Download pdf - Brand Romance

Journal of Product & Brand ManagementBrand romance: a complementary approach to explain emotional attachment toward brandsHemant Patwardhan Siva K. Balasubramanian

Article information:To cite this document:Hemant Patwardhan Siva K. Balasubramanian, (2011),"Brand romance: a complementary approach to explain emotionalattachment toward brands", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 Iss 4 pp. 297 - 308Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421111148315

Downloaded on: 27 December 2014, At: 07:24 (PT)References: this document contains references to 69 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4450 times since 2011*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Ian Phau, Min Teah, Jing Theng So, Andrew Grant Parsons, Sheau-Fen Yap, (2013),"Corporate branding, emotional attachmentand brand loyalty: the case of luxury fashion branding", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 403-423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-03-2013-0032Noel Albert, Dwight Merunka, (2013),"The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships", Journal of Consumer Marketing,Vol. 30 Iss 3 pp. 258-266 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761311328928Jiyoung Hwang, Jay Kandampully, (2012),"The role of emotional aspects in younger consumer-brand relationships", Journal ofProduct & Brand Management, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. 98-108 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421211215517

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 272120 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visitwww.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

7:24

27

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Brand romance: a complementary approach toexplain emotional attachment toward brands

Hemant Patwardhan

Department of Management and Marketing, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, South Carolina, USA, and

Siva K. BalasubramanianStuart School of Business, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois, USA

AbstractPurpose – This research aims to explain consumer attraction to brands when stimulation needs are paramount using the perspective of the Self-Expansion Model. In doing so, it seeks to identiy brand romance – a more proximal construct to brand loyalty and aims to offer a complementaryperspective to understand emotional attachment to brands.Design/methodology/approach – A series of four studies developed and validated a three-factor, 12-item measurement scale for brand romanceusing exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Reliability, convergent, criterion, discriminant and nomological validities were established.Findings – Brand romance is a reliable, valid, and a more proximal construct that explains loyalty significantly better than attitudes.Research limitations/implications – Student subjects constitute the sample and the findings are cautiously generalizable to adult populations.Future research should focus on teasing out product category effects, extending generalizability to other product categories and integrating theAttachment Theory perspective with the study’s findings to offer a more comprehensive explanation for loyalty.Practical implications – Consumers are likely to remain loyal to brands to which they are attracted. The brand romance construct captures thisattraction. Marketers need to infuse their brands with novel perspectives, resources and identities on a continuous basis to satisfy stimulation needsand keep the attraction strong. This involves creating new brand associations that help the brand to stay relevant.Originality/value – To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to apply the Self-expansion Model to brand relationships. The researchcontributes a unique perspective in explaining emotional attachment to brands brought on by stimulation needs. It fills a gap in the emotionalattachment literature and provides marketers with a tool to monitor consumers’ attraction to brands.

Keywords Brands, Emotional attachment, Brand loyalty, Self-expansion model, Brand relationships, Scale development, Brand attraction,Brand management, Consumer behaviour

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

Emotional attachment to brands has attracted recent research

attention (e.g. Thomson et al., 2005). Researchers have long

considered attitudes to be insufficient predictors of brand

commitment (e.g. loyalty), and suggest that true loyalty

requires the customer to form an emotional bond with the

brand (Park et al., 2009; Oliver, 1999). Calling for greater

research in this area, Park and MacInnis (2006) suggest that

the boundaries of the attitudes construct need to be

recognized so that another construct reflecting emotional

attachment can be articulated. Cohen and Reed (2006) echo

the call for greater research while cautioning against the

dismissal of attitudes in loyalty research. The nature and

character of the emotional attachment construct is reflected in

Fournier’s (1998) discussion of brand relationships, brand

love (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006), lovemarks (Pawle and

Cooper, 2006), brand communities (Schouten and

McAlexander, 1995; Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001), brand

commitment (Warrington and Shim, 2000) among others,

and various dimensions like passion, commitment and

intimacy considered by many researchers to better explain

brand loyalty (e.g. Kim et al., 2008).Insights on emotional attachment to brands are provided by

Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1979; Hazan and Shaver,

1987). This theory (Bowlby, 1979) was originally proposed to

explain deep attachments that infants formed with caregivers.

Specifically, it posits three features of a strong attachment:

proximity maintenance, safe haven and secure base. The

motive for such attachment may include the need for comfort,

support, security and consistency. For example, in adult

relationships (Hazan and Shaver, 1987) strong attachments

could develop among partners when such needs are fulfilled.

Such partners perceive each other as dependable and

trustworthy. When this theory is extended to consumers’

brand relationships, the attachments that arise are also

primarily based on trust, dependability and consistency of

response. That is, consumers become attached to some

brands because they are dependable, consistent and “always

there” when you need them. Consumers take comfort in the

familiar; the primary motive for the attachment being security

and safety. Thomson et al. (2005) developed a three-factor

(affection, passion and connection) scale for measuring

emotional attachment to brands in a consumer-brand

relationship.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

Journal of Product & Brand Management

20/4 (2011) 297–308

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]

[DOI 10.1108/10610421111148315]

297

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

7:24

27

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

However, another kind of attachment may result when the

primary motive is stimulation. Individuals looking for

stimulation may seek out a partner who provides novelty,excitement, and arousal. Repeated interactions with such a

partner may result in an attachment that is better

characterized as attraction. The relationship features newexperiences, insights and perspectives, not unlike a developing

romantic relationship where partners progressively discover

each other, and long to be together. We believe this type ofattachment, explained by the Self-Expansion Model (Aron

et al., 2001), complements the attachment theory perspective.For instance, attachment theory suggests that partners engage

in exploration behaviors once a secure base is established.

Pursuit of stimulation is an integral part of explorationbehaviors and the Self-expansion Model may predict another

attachment in the making. Notably, Hazan and Shaver (1994)

acknowledge the existence of multiple attachments and assertthat different attachments satisfy different class of needs.

Furthermore, attachment theory predicts that insecureattachments inhibit exploration behaviors (Aron and Aron,

2006). That enhanced exploration behaviors compensate for

the insecurity in the attachment is a distinct possibility.The search for stimulation is fundamental in consumers’

shopping behaviors. For instance, Tynan (1997) associates it

with “flirting, teasing and unremitting coquettishness.”Brown (2002) mentions that consumers actually love being

teased and tantalized and are repelled by anyone trying toohard to be their friend. Brown (1998, p. 794) suggests

consumers do fall “[. . .] truly, madly, deeply in love with

products and services. They have to have them; they arepassionate about them; they get a quasi-erotic charge from

examining, exhibiting and expending money on them.”

Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) explain such consumptionbehaviors as being driven by the pursuit of fantasy, feelings

and fun.Extending this analogy to consumer brand relationships, we

note that consumers perceive some brands as providing

opportunities for stimulation and discovery; they provokelonging, and offer pleasure from use. The consumer’s mental

state about such a brand reflects excitement, intense pleasure

and arousal. We focus on this mental state, describe itsproperties, and offer empirical support for its existence. In

line with the underlying theme of attraction in romanticrelationships, we call this mental state brand romance. We

further propose that it offers a complementary perspective to

understand brand loyalty. Our approach is motivated by thecall for empirical research to understand the conceptual

properties of brand attachment (Park et al., 2009), and

underscores the wisdom in O’Malley and Tynan’s (1999)proposition that marketers ought to embrace alternative

metaphors to explain consumer-brand relationships.The remainder of this paper is devoted to discussing the

theoretical basis of our research and describing the four

studies that validate the proposed construct.

