Are you what you ‘like’ on Facebook?
A research into the effects of online brand endorsements on the consumer’s self-perception
Name: Simone Lentjes Student ID: 10000881 University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication Master Thesis Persuasive Communication Supervisor: Stefan Bernritter
Abstract
A consumer will interact with a large amount of brands on a daily basis and these interactions do not leave the consumer unaffected. Brands have been shown to possess a ‘transfer effect’, indicating that a consumer will see himself more in line with the personality trait of the brand after an interaction. However, this transfer effect is yet to be investigated in the context of online consumer-brand interactions. This research attempts to get a lay of the land of this transfer effect by investigating how the consumer’s self-perception is affected after engaging in online brand endorsements, i.e. ‘liking’ a brand’s Facebook page, and how this effect relates to consumer behavior. The results yielded no evidence that a transfer effect exists after a brand is endorsed online. Subsequently, no evidence was found that could imply that the effect online endorsement has on the consumer’s attitude towards the brand is mediated by the consumer’s self-perception. However, the results did indicate that the endorsement of a brand online can affect the consumer’s attitude towards that brand. The findings suggest that either a transfer effect does not occur in an online setting or that it comes about differently compared to the transfer effect in offline settings. Either way, marketers are advised to incorporate knowledge about the consequences of online brand endorsements into their marketing strategies.
Keywords: Online brand endorsement, brand personality, transfer effect, self-perception, Facebook
3 Table of contents
Abstract 2
Introduction 5
Theoretical Background 7
Online Brand Endorsement & Brand Personality 7
The Transfer Effect & Consumer’s Self-Perception 9
A Brand’s Desirability 12
Regulatory focus 16
Self-Image Congruence 19
Method 21
Design and Participants 21
Online brand endorsement 21
Regulatory focus 22
Stimuli & pretest 22
Procedure 23
Measures 24
Consumer’s self-perception 24
Brand attitude 25
Results 25
Conclusion & Discussion 26
Conclusion 26
Discussion 27
Limitations 28
Future research 29
References 31
Appendix A 38
UltraSound sincere condition 38
UltraSound insincere condition 39
Sincerity measurements 40
Appendix B 41
Shift in self-perception 41
Brand attitude. 41
Appendix C 42
UltraSound sincere condition 42
5 Introduction
Nowadays, brands have become a part of the consumer’s everyday life. This
relationship and interaction between consumer and brand has been the subject of a substantial amount of research. One of their main interests has been why people use certain brands (Belk, 1988) and what this entails for both the consumer and the brand. For example, it has been demonstrated that an interaction with a brand can affect the level of trust the consumer has towards that brand (Sung & Kim, 2010). More importantly, a recent stream of research suggests that a consumer-brand interaction can not only affect how the brand is perceived by the consumer, but also how the consumer perceives himself (Fennis, Pruyn & Maasland, 2005). Park and John (2010)’s study demonstrate that a brand is capable of ‘rubbing off’ its brand personality onto the consumer and subsequently influencing how the consumers sees himself, inherently establishing the existence of a ‘transfer effect’.
However, previous research has left some questions about the workings of a brand’s transfer effect unanswered. Firstly, previous research has exclusively focused on interactions between consumers and brands that occur in an offline and real-world setting. For example, by exposing participants to tangible objects and brands, such as soft drinks and magazines (Fennis et al., 2005). Secondly, these previous researches have not indicated how this change in the consumer’s self-perception translates into consumer behavior. Lastly, the transfer effect has only been established for brands with a positive brand personality (Fennis et al., 2005; Park & John, 2010). Thus, a comprehensive understanding of the transfer effect and its effect on consumer behavior is yet to be established. So despite prior observations of a brand’s transfer effect, it remains unclear whether this transfer effect also occurs after the consumer engages with a brand in an online setting and how this transfer effect could ultimately affect consumer behavior. Consequently, the idea that a brand can transfer its
brand personality onto the consumer needs to be examined in more detail in order to gather a complete understanding of this transfer effect.
This research aspires to extend the existing knowledge about a brand’s transfer effect by investigating it in an online setting and by including both positively and negatively perceived brands. This research also hopes to extend existing knowledge by relating a brand’s transfer effect to consumer behavior. More specifically, this research focuses on consumers’ online endorsement of brands as its consumer-brand interaction. Endorsing a brand online is a relatively new way in which a consumer can interact and engage with brands on social media (Kabadayi & Price, 2014). The consumer that engages in online brand endorsements publicly links himself to a certain brand (Bernritter, Verlegh & Smit, 2016). For example, ‘re-tweeting’ a message on Twitter or ‘liking’ a brand’s page on Facebook are considered online brand endorsements. To illustrate the extensiveness of this new behavior: Coca Cola has gathered over 97 million ‘likes’ on Facebook as of May 2016 (Statista, 2016).
A brand’s transfer brand is inherently linked to the notion of brands having a personality. Researches have often investigated the role of a brand’s personality in the context of self-expression (Aaker, 1997; Chernev, Hamilton & Gal, 2011; Escalas &
Bettman, 2005). Moreover, it seems that this self-expressive nature and symbolism of a brand also plays an important role in these online brand endorsements (Bernritter et al, 2016;
Wallace, Buil, de Chernatony & Hogan, 2014). Consumers tend to endorse brands on social media with the goal of expressing a part of themselves (Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012). This type of brand use is also referred to as symbolic consumption (Ekinci, Sirakaya-Turk & Preciado, 2013) and is facilitated by the notion that brands have a brand personality (Aaker, 1997). However, these researches mainly focus on positively perceived brands, leaving a one-sided understanding into the workings of brands and their brand personalities (Bosnjak & Brand, 2008; Bosnjak & Rudolph, 2008)
7 In short, this research aims at investigating whether endorsing a brand online affects how the consumer sees himself and how does this translate into consumer behavior. This effect is researched for both positively and negatively perceived brands as this research.
Theoretical Background Online Brand Endorsement & Brand Personality
This research defines consumer’s online brand endorsements as “the behavior that affiliates consumers with brands in ways that are public, positive and perceived by others” (Bernritter et al., 2012, p. 28). Online behaviors such as re-tweeting a message on Twitter, sharing branded content or liking a brand’s page on Facebook are all considered online brand endorsements, because these behaviors can be seen by people in the consumer’s online network. In this research, online brand endorsement is conceptualized as the act of liking a brand page on Facebook. On Facebook, these endorsements can be seen by the consumer’s ‘friends’ in multiple ways, e.g. in a friend’s newsfeed or on the consumer’s timeline, thus making them public and perceivable by others (Bernritter et al., 2012).
Online brand endorsements are becoming increasingly more prominent in marketing strategies, because it offers new ways for consumers to interact with brands (Kabadayi & Price, 2014). Not only do these endorsements result in new types of interactions, but they are also positively related to the spreading of word-of-mouth (Wallace, Buil & de Chernatony, 2014). In other words, marketers can sidestep any resistance the consumer’s social network may have to persuasive attempts by letting the consumer speak for them through online brand endorsements (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2004). This makes the obtainment of online brand
endorsement a very attractive strategy for marketers.
The concept of online brand endorsement is relatively new and therefore literature about its antecedents and consequences are scarce (Kabaday & Price, 2014). However,
to signal or express one’s identity (Bernritter et al., 2016; Wallace, Buil, de Chernatony & Hogan, 2014). Hollenbeck and Kaikati (2012) demonstrate that consumers endorse brands to construct and manage their identities on Facebook. Not only can online brand endorsements be used to represent who you are, but also who you would like to be (Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012). This motivation is further supported by Wallace, Buil, de Chernatony, & Hogan, (2014)’s study which demonstrated that a large group of people that engage in online brand endorsements are considered ‘self-expressives’ and thus use online brand endorsements to represent their identities. In other words, one of the main reasons consumers engage in online brand endorsements is the desire to express their identities on social media.
But why use brands to express your identity? In the context of online brand endorsement and self-expression, brands are valued for what they represent, i.e. their symbolic and added value. Consuming and using brands as a way to maintain and enhance part of your identity is also referred to as symbolic consumption (Ekinci, Sirakaya-Turk & Preciado, 2013). Consumers are thus able to represent an image they desire (Cătălin & Andreea, 2014) or represent themselves through their brand choices (Escalas & Bettman, 2003). This self-expressive benefit of brands is facilitated by the fact that consumers attribute human-like characteristics and associations to a brand, which leads to the idea that a brand has a brand personality (Aaker, 1997). For example, Nike is considered to be athletic while Apple is considered to be young and exciting (Aaker, 1996).
Aaker (1997) defines a brand personality as “the set of human characteristics associated with a given brand” (p.347) and can add value to a product beyond its functional and intrinsic benefits (Aaker, 1997; Cătălin & Andreea, 2014). A brand’s personality is a vital component of a brand’s equity, i.e., the added value to a certain product due to the name it carries and its associations (Aaker & Biel, 1993) and is created through a network of associations and the consumer’s perceptions, such as product-category associations and
9 user’s imagery (Aaker, 1997). A brand’s personality can aid in differentiating a brand from its competitors (Keller, 2002) and can elicit favorable brand evaluations (Freling & Forbes, 2005). Moreover, a brand’s personality also contributes to the formation of a meaningful relationship between the consumer and brand (Aaker, 1996; Fournier, 1998), because it enables the consumer’s identification process with a brand (Tuškej, Golob & Podnar, 2013). Not only the formation, but also the nature and strength of the consumer-brand relationship is influenced by a brand’s personality (Aaker, Fournier & Brasel, 2004; Guèvremont &
Grohmann, 2012; Hayes, Capella & Alford, 2000), as well as the consumer’s level of trust and affect towards that brand (Sung & Kim, 2010).
In sum, endorsing a brand online is a new way for consumers to engage with brands and entails the act of linking yourself to a brand in a way that is public, positive and
perceivable by others (Bernritter et al., 2016). One of the main reasons consumers engage in online brand endorsements is to create, manage and maintain their identities on social media (Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012). Therefore, brands operate as a vehicle for self-expression in the context of online brand endorsements, because these brands possess a symbolic value through their brand personality, which is created through a network of characteristics and associations that are perceived by the consumer (Aaker, 1997). Thus, by engaging in online brand endorsements, consumers do not only interact with a brand but also with the brand’ personality.
The Transfer Effect & Consumer’s Self-Perception
As mentioned previously, the meaning, associations and personality traits connected to a brand are shaped through the perceptions of the consumer. These perceptions are created through direct of indirect interactions with the brand, such as user’s imagery, logo, product-category associations (Aaker, 1997). However, a brand and their personalities are not just a
passive ideas or tools for the consumer to express his or her identity, but also active agents in the consumer’s interactions with brands and their personalities.
Consumers’ interactions with, and use of, a brand have been shown to affect the way the consumer sees and feels about himself. For example, a study by Park and John (2014) demonstrates that consumers can increase their self-efficacy, i.e. the belief in one’s own capabilities, through the use of brands that represent better performance. Other studies suggest that the consumer’s usage of certain brands can lower the level of their religiosity (Cutright, Erdem, Fitzsimons & Shachar, 2014) or activate beliefs that increase self-efficacy and how well tasks are performed (Damisch, Stoberock & Mussweiler, 2010) and also decrease one’s sense of authenticity (Gino, Norton & Ariely, 2010). Additionally, not only the way the consumer sees himself can be affected by interactions with brands, but also how the consumer is perceived by others (Fennis and Pruyn, 2007).
More importantly, a recent stream of literature suggests that a brand is capable of transferring its personality trait onto the consumer’s self-perception as a result of the
consumer’s interaction with that brand. This transfer effect, or ‘rub off’ effect, entails that the consumer will see himself more in line with the personality trait of the brand after an
interaction (Park & John, 2010). The study by Fennis et al. (2005) supports the existence of a transfer effect by demonstrating that an exposure to a sincere brand causes the consumer to rate himself higher in terms of agreeableness, which is the human counterpart of the brand personality of sincerity.
Park and John (2010) further extend the notion of a transfer effect by examining the signaling value of a brand experience. Their study demonstrates that consumers who had an interaction with a brand assimilated themselves to that brand’s personality trait, i.e. seeing themselves more in line with that trait. For example, consumers who used a Victoria’s Secret shopping bag, which is strongly associated with femininity, good-looking and glamor,
11 perceived themselves as being more feminine, glamorous and better looking after a short experience with that brand (Park & John, 2010). In other words, when you are exposed to or interact with a brand, and therefore also its brand personality, it is possible that the brand personality traits will transfer onto your personality and thus changing the way you see yourself with regards to that personality trait.
The main justification for a brand’s transfer capabilities lies within the complexity of the consumer’s identity. Large amounts of research in various academic areas have been dedicated to the subject of identity and therefore it has been conceptualized in numerous manners. However, in this research identity is defined as “any category label to which a consumer self-associates either by choice or endowment” (Reed, Forehand, Puntoni & Warlop, 2012, p. 312). A category label becomes an identity when it becomes central to a consumer’s concept (Reed et al., 2012) and is seen as a part of a multidimensional self-concept (Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012; Oyserman, 2009; Reed et al., 2012). The self-self-concept consists of the total ideas about who one was, is and can become and is thus made up from multiple identities (Reed et al., 2012; Oyserman, 2009).
A brand’s ability to transfer its brand personality onto the consumer’s self-perception is mainly facilitated by the notion that identity is malleable and fluid (Fennis et al., 2005). The malleability of identity implies that an individual’s identity is not a stable or vast construct (Oyserman, 2009), but is heavily influenced by both personality and situational factors (Aaker, 1999). This leads to the notion that parts of the self can be made accessible through a situation which acts as a cue that makes a certain identity more salient or
prominently present in one’s mind, which Markus and Kunda (1986) refer to as ‘the working self-concept’. Subsequently, that salient identity influences how the you see and experience your surroundings and how you will behave (Kirmani, 2009).
