DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Relationship Between Brand Anthropomorphism, Brand Love, and Brand Advocacy. Moderate Role of Self-brand Connection in Brand Distribution

  • Received : 2023.01.06
  • Accepted : 2023.03.05
  • Published : 2023.03.30

Abstract

Purpose: The article focuses on studying the impact of brand anthropomorphism, and brand love, on brand advocacy, and at the same time the moderate role of brand self-connection in the process of customers' perception of the brand, especially the brand distribution. The survey subjects are customers with millennial consumers in Ho Chi Minh City, who have the behavior of buying brands in the smart mobile device industry many times with a specific brand in terms of brand distribution. Results: The findings show that Brand anthropomorphism and brand love are crucial factors to impact brand advocacy and the role of self-brand connection also is a confirmed positive effect on the relationship between brand anthropomorphism and brand love. Research design, data, and methodology: The article uses quantitative research to test the model and research hypotheses. The way to collect quantitative data is to use questionnaires with 1531 samples in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Conclusion: The research results can help businesses build a long-term brand strategy and expect to get new rewards and value from customers. They can also add to the theory about the relationship between brands and customers.

Keywords

1. Introduction

The appearance of Vinamilk’s dancing cows with the slogan “100 for 100”, the wonderful image of the toilet bacteria killers, and the smooth curves of Coca-Cola simulate the curves of a charming woman. The charm in advertising programs and many other photos is a fact that proves that the word brand exists as an anthropomorphic comparison of people (Brown, 2010). Several researchers in this field have published works on the concept of brand anthropomorphism in an attempt to understand this seemingly absurd concept, including the distribution field (Puzakova et al., 2009). Distributors' brands will also be affected by the brand image of brands. The development of a good distributor's brand image will help to consume goods faster when customers easily identify the brand from the distributor. In addition, the distributor plays the role of connecting the relationship between customers and businesses and is also the focal point of direct contact with customers, so the transmission of messages through distributors is always a priority. when building a business brand.

And then there have been several studies that address this concept by viewing brands as possessing the same characteristics, emotions, and thoughts as humans (Kim & McGill, 2011). Following those studies Kim and Kramer (2015) together with Puzakova and Kwak (2017) demonstrated that the outcome of brand anthropomorphism would influence consumer attitudes and judgments (Kwak et al., 2015; Puzakova et al., 2013; Wan et al., 2017). Most recently, there has been a development of the scale by Golossenko et al. (2020). However, all of the above studies have not had empirical studies. Since then, the strategic decisions of brand managers are also partly influenced by anthropomorphism when trying to improve their brands. Businesses have human-like images. Flexibly built brand images are also an advantage for companies looking for ways to humanize their brand.

In addition, the view that consumers use consumption to build their identity (Ahuvia, 2005) and brands to position themselves (Fournier, 1998) also received much attention during the same period. In particular, consumers perceive brand love as part of themselves and the world they live in, with beloved brands playing an essential role in building their world (Ahuvia et al., 2009). In this context, the paper observed that consumers perceive their favorite objects as associated with their status, image, and name in cases from which they want to share widely with people outside-outside, affirming that connection, and love in the brand of distribution.

It is also worth noting that consumers use brands to construct their self-concepts and identities (Sirgy & Danes, 1982). One way for consumers to do this is by incorporating brands into their self-concept (i.e., forming self-branding connections) and using brands as signals of who they are or want to be (Escalas & Bettman, 2009). In previous studies, brand value in the mind of consumers has been confirmed that weight will impact consumer psychology and business revenue (Park et al., 2010).

With the approach to forming the brand’s love in the customer’s mind, brand anthropomorphism and the modifier of the self-brand connection will increase customers’ trust and spread the brand to more people. So, this is what every business wants to achieve from customers when customers are not just mere buyers but become their collaborators. From there, companies will quickly obtain beneficial information with high reliability. The concepts mentioned seem to exist only in psychology between people. Still, when it comes to the relationship between people and brands, it will be a new and beneficial approach for those who are interested in the brand person

