The influence of brand authenticity on brand attachment : and to what extent is this relationship moderated by consumers' self-enhancement and skepticism?

The influence of brand authenticity on brand attachment

by consumers’ self-enhancement and skepticism?                                   Anne-­‐Marie  Haanschoten   Student  number:  10875530  

Master  Business  Administration  –  Marketing  track   Thesis  Marketing  

23-­‐06-­‐2017  

Supervisor:  Joris  Demmers   Universiteit  van  Amsterdam  

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Anne-Marie Haanschoten who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

Abstract  

This research investigates how perceived brand authenticity influences brand attachment and what kind of consumer characteristics may influence this relationship. Therefore the study examined the role of marketing skepticism, status orienting and self-authenticity on the relationship between brand authenticity and brand attachment. Data were gathered through an experimental research design and an additional questionnaire from 198 respondents. The findings revealed that integrity or continuity cues in an advertisement leads to higher perceived brand authenticity than no authentic cue. Additionally, when consumers perceive a brand as authentic, they feel also more attachment towards this brand. Contrary to literature, not Millennials but old people are more skeptical towards brand communications. However, when consumers are more skeptical towards marketing they perceive a brand as less authentic. In addition, consumers who have a higher need for status consumption or consumers who are highly self-authentic don’t feel a higher connection or passion with authentic brands.

Index  

1.

Introduction

Brands are an important factor in the decision making process when buying a product (Fischer, Völckner, & Sattler, 2010; Macdonald & Sharp, 2000). In a world with high competition among brands, authenticity becomes a core component for successful brands (Kapferer, 2001). But why is authenticity in brands so important for a company to be successful? Brand authenticity seems to have a positive impact on brand attachment (Assiouras et al., 2015; Hüsken & Henkel, 2016), which is very important for marketing managers since brand attachment involves affection, passion and a connection with the brand (Thomson, MacInnis & Park 2005). Nowadays, more and more companies are searching for ways to create strong emotional brand connections with their consumers (Malär et al., 2011) because this leads to higher levels of consumer loyalty. Accordingly, consumer loyalty in the long run increases the financial performance of the company (Park et al., 2010).

The impact of brand authenticity on brand attachment seems very important in consumer behavior research because it leads to more word-of-mouth (Morhart et al., 2015) and consumer loyalty (Park et al., 2010). Morhart et al. (2015) showed a strong effect for the relationship between brand authenticity and emotional brand attachment. This study examined the influence of authentic brands on the attachment towards that brand and found positive significance results. Moreover, these researchers found that the impact of brand authenticity on brand attachment leads to more word-of-mouth. In other words, when someone perceives a brand as authentic, (s)he is more connected with the brand and therefore this person will talk more about this brand to others. Further, Park et al. (2010) examines the impact of brand attachment on consumer behavior and found that strong attachments toward brands affect brand loyalty and willingness to promote the brand.

Despite the previous research about the brand authenticity and brand attachment relationship (Thomson, MacInnis & Park, 2005; Malär et al., 2011) it is important from both a managerial and a theoretical point for which consumers this relationship is more likely. From a theoretical perspective, Napoli, Dickson-Delaporte and Beverland (2016) suggested that additional research is needed to investigate the effect that individual and personal differences across consumers may have on brand authenticity perceptions. They already found that brand authenticity leads to more

value to the consumer. Therefore, current research should examine for which consumers authenticity leads to higher value. Assiouras et al. (2015) argued that the effect of brand authenticity on consumer-brand relationships could be explained by consumers’ desire to keep or build their own self-identity based on these authentic brands. Also the level of consumers’ marketing skepticism (Morhart et al., 2015) as well as the level of self-authenticity (Morhart et al., 2005) could explain this relationship. Until now, there is not explicitly examined who these consumers are who seek authenticity in brands and therefore score high on brand attachment. Therefore it is important that current research should investigate this. The level of self-authenticity and need for status consumption may strengthen this relationship (Assiouras et al., 2015; O’cass & Frost, 2002). So people could feel attachment towards an authentic brand because (s)he is also high in self-authenticity and therefore feel a stronger connection with this brand. Morhart et al. (2015) found that self-authenticity has a positive influence on the relationship between brand authenticity and brand choice likelihood. Current research should examine if self-authenticity influence the relationship between brand self-authenticity and brand attachment as well. This research should also examine if the level of status orienting would influence the attachment towards authentic brands. O’cass & Frost (2002) found in their study that consumers use brands to enhance their self-image. Therefore it could be that consumers are attached towards authentic brands since they could enhance their self-image with it.

On the other hand, skepticism towards brand communication can weaken the perceived authenticity of a brand (Morhart et al. 2015). The study of Morhart et al. (2015) showed that when consumers are skeptical towards advertisements about a brand’s virtue and integrity (authenticity), they would perceive the brand as less authentic. However, Upshaw (2007) suggest that Millennials are higher in marketing skepticism due to their technological knowledge. Current research will examine if this relationship still hold after expose to authentic cues.

For scientists it is interesting to examine these relationships because a more comprehensive view about the consumers who seek authenticity in brands will be formed. Also, this research could reaffirm previous founded relationships. In this way, current research will provide new insights about consumers who seek authenticity in brands the most.

By investigating which consumer characteristics influence the relationship of brand authenticity on brand attachment, marketing managers could make a typology of consumers to be more targeted in their approach to build relationships with their audience. For marketing managers it is important to know for which consumers brand authenticity lead to higher brand attachment. This is necessary for marketing managers since brand attachment may subsequently leads to higher consumer loyalty that in turn could lead to profitable marketing outcomes. Marketing managers could target these consumers by focusing on the characteristics of authenticity seeking consumers when they want to create an advertisement. As a result of that, their marketing strategy will become more effective. Understanding perceptions of authenticity may help explain consumers' brand attitudes as well as their brand loyalty. In this way, more knowledge about brand authenticity may lead to a more effective approach for market segmentation.

Based on this knowledge and expected contributions, the following research question is formulated:

‘What is the influence of brand authenticity on brand attachment and to what extent is this relationship moderated by consumers’ status orienting, self- authenticity and skepticism?’