The Self-expansion Model

The Self-expansion Model (Aron et al., 2001, 1998; Reimannand Aron, 2009) is the theoretical backdrop for this study,

and rests on two themes. First, the model emphasizes a

central motive whereby individuals seek to expand their selvesby acquiring perspectives, resources and identities to enhance

their ability to achieve goals, in the process generating positive

affect. Second, such expansion entails close relationships that

“include others in the self” i.e. gaining access to others’

perspectives (e.g., a partner’s point of view or biases),

resources (knowledge-based and social assets) and identities

(features, traits that differentiate one person from another). In

close relationships individuals may even perceive these as their

own. The Model suggests that the closer the relationship, the

more the partner’s perspectives, resources and identities may

be used to attain goals. According to the authors, the

relationship literature has documented the preponderance of

satisfaction and love in the early phase of any romantic

involvement (Aron et al., 2001). This relationship formation

phase depicts exhilaration, fascination and intense longing,

where partners seek to expand their selves through constant,

rapid and intense interactions. This process embeds the other

partner within a given partner’s self (i.e. gives access to the

other partner’s perspectives, resources and identities) and

yields positive affect and arousal/approach tendencies.It is both simple and logical to extend this analogy from

romantic relationships to consumer-brand relationships (also

see examples in Reimann and Aron, 2009). Brands have their

own perspectives, resources and identities. For instance,

Blackberry users assume the brand’s perspective of “doing

important work on the move”, identify themselves with the

exclusive class of “busy executives” and adopt the attitudes

and behaviors of the brand (e.g. beliefs of greater self-worth)

as they proudly carry their telephones. In other words, they

integrate the brand’s perspectives, resources and identities

into their selves to enhance their ability to achieve certain

goals. This is facilitated through their purchase, ownership

and frequent use of the brand (i.e. forming a relationship with

the brand). Repeated interactions result in high levels of

excited positive affect, feelings of exhilaration and a strong

desire to re-engage with the brand. In sum, this engagement

and identification produces three notable outcomes for the

consumer: positive affect, high arousal, and a strong brand

presence or dominance,What happens when the consumer brand relationship

matures? Aron et al. (2001) report that when self-expansion

slows down or rendered non-existent, the loss of enjoyable

emotion is disappointing and is attributed to the other

partner, leading to relationship dissolution. To avoid this, the

Self-expansion Model suggests that the partners pursue novel

and arousing activities to ensure its longevity. Novel activities

have new perspectives, resources and identities that motivate

partners to re-engage in the process of “including the other in

the self”. In a similar vein, a brand must be able to re-invent

itself, possibly through repositioning, creating new sets of

desirable brand associations and discarding older associations,

analogous to Keller’s (1999) brand reinforcement and

revitalization strategies for the long run. This relationship

preservation effort by the brand offers consumers a renewed

opportunity for self-expansion. As a result, a thriving and

mature consumer-brand relationship is characterized by the

three outcomes noted earlier: positive affect; arousal, as

consumers’ exhibit approach tendencies towards a “partner”

brand; and dominance, as consumers tend to think about the

brand meaningfully and frequently.In sum, we posit that emotional attachment from attraction

generates positive affect, arousal and dominance that also

constitute the three dimensions of our brand romance

construct.

Brand romance: a complementary approach

Hemant Patwardhan and Siva K. Balasubramanian


Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 297–308

298

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

7:24

27

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Brand romance defined

We define brand romance as a state of emotional attachment(evoked in response to the brand as a stimulus) that ischaracterized by strong positive affect toward the brand, higharousal caused by the brand, and a tendency of the brand todominate the consumer’s cognition. Brand romance issubject-specific. Different consumers may enjoy differentlevels of romance with respect to the same brand. Figure 1illustrates this definition, key aspects of which are elaboratednext.

Pleasure

To the extent that the stimulus brand imparts pleasure to theconsumer, it is an integral element of brand romance.Feelings like love, attraction, desire, pleasure, fun andexcitement belong to the same constellation of emotions.We propose pleasure as the first dimension of brand romancethat associates positive feelings with the brand.

Arousal

Even if positive feelings characterize consumer-brandrelationships, they must be intense enough to arouse theconsumer in order to be meaningful or effective. As discussedearlier, self-expansion may find expression in shoppingexperiences via strong arousal and approach tendencies.Mehrabian and Russell (1974) summarized evidence insupport of a positive relationship between the intensity ofpleasure and the tendency to approach a stimulus. Accordingto them, physical approach, preference, liking or positiveattitudes, exploration, performance and affiliation reach apeak at a moderate level of arousal. Therefore arousal isproposed as the second dimension of brand romance.

Dominance

This characteristic captures the brand’s tendency to engagethe consumer’s cognition. Oliver (1999) and Schouten andMcAlexander (1995) report the complete immersion ofHarley Davidson bikers within their community, therebyvividly illustrating the centrality of the focus brand in theirlives. Extant research on brand communities (e.g.McAlexander et al., 2002) depicts the extent to whichbrands “[. . .] become inextricably embedded within someportion of the consumer’s psyche, as well as his/her lifestyle”(Oliver, 1999, p. 40). Proshansky et al. (1970) observe that

such dominance is perceived as negative when it limits the

freedom to think or act; but when it does not limit freedom, it

is actually preferred (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974).The preceding discussion presents brand romance as a

three dimensional construct. To the extent that emotionally

attached partners are more likely to be committed to each

other, we also propose brand romance as an antecedent to

brand loyalty. Thus:

P1. Brand romance is a three-factor (pleasure, arousal, and

dominance) construct (see Figure 1).P2. Brand romance is an antecedent to brand loyalty.

Brand romance and brand attitude and otherbrand-attachment constructs

Park et al. (2009) differentiate emotional attachment to

brands from other brand-related constructs like attitudes,

involvement, commitment and love. As brand romance also

reflects an emotional attachment to a brand, we believe that it

is similarly different from these constructs. For instance, the

authors assert that consumers can be strongly involved with a

brand with which they have no emotional connection.

Involvement taps into the realm of cognition (Zaichkowski,

1986) while romance arguably taps into the realm of affect as

well. Brand romance is also different from brand

commitment. The latter is best characterized as an outcome

of an emotional attachment to a brand, rather than the

attachment itself. Besides, consumers may be committed to a

brand for reasons other than romance, like lack of competing

alternatives or moral or contractual obligations. Brand

romance bears some similarity with brand love (Ahuvia et al.,2009; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). Love is the emotion that

one may develop pursuant to a strong attraction, while some

attachments based on attraction may not develop into love.

Thus brand love would indicate the presence of attraction.

Thus we suggest that romance characterizes the attraction,

while love may/may not develop eventually. Similarly

consumers may feel an intense attraction to certain brands

though they may not be agreeable to declaring their love for

these brands just yet.Park et al. (2009) also point out that attitudes are based on

a thoughtful process involving a considerable analysis of the

brand’s merits. The affect component in an attitude is likened

to “cold affect” (Cohen and Areni, 1991) as opposed to

emotional attachment being more associated with hot affect

(Mikulincer et al., 2001). Several theories (e.g. Expectancy

Value Model (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975); Low Involvement

Theory (Krugman, 1977); Affect Primacy (Zajonc, 1980))

suggest that beliefs and/or affect are formed by mere exposure

to a stimulus. Since attitude is the cumulation of such beliefs

and/or affect, it may be argued that mere exposure to an

object may be enough to form an attitude to the object. Brand

romance however, is characterized by arousal and dominance,

so consumers are likely to have progressed beyond attitude

formation to expressing a desire to purchase/consume the

brand. Note that the conative stage in the Hierarchy-of-

Effects model (Lavidge and Steiner, 1961) follows attitude

formation; it is also a necessary step to develop brand loyalty.

Therefore, in a nomological net context, brand romance not

only differs from brand attitude, it appears closer to brand

loyalty than brand attitude (see Figure 2):

Figure 1 Brand romance: the model




Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 297–308

299

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

7:24

27

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

P4. Brand romance and brand attitude are differentconstructs.

P5. Brand romance is closer to brand loyalty than brandattitude.

We devote the remaining sections to measure and validate thebrand romance construct. To establish discriminant validity,we also show that brand attitude and brand romance aredifferent constructs.

Studies

We sought to develop a measurement scale for brand romanceand to explore its relationship to brand loyalty and brandattitude. Accordingly, four studies were conducted. Study 1generated a pool of items to measure brand romance thatwere purified in Study 2. The third study assessed thereliability and validity of the proposed brand romance scale.The final study explored the relationships between brandromance, brand attitude and brand loyalty. The scaledevelopment process reflects well-established practice (e.g.Churchill, 1979; Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).

Study 1

We drew on relevant literature and participant reports togenerate an extensive inventory of candidate scale items. First,a review of the romantic relationship literature pointed toscales designed to measure romantic love in the inter-personaldomain (e.g. Fengler, 1974; Hobart, 1958; Rubin, 1970).The emotion literature showcases scales that capture affectiveintensity (e.g. Affect Intensity Measure (Larsen and Diener,1987); Emotional Intensity Scale (Geuens and DePelsmacher, 2002)) or tap emotions (e.g. Izard, 1977;Mehrabian and Russell, 1974; Plutchik, 1980). Additionally,two related scales were considered – The Romanticism-Classicism Index (RC Index (Holbrook and Olney, 1995))designed to measure an individual’s romantic bent of mind,and Brand Relationship Quality scale (Park et al., 2002).Similarly, the emotion literature in marketing (e.g. Edell andBurke, 1987; Holbrook and Batra, 1987; Richins, 1997)provided helpful guidance for generating measurement items.Second, an experience survey (Churchill, 1979) was

conducted to explore individuals’ relationships with brands.A convenience sample of nine adult respondents was asked torecall a brand in the context of the three conceptualdimensions of brand romance. The researchers providedpersonal examples to illustrate this task. Respondents

provided statements that described their feelings toward the

recalled brands. This process created a candidate item poolcontaining 70 face-valid items.

Study 2

This study focused on removing items deemed to representthe construct poorly, and to explore the factor structure ofbrand romance. The item pool was administered to a sample

of 99 undergraduate students who participated in the studyfor course credit. The mean age of the respondents was 20.25years, with a standard deviation of 1.41 years. Males

accounted for 45.5 percent of the respondents.

ProcedureParticipants read sample vignettes that depicted feelingstoward three sets of brands that consumers’ state that theyrespectively love, like, or dislike (these represent the three

experimental conditions in this study). The use of thekeyword “love” is appropriate to describe high romancebrands because it is loosely used by people to identify people,

brands, objects, ideas, etc. they are attracted to (Ahuvia et al.,2009). Similarly the keyword “like” sought to tap positiveattitudes towards the brand. Lastly, “dislike” was used as the

logical antithesis of “like”. Each subject evaluated threespecific brands that he/she loved, liked, or dislikedrespectively, on each of the 70 scale items.

ResultsWe obtained a total of 297 brand-specific observations (99subjects £ 3 brands/subject). Recall that the focus was toreduce the number of pool items and to explore the

hypothesized three-factor structure of the brand romanceconstruct. Following Ohanian (1990), an exploratory factoranalysis (EFA) was first conducted to remove items that

loaded on more than one factor and to retain those with highloadings.A principal components analysis (PCA) with varimax

rotation was conducted. Of the 70 items in the original pool,44 items were discarded for loading on multiple factors. Thisprocedure yielded two factors. Items that loaded on the first

factor reflected both “pleasure” and “arousal” derived fromthe brand, while items loading on the second factor tappedthe brand’s “dominance.” The EFA did not successfully

discriminate between the first two hypothesized factors(pleasure and arousal), thereby suggesting they may becorrelated.To further test the existence of the hypothesized three factor

structure, items with maximal loadings on the EFA factors

were retained. These comprised eight items loading on thefirst EFA factor (four highest loading items that appeared toload on pleasure, and four highest loading items that appeared

to load on arousal) and four items loading on the second EFAfactor (see Table I – study 2). These 12 items were subjectedto a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) that specified the

three hypothesized factors for brand romance. Bartlett’s testof sphericity indicated a good data fit. The measure ofsampling adequacy (MSA) was 0.98, further confirming data

suitability.Our primary research objective is to test the plausibility of

the three factor model structure. This structure is supported if

the CFA results reflect acceptable fit indices and significantitem loadings on the three factors.The factors were allowed to correlate and Robust

Maximum Likelihood Estimation approach (Bentler, 1995)

Figure 2 Mediation hypothesis




Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 297–308

300

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

7:24

27

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

was employed (the normalized estimate of multivariate

kurtosis was 32.5814). Robust estimation methods are

useful under these circumstances (see Bentler and Yuan,

1999; Yuan and Bentler, 1998,). Further, simulation studies

(Chou et al., 1991; Curran et al., 1996; Hu et al., 1992) show

that robust statistics perform well under both normal and

non-normal conditions.The CFA results in Table II – study 2 show a significant

Satorra-Bentler (SB) scaled chi-square statistic. At first

glance, the estimated model does not appear to fit the data

well. However, it is well known that a significant chi-square

does not necessarily indicate poor fit (Hu and Bentler, 1995).

Table II – study 2 shows several other measures that reflect

good model fit. The CFI, NFI and NNFI are all above 0.90

(Bentler, 1990). At 0.06, the RMSEA indicates a reasonable

model fit (Brown and Cudeck, 1993). Reliability (Cronbach

alpha) is also good at 0.954. All item loadings indicate that

specified items loaded significantly on their respective factors

(see t-values in Table I – Study 2) supporting the plausibility

of the three factor solution.

Study 3

This study sought to confirm the three-factor structure of

brand romance by testing convergent and criterion validities.