When a working self-concept is activated certain associations with that specific identity also become more accessible (Reed et al., 2012). For example, if someone walks into the
university library, which activates their identity of being a university student, then it becomes more likely that he or she thinks about study-related subjects. In the context of brands and their personalities, Fennis et al. (2005) argued that brand personalities can also act as a situational cues and thus activate certain aspects of the self, thus facilitating a brand’s ability to transfer its personality trait onto the consumer’s working self-concept.
This transfer effect has yet to be examined in an online setting, given the fact that the aforementioned studies by Fennis et al. (2005) and Park and John (2010) used offline and ‘real-world’ interactions between consumers and brands. However, as demonstrated by Fennis et al. (2005), being exposure to a brand and its brand personality can be enough for a brand to transfer its brand personality onto the consumer self-perception. Based on the idea that the consumer’s identity is highly susceptible to situational cues (Fennis et al., 2005) and the notion that a brand can act as a situational cue, it is feasible that a transfer effect can occur after a consumer endorses a brand online.
A Brand’s Desirability
In addition to not being investigated in the context of online consumer-brand interaction, the transfer effect has been exclusively researched using positively brand personalities and symbolic values. This bias towards exclusively researching positive brand personalities and associations is enforced by Aaker (1997), who states:
“Primarily positively valences traits were used, because brands are typically linked to positive (versus negative) associations and because the ultimate use of the scale is to determine the extent to which brand personality affects the probability that consumers approach (versus avoid) products”. (p. 350).
13 However, the preference for positive personality traits and brand meanings results in a one-sided understanding of the implications and underlying processes of the consumers’ use of brands for self-expression. After all, brands can be inferred with both positive and negative meanings (Banister & Hogg, 2004). Therefore, this research examines the implications of both positively and negatively perceived brand personalities in the context of online brand endorsements.
Individuals use brands for their symbolic meanings and values (Hogg & Banister, 2004). The added value of a brand is represented by the brand personality of that brand. Symbolic consumption is thus related to the consumer’s self-concept, and ultimately to online brand endorsement, since it helps consumers to express themselves. Additionally, in the context of expression, a distinction can be made between different versions of the self-concept; the actual self (how you see yourself) and the ideal self (how you would like to see yourself) (Bargh, McKenna & Fitzsimons, 2002; Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012; Hosany & Martin, 2012). In other words, the consumer can use brands and their brand personalities to express how they see themselves or how they would like to see themselves.
However, research into the consumption of negative symbolic meaning revealed a new dimension of the consumer’s identity: the undesired self (Banister & Hogg, 2004; Bosnjak & Brand, 2008; Lee, Motion & Conroy, 2009) The undesired self reflects the consumer’s least desired identity and is viewed as the opposite of the ideal self (Bosnjak & Brand, 2008). In other words, the undesired self represents what the consumer does not want to become, which is the opposite of what the ideal self represents (Hosany & Martin, 2012). However, the consumer is internally driven to support and protect his identity (Hogg & Banister, 2001) which in turn will affect the consumers’ behavior (Oyserman & James, 2011).
Research have demonstrated that, in the context of symbolic consumption, consumers have a tendency to approach brands that reflect positive meanings, because these brands aid to support the consumer’s self-concept (Banister & Hogg, 2001; Bosnjak & Rudolph, 2008). These brands can be deemed desirable, because they can reflect the parts of your identity you want to emphasize by the means of symbolic consumption and thus are sought after by the consumer.
In contrast, consumers that engage in the negative symbolic show avoidance behaviors, because consumers do not want to link these undesirable meanings to their self-concept (Banister & Hogg, 2004; Lee et al., 2009). This tendency is supported by the consumer’s motivation to support and protect his self-concept (Banister & Hogg, 2001). Additionally, Kahn & Lee (2014) determined that the more the brand’s symbolic meaning is in line with the undesired self, the greater the avoidance tendency will be. This entails that if a brand’s personality completely represents that what you do not want to become, the more you gravitate towards avoiding and rejecting that brand and what is stands for (Kahn & Lee, 2014). These brands with a perceived negative meaning or brand personality can also be considered to have an undesirable brand personality, because the consumer does not want to link those brands to his self-concept. This research will from this point on refer to negative brand personalities as undesirable brand personalities and positive brand personalities as desirable brand personalities.
But how does this difference in responses (avoidance vs approach) to desirable or undesirable brand personality relate to online brand endorsements and the aforementioned transfer effect of brands? The idea of the transfer effect states that brands have the capability to transfer their brand personality onto the consumer’s self-perception after an interaction (Fennis et al., 2005; Park & John, 2010), because the consumer’s identity is considered to be malleable and susceptible to cues (Fennis et al., 2005; Oyserman, 2009). In other words, the
15 consumer assimilates to the brand’s personality trait, causing him to see himself more in line with that trait.
However, it is argued that the consumer leans towards avoiding brands with
undesirable brand personalities in order to protect his identity (Hogg & Banister, 2001). So one could wonder what this would mean for the transfer effect of brands with undesirable brand personalities. It seems that consumers respond in the opposite direction when faced with desirable or undesirable brand meanings, i.e. approach desirable and avoid undesirable brands (Hogg & Banister, 2001).
Therefore, it is expected that the transfer effect of undesirable brands will also be in contrast to transfer effect of desirable brands. This would mean that instead of seeing yourself more in line with a brand’s personality trait after endorsing that brand online, you would want to avoid and reject the brand’s personality trait. Which will lead to the consumer seeing himself less in line with the endorsed brand. This is supported by the notion that the
consumer is internally motivated to protect his identity (Banister & Hogg, 2004; Lee et al., 2009). Thus, this research proposes two types of transfer effect. The ‘positive’ transfer effect of brands with desirable brand personalities will result in the consumer seeing himself more in line with the personality trait of the endorsed brand. On the contrary, the ‘negative’
transfer effect of brands with undesirable brand personalities will result in the seeing himself less in line with the personality trait of the endorsed brand.
All in all, it is argued that one of the main reasons consumers engage in online brand endorsements is the desire to enhance and maintain their identities (Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012; Wallace, Buil, de Chernatony & Hogan, 2014). Consumers use brands in this manner because brands are inferred with symbolic meaning through their brand personalities (Aaker, 1997; Cătălin & Andreea, 2014). In other words, not only does a consumer interact with a brand when endorsing this brand on Facebook, but also with its brand personality. Moreover,
the assumption is made that a brand is capable of transferring its brand personality onto the consumer’s self-perception (Fennis et al., 2005; Park & John, 2010). However, this transfer effect is expected to differ for brands with undesirable brand personalities due to consumer’s tendency to avoid and reject brands with an undesirable brand personality (Leet et al., 2009). Thus, this research proposes the following hypothesis:
H1: Endorsing a brand on online affects the consumer’s self-perception, where (a) the endorsement of a brand with a desirable brand personality leads to the consumer seeing himself more in line with that personality trait and (b) the endorsement of a brand with an undesirable brand personality leads to the consumer seeing himself less in line with personality trait.
