vs. symbolic products) factorial design. The results provided an alternative explanationof brand relationship formation: Imagination may play a greater role in brand relationships thantraditionally conceived in self-expansion theory, and brand personification may moderate the effectof self-expansion theory. The implication of the research is that encouragement of consumers’imaginative ability is one route to strengthening consumer–brand relationships. C© 2013 WileyPeriodicals, Inc.

The concept of brand relationships (i.e., the bond be-tween consumer and brand) has attracted abundantresearch interest since its conception by Fournier in1998. Most studies show that brand relationships resultin brand commitment (Sung & Choi, 2010), connected-ness (Escalas, 2004), attachment (Thomson, MacInnis,& Park, 2005), trust (Elliott & Yannopoulou, 2007), andlove (Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012)—all by simu-lating interpersonal relationships (Reimann, Castano,Zaichkowsky, & Bechara, 2012). Here, we explore thelack of conceptual comparability between brand rela-tionships and interpersonal relationships in order toaddress two main controversies that have emerged inthe literature.

The first controversy has to do with disagreement asto whether brand relationships exist at all (Bengtsson,2003; O’Malley & Tynan, 2000). For example, somestudies show low brand relationship quality (BRQ)scores, even when consumers evaluate their favoritebrands (Breivik & Thorbjørnsen, 2008; Huang, 2009;Park, Kim, & Kim, 2002). This finding is at oddswith the brand relationship concept. Self-expansiontheory can be used to explain how brand relationshipsare cultivated through the overlapping of identitiesbetween self and brand (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson,1991; Reimann et al., 2012) at the personality level(Huang, 2009; Reimann & Aron, 2009). For example,Apple has been viewed as a creative brand and creative

consumers are connected with how Apple is portrayed.The result is the consumers’ close brand relationshipwith Apple. However, not all brands have distinctpersonalities. Consider in this context well-knownhousehold brands such as Knorr sauces, Tide laundrydetergent, and Charmin toilet paper, which are difficultfor consumers to personify. Such obstacles to person-ification may obstruct the formation of self-brandcongruence.

The second main issue is the inherently problematicnature of brand relationships (Avis, Aitken, & Fergu-son, 2012; Huang, 2012; O’Guinn & Muniz, 2009). Manyqualitative studies have shown that consumers are ca-pable of using the brand relationship as a metaphorto describe how they feel about brands even if thosebrands are household names without clear brand per-sonalities (Fournier, 1998; Huang, 2009; Robinson &Kates, 2005). Fournier (1998) argued that brand rela-tionships also facilitate researchers’ understanding ofconsumer behavior. According to Fournier (2009), theconscious recognition of a brand relationship is not nec-essary, as long as the brand in some way supports theconsumer in a manner similar to an interpersonal rela-tionship.

Perhaps because metaphors are “literally impos-sible but imaginatively suggestive” (Stern, 1988, p.85), the role of imagination is paramount to under-standing metaphors (Black, 1979; Van den Bulte,

Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 31(1): 38–47 (January 2014)View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar

C© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20673

38

1994). Moreover, brand relationships are similar tothe parasocial relationships that exist between mediaaudiences and media figures (Horton & Wohl, 1956).Imagination plays a key role in such relationshipsbecause of the complete absence of genuine socialinteraction (Giles, 2002; Tsao, 1996). A considera-tion of the nature of parasocial relationships raisesquestions relating to the relative roles of imagina-tion and self-expansion theory in explaining brandrelationships, particularly when brands differ in thedegree of personification. Does imagination positivelyinfluences BRQ, irrespective of brand personificationstrength? Is self-expansion theory significant onlywhen brand personification is strong? What is therole of imagination in the formation of brand relation-ships and what possible moderating role does brandpersonification play when self-expansion theory isconsidered?

THE CONNECTION BETWEENIMAGINATION AND BRANDRELATIONSHIPS

The role of imagination in brand relationships is prop-erly considered in a context that acknowledges thatbrand relationships are a type of parasocial relation-ship (Horton & Wohl, 1956). A parasocial relationshipis an imagined relationship between two parties whodo not know each other and have never met. Anexample of such a relationship is the one that exists be-tween a movie-going audience and a movie star (Tsao,1996). Unlike a typical interpersonal relationship, theparasocial relationship does not involve reciprocity(Bengtsson, 2003; Horton & Wohl, 1956; Kelley &Thibaut, 1978). This is so because the interaction is“one-sided, nondialectical, . . . and not susceptible ofmutual development” (Horton & Wohl, 1956, p. 215).The audience can withdraw at any time and breakup the relationship (Cohen, 2004; Huber, Vollhardt,Matthes, & Vogel, 2010). Parasocial interaction thus re-lies heavily on imagination, which fills in gaps betweeninterpersonal and parasocial relationships (Giles,2002).

Two perspectives on imagination have been pre-sented in the marketing literature. First, imaginationhas been used interchangeably with perception to rep-resent how people connect information to produce anorderly, meaningful understanding of reality (Petrova& Cialdini, 2008; Schau, 2000; Unnava, Agarwal, &Haugtvedt, 1996). Research has suggested that imagi-nation and behavior share cognitive neural structures,so that imagination has the same effect as behavior inpeople’s minds. For example, imagining a word (Pauset al., 1993) or a gesture, such as moving a finger ortoe (Ehrsson, Geyer, & Naito, 2003; Michelon, Vettel,& Zacks, 2006), may activate the same neural struc-tures as actually uttering the word or performing themovement. Consequently, imagination has been used

as a research strategy in experiments to examine par-ticipant reactions to experimental scenarios (Petrova &Cialdini, 2008). This first perspective of imagination inthe marketing literature confines imagination to whatis known, perceived, or experienced.

