What’s in a Name?
The Effects of Human Product Naming as a Brand Anthropomorphism Strategy in the Context of Electronic Word of Mouth
Master Thesis by Marjo van den Akker
10582401
Supervised by Dr. L. M. Willemsen
University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Communication
Communication Science: Persuasive Communication
Abstract
The present research examines whether, and if so, through what process human product naming can instigate positive responses in consumers. This study proposed brand anthropomorphism as the underlying mechanism driving the positive effects of human product naming and sheds light on its boundaryconditions by examining the possible
moderating role of electronic word of mouth (eWOM). To this end, a 2 (human product name vs. non-human product name) x 3 (eWOM: negative vs. neutral vs. positive) experiment was conducted among 126 women. Results showed that although human product naming does not directly affect product attitude, it does positively affect product attitude through brand
anthropomorphism. Moreover, this mediation effect was moderated by eWOM valence such that positive eWOM strengthened the positive effect of human product naming on attitude through brand anthropomorphism, while negative eWOM weakened this positive effect. Hence,the absence of negative eWOM serves as a boundary condition for success of human product naming as a strategy of brand anthropomorphism.These findings provide theoretical and practical implications regarding the opportunities and challenges related with brand anthropomorphism in a highly connected world.
What's in a Name?
The Effects of Human Product Naming as a Brand Anthropomorphism Strategy in the Context of Electronic Word of Mouth
Introduction
People often have a tendency to see non-living artifacts as humanlike. Faces in the clouds, robotic desk lamps, or smiling cars are some random examples of artifacts that are perceived to have some kind of human appearance. Some people even link human appearance of an artifact with human characteristics, emotional states, motivations and intentions (Epley, Waytz & Cacioppo, 2007; Janlert & Stolterman, 1997). Humanizing non-human entities is also known as anthropomorphism: the attribution of human-like features such as a mind, personality, intentions, emotions and behavior to non-human objects (Epley et al., 2007; Waytz, Cacioppo & Epley, 2010; Waytz et al., 2010).
Brand anthropomorphism, is often used for marketing purposes (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Waytz et al., 2010) with the idea that this will be beneficial for the brand. It is generally believed that brand anthropomorphism will instigate positive responses in consumers,
including product or brand liking and higher sales. Indeed, extant research provides support for the widely held belief that a "human brand is a successful brand". Various studies found that exposure to brand anthropomorphism instigates positive emotions in consumers, which in turn positively affect product liking and evaluation (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Delbaere, McQuarrie & Phillips, 2011).
Given the beneficial effects of brand anthropomorphism, it is not surprising that marketers use various techniques to imbue human traits onto products and brands. For
example, the classic Coca Cola bottle is designed with anthropomorphic shapes to remind consumers of the curves of a female body. Another example is the explicit use of spokes characters such as the famous M&M red and yellow characters, who literally present the product to be alive.
One form of brand anthropomorphism is the use of human names for brands or products. As a naming strategy, products are assigned with human names instead of codes or non-human or non-existing names. Some well known examples of human product names are 'Billy' the Ikea closet, 'Noa' the perfume of Cacharel, or all human named product lines of car brand Nissan such as 'Cedric', 'Gloria' and 'Silvia'.
The purpose of this thesis is twofold. First, this study aims to gain more insight into the question whether, and if so, through what process product naming can instigate positive responses in consumers. Although previous studies have established the success of other humanization techniques to evoke brand anthropomorphism and brand liking, to the best of my knowledge, no research has been carried out yet to examine the effects of human product naming. The current study extends existing research by examining human product naming as a marketing technique to induce positive responses in consumers through the process of brand anthropomorphism.
Second, this thesis aims to shed light on the boundary conditions associated with the success of brand anthropomorphism. As noted, the success of brand anthropomorphism is contingent on the marketers' ability to connect a human mind to non-human objects.
However, if a product is perceived to have a conscious mind, then it is also perceived to have responsibility for its actions, successes and failures (Waytz et al., 2010). This means that the use of anthropomorphism may come with benefits but also with risks. Indeed, various scholars (Malle & Bennet, 2002; Ohtsubo, 2007) find that if people perceive an action as conscious or intentional, their praise or blame for this action is intensified as compared to an
action perceived to be accidental.
This finding is important for marketers, especially given the fact that consumers praise or blame brands for failures on a day-to-day basis through electronic word of mouth. With the introduction of the Internet, consumers can share information, experiences and opinions about products with a public at large (Hennig-Thurau & Walsh, 2003; Podnar & Javernik, 2012). As a result, also information, experiences and opinions that are critical of brands and their
products are shared online. When the success of a product is voiced through positive word of mouth this can be beneficial for a brand. However the opposite may also occur: when the consumer blames a brand through negative word of mouth, this can be detrimental for a brand. Initial proof for the downstream consequences of brand anthropomorphism is provided by Puzakova, Kwak and Rocereto (2013), who showed that the described positive effects as a result of brand anthropomorphism only seem to hold as long as the product is not faced with negative publicity. Moreover, they demonstrated that in case of negative publicity, brand anthropomorphism can actually negatively affect consumers' brand evaluations.
This study takes this insight one step further and examines the possible moderating effects of both negative and positive electronic word of mouth (hereafter eWOM). As such, this study will provide more insight in the question whether the risks of negative eWOM will weigh more heavily than the potential benefits of positive eWOM. Although it is generally believed that negative information has more impact on the opinions and behaviors of consumers than positive eWOM, Puzakova et al. (2013) have not compared the effects of negative publicity with positive publicity. Considering this, how than does negative or positive eWOM influence the effects of human named products on consumers' attitudes?
Besides theoretical relevance, this research is also of practical value as it examines whether it is advisable for practitioners in the field to anthropomorphize products by giving them human names. Possible risks caused by negative eWOM are taken into account as well
as possible beneficial outcomes caused by positive eWOM. Especially in today's consumer world with growing reliance on online provided product and brand information, it is very important to understand the influence of eWOM on brand anthropomorphism's effectiveness.
