0 brand love interpersonal or parasocial relationship? marc fetscherin, ph.d. & mary...
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 StudiesAuthors Dim. /
itemsRespondents 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 loyaltyH3b: 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 ≤ 3Normal Fit Index (NFI) .744 .792 ≥ .9Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) .770 .826 ≥ .9Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .816 .860 ≥ .9Root 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