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 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 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 loyalty

H3b: 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 ≤ 3

Normal Fit Index (NFI) .744 .792 ≥ .9

Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) .770 .826 ≥ .9

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .816 .860 ≥ .9

Root 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