Regulatory Focus
In the context of symbolic consumption and self-expression, consumers are inclined to approach desirable brands and avoid undesirable brands due to their goal of supporting and protecting their identity (Banister & Hogg, 2001). The theory of regulatory focus can shed light on how the consumer can attain this goal. The theory of regulatory focus states that the consumer has two self-regulatory systems that will guide how one will focus his attention to obtain certain outcomes: promotion focus and prevention focus (Werth & Foerster, 2007). Literature suggests that regulatory focus has an influence on various aspects of consumer behavior and psychology, such as shopping behavior (Das, 2015), the activation of
persuasion knowledge (Kirmani & Zhu, 2007), consumer choice (Chernev, 2004), evaluation and behavioral intention (Motyka et al., 2014) and the emotional affects of goal attainment (Higgins, Shah & Friedman,1997).
Individuals with a promotion-focus are motivated to achieve promotion goals, such as aspirations, hopes and the fulfillment of desires (Wang & Lee, 2006; Werth & Foerster, 2007). This makes them susceptible to the presence and absence of positive outcomes (Wang
17 & Lee, 2006). In order to obtain these positive outcomes, the individual is inclined to use an approach strategy ((Förster, Higgins & Idson, 1998). In contrast, individuals with a
prevention-focus strive for goals that fulfill their needs for safety and protection (Wang & Lee, 2006; Werth & Foerster 2007) and are therefore focused on the presence and absence of negative outcomes (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Wang & Lee, 2006;). Prevention-focused people are more inclined to use an avoidance strategy to avoid these negative outcomes, such as an undesired end state (Förster, Higgins & Idson, 1998).
In the context of online brand endorsement, this entails that the avoidance of
undesirable brand personalities is a prevention goal, because adding undesirable meanings to your identity can be viewed as the presence of a negative outcome (Lee et al., 2009). On the contrary, the desire to maintain and enhance one’s identity is perceived as a promotion goal, because it connects one’s identity with desirable brand personalities (Banister & Hogg, 2001: Bosnjak & Rudolph, 2008). Adding desirable meaning to your identity can be viewed as a positive outcome or gain. In other words, a promotion focus fits better with the online endorsement of a desirable brand, because in that situation the consumer’s focus is in line with the goal of enhancing and maintaining his identity. Likewise, a prevention focus matches more with the online endorsement of an undesirable brand personality. The consumer is already inclined to avoid that personality trait in order to protect his identity (Kahn & Lee, 2014). To put it another way, the consumer wants to keep their identity safe. This goal is in line with the safety-orientation prevention-focused individuals have (Werth & Foerster, 2007).
Although an individual can strive for a goal using both strategies, i.e. approach and avoidance (Wang & Lee, 2006), a match between strategy and goal increases the individual’s motivational strength (Idson, Libberman & Higgins, 200). A goal that is focused on positive outcomes will elicit a greater sense of eagerness if the individual striving for that goal has a
promotion focus (Idson et al., 2000), because that approach fits with the goal. This state of eagerness makes the individual more ambitions and eager to achieve his goal. On the contrary, a greater sense of vigilance is achieved when individual with a prevention focus strives a goal focused on avoiding negative outcomes (Idson et al., 2000). In other words, the individual will try to obtain his goal with more caution. In addition, Förster, Higgins & Idson (1998) demonstrates that the motivation to achieve a goal also increases as this goal comes closer to being fulfilled, which they refer to as ‘the goal looms larger effect’.
The endorsement of a brand with a desirable brand personality evokes the goal of maintaining and enhancing one’s identity (Bosnjak & Rudolph, 2008), which is deemed a promotion goal. The brand’s desired meaning can be added to one’s identity and thus making the consumer focus on the presence (or absence) of a positive outcome. Idson et al. (2010) states that a match between one’s goal and the employed strategy will strengthen the motivation to obtain that goal. Therefore, it is expected that the online endorsement of a brand with a desirable brand personality will elicit a larger transfer effect if the consumers are promotion focused than if they prevention focused. In other words, consumers with a
promotion focus will see themselves more in line with the trait of the endorsed brand than consumers with a prevention focus.
The opposite is true for the endorsement of a brand with an undesirable brand
personality, which evokes a goal of protecting one’s identity. Consumers are concerned with a loss of their desired identity if they endorse such a brand (Kahn & Lee, 2014) and are thus focused on the presence (or absence) of a loss. Therefore, this research expects that the consumer’s motivation to avoid undesired meaning after endorsing such a brand online will be stronger for the consumers who are prevention-focused. To rephrase it, prevention-focused consumers will see themselves less in line with the trait of the endorsed brand than the
19 consumers with a promotion focus who endorsed the same brand. All in all, this results in the following hypotheses:
H2: Regulatory focus moderates the transfer effect of the endorsed brand on the consumer’s self-perception, where (a) the effect of online endorsing a brand with a desirable brand personality on the consumer’s self-perception will be greater for consumers with a promotion-focus than for consumers with a prevention-focus and (b) the effect of online endorsing a brand with an undesirable brand personality on the consumer’s self-perception will be greater for consumers with a prevention-focus than for consumers with a promotion-focus.
Self-image Congruence
Your identity and the way you see yourself influences your everyday life, making it an important component in consumer behavior (Reed et al., 2012). Identity affects how information is processed and helps explain why consumers engage in certain behavior (Kirmani, 2009). The consumer’s identity is very susceptible to situational cues (Aaker, 1999) and the exposure to a brand and its brand personality can act as such a cue (Fennis et al., 2005). The importance of the consumer’s identity in consumer behavior is further illustrated by Oyserman (2009)’s identity-based motivation framework, which emphasizes the impact a salient identity has on the way the consumer makes sense of the world and how the consumer will respond to that world or context.
Another important concept related to the consumer’s identity and consumer behavior is self-image congruity theory (Sirgy, Johar, Samli & Claiborne, 1991). Self-image
congruence involves the cognitive match or comparison between the brand’s image and the consumer’s self-concept (Sirgy, 1982; Kressmann et al., 2006). There are different types of self-image congruities due to the fact that the consumer’s self-image itself can vary at times (Aaker, 1999; Sirgy, Grewal & Mangleburg, 2000). For example, ideal self-congruence refers
to the perceived match between a consumer’s ideal self and a brand’s image (Ibrahim & Najjar, 2008).