A second perspective on imagination in marketinginvolves its connection to fantasy (Martin, 2004). Imag-ination can be a form of mental representation thatexpresses unreality (Arndt, 1985) and involves creativ-ity (Coleridge, 1983). For example, creators of literarywork (such as poets or writers of fiction) rely on imag-ination to transfer their imagined creations throughsensory experience (Sherwood, 1975). The distinctionbetween imagination and perception is that the latterevolves and shapes human knowledge (Hopp, 2011),while the former is holistic and immediate and able toexpress unreality (Arndt, 1985). Imagination exceedsthe boundaries of human knowledge and possibility(White, 1990); it is an agent of “innovation, novelty,originality and genius, in its capacity to unite into newwholes from previously unrelated elements” (Wheeler,1989, p. 99).

One way imagination is produced is through the in-teraction of a person with an object. The term “imagin-ability” could be coined to indicate how easily an objecttriggers imagination in an individual. The elaborationof perception depends on the ease of information pro-cessing (Schwarz, 2004), and since imagination sharesthe same information-processing mechanism as percep-tion (MacInnis & Price, 1987), imagination also relieson the ease of information processing about an object.If consumers are able to imagine a brand relationshipwith their favorite brand, the imagined relationshipwill inevitably be favorable, because of prior positive at-titudes toward a favorite brand (Adaval & Wyer, 1998;Green & Brock, 2000). Once imagination with respect toa brand relationship is aroused, stimulating imagina-tion helps the consumer visualize a relationship, trans-forming what Coupland (2005) considers as a passivebrand partner into an active one (Fournier, 1998). Onthe other hand, if consumers find it difficult to imag-ine a brand relationship (Bengtsson, 2003), BRQ, evenfor their own favorite brands, is likely to be underes-timated (Breivik & Thorbjørnsen, 2008; Huang, 2009;Park, Kim, & Kim, 2002). Thus, it seems that the easierit is for the consumers to imagine a relationship withtheir favorite brands, the better the BRQ. This leads usto formulate our first hypothesis:

H1: The ease of imagining having a brand rela-tionship positively influences its quality.

IMAGINATION VERSUS SELF-EXPANSIONTHEORY IN BRAND RELATIONSHIPS

Self-expansion theory originated in the interpersonalrelationship literature. A key concept in self-expansiontheory is that the greater the overlapping of identities

IMAGINATION, BRAND PERSONIFICATION, AND BRAND RELATIONSHIPS 39Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

between an individual and a relationship partner, thebetter the relationship quality (Aron et al., 1991). Ex-tending self-expansion theory to a consumption contextsuggests that the more an individual identifies with abrand, the better the quality of the consumer–brand re-lationship (Reimann & Aron, 2009; Trump & Brucks,2012). However, inherent in self-expansion theory ininterpersonal relationships are two assumptions thatmay hinder its application to brand relationships. Thefirst is the assumption that overlapping identities inan interpersonal relationship occur through interac-tive sharing of material resources, social resources, andideas (Aron, Aron, & Norman, 2001). In a brand rela-tionship, overlapping identities are restricted to ideasharing; that is, the congruence between consumer andbrand images, also referred to as consumer–brand con-gruence (CBC; Hong & Zinkham, 2006; Huang, 2009;Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy & Danes, 1982). For example, a con-sumer who is concerned about the environment mayshare the green values of a brand that claims to disposeof materials in an environmentally friendly way. In thiscase, the identity congruence of being an environmen-talist is high. But while identity congruence is high, inreality, the parties in such a brand relationship havelimited interaction; they typically do not share mate-rial and social resources (such as using parents’ moneyto finance one’s education or relying on friends’ help toaccess data for one’s research in interpersonal relation-ships; Aron, Aron, & Norman, 2001; Berk & Andersen,2000; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). CBC is a concept lim-ited to the sharing of ideas through image congruence,as opposed to being a concept that has all of the char-acteristics of overlapping identities in self-expansiontheory.

The second assumption inherent in, and problematicto, self-expansion theory is that a brand must have apersonality; that is, in order for a consumer to iden-tify with a brand, the brand must have a sufficientlydeveloped image or personality to which the consumercan relate. However, not all brands have a clearly artic-ulated personality. Consequently, such brands cannotbe easily personified. Lacking personality or personifi-cation, consumers have difficulty identifying with thebrand. Coupland (2005) characterized consumers’ re-lationships with these nondescript brands as weak orpassive.The validity of each of the two assumptions forself-expansion theory as applied to consumer–brand re-lationships is questionable. Consequently, the explana-tory power of self-expansion theory for brand relation-ships is likely to be limited. The explanatory powerof self-expansion theory for brand relationships wouldseem further limited by findings related to “imaginabil-ity” of brand attributes on consumers’ evaluation of abrand (Keller & McGill, 1994; Petrova & Cialdini, 2005)as well as consumers’ positive attitudes when favorableimagination is elicited (Adaval & Wyer, 1998). Accord-ingly, a second hypothesis is proposed.

H2: The ease of imagining a relationship has agreater effect on BRQ than CBC.

THE EFFECT OF BRANDPERSONIFICATION

Based on Guthrie’s (1993) definition of animism, brandpersonification suggests a consumer tendency to at-tribute human life to brands. Thus, a close relation-ship would seem to exist between brand personificationand brand personality. Aaker (1997) has also suggestedthat the formation of brand personality approximatesthe same impression formation process as that for hu-man beings. If individuals have weak impressions ofothers, they are unable to describe their personalities,and therefore inclined to assign midpoints (as opposedto assigning either extreme of a bipolar scale) in a per-sonality inventory, when assessing such people (Paulus& Bruce, 1992). This logic suggests that strong brandpersonification can be inferred from the ease with whichdistinct brand personalities can be assigned.