2. Literature  review  

2.1 Brand authenticity

Brand authenticity does not have a general definition, because ‘authenticity’ has multiple dimensions (Beverland, 2005). Gilmore and Pine (2007) found that this new business imperative (brand authenticity) is derived from the Latin word ‘authenticus’ and Greek word ‘authentikos’; which means the worthy of acceptance, authoritative, trustworthy, not imaginary, false or imitated and conforming to an original (Cappannelli and Cappannelli, 2004). The word ‘authentic’ is associated with ‘genuineness’, ‘reality’ and ‘truth’, but these words could also have different meanings for different consumers (Peterson, 1997). For example, some people regard an authentic Mexican meal as truly Mexican only if it is made in Mexico and consumed by Mexicans. At the same time, other people think a truly Mexican meal must contain certain recipes regardless of who made or consumes the food (Salamone, 1997). Other researchers defined authenticity in terms of sincerity, innocence and originality (Fine, 2003), but authenticity is also related to concepts as being natural, honest, simple and unspun (Boyle, 2003). According to Diez (2006), a brand is authentic if it is perceived as a real and honest brand instead of artificial and superficial; authenticity cannot be fabricated. Besides, authentic brands do have a clear purpose, which is sincerely executed (Authentic Brand Index, 2008).

A recent article of Morhart et al (2015) distinguished four dimensions of brand authenticity: continuity, credibility, integrity and symbolism. The continuity dimension stands for a brand’s timelessness, historicity and its ability to transcend trends, whereas credibility refers to the brand’s willingness and ability to deliver on their promises. The integrity dimension stands for the brand’s intentions and the values the brand communicates, but also the moral purity and responsibility of the brand. Lastly, the symbolism dimension could be conceptualized as the symbolic quality of the brand that consumers can use to define who they are or who they are not (Morhart et al., 2015).

Brand authenticity becomes increasingly important for companies to attract customers nowadays (Beverland, 2006). Gilmore and Pine (2007) acknowledge this development by showing that authenticity has overtaken quality as the prevailing purchasing criterion, just as quality overtook cost and cost overtook availability.

Therefore, consumers look for authenticity in brands, namely brands that are relevant, original and genuine (Beverland, 2005). These days, consumers are more inclined to seek out authentic products or brands that help them to express their authentic selves (Gilmore & Pine, 2007) or even their personal identity projects. This presents a unique opportunity for firms to position their brands as authentic.

Schallehn, Burmann and Riley (2014) developed a model of brand authenticity and analyzed the antecedents and effects of brand authenticity. This causal model was based upon socio-psychological theories and an online survey that used several brands to examine the effect of authenticity. The researchers found that brand authenticity have a strong positive impact on brand trust. Besides, the researches found that consistency, continuity and individuality drives authenticity in a brand. The results of the study show that authenticity can be regarded as an important success factor for branding.

Another research that supports the importance of brand authenticity is the current research of Napoli et al. (2016). The researchers examined the relationship between brand authenticity and value as experienced by the consumer and the brand. The study measured two constructs that are related to brand authenticity: consumer-derived value and brand-consumer-derived value. Consumer-consumer-derived value refers to the personal value consumers experience through the consumption of authentic brands while brand-derived value reflects a brand’s status in the marketplace. The results showed that an authentic brand positioning benefits both the consumer and the brand. Authentic brands deliver more personal value to customers compared to less authentic brands. Also the results showed that the higher the brand authenticity, the greater its value to consumers in terms of utilitarian and hedonistic benefits, self-authentication and love felt for the brand. Moreover, they found that authentic brands have a more desirable reputation in the marketplace, are more trusted by consumers and have higher brand equity.

Besides the research about authentic brands in the food industry, Eggers et al. (2012) investigated the impact of brand authenticity in the category of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The researchers sent the online questionnaire to 10.000 CEO’s and founders of SME’s. The measurement of brand authenticity consisted of three constructs: brand consistency, brand customer orientation and brand congruency. The results showed that brand consistency and brand congruency have a

strong positive impact on brand trust. Furthermore, it has a positive influence on SME growth. Therefore, brand authenticity is also able to help SME’s to be successful. Lastly, besides the positive impact of brand authenticity on word-of-mouth, brand trust, love felt for the brand, reputation in the market place and brand equity, brand authenticity leads also to a higher connection, passion or affection with the brand. This is known as higher brand attachment (Thomson, MacInnis & Park, 2005). Assiouras et al. (2015) examined the impact of brand authenticity on brand attachment in the food industry. They investigated the attachment towards authentic Greek brands in the food industry. The researchers found support for the positive impact of brand authenticity on brand attachment. Furthermore, they found that successively brand attachment influences purchase intentions, willingness to pay more and promote the brand. Given these points, the findings show the importance of brand authenticity. Therefore, current research will examine this concept further. 2.2 Brand attachment

Brand attachment is defined as “the strength of the cognitive and emotional bond connecting the brand with the self” (Park et al. 2006, p.6). When consumers have high affection, passion or connection with the brand, they have a high attachment with the brand (Thomson, MacInnis & Park, 2005). In other words, brand attachment is an emotional link between a person and a brand (Bozzo et al., 2003). Therefore consumers tend to emotionally attach a limited number of brands, feeling connection, passion or affection towards them to a degree that can vary between brands (Thomson, MacInnis & Park, 2005).

Previous research has shown that brand authenticity has a positive impact on brand attachment (Assiouras et al., 2015; Hüsken & Henkel, 2016). In other words, if consumers perceive a brand as authentic, they are more committed to this brand as well as attached to the brand. It is also shown that brand attachment subsequently influences consumers purchase intentions, willingness to pay more and promote the brand. But it is not explicitly shown why authentic brands leads to brand attachment. Recently, Assiouras et al. (2015) showed the positive relationship between brand authenticity and brand attachment, suggesting that heritage, quality and labeling schemes have a positive impact on consumer-brand relationships. They suggest that this effect could be explained by consumers’ desire to keep or build their own self-identity based on these authentic brands. This is in line with Kirmani (2009) who

showed that consumers prefer brands that can serve as signals of membership in relevant reference groups. Despite these results it is rarely examined who these consumers are. Moreover, Assiouras et al. (2015) found that brand authenticity predicts the attachment with the brand, while this brand attachment influences consumers purchase intentions, willingness to pay more and promote the brand. So based upon this literature, it is shown that perceived brand authenticity has a positive effect on brand attachment. But also in current research this relationship will be tested if this relationship still holds. The following hypothesis is formulated:

H1: The higher the perceived authenticity of a brand, the more a consumer is attached to this brand.