The reduced set of items from the measure purification stage

was administered to a new sample of 112 student subjects

who participated for course credit. Mean age of respondents

was 20.95 years with a standard deviation of 1.55 years. Males

accounted for 40.2 percent of the respondents

Procedure and measuresThe procedure was identical to study 2. Each subject

contributed three brand-specific observations, so 336 brand-

specific observations were available. The brand romance scale

from the previous measure purification phase was

administered. We used Putrevu and Lord’s (1994) purchase

intentions scale to test criterion validity (reliability ¼ 0:91;scale items were:. It is very likely that I will buy this brand.. I will purchase this brand the next time I need this

product.. I will definitely try this brand.

Table I EFA and CFA item loadings

Study 2 Study 3

Item

EFA loading of

retained

items

CFA

Loading SE t-value

CFA

Loading SE t-value

Factor – pleasureI love this brand 0.907 0.942 na na 0.962 na na

Using this brand gives me great pleasure 0.871 0.942 0.021 42.108 * 0.960 0.015 63.055 *

I am really happy that this brand is available 0.915 0.9a51 0.020 47.893 * 0.969 0.014 69.753 *

This brand rarely disappoints me 0.864 0.891 0.027 31.328 * 0.792 0.036 21.323 *

Factor – arousalI am attracted to this brand 0.892 0.949 na na 0.941 na na

I desire this brand 0.901 0.955 0.020 48.280 * 0.974 0.017 60.269 *

I want this brand 0.907 0.934 0.022 43.799 * 0.978 0.019 56.193 *

I look forward to using this brand 0.878 0.935 0.022 43.097 * 0.927 0.024 41.989 *

Factor – dominanceMy day-dreams often include this brand 0.840 0.792 na na 0.859 na na

This brand often dominates my thoughts 0.847 0.823 0.077 12.406 * 0.928 0.036 26.732 *

Sometimes I feel I can’t control my thoughts as they are

obsessively on this brand 0.868 0.852 0.098 10.252 * 0.836 0.061 13.659 *

This brand always seems to be on my mind 0.889 0.902 0.097 11.532 * 0.827 0.057 15.884 *

Notes: *Significant at the 95 percent level; na ¼ not applicable

Table II Fit indices

Study 2 Study 3

Index Acceptable values for good fit CFA brand romance CFA brand romance

Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square Chi-square should not be significant 113.39 * 129.9329 *

NFI 0.90 0.978 0.977

NNFI 0.90 0.984 0.982

CFI 0.90 0.988 0.986

RMSEA Less than 0.05: good; 0.05-0.08: acceptable 0.064 0.068

Reliability (Cronbach alpha) 0.70 0.954 0.951

Note: * ¼ Significant at the 95 percent level




Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 297–308

301

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

7:24

27

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Convergence of the factors of brand romance was tested by

observing the significance of the item loadings on therespective factors.

ResultsScale reliabilities and factor structures were assessed through

CFA. Robust maximum likelihood estimation approach wasused. Fit statistics for brand romance were good (Table II –study 3). Both constructs showed satisfactory reliabilities(Nunnally, 1978).

Convergent validityConvergent validity of a construct is defined as the agreementamong measures of the same trait (Bagozzi et al., 1991). Weexamined the magnitude and statistical significance of itemloadings for each of the three factors of the proposed brand

romance construct. The strength of the items is evident in thestandardized loadings. Table I showcases the significance andstrength of these loadings for the three factors in both studies 2and 3. All loadings are acceptably high (the lowest loading is0.792) and significant. Overall, these results provide satisfactory

evidence of convergent validity for each of the three factors.

Criterion validityDoes brand romance successfully predict the criterionmeasure? This was addressed by regressing purchase

intentions on brand romance. The rationale for thisregression follows. Brand romance involves a highly positivestate of mind, so consumers in that state should be predisposedtoward brand purchase. Under the circumstances, brandromance is positively related to high purchase intentions.

Therefore, a significant regression of purchase intentions onbrand romance will support criterion validity. Regressionresults (adjusted R square ¼ 0:754; F ¼ 1,023:6, p ¼ 0:00)indicate that brand romance is a significant (t ¼ 31:994,p ¼ 0:00) predictor of purchase intentions, thereby affirming

the criterion validity of the former.

Study 4

The objective of this phase was to test discriminant validityand proximity of brand romance to brand loyalty.Discriminant validity was tested by comparing competingmodels. More specifically, the objective was to check if thehypothesized three factor solution outperformed all other

possible solutions i.e. three two-factor solutions and onesingle-factor solution. Chi-square tests of difference wereconducted between alternative models to determine themodel best supported by the data. Proximity was tested by

examining if attitude toward the brand moderates or mediatesthe impact of brand romance on brand loyalty.

ProcedureA total of 500 undergraduate students participated in thisstudy for course credit. The cover story stated that the study

sought to understand consumers’ response to brands.Participants received a questionnaire booklet, and wererandomly assigned to one of three conditions (love, like,and dislike). Overall, 173 respondents were assigned to the“love” condition, 164 to the “like” condition and 163 to the

“dislike” condition. The instructions were similar to theearlier studies. Each subject noted the name of a brandrecalled under his/her assigned treatment condition, thecorresponding product category and the frequency of its use.

Subsequently, they responded to the items in the proposedbrand romance scale, and provided demographic information.

MeasuresTo test proximity, Mitchell and Olsen’s (1981) Attitude

toward the Brand scale (a four-item semantic differential scale

with a reported reliability of 0.88) was used, as also

Chaudhari and Holbrook’s (2001) attitudinal brand loyalty

scale consisting of two items each for purchase loyalty and

attitudinal loyalty, respectively. The authors reported a

satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha for both purchase loyalty

(0.90) and attitudinal loyalty (0.83) components. Brand

romance was measured with the scale developed in studies 2

and 3.

Results – discriminant validityAs per Bagozzi et al. (1991), five measurement models as

follows were estimated:1 The hypothesized model with three factors (pleasure,

arousal and dominance) and 12 manifest variables (four

per factor).2 Model with two factors (pleasure and arousal treated as

one factor and dominance as the second factor) and 12

manifest variables – eight loading on the first factor and

four on the second.3 Model with two factors (pleasure and dominance treated

as one factor and arousal as the second factor) and 12


four on the second.4 Model with two factors (arousal and dominance treated as

one factor and pleasure as the second factor) and 12


four on the second.5 The null model: model with no factors (brand romance is

the first order factor) and all 12 manifest variables loading

directly on brand romance.

No correlations between variables were specified.The factors in the first four models were allowed to

correlate and as before, Robust Maximum Likelihood

Estimation approach (Bentler, 1995) was employed. The

CFA results in Table III reports the chi-square values (the SB

scaled chi-square and the Normal ML chi-square) and the fit

statistics for all Models. Following Hu and Bentler (1995), fit

statistics (instead of chi-square) were evaluated, given the

sufficiently large estimation sample. It is clear that Model 1

(the hypothesized model) has the best fit. Since Model 2a has

the next best fit (also recall that the EFA in study 2 could not

successfully discriminate between pleasure and arousal) and

next lowest chi-square, a chi-square test of difference between

the two models was conducted after applying a scaling

correction (see Satorra and Bentler, 2001). This test was

statistically significant (SB scaled difference ¼ 28:2715,df ¼ 2; p ¼ 0:00). That is, the test rejected the more

parsimonious model (Model 2a) that depicts pleasure and

arousal as one factor and dominance as the second factor. In

other words, Model 1 (the hypothesized model) has a better

fit than Model 2a. Given the characteristics of Model 1, this

analysis also affirms the discriminant validity of the three-

factor structure of brand romance.