The article will add a new point to the study guide on self-brand connection based on the aforementioned rationale. This point plays the function of a mediator between brand anthropomorphism and brand love, which is a strong point of the subject when discussing image connections of a certain customer using a commercial instrument might be a significant task. Connecting consumers’ positions and emotions to be able to produce advantageous brand behavior is a discovery, and brand love in the interaction between brand credibility and brand advocacy is also a new point. The marketing manager will next figure out how to create a trustworthy and efficient communication route with clients and build distribution effectively.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Brand Anthropomorphism

Although brand anthropomorphism is a relatively new idea, the notion of brand anthropomorphism has existed for quite some time. And the idea of “brand anthropomorphism” emerged as a way to infuse consumers’ mental moods into the brand, sometimes known as a particular mental state (Waytz et al., 2010). Researchers in the fields of marketing and branding have brought up this frame of mind (MacInnis & Folkes, 2017). In order for a brand to stand out in the relationship between consumers and the brand, Fournier (1998) contend that anthropomorphism the brand-considering the brand to have the qualities of a person, capable of exhibiting thoughtful, affectionate and emotional behaviors-will be a wise decision made by managers at businesses. The consumer’s view of the brand will thus be genuine persons with a range of emotional states, minds, souls, and conscious activities that may operate, according to the notion of brand anthropomorphism. serve as important indicators of social interactions (Puzakova et al., 2009). This is perfectly achievable when individuals believe there are shared viewpoints in a connection and their opinion of a certain brand is comparable to their own. When people notice that some brands have human-like forms, forms, and faces, they might ascribe such likeness to human eyesight (Romero & Craig, 2017). Or consumers discover normal human behaviors in brands. Additionally, language clues brands-including the statement’s gender-can lead consumers to believe that the brand is human.

2.2. Self-brand Connection

Consumers often incorporate the brand into their sense of themselves, giving rise to the notion of “brand as self” (Cheng et al., 2012). Whether consciously or not, they contribute to the synthesis of our senses on several levels (Belk, 2013). When customers incorporate a brand into their self-concept, a self-branding relationship is created, which shapes the consumer’s self-concept (Escalas & Bettman, 2009). Determining the strength of the self-branding connection is the level to which brands are iconic to the user, i.e., they communicate something about the user (Escalas & Bettman, 2005). Conceptually, self-branding differs from self-branding, which reflects the broader trend of consumers utilizing their favorite brands to construct self-concept. Moreover, self-synonymy is the resemblance between customers’ self-concept and brand image or the similarity between consumers’ self-concept and brand image. Considering the identities of affiliated enterprises (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), self-connected brands encompass the degree to which a particular brand is integrated into the self-concept (Dwivedi et al., 2014). Consequently, the self-branding link is believed to be the self-conceptual relationship that a certain customer has with a specific brand.

2.3. Brand Advocacy

Numerous studies have examined the impact of customer involvement on business performance and corporate profitability (Kudeshia et al., 2017) via providing value to consumers (Kumar & Nayak, 2019). Customers may provide several forms of value for a firm, including repeat purchases, positive publicity, and involvement in the process of developing new items. The idea of brand promotion is susceptible to misunderstanding. The notion of WOM (Word-Of-Mouth) is misinterpreted when spreading the business’s message to other consumers. Advocacy is the final measure of the quality of the connection between consumers and brands (Walz & Celuch, 2010). Although WOM may be seen as informal communication between customers, advocacy is the ultimate test of the quality of the relationship between consumers and companies. In other words, customers will protect brands against criticism and adversaries. Customers that have a strong emotional attachment to a brand are called advocates. They may even form close friendships with other consumers and participate in social activities. confrontations with members of other brand communities because they feel compelled to defend their brand.

2.4. Brand Love

Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) emphasize two crucial factors in their concept of brand love: emotional connection and passion. Emotional attachment refers to a person’s and a brand’s strong and distinctive relationship and psychological intimacy. Passion is the consumer’s desire for a brand that generates strong emotional arousal (Batra et al., 2012), separation anxiety (Albert & Valette-Florence, 2010), and a general feeling of delight with brand ownership. A brand love archetype that appeals to intense emotions, attachment, positive emotions, favorable brand ratings, and open professions of love was presented by Ahuvia (2005).

2.5. Triangular Theory of Interpersonal Love

The majority of brand ideas are based on Sternberg (1986) triangle theory and his three necessary components of love: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Intimacy is a sense of intimacy and is mostly based on emotions or influences. Passion is characterized by the exhilaration that is largely inspired by inspiration. The choice to commit is based on the acknowledgment of the partner’s loving connection and the commitment that indicates the desire to sustain the relationship over the long term; hence, the perception of this relationship is the primary factor in the decision to commit. Based on the premise that a customer’s love for a brand may be perceived as love for a person, companies must attempt to develop a relationship with consumers and make them feel loved and connected to themselves. and develop favorable attitudes about the persons who are the focus of this investigation. This thesis will contribute to this branch of theory as well as the branch of a theory that is growing on the link between customers and brands (Batra et al., 2012). The study will provide a new idea for brand relationships, which will provide a fresh viewpoint on the love between people. To do this, brand anthropomorphism is the most applicable notion. Couples will find the behaviors of protecting, preserving, being loyal, and being proud of one another to be a very beneficial extension of the idea when love is based on two persons with emotional connections. modern brands, particularly mobile brands.

2.6. The Relationship between Brand Anthropomorphism and Brand Love All theories of brand love

are founded on the concept that human interactions generate love, which is then substantially transferred to goods and brands. Despite having a distinct study aim, Batra et al. (2012) maintain that brand love stems from interpersonal love. Instead, they discovered that brand love is founded on interpersonal affection but also adapted to the customer situation (Batra et al., 2012). Therefore, a study is required to examine these alterations in order to completely comprehend brand love. This is consistent with earlier research indicating that individuals engage in anthropomorphic thinking to assist satisfy their social needs (Epley et al., 2007), and anthropomorphic thinking increases the feeling of connection between consumers and anthropomorphized things (Hart et al., 2013). Therefore, this study proposes the hypothesis:

H1: Brand anthropomorphism has a positive relationship with brand love.

The moderate role of self-brand connection

As consumers have diverse ideas of brand attachment, a portion of them see the function the brand may play in representing itself (Sprott et al., 2009). The definition of brand love (Batra et al., 2012) also includes customers who use brands to convey both identity and desire. If the brand enables customers to express themselves, they may develop a stronger attachment to it. Consequently, individuals may adore a brand because of its image motivation and image-building drive. In addition, Hwang and Kandampully (2012) discovered in the research of young people that the notion of connection enhances brand loyalty. In this research, this is the brand that is anthropomorphized, wherein the customer’s sense of connection with the brand will strengthen the interaction between the various parties in this article. To test this, the following hypothesis will be proposed:

H2: Brand self-connection moderates the link between brand anthropomorphism and brand love; the relationship will be stronger or weaker depending on the strength of the self-brand connection.

The relationship between brand love and brand advocacy

According to Dick and Basu (1994), brand advocacy is a result of customers’ intimate connection with the brand. As previously said, brand love is one of the strongest emotional bonds and relates to customers’ deep sentiments for a brand. Loyalty to brand results in continuous purchases, positive word-of-mouth, and brand protection (Coelho et al., 2019). Similarly, Javed et al. (2015) support the influence of brand love on brand protection, which is characterized by overwhelmingly good word of mouth. Also examined and validated by Dalman et al. (2019) was the strong influence of brand love on brand protection. Colliander and Wien (2013) identify six modes of defense, including justification, justification, trivialization, inertia, confirmation, and doubt. Advocacy refers to customers’ responses to regarded unwarranted unfavorable remarks. Justifying the defense is identical to defending the defense, but the tone is more balanced (Dalman et al., 2019). Several research on brand love has revealed that it has significant effects on developing favorable brand advocacy. Batra et al. (2012) discovered that brand passion is associated with brand commitment and word of mouth. Therefore, the following hypothesis is offered in this study:

H3: Brand love has a positive relationship with brand advocacy

2.7. The Mediator Role of Brand Love

According to Hegner et al. (2017), consumers’ impression of a brand’s human-like features may foster an affectionate connection with the brand. Consumers start to defend brands (Sashittal & Jassawalla, 2019). In addition, when customers consider a brand as human, they begin to love and defend it (Sarkar & Sreejesh, 2014). After the brand, customers’ emotional attachment and enthusiasm for the brand are referred to as love (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006), and this emotional connection is quite powerful. According to Thomson et al. (2005), passion is a highly pleasant emotion that generates favorable advocacy (Lisjak et al., 2012). In their empirical studies, Rauschnabel and Ahuvia (2014) and Ferreira (2020) found that has a major influence on brand love and brand protection. The thesis then advances the following hypothesis:

H4: Brand self-connection moderates the link between brand anthropomorphism and brand love, which will be stronger or weaker depending on the strength of brand self-connection or weaker.

3. Methodology

In the high-tech market, especially smartphones, there is increasingly fierce competition between brands (GürhanCanli et al., 2016; Swaminathan, 2016); they try to use customers’ sentiments. Customers get superior benefits over competitors (Mayor & Davo, 2016). The current competition is not in the manufacturers or the companies’ houses but increasingly in the user’s perception, in other words, in the user’s mind. Another impressive thing in this study is that the sample will focus on Generation Y or the so-called consumer generation 4.0 in Ho Chi Minh City. Generation Y customers love personalization; they want to interact with a brand as if it were a genuine person, and that brand must demonstrate empathy for them and generate community value. Moreover, millennial customers use lifestyle brands to portray themselves as attractive (Escalas & Bettman, 2005). Since lifestyle is a major value of Generation Y, its customers utilize lifestyle businesses to express themselves and interact with other members of their generation (Pendergast et al., 2016). Therefore, the majority of companies’ target customers of Generation Y. Generation Y is the first generation born during the information age to regularly use communication technologies. Gain immense popularity (Parment, 2013). This familiarity enables them to utilize technological devices with ease and adapt quickly to changes in the digital environment. This generation has a major advantage due to their intelligence, skill with technology, and application knowledge. Especially in the age of digital technology, their adaptability and intelligence will be enhanced. Generation Y is interested in developing partnerships with companies and has established relationships with brands. They are also interested in brand communications and often remark on a brand that piques their attention. This is also why this research will concentrate on smartphone-using millennials with a preference for certain smartphone manufacturers.

3.1. Data Collection

Birks and Malhotra (2006) argued that if the marketing issue study model employs multivariate analysis, the sample size should be big; hence, the greater the sample size, the more accurate and representative it would be. They advise that the sample size for issue identification investigations should be between 1,000 and two thousand and five hundred samples. Since the sample in this article is the consumer, a big population, both non-probability approaches will be used to verify the validity of the research. Non-probability sampling techniques include convenience, judgmental, quota, and snowball. In Ho Chi Minh City, non-probability sampling is one of the finest solutions for a sample of consumers and an indeterminate population. The author suggests sample methods that use convenience sampling. According to Zikmund et al. (2003), convenience sampling allows researchers to acquire data or information by selecting the most convenient accessible units or customers. This strategy may guarantee that a large number of questionnaires are completed quickly and affordably (Bush & Hair, 1985) due to the fact that easy sampling saves time and money throughout the survey. The researchers gathered information from users who bought several mobile phones from the same manufacturer. For convenience sampling, the questionnaire is mostly provided to consumers following their shopping at Thegiodidong, when they will find the most convenient location to complete it.

3.2. Measurement Scale

The scales used in this thesis have been meticulously chosen and inherited from earlier exploratory and testing investigations to assure their correctness. The self-brand connection is applied scale from Escalas (2004), brand advocacy used the scale of Pai et al. (2015), brand anthropomorphism is used (Golossenko et al, 2020) and brand love is applied (Batra et al., 2012).

4. Results

All of the scales in this research have been meticulously picked and inherited from prior exploratory and validated research in order to verify their correctness since the findings demonstrate that all scales have reliability coefficients. Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7; alpha coefficient between 0.774 (Cognitive experience) and 0.909 (brand advocacy). The study also found that factor dependability ranges from 0.852 to 0.932. Thus, the research model scales are reliable. These scale variables will be examined for convergence and dissimilarity.

Table 1: Reliability 7est

OTGHB7_2023_v21n3_37_t0001.png 이미지

Source: Author’s calculation

The data analysis procedure adheres to the phases of Reflective model analysis as provided in (Hair et al., 2017). Variables with an Outer loading factor less than 0.4 are candidates for removal, as are variables with a load factor more than 0.4 but less than 0.7; if eliminated, it improves the statistical criterion to reach the needed threshold.