2.3 Integrity and continuity cues

Consumers use a range of cues to evaluate the authenticity of an object or brand (Grazian, 2003). According to Liao and Ma (2009), consumers rely on different cues to assess the authenticity of an object whereas they also experience different benefits of authenticity. As reported by Grayson and Martinec (2004), authenticity judgments may be formed around indexical cues or iconic cues. Indexical cues refer to everything that is not imitated or copied by something else. In this way, something is authentic as it is regarded as totally original and real. Further, Grayson and Martinec (2004) define iconic cues as authenticity cues that can be attributed to something that is imitated. For example, gold coins in a museum gift shop can be seen authentic coins because they look very similar as the original one. In addition, Morhart et al. (2015) suggested that integrity and continuity cue could be regarded as two dimensions of perceived brand authenticity. In consequence, current research will focus on these two dimensions of brand authenticity.

One advertising dimension of authenticity is to reflect values or relationships that are important for the brand. This integrity dimension emphasizes the brand’s intentions and the values it communicates, but also the moral purity and responsibility of the brand (Morhart et al., 2015). In other words, when the brand shows that it is motivated by caring and responsibility values, the brand uses the integrity dimension in its marketing communication. Because these are dimensions of brand authenticity, it will be likely that when consumers are exposed to an integrity cue of a brand they will also perceive the brand as authentic.

The same effect can be expected for continuity cues. When the cue tells the consumer that the brand already exists for a very long time and that the brand is not changed that much, it will be likely that the respondents will perceive this brand as authentic. This will be expected because continuity is a dimension of brand authenticity (Morhart et al., 2015). Brand authenticity perceptions could be based upon the brand’s essence as communicated through the brand’s advertisements. This refers to the continuity dimension of a brand’s marketing communication (Morhart et al., 2015). So through the continuity dimension the brand shows the consumer that the brand is faithful towards itself (Morhart et al., 2015). In other words, the continuity dimension focuses on a brand’s timelessness, historicity and its ability to transcend trends. Based upon this literature, the next hypotheses are formulated:

H2a. Exposure to integrity cues of the brand will lead to higher perceived authenticity than exposure to no authentic cue.

H2b. Exposure to continuity cues of the brand will lead to higher perceived authenticity than no authentic cue.

2.4 Consumer characteristics

As shown in the literature about brand authenticity and brand attachment, there seems to be a positive relationship between these two variables. According to Napoli, Dickson-Delaporte & Beverland (2016), it will be very useful to investigate the individual differences across consumers on this relationship. Possible consumer characteristics that could moderate the relationship between brand authenticity and brand attachment could be the degree of self-enhancement (Assiouras et al. 2015), namely authenticity (low enhancement) or status-oriented (high self-enhancement) and skepticism towards advertisement (Morhart et al. 2015).

2.4.1. Skepticism towards advertisement

H1 proposes that brand authenticity has a positive effect on brand attachment, but this relation may be weaker when a consumer is skeptical about a marketing claim of a product. This so-called consumer skepticism is defined as the tendency towards disbelief of advertising (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998) or marketing claims (Gaski & Etzel, 1986). According to Mohr et al. (1998), skepticism is one of the two constructs that could help in explaining people’s reactions to brand communications.

Previous research has shown that consumers who are highly skeptical are more aware of the fact that ads/marketing communications of a brand are meant to be persuasive and therefore develop persuasion knowledge (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000). Based upon this greater persuasion knowledge, highly skeptical consumers develop strategies to cope with influence techniques and therefore they respond less positively to marketing communication. In consequence they like it less, rely on it less and are less attached to these brand communications. For current research it will be interesting to examine if consumers level of skepticism influences the relationship between perceived brand authenticity and the level of brand attachment. It will be likely that if a brand/product is highly communicated as an authentic brand, a consumer who is highly skeptical will be less attached by the brand. Previous research was mainly focused on the influence of skepticism as a moderator on the relationship between authentic cues (integrity and continuity) and perceived brand authenticity (Beverland, Lindgreen & Vink, 2013; Morhart et al. 2015). Current research should examine the influence of consumer skepticism on the relationship of authentic cues on the perceived brand authenticity. Also, due to the fact that marketing skepticism can affect consumers’ purchase decisions (Szykman et al. 1997), it will be useful to have more insight into the skepticism of consumers. In the current marketing environment, it is shown that customers have an increasingly skeptical attitude towards the motives of many business advertisements (Upshaw, 2007). Therefore, it will be likely that when a consumer who is high in marketing skepticism will be exposed to an authentic cue (continuity or integrity cues), (s)he perceives that brand as less authentic.

The research of Upshaw (2007) found that especially generations that grew hand-in-hand with technology often show high levels of skepticism towards advertising. These individuals could contact other people over the internet to gain further information about a brand or even contact the brands itself. Therefore they will be more skeptical towards a brand’s marketing communication. The research of Moore (2012) can confirm this by suggesting that Millennials (generation Y, also known as people who were born between 1980 and 2000) are an age group that has a lot of knowledge about technology and therefore will be high in skepticism. It will be interesting to also examine in current research if Millennials are indeed more skeptic about the authentic cues and therefore see the brand as less authentic than other age groups.

H3a: Exposure to authentic cues of the brand will lead to lower perceived authenticity when marketing skepticism is higher.

H3b: Millennials have a higher tendency towards disbelief of advertising (marketing skepticism) than other age groups.

2.4.2. Self-enhancement

Brands help consumers create and manage their identities (Kleine, Kleine & Allen, 1995). Self-brand connections are likely to be strong in brand communities, where members define themselves in terms of their status as brand users (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). In view of that, brands allow consumers to satisfy identity-relevant goals, such as self-expression (Berger & Heath, 2007). Self-expression refers to using a brand because it is congruent with one’s personality (Aaker, 1999). As a result of that, consumer behavior literature supports the proposition that individuals’ self images dictate specific purchase behavior patterns. Consumers buy products and brands they believe to possess symbolic images similar and/or complementary to their self-image to achieve image congruence (Heath & Scott, 1998).

Further, consumers can use the authenticity of a brand to maintain and enhance their identity (Greenwald, Bellezza & Banaji, 1988). This so-called self-enhancement suggests that people are motivated to create a good impression to gain social approval and for the intrinsic satisfaction of projecting a positive self-image, even to oneself (Schlenker, 1980). Therefore it is interesting to investigate whether people use brands to build on their self-identity; this research will examine whether self-enhancement will have an impact on the influence of brand authenticity on brand attachment.

