Upload
malcolm-osborne
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Marina Carnevale and Lauren BlockBaruch College, City University of New York
Introduction
Current ResearchDo social, external (to consumer-brand)
relationships impact consumer brand relationships? What are the mechanisms underlying these effects?
Current research
Social External Relationships
Consumer-Brand Relationships(e.g., Fournier 1998; Johnson, Matear, Thompson 2011)
(e.g., Sherry 1983; Ruthet al. 1999)
Theoretical Model
Self-Brand Connection
c
Study 1
Study 2
External Relationship
Episode
Affect towards the external
party
Brand-related
Behaviors
Study 1: Method Three sessions, 3 weeks apart
Pretest: brand stimulus selection
Part 1: prior SBC
Part II: Relationship episode (Reinforcement vs. Dissolution)
N=39• Relationship story development; manipulation• Affect towards the external party • Filler tasks• Dependent Variable (SBC)• Manipulation checks
Study 1- Results Affect towards the external partyNegative
(F (1, 38) = 41.12; p < .001)
***
Positive
(F (1, 38) = 137.9; p < .001)
***
Participants in the dissolution (reinforcement) condition experienced significantly higher levels of negative (positive) affect towards the external party
Study 1-Results•Participants in the dissolution (reinforcement) condition displayed significantly lower (higher) levels of SBC (F (1, 37) = 5.25; p <.05)
•Bootstrapping method, cross sectional mediation (Preacher
and Hayes 2004, 2008; Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010): •Negative affect mediates the effects of relationship episode on SBC (a x b = -.80; CI: -1.89 to -.01 ) while positive affect does not (CI: -1.73 to 2.11)•Stronger impact of negative (vs. positive) information on consumer’s evaluations (e.g., Ito, Larsen, Smith, and Cacioppo 1998) -> significant difference of SBC largely explained by negative affect in the dissolution condition
Self-Brand Connectio
n
External Relationship Episode
Study 2- MethodObjectiveReplicate and build on study 1 (brand-related
behaviors)
Design
• Relationship episode (Reinforcement vs. Dissolution)
Procedure (study 1-part II)• N= 117• Manipulation: same as study 1, except for pdt
category (cell phone) and brand (fictitious)• Process measures (affect towards external party,
association with the external party and pdt/brand)
• DVs (SBC, Attitude, PI, Avoidance pdt/brand)
Study 2- ResultsDesire of avoidance: significantly higher (lower) for
those in the dissolution (reinforcement) conditionProduct (MD = 4.11 vs. MR = 2.04; F (1, 113) =99.94; p
< .001)Brand (MD = 3.52 vs. MR = 1.95; F (1, 113) =23.97; p < .001) Changes in external relationships go beyond those on the gifted product; rather, they spill over to the brand
Participants in the dissolution (vs. reinforcement) condition displayed significantly lower:Self-Brand Connections (MD = 3.51 vs. MR = 5.00)
Attitude towards the Brand (MD = 3.98 vs. MR = 5.25)
(All Fs (1,116) > 10, p ≤ .001)
Study 2- Results Purchase Intentions
(F (1, 116) = 14. 68; p < .001)
•Participants in the dissolution (vs. reinforcement) condition displayed significantly lower (higher) purchase intentions •However, this only happened for relatively more fitting product categories
***
(F (1, 116) =.02; p > .1)
High Fit Low Fit
Study 2- ResultsProcess measuresAs in study 1, participants in the dissolution (vs.
reinforcement) condition experienced significantly higher levels of negative affect (F (1, 115) = 347.48; p
< .001 ) and lower levels of positive affect towards the external party (F (1, 116) = 588.84; p < .001)
Associations of the external party with both the product and the brand did not vary significantly across conditions (p>. 10)
-> High association of the external party with the product/brand, regardless of relationship episode
Study 2- Mediation Analysis
Self-Brand Connection
cExternal Relationship
Episode
Affect towards the external
partya x b = -1.59; CI: -2.99 to
-.04
Bootstrapping method; 5,000 bootstrap resamples, 95% bias-corrected and accelerated CI (Preacher and Hayes 2004, 2008; Zhao et al. 2010)
a x b = -1.59; CI: -2.99 to -.04
a x b = -0.07; CI: -.17 to -.01
All a x bs >o and significant
DiscussionStudy 1 and 2
Changes in an external relationship impact feelings of SBC, because of the negative affect associated with the external party
Study 2Lower (higher) SBC that follow explain less (more) favorable
brand-related behaviors, such as attitude towards the brand, purchase intentions (PI), desires of product and brand avoidance
The effects of relationship episode on PI are limited to product categories more strictly related to the product that symbolizes the external relationship
ContributionSocial, external relationships impact consumer-brand
RelationshipsThe effects go beyond those on the gifted product; rather, they
spill over to the brand and to brand-related responses
Relationship Theory: not only consumer-brand relationships mirror interpersonal ones; they also are affected by them
Consumer-brand relationships-> new avenue for future research
New perspectives on gift experience
Influence of SBC
Practical implications: brands as means to reinforce desirable external social relationships (communication/brand positioning)
Future ResearchShort-term plan: Enhance external validity
“Non-student” participantsField experiment
Rule out incidental mood as an alternative explanation
Other future research: Persistence of the effects across timeExplore different types of relationships and of
reinforcements/dissolution