0 brand love interpersonal or parasocial relationship? marc fetscherin, ph.d. & mary...

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