experiences—visual, auditory, gustatory, tactile, olfactory, thermal, and/or kinesthetic. Krishna (2012) in her integrative review paper on the effect of senses on one’s perception, judgment, and behavior eloquently documents the powerful effects of sensory pleasure (displeasure) on consumers’ psychology. The psychological distance from a brand is short when a customer appreciates its sensorial or aesthetically pleasing qualities. Starbucks’ ability to build a brand that evokes pleasure from multiple sensory modalities (e.g., hot, strong tasting coffee with a pleasant aroma/a visually and aurally pleasing retail atmosphere allowing for relaxation and exemplifies a brand that reduces the psychological distance through aesthetic/hedonic elements. The opposite is also true. When a brand has sensorial or aesthetically displeasing qualities, the psychological distance is far. Enabling (disabling)-the-self via product and service performance The psychological distance between the self and a brand is also influenced by the extent to which a brand creates a sense of an efficacious and capable self, enabling a consumer to exert control over his or her environment so as to approach desired goals and avoid undesired ones. Creating a sense of efficacy is not only contingent on consistent and reliable product performance but also on its direct implications on one’s own assessment of the self. Psychological distance has been shown to be short when brands make individuals feel autonomous and in control of their selves (Giles & Maltby, 2004). For example, Swiss Army Knives’ versatile applications or Glock’s endurance in adverse conditions contribute to consumers’ close relationship with the brands by fostering in consumers a sense of mastery over their environment. This leads to a higher level of attachment. The opposite is also true. When a brand interferes with (or hinders one from) being efficient and attaining an able self, one is likely to be psychologically distant (aversive) to it.
viewed the brand as (5) = “good” versus (-5) = “bad,” (5) = “favorable” versus (-5) “unfavorable,” and (5) = “positive” versus (-5) = “negative.” Attitude confidence was measured with two items; “How confident are you about your thoughts and feelings about Manchester United?” anchored by (1) = “not at all confident” to (11) = “extremely confident” and “How certain are you about your thoughts and feelings about Manchester United?” anchored by (1) = “not at all certain” to (11) = “extremely certain” (α = .97). The emotional valence relationship measure was: (1) = "I deeply hate Manchester United” to (11) = “I deeply love Manchester United.” The psychological consequence variables of close feeling (i.e., sharing positive (negative) feelings from the fortune (misfortune) of the brand and external rather than internal attribution of blame) were measured with “To what extent do you feel happy when good things happen to Manchester United?”, “To what extent do you feel sad when bad things happen to Manchester United?” (α = .89) and “To what extent do you think that when something goes wrong with Manchester United, it does not reflect its true quality?” anchored by (1) = “not at all” to (11) = “completely.” Finally, to test whether or not brand-self distance and brand prominence together reflect participants’ own understanding of brand attachment-aversion, participants were asked to indicate their brand attachment-aversion with the following measure: (1) = "I am strongly averse to Manchester United” to (11) = “I am strongly attached to Manchester United.” ------------------------------------------- Table 1 here ------------------------------------------- Results
“neutral”); (2) maintaining the current relationship (“How much do you want to maintain (terminate) your relationship with the Apple iPhone when it has a problem?”, (1) = “readily terminate” to (11) = “readily maintain,” mid-point = “neutral”); and (3) further strengthening the current relationship (“How much do you want to strengthen (destroy) the reputation of the Apple iPhone?”, (1) = “readily destroy” to (11) = “readily strengthen,” mid-point = “neutral”) (α = .90). Study 2 computed an average score of the three items and validated it with a one-item overall brand relationship motivational strength measure (“Please summarize your overall relationship with the Apple iPhone”, (1) = “avoid relationship” to (11) = “promote relationship,” mid-point = “maintain relationship”) (r = .85). Participants completed two 11-point behavioral intention scale items for each of ten different brand behaviors. The first item measured the perceived difficulty of performing each behavior ((1) = “not at all” to (11) = “extremely”). The second item tested participants’ intentions to perform the behavior in the future ((1) = “not at all” to (11) = “very likely”). The four most difficult behaviors were “defending Apple iPhone when others speak negatively about it,” “participating in an Apple iPhone charity event donating time,” “participating in an Apple iPhone charity event donating money,” and “always buying the new model of Apple iPhone” with difficulty levels of 8.50, 8.24, 8.22, and 8.15, respectively. Moderately difficult behaviors included “switching from Apple iPhone to non-Apple smart phone,” “recommending Apple iPhone to other people,” and “forgiving Apple iPhone if it malfunctions” with difficulty levels of 5.31, 5.08, and 5.06, respectively. Easier to perform behaviors were “Waiting 4-6 weeks to buy Apple iPhone,” ”buying Apple iPhone,” and “visