Presentation given at the 3rd International Consumer Brand Relationships Conference, www.consumer-brand-relationships.org Copyright by Aaron Ahuvia Philipp Rauschnabel

1. Social Consumption Theory:
Are Consumer-Brand
Relationships Directly Motivated
by Social Needs
Aaron Ahuvia & Philipp Rauschnabel
University of Michigan-Dearborn & University of Bamberg
Consumer Brand Relationship Colloquium 2013, Rollins

2. Interpersonal Relationships &
Consumer Brand Relationships
Some people who have
satisfied social needs
tend to create CBRs
Some people who have
unmet social needs tend
create CBRs
?
Somepeopleuse
brandtogetaccess
tootherconsumers
Some people see
brands or possessions
directly as
relationship partners

3. Interpersonal Relationships &
Consumer Brand Relationships
RelationshipMotive
Positive
Disposition
Towards
Relationships
Loneliness
Target: Create or Strengthen Relationships With . . .
People Associated
with the Brand
The Brand Itself
Type 1:
Instrumental
Type 2:
Compensatory
a. Booby prize
b. Substitution
c. Anesthetic
Type 3:
Object Markers
Type 4:
Complimentary

4. Study 1
Why do people Anthropomorphize?
Two primary motivations
● Sociality motivation (create a relationship with a
brand)
● Effectance motivation (understand complex things
more easily)
Methodology
● Survey (1,105 German respondents)
● Focus: Favorite brand of shoes, cloths, chocolate,
or body care

5. Motivations and Brand Love

6. Study 1: Anthropomorphism as an
important Predictor of Brand Love
Anthropomorphism
Brand Quality
BRAND
LOVE
R² = 22.5%
R² = 1.2%
Finding 1:
Anthropomorphism is a much better predictor of brand love and its sub-
dimensions than brand quality – except for attitude valence.

7. Anthro predicts brand love –
but for whom?
Study 1 showed:
Human-Like brands are more prone to be
loved!
But it is still unclear if….
● anthropomorphizing brands is an individual
difference variable (Study 2)
● The effect of H1 differs among lonely
people… (Study 3)

8. Study 2: Anthro-Tendency, Perceived
level of Anthropomorphism, and Brand
Love
Hypotheses:
● 309 US-students were surveyed about their current used phone brand and their
tendency to anthropomorphize
● Anthro-Tendency based on respondents’ four special possessions
Consumers Tendency to
Anthropomorphism
Perceived Level of
Anthropomorphism of a Brand
Brand Loveb=.634***
Mediation: b=.102n.s.
b=.480***b=.619***
b=.166***
***p<.001; n.s.: p>.10
Unstandardized coefficients presented only

9. Study 2: Discussion
● People who tend to anthropomorphize in
General also tend to anthropomorphize brands;
for those people, anthropomorphic traits of a
brand are more important in predicting brand
love
● Tendency to anthropomorphize is mediated by
a brand‘s level of perceived anthropomorphism
● We developed a new Tendency to
Anthropomorphism-Measure

10. Study 3: Extension of our Findings:
Loneliness and Extension on Possession
Research Questions:
● Can brand love be adapted to products (possessions)?
● Do lonely people really love brands more than none lonely people?
● Are anthropomorphic brand/possession traits more important for lonely people?
Survey:
● 284 internet users were surveyed about their car (n=143) or their phone (n=140)
● Brand love mini scale (eight items)
● Loneliness-Trait (SELSEA-scale)
Perceived Level of
Anthropomorphism
Brand Love
Loneliness

11. Study 3: Compensatory Effect on Brand
Love
Perceived Level of
Anthropomorphism
Brand Love
Cars: b=.173**
Phones: b=.086n.s.
Loneliness
Cars: b=.445***
Phones: b=.516***
Cars: b=.085 n.s.
Phones: b=.027n.s.
***p<.001 **p<.05 *p<.10 n.s. p>.10
Unstandardized coefficients presented only

12. Study 3: Compensatory Effect on
Possession Love
Perceived Level of
Anthropomorphism
Possession
Love
Cars: b=.218**
Phones: b=.104n.s.
Loneliness
Cars: b=.820***
Phones: b=.516***
Cars: b=.165**
Phones: b=-.056n.s.
***p<.001 **p<.05 *p<.10 n.s. p>.10
Unstandardized coefficients presented only

13. General Discussion
● People love brands mostly because they are “humanlike”.
● People who anthropomorphize (and love) brands are people who also
anthropomorphize other things in their daily live.
● Brands & possession can compensate lacks of social relationships
PARTIAL SUPPORT FOR THE COMPESATION-EFFECT
● The Compensation-Effect only occurs for cars but not for phones
● Possible Explanation: Phones are useless for lonely people.
● Effect is weaker for brands than for possessions.