Self-enhancement can be construed as having two sides because someone could be high in self-enhancement since (s)he wants to improve his- or herself, or low in self-enhancement because the person wants to be his- or herself and wants to stick to who he/she is. So, someone could build on their self-identity by using (authentic) brands that could enhance their status, the so-called “status oriented consumers” (Eastman et al. 1999). But someone could also feel attachment towards authentic brands because people are high in self-authenticity (Wood et al. 2008).

Status oriented

Brands allow consumers to satisfy identity-relevant goals, such as self-expression (Berger & Heath, 2007). It is found that consumers buy products and brands they believe to possess symbolic images that are similar or will be complementary to their self-image that can help consumers to achieve an enhanced self-image (Heath & Scott, 1998). These consumers use brands to enhance their status (O’cass & Frost, 2002). This is called ‘status consumption’, that Eastman et al. (1999) describe as “the motivational process by which individuals strive to improve their social standing through consumption of consumer products that confer or symbolize status for both the person itself and the surrounding others”. These status-oriented consumers have the need to gain status or social prestige from the acquisition and consumption of goods that the person itself and significant others perceive to be high in status (O’cass & Frost, 2002).

So when consuming authentic brands, people have the idea that they do something good and therefore they want to show this behavior to others to be recognized. In this way, people could work on their self-enhancement. Some consumers are motivated to create a good impression to gain social approval or to create intrinsic satisfaction for creating a positive self-image (Schlenker, 1980). So when a brand could help a consumer to achieve this self-enhancement, the consumer will be more connected to this brand. This so-called brand attachment contains high affection, passion and/or connection with a brand (Thomson, MacInnis & Park, 2005). Assiouras et al. (2015) found that when a brand is authentic, consumers are more attached to the brand. In other words, when the consumer is exposed to either heritage, quality or labeling schemes of a (authentic) brand, this will have a positive impact on consumer-brand relationships. It will be very likely that when someone is high in the need for self-enhancement, (s)he will have a higher affection or connection with a brand that is high in perceived authenticity. In other words, if people think self-presentation and status is important, they will feel more love for a brand that is authentic because this brand could help the consumer to achieve it’s self-enhancement.

Self-authenticity

Besides the people who have a high need to improve themselves by use status-oriented products, there are also people who stick more to who they really are. These

consumers are seen as low enhancing consumers because they are high in self-authenticity (Wood et al. 2008) so they want to be theirselves and do not have the need to create a better impression of theirselves. Consumers who are high in self-authenticity have a high alignment of their actions with the personal values, preferences, beliefs and motivations of which one is aware. Besides, these consumers do not accept external influence and think that it is better to be oneself than to be popular (Morhart et al. 2015). People who are high in self-authenticity are highly aware of one’s goals, feelings and self-beliefs and do also behave in according with one’s personal needs, desires and values (Lenton et al. 2013). Since authentic brands also stand for originality and genuineness (Beverland, 2005), it can be expected that when consumers are higher in self-authenticity, they will be more attached to a brand that is authentic. These authentic brands are aligned with the personal values of these consumers, namely to be real and authentic. So based upon this literature, the last two hypotheses are formulated as follows:

H4a: People who are more status oriented will be more attached towards an authentic brand than people who are less status oriented.

H4b: People who are higher in self-authenticity will be more attached towards an authentic brand than people who are lower in self-authenticity.

3. Methodology  

3.1 Participants

In total, 381 respondents started with the survey but only 198 respondents filled in the survey completely. Only these participants were used for the results of this research. To establish the correct amount of participants, 25 participants per condition were needed (Versteegh et al., 2012). This research contains 6 conditions, so at least 175 participants were needed to have valid results. 83% of the participants were women and 17% were men. The ages ranged from 19 to 60. Most respondents had university as highest level of education (30,7% Bachelors, 37,4% Masters). Almost all respondents (91,4%) had a Dutch nationality.

3.2 Research Design

The design of this research consisted of 6 conditions in a between-subjects design: 2 (self-enhancement: status orienting or self-authenticity) x 3 (ad cue: integrity, continuity or no cue). The participants were randomly assigned in a condition.

An experimental setting has been used through expose people to stimuli that were either status orienting or self-authenticity relevant. In this way, consumer’s need for status orienting or self-authenticity should be activated in a situational manner. This way of experimental manipulation refers to the article of Kernis (2003). Respondents were randomly assigned to either a status orienting condition, where (s)he will be exposed to a situation that triggers status orienting, or to a authenticity condition where (s)he will be exposed to a situation that triggers self-authenticity.

Subsequently, the respondents were exposed to an advertisement of a fictive ice cream brand “Icelicious”. For this research, a fictional brand has been chosen because in this way respondents were not primed with existing judgments about the brand. So by using a fictional brand, the knowledge of the respondents about the brand will be equal, which will give more reliable results. The stimulus material of the fictional brand (see Appendix) was designed by using a picture of an unknown ice cream container from the internet. By using Photoshop, an advertisement - including either continuity cue or integrity cue - of this fictive brand was made. The control condition consisted of no authentic cue. The designed continuity and integrity cue

were based upon the previous advertisements of a similar ice cream brand “Ben & Jerry’s” (Benjerry.nl) and in combination with the research of Morhart et al. (2015). Hypotheses 2a and 2b will check if these cues were indeed perceived as authentic cues.

3.3 The procedure

The data for this research were collected during week 17 and week 18 in the year of 2017. Respondents were approached in different ways. Via the internet people were contacted through open messages and personal messages via Facebook and e-mail. A certain age group was not targeted because otherwise the results are not generalizable. The survey was conducted in Qualtrics. In the introduction, it is explained that this is a research from the University of Amsterdam (Business and Economics faculty) and that this research was interested in advertisements of brands. Also the respondent was told that the survey does not take longer than 5 minutes and that (s)he will be asked to fill in certain questions and statements about the advertisement and the personality of the respondent. Herewith, it was stated that the answers would be processed completely anonymous and would be used for research purposes only.

First, the respondents were divided in either the status orienting condition or in the self-authenticity condition to measure whether the assigned condition triggers and could activate either status orienting or self-authenticity feelings. If the respondent was assigned to the status orienting condition, (s)he was told that (s)he had to imagine that (s)he is in the supermarket because of (s)he is hosting an important birthday dinner and that all of his/her friends and family will be there. The respondent had to imagine that (s)he will serve ice cream as dessert. After this, the respondent was exposed to the stimulus material, namely the advertisement of the fictive ice cream brand ‘Icelicious’ with either an integrity cue or continuity cue or no authentic cue placed in the advertisement. If the respondent was assigned to the self-authenticity condition, (s)he was told that (s)he had to imagine that (s)he is in the supermarket because (s)he will be watching movies on his/her own and that (s)he has decided to eat ice cream during the movie. Also in this condition, the respondent was exposed to an advertisement of the fictive ice cream brand ‘Icelicious’ with either the integrity cue, continuity cue or no authentic cue.