Online brand endorsement can influence the level of congruity between consumer and brand through the brand’s transfer capabilities. The consumer will see himself more in line with the trait of the endorsed brand if that brand personality is positive and desirable (Fennis et al., 2005; Park & John, 2010). Therefore, the amount of overlap, or match, between the consumer’s self-image and the brand’s image increases. In other words, endorsing a brand with a desirable brand personality leads to a higher level of congruity between the consumer and brand. The opposite is true when a consumer endorses a brand with an undesirable brand personality. This research expects that the consumer sees himself less in line with the trait of the endorsed brand, because of the desire to avoid becoming the undesired version of himself (Kahn & Lee, 2014). By showing resistance towards assimilating to that trait, the distance between the consumer’s self-image and the brand’s image decreases (Sirgy, 1982). This leads to an incongruity, i.e. mismatch, between the two.
More importantly, research indicates that self-image congruence plays an important part in influencing consumer-related outcomes, such as trip experiences (Hosany & Martin, 2012), emotional brand attachment (Malär, Krohmer, Hoyer & Nyffenegger, 2011),
satisfaction (Ekinci & Riley, 2003), brand loyalty (Kressmann et al., 2006) and brand attitude (Aaker, 1999; Bosnjak & Rudolph, 2008). The effect of self-image congruence is further illustrated by Sirgy, Lee & Tidwell (2008): “Consumers are motivated to purchase and repurchase with a user image that is consistent with their ideal self.” (p.1096). Therefore, this research aims at investigating whether the increase and decrease of congruity between the consumer’s self-image and the brand’s image, caused by the transfer effect, affects brand attitude. This is represented in hypothesis 3. This research’s conceptual model is seen in Figure 1, which clarifies how all hypothesis and concepts are expected to relate to each other.
21 H3: Consumers who see themselves more in line with the trait of the endorsed brand have a more positive attitude towards that brand than consumers who see themselves less in line with that trait.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Method Design and Participants
The sample for this study consisted of 95 participants (Mage = 25.22, SD = 6.77, 63.2 % female) that participated in an experiment with a 2 (online brand endorsement: desirable brand personality vs undesirable brand personality) x 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs prevention) between-subjects design. The respondents were randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions. Dependent variables included the consumer’s shift in
self-perception and brand attitude. 190 participants were excluded from the analysis, because they did not complete the experiment, failed the manipulation check or did not meet the
requirement of having a Facebook account.
Online brand endorsement. In order to operationalize the online endorsement of a brand with a brand personality, a fictitious brand was created, because the participants’ familiarity with a brand and its personality could affect the internal validity of this study. The act of endorsing a brand online was operationalized by having the participants ‘like’ this
fictitious brand on Facebook. The brand personality sincerity was selected to serve as the desirable brand personality. This research selected this trait, because it was believed to be well-known and sought after amongst the sample and was thus considered a desirable trait. Its antonym (insincerity) was selected to serve as the undesirable brand personality.
Regulatory focus. Regulatory focus was operationalized by asking the participants to write down either three personal goals or three responsibilities. This manner of
operationalization was based on several researches that used this method to induce either a promotion-focused orientation by writing down three personal goals or a prevention-focused orientation by writing down three personal responsibilities (Higgins, Roney, Crowe & Hymes, 1994; Lee, Keller & Strenthal, 2010; Wang & Lee, 2006). The participants’ written answers were not used for the analysis.
Stimuli & pre-test. A headphones brand called UltraSound was created to embody these two personality traits. In the experiment, two separate Facebook pages were used as stimuli where ‘UltraSound Headphones’ was the sincere version and ‘Ultra-Sound
Headphones’ the insincere version, see Appendix C for screenshots of the Facebook pages. A pre-test was conducted to ensure that UltraSound’s Facebook pages would be perceived as being sincere and insincere respectively. The Facebook pages were not yet created during the time of this pre-test, because the content and look of the pages had to be tested first to establish that these pages did indeed represent a sincere and an insincere brand personality. The Facebook pages for the pre-test were created using Adobe Photoshop. The participants (N = 30) were randomly assigned to either the sincere or the insincere condition. In addition to viewing an image of UltraSound’s Facebook page, a short brand description for each version was added to further create the perception of a brand personality, see Appendix A for the stimuli and brand descriptions used in the pretest.
23 The participants rated UltraSound on a sincerity scale, consisting of five items. Four of which (down-to-earth, honest, cheerful and wholesome) were derived from Aaker’s (1997)
framework on the sincerity brand personality dimension, see Appendix A for the items used in this pretest. This sincerity scale was proven to be reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of .93.
An independent sample t-test was conducted to verify the perceived sincerity and insincerity of UltraSound. The results indicated that the sincere version of UltraSound (M = 4.32, SD = 1.02) was perceived as significantly sincerer than the insincere version of
UltraSound (M = 2.29, SD = 1.07), t (28) = 5.33, p = .000, 95% CI [1.25, 2.80]. However, the mean difference between the conditions was not as large as hoped for. Therefore, the brand description of the sincere version of UltraSound was extended in the actual experiment in order to increase sincerity. In sum, the manipulation of UltraSound’s sincerity was successful and these pages could be used in the experiment. These pages were recreated as actual
Facebook brand pages. Procedure
The experiment was conducted using Qualtrics and was distributed online.
Participants were informed about the experiment and asked to give consent before proceeding to the actual experiment. Participants were then asked if they have a Facebook account. Participants that did not provide their consent or were not in possession of a Facebook account were immediately redirected to the end of the experiment and ultimately excluded from the final dataset. Next, participants were asked about their initial self-perception.
Following the statements measuring self-perception, the participants had to write down either three goals or three responsibilities, depending on the experimental condition they were randomly assigned to.
The participants were given a short introduction about the following task, which consisted of the act of ‘liking’ a brand on Facebook. This introduction informed the
participants that they were about to see a short brand description and a link to that brand’s Facebook page. They were asked to look closely at this description, open the enclosed link in a new tab in their browser, and like the Facebook page before returning to the experiment, see Appendix C for screenshots of the Facebook pages. In order to access the brand’s
Facebook page, participants had to log in on Facebook using their private accounts. However, the act of ‘liking’ occurred outside of the experimental setting and could therefore not be controlled. Therefore, a manipulation check was performed to ensure the internal validity of the experiment. Participants were asked whether they truthfully ‘liked’ the Facebook page. The participants who answered ‘No’ were still allowed to complete the rest of the
experiment, but were ultimately excluded from analysis.
Next, the participants’ self-perception was measured again in the exact same manner as before the brand was ‘liked’ on Facebook. Afterwards, the consumer’s attitude towards the endorsed brand was measured. Following this, the participants were asked to answer several demographic questions. Finally, the participants were thanked for their participation and asked to click the ‘next-button’ to complete the experiment.
Measures
Consumer’s self-perception. The objective was to measure a change in the
consumer’s self-perception after online brand endorsement. Participants were asked to rate themselves on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) ‘Not at all’ to (7) ‘Very much’, on the statement ‘I consider myself to be a sincere person’. Five other statements about the
participants’ self-perception were included to cover up the intention of the experiment. The other statements followed the same structure, but other personality traits replaced the word ‘sincere’ in the sentence. These personality traits are derived from the Big Five human personality scale (Gerber, Huber, Doherty, Dowling & Panagopoulos, 2013). See appendix B
25 for an overview of the statements. The participants were asked to rate themselves on these statements before and after they ‘liked’ UltraSound.
Brand attitude. Brand attitude was measured using a scale developed by Sengupta & Johar (2002). This scale consisted of three items measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) ‘Strongly disagree’ to (7) ‘Strongly agree’. See appendix B for the specific items. A reliability analysis revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of .91. Hence, the scale was deemed reliable.
Results
The data was analyzed by using model 7 of Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS SPSS macro with 5,000 bootstrap samples. Randomization checks were performed before the main analysis. Age, gender and level of education are evenly distributed amongst the conditions, and therefore no covariates were included in the main analysis. In addition to a randomization check, existing variables were computed or recoded into the new variables to fit the analysis: ‘Brand Attitude Scale’, ‘Endorsing Sincerity’, ‘Regulatory focus’ and ‘Shift in consumers’ self-perception’.
The analyses of the data with PROCESS allowed the entire conceptual model, as presented in Figure 1, to be tested in its entirety. Thus, a PROCESS analysis was conducted using the ‘Endorsing Sincerity’ as the independent variable, ‘Shift in consumers’ self-perception’ as the mediating variable, ‘Regulatory focus’ as the moderator and ‘Brand Attitude Scale’ as the dependent, or outcome, variable.
Firstly, the model revealed that there was no direct effect of the endorsed brand personality on the consumer’s self-perception (B= -0.13, p = .429, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.20]). Thus, hypothesis 1 was rejected, indicating that endorsing a brand with a brand personality online does not effect the way the consumer sees himself.
Secondly, no interaction effect of the endorsed brand personality x regulatory focus on the consumer’s self-perception was found in the analysis (B = 0.09, p = .713, 95% CI
[-0.37, 0.55]). Therefore, hypothesis 2 was also rejected, indicating that the effect of online brand endorsement on the consumer’s self-perception is not moderated by the consumer’s regulatory focus.
Lastly, there was no indirect effect of the endorsed brand personality on brand attitude mediated by the the consumer’s shift in self-perception (B = 0.19, p = .298, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.54]). Therefore, hypothesis 3 is also rejected. This indicates that the impact of endorsing a brand on the consumer’s attitude towards that brand is not explained by the way the
consumer sees himself in regard to that trait.
However, the results did indicate a direct effect of the endorsed brand personality on brand attitude (B = -1.89, p = .000, 95% CI [-2.28, -1.49]. An additional independent sample T-test was performed to assess if this direct effect on brand attitude differs between the two endorsed brand personalities. The results revealed that participants that endorsed a brand with a sincere brand personality had a higher attitude towards the endorsed brand (M = 4.77, SD = 0.89) than the participants that endorsed a brand with an insincere brand personality (M = 2.87, SD = 1.05), t (93) = 9.53, p = .000, 95% [1.50, 2.30]. The implications of this finding are discussed in the discussion section.
Conclusion & Discussion Conclusion
This research sought out to investigate whether the online endorsements of brands and their brand personalities are capable of affecting the consumer’s self-perception and ultimately influence consumer behavior. This research aimed to contribute to the existing knowledge of a brand’s transfer effect by investigating this effect in an online consumer-brand interaction and explaining its impact on the consumer’s behavior. Additionally, this research intended to bridge the gap in the literature, where the main focus lies with positive brand meanings and brand personalities, by including the online endorsements of both desirable and undesirable
27 brand personalities. Studies have suggested that brands are capable of transferring its brand personality onto the consumer and thus affecting the way the consumer sees himself (Cutright et al. 2014; Fennis et al. 2005; Park & John, 2010), which is facilitated by the notion that someone’s identity is malleable and highly influenced by his or her environment or current situation (Aaker, 1999; Oyserman, 2009: Reed et al., 2012). However, this idea is not reflected in the findings of this research.
The results demonstrated that the consumer’s self-perception is not affected by endorsing a brand online, for both a brand with a desired brand personality as well as an undesired brand personality. In other words, it seems that ‘liking’ a brand’s Facebook page does not make the consumer see himself as more (or less) in line with the brand personality of the endorsed brand. Subsequently, the idea that this effect is influenced by the consumer’s regulatory focus is also not proven (hypothesis 2a & 2b). Furthermore, the effect of endorsing a brand online on the consumer’s brand attitude is not explained by the consumer’s shift in self-perception (hypothesis 3). Thus, no evidence was found that a brand’s transfer effect, for brands with both desirable and undesirable personalities, also occurs in an online setting. Additionally, no impact of the transfer effect on consumer behavior was found due to the absence of this transfer effect.
Discussion
One possible explanation to why none of the expected effects were found, is that the elicit changes in self-perception are fine and subtle (Markus & Kunda, 1986). The subtleness of these changes can be attributed to the complexity and multidimensionality of the self-concept (Oyserman, 2009; Reed et al., 2012). Therefore, it could be that a brand’s transfer effect does exist in after a brand is endorsed online, but simply could not emerge due to shortcomings in measurements or research design. These shortcomings will be discussed later on.
Although the results of the experiment did not yield evidence for the existence of a transfer effect in online interactions, it does provide initial insights and implications. It appears that online interactions with brands, such as online brand endorsements, differ from their ‘offline’ counterparts. The previous studies into the brand’s capability to affect the consumer (Cutright et al., 2011; Fennis et al., 2005; Park & John (2010) all focused on ‘offline’, real world interactions with brands. These type of interactions feel more tangible when compared to online consumer-brand interactions. Therefore, it could be that this effect occurs either
exclusively in offline interactions or operates differently for interactions in the realm of social media.
Additionally, the results revealed a direct effect of endorsing a brand and its brand personality on brand attitude, which is line with the findings of Freling and Forbes (2005). Although not part of the original hypotheses, it holds a valuable implication for the
consequences of online brand endorsements. This finding indicates that consumers who endorse a brand with a desirable brand personality have a more favorable attitude towards that brand than the consumers who endorsed an undesired brand personality. This could mean that the transfer effect of brands does not exist in online interactions and is not even needed. In other words, ‘liking’ a brand’s Facebook page can hold enough weight on its own to affect the consumers’ attitude towards that brand. Thus, it is possible that other
mechanisms are at play when it comes to online brand endorsements.
Limitations. Like any empirical research, this study is not without its limitations. Firstly, the final sample size that was included in the analysis is relatively small. It would have been preferred to have a significant larger sample size in order to increase reliability and the generalizability of the findings. Moreover, a considerable amount of participants is
excluded from the final dataset, because these participants did not like the brand page of UltraSound, and thus failed the manipulation check. Although this reduced the final sample
29 size, it sheds light on the importance of someone’s Facebook profile. Apparently people do not endorse pages they do not know, but also those they do not deem of valuable to their ‘friends’. Perhaps future research should conduct similar experiments in a more controlled environment.
Secondly, the creation of a brand personality was limited due to the methodology of this research and its constrained time frame. As mentioned in the theoretical background, brand personalities are created over time and via many practices, such as marketing activities and user-imagery (Aaker, 1997). It could be possible that the brand personality was not strong enough to elicit a significant effect on the consumer’s self-perception.
Thirdly, as mentioned in the methodology, participants were redirected to an external link where they could view and ‘like’ the Facebook page of UltraSound. This redirection limited this research control over the viewing of the page. No ‘forced response’ or time limit could be set before participants moved on to the next questions. Therefore, it is possible that the participants insufficiently viewed and inspected the Facebook pages which could have contributed to the absence of a transfer effect in the results.
Lastly, the measurement used in this research could benefit from further development. A 7-point Likert scale was used to measure self-perception of sincerity. The fact that
participants were given only seven options limited the measurement of small changes. In other words, small changes in self-perception could have detected if a larger scale was provided. Perhaps participants indeed felt changes in their self-perception of sincerity, but could not report this accordingly and thus reported no changes.
Future research. In a similar vein as the aforementioned limitation, future research can focus on the development of an improved self-perception scale designed to measure the transfer effect of brands in the context of online brand endorsement. A scale that can detect
subtle changes in someone’s self-perception induced by a brand’s personality trait could be a fruitful undertaking for other empirical researches into this subject.
Secondly, this research focused on one personality trait and its antonym. Future research could benefit significantly from including more types of brand personalities. As mentioned in the method section, it was beyond the scope of this research to include participant’s preference or dislike for specific personality traits. It would be interesting to research whether the inclusion of participant’s perspective on what is deemed a desirable or an undesirable personality trait could produce different findings than presented in this research. Moreover, this could lead to valuable insights into the different types of effects certain brand personalities evoke in the context of online brand endorsement.
Lastly, future research could extend their perspective and include more types of social media. This research focuses on online brand endorsements as the ‘likes’ on Facebook. The way online brand endorsement occurs differs on social media platforms differs greatly such as ‘re-tweets’ on Twitter and ‘followers’ on Instagram. Future research could focus on these other platforms to map out the theoretical and managerial implications of online brand endorsements on consumer behavior and marketing communication.
Managerial implications. This research also has some important implications for marketers and brand managers. They should become highly aware of their brand’s symbolic meaning and how the brand is perceived by the consumer. Because, as demonstrated in this research, an interaction with a brand that presents undesirable values can negatively impact the way the consumer feels about your products. Additionally, marketers should be careful when striving for an overall increase in their online brand endorsements. Trying to persuade consumers on social media to endorse your brand could turn out to be very counterproductive if the consumer has no desire for your brand’s personality trait. So marketers can benefit
31 tremendously if they incorporate knowledge about undesirable brand personalities, brand avoidance and their significance into their marketing strategies (Kahn & Lee, 2014).
Although is seems that ‘liking’ a brand’s page does not change the way you see yourself, online brand endorsements still offer a whole new array of opportunities and challenges, for consumers, marketers and researchers alike. Hopefully, this research has sparked the interest of its readers and motivated them to think about how they see themselves the next time they press that popular ‘Like-button’.
References
Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York, NY: Free Press.
Aaker, D. & Biel, A. (1993). Brand equity & advertising. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.
Aaker, J. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 45-57.
Aaker, J., Fournier, S. & Brasel, S. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 1-16.
Banister, E., & Hogg, M. (2001). Negative symbolic consumption and consumers’ drive for self-esteem: The case of the fashion industry. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 850-868.
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of social
issues, 58(1), 33-48.
Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168.
Bernritter, S. F., Verlegh, P. W., & Smit, E. G. (2016). Why nonprofits are easier to endorse on social media: The roles of warmth and brand symbolism. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 33, 27-42.
Bosnjak, M., & Rudolph, N. (2008). Undesired self-image congruence in a low-involvement product context. European Journal of Marketing, 42(5/6), 702-712.
Bosnjak, M., & Brand, C. (2008). The impact of undesired self-image congruence on consumption-related attitudes and intentions. International Journal of Management, 25(3), 673-683.
Cătălin, M. C., & Andreea, P. (2014). Brands as a mean of consumer self-expression and desired personal lifestyle. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 103-107. Chernev, A. (2004). Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 14(1/2), 141-150.
Chernev, A., Hamilton, R., & Gal, D. (2011). Competing for consumer identity: Limits to self-expression and the perils of lifestyle branding. Journal of Marketing, 75, 66-82. Cutright, K. M., Erdem, T., Fitzsimons, G. J., & Shachar, R. (2014). Finding brands and
losing your religion?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2209-2222.
Damisch, L., Stoberock, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2010). Keep your fingers crossed! How superstition improves performance. Psychological Science, 21(7), 1014-1020. Das, G. (2015). Regulatory focus as a moderator of retail shopping behaviour. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 1-16.
Ekinci, Y, & Riley, M. (2003). An investigation of self-concept: Actual and ideal self- congruence compared in the context of service evaluation. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Sercives, 10, 201-214.
33 destination brands. Journal of Business Research, 66, 711-718.
Escalas, J., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what you eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers' connections to brands. Journal of consumer
psychology, 13(3), 339-348.
Escalas, J., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning.
Journal of consumer research, 32, 378-389.
Fennis, B. M., & Pruyn, A. T. H. (2007). You are what you wear: Brand personality
influences on consumer impression formation. Journal of Business Research, 60, 634-639.
Fennis, B. M., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Maasland, M. (2005). Revisiting the malleable self: Brand effects on consumer self-perceptions of personality traits. Advances in consumer
research, 32, 371-377.
Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the ‘goal looms larger’ effect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1115-1131.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-353.
Freling, T. & Forbes, L. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(7), 404-413.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Panagopoulos, C. (2013). Big five personality traits and responses to persuasive appeals: Results from voter turnout experiments. Political Behavior, 35(4), 687-728.
Gino, F., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2010). The counterfeit self: The deceptive costs of faking it. Psychological Science, 21(5), 721-720.
responses to persuasion attempts. Journal of Brand Management, 20(6), 518-530. Hayes, Andrew F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hayes, B. J., Capella, L. M. & Alford, B. L. (2000). The brand personality as a basis for consumer-brand evaluations. Working Paper, Mississippi State University.
Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 66(2), 276-286.
Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 72(3), 515-525.
Hogg, M. K., & Banister, E. N. (2001). Dislikes, distastes and the undesired self: Conceptualising and exploring the role of the undesired end state in consumer experience. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(1-2), 73-104.
Hollenbeck, C. R., & Kaikati, A. M. (2012). Consumers' use of brands to reflect their actual and ideal selves on Facebook. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 395-405.