Results – proximityProximity was tested by examining whether attitude toward

the brand moderates or mediates the impact of brand

romance on brand loyalty. To investigate the moderation

effect, the statistical significance of the interaction variable




Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 297–308

302

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

7:24

27

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

(brand romance £ attitude to brand) was examined in a

regression on brand loyalty.A linear regression was specified with brand romance,

attitude toward the brand and the interaction term as

independent variables and brand loyalty as the dependent

variable. While the overall model was significant

(F ¼ 488:217, p ¼ 0:00, adjusted R square ¼ 0:75), the

interaction effect was not (F ¼ 2:816, p ¼ 0:09). Hence

attitude toward the brand does not moderate the impact of

brand romance on brand loyaltyTo examine a mediation effect, the role of brand romance as

a significant channel of the effect of brand attitude on brand

loyalty is compared with the direct effect of brand attitude on

brand loyalty (Figure 2).A second order factor model was specified and robust

maximum likelihood estimation approach was employed. The

loading of brand romance on brand loyalty was constrained to

1.0 as brand romance is a second order factor and not

exogeneous (Bentler, 1995). The results of the structural

model (Table IV) show excellent fit statistics in spite of a

significant SB chi-square, and a significant loading of brand

attitude on brand romance. However brand attitude does not

load significantly on brand loyalty. The significance of the

loading of brand romance on brand loyalty was separately

assessed in a regression context (Table V). The results show a

significant relationship (F ¼ 1,253:235, p ¼ 0:00) with brand

romance being a significant predictor of brand loyalty

(t ¼ 35:401, p ¼ 0:00). Together, these results indicate that

the effect of brand attitude on brand loyalty is channeled

through brand romance. Hence brand romance mediates the

relationship between attitude and loyalty. Along with the

unsupported moderation effect (the two constructs do not

share equal proximity to brand loyalty (Baron and Kenny,

1986), brand romance appears to enjoys greater relative

proximity to brand loyalty than brand attitude. In the process,

the nomological validity (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955) of the

brand romance construct is also supported.

Table III Discriminant validity results – competing models approach

Model 1 Model 2a Model 2b Model 2c Model 3

Normal ML chi-square 235.60 * 447.46 * 1,109.020 * 1,086.58 * 1,302.03 *

SB scaled chi-square 129.93 * 220.68 * 547.55 * 544.36 * 582.89 *

Degrees of freedom 51 53 53 53 54

Fit indicesNFI 0.977 0.961 0.904 0.904 0.897

NNFI 0.982 0.963 0.890 0.891 0.885

CFI 0.986 0.970 0.912 0.912 0.906

RMSEA 0.068 0.097 0.167 0.167 0.171

Note: *Significant at the 95 percent level

Table IV Mediation results – fit statistics and item loadings

df p

Fit statistics (robust ML)SB scaled chi-square 278.1722 164 0.00

NFI 0.975

NNFI 0.988

CFI 0.990

RMSEA 0.038

Item loadingsBrand romance ! brand loyalty Specified as 1.0 as brand romance is a second order factor

Brand attitude ! brand loyalty 0.082 ns

Brand attitude ! brand romance 0.724 *

Pleasure ! brand romance 0.962 *

Arousal ! brand romance 0.166 *

Dominance ! brand romance 0.724 *


Table V Regression of brand loyalty on brand romance

Independent variable Brand romance

Dependent variable Brand loyalty

Model summaryAdjusted r-square 0.718

ANOVAF value 1,253.235 *

PredictorBeta 1.202

t-value 35.401 *





Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 297–308

303

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

7:24

27

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Discussion

In summary, our research extends recent prior work byexploring a relationship motivated by stimulation needs. Wedescribed the relationship as being characterized byattraction, rather than comfort and security, and proposedthe existence of a mental state not unlike that experienced bypartners in romantic relationships. Overall, our research:. describes and discusses brand romance, an antecedent

state that captures consumer attraction for brands;. develops scale items to measure the construct;. examines its reliability and validity;. differentiates it from brand attitude; and. confirms its greater relative proximity to brand loyalty over

brand attitude.

Since loyalty demands that the consumer should like thebrand, pleasure (positive affect) represents the first dimensionof brand romance. Given the limited ability of affect to elicitdrive-like responses (Cohen and Areni, 1991), brand romancefurther captures arousal and dominance to reflect strongmotivation to consume and stay loyal to the brand. A

sequence of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysessupported the three-factor structure over other solutions. Thestudies also affirmed the reliability and validity of brandromance and demonstrated its proximity to brand loyalty.Notably, the study offers an alternative perspective to whysome consumers display strong affinities toward certainbrands.While we find that brand romance predicts loyalty better

than brand attitude, we do not maintain that it is the onlydriver of brand loyalty or that loyalty requires consumers todisplay romance towards the brand. Rather we suggest that

brand romance predicts loyalty in a manner consistent withthe Self-expansion Model; therefore, it may be a usefulconstruct to measure consumer attraction to brands. Further,the Self-expansion Model has interesting implications formarketers seeking to maintain brand loyalty.

Managerial implications and applications

New consumer-brand relationships represent novelperspectives, resources and identities. They provide

opportunities for expanding the self. Frequent interactionsbetween the brand and the consumer may generate positiveaffect. Under the circumstances, the brand is dominant andbrand romance quickly increases. The consumer-brandrelationship becomes strong. If the expansion of the self istoo rapid it may cause stress, so marketers may need to slow

the process by rationing out novel perspectives, resources andidentities. This may also serve to lengthen the consumer-brand relationship. In mature relationships, there is adiminished role for novel perspectives, resources andidentities; opportunities for self-expansion may also decline.Consumers may attribute the loss of enjoyable emotion to thebrand and a break in the relationship may result. The Self-

expansion Model suggests incorporating novel activities in therelationship so that partners continue to feel attracted to eachother. Marketers would need to re-invigorate brands, perhapsthrough repositioning, creating new sets of brand associations,modifying advertising campaigns, marketing strategies, etc.Such activities would offer more opportunities for self-expansion and the consumer-brand relationship is

maintained. In fact, the absence of novel elements in along-standing consumer-brand relationship may explain why

it is inexplicably terminated and the consumer moves on to acompeting brand. While marketers understand the need tomonitor attitudes, the need to monitor consumer attraction totheir brands is of greater significance. The brand romanceconstruct assesses how much the brand satisfies their needs ofstimulation, excitement and arousal.

Future research directions

While we present brand romance as a construct to explainconsumer-brand attraction, and suggest that it complementsthe attachment theory perspective, research is required tointegrate the two. For instance, what unique roles doAttachment Theory and the Self-expansion Model play in arelationship in its initial, growth, maturity and decline phases?We suggest that the two perspectives complement each otherand are necessary to build and maintain a strong consumer-brand relationship. For example, Attachment Theorysupports the value of stability, tradition and endurance in arelationship, while the Self-expansion Model emphasizes thebenefits of novelty and growth. Brand managers may need tobalance both perspectives as evident in the following recentcomment by Robert Iger, CEO of Walt Disney (Barnes,2010):

Our brand is so powerful because of our heritage. But you’ve got to innovate,and not just in terms of what is new today but what will be new far into thefuture.