Although some brands do not have obvious brandpersonalities, others have successfully imbued brandswith human personalities, thereby strengthening con-sumers’ ability to personify brands. When consumersregard brands as having human qualities, this facili-tates consumer perceptions of them as potential andactive relationship partners. Hence, the relationshipbetween CBC and BRQ would be more obvious. By con-trast, in cases where there is no clear brand person-ality and consumers cannot easily consider brands aspeople, their identification with brands may diminishand any BRQ will be weakened. Therefore, when brandpersonification is strong, the relationship between CBCand BRQ is stronger than when brand personifica-tion is weak. Accordingly, this brings us to our thirdhypothesis.

H3: Brand personification moderates the effects ofCBC on BRQ.

METHOD

Procedure

A 2 (high vs. low involvement) × 2 (utilitarian vs.symbolic products) factorial, between-group design wasused. In an initial product selection stage, the rationalefor selecting the four product categories complies withRatchford’s (1987) classification. Using 11 interviewsand a survey of 121 undergraduates, we followedAaker’s (1997) method to pretest and choose our finalfour products from a set of 16 preselected products.Manipulation checks confirmed that jeans (t(df) =−5.86(28), p < 0.01) and soft drinks (t(df) = −4.82(29), p <

0.01) were more symbolic than utilitarian, and laptopcomputers (t(df) = 4.38(29), p < 0.01) and dish-washingdetergent (t(df) = 4.83(30), p < 0.01) were more utili-tarian than symbolic. Jeans (Mean(SD): 0.97(2.05)) andlaptop computers (Mean(SD): 2.94(1.57)) produced high

40 HUANG AND MITCHELLPsychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

involvement and soft drinks (Mean(SD): −.09(2.42)) anddish-washing detergent (Mean(SD): −3.72(1.92)) producedlow involvement (F(df) = 53.63(3), p < 0.01).

A total of 468 undergraduates aged 18–24 were re-cruited to participate in the study by entering them ina cash prize draw (£5, £10, and £20). The male/femalesplit was approximately 50/50. Each respondent was as-signed randomly to one of four groups, and the numberof participants for each group was between 118 and 128.Respondents evaluated their own personalities and as-sessed the brand personality of and BRQ with theirfavorite brands in the assigned product categories. Incases where respondents did not have a favorite brand,they were instructed to rate their most frequently usedbrand. This procedure ensured that respondents hada close connection—emotionally or behaviorally—withthe brands. In the four product categories, 204 re-spondents indicated that the brands they rated weretheir favorites, and 264 identified themselves as hav-ing behavioral brand loyalty. This process generated 90brands.

In contrast to existing studies that use either brandchoices such as Infiniti (Reimann et al., 2012) or Apple(Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012), for which consumershave strong affection, or informants who can easilyuse the relationship metaphor (Cova & Pace, 2006;Fournier, 1998; Schau, Muniz, & Arnould, 2009), thepresent study explored how ordinary consumers per-ceive brand relationships during general consumption.Different product types were used in an effort to ensurethat brand personification of various strengths wouldbe generated.

Measures

Fournier’s (1994) scale of BRQ was used in this study.The scale has seven dimensions: behavioral interde-pendence, personal commitment, love and passion, in-timacy, self-concept connection, nostalgic connection,and partner quality. To avoid any tautology whenexamining the relationship between CBC and BRQ,self-concept connection was reserved for scale valida-tion, but removed during hypothesis testing.1 Saucier’s(1994) scale of 40 descriptive items measured respon-dents’ personalities and the personalities of their fa-vorite brands. The scale is reliable and valid for ex-amining both human (Dwight, Cummings, & Glenar,1998; Mooradian & Nezlek, 1996) and brand person-ality (Huang, Mitchell, & Rosenaum-Elliott, 2012). A

1 Both self-concept connection and consumer–brand congruence mea-sure the extent to which self-identities reflect (or are constructedby) brand image. The approaches are dissimilar, since self-conceptconnection is a direct approach (i.e., through asking respondentsdirectly how much brands reflect self-identities) and CBC is indi-rect (i.e., through calculating the distance between respondents’self-reported personality and brand personality). Although studiessuggest that both direct and indirect approaches result in discrimi-nantly valid constructs (Huang, 2009), we removed the self-conceptconnection from brand relationship quality during testing, so as toavoid any possibility of tautology.

personality inventory was favored over Aaker’s (1997)scale of brand personality, because the Big Five2 per-sonality inventory has been validated for examiningbrands (Geuens, Weijters, & De Wulf, 2009; Huang,Mitchell, & Rosenaum-Elliott, 2012). By contrast, thereis no evidence to suggest that Aaker’s (1997) brandpersonality scale is suitable for examining human per-sonality. Using the same personality inventory for con-sumers and brands was essential in the creation of aviable CBC index (Sirgy & Danes, 1982).

After evaluating the brand personality and BRQof their favorite brands, respondents examined theirown personalities and explored the ease of imagining abrand as a relationship partner and as a person. Mea-sures for ease of imagination were taken from Berryand Carson (2010) and Broemer (2004), with the word-ing adapted to the specific context. Three items cap-tured imagination regarding having a relationship withbrands: (1) it is easy for me to imagine a relationshipbetween me and a brand, (2) it is easy for me to imag-ine a relationship between me and my favorite brands,and (3) it is easy for me to imagine a relationship be-tween me and my least favorite brands. The wordingwas adjusted to examine the ease of imagining a brandas a person. A CBC index was created, based on the dif-ference between consumer personality and brand per-sonality, following Sirgy and Danes’ (1982) suggestions.The formula for the congruence index is

CBC = −(

5∑i=1

|CPi− BPi|)

,

where CBC is the CBC index, i is the Big Five, CP con-sumer personality, and BP brand personality. A highindex indicates that consumers perceive high congru-ence between themselves and their favorite brands.