Theoretical framework
Product naming as a strategy of brand anthropomorphism
Attributing human features to non-human entities is called anthropomorphism (Epley et al., 2007; Epley, Waytz, Akalis & Cacioppo, 2008; Waytz et al., 2010): a process of inductive inference in which a person describes a non-human entity not only in terms of observable human characteristics, but also in terms of unobservable human characteristics (Epley et al., 2007; Epley et al., 2008). One unobservable human characteristics that is attributed to non-living artifacts during the process of anthropomorphism is a mind, and with this "perception of mind" nonhuman entities are seen as autonomous agents with conscious experiences, intensions and cognitive abilities (Epley & Waytz, 2009; Gray, Gray & Wegner, 2007; Waytz et al., 2010). So, anthropomorphizing does not only lead people to think that a car seems to smile, but also leads people to think this car seems to be alive.
Why do people perceive things as being human? Why is a computer perceived to be "smart", the weather to be "wild" and that car to be "adventurous"? Anthropomorphism is generally considered to be an automatic psychological process that simply is a part of human judgment (Guthrie, 1993). One common explanation is that people intuitively think of artifacts as human, to facilitate the understanding of these artifacts and their knowledge of how to act upon them. This is because of people's effectance motivation: the motivation to interact effectively in one's environment (Epley et al., 2007). Anthropomorphism is thus used as conceptual device for prediction, anticipation and self-preparation; as a mental tool to cope
with an otherwise complex and uncertain world (Epley et al., 2007; Janlert & Stolterman, 1997; Morewedge, Preston & Wegner, 2007).
Marketers frequently humanize products and brands as a marketing strategy to
capitalize on consumers' tendency to anthropomorphize (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Waytz et al., 2010). Products or brands are personified through a variety of techniques. Popular
strategies to induce brand anthropomorphism are to present a product as (a) having facial features or expressions, (b) engaging in human behaviors, (c) having a voice in which the product talks in the first-person. For example, Aggarwal and McGill (2007) presented cars as either frowning or smiling, which effectively stimulated brand anthropomorphism. Similarly, Kim and McGill (2011) manipulated a slot machine such that it appeared to have a human face. This presentation of a product with facial features also successfully led to brand anthropomorphism. Delbaere et al. (2011) presented products engaged in human behavior, such as a snack sitting on a launch chair, which indeed encouraged consumers to
anthropomorphize. Puzakova et al. (2013) successfully induced brand anthropomorphism by writing the product's message in first-person (" I am Airborne, my focus is to support your immune system").
A rather academically neglected technique to imbue human traits onto products and brands is the use of human names. As mentioned before, several car brands seem to name specific car models, but also fashion designers are giving human names to iconic bags such as the famous 'Birkin' of Hermes. Perfumes, magazines, cosmetics and sneakers are other
product categories for which it seems popular to give human names to specific product lines or models. IKEA is the ultimate example of a brand giving human names to complete product collections and for which products such as the famous 'Billy' closet take on a life of its own. The purpose of product naming is to associate a product with qualities, characteristics, associations, ideas and meanings (Eskine & Locander, 2014; Levy, 1978). It is generally
assumed that as consumers draw inferences from product and brand names (Kohli & LaBahn, 1997), human names can be used as extrinsic cues evoking the actual process of mind
perception. For example, naming a Nike sneaker 'Jordan' can lead consumers to perceive the shoe as more humanlike, as possessing positive human qualities such as being strong, fun and adventurous.
Positive consumer effects of brand anthropomorphism were found by Aggarwal and McGill (2007), who showed that specific humanlike cues can enhance product evaluations. Delbaere et al. (2011) demonstrated that personification of products led to more positive advertising outcomes such as enhanced positive emotions, increased product likeability and more favorable brand attitudes. Delbaere and colleagues state that product liking as a result of brand anthropomorphism can be explained by processing fluency. Because of people's
accessible knowledge about the self and other humans, people can process
anthropomorphized products more easily and fluently. And since consumers' experience of processing fluency is positive, fluently processed stimuli appear as more attractive and pleasing (Lee & Labroo, 2004; Reber, Schwarz & Winkielman, 2004; Reber, Winkielman & Schwarz , 1998; Winkielman & Cacioppo, 2001; Winkielman, Schwarz, Fazeindro & Reber, 2003). As a result, consumers base their product evaluations and brand attitudes not only on brand information, but also on how easy they can process this information. Processing fluency therefore leads to more favorable brand and product attitudes (Labroo, Dhar & Schwarz., 2008; Lee & Labroo, 2004; Schwarz, 2004).
Zinkhan and Martin (1987) indicated that the naming of new products can have immediate attitudinal implications because of the inferential beliefs that consumers hold. Based on a product name alone, consumers can establish direct associational conclusions and attitudes towards the product. Research about attitudinal effects of human product names compared to non-human product names or codes is however very limited. One exception is
the study of Eskine and Locander (2014) who link product naming to personification theories. The authors compared human product names with non-human product names with regard to brand trust and found that people who generally mistrust companies, trusted brands with non-human named products more. Nonetheless, since there has not yet been research about attitudinal evaluations of human named products, expectations are based on theories about processing fluency and findings about brand anthropomorphism in general. Therefore it is expected that human named products trigger anthropomorphism, which will lead to more positive attitudes as compared to products without a human name.
H1 = Exposure to human named products will lead to more positive product attitudes as compared to exposure to non-human named products.
H2 = The positive effects of human named products (vs. non-human named products) on product attitudes is mediated by brand anthropomorphism such that (a) exposure to human named products will lead to brand anthropomorphism, and (b) brand anthropomorphism will lead to positive product attitudes.
The moderating role of electronic word of mouth
Word of mouth (WOM) is the informal communication between consumers about practical knowledge and characteristics of particular products and services (Westbrook, 1987). This process of exchanging information about products and brands is something that occurs naturally and spontaneously between consumers, often as result of satisfying or dissatisfying personal experiences ( Fornell, Rust & Dekimpe, 2010; Richins, 1983).
Consequently, WOM differs in valence, ranging from very positive to very negative. Negative WOM typically involves product denigration, complaining and rumor. In contrast, positive
WOM gives either a direct or an indirect recommendation for product purchase (Liu, 2006). Although consumers have always engaged in WOM behavior, WOM has become even more significant with the rise of the Internet and social media. Social networking sites,
(micro) blogs, and review sites all offer a new and fertile ground to exchange product information (Hennig-Thurau & Walsh, 2003). With just a single click, consumers can share their opinions, experiences and knowledge of products on the web, and these articulations of WOM can be accessed anytime and anywhere by users from all over the world (Podnar & Javernik, 2012; Ratchford, Talukdar & Lee, 2001). Since eWOM is so easily accessible, consumers often consult eWOM to guide their purchase decisions (Huang, Hsiao & Chen, 2012; Liu, 2006).