Research that provides new insights on maintaining thisbalance between tradition and novelty will be especially usefulto brand managers.Park et al. (2009) make a strong call for future research in

emotional brand attachments, specifically in the context ofbrand-supporting behaviors. We suggest that the role of brandromance in various kinds of brand-supporting behaviorspresents a promising research opportunity. For example,forgiving transgressions of a high-romance brand, overlookingits faults, exaggerating its virtues, restricting recall ofcompeting brands, etc, are possible areas of future research.Additional research efforts could focus on identifying

factors that contribute to brand romance. Candidate factorsrange from the consumer’s self-concept, desired self and thebrand’s personality. The relationship between brand romanceand force of habit is another promising line of researchinquiry. Finally, explicating the relationship between brandromance and brand equity is also an important line ofresearch.

Limitations

Although students are arguably consumers, this study issomewhat limited by its sample characteristics. Our subjectswere mostly undergraduate students, so the generalizability ofour research findings to the adult population needs to beexplored. Moreover, this research does not clarify whether theeffects obtained were due to the brand or the productcategory. Because certain expressive product categories (e.g.clothes, cars) are likely to inspire greater romanticism thanothers, it is useful to know how the observed brand romanceshould be attributed at the brand level. In other words, thedifferential effects of the category and the brand should beseparately estimated. We observed that mainly lifestylecategories and brands (e.g. in Study 4, clothing andaccessories 27.2 percent; automobiles 13.4 percent;beverages 11.2 percent; and footwear 10.2 percent –predominant brands were Abercrombie & Fitch, Nike, Ford,




Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 297–308

304

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

7:24

27

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Coca Cola, Dr Pepper, Cingular and Sprint) were recalled

suggesting their greater relevance to our sample. Extending

our findings to other product categories needs to be explored.

Finally, we acknowledge that our research does not shed light

on why consumers feel romantic about certain brands (and

not about others in the same product category) or on howbrand romance is engendered. Other qualitative/interpretive

research methods could shed new light on these topics.

Conclusion

In a highly competitive world, marketers find it increasingly

difficult to make their brands “sticky” enough. While

marketers aggressively pursue loyalty programs, the resultsremain less than spectacular. Is it possible to build brands that

create and maintain a powerful attraction for consumers?Throughout this research, we maintain that a key metric for

marketing success is to ascertain the degree to which targetaudiences romance a focal brand. If brand romance is high,

attitudinal brand loyalty may also be high; if brand romance is

low, marketers should focus their efforts on creating conditions

that are conducive to brand romance because this approach

may be more fruitful than traditional loyalty programs.

References

Ahuvia, A.C., Batra, R. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2009), “Love,desire, and identity: a conditional integration theory of

the love of things”, in MacInnis, D.J., Park, C.W. and

Priester, J.R. (Eds), Handbook of Brand Relationships, Societyfor Consumer Psychology, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY and

London, pp. 342-57.Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “An updated

paradigm for scale development incorporating

unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 186-92.

Aron, A. and Aron, E.N. (2006), “Romantic relationships

from the perspectives of the self-expansion model and

attachment theory: partially overlapping circles”,

in Mikulincer, M. and Goodman, G.S. (Eds), Dynamics ofRomantic Love, The Guilford Press, New York, NY andLondon, pp. 359-82.

Aron, A., Norman, C.C. and Aron, E.N. (1998), “The Self-

expansion Model and motivation”, Representative Researchin Social Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 1-13.

Aron, A., Norman, C.C. and Aron, E.N. (2001), “Shared

self-expanding activities as a means of maintaining and

enhancing close romantic relationships”, in Harvey, J.H.

and Wenzel, A. (Eds), Close Romantic Relationships:Maintenance and Enhancement, Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 47-56.Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L.W. (1991), “Assessing

construct validity in organizational research”, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-58.

Barnes, B. (2010), “Is Disney’s Iger having a Cinderella

moment?”, The New York Times, April 10, p. 4.Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-

mediator variable distinction in social psychological

research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical

considerations”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.

Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indices in structural

models”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 238-46.

Bentler, P.M. (1995), EQS Structural Equations Program

Manual, Multivariate Software, Encino, CA, May, p. 85.Bentler, P.M. and Yuan, K.H. (1999), “Structural equation

modeling with small samples: test statistics”, Multivariate

Behavioral Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 181-97.Bowlby, J. (1979), The Making and Breaking of Affectional

Bonds, Tavistock, London.Brown, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of

assessing model fit”, in Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (Eds),

Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park,

CA, pp. 136-62.Brown, S. (1998), “Romancing the market: sex, shopping and

subjective personal introspection”, Journal of Marketing

Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 783-98.Brown, S. (2002), “Torment your customers (they’ll love it)”,

Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 9, pp. 82-8.Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), “Some antecedents

and outcomes of brand love”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 17

No. 2, pp. 79-89.Chaudhari, A. and Holbrook, M. (2001), “The chain of

effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand

performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.Chou, C.P., Bentler, P.M. and Satorra, A. (1991), “Scaled

test statistics and robust standard errors for non-normal

data in covariance structure analysis: a Monte Carlo study”,

British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,

Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 347-57.Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for making better

measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.Cohen, J.B. and Areni, C.S. (1991), “Affect and consumer

behavior”, in Robertson, T.S. and Kassarjian, H.H. (Eds),

Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ, pp. 188-240.Cohen, J.B. and Reed, A. II (2006), “Perspectives on

parsimony: how long is the coast of England? A reply to

Park and MacInnis; Schwarz; Petty; and Lynch”, Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 28-30.Cronbach, L.J. and Meehl, P.E. (1955), “Construct validity in

psychological tests”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 52,

pp. 281-302.Curran, P.J., West, S.G. and Finch, J.F. (1996), “The robustness

of test statistics to non-normality and specification error in

confirmatory factor analysis”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 1

No. 1, pp. 16-29.Edell, J.A. and Burke, M.C. (1987), “The power of feelings in

understanding advertising effects”, Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 421-33.Fengler, A.P. (1974), “Romantic love in courtship: divergent

paths of male and female students”, Journal of Comparative

Family Studies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 134-9.Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention

and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research,

Addison-Wesley, Reading. MA.Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands:

developing relationship theory in consumer research”,

Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-74.Geuens, M. and De Pelsmacher, P. (2002), “Validity and

reliability scores on the reduced emotional intensity scale”,

Educational & Psychological Measurement, Vol. 62 No. 2,

pp. 299-315.




Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 297–308

305

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

7:24

27

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Hazan, C. and Shaver, P. (1987), “Romantic love

conceptualized as an attachment process”, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 511-24.Hazan, C. and Shaver, P. (1994), “Deeper into attachment

theory”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 68-79.Hobart, C.W. (1958), “The incidence of romanticism during

courtship”, Social Forces, Vol. 36, May, pp. 362-7.Holbrook, M.B. and Batra, R. (1987), “Assessing the role of

emotions as mediators of consumer responses to

advertising”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3,

pp. 404-21.Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The

experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies,

feelings and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2,

pp. 132-40.Holbrook, M.B. and Olney, T.J. (1995), “Romanticism and

wanderlust: an effect of personality on consumer

preferences”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3,

pp. 207-22.Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1995), “Evaluating model fit”,

in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling:

Concepts, Issues and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks,

CA, pp. 76-99.Hu, L., Bentler, P.M. and Kano, Y. (1992), “Can test

statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted?”,

Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 351-62.Izard, C.E. (1977), Human Emotions, Plenum, New York, NY.Keller, K.L. (1999), “Managing brands for the long run:

brand reinforcement and revitalization strategies”,

California Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 102-24.Kim, J., Morris, J.D. and Swait, J. (2008), “Antecedents of

true brand loyalty”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 2,

pp. 99-117.Krugman, H.E. (1977), “Memory without recall, exposure

without perception”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 17

No. 4, pp. 7-12.Larsen, R.J. and Diener, E. (1987), “Affect intensity as an

individual difference characteristic: a review”, Journal of

Research in Personality, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-39.Lavidge, R.J. and Steiner, G.A. (1961), “A model for

predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness”,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 59-62.McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002),

“Building brand community”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66

No. 1, pp. 38-54.Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to

Environmental Psychology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA and

London.Mikulincer, M., Hirschberger, G., Nachmias, O. and Gillath, O.

(2001), “The affective component of the secure base

schema: affective priming with representations of

attachment security”, Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 305-21.Mitchell, A.A. and Olsen, J.C. (1981), “Are product attribute

beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand

attitudes?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,

pp. 318-32.Muniz, A.M. Jr and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand

community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4,

pp. 412-32.Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.,

McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Ohanian, R. (1990), “Construction and validation of a scale

to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise,

trustworthiness and attractiveness”, Journal of Advertising,

Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 39-52.Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 33-44.O’Malley, L. and Tynan, C. (1999), “The utility of the

relationship metaphor in consumer markets: a critical

evaluation”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15

No. 7, pp. 587-602.Park, C.W. and MacInnis, D.J. (2006), “What’s in and what’s

out? Questions on the boundaries of the attitude

construct”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 1,

pp. 16-18.Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J. and Priester, J.R. (2009),

“Research directions on strong brand relationships”,

in MacInnis, D.J., Park, C.W. and Priester, J.R. (Eds),

Handbook of Brand Relationships, Society for Consumer

Psychology, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY and London,

pp. 379-93.Park, J.W., Kim, K.H. and Kim, J.K. (2002), “Acceptance of

brand extensions: interactive influences of product category

similarity, typicality of claimed benefits, and brand

relationship quality”, Advances in Consumer Research,

Vol. 29, pp. 190-8.Pawle, J. and Cooper, P. (2006), “Measuring emotion –

lovemarks: the future beyond brands”, Journal of Advertising

Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 38-48.Plutchik, R. (1980), Emotion: A Psycho-evolutionary Synthesis,

Harper & Row, New York, NY.Proshansky, H.M., Ittelson, W.H. and Rivlin, L.G. (1970),

Environmental Psychology: Man and His Physical Setting,

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Oxford.Putrevu, S. and Lord, K.R. (1994), “Comparative and non-

comparative advertising: attitudinal effects under cognitive

and affective involvement conditions”, Journal of

Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 77-90.Reimann, M. and Aron, A. (2009), “Self-expansion motivation

and inclusion of brands in self”, in MacInnis, D.J.,

Park, C.W. and Priester, J.R. (Eds), Handbook of Brand

Relationships, Society for Consumer Psychology, M.E. Sharpe,

Armonk, NY and London, pp. 65-83.Richins, M. (1997), “Measuring emotions in the consumption

experience”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 2,

pp. 127-46.Rubin, Z. (1970), “Measurement of romantic love”, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 265-73.Satorra, A. and Bentler, P.M. (2001), “A scaled difference

chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis”,

Psychometrika, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 507-14.Schouten, J.W. and McAlexander, J.H. (1995), “Subcultures

of consumption: an ethnography of new bikers”, Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 43-61.Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005),

“The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’

emotional attachment to brands”, Journal of Consumer

Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-91.Tynan, C. (1997), “A review of the marriage analogy in

relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management,

Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 695-703.Warrington, P. and Shim, S. (2000), “An empirical

investigation of the relationship between product




Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 297–308

306

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

7:24

27

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

involvement and brand commitment”, Psychology &Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 761-82.

Yuan, K.H. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Normal theory-based

test statistics in structural equation modeling”, BritishJournal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, Vol. 51

No. 2, pp. 289-309.Zaichkowski, J.L. (1986), “Conceptualizing involvement”,

Journal of Advertising, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 4-34.Zajonc, R.B. (1980), “Feeling and thinking: preferences needno inferences”, American Psychologist, Vol. 35 No. 2,

pp. 151-75.

About the authors

Hemant Patwardhan (PhD, Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale) is Associate Professor of Marketing at WinthropUniversity, Rock Hill, South Carolina. Since completing his

doctorate in 2004, his research has appeared in severaljournals, including Journal of Advertising, Journal of CurrentIssues and Research in Advertising, and Journal of PromotionsManagement. He is also the recipient of the 2007 ResearchFellowship award from the American Academy of Advertising

for conducting research in account planning. His researchinterests are in branding, product placements and advertising.Hemant Patwardhan is the corresponding author and can be

contacted at: [email protected] K. Balasubramanian (PhD, State University of New

York at Buffalo) is Harold L. Stuart Professor of Marketingand Associate Dean, Stuart School of Business, Illinois

Institute of Technology, Chicago. His career as a manager,educator, and academic administrator spans over threedecades. A recipient of the prestigious Fulbright Research

Chair award and several competitive research grants, heserves on the editorial board of several journals, as web site

editor for Journal of Marketing and as regional editor (NorthAmerica) for the British Food Journal. He is the author or co-author of over 30 publications in leading journals in

marketing (Journal of Marketing, Journal of MarketingResearch, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, International Journal ofResearch in Marketing) and advertising (Journal ofAdvertising, Journal of the Current Issues and Research inAdvertising), among others. The bulk of his research has anempirical/inter-disciplinary orientation.

Executive summary and implications formanagers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executivesa rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with aparticular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in

toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of theresearch undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of thematerial present.

Consumer attitude towards a brand can result in loyalty,

although some researchers believe that attitude alone does notaccurately predict this outcome. Scholars have consequentlyfocused on the notion of consumers becoming emotionally

attached to brands and research interest in this area has grownover recent years. Emotional attachment has been examined

by various researchers, incorporating dimensions such aspassion, commitment and intimacy.