To examine the hypothesis relating to brand per-sonification strength, a strong/weak categorization wascreated from the mean scores on the brand personal-ity scale. Scores around the midpoint of the scale sug-gest that respondents have difficulty assigning person-ality characteristics to brands, which thus have lowpersonification. The rationale of this approach is con-sistent with the view that personality ratings prone tomidpoints imply weak impressions (Paulus & Bruce,1992). Thus, brands with mean scores between 2.5 and3.5 are classified as having weak brand personifica-tion, whereas a mean score above 2.5 and below 3.5indicates brands with distinct personalities. The rela-tionship between the respondents’ imagination of brandpersonality and their score for brand personality wasU-shape (F(y) = 3.86 + 1.55x2 + 0.31x, where y is imag-ination of brand personality and x, the brand person-ality, R2 = 0.04, F = 8.74, p < 0.01), indicating thatbrand personification is strong when the respondents

2 Big Five refers to the personality dimensions generated by factoranalysis; that is, extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, consci-entiousness, and openness to new experience.


Table 1. Correlation Matrix (n = 468).

Mean SD 1 2 3 4

1. Consumer–brand congruence − 4.1 1.85 NAa

2. Brand relationship quality 2.3 0.80 0.09∗ 0.86b

3. Imagination (brand personality) 2.2 1.14 0.00 0.32∗∗ 0.894. Imagination (brand relationship) 2.2 1.00 − 0.02 0.34∗∗ 0.65∗∗ 0.90

∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01.Cronbach’s alpha shown along the diagonal.aConsumer–brand congruence is an index calculated from the difference between consumer personality and brand personality; therefore,

Cronbach’s alpha is not applicable in this case.bThis Cronbach’s alpha excludes the dimension of self-concept connection. The Cronbach’s alpha including the self-concept connection dimension

is 0.89.

were able to assign personality ratings toward either ofthe extremes. The average score for brand personalitywas calculated without the consciousness dimension,since this dimension represents functional attributesthat reflect limited personification (Huang, Mitchell, &Rosenaum-Elliott, 2012). This approach was a simple,straightforward method, which is close to the reality ofhow consumers see and describe their brands, shouldthey wish to in their daily lives. Based on this approach,the categorization resulted in 284 brands in the weakbrand personification category and 184 respondents inthe strong brand personification category.

RESULTS

Scale Validation

The analysis used a two-step approach, with the firstvalidating the measures and the second examiningthe hypotheses (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Allfour measurements (consumer personality, brandpersonality, brand relationship, and ease of imagininga brand relationship) were verified and strengthenedby exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses(CFA). The validation results for personality and rela-tionship quality measures accorded with extant studies(Mooradian & Nezlek, 1996; Park, Kim, & Kim, 2002).Standardized factor loadings were above 0.40, with sat-isfactory average variance extracted (AVE; >.50) andcomposite reliability (>.60), which suggested conver-gent validity (Bagozzi & Baumgartner, 1994; Fornell& Larcker, 1981). Chi-square difference tests indicatedthat all constructs were identifiable (χ2 difference >7,p < 0.01), so that discriminant validity was verified(Bagozzi & Phillips, 1982). Model indices were satisfac-tory (consumer personality: χ2 = 404.02, df = 142, p <

0.01; SRMR = 0.063; RMSEA = 0.063; TLI = 0.92; CFI= 0.94; brand personality: χ2 = 717.47, df = 142, p <

0.01; SRMR = 0.088; RMSEA = 0.093; TLI = 0.90; CFI= 0.92; BRQ: χ2 = 454.20, df = 202, p < 0.01; SRMR= 0.042; RMSEA = 0.052; TLI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99).3

Table 1 shows a correlation matrix among constructs,

3 The fit indices for ease of imagination of a brand relationship areperfect, because the model is saturated (three indicators).

with descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alphacoefficients.

Hypothesis Testing

The results of regression analyses (Table 2) suggest con-sistent, positive relationships between imagination andBRQ across all product categories (R2 > 0.05, F > 5.00,βIMG-BR > 0.20, t > 2.20, p < 0.05). Whether the brandis a favorite does not influence consistent, positive re-lationships between imagination and BRQ (R2

favorite brand= 0.09, Ffavorite brand = 6.29, p < 0.01, βfavorite brand,CBC

= 0.12, p > 0.05, βfavorite brand, IMG-BR = 0.24, t = 3.33,p < 0.01; R2

frequently used brand= 0.14, Ffrequently used brand =

13.59, p < 0.01, βfrequently used brand, CBC = 0.08, p > 0.05,βfrequently used brand, IMG-BR = 0.37, t = 6.32, p < 0.01)(ZCBC→BRQ = 0.09, p > 0.05; ZIMG-BR→BRQ = 1.11, p >

0.05). Therefore, H1 is supported.Correlation analysis further shows that respon-

dents’ ease of imagination has a positive associationwith their ability to personify brands (ρ = 0.15, n =468, p < 0.01). However, this relationship disappearsfor the product categories of jeans (ρ = 0.05, n = 112,p > 0.50) and soft drinks (ρ = 0.04, n = 116, p > 0.50),but remains for laptops (ρ = 0.29, n = 114, p < 0.01)and dishwashing detergents (ρ = 0.18, n = 126, p <

0.05). This suggests that imagination is associated withthe respondents’ brand personification ability for func-tional, but not for symbolic products.