Convergence values assess scale stability. The convergence value is established by Fornell and Larcker (1981) if the AVE coefficient (average variance extracted) is larger than 0.5. Reliable and good convergence factors. The components' combined reliability coefficient (CR) and extracted total variance coefficient (AVE) exceed CR 0.7, whereas AVE ranges from 0.523 to 0.772. The external loading coefficient for all observed variables ranges from 0.502 to 0.902, exceeding 0.5. Thus, the study model's components' observed variables have convergent values.

Fornell and Larcker (1981) found that conditional areas with square roots of AVE greater than 0.5 (range: 0.723 to 0.879) are acceptable. The square root of AVE is greater than the correlation coefficients of the other components in each column. Thus, each variable is discriminant. When the HTMT index is less than 1, Garson (2016) shows the discriminant value between two related variables. Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2015) agree that HTMT must be less than 0.9. The result shows each component's HTMT index is less than 0.9.

Table 2: Discriminant Validity Test

OTGHB7_2023_v21n3_37_t0002.png 이미지

Source: Author’s calculation

Figure 1 depicts the tested measurement model’s outcomes. As indicated, the t (Bootstrap) value was utilized to evaluate the statistical significance of each route coefficient. Figure 1 demonstrates that AN has a positive effect on brand love and brand advocacy.

OTGHB7_2023_v21n3_37_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1: PLS-SEM Analysis

Table 3: Path Coefficient Test

OTGHB7_2023_v21n3_37_t0003.png 이미지

Source: Author’s calculation

Based on what was found in the PLS-SEM analysis, the results of the path coefficient table and the T-value showed that with 5 hypotheses being tested for the first time, 4 hypotheses were supported at the significance level. 5% significance (due to p-value < 0.05).

With the results p-value 0 < 0.05, it has been proved that brand love has an intermediate relationship between the relationship of brand anthropomorphism and brand advocacy. The original sample standardized regression coefficient (O) is an index representing the intermediate impact coefficient with a level of 0.117.

Hypothesis H1 argues that brand anthropomorphism has a positive relationship with brand love and H2 the relationship between brand love and brand advocacy has been accepted at the significance level (p-value < 0.05) so hypotheses H1 and H2 are accepted. Hypothesis H4 of brand self-connection has a moderating role in the relationship of brand anthropomorphism and love, from which the relationship will be stronger if the brand self-connection has a strong impact. P-value < 0.05 (0.013) so it can be concluded that the hypothesis is accepted.

5. Discussion

The research paper of Ali et al. (2021) used this relationship to assess the brand’s response to changing external environmental factors. From there, customers will use their love to protect the brand from the changing impacts of the environment. With this study, it can be seen that there are specific effects between brand anthropomorphism and brand love. Ali et al. (2021) has shown that some hotel brands have changed their logos to reinforce the importance of social distancing in reducing the risk of infection. Virus. As social distancing is a polarizing topic, this study aimed to understand consumers’ attitudes toward social distancing and their reactions to rebranding other brands. The results show that brand anthropomorphism and brand love are linked. Proving that both tangible products and services, brands can be personified so that a love relationship between two parties arises. Research by Ali et al. (2021) has also shown that brands can ultimately begin to build a strategy to turn themselves into objects like humans with emotions and feelings.

Adding this theory to the suffixes from the construction of brand anthropomorphism will make this variable even more important in the list of brand concepts. Based on the research results, a positive relationship has been identified between brand anthropomorphism and the formation of customers’ consciousness through expressing love in specific behaviors (Delbaere et al., 2011). It makes consumers feel better about thinking about the brand and motivate them to use the product or brand more deeply - aspects of positive emotional attachment and behavioral dimensions towards the passion of brand love. It is essential that customers in Vietnam, especially the representative generation Y, have proven that the brand is entirely alive and emotional. Empathy in emotions between people has made the brand exist clearly and very real. The mediating role of brand love has made brand anthropomorphism much more meaningful. For love to live, brand personality as a person is essential. It is difficult for consumers emotionally to attach to an intangible concept, such as a brand. Love will hardly be sustainable.

The relationship between brand anthropomorphism and brand advocacy has been confirmed in this study and is consistent with previous research by Juliana et al. (2020) and Lastovicka and Sirianni (2011). This partly supports the importance of brand anthropomorphism. From a theoretical perspective, it can be seen that images such as people, emotions, reason, and brand experience will be the driving force that directly affects the advocacy behavior of the brand (Du et al., 2007; Hollebeek & Chen, 2014). This thesis has also confirmed that the relationship between these two factors is significant and will add to the love triangle theory with the aspect when customers have a love for a brand personified as a brand. People will stand up to protect that brand, like showing their lover. The protection and advocacy for a brand they love always exist in close, loving relationships; even they will ignore the mistakes and mistakes that the other party causes. This makes a lot of sense for current brands when Gen Y plays an essential role in building the business’s brand image. The new age of technology has made consumers more and more aware of brand boycotts when they are entangled in bad things or doing wrong things. The relationship discovered in this thesis is significant for businesses to have the key in handling the crisis or preserving the brand by trying to create customer affection for the brand on the Internet. Love foundation from which to develop a sustainable brand. The reputation of brands will have an effect on the brands of distributors as well. When consumers are able to quickly associate a product's name with its distributor, it speeds up the consumption process. Because of the distributor's pivotal role in bridging the gap between companies and their clients, effective communication with distributors is crucial. the process of creating a company's brand

Brand self-connection moderated the relationships between brand self-personalization, brand love, and brand advocacy. This result is consistent with the study of (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Hwang & Kandampully, 2012). From this result, it can be seen that the fact that customers see themselves in the brand will be a catalyst for the brand to become more attached to the brand. With this result, building a brand in the business needs a lot of investment to learn and know the images from customers that they think they can see them in. From there, designing, Building, and communicating for them to feel and understand the brand’s meaning is an excellent effort for the business. But when the business has done it, it will be the time when customers are most attached to that brand. From there, changing brands and finding new experiences will no longer be the choice of customers. At a higher level, customers will be willing to protect that brand as their lover, a feature of brand advocacy. There is a link between the variables of brand anthropomorphism, brand love, and brand advocacy, but the role of brand self-connection will make the relationship more robust and faster.

6. Conclusion

The paper has found meaningful relationships connecting the customer self with the business’s brand. The role of the brand personification variable in the love relationship with the brand and brand advocacy has been confirmed in this study. In addition to providing an additional perspective on the relationship between brands and customers, the research results can support businesses when building a long-term brand strategy and expecting new rewards. Get value from customers. By applying the mixed research method of qualitative and quantitative research, they used PLS-SEM software to test the model’s fit and the correlation coefficient and handle the average impact. Time, moderating variable, the essay has achieved the research objectives set out. Although the research has conducted a survey of more than 1531 customers in Ho Chi Minh City, if further studies can expand the customer objects in other geographical areas and spread in Vietnam, there will be more benefits. The tests of relationships have been mentioned in more articles. Finally, developing research that measures the change of customers before and after branding will be an exciting research direction to determine the effectiveness of the components in the customer’s mind. However, this research direction will require much time and effort to be implemented.

References

  1. Ahuvia, A. (2005). Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers' identity narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 171-184. doi:10.1086/429607
  2. Ahuvia, A. C., Batra, R. P., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2009). Love, desire and identity: A conditional integration theory of the love of things. In The handbook of brand relationships (pp. 342-357). Armonk, NY: M.E.Sharpe.
  3. Albert, N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2010). Measuring the love feeling for a brand using interpersonal love items. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 5(1), 57-63.
  4. Ali, F., Dogan, S., Amin, M., Hussain, K., & Ryu, K. (2021). Brand anthropomorphism, love and defense: Does attitude towards social distancing matter? The Service Industries Journal, 41(1/2), 58-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2020.1867542
  5. Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 1-16. doi:10.1509/jm.09.0339
  6. Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477-500. https://doi.org/10.1086/671052
  7. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76-88. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609
  8. Birks, D. F., & Malhotra, N. K. (2006). Marketing research: An applied approach. London, UK: Pearson Education.
  9. Brown, S. D. (2010). Between the planes: Deleuze and social science. Deleuzian Intersections: Science, Technology, Anthropology, 101-120.
  10. Bush, A. J., & Hair. J. F., Jr. (1985). An assessment of the mall intercept as a data collection method. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2), 158-167. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151361
  11. Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. doi:10.1007/S11002-006-4219-2
  12. Cheng, S. Y. Y., White, T. B., & Chaplin, L. N. (2012). The effects of self-brand connections on responses to brand failure: A new look at the consumer-brand relationship. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 280-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.05.005
  13. Coelho, A., Bairrada, C., & Peres, F. (2019). Brand communities' relational outcomes, through brand love. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28(2), 154-165. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-09-2017-1593
  14. Colliander, J., & Wien, A. H. (2013). Trash talk rebuffed: Consumers' defense of companies criticized in online communities. European Journal of Marketing, 47(10), 1733-1757. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-04-2011-0191
  15. Dalman, M. D., Buche, M. W., & Min, J. (2019). The differential influence of identification on ethical judgment: The role of brand love. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(3), 875-891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3774-1
  16. Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E. F., & Phillips, B. J. (2011). Personification in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 121-130. https://doi.org/10.2753/joa0091-3367400108
  17. Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070394222001
  18. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.01.001
  19. Dwivedi, A., McDonald, R. E., & Johnson, L. W. (2014). The impact of a celebrity endorser's credibility on consumer self-brand connection and brand evaluation. Journal of Brand Management, 21(7), 559-578. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2014.37
  20. Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), Article 864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
  21. Escalas, J. E. (2004). Imagine yourself in the product: Mental simulation, narrative transportation, and persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 37-48. doi:10.1080/00913367.2004.10639163
  22. Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-389. doi:10.1086/497549
  23. Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2009). Self-brand connections: The role of reference groups and celebrity endorsers in the creation of brand meaning. In D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, & J. R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of brand relationships (pp. 107-123). New York, NY: M E Sharpe.
  24. Ferreira, J. C. (2020). Brand anthropomorphism and its impact on consumer brand identification, brand advocacy and consumer brand engagement on social media. Retrieved October 15, 2021, from https://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/bitstream/handle/10438/28996/BRAND%20ANTHROPOMORPHISM%20AND%20ITS%20IMPACT%20ON%20CONSUMER%20BRAND%20IDENTIFICATION%2c%20BRAND%20ADVOCACY%20AND%20CONSUMER%20BRAND%20ENGAGEMENT%20ON%20SOCIAL%20MEDIA_Juliana%20Correa%20Ferreira.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  25. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications Sage.
  26. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-373. doi:10.1086/209515
  27. Garson, G. D. (2016). Partial least squares. Regression and structural equation models. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Publishing Associates.
  28. Golossenko, A., Pillai, K. G., & Aroean, L. (2020). Seeing brands as humans: Development and validation of a brand anthropomorphism scale. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37(4), 737-755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.02.007
  29. Gurhan-Canli, Z., Hayran, C., & Sarial-Abi, G. (2016). Customer-based brand equity in a technologically fast-paced, connected, and constrained environment. AMS Review, 6(1), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-016-0079-y
  30. Hair, J. F., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications Sage.
  31. Hart, P. M., Jones, S. R., & Royne, M. B. (2013). The human lens: How anthropomorphic reasoning varies by product complexity and enhances personal value. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(1/2), 105-121. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2012.759993
  32. Hegner, S. M., Fenko, A., & Teravest, A. (2017). Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand brand love. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 26(1), 26-41. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2016-1215
  33. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  34. Hollebeek, L. D., & Chen, T. (2014). Exploring positively-versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: A conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(1), 62-74. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0332
  35. Hwang, J., & Kandampully, J. (2012). The role of self-construal and emotionsin younger consumers' commitment to luxury brands. The Research Journal of the Costume Culture, 20(4), 604-615. doi:10.7741/RJCC.2012.20.4.604