Hosany, S., & Martin, D. (2012). Self-image congruence in consumer behavior. Journal of
Business Research, 65(5), 685-691.
Ibrahim, H., & Najjar, F. (2008). Assessing the effects of self-congruity, attitudes and customer satisfaction on customer behavioral intentions in retail environment. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(2), 207-227.
Idson, L., Libberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of
35 Kabadayi, S., & Price, K. (2014). Consumer-brand engagement on Facebook: Liking and
commenting behaviors. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 8(3), 203-223. Kaikati, A., & Kaikati, J. (2004). Stealth Marketing: How to reach consumers surreptitiously
California Management Review, 46(4), 6-22.
Khan, M. A., & Lee, M. S. (2014). Prepurchase determinants of brand avoidance: The moderating role of country-of-origin familiarity. Journal of Global Marketing, 27(5), 329-343.
Keller, K. (2002). Strategic brand management. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Kirmani, A. (2009). The self and the brand. Journal of Consumer Psychology,19(3), 271-275. Kirmani, A., & Zhu, R. (2007). Vigilant against manipulation: The effect of regulatory focus
on the use of persuasion knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 688-701. Kressmann, F., Sirgy, J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D. (2006). Direct and
indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business
Research, 59, 955-964.
Lee, A. Y., Keller, P. A., & Sternthal, B. (2010). Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. Journal
of Consumer Research, 36(5), 735-747.
Lee, M. S., Motion, J., & Conroy, D. (2009). Anti-consumption and brand avoidance. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 169-180.
Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand
attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 35-52.
Markus, H., & Kunda, Z. (1986). Stability and malleability of the self-concept. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 858-866.
K. & Wetzels, M. (2014). Regulatory fit: A meta-analytic synthesis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 394-410.
Oyserman, D. (2009). Identity-based motivation: Implications for action-readiness, procedural-readiness, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 19(3), 250-260.
Oyserman, D., & James, L. (2011). Possible identities. In Handbook of identity theory and
research (pp. 117-145). Springer New York.
Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2010). Got to get you into my life: Do brand personalities rub off on consumers?. Journal of consumer research, 37(4), 655-669.
Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2014). I think I can, I think I can: Brand use, self-efficacy, and performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(2), 233-247.
Reed, A., Forehand, M. R., Puntoni, S., & Warlop, L. (2012). Identity-based consumer behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 310-321. Sengupta, J., & Johar, G. V. (2002). Effects of inconsistent attribute information on the
predictive value of product attitudes: Toward a resolution of opposing perspectives. Journal of Consumer research, 29(1), 39-56.
Sirgy, J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer
Research, 9(3), 287-300.
Sirgy, J., Grewal, D., & Mangleburg, T. (2000) Retail environment, self-congruity, and retail patronage: An integrative model and a research agenda. Journal of Business
Research, 49, 127-138.
Sirgy, J., Johar, J, Samli, A., & Claiborne, C. (1991). Self-congruity versus functional congruity: Predictors of consumer behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 19(4), 363-375.
37 loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1091-1097.
Statista. (2016). Product brands with the most Facebook fans as of May 2016 (in millions) Retrieved June 23, 2016, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/265657/leading-product-brands-with-the-most-fans-on-facebook/
Sung, Y. and Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect. Psychology and Marketing, 27(7), 639-661.
Tuškej, U., Golob, U. and Podnar, K. (2013). The role of consumer–brand identification in building brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 53-59.
Wallace, E., Buil, I., & de Chernatony, L. (2014). Consumer engagement with self-expressive brands: brand love and wom outcomes. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(1), 33-42.
Wallace, E., Buil, I, de Chernatony, L., & Hogan, M. (2014) Who likes you and why? A typology of Facebook fans. Journal of Advertising Research, 54(1), 92-109. Wang, J., & Lee, A.Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in preference
construction. Journal of Marketing research, 43(1), 28-38.
Werth, L., & Foerster, J. (2007). How regulatory focus influences consumer behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(1), 33-51.
Zhu, R., & Meyers-Levy, J. (2007). Exploring the cognitive mechanism that underlies regulatory focus effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 89-96.
Appendix A: Pre-test UltraSound UltraSound sincere condition.
The participants in the pre-test that were randomnly assigned to the sincere condition were exposed to the following brand description in combination with UltraSound’s Facebook page, as can be seen in Figure 1:
“UltraSound is an environmentally friendly brand that manufactures and distributes
genuine headphones that are made from 100 % sustainable materials. This brand's aim is to provide consumers with a real sound and the satisfaction of using a fairly produced & recyclable product.”
39 UltraSound insincere condition.
The participants in the pre-test that were randomly assigned to the insincere condition were exposed to the following brand description in combination with UltraSound’s Facebook page, as can be seen in Figure 2:
“UltraSound is a brand that produces synthetic, non-recyclable headphones at low costs (15 euro) and under very bad working conditions and sells them for a premium price (125 euro), while still promoting a false sense of being environmentally friendly.”
Figure 2. Screenshot of image used in the pre-test for the insincere version of UltraSound. Sincerity measurements. Participants in the pre-test were asked to rate the sincerity of Ultrasound. Five items were used to measure this sincerity and were measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 - ‘Not at all’ to -7 - ‘Very much’. This sincerity measure had a Cronbach’s alpha of .93, which makes the scale very reliable. The scale was comprised from the following items:
1. ‘How sincere do you find UltraSound?’
41 3. ‘How honest do you find UltraSound?’
4. ‘How cheerful do you find UltraSound?’
5. ‘How wholesome (i.e. beneficial, helpful) do you find UltraSound?’
Appendix B: Measurements of dependent variables Shift in self-perception.
The following items were used to measure the consumer’s self-perception before and after the participants were asked to ‘like’ the Facebook page of Ultrasound and were measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 – ‘Not at all’ to 7 – ‘Very much’:
1. ‘I consider myself to be a sincere person’ 2. ‘I consider myself to be a confident person’
3. ‘I consider myself to be a disciplined person’ 4. ‘I consider myself to be a social person’ 5. ‘I consider myself to be an intelligent person’ 6. ‘I consider myself to be a caring person’ Brand Attitude.
Three items were used to measure brand attitude. This items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 - ‘Strongly disagree’ to 7 – ‘Strongly agree’. This brand attitude scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .91 and was deemed to be reliable.
1. ‘I think UltraSound is a very good brand’ 2. ‘I think UltraSound is a very useful brand’ 3. ‘My opinion on UltraSound is very favorable’
Appendix C: Final Stimuli UltraSound sincere condition.
The participants that were (randomly) assigned to the sincere condition were exposed to the following brand description of UltraSound:
“UltraSound is a sincere brand, who manufactures and distributes headphones. UltraSound is one of the few brands who are completely devoted to the use of 100% sustainable materials. These headphones are entirely made from environmentally friendly and recyclable materials.