The findings indicate that imagination and CBCinfluence BRQ independently (i.e., interaction effectsare insignificant; Table 2). Moreover, imagination out-performs CBC when predicting BRQ across prod-uct categories (ZCBC→BRQ and IMG-BR→BRQ, overall = 5.37,p < 0.01; ZCBC→BRQ and IMG-BR→BRQ, Jeans = 2.91, p <

0.05; ZCBC→BRQ and IMG-BR→BRQ, Laptops = 3.71, p < 0.01;ZCBC→BRQ and IMG-BR→BRQ, Soft drinks = 3.66, p < 0.01;ZCBC→BRQ and IMG-BR→BRQ, Dish-washing detergents = 1.85, p <

0.05), regardless of brand personification strength(ZCBC→BRQ and IMG-BR→BRQ, strong brand personification = 4.16, p< 0.01; ZCBC→BRQ and IMG-BR→BRQ, weak brand personification =5.32, p < 0.01) or whether brands are favorites(ZCBC→BRQ and IMG-BR→BRQ, favorite brand = 2.24, p < 0.05;ZCBC→BRQ and IMG-BR→BRQ, frequently used brands = 5.37, p <

0.01). Therefore, H2 is supported.


Tab

le2.

Reg

ress

ion

An

alys

isR

esu

lts.

Dep

ende

nt

Var

iabl

e:B

ran

dR

elat

ion

ship

Qu

alit

y(B

RQ

)

By

Eva

luat

edB

ran

dsas

By

Bra

nd

Per

son

ifica

tion

Fav

orit

eor

Fre

quen

tly

Use

dB

y-P

rodu

ctS

tren

gth

Bra

nds

Dis

h-W

ash

ing

Fav

orit

eF

requ

entl

yIn

depe

nde

nt

Var

iabl

esO

vera

llJe

ans

Lap

tops

Sof

tD

rin

ksD

eter

gen

tsS

tron

gW

eak

Bra

nds

Use

dB

ran

ds

Con

sum

er–b

ran

dco

ngr

uen

ce(C

BC

)0.

10(2

.36)

∗0.

07(0

.77)

0.19

(2.1

8)∗

0.05

(0.5

8)0.

05(0

.58)

0.16

(2.2

5)∗

0.06

(1.0

0)0.

12(1

.71)

0.08

(1.4

0)

Eas

eof

imag

inin

ga

bran

dre

lati

onsh

ip(I

MG

-BR

)0.

35(7

.95)

∗∗0.

34(3

.73)

∗∗0.

37(4

.33)

∗∗0.

39(4

.25)

∗∗0.

20(2

.21)

∗0.

32(4

.68)

∗∗0.

35(6

.08)

∗∗0.

24(3

.33)

∗∗0.

37(6

.32)

∗∗

CB

C×

IMG

-BR

0.08

(1.7

2)−

0.06

(0.6

8)0.

10(1

.11)

−0.

01(0

.14)

0.13

(1.4

2)0.

09(1

.36)

0.05

(0.4

0)0.

05(0

.674

)0.

02(0

.29)

R2

(F)

0.12

(22.

74)∗

∗0.

12(4

.92)

∗∗0.

20(9

.00)

∗∗0.

16(6

.89)

∗∗0.

06(2

.60)

0.14

(9.8

5)∗∗

0.12

(12.

62)∗

∗0.

09(6

.27)

∗∗0.

14(1

3.59

)∗∗

N46

811

211

411

612

618

428

420

426

4∗ p

<0.

05;∗

∗ p<

0.01

.B

rack

eted

valu

esar

eF

-sta

tist

ics

iffo

llow

edby

R2;t

he

rem

ain

der

are

t-st

atis

tics

.

Under circumstances of strong brand personifica-tion, the relationship between CBC and BRQ is sig-nificant (R2 = 0.14, F = 9.85, p < 0.01; βCBC = 0.16, t =2.25, p < 0.05), but the relationship between CBC andBRQ does not hold for weak brand personification (R2 =0.12, F = 12.62, p < 0.01; βCBC = 0.06, t = 1.00, p > 0.05;Table 2 and Figure 1). In other words, respondents’ability to personify a brand moderates the relationshipbetween CBC and BRQ (ZCBC→BRQ, brand personality strength =2.60, p < 0.01). H3 is therefore supported.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This study addressed and clarified several concernsrelated to the formation of brand relationships. Al-though previous studies have demonstrated conflictingfindings regarding the use of self-expansion theory inbrand relationships (Aron et al., 1991; Bengtsson, 2003;Huang, 2009; Reimann & Aron, 2009; Reimann et al.,2012), the present study identified the boundary condi-tion of high brand personification strength, where self-expansion theory can be applied successfully. If con-sumers are easily able to personify their brands, theirpersonification of brands can become perceptual reality.When this happens, self-expansion theory is effective inexplaining brand relationships.

Symbolic products that have clear, symbolic mean-ings used for identity construction do not require asmuch imagination as utilitarian products to personifya brand (Aaker, 1997; Elliott & Wattanasuwan, 1998).As a result, self-expansion theory applies and BRQ canbe reflected by means of CBC. In such cases, a similar-ity emerges between brand relationships and interper-sonal relationships. On the other hand, brand person-ification for utilitarian products is usually more sub-tle or nonexistent. This lack of brand personificationmakes brand relationships difficult to establish accord-ing to self-expansion theory. However, because of thecreative nature of imagination focusing on unreality(Arndt, 1985), the gap between reality and unreality ofbrand relationships can be filled by imagination (Fau-connier & Turner, 1998). This logic suggests that util-itarian products rely more on imagination to establishbrand relationships as compared with symbolic prod-ucts.