  36. Javed, M., Roy, S., & Mansoor, B. (2015). Will you defend your loved brand? In Consumer brand relationships (pp. 31-54). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
  37. Juliana, J., Djakasaputra, A., & Pramono, R. (2020). Green perceived risk, green viral communication, green perceived value against green purchase intention through green satisfaction. Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management Research, 1(2), 124-139.
  38. Kim, H. C., & Kramer, T. (2015). Do materialists prefer the "brand-as-servant"? The interactive effect of anthropomorphized brand roles and materialism on consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 284-299. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv015
  39. Kim, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slot machine? Power, anthropomorphism, and risk perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 94-107. https://doi.org/10.1086/658148
  40. Kudeshia, C., Sikdar, P., & Mittal, A. (2016). Spreading love through fan page liking: A perspective on small scale entrepreneurs. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 257-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.003
  41. Kumar, J., & Nayak, J. K. (2019). Brand engagement without brand ownership: A case of non-brand owner community members. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28(2), 216-230. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-04-2018-1840
  42. Kwak, H., Puzakova, M., & Rocereto, J. F. (2015). Better not smile at the price: The differential role of brand anthropomorphization on perceived price fairness. Journal of Marketing, 79(4), 56-76. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.0410
  43. Lastovicka, J. L., & Sirianni, N. J. (2011). Truly, madly, deeply: Consumers in the throes of material possession love. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 323-342. https://doi.org/10.1086/658338
  44. Lisjak, M., Lee, A. Y., & Gardner, W. L. (2012). When a threat to the brand is a threat to the self: The importance of brand identification and implicit self-esteem in predicting defensiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1120-1132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212445300
  45. MacInnis, D. J., & Folkes, V. S. (2017). Humanizing brands: When brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(3), 355-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.12.003
  46. Mayor, M. G.-O., & Davo, N. B. (2016). Competitive advantages of the mobile phone operators in the Asia Pacific region: Analysis from the strategic groups approach. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(5),
  47. Pai, D.-C., Lai, C.-S., Chiu, C.-J., & Yang, C.-F. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and brand advocacy in business-to-business market: The mediated moderating effect of attribution. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(4), 685-696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1979-5
  48. Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 294-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0485-6
  49. Park, C. W., Macinnis, D., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, Forthcoming, 74(6). doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.6.1
  50. Parment, A. (2013). Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications for retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(2), 189-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.001
  51. Pendergast, D., Gurhan-Canli, Z., Hayran, C., Sarial-Abi, G., Parment, A., Birks, D. F., ... Churchill, G. A., Jr. (2016). Getting to know the Y generation. AMS Review, 28(2), 541-554. doi:10.1509/jm.09.0339
  52. Puzakova, M., & Kwak, H. (2017). Should anthropomorphized brands engage customers? The impact of social crowding on brand preferences. Journal of Marketing, 81(6), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.16.0211
  53. Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2009). Pushing the envelope of brand and personality: Antecedents and moderators of anthropomorphized brands. Advances in Consumer Research, 36, 413-420.
  54. Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When humanizing brands goes wrong: The detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 81-100. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0510
  55. Rauschnabel, P., & Ahuvia, A. (2014). You're so lovable: Anthropomorphism and brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 21(5), 1-24. doi:10.1057/BM.2014.14
  56. Romero, M., & Craig, A. W. (2017). Costly curves: How human-like shapes can increase spending. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 80-98. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw080
  57. Sarkar, A., & Sreejesh, S. (2014). Examination of the roles played by brand love and jealousy in shaping customer engagement. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(1), 24-32. doi:10.1108/JPBM-05-2013-0315
  58. Sashittal, H., & Jassawalla, A. (2019). Brand entification as a post-anthropomorphic attribution among twitter-using millennials. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 37(7), 741-753. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-10-2018-0446
  59. Sirgy, M. J., & Danes, J. E. (1982). Self-image/product-image congruence models: Testing selected models. San Francisco, CA: ACR North American Advances.
  60. Sprott, D., Czellar, S., & Spangenberg, E. (2009). The importance of a general measure of brand engagement on market behavior: Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 92-104. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.1.92
  61. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), Article 119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119
  62. Swaminathan, V. (2016). Branding in the digital era: New directions for research on customer-based brand equity. AMS Review, 6(1), 33-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-016-0077-0
  63. Thomson, M., Macinnis, D., & 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. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP1501_10
  64. Walz, A. M., & Celuch, K. G. (2010). The effect of retailer communication on customer advocacy: The moderating role of trust. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 23, Article 95.
  65. Wan, E. W., Chen, R. P., & Jin, L. (2017). Judging a book by its cover? The effect of anthropomorphism on product attribute processing and consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1008-1030.
  66. Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336
  67. Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2003). Research methods. Health Economics Research Method, 2.