The popularity of eWOM can be explained by its perceived credibility. Since WOM is based on communication between consumers, who are generally assumed to have no
commercial intensions, WOM messages are considered to be a credible source of information (Murray, 1991; Richins, 1983; Silverman, 2001). WOM messages derive from first-hand consumption experiences, which consumers trust more than the messages from marketers that intend to promote products. Thus, compared to advertising and other forms of marketing communication, WOM is perceived as a more reliable source of consumer information (Bickart & Schindler, 2001; East, Hammond, Lomax & Robinson, 2005; Nielsen, 2012).
The credibility of WOM increases its persuasiveness (Arndt, 1967; Heckman, 1999; Richins, 1984). Previous research extensively shows that due to its credibility, WOM is more effective in influencing brand and product attitudes (Bone, 1995; Charlett, Garland & Marr, 1995; Herr, Kardes & Kim, 1991; Mizerski, 1982; Söderlund & Rosengren, 2007), purchase probability and buying behavior (Bansal & Voyer, 2000; Charlett et al., 1995; Gupta & Harris, 2010; Hennig-Thurau & Walsh, 2003; Söderlund & Rosengren, 2007).
eWOM (Huang et al., 2012; Lee & Cranage, 2014; Park & Lee, 2009; Solomon, 2004; Zhang, Graciun & Shin, 2010). The general conclusion of these studies is that positive eWOM
enhances the expected quality of a product and thus consumers' attitudes and purchase behaviors towards the product, whereas negative eWOM reduces the expected quality of a product and thus consumers' product attitudes and purchase behaviors.
It has to be noted however, that according to previous research, negative information and more specifically, negative WOM, is believed to be more influential as compared to positive WOM (Arndt, 1967; East, Hammond & Lomax, 2008; Herr et al., 1991; Laczniak, DeCarlo & Ramaswami, 2001; Mizerski, 1982; Park & Lee, 2009; Podnar & Javernik, 2012;). This so called 'negativity effect' suggests that consumers place more value on negative WOM than positive WOM in their evaluation processes. Mizerski (1982) found that unfavorable product ratings, as compared to favorable ratings on the same attributes, induce significantly stronger effects in terms of consumers' attributions to product performance, belief strength and affect toward products. Similar results are found in the context of eWOM communication, implying that consumers exhibit greater attitude change when they read negative instead of positive product related messages (Lee & Cranage, 2014; Park & Lee, 2009).
The occurrence of the negativity effect can be explained by attribution theory (Lee & Cranage, 2014): the idea that causal analysis is deeply rooted in a person's need to understand the world around them, including other people's behaviors (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1972). During this causal analysis, individuals try to explain the causes for why other persons behave in a certain manner. With respect to eWOM behavior, this involves the process of explaining why people share their favorable or unfavorable experiences with products and brands with other people; because the product is of high or low quality; or because of other reasons related to the eWOM sender (e.g. because he/she is always positive or negative; has been paid to be positive or negative). The more an individual actually attributes favorable or unfavorable
information to a product or brand, the more the individual will be influenced by this
information in a positive or negative direction (Laczniak et al., 2001; Lee & Cranage, 2014; Mizerski, 1982) The valence of the WOM message, however, determines the course of this process. Unfavorable information about products and brands is perceived as having relatively fewer possible causes than favorable information, with the most plausible being that of expressing one’s own true feelings about the product (Mizerski, 1982). Hence, since consumers attribute negative WOM more often to the performance of the product or brand than positive WOM, it appears to be more influential for subsequent evaluative judgments. The previous discussed literature suggests that negative eWOM is detrimental for brands in general, but it can be even more detrimental for brands that have been
anthropomorphized. Initial proof for this contention has been provided by Puzakova et al. (2013), who examined the effects of brand anthropomorphism in the context of negative publicity. The results revealed that consumers respond less favorably to negative messages about product wrongdoings when a brand is humanized versus non-humanized. The authors ascribe this finding to the theoretical assumption that consumers attribute more responsibility to a brand when it is anthropomorphized. Indeed, further analyses showed that attributions of responsibility accounted for the negative effects of anthropomorphism when brands were faced with negative publicity. Thus, seeing a nonhuman agent as humanlike not only involves the attribution of humanlike characteristics such as a mind, but comes also with the attribution of responsibility (Epley et al., 2008; Gray et al., 2007). These consequences imply holding the humanized product accountable for all its positive and negative actions.
Malle and Bennett (2002) take a closer look at the so-called 'intensification effect' of intentionality; if people perceive an action as intentional, their praise or blame for it is intensified compared to when they view that same action as accidental. Ohtsubo (2007) showed that the intensification effect is stronger for blameworthy behaviors than for
praiseworthy behaviors and also argues that people judge intentional harms more harshly than accidental ones. Gray et al. (2007) conformingly demonstrate that people are actually more willing to punish an entity for its wrongdoings when it is considered to be mindful. Regarding consumer effects, this could result in less favorable product attitudes.
If the harmful consequences of negative publicity are likely to intensify when a product is anthropomorphized, will the beneficial effect of positive information also be intensified? Theoretical assumptions based on the intensification effect of intentionality suggest that if a anthropomorphized product is faced with positive WOM, praise is also likely to be intensified with beneficial consequences for brand and product attitudes. However, most research has only focused on judgment of negative behaviors. The study of Puzakova et al. (2013) was pioneering in connecting brand anthropomorphism with exposure to negative publicity, but ignored possible positive outcomes of exposure to positive product information. In the light of attribution theory and the intensification effect of intentionality, it can be expected that brand anthropomorphism reinforces the causal attribution process as such that responsibility of negative or positive WOM messages is more likely to be attributed to the product or brand itself. As a result, consumers' blame and praise for the message concerning a anthropomorphized product will be intensified. Accordingly, brand anthropomorphism and WOM seem to interact with each other resulting in strengthened positive or negative attitudinal outcomes, depending on the valence of the WOM message.