Past studies have focused purely on the applica-tion of self-expansion theory to brand relationships(Aron et al., 1991; Reimann & Aron, 2009; Reimannet al., 2012). Inherent in such an approach is the im-plication that self-identity reflection (i.e., CBC) shapesBRQ. Although this approach is understandable fromthe standpoint of the interpersonal relationship litera-ture, clear limitations must be noted. Brand relation-ships are a type of parasocial relationship that reliesheavily on imagination (Giles, 2002; Horton & Wohl,1956). Unlike traditional parasocial relationships in-volving media audiences and figures who demonstrateclear personality characteristics, brand relationshipsrequire even more imagination to produce contexts in


Strong brand personification

Weak brand personification

Consumer-Brand Congruence

Ease of Imagination (Brand Relationship)

Brand Relationship Quality

.16 (2.25)*

.32 (4.68)**

Consumer-Brand Congruence

Ease of Imagination (Brand Relationship)

Brand Relationship Quality

.06 (1.00)NS

.35 (6.08)**

* p<.05; ** p<.01; NS p>.05

Figure 1. The moderating role of brand personification.

which consumers form relationships with their brands.This imagination mechanism explains why some con-sumers are unable to apply the relationship metaphorto brands and why self-expansion theory may generateweak effects regarding brand relationships. Moreover,the mechanism offers an explanation of why we some-times see weak BRQ when we evaluate our favoritebrands.

Avis, Aitken, and Ferguson (2012) suggested thatbrand relationships are either the result of consumers’perceptual reality or of researchers’ metaphorical in-terpretation. A more moderate position, as suggestedby Fournier (2009), is that this is not an either/or ques-tion; it depends on the strength of brand relationships.While we agree with Fournier’s position focusing on thestrength of brand relationships, the findings from thepresent study dispute Fournier’s (2009) notion that itis unnecessary for consumers to cognitively recognizethe relationship metaphor for it to apply. The presentstudy challenges this view because being able to imag-ine a relationship with brands improves perceptions ofBRQ; imagination is necessary for a metaphor to work(Stern, 1988), especially as a mechanism for shapingbrand relationships.

Brand managers have traditionally focused onbrand personality to move brand anthropomorphism—a passive brand partner—in the direction of brandpersonification—an active brand partner (Aggarwal& McGill, 2007). However, since imagination outper-

forms self-expansion in influencing BRQ, when mar-keters communicate about weakly personified, morefunctional brands, it is even more important to fa-cilitate consumer imagination of a brand relationshipto improve consumer perceptions of relationship qual-ity. For example, a functionally oriented brand suchas Ronseal (http://www.ronseal.co.uk/) can stress “howgood a pal Ronseal is” when it comes to do-it-yourselfprojects. This depiction inserts relationship quality intothe brand without losing its traditional, functional fo-cus; “It does exactly what it says on the tin.” Similarly,although symbolic brands with clear personalities maybe able to improve their relationship quality with con-sumers through identity reflection (as predicted by self-expansion theory), the improvement in the relationshipwould probably be marginal as compared to imagina-tion. The implication for brand managers is that theystimulate imagination in their brand messages.

CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, ANDFURTHER RESEARCH

The present study contributes to the brand relation-ship literature by suggesting that ease of imaginationcan move consumers toward a deeper brand relation-ship. The strength of brand personification can helpdetermine whether interpersonal relationship theory


(i.e., self-expansion theory) can apply to brand relation-ships. Self-expansion theory, traditionally the primarymechanism for understanding brand relationship de-velopment, may be applicable to brand relationshipsonly when brand personification is strong. The influ-ence of imagination on brand relationships surpassesthat of self-expansion regardless of brand personifica-tion strength. Findings such as these call in to questionFournier’s (2009) argument that consumers’ ability torecognize brand relationships is insignificant. Withoutrecognition through imagination, BRQ can be under-estimated. As a result, marketers are encouraged tocultivate consumers’ imagination with regard to brandrelationships.

One limitation of the present study was its use of aconvenience sample of student subjects. Prior researchhas suggested that applications and interpretations ofimagination may differ as a function of age (Dias &Harris, 1990; Fisher & Specht, 1999). Thus, it would bedesirable to learn the extent to which the results of thepresent study can be replicated in different age groups.In addition, future research might also profitably inves-tigate whether imagination generates effects similar tothose observed in the present study with different de-mographic groups. In what ways might imagination beutilized differently as a function of group membership?

Another limitation in the present study was the lackof control of imagination and the reliance on self-reportmeasures. Our initial findings were suggestive in termsof exciting insights into the effect of imagination aswell as of brand personification in brand relationships.However, the results would have been more robust if wecould have shown how imagination and brand personifi-cation could be manipulated and how imagination andbrand personification could be stimulated. Therefore,future research might investigate whether consumerimagination of a brand relationship can be encouraged.If it can be encouraged, how long is the effect, and whatare the consequences of the effect? In addition, giventhat imagination stimulates consumers’ perceptual re-ality, at what point might interpersonal relationshiptheories apply? Such research may be helpful in deter-mining the conditions under which the concepts bor-rowed from other disciplines (such as the interpersonalrelationship literature) are useful in a branding con-text.

Still another direction for future research has to dowith unraveling the relationship between imaginationand the formation of brand personification. Can brandpersonification be developed through brand communi-cations that do not associate the brand with a living,breathing person? What are the consequences of us-ing animals, cartoon figures, or other nonhumans inattempting to personify a brand? How do living versusnonliving brand personifications differ in terms of theirability to stimulate imagination of a brand relation-ship? Are these differences the same for children andadults? Although imagination is commonly used in con-sumer research (Petrova & Cialdini, 2008), there is adearth of literature regarding its role in brand relation-

ships. More studies of the role of imagination in brandrelationships are needed. We leave to the reader’s imag-ination the many other kinds of studies to be conductedin further exploring the role of imagination in brandpersonification and brand relationships.

