1.
Brand Love is in the Heart
Physiological Responding to Advertised Brands
Presented by:
Wendy Maxian
Xavier University
Cincinnati, Ohio
Co-authors:
Samuel D. Bradley (USF)
Wesley T. Wise (KSU)
E. N. Toulouse (TTU)
Published in Psychology & Marketing, 30(6), 469-478 (June 2013)

2.
Primary Goal
Test premises in Lovemarks (Roberts, 2005)
Consumers show “loyalty beyond
reason” via:
● Emotional connections
● Idiosyncratic set of loved brands

3.
Defining Brand Love
Emotional connection not new
(Watson, c. 1920s)
Similar to interpersonal love
(Shimp & Madden, 1988);Ahuvia, 2005; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006;
Whang, Allen, Sahoury, & Zhang, 2004; Albert, Merunka, & Valette-
Florence, 2008)
Individual-level phenomenon
(Roberts, 2005)
Can be informational or symbolic
reward
(Foxall, 2010)

4.
Measuring Brand Love
Measuring emotional connection
Motivational model of emotion
(P.J. Lang & colleagues)
Clear test of emotional stimuli
Emotion as action disposition
Positive valance, psychological arousal
●Both perceived and physiological
●Both conscious and subsconscious

5.
Measures
Self-report, 7-pt. semantic differentials
● Abr (Meeds, 1999; Thorson, Chi, & Leavitt, 1992)
● Arousal
Physiological
● Heart rate (HR)
● Skin conductance response (SCR)
● Facial electromyography (EMG)
Abr score established more- and less-
loved brands, sets of 6

6.
Expected Response Patterns
More-loved brands should elicit:
elicit greater arousal, both reported and
physiological (H1),
sustained cardiac deceleration (H2), and
greater orbicularis oculi activation (H3)
than less-loved brands.
Less-loved brands should elicit greater
activation of corrugator supercilii than
more-loved brands (H4).

7.
Competing Hypotheses
Category preference shows same
pattern of response (H5a-d).
Higher Abr score in category will elicit
larger reported and physiological arousal,
sustained cardiac deceleration, and
greater orbicularis oculi activation.

8.
Procedures
Stimuli
● 36 logos
● 2 exemplars,18 product categories
Procedures
● 5s of blank screen
● Presented only logos for 6s
● Obtained physiological measures
● Immediately asked self-report
● 3 counter-balanced orders

9.
Participants
56 undergraduates
17 men, 37 women, 2 nonreport
Mage = 21.0 years, range 19-23

10.
Analysis and Results
Standard data reduction procedures
For each participant, calculated unique
more- and less-loved brands
Hypothesis tests:
● t-tests
● Cohen’s d, pooled variance

11.
Results

12.
What does it all mean?
Individual-level, emotional responses
Subconscious reaction to static stimulus
● Reflexive smile and frown
Likely underestimated responses
Hearts “skipped a beat,” genuine smiles

13.
Thank you.
Questions?