H3= The positive mediating effect of human product naming on product attitudes through
brand anthropomorphism is moderated by eWOM such that (a) the effect becomes stronger
Methods
Design and Participants
To test the hypotheses, a 2 (product name: human vs. non-human) x 3 (eWOM: negative vs. neutral vs. positive) between-subjects experiment was conducted. Participants were 126 Dutch females. Age ranged from 18 to 65 year, with an average of 29 years (SD = 12.33). The majority of the participants was highly educated. Most participants completed either Bachelor (43.66%) or Master/ doctoral degree (26.19%), together accounting for 69.85 percent of the sample.
Manipulation materials
The manipulation material consisted of an Instagram post that was published by the fictive brand 'B-bags' to promote a leather bag from its new spring collection. Instagram is an online mobile application for photo-sharing. The app enables users to edit photos and share the results with other users or with befriended contacts from other social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Flickr. Hashtags with the '#' symbol can be added in order to link the photos to specific content and topics. Also, users have the option to 'like' photos and comment on them. Overall, the level of engagement with users on Instagram seems to be very high in comparison with other social network sites (Salomon, 2013). The application has over 300 million monthly active users and its user base is still growing in popularity (Systrom, 2014). Instagram is considered to be a promising tool for marketers to promote their products. At least 67 percent of top brands are using Instagram for marketing purposes (Wallsbeck and Johansson, 2014).
The post and the user comments underneath the photo were manipulated for the purpose of this experiment. In order to manipulate product naming, the photo was
accompanied with a promotional message ('Check out our great leather bag') containing either a hashtag with the product code 'SS15' or a hashtag with the human product name 'Lola'. The comments underneath the brand's post were manipulated to create positive, negative and neutral eWOM conditions. More specifically, the valence of the comments was either positive ('I just received this bag and I'm really happy! It's made of high-quality leather and is even more beautiful than on the picture!'), negative ( 'I just received this bag and I'm really not happy. It's made of poor-quality leather and doesn't look as nice as in this picture!') or neutral ('I just received this bag. Let's see!'). Another user comment containing neutral emoticons of bags and again a hashtag with either the product code or human name, was added to make it look more realistic. In the appendix, examples of stimulus materials are presented.
Measures
Product Attitude. To measure participants' attitude towards the product, an adjusted scale from the Marketing Scales Handbook (Bruner, 2009) was used. The scale is used extensively throughout academic research, be it in all different kinds of forms, and has proven to be a reliable measurement instrument. The scale consisted of 10 adjective pairs, which were presented to the participant together with the question 'Would you consider the bag from B-bags that you just saw to be' [1 = dislikeable, 7 = likeable] or [1 = undesirable, 7 = desirable]. Altogether, the items formed a reliable scale, and were averaged to form a composite measure of attitude towards the product, ranging from very negative to very positive (α = .96; M = 4.66, SD = 1.22). The complete list of items is included in the appendix.
Brand anthropomorphism. To assess whether participants perceived the bag as being humanlike, a three-item scale was composed, based on the work of Kim and McGill (2011) and Puzakova et al. (2013) . On a seven-point scale, participants were asked to indicate their agreement with the question 'To what extent do you think this bag has' followed by three items; (1) its own character, (2) liveliness, (3) human characteristics [1 = totally disagree] to [7 = totally agree]. The brand anthropomorphism scale proved to be reliable, and was averaged to form a composite measure, with higher scores indicating higher perceived brand anthropomorphism (α = .82, M = 3.86, SD = 1.30).
Manipulation check. A manipulation check was included in the survey questions to make sure whether participants had noticed the manipulated valence of the eWOM messages
underneath the product image. Participants had to answer the question 'Beneath the Instagram post you saw some statements about the presented bag. To what extent you think these
comments were negative or positive?' with 7 answer options [1 = very negative, 2 = negative, 3 = slightly negative, 4 = neutral, 5 = slightly positive, 6 = positive, 7 = very positive].
Since product names for the humanized and non-humanized conditions were
demonstrably different and represented an intrinsic product feature rather than some kind of perception or psychological state, no manipulation check was warranted and so none was conducted (see O’Keefe, 2003 for a discussion).
Control variables. To control for the possibility that participants' interest in the product category could influence the results, one question with three items on a 10 point answering scale was presented. The question 'To what extent are you interested in' was followed by the items; (1) lifestyle, (2) fashion, (3) bags.
Additionally, to control for Instagram use participants were asked whether they are familiar with Instagram, and if so, whether they have an Instagram account themselves. Both
questions could be answered with yes or no. If yes was selected, participants were asked to answer the question 'How often do you use Instagram?', based on five answer options [1 = less than monthly, 2 = monthly, 3 = weekly, 4 = daily, 5 = several times per day].
Procedure
Participants were invited via social media to take part in an experiment on lifestyle products. Participating respondents were asked to send the invitation to others in their networks as well to increase variation in the sample. People who agreed to participate in the study, received a link to the experiment, which was conducted online to reflect the natural setting in which consumers are normally exposed to eWOM. After signing an informed consent, participants were randomly assigned to one of six experimental conditions. Participants were encouraged to look at the manipulation material as they normally would when making use of social networking sites. Subsequently, participants were asked to answer a series of questions to measure their attitude towards the product and perceived brand anthropomorphism. In addition, participants answered questions on the covariates,
manipulation check and their social demographics. An induction check was included to check for suspicion about the purpose of the research. No participant guessed the true purpose of the study.
Results
Manipulation check
To test whether perceived eWOM valence was successfully manipulated, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed on the manipulation check. The results showed a
significant effect of eWOM exposure on perceived valence F (2,121) = 50.83, p <.001, η2 = .46. Participants who were exposed to negative eWOM reported the comments underneath the Instagram post to be the most negative (M = 3.18, SD = 1.38), whereas participants exposed to positive eWOM reported the comments underneath the Instagram post to be the most positive (M = 5.86, SD = 1.02). Participants exposed to the neutral eWOM scored in between (M = 4.81, SD =1.10). Post-hoc tests further showed that perceived eWOM valence was
significantly different for participants who were exposed to negative versus neutral eWOM (Mdifference = 1.64, p <.001). The difference between participants exposed to positive and neutral eWOM also appeared to be significant (Mdifference = 1.05, p <.001). Hence, the manipulation of eWOM valence appeared to be successful.