REFERENCES

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journalof Marketing Research, 34(August), 347–356.

Adaval, R., & Wyer, R. S. Jr. (1998). The role of narrativesin consumer information processing. Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 7, 207–245.

Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me?Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomor-phized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(Decem-ber), 468–479.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equationmodeling in practice: A review and recommended two-stepapproach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Arndt, J. (1985). On making marketing science more scien-tific: Role of orientations, paradigms, metaphors, and puz-zle solving. Journal of Marketing, 49(Summer), 11–23.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Closerelationships as including other in the self. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Norman, C. (2001). Self-expansionmodel of motivation and cognition in close relationshipsand beyond. In G. J. O. Fletcher, & M. S. Clark (Eds.),Blackwell handbook of social psychology. Volume II inter-personal processes (pp. 478–501). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Avis, M., Aitken, R., & Ferguson, S. (2012). Brand relationshipand personality theory: Metaphor or consumer perceptualreality. Marketing Theory, 12, 311–331.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Baumgartner, H. (1994). The evaluation ofstructural equation models and hypothesis testing. In R. P.Bagozzi (Ed.), Principles of marketing research (pp. 386–422). Cambridge, MA: Blackwells.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and test-ing organizational theories: A holistic construal. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 27, 459–489.

Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love.Journal of Marketing, 76(March), 1–16.

Bengtsson, A. (2003). Towards a critique of brand relation-ships. Advances in Consumer Research, 30, 154–158.

Berk, M. S., & Andersen, S. M. (2000). The impact of past rela-tionships on interpersonal behavior: Behavioral confirma-tion in the social-cognitive process of transference. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 546–562.

Berry, T. R., & Carson, V. (2010). Ease of imagination, messageframing, and physical activity messages. British Journal ofHealth Psychology, 15, 197–211.

Black, M. (1979). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.),Metaphor and thought (pp. 19–43). Cambridge, UK: Cam-bridge University Press.

Breivik, E., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2008). Consumer brand rela-tionships: An investigation of two alternative models. Jour-nal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 443–472.

Broemer, P. (2004). Ease of imagination moderates reactionsto differently framed health messages. European Journalof Social Psychology, 34, 103–119.

Cohen, J. (2004). Parasocial break-up from favorite televisioncharacters: The role of attachment styles and relationship


intensity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21,187–202.

Coleridge, S. T. (1983). On the imagination. In J. Engell, & W.J. Bate (Eds.), Biographia literaria (Vol. I; pp. 295–306).Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Coupland, J. C. (2005). Invisible brands: An ethnography ofhouseholds and the brands in their kitchen pantries. Jour-nal of Consumer Research, 32(June), 106–118.

Cova, B., & Pace, S. (2006). Brand community of convenienceproducts: New forms of customer empowerment: The case“my Nutella The Community”. European Journal of Mar-keting, 40, 1087–1105.

Dias, M. G., & Harris, P. L. (1990). The influence of the imag-ination on reasoning by young children. British Journal ofDevelopmental Psychology, 8, 305–318.

Dwight, S. A., Cummings, K. M., & Glenar, J. L. (1998).Comparison of criterion-related validity coefficients for themini-markers and Goldberg’s markers of the Big Five per-sonality factors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70,541–550.

Ehrsson, H. H., Geyer, S., & Naito, E. (2003). Imagery of volun-tary movement of fingers, toes, and tongue activates corre-sponding body-part-specific motor representations. Journalof Neurophysiology, 90, 3304–3316.

Elliott, R., & Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Brands as symbolic re-sources for the construction of identity. International Jour-nal of Advertising, 17, 131–144.

Elliott, R., & Yannopoulou, N. (2007). The nature of trust inbrands: A psychosocial model. European Journal of Mar-keting, 441, 988–998.

Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumerconnections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14,168–180.

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integrationnetworks. Cognitive Science, 22, 133–187.

Fisher, B. J., & Specht, D. K. (1999). Successful aging andcreativity in later life. Journal of Aging Studies, 13, 457–472.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structuralequation models with unobservable variables and measure-ment error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February),39–50.

Fournier, S. (1994). A consumer-brand relationship frame-work for strategic brand management. Unpublished doc-toral thesis. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumer and their brands: Developingrelationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Con-sumer Research, 24(March), 343–373.

Fournier, S. (2009). Lessons learned about consumers’ rela-tionships with their brands. In D. J. MacInnes, C. W. Park,& J. R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of brand relationships(pp. 5–23). New York, NY: Society for Consumer Psychol-ogy.

Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & De Wulf, K. (2009). A new measureof brand personality. International Journal of Research inMarketing, 26, 97–107.

Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the lit-erature and a model for future research. Media Psychology,4, 279–305.

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transporta-tion in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 29, 701–721.

Guthrie, S. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of reli-gion. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hong, J. W., & Zinkham, G. M. (2006). Self-concept and adver-tising effectiveness: The influence of congruency, conspicu-

ousness, and response mode. Psychology & Marketing, 12,53–77.

Hopp, W. (2011). Perception and knowledge: A phenomenolog-ical account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication andpara-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a dis-tance. Psychiatry, 19, 215–229.

Huang, H. H. (2009). Self-identity and consumption: A studyof consumer personality, brand personality, and brand re-lationship. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of War-wick, Coventry, U.K.

Huang, H. H. (2012). The transfer and limitations of the rela-tionship metaphor in identity-relevant consumption situa-tions. In S. Fournier, M. Breazeale, & M. Fetscherin (Eds.),Consumer-brand relationships: Theory and practice (pp.244–261). New York, NY: Routledge.

Huang, H. H., & Mitchell, V. W. (2012). Does a brand rela-tionship exist? Paper presented at the Consumer BrandRelationship Conference, Boston, MA.