After seeing the advertisement of this brand, the respondent was asked to answer certain statements based on a 7 point Likert scale. First, the degree of

perceived brand authenticity was measured after which the degree of brand attachment was measured. Then, certain traits of the respondents were measured: the degree of self-authenticity, the need for status consumption and the degree of marketing skepticism. Lastly, certain demographic questions were asked, like the gender, age, country of birth and education level.

3.4 Operationalization measuring instruments

Perceived brand authenticity. This variable was measured by the Perceived Brand Authenticity Scale of Napoli et al. (2014) by using 15 items. One example of an item is “The brand reflects a timeless design”. The respondent could indicate to what extent (s)he agrees with the statement based on a 7 point Likert scale.

Brand attachment. The degree in which someone has a high affection, passion or connection with the brand is measured by the scale of Park et al. (2010). The scale consists of 10 items. An example of a question is “To what extent is Ben & Jerry’s part of you and who you are?”. The respondent could answer the questions based on a 7 point Likert scale.

Status orienting. The extent to whether someone has a strong need for status consumption was measured by the Status Consumption Scale of Eastman, Goldsmith and Flynn (1999). The scale consists of 5 statements. An example is “I would buy a product just because it has status”. The respondent could indicate to what extent (s)he agrees with the statement based on a 7 point Likert scale.

Self-authenticity. The extent to whether someone is highly self-authentic was measured by the Self-authenticity Scale of Wood et al. (2008). The scale consists of 4 items. An example of an item is “I think it is better to be yourself, than to be popular”. Marketing skepticism. The degree of marketing skepticism is measured by the scale of Gaski and Etzel (1986) . The scale consists of 9 statements. An example of a statement is “I believe advertising is informative”. The respondent could indicate to what extent (s)he agrees with the statements based on a 7 point Likert scale.

4.  Results  

4.1 Reliability analysis

The Perceived Brand Authenticity scale has high reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha = .913. The corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (all above .30). When deleting the item ‘The brand reflects a timeless design’ the Cronbach’s Alpha increases with .002. I decided to not delete this item because it is a very small increase (less than <.10) so the impact will not affect the reliability of the scale that much.

The Brand Attachment scale has high reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha = .925. The corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (all above .30). Also, none of the items would substantially affect reliability if they were deleted.

The Self-authenticity scale has high reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha = .801. The corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (all above .30). Also, none of the items would substantially affect reliability if they were deleted.

The Status-orienting scale has high reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha = .800. The corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (all above .30). When deleting the items ‘A product is more valuable to me if it has some snob appeal’ and ‘The status of a product is irrelevant to me’ the Cronbach’s Alpha increase with .006 and .002. This increase is less than .10, so I decided to not delete these two items.

The Marketing Skepticism scale has high reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha = .921. The corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (all above .30). Also, none of the items would substantially affect reliability if they were deleted.

4.2 Factor analysis

According to the literature review in this research, it is predicted that self-enhancement could have two sides. A person could be low in self-self-enhancement because of self-authenticity or a person could be high in self-enhancement because of high need for status orienting. Therefore, a principal component analysis (PCA) was

conducted on the scales of Self-Authenticity and Status Orienting to examine whether these two variables were seen as different components. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .828. Bartlett’s test of sphericity, χ2 (36) = 624,890, p < .001, indicated that correlations between items were sufficiently large for PCA. An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. Two components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 60,08% of the variance. In agreement with Kaiser’s criterion, examination of the scree plot revealed a leveling off after the second factor. Thus, two factors were retained and rotated with an Oblimin with Kaiser normalization rotation. Table 1 shows the factor loadings after rotation. The items that cluster on the same factors suggest that factor 1 represents status orienting, and factor 2 self-authenticity.

Table 1. Factor loadings

Item

Rotated Factor Loadings Status orienting Self-authenticity I think it is better to be yourself, than to be

popular

-.07 .70

I always stand by what I believe in -.10 .79 I am true to myself in most situations .10 .81 I live in accordance with my values and beliefs .04 .83 I would buy a product just because it has status .78 -.01 I am interested in new products with status .80 -.08 I would pay more for a product if it had status .82 -.11 A product is more valuable to me if it has some

snob appeal

.43 -.32

The status of a product is irrelevant to me .73 .18

Eigenvalues 3.77 1.64

4.3 Correlation Matrix

The correlation matrix (see table 2) shows several significant correlations. Marketing skepticism had a significant correlation with age (r = .26, p < .001), brand authenticity (r = -.30, p < .001), brand attachment (r = -.35, p < .001), self-authenticity (r = .23, p = .001) and status orienting (r = -.30, p < .001). Further, status orienting is negatively correlated with age (r = -.29, p < .001), positively correlated with brand attachment (r = .18, p = .01) and negatively correlated with self-authenticity (r = -.41, p < .001). Furthermore, perceived brand authenticity and brand attachment are highly positively correlated (r = .44 p < .001), where self-authenticity and brand attachment were correlated negatively (r = -.17, p = .02). Table 2. Correlation Matrix

** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).

4.4 Manipulation check

Status orienting. To check if the respondents were triggered by the manipulation, a factorial ANOVA was performed to investigate whether people in the status orienting condition scored higher on the status orienting statements than people who are in the self-authenticity (see table 3). Unfortunately, the outcome of the factorial ANOVA showed a non-significant effect, so the experimental manipulation did not succeed, F(1, 194) = 1.26, p > .05.

The results showed that people in the status orienting condition are slightly higher in status orienting (M = 3.80, SD = 1.03) than people in the self-authenticity condition (M = 3.55, SD = 1.17) after exposure to an advertisement with an authentic cue. When people were exposed to an advertisement without an authentic cue, people were slightly higher in status orienting in the status orienting condition (M = 3.60, SD = 1.11) than in the self-authenticity condition (M = 3.56, SD = 1.15). The Levene’s Test showed a non-significant result, which means that the variances in the groups are not equal. However, the ANOVA showed non significant effects of authentic cue F(1, 194) = .92, p > .05 and status orienting, F(1, 194) = 1.26, p > .05.  