Covariates
Bivariate correlation analyses were performed to check for the presence of covariates. The results are presented in table 1. As can be seen from this table, there appeared to be a weak, but significant correlation between participants' level of education and brand anthropomorphism: the higher people are educated, the less the bag was perceived to be humanlike and vice versa, r = -.19, p < .01. No significant correlations were found between the dependent variables and any of the other covariates. Hence, these variables were dropped from further analyses.
The effects of product naming on product attitude
H1 predicted that exposure to human named products would lead to more positive product attitudes as compared with exposure to non-human named products. To test this hypothesis, an ANCOVA was run with product naming as independent variable, product
Table 1
Results of bivariate correlation analysis between the observed variables
Note. * p < .05. ** p <.01. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Anthropomorphism - 2. Attitude .23** - 3. Age -.11 `-.05 - 4. Education -.19* -.01 -.16 - 5. Use of Instagram -.07 .01 -.35** .07 - 6. Interest lifestyle -.03 .11 -.19* .26** .13 - 7. Interest fashion .00 .14 -.17 .21* .35** .62** - 8. Interest bags -.05 .12 -.05 .11 .24 .51** .69** -
attitude as the dependent variable and educational level as covariate. Against expectations, there was no significant direct effect for product naming F (1, 123) = .57, p = .452. This means that product attitude was not significantly higher for those who had been exposed to a human named product than participants who had been exposed to a non-human named product. H1 is therefore rejected.
The effects of product naming on brand anthropomorphism
Although prior analyses reported no direct effect on product attitude, product naming could still affect product attitude through brand anthropomorphism. To test for the effect of product naming on brand anthropomorphism, a second ANCOVA was run with product naming as independent variable, brand anthropomorphism as dependent variable and educational level as covariate. The results revealed a significant direct effect of product naming on brand anthropomorphism F(1, 123) = 4.8, p = .03. Participants who were exposed to a human named product, perceived the product to be more human-like (M = 4.09, SD = 1.42) as compared with participants who were exposed to a non-human named product (M = 3.6, SD =1.11). In light of these findings, subsequent analyses were performed to examine whether these effects would further mediate onto product attitude.
Mediating role of brand anthropomorphism
H2 predicted that brand anthropomorphism would mediate the positive effects of human named product (vs. non-human named products) on product attitude, such that (a) exposure to human named products will lead to brand anthropomorphism, and (b) brand anthropomorphism will lead to positive product attitudes. To test whether brand
anthropomorphism indeed serves as a mediator, the PROCESS macro of Hayes (2013) was used. This SPSS macro uses bootstrapping analyses to estimate the direct and indirect effects
of mediated models. Bootstrapping analyses were conducted with 5,000 resamples to estimate 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CI). If the bias-corrected CI does not include zero, the effect can be perceived to differ significantly from zero (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
Replicating the results of the ANCOVA analysis, and consistent with H2a, product naming was found to significantly predict brand anthropomorphism (b = .50, t = 2.19, p =.03). In line with H2b, brand anthropomorphism was subsequently found to predict product attitude (b = .23, t = 2.59, p =.011). Furthermore, bootstrapping analyses demonstrated a significant indirect effect of product naming on product attitude through brand anthropomorphism (b = .12 , 95% CI [.01, .30])¹. Thus although human product naming does not directly affect product attitude (H1), it does affect product attitude indirectly through brand
anthropomorphism. These findings provide support for a mediation effect and, hence H2 is confirmed.
Moderated mediation
H3 predicted that eWOM valence would moderate the mediating effect of product naming on product attitude through brand anthropomorphism such that (a) the positive mediation effect becomes stronger for positive eWOM and (b) becomes weaker for negative eWOM. To test moderated mediation, model 15 in the PROCESS macro of Hayes (2013) was applied with 5,000 bootstrap samples and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals.
Conditional indirect effects showed that the positive mediation effect is significant for neutral eWOM (b = .09, 95% CI [.01, .27]) and also significant for positive eWOM (b = .18, 95% CI [.03, .43]). Additional tests demonstrate that the mediation effect is stronger for positive eWOM than for neutral eWOM (z = .77, p < .05). Finally, results show that the originally positive mediation effect becomes insignificant for negative eWOM (b = .01, 95%
CI [-.22, .21]). Additional tests show that the mediation effect is weaker for negative eWOM than for neutral eWOM at a marginally significant level (z = -5.10, p = .06). Based on these results, it can be concluded that positive eWOM strengthens the positive effect of human product naming on product attitude through brand anthropomorphism. In contrast, negative eWOM weakens this positive effect. H3 is therefore confirmed.
Discussion
This thesis seeks to gain more insight into the question whether, and if so, how and under what circumstances product naming would induce favorable responses in consumers. In doing so, this study aimed to address two research aims. First, this research intended to extend existing research by examining human product naming as a marketing technique to induce positive product attitudes through the process of brand anthropomorphism. It was predicted that exposure to human named products would lead to more positive product attitudes as compared to non-human named products (H1). Furthermore, it was hypothesized that the positive effects of human named products (vs. non-human named products) on product attitude is mediated by brand anthropomorphism such that (a) exposure to human named products would lead to brand anthropomorphism, and (b) brand anthropomorphism would lead to positive product attitudes (H2). The results found no support for a direct effect of naming on product attitude. However, although product naming does not directly influence product attitude, it does so indirectly through brand anthropomorphism. Exposure to human named products positively and significantly affected perceived brand anthropomorphism, which subsequently affected product attitude in a significant positive manner. It can therefore be concluded that only when products with human names are perceived to be more
humanlike, it will lead to increased positive attitudes towards these products. Hence, H2 but not H1 was confirmed.
The second aim of this study was to test neutral and positive eWOM as boundary conditions for the positive effects of human product naming on product attitude through brand anthropomorphism. It was expected that the positive mediating effect is moderated by eWOM such that (a) the effect becomes stronger for positive eWOM and (b) becomes weaker for negative eWOM (H3). In line with H3, the established mediation effect was moderated by eWOM valence. The positive mediation effect was significantly more positive when consumers were exposed to positive eWOM as compared to neutral eWOM. This indicates that positive eWOM indeed strengthens the positive effect of human product naming on product attitude through brand anthropomorphism. The positive mediation effect was significantly weaker when consumers were exposed to negative eWOM as compared to neutral eWOM. Interestingly, the weakening effect of negative eWOM only caused the mediation effect to become insignificant, and did not lead to any negative effects. According to these findings, neutral or positive eWOM can actually perceived to be boundary conditions for the occurrence of the positive mediation effect of product naming on product attitude through brand anthropomorphism.
Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the literature in several important ways. First, this study provides relevant insights into the specific use of human product naming being a successful strategy to induce perceptions of brand anthropomorphism, which subsequently leads to favorable product attitudes. The findings about the effects of brand anthropomorphism are in line with previous research showing that consumers develop more favorable attitudes towards branded products with human features (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Delbaere et al., 2011). The
existing studies about brand anthropomorphism have however all focused on different strategies to humanize products, such as presenting them with facial features, emotional expressions or letting them engage in human behavior. This study is the first to demonstrate the positive attitudinal implications of human product naming. Moreover, this research contributes to literature by showing that theories about brand anthropomorphism also apply for the specific act of giving human names to products. For future research it is especially interesting to examine other strategies to induce brand anthropomorphism. More specifically, it is suggested to establish whether each strategy is equally effective in evoking perceptions of brand anthropomorphism and to test whether a combination of strategies could better facilitate these perceptions.
Second, this study sheds more light on the potential detrimental consequences of brand anthropomorphism. Although prior research has provided ample evidence on the beneficial effects of brand anthropomorphism, less is known about the potential risks involved with brand anthropomorphism. So far only Puzakova et al. (2013) have tested whether humanizing a brand can have negative downstream consequences when consumers are exposed to
negative product information. They concluded that anthropomorphizing a brand can
negatively affect consumers' brand evaluations when the brand faces negative publicity. This is explained by the idea that consumers attribute more responsibility to a brand for its
wrongdoings when it is anthropomorphized versus non-anthropomorphized.
An interesting question is whether prior mentioned effects pertain to negative publicity only. If negative publicity leads to more negative brand attitudes when a brand is
anthropomorphized, does positive publicity also lead to more positive attitudes when a brand is anthropomorphized? And if so, does brand anthropomorphism hurt product attitudes more when facing negative publicity than that brand anthropomorphism contributes to positive product attitudes when facing positive publicity? These questions remained unsolved as the
study of Puzakova and colleagues only examined the effects of humanization in the context of negative publicity. However, to make any claims about the question if the risks outweigh the potential benefits, it seems imperative to compare the effects of brand anthropomorphism under situations of negative publicity and positive publicity.
This study addresses these questions, and examined the effects of various types of eWOM as forms of positive or negative publicity. Examining the role of eWOM as a moderator of brand anthropomorphism seems relevant in today's media landscape, as consumer increasingly dictate the production and communication of product-related
information. In accordance with Puzakova et al. (2013), the results demonstrate that negative eWOM indeed weakens the positive effect of brand anthropomorphism. Furthermore, positive eWOM also reinforces the effects of brand anthropomorphism, in evoking more favorable product attitudes.
These findings are in line with the theoretical explanation of the intensification effect of intentionality: if people perceive an action as intentional, they intensify their praise or blame for it as compared to when they perceive that action as accidental (Malle & Bennett, 2002; Ohtsubo, 2007). And considering that the attribution of intentionality comes with mind perception (the process of perceiving nonhuman entities as autonomous agents with conscious experience, cognitive abilities and intensions) (Gray et al., 2007), which is the result of brand anthropomorphism (Epley & Waytz, 2009), it is highly likely that the intensification effect of intentionality explains the moderating effect of eWOM on brand anthropomorphism's
effectiveness.
These results imply that the intensification effect of eWOM (and publicity in general) works in both directions. This is in contrast with previous findings that the intensification effect is stronger for blameworthy behaviors than for praiseworthy behaviors (Ohtsubo, 2007). It also seems to contradict with theories about the 'negativity effect' which propose that
negative information, and hence negative WOM, is more influential as compared to positive WOM (Arndt, 1967; East et al., 2008; Herr et al., 1991; Mizerski, 1982; Park & Lee, 2009; Podnar & Javernik, 2012). This research shows that for humanized products, the
intensification effect of eWOM works in both directions and is especially influential for its positive variant. This study is the first to show that the benefits outweigh the potential risks that are involved with brand anthropomorphism in the context of social media.
Practical implications
This thesis offers several important implications for the field of marketing. First, this study provides support for the use of human product naming as a marketing strategy to induce positive responses in consumers. Product naming, like other strategies that have been used to position brands as human entities (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Delbaere et al., 2011; Kim & McGill, 2011; Puzakova et al., 2013), was found to induce positive product attitudes through the process of brand anthropomorphism. Thus, based on the findings of this research it is advisable for marketers and brand managers to anthropomorphize brands by means of product naming. Since the perception of products as being human is crucial in this process, it can be effective to integrate the specific act of product naming in an overall marketing
communication strategy to evoke brand anthropomorphism. Human product names in combination with for example the use of facial features in product design or the use of first-person pronouns can all cause consumers to perceive products as humanlike. Nevertheless, as demonstrated by this study, a human product name alone can already induce perceptions of brand anthropomorphism. This provides valuable insights to marketers and other
practitioners, as product attitudes can be boosted by the single act of naming products after a person. As such, this study offers a less costly alternative to capitalize on the effects of brand anthropomorphism than through the use of marketing communication campaigns.
Second, the results show that the widely held belief that "a humanized brand is a successful brand" (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Delbaere et al., 2011), applies under certain circumstances, but certainly not all. A factor that was found to determine these circumstances is the way in which a brand is discussed between consumers. While positive eWOM can strengthen the beneficial effects of brand anthropomorphism, negative eWOM may weaken these effects. However, marketers may take comfort in this finding, as negative eWOM was not found to lead to negative consequences when a brand was anthropomorphized. However, this finding does not mean that there are no risks involved with brand anthropomorphism. This study only tested the effects of one Instagram post that was accompanied by eWOM from unknown contacts. Hence, brand managers have to be aware that consumers could hold the humanized product responsible for the problems discussed in negative messages,
especially when the message derives from a known contact such as family members, friends or colleagues. Research demonstrates that these so-called strong ties are more influential as information sources (Brown & Reingen, 1987). Moreover, as the volume of negative eWOM messages increases, brand anthropomorphism may lead to more negative effects. Future research has to test for these effects.
Furthermore, this study highlights the importance to stimulate likes, shares or positive comments, to capitalize on the strengthening effects of positive eWOM on beneficial effects of brand anthropomorphism. Hence, from the viewpoint of the brand it is suggested to embrace, highlight and stimulate positive statements made by consumers. There are various ways to stimulate positive eWOM. For example, Ryu and Feick (2007) found that offering a reward increases referral likelihood. Moreover, customer engagement actions, referral campaigns or review invitations for relevant bloggers, are some optional strategies to explicitly stimulate positive eWOM.
Suggestions for future research
Like most research, this study comes with a number of limitations which provide impetus for future research. A first point of consideration concerns the underlying mechanism that is found to drive anthropomorphism: fluency. Based on assumptions made in previous research, it seems likely that the established positive effect of brand anthropomorphism on product attitude can be explained by the evolvement of processing fluency. Delbaere et al. (2011) state that processing fluency accounts for the positive effect of brand
anthropomorphism on product liking. According to the authors, people process
anthropomorphized objects more fluently because of accessible human knowledge. Since processing fluency is a positive experience to consumers, fluently processed stimuli are more liked (Lee & Labroo, 2004; Reber et al., 2004; Winkielman & Cacioppo, 2001; Winkielman et al., 2003).
However, inferences concerning processing fluency are mainly based on theories. Since the actual experience of processing fluency was not measured, no solid conclusions can be drawn about the underlying processes leading to positive effects. However, also in other research the role of processing fluency in relation to brand anthropomorphism has never explicitly been tested. Hence, the question whether the occurrence of processing fluency explains the positive effects of brand anthropomorphism remains unanswered. For further research it is suggested to get better insight in the possible mediating role of processing fluency in the relationship between brand anthropomorphism and attitudes.
A second point for discussion is the issue whether the results can be generalized to other situations. The appearance of eWOM in the manipulation material is quite specific, since user comments on social media is just one of the many possible ways in which
perceived sense of virtual community increases the effect of eWOM on attitudes. Instagram is essentially a social network platform on which the sense of virtual community is likely to be high and on which the engagement level with users is also high (Salomon, 2013). Thus, the eWOM presentation in the context of Instagram, as compared to other forms of eWOM such as product review sites or blogs, might have reinforced eWOM's effectiveness. Hence, for future research it is recommended to look further into the role of community and into the relationship between other forms of eWOM and the relevant anthropomorphized products.
The same applies for the use of a fictitious, non-existing brand called 'b-bags' for the manipulation material. Mahajan, Muller and Kerin (1984) state that in the area of new product development, WOM may play particularly important roles because brand awareness must be build and consumers need information when deciding whether to purchase a product that they do not yet know. In case consumers are familiar with a certain brand and have
well-established brand impressions, the effects of WOM on attitudes will decrease (Herr et al., 1991; Laczniak et al., 2001). Similar weakening moderation effects on WOM's effectiveness are found for retailer equity (DeCarlo, Laczniak, Motley & Ramaswami, 2007) and brand commitment (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant & Unnava, 2000). In order to make generalizations about real life implications it is advisable to examine whether the same conclusions about product naming, brand anthropomorphism and eWOM can be drawn about existing brands.
Despite of these limitations, this study provides more insight into the question whether, and if so, how and under what circumstances product naming would induce
favorable responses in consumers. This insight is of theoretical and practical relevance as it is the first to demonstrate that product naming can evoke brand anthropomorphism, which subsequently results in favorable consumer attitudes towards these human named products. Additionally, this research provides more insight into the boundary conditions of these
naming are only likely to materialize when brands are not facing negative publicity through negative eWOM. As such, this study shows that human product naming, and brand
anthropomorphism in general, comes with both challenges and opportunities. From these new findings, opportunities emerge for both scholars in the academic field as for practitioners in the field of marketing communications.
Note
1
See Preacher and Hayes (2008) for discussion and approval of indirect effects without a significant direct effect.
References
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 468-479. doi:10.1086/518544
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, R. (2000). Consumer response to negative publicity: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 203-214. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.37.2.203.18734
Arndt, J. (1967). Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4, 291-295. doi: 10.2307/3149462
Bansal, H. S., & Voyer, P. A. (2000). Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 166-177.
Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. M. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, 31-52. doi: 10.1002/dir.1014
Bone, P. F. (1995). Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product judgments. Journal of Business Research, 3(32), 213-23.
Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350-362.
Bruner II, G. C. (2009). Marketing scales handbook: A compilation of multi-item measures for consumer behavior & advertising. (5th ed.) Chicago, Ill: American Marketing Association.
Charlett, D., Garland, R., & Marr, N. (1995). How damaging is negative word of mouth? Marketing Bulletin, 6, 42-50.
DeCarlo, T. E., Laczniak, R. N., Motley, C. M., & Ramaswami, S. (2007). Influence of image and familiarity on consumer response to negative word-of-mouth communication about retail entities. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15(1), 41-51. doi:
10.2753/MTP1069-6679150103
Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E. F., & Phillips, B. J. (2011). Personification in
advertising: Using a visual metaphor to trigger anthropomorphism. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 121-130. doi: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367400108
East, R., Hammond, K., & Lomax, W. (2008). Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand purchase probability. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), 929-944. doi: 10.1016/ijresmar.2008.04.001
East, R., Hammond, K., Lomax, W., & Robinson, H. ( 2005). What is the effect of a recommendation? Marketing Review 5(2), 145-157. doi: 10.1362/1469347054426186
Epley, N & Waytz, A. (2009). Mind perception. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, G Lindzey (Eds), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 498-541). New York: Wiley.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). When we need a human: motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Social Cognition, 26(2), 143-155.
doi:10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.143
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864-886. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
Eskine, K. J., & Locander, W. H. (2014). A name you can trust? Personification effects are influenced by beliefs about company values. Psychology and Marketing, 31(1), 48-53. doi: 10.1002/mar.20674
Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(6), 889-906. doi: 10.1037/00223514.38.6.889
Fornell, C., Rust, R. T, & Dekimpe, M. G. (2010). The effect of customer satisfaction on consumer spending growth. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1), 28-35. doi:
10.1509/jmkr.47.1.28
Gray, H., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619. doi: 10.1126/science.1134475
Gupta, P., & Harris, J. (2010). How e-WOM recommendations influence product consideration and quality of choice: A motivation to process information perspective. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1041-1049. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.015
Guthrie, S. (1993). Faces in the clouds. A new theory of religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Heckman, J. (1999). Word-of-mouth advertising: Cheap, credible, created. Marketing News, 33, 2.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Hennig-Thurau, T., & Walsh, G. (2003). Electronic word-of-mouth: Motives for and consequences of reading customer articulations on the Internet. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 51-74.
Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454-462. doi: 10.1086/208570
Huang, J.-H., Hsiao, T.-T., & Chen, Y.-F. ( 2012). The effects of electronic word of mouth on product judgment and choice: The moderating role of the sense of virtual
community. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(9), 2326-2347. doi:
10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00943.x
Janlert, L.-E., & Stolterman, E. (1997). The character of things. Design Studies, 18, 297-314.
Kelley, H. H. (1972). Causal schema and the attribution proces. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 1151-1174). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kohli, C., & LaBahn, D. W. (1997). Creating effective brand names: A study of the naming process. Journal of Advertising Research, 37(1), 67-75.
Labroo, A. A., Dhar, R., & Schwarz, N. (2008). Of frog wines and frowning watches: Semantic priming, perceptual fluency, and brand evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 819-831. doi:10.1086/523290
Laczniak, R. N., DeCarlo, T. E., & Ramaswami, S. N. (2001). Consumers' responses to negative word-of-mouth communication: An attribution theory perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 57-73. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP1101_5
Lee, C. H., & Cranage, D. A. (2014). Toward understanding consumer processing of negative online word-of-mouth communication: The roles of opinion consensus and
organizational response strategies. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 38(3), 330-360. doi: 10.1177/1096348012451455
Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 151-165. doi:
10.1509/jmkr.41.2.151.28665
Levy, S. J. (1978). Marketplace behavior: its meaning for management. New York: Amacom.
Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 74-89. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.70.374
Mahajan, V., Muller, E., & Kerin, R. A. (1984). Introduction strategy for new products with positive and negative word-of-mouth. Management Science, 30(12), 1389-1404.
Malle, B. F., & Bennett, R. E. (2002). People's praise and blame for intentions and actions: Implications of the folk concept of intentionality. Technical Reports of the Institute of Cognitive and Decision Sciences, no. 02-2.
Mizerski, R. W. (1982). An attribution explanation of the disproportionate influence of unfavorable information. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 301-310. doi: 10.1086/208925
Morewedge, C. K., Preston, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Timescale bias in the attribution of mind. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 1-11. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.1
Murray, K. (1991). A test of services marketing theory: Consumer information acquisition activities. Journal of Marketing, 55, 10-25. doi: 10.2307/1252200
Ohtsubo, Y. (2007). Perceived intentionality intensifies blameworthiness of negative behaviors: Blame-praise asymmetry in intensification effect. Japanese Psychological
Research, 49(2), 100-110. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5884.2007.00337.
O'Keefe, D. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13(3), 251-274.
Park, C., Lee, T. M. (2009). Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: A moderating role of product type. Journal of Business Research, 62, 61-67. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.11.017
Podnar, K., & Javernik, P. (2012). The effect of word of mouth on consumers'
attitudes toward products and their purchase probability. Journal of Promotion Management, 18(2), 145-168. doi: 10.1080/10496491.2012.668426
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When humanizing brands goes wrong: The detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 81-100. doi: 10.1509/jm.11.0510
Ratchford, B. T., Talukdar, D., & Lee, M. (2001). A model of consumer choice of the Internet as an information source. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5(3), 7-21. doi: 10.1080/10864415.2001.11044217
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 8, 364-382. doi: 10.1.1.128.910
Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 45-48. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00008
Richins, M. L. (1983). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot study. Journal of Marketing, 47(1), 68-78. doi: 10.2307/3203428
Richins, M. L. (1984). Word of mouth communication as negative information. Proceedings of Advances in Consumer Research, 697-702.
Ryu, G., & Feick, L. (2007). A penny for your thoughts: customer responses to referral reward programs. The Journal of Marketing, 71, 84-94.
Salomon, D. (2013). Moving on from Facebook Using Instagram to connect with undergraduates and engage in teaching and learning. College & Research Libraries News, 74, 408-412.
Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332-348.
Silverman, G. (2001). The secrets of word-of-mouth marketing: How to trigger exponentialsales through runaway word of mouth. New York: Amacom.
Söderlund, M., & Rosengren, S. ( 2007). Receiving word-of-mouth from the service customer: An emotion-based effectiveness assessment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14(2), 123-136. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2006.10.001
Solomon, M. R. (2004). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Systrom, K. (2014, December 10). 300 million: sharing real moments [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://blog.instagram.com/post/104847837897/141210-300million
Wallsbeck, F. E., & Johansson, U. (2014). Instagram Marketing. When Brands want to reach generation Y with their communication(thesis).
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 219-232. doi: 10.1177/1745691610369336
Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Making sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases
anthropomorphism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 410-435. doi: 10.1037/a0020240
Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 258-270. doi:2307/3151636
Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: psycho physiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 989-1000. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989
Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189-217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zhang, J. Q., Graciun, G., & Shin, D. (2010). When does electronic word-of-mouth matter? A study of consumer product reviews. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1336-1341. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.12.011
Zinkhan, G. M., & Martin, C. R. (1987). New brand names and inferential beliefs: Some insights on naming new products. Journal of Business Research, 15, 157-172. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(84)90046-8
Appendix
1 code-neutral 2 name-neutral
Product attitude scale
1. Dislikeable / Likeable 2. Bad / Good
3. Dissatisfactory / Satisfactory 4. Unpleasant / Pleasant
5. Poor quality / High quality 6. Worthless / Valuable 7. Unattractive/Attractive 8. Undesirable/ Desirable 9. Negative / Positive 10. Unappealing / Appealing 5 code-negative 6 name-negative