The concept is central within relationship studies, where it

has been argued that desire for emotional attachment ismotivated by a need for “comfort, support, security and

consistency”. In the context of consumer-brand relations, it isclaimed that consumers become attached to brands which are

“dependable, consistent and always there” as such brandsprovide “safety and security”.When the main motive is stimulation, it is argued that a

different form of attachment emerges. In a personal

relationship, people might look for someone to provide“novelty, excitement and arousal.” Analysts claim that

constant interactions with such a person can lead toattraction and perhaps a romantic relationship.According to certain scholars, consumers search for

stimulation in their shopping activities too. They supposedly

love to be flirted with and teased and can become extremelypassionate about products and services that have this effect on

them. A pursuit of “fantasy, feelings and fun” is one way sucha relationship has been described. The literature claims thatconsumers see some brands as offering scope for “stimulation

and discovery” and they long for such brands because of thepleasure they give them. The resulting mental state of the

consumer has been termed “brand romance” since it reflects“excitement, intense pleasure and arousal”. It is proposed by

Patwardhan and Balasubramanian that this provides a“complementary perspective” to better explain brand loyalty.Brand romance is founded on a theoretical viewpoint

whereby people form close relationships that result in their

partners becoming part of their self. It is argued that thepartner’s “perspectives, resources and identities” become

more influential as the relationship deepens. The assumptionis that brands too have these characteristics and that

consumers can become similarly close to them throughrepeated encounters. This generates excitement and a desire

to “re-engage with the brand”. According to the authors,engagement generates for the consumer “positive affect, higharousal and a strong brand presence or dominance”. A brand

can help sustain these relationships by refreshing andrelocating itself so that new positive associations materialize.It is proposed that brand romance is a three-dimensional

construct incorporating pleasure, arousal and dominance. In

the first case, the brand stimulates the consumer and impartspleasure. Arousal emphasizes that the positive sentiments a

consumer feels towards a brand must be intense in order to besignificant. The dominance element refers to the brand’s

ability to “engage the consumer’s cognition”. Previousresearch has used the example of Harley Davidson bikers to

show how a brand possesses the power to become the centralfocus in consumer lives to an extent that whole communities

can form around it. Dominance is viewed as positive,although not when it restricts “freedom to think or act”.Patwardhan and Balasubramanian believe that emotional

attachment is likely to mean commitment, and on that basis

regard brand romance as an antecedent to brand loyalty.Because of the emotional attachment, they also argue that

brand romance differs from constructs that includeinvolvement, attitude and love. Academics point out thepossibility of becoming involved with or committed to a brand

without any emotional strand. Attitude is perceived as lessstrong and it is proposed that the presence of brand romance

indicates that the consumer’s relationship with a brand hasrisen to greater heights. As for love, the notion is that it might

develop once attraction is established.




Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 297–308

307

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

7:24

27

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

In order to test their brand romance construct and examinehow it relates to brand loyalty and brand attitude, the authorsconducted a series of studies. These studies involved aliterature survey and questionnaires submitted to severalsubject groups respectively consisting of adults and differentundergraduate participants. Respondent were asked to recallcertain brands and express positive or negative feelingstowards them in terms of love, like or dislike. Various analyseswere carried out and this helped to validate brand romance asincorporating the three factors noted earlier. Patwardhan andBalasubramanian point out the “highly positive state of mind”associated with brand romance. They suggest it will have alikely favorable influence on purchase intention and this wassubsequently confirmed by the data.Analysis also revealed that brand romance functions as a

much stronger predictor of brand loyalty than does brandattitude. On this evidence, the attitude-loyalty relationship ismediated by brand romance. However, the authors doacknowledge that brand loyalty can be driven by othermeans and that brand romance is unlikely to be its soleantecedent.When consumers form relationships with a new brand, it

opens up new horizons and offers scope to expand the self.The onset and increase of brand romance makes therelationship even stronger. Maturity is a critical point in arelationship as the novel perspectives, resources and identitiesreduce to a point where opportunities for self-expansiondiminish as well. Stripped of these aspects, consumers lose

their emotional attachment to the brand in question and

become willing to engage with an alternative. Marketers must

therefore constantly evaluate consumer attraction to their

brands and to revitalize the brands them where necessary.

This can be achieved through repositioning, developing fresh

associations and revamping advertising campaigns and

marketing strategies.Future study could focus on both brand romance and

attachment theories. While the former emphasizes “novelty

and growth”, a need for “stability and tradition” is at the core

of the latter. It is assumed that brand managers might need to

jointly incorporate heritage and innovation is order to keep

their brands vibrant and successful. The authors additionally

believe that researchers might explore brand romance with

regard to various types of “brand-supporting behaviors”.

Another idea is to identify factors that shape brand romance,

such as brand personality and the consumer’s actual and

desired self. How “force of habit” impacts on brand romance

could also be investigated.Patwardhan and Balasubramanian acknowledge the need to

extend this study to include different subject groups and

product categories before any generalization of findings

becomes possible.

(A precis of the article “Brand romance: a complementary

approach to explain emotional attachment toward brands”.

Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)




Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 297–308

308

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

7:24

27

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Marc Fetscherin, Daniel Heinrich. 2015. Consumer brand relationships research: A bibliometric citation meta-analysis. Journalof Business Research 68, 380-390. [CrossRef]

2. Sharad Agarwal. 2014. Brand Romance: Using the Power of High Design to Build a Lifelong Relationship with Your Audience.Journal of Product & Brand Management 23:7, 587-588. [Citation] [Full Text]

3. Marc Fetscherin. 2014. What type of relationship do we have with loved brands?. Journal of Consumer Marketing 31:6/7, 430-440.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. Sanjay Puligadda, Devon DelVecchio, Bob Gilbreath. 2014. ‘Meaningful marketing’: A process investigation of how consumersreward noninterruptive, nonpersuasive marketing communication. Journal of Marketing Communications 20, 325-338. [CrossRef]

5. Aznur Hajar Abdullah, Shaista Wasiuzzaman, Rosidah Musa. 2014. The Effects of University Quality on Emotional Attachment:A Case from a Private Higher Education Institution. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 130, 282-292. [CrossRef]

6. Marc Fetscherin, Michèle Boulanger, Cid Gonçalves Filho, Gustavo Quiroga Souki. 2014. The effect of product category onconsumer brand relationships. Journal of Product & Brand Management 23:2, 78-89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

7. Bagdare Shilpa, Jain Rajnish. 2013. Measuring retail customer experience. International Journal of Retail & DistributionManagement 41:10, 790-804. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Liezl-Marié Kruger, Stefanie W. Kühn, Daniel J. Petzer, Pierre G. Mostert. 2013. Investigating brand romance, brand attitudeand brand loyalty in the cellphone industry. Acta Commercii 13. . [CrossRef]

9. Rajagopal. 2013. Brand Expressions in Stimulating Consumer Behavior in Mexico: An Empirical Analysis. Latin AmericanBusiness Review 14, 29-53. [CrossRef]

10. Daniela Spanjaard, Lynne Freeman. 2012. The hidden agenda: emotions in grocery shopping. The International Review of Retail,Distribution and Consumer Research 22, 439-457. [CrossRef]

11. Rajagopal. 2012. Brand manifestation and retrieval effects as drivers of buying behavior in Mexico. Journal of Database Marketing& Customer Strategy Management 19, 179-196. [CrossRef]

12. Ji-Young Hwang, Jay Kandampully. 2012. The Role of Self-Construal and Emotionsin Younger Consumers' Commitment toLuxury Brands. The Research Journal of the Costume Culture 20, 604-615. [CrossRef]

13. Verónica BaenaGetting Brand Commitment through Internet and Mobile Sports Marketing: 203-218. [CrossRef]14. Kanghyun Yoon, Jeanetta D. SimsIntegrating Social Media and Traditional CRM: 103-131. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

7:24

27

Dec

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)