author copy

JOURNAL OF

CUSTOMER

BEHAVIOUR

COMMENTARY Reflections on emotional attachment to brands: Brand romance and brand love

AUTHOR COPY

Hemant Patwardhan, Winthrop University, USA Siva K. Balasubramanian, Stuart School of Business, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA* Abstract The emotional attachment that consumers develop toward some brands has attracted considerable research attention. In this commentary, we take a supportive view of prior research in this area because of contributions toward better understanding of consumer-brand relationships. We also take this opportunity to respond to a few incorrect claims about Patwardhan and Balasubramanian’s (2011) study on brand romance. Keywords Brand romance, Emotional attachment, Brand love, Theories on attachment, Self-expansion

INTRODUCTION As a research topic, consumers’ emotional attachment to brands has received much attention in the literature. Following Shimp and Madden’s (1988) analysis of consumer-object love based on Sternberg’s paradigm (1986), researchers have focused on consumer-brand relationships (Fournier, 1998), emotional attachment to brands (Thomson, MacInnis & Park, 2005), brand romance (Patwardhan & Balasubramanian, 2011) and brand love (Carrol & Ahuvia, 2006). These studies rely on theories from interpersonal and romantic relationships literature (Aron, Norman

*Correspondence details and biographies for the authors are located at the end of the article. JOURNAL OF CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR, 2013, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.73-79 http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/147539213X13645550618560 ISSN1475-3928 print /ISSN1477-6421 online © Westburn Publishers Ltd.

JCB

Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 12

& Aron, 1998; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Sternberg, 1986), as well as grounded theory (Batra, Ahuvia & Bagozzi, 2012). As a result, multiple theoretical perspectives have emerged, ranging from attachment theory (Bowlby, 1979) to self-expansion model (Reimann & Aron, 2009), triangular theory of love (Sternberg, 1986) and grounded theory (Batra et al., 2012). They offer useful insights and managerial implications on consumers’ emotional attachment to brands. At a more practical level, statements that capture the deep attachments of real consumers toward selected brands are showcased in lovemarks (www.lovemarks.com). Studies that focus on the nature and character of brand attachment approach this complex domain from somewhat different viewpoints. While most studies agree on the multidimensional nature of the attachment construct, all agree that this construct taps deeply into the affective realm. For instance, Thomson et al., (2005) propose that emotional attachment consists of three dimensions - affection, passion and connection - and then show that it predicts brand loyalty in a manner consistent with attachment theory. In a similar vein, Patwardhan and Balasubramanian (2011) argue that attachments explained by attachment theory are based on trust, dependability and consistency of response. Consumers take comfort in the familiar; the primary motive for attachment being security and safety. However, another type of attachment based on the ‘need for stimulation’ exists, i.e., consumers seek out brands that provide novelty, excitement and arousal. This argument rests on the self-expansion model (Aron et al., 1998) which implies that individuals seek out a brand ‘partner’ who provides new experiences, insights and perspectives, not unlike a romantic relationship in which partners progressively discover each other. In line with the underlying theme of attraction in romantic relationships, Patwardhan and Balasubramanian (2011) propose a three-factor (pleasure, arousal and dominance) construct called brand romance, and demonstrate its influence on brand loyalty. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) define emotional attachment as the degree of passion for a brand felt by a satisfied customer. Calling the construct brand love, they report this as unidimensional, and as a useful predictor of loyalty and positive WOM. Subsequently, Batra et al. (2012) developed a grounded theory approach to better capture the brand love construct. These authors proposed a multidimensional construct with seven core components. More recently, Sarkar, Ponnam and Murthy (2012) criticised earlier studies on various conceptual and methodological grounds in order to advance a two factor (intimacy and passion) construct based on Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of love. We disagree with their criticism and present an alternative - and more constructive - interpretation of this literature. Although the studies described above share somewhat similar research goals, the propositions developed and inferences drawn are dissimilar to the extent that each study draws on a different theory. This does not make any one theory better or worse than others. Our position is that, when taken together, these studies facilitate a more complete understanding of the complex nuances surrounding emotional attachment to brands. Substantively, their findings converge in important ways. For instance, the dimensions of intimacy and passion (Sarkar et al., 2012) overlap with the components of passion-driven behaviours and positive emotional connection (Batra et al., 2012), which in turn are analogous to affection, passion and connection constructs (Thomson et al., 2005).

AUTHOR COPY

74

Patwardhan & Balasubramanian Reflections on emotional attachment to brands

Among the constructs highlighted, a distinctive aspect of brand romance (Patwardhan & Balasubramanian, 2011) is that it describes a mental state that signifies attraction. This mental state is characterised by three correlated dimensions: positive affect, arousal and dominance. We specifically suggest that brand romance may or may not develop into brand love. Approaching the consumer-brand relationship from a stimulation perspective, we posit that as long as a brand offers opportunities for novel experience, the attraction stays strong. If novel experiences decline, or if familiarity appears excessive, this attraction may weaken. At first glance, the preceding statements that draw on the self-expansion model appear to conflict with the attachment theory perspective, because the latter suggests that greater familiarity is correlated with stronger attachment. In this commentary, we seek to reconcile these two perspectives and suggest conditions under which they may work together to enhance the consumer-brand relationship. We also respond to specific comments about Patwardhan and Balasubramanian (2011) in Sarkar et al., (2012).

THE SELF EXPANSION MODEL AND EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT

AUTHOR COPY

The self-expansion model integrates two themes: (1) the central human motive to enhance the self to achieve goals; and (2) such enhancement is possible by ‘including others in the self ’. This model posits close relationships when two partners perceive in each other novel perspectives, resources and identities (PRI) that present opportunities for self enhancement. Accessing PRI (tantamount to building close relationships) produces feelings of exhilaration, fascination and intense longing. In the early stages of a romantic relationship, partners seek to expand their selves through constant, rapid and intense interactions that generate positive affect, arousal and a desire to re-engage. Extending this theory to consumer-brand relationships, Patwardhan and Balasubramanian (2011) assert that consumers are attracted to brands because of novel PRI that offer opportunities for self-expansion. For example, Apple users may embrace this brand’s perspective of ‘creativity with simplicity’, thereby identifying with those who value design and functionality, and adopting attitudes and behaviours that align well with this brand (e.g., beliefs about being a creative person). In other words, they integrate the brand’s PRI into their own selves in order to achieve certain goals (e.g., acceptance into the Apple generation). Underlying the formation of this relationship is the consumer’s perception of novelty in the brand, which can be accessed simply by buying and consuming the brand. The greater the perceived novelty, the stronger is the attraction. However, excessive novelty may induce stress and motivate avoidance behaviour. The view that novelty imparts a unique utility is expressed in the Wundt curve (Middleton, 1986). According to this law, the greater the novelty perceived in the stimulus the greater the derived utility up to a point, after which further increase in perceived novelty diminishes utility because anxiety sets in. At this stage, the brand may be perceived as inconsistent, unreliable and untrustworthy. Excessive novelty will lead to excessively high arousal levels (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) causing stress that consumers try to minimise through avoidance behaviour i.e., declining preference for the brand.

75

76

JCB


ATTACHMENT THEORY AND EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT

AUTHOR COPY

In contrast, attachment theory suggests that greater familiarity and responsiveness produce stronger attachments. This theory explains why infants form close bonds with their caregivers, based on their availability and quality of response. Through repeated interactions, the infant learns what to expect and to adjust thoughts, feelings and behaviours toward the caregiver accordingly. In sum, a key feature of strong attachment is familiarity with the caregiver. Even in adult relationships, a partner’s availability and support during times of need, and comfort, reassurance and security strengthens the attachment; behaviours that deviate from this disrupt the attachment (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). As partners’ mutual familiarity is the underlying source of the attachment, the greater the familiarity, the stronger the attachment. In a consumer-brand relationship context, a more familiar brand enhances feelings of cognitive consistency and psychological comfort. Dependence on the known and the familiar creates a comfort zone for consumers who seek reassurance, stability or support. Hence, brands that perform consistently well in times of need are valued more than inconsistent brands. Greater familiarity with the brand further cements this relationship. Nevertheless, prior work on attribute satiation (Jeuland, 1978; McAlister & Pessemier, 1982) suggests that too much familiarity actually weakens a relationship. In a review on variety-seeking behaviour, McAlister and Pessemier (1982) attribute this effect to the declining marginal value of component attributes (of the brand). They propose that an individual creates an ‘inventory’ of similar attributes and that each subsequent addition brings satiation (or progressively less stimulation). Jeuland (1978) also notes that preference for a behaviour declines as one accumulates experience with it. Additionally, as experience fades, preference for that behaviour may recover. Therefore, Shimp and Madden (1988) argue that a consumer’s yearning for an object is inversely related to their experience with it. Yearning would be highest upon initial experience, but will subside over time as greater experience is acquired. In consumer-brand relationship contexts, as brand familiarity increases, the felt attraction decreases. That is, increased familiarity weakens the brand relationship. This discussion presents some interesting research questions: How should brands balance the requirements of familiarity and novelty to maximise brand romance? How does brand romance facilitate strong emotional bonds for consumers? How much novelty is too much novelty? How much familiarity is too much familiarity?

NEEDS BY PERCEPTIONS CATEGORISATION It is insightful to cross tabulate consumer needs and brand perceptions (see Table 1). Two types of needs are relevant: (1) comfort and security needs, and (2) stimulation and excitement needs. Similarly, consumers may perceive a brand as being familiar or novel. This gives rise to four contexts: 1. Comfort and security needs, and the perception of familiarity 2. Comfort and security needs, and the perception of novelty 3. Stimulation and excitement needs, and the perception of familiarity 4. Stimulation and excitement needs, and the perception of novelty.


AUTHOR COPY

Contexts where needs and perceptions match well result in high levels of brand romance. In contrast, low levels of brand romance characterise a mismatch between needs and perceptions. Brand familiarity engenders brand romance if consumers’ comfort and security needs are paramount. To fulfill comfort and security needs, consumers need reassurance and will reach out to a brand that is known to provide it. The brand is already familiar, and this familiarity is positively evaluated. The consumer-brand interaction will generate positive feelings that are attributed to the brand. Attachment theory predicts that these positive feelings will strengthen emotional bonds between the consumer and the brand. Under this condition, we propose that brand romance would be high. On the other hand, perceived novelty yields brand romance if consumers’ stimulation and excitement needs are salient. Novelty in a stimulus is positively related to arousal, and excitement is a state that reflects high arousal (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Novelty is positively evaluated if consumers attribute novel PRI to a brand. They are likely to be motivated to access the brand as predicted by the selfexpansion model. Again, the consumer-brand interaction generates positive feelings that are attributed to the brand. In cases of a mismatch between needs and perceptions, attribute satiation weakens the emotional bonds. Consumers with stimulation and excitement needs are likely satiated by familiar attributes, as predicted by the self-expansion model. Finally, consumers with comfort and security needs may perceive novelty as an indication of the brand’s unreliability and inconsistency. Attachment theory predicts that unreliable partners make for weak relationships. In both these cases, the consumerbrand interaction may generate negative feelings that are ascribed to the brand. Hence, brand romance does not arise in such cases. In consumer-brand relationships, familiarity and novelty are being continuously negotiated depending on consumer perceptions and marketer actions. This interplay influences the amount of brand romance. Overall, the discussion above suggests that brand romance, brand love, and brand attachments are theoretically rich constructs. They do not contradict each other, but offer useful insights about brand management.

TABLE 1 Familiarity vs. novelty Need Type Brand perception Evaluation Satiation Brand romance Brand loyalty Supporting theory

Stimulation, excitement Novelty needs Novel Familiar

Comfort, security Familiarity needs Familiar

Novel

Positive Low High

Negative High Low

Negative High Low

Positive Low High

High Self expansion model

Low Self expansion model

Low Attachment theory

High Attachment theory

77

78

JCB


RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC STATEMENTS IN SARKAR, PONNAM AND MURTHY (2012)

AUTHOR COPY

We take this opportunity to respond to observations in Sarkar et al. (2012). First, these authors claim that we (Patwardhan & Balasubramanian, 2011) did not estimate inter-correlations between the dimensions of brand romance. This is incorrect. Such correlations were acknowledged at various places in our study. While reporting EFA results of our study 2, we acknowledge that the pleasure and arousal factors were correlated. We pursued this further in the CFA analysis by allowing the factors to correlate. In our description of discriminant validity tests, we again mention that we allowed the factors to correlate. So, all our reported results reflect these factor interrelationships. Second, Sarkar et al. (2012) characterise the psychometric reliability of Patwardhan and Balasubramanian’s (2011) Brand Romance scale as “questionable” because one scale item reads “I love this brand”. We disagree for three reasons. First, it is difficult to understand the criticism because we explicitly acknowledge that brand romance “bears some similarity with brand love” (Patwardhan and Balasubramanian (2011, p. 299). So, the above item reflects this acknowledged similarity. Second, it appears disingenuous to question the psychometric reliability based on one item in the 12item Brand Romance scale. Third, the development and validation analyses for our Brand Romance scale employ a well-established, rigorous and theory-driven process (Churchill, 1979) that Sarkar et al. (2012) also rely upon.

REFERENCES

Aron, A., Norman, C.C., & Aron, E.N. (1998). The Self-Expansion Model and Motivation. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 22, 1-13. Batra, R., Ahuvia A.C., & Bagozzi, R.P. (2012). Brand Love. Journal of Marketing, 76, 1-16. Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock. Carroll, B.A., & Ahuvia A.C. (2006). Some Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand Love. Marketing Letters, 17(2), 79-90. Churchill, G.A., (1979). A Paradigm for Making Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-373. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P.R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524. Jeuland, A.P. (1978). Brand Preference over Time: A Partially Deterministic Operationalization of the Notion of Variety-Seeking. In S.C. Jain (Ed.), AMA Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions, Proceedings 43, (pp. 33-37). McAlister, L., & Pessemier, E. (1982). Variety-Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(December), 311-322. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J.A. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge Mass, and London England: MIT Press. Middleton, E. (1986). Some Testable Implications of a Preference for Subjective Novelty. Kyklos, 39, 397-418. Patwardhan, H., & Balasubramanian, S.K. (2011). Brand Romance: A Complementary Approach to Explain Emotional Attachment to Brands. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 20(4), 297-308.


Reimann, M., & Aron, A., (2009). Self-Expansion Motivation and Inclusion of Brands in Self. In D.J. MacInnis, C.W. Park, & J.R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of Brand Relationships (pp. 65-83). M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y. and London, U.K.: Society for Consumer Psychology. Sarkar, A., Ponnam, A., & Murthy, B.K., (2012). Understanding and Measuring Romantic Brand Love. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 11(4), 325-348. Shimp, T.A., & Madden, T.J. (1988). Consumer-Object Relations: A Conceptual Framework Based Analogously on Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love. In M.J. Houston, (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 163-168). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Sternberg, R.J. (1986). A Triangular Theory of Love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-135. Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J., & Park, C.W. (2005). The Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77-91.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND CORRESPONDENCE

AUTHOR COPY

Hemant Patwardhan is Associate Professor of Marketing at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, SC. Hemant completed his doctorate from Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. His research interests are in emotional attachment to brands, product placements and account planning. Hemant’s research has been published in the Journal of Advertising, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, International Journal of Advertising, and Journal of Product and Brand Management, among others. Dr Hemant Patwardhan, Department of Management and Marketing, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, South Carolina, USA. E [email protected]

Siva K. Balasubramanian is Harold L. Stuart Professor of Marketing and Associate Dean at the Stuart School of Business, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago. He received a PhD from the State University of New York at Buffalo. His research interests include consumers’ information search, new product diffusion, and measurement issues/methods in marketing. His research has appeared in leading marketing journals such as Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Research, International Journal of Research in Marketing, and Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, among others. Corresponding author: Dr Siva K. Balasubramanian, Stuart School of Business, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60661, USA. E [email protected]

79