Huang, H. H., Mitchell, V. W., & Rosenaum-Elliott, R. (2012).Are consumer and brand personalities the same? Psychol-ogy & Marketing, 29, 334–349.

Huber, F., Vollhardt, K., Matthes, I., & Vogel, J. (2010).Brand misconduct: Consequences on consumer-brand re-lationship. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1113–1120.

Keller, P. A., & McGill, A. L. (1994). Differences in the relativeinfluence of product attributes under alternative processingconditions: Attribute importance versus attribute ease ofimagability. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3, 29–49.

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations:A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley.

MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of imagery ininformation processing: Review and extensions. Journal ofConsumer Research, 13(March), 473–491.

Martin, B. A. S. (2004). Using the imagination: Consumerevoking and thematizing of the fantastic imaginary. Jour-nal of Consumer Research, 31(June), 136–149.

Michelon, P., Vettel, J. M., & Zacks, J. M. (2006). Lateral soma-totopic organization during imagined and prepared move-ments. Journal of Neurophysiology, 95, 811–822.

Mooradian, T. A., & Nezlek, J. B. (1996). Comparing the NEO-FFI and Saucier’s mini-markers as measures of the BigFive. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 213–215.

O’Guinn, T. C., & Muniz, A. M. J. (2009). Collective brandrelationships. In D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, & J. R. Priester(Eds.), Handbook of brand relationships (pp. 173–194). NewYork: M. E. Sharpe.

O’Malley, L., & Tynan, C. (2000). Relationship marketing inconsumer markets: Rhetoric or reality? European Journalof Marketing, 34, 797–815.

Park, J. W., Kim, K. H., & Kim, J. (2002). Acceptance of brandextensions: Interactive influences of product category simi-larity, typicality of claimed benefits, and brand relationshipquality. Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 190–198.

Paulus, D. L., & Bruce, M. N. (1992). The effect of acquain-tanceship on the validity of personality impressions: A lon-gitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 63, 816–824.

Paus, T., Petrides, M., Evans, A. C., & Meyer, E. (1993). Role ofthe human anterior cingulate cortex in the control of oculo-motor, manual, and speech responses: A positron emissiontomography study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 70, 453–469.

Petrova, P. K., & Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Fluency of consump-tion imagery and the backfire effects of imagery appeals.Journal of Consumer Research, 32(December), 442–452.


Petrova, P. K., & Cialdini, R. B. (2008). Evoking the imagina-tion as a strategy of influence. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M.Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psy-chology (pp. 505–523). New York, NY: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Ratchford, B. T. (1987). New insights about the FCB Grid.Journal of Advertising Research, 27(August/September),24–38.

Reimann, M., & Aron, A. (2009). Self-expansion motivationand inclusion of brands in self. In D. J. MacInnes, C. W.Park, & J. R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of brand relation-ships (pp. 65–81). New York, NY: Society for ConsumerPsychology.

Reimann, M., Castano, R., Zaichkowsky, J., & Bechara, A.(2012). How we relate to brands: Psychological and neu-rophysiological insights into consumer-brand relationship.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 128–142.

Robinson, P., & Kates, S. M. (2005). Children and Their BrandRelationship. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 578–579.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’sunipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assess-ment, 63, 506–516.

Schau, H. J. (2000). Consumer imagination, identity and self-expression. Advances in Consumer Research, 27, 50–56.

Schau, H. J., Muniz, A. M. J., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). Howbrand community practices create value. Journal of Mar-keting, 73(September), 30–51.

Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumerjudgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psy-chology, 14, 332–348.

Sherwood, M. (1975). Coleridge’s imaginative conception of theimagination. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley Press.

Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A crit-ical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(December),287–300.

Sirgy, M. J., & Danes, J. E. (1982). Self-image/product-imagecongruence models: Testing selected models. Advances inConsumer Research, 9, 256–261.

Stern, B. B. (1988). Medieval allegory: Roots of advertis-

ing strategy for the mass market. Journal of Marketing,52(July), 84–94.

Sung, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2010). “I won’t leave you althoughyou disappoint me”: The interplay between satisfaction,investment, and alternatives in determining consumer-brand relationship commitment. Psychology & Marketing,27, 1050–1074.

Thomson, M., MacInnis, D., & Park, C. W. (2005). The tiesthat bind: Measuring the strength of consumers’ emotionalattachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology,15, 77–91.

Trump, R. K., & Brucks, M. (2012). Overlap between mentalrepresentations of self and brand. Self and Identity, 11,454–471.

Tsao, J. (1996). Compensatory media use: An explo-ration of two paradigms. Communication Studies,47(Spring/Summer), 89–109.

Unnava, H. R., Agarwal, S., & Haugtvedt, C. P. (1996). In-teractive effects of presentation modality and message-generated imagery on recall of advertising information.Journal of Consumer Research, 23(June), 81–88.

Van den Bulte, C. (1994). Metaphor at work. In G. Laurent,G. L. Lilien, & B. Pras (Eds.), Research traditions in mar-keting (pp. 405–425). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Pub-lishers.

Wheeler, K. M. (1989). Coleridge and modern critical theory.In C. Gallant (Ed.), Coleridge’s theory of imagination today(pp. 83–102). New York, NY: AMS Press.

White, A. R. (1990). The language of imagination. New York:Blackwell.

We gratefully acknowledge the patience, professionalism, andediting assistance of Ronald Jay Cohen who helped in craftingthe final version of the manuscript.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: HazelH. Huang, Lecturer in Marketing, Wolfson Research Institute,Durham University Business School, Queen’s Campus, TS176BH, United Kingdom ([email protected]).


the role of imagination and brand personification in brand relationships

Documents