Unraveling the Mystery of Roanoke Colony: What Really Happened?
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
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
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***
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
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
Notas del editor
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).