Self-authenticity. To check if the respondents were triggered by the manipulation, a factorial ANOVA was performed to investigate whether people in the self-authenticity condition scored higher on the self-authenticity statements (see table 3) than people who are in the status orienting condition. Unfortunately, the outcome of the factorial ANOVA showed a non-significant effect, so the experimental manipulation did not succeed.

The results showed that people in the self-authenticity condition are slightly higher in self-authenticity (M = 5.84, SD = .74) than people in the status-oriented condition (M = 5.80, SD = 1.10) after exposing to an advertisement with an authentic cue. When people were exposed to an advertisement without an authentic cue, people were higher in self-authenticity in the self-authenticy condition (M = 5.77, SD = .63) than in the status orienting condition (M = 5.64, SD = .81). The Levene’s Test showed a non-significant result, which means that the variances in the groups are not equal. However, the ANOVA showed non significant effects of authentic cue F(1, 194) = .44, p > .05 and self-authenticity, F(1, 194) = .88, p > .05.

So unfortunately the experimental manipulation in this study failed. This research is unable to show that when someone is triggered with status

oriented/self-authentic) situations, (s)he will also show stronger status oriented/self-authentic feelings.  

Table  3.  Overview  of  means  in  Experimental  Conditions    

Self-authenticity condition Status orienting condition

Authentic cue No cue Authentic cue No cue

(69) (26) (66) (37) Self-authenticity 5.84 5.77 5.80 5.64 Status orienting 3.55 3.56 3.80 3.60   4.5 Hypotheses

To test the hypotheses, separate analyses were conducted due to the conceptual model. By doing so, the likelihood of (falsely) confirming a hypothesis will increase when testing the significance of a hypothesis at a α = 0.05 level. To correct for this problem of multiple comparisons, the Bonferroni correction is applied (Cheverud, 2001). Since 6 analyses were performed, the hypotheses were tested at a significance level of α = 0.008.

4.5.1 Brand authenticity and brand attachment

Hypothesis 1 predicted that the higher a brand is perceived as authentic, the higher the brand attachment. A simple linear regression was performed to investigate the influence of brand authenticity on brand attachment. The model was statistically significant, F (1, 196) = 47.735; p < .001 and explained 19,6% of variance in brand attachment. Participants’ predicted brand attachment increased 0.64 when the perceived brand authenticity increased with one. The regression shows that when people perceived a brand as authentic, they are more attached towards this brand (β =

.44, p < .001). In other words, if brand authenticity increases for one, their attachment towards the brand will increase for 0.44. This means that hypothesis 1 is confirmed. 4.5.2. Authentic cues and brand authenticity

Hypothesis 2a predicted that exposure to an integrity cue of a brand will lead to higher brand authenticity than no exposure to an authentic cue. Additionally, hypothesis 2b predicted that exposure to a continuity cue will lead to higher brand authenticity than no exposure to an authentic cue. A one-way ANOVA was performed with authentic cue as independent variable and brand authenticity as dependent variable (see table 4). The ANOVA showed that there was a statistically significant effect of authentic cues on perceived brand authenticity, F(2,195) = 6.59, p < .05. Tukey post-hoc tests revealed that the perceived brand authenticity was significantly higher in the integrity group (M = 4.65, SD = .94) compared to the control group with no authentic cue (M = 4.17, SD = .86), p = .006. This means that when a consumer is exposed to an integrity cue of a brand, this brand will be perceived as more authentic than when the consumer was not exposed to an authentic cue. Hypothesis 2a can be confirmed.

Also the Tukey post-hoc test revealed that the perceived brand authenticity was significantly higher in the continuity group (M = 4.66, SD = .81) compared to the control group with no authentic cue (M = 4.17, SD = .86), p = .005. This means that when a consumer is exposed to a continuity cue of a brand, this brand will be perceived as more authentic than when the consumer was not exposed to the continuity cue. Also hypothesis 2b is confirmed.

Table 4. One-way ANOVA: authentic cue as independent variable and Brand Authenticity as dependent variable.

SS DF MS F Sig.

Authentic cue 10.10 2 5.05 6.59 0.00

Error 149.36 195 0.77

Table 5. Descriptive  statistics  of  differences  between  groups  regarding  Perceived   brand  authenticity  

Authentic cue Mean SD N

Integrity cue 4.65 .94 66

Continuity cue 4.66 .81 69

No cue 4.17 .86 63

Total 4.50 .90 198

4.5.3. Marketing skepticism

Hypothesis 3a predicted that marketing skepticism would weaken the relationship between authentic cues (integrity and continuity cues) and brand authenticity. A regression (Hayes PROCESS) was conducted with authentic cues (integrity cue and continuity cue) as independent variable, perceived brand authenticity as dependent variable and marketing skepticism as moderator. The model showed a non-significant interaction effect, t (198) = -.92, p > .05. However, marketing skepticism seemed to have a significant negative relationship with brand authenticity, t (198) = -.4.13, p < .001. The regression coefficient for marketing skepticism is -0.26. This means that when marketing skepticism increases for one, brand authenticity decreases with 0.26. In other words, if people are higher in marketing skepticism, they will perceive the brand less as authentic. For this reason, hypothesis 3a can be partly supported.

Table 6. Multiple regression (Hayes PROCESS): Authentic cues and Marketing Skepticism as independent variable and Brand Authenticity as dependent variable.

Coefficient SE t p Intercept 4.51 .06 74.933 .00 Authentic cues .21 .06 3.53 .00 Marketing skepticism -.26 .06 -4.13 .00 Authentic cues*Marketing skepticism .06 .06 .92 .36 R2=.148 , p < .001 F(3,194) = 10.272

Hypothesis 3b predicted that Millennials have a higher tendency toward disbelief of advertising (marketing skepticism) than other age groups. Since the age of the respondents varied between 19 and 60 years, two age groups were conducted. A One-way ANOVA was performed to investigate whether there was a difference between Millennials (age 19-40) and the other age group (age 41 – 60) on marketing skepticism (see table 7 and 8). The ANOVA showed a significant difference between age groups on the degree of marketing skepticism, F(1, 196) = 6.83, p < .05. Millennials seem to be lower in marketing skepticism (M = 5.38, SD = 1.10) than the other age group (M = 6.04, SD = .82). This means that older people have a higher tendency towards disbelief of advertising than the younger group, in this case Millennials. This means hypothesis 3b is not confirmed.

Table 7. One-way ANOVA: Age as independent variable and Marketing Skepticism as dependent variable. SS DF MS F Sig. Age 8.04 1 8.04 6.83 0.01 Error 230.73 196 1.18 Total 238.77 197      

Table  8.  Descriptive  statistics  of  differences  between  groups  regarding  Marketing   skepticism   Age Mean SD N Millennials (19- 40) 5.28 1.10 183 Older people (41 – 60) 6.04 .82 15   4.5.4.  Self-­‐enhancement  

Status orienting. Hypothesis 4a predicted that status orienting would strengthen the relationship between brand authenticity and brand attachment (moderator variable). A regression analyses with Hayes PROCESS was performed and showed a non-significant moderation effect, t (198) = 1.57, p > .05 (see table 8), This means that the attachment towards an authentic brand will not be strengthen when someone is high in status orienting. Hypothesis 4a is not confirmed.

Table 9. Multiple regression (Hayes PROCESS): Brand Authenticity and Status Orienting as independent variable and Brand Attachment as dependent variable.

Coefficient SE t p Intercept 2.55 .08 30.73 .00 Brand authenticity .56 .07 7.60 .00 Status-orienting .19 .08 2.25 .03 Brand authenticity * Status-orienting .06 .06 1.57 .12 R2=.221 , p < .001 F(3,194) = 23.091

Self-authenticity. Hypothesis 4b predicted that self-authenticity would strengthen the relationship between brand authenticity and brand attachment (moderator variable). A regression analyses with Hayes PROCESS was performed and showed a non-significant moderation effect, t (198) = -.73, p > .05 (see table 9). This means that the attachment towards an authentic brand will not be strengthen when someone is high in self-authenticity. Hypothesis 4b is not confirmed.

Table 10. Multiple regression (Hayes PROCESS): Brand Authenticity and Self-Authenticity as independent variable and Brand Attachment as dependent variable.

Coefficient SE t p Intercept 2.56 .08 31.20 .00 Brand authenticity .66 .08 7.84 .00 Self-authenticity -.38 .15 -2.59 .01 Brand authenticity * Self-authenticity -.10 .13 -.73 .47 R2=.234 , p < .001 F(3,194) = 23.762

Table 11. Overview of hypotheses and findings

Hypothesis Findings

H1. The higher the perceived authenticity of a brand, the more a

consumer is attached to this brand Supported

H2a. Exposure to integrity cues of the brand will lead to higher perceived authenticity than exposure to no authentic cue

Supported H2b. Exposure to continuity cues of the brand will lead to

higher perceived authenticity than no authentic cue

Supported H3a. Exposure to authentic cues of the brand will lead to lower

perceived authenticity when marketing skepticism is higher

Partly supported H3b. Millennials have a higher tendency toward disbelief of

advertising (marketing skepticism) than other age groups

Not supported H4a. People who are more status oriented will be more attached

towards an authentic brand than people who are less status oriented.

Not supported

H4b. People who are higher in self-authenticity will be more attached towards an authentic brand than people who are lower in self-authenticity

Not supported

5.  Discussion  

The purpose of this study was to get more insight in what kind of consumers seek authenticity in brands. Previous research about brand authenticity consisted mainly of one consumer characteristic. Therefore, current research examined the role of more consumer characteristics and the influence of age. This research examined if previous found relationships between brand authenticity and brand attachment will still hold while adding several consumer characteristics. First, this research investigated whether the exposure of authentic cues has an impact on the perceived authenticity of that brand and to what extent this effect could be moderated by marketing skepticism. Furthermore, this research looked at which age groups are more likely to be skeptical towards these advertisement cues. Lastly, the influence of self-enhancement (self-authenticity and status-orienting) on the relationship between brand (self-authenticity and brand attachment was examined. An experiment was designed to check if these effects were stronger in a situation that triggers the need for status orienting or the feelings of self-authenticity condition.

5.1 Hypotheses

To test the hypotheses, several different analyses were performed. The collected data made it possible to partly confirm the hypothetic model that was designed in the Literature review. Hypothesis 1, 2a and 2b can be confirmed, whereas the other hypotheses cannot.

Consistent with the first hypothesis (H1) the result showed that brand authenticity has a positive influence on brand attachment. Therefore, we can conclude that when someone perceives a brand as authentic, he/she is also more attached towards this brand. This finding is consistent with previous research of Assiouras et al. (2015) and Hüsken and Henkel (2016) that also showed that brand authenticity has a positive influence on brand attachment. So when consumers perceive a brand as authentic, they are more committed toward this brand as well as feeling connection, passion or affection towards this brand (Thomson, MacInnis & Park, 2005). The theoretical implication of this research in combination with the research of Assiouras et al. (2015), Hüsken & Henkel (2016) and Thomson, MacInnis & Park (2005) is that when people are exposed towards an authentic brand, they will have strong positive feelings and connections towards this brand.

It is found that consistent with hypothesis 2a, exposure to integrity cues of the brand leads to higher perceived authenticity than no exposure to an authentic cue. This finding is consistent with Grazian (2003) who stated that consumers use a range of cues to evaluate the authenticity of an object or brand. Morhart et al. (2015) also stated in their research that the integrity dimension emphasizes the brand’s intentions and the values it communicates as well as the moral purity and responsibility of the brand and therefore reflects the authenticity in a brand. The theoretical implication of this research in combination with the research of Grazian (2003) and Morhart et al. (2015) is that when consumers are exposed to an integrity cue of a brand, the consumer will perceive this brand as authentic.

In line with hypotheses 2b, there is found that when consumers are exposed to a continuity cue of a brand, they will perceive the brand as more authentic. This finding is consistent with Grazian (2003) who stated that consumers use different cues to evaluate the authenticity of an object or brand. In addition, Morhart et al. (2015) found that the continuity cue has a positive relationship with brand authenticity. So when people see a continuity cue of a brand, people will evaluate this brand as authentic. The theoretical implication of this research in combination with the research of Grazian (2003) and Morhart et al. (2015) is that when consumers are exposed to a cue that reflects the brand’s timelessness, historicity and ability to transcend trends, these consumers will perceive this brand as more authentic.

In contrast to what was expected, hypothesis 3a cannot entirely be supported. The results showed that het level of marketing skepticism does not affect the effect of exposure to authentic cues on perceived brand authenticity. This result is contradictory with the findings of Campbell and Kirmani (2000) who showed that consumers who are highly skeptical are more aware of the fact that marketing communications of a brand are meant to be persuasive, so they develop persuasion knowledge. Therefore they respond less positive to marketing communication. The results of this finding are also in contrast with Szykman et al. (1997) who found that marketing skepticism could affect consumer’s purchase decisions. So we can assume that independently of consumer’s level of marketing skepticism, exposure of authentic cues will lead to perceive a brand as authentic. A reason for this non-found moderator effect could be the direct relationship of marketing skepticism on perceived brand authenticity that was found. So the consumer characteristic ‘marketing skepticism’ does seem to influence the perceived authenticity of a brand negatively. Thus when

consumers marketing skepticism is higher, the perceived brand authenticity will get lower. In this research, the authentic cues in combination with marketing skepticism did not have an effect on perceived brand authenticity, but when taking these variables separately they do have an impact on perceived brand authenticity. A theoretical explanation for this no confirmed moderator effect of marketing skepticism could be that according to Morhart et al. (2015), highly skeptical consumers are more suspicious about communication content that is difficult to verify (integrity cues for example) as opposed to easily verifiable content (continuity cues). In this research, the authentic cues were combined for testing this hypothesis. Further research could examine this possible moderation effect of the influence of different authentic cues separately on brand authenticity. Another alternative explanation could be that even though people were skeptical towards marketing in general, they are not skeptical towards authentic cues in an advertisement such as the historicity of a brand.

Hypothesis 3b predicted that Millennials are more likely to be skeptical towards marketing communications. The results found no confirmation for this prediction. So it could not be concluded that Millennials are higher in marketing skepticism and therefore possibly perceive a brand as less authentic. In contrast to what was expected, older people (41 years and older) appeared to be higher in marketing skepticism than Millennials. This result is in contrast with the research of Upshaw (2007) and Moore (2012) that found that due to the high technological knowledge of Millennials they would be more skeptical towards marketing communications. An explanation of this no confirmed hypothesis could be that the degree of skepticism towards advertisements grows with ages (Boush, Friestad & Rose, 1994). Further research could examine this more deeply. A reason for the fact that older people are more skeptical towards marketing could be that older people have more experience with brands and their advertisement and therefore are more skeptical to what brands communicate.

Contrary to what was predicted, hypothesis 4a was also unable to be confirmed. It is predicted that status orienting could be a moderator on the relationship between brand authenticity and brand attachment. So it could not be concluded that people who are high in status orienting will be more attached towards an authentic brand. This finding is in contrast with the research of Heath and Scott (1998) who found that consumers buy products and brands they believe to possess symbolic images that could be complementary to achieve self-image. In addition,

O’cass and Frost (2002) stated that consumers use brands to enhance their status. An alternative explanation for the non-found significant moderation effect of status orienting could be that respondents in this research were in general not high in status orienting. In this way, the respondents were not more attached towards authentic brands than towards non-authentic brands. According to the positive correlation between status orienting and brand attachment, it may also be that people who have a high need for status orienting are not susceptible to authentic brands but are more susceptible towards other elements in a brand. Further research could examine what drives people with high need for status orienting to be attached towards brands.

Lastly, the results could not support hypothesis 4b. H4b predicted that people who are higher in self-authenticity would be more attached towards an authentic brand than people who are lower in self-authenticity. So it can not be concluded that when people have a high alignment of their actions with personal values, beliefs and motivations they will have a strong connection and passion with an authentic brand. This finding is in contrast with Lenton et al. (2013) who found that people who are high in self-authenticity are highly aware of one’s goals, feelings and self-beliefs and also behave in according with one’s personal needs. Beverland (2005) stated that authentic brands stand for originality and genuineness. Therefore, consumers who are high in self-authenticity seemed to be more susceptible for authentic brands. A reason for this could be that people who are high in self-authenticity will not necessarily feel attached towards authentic brands just because the brand is authentic but more if the brand is in line with one’s personal values.

5.2 Theoretical contributions

This research provides several theoretical contributions. First of all, this research showed that when consumers are exposed to an authentic brand, they have a stronger need for authenticity in brands since it leads to higher brand attachment. So this research can reconfirm the research of Assiouras et al. (2015) and Hüsken and Henkel (2016) that already found that brand authenticity has a positive influence on brand attachment. Further, it is found that when consumers are exposed to an authentic cue in an advertisement (containing integrity cues or continuity cues), they would perceive this brand as more authentic. This finding contributes to the research of Morhart et al. (2015) who shows that integrity or continuity dimensions of a brand reflect the authenticity of a brand. Lastly, this research contributes to the research of

Campbell and Kirmani (2000) since it was found that consumers who are more skeptical towards advertisements perceive a brand as less authentic. In this way, current research can reaffirm several previous found relationships with brand authenticity. Further, the research showed that the need for status products has a positive relationship with attachment towards brands. This contributes to the research of Phau and Cheong (2009) who showed that status oriented consumers show more brand loyalty. In this way, current research has found that these consumers feel also more attachment towards brands.

Unfortunately, the research showed that consumers who have a higher need for status orienting or who are more self-authentic did not feel more attachment towards authentic brands as was predicted based upon the research of O’cass and Frost (2002) and Morhart et al. (2015). Also, this research showed conflicting results since older people where higher in marketing skepticism instead of Millennials (Moore, 2012; Upshaw, 2007).

5.3 Practical implications

For marketing managers it is important to know what kind of consumers seek authenticity in brands and for what kind of reasons. In this research it is found that when consumers perceive a brand as authentic, they have a stronger connection and passion with this brand. So when brands make sure that consumers perceive the brand as authentic, the brand-consumer relation will be strengthen. Marketing managers can do so by placing authentic cues in their marketing communication, like continuity cues and/or integrity cues. For example, a marketing manager could emphasize the timelessness and historicity of the brand while designing a poster that will be placed in stores or in the city. Or a brand could emphasize their values and moral purity and responsibility. When consumers are exposed to these authentic cues, they will feel more attachment towards the brand. This will be very important for marketing managers since previous research showed that this effect of authenticity leads to profitable marketing outcomes (Park et al., 2010).

Also, it is found that the level of marketing skepticism does not has an effect on the perceived brand authenticity after exposure to an authentic cue of the brand, but marketing skepticism does have a (direct) negative influence on perceived brand authenticity. So it is important to know what kind of consumers are more susceptible to marketing skepticism and therefore perceive a brand as less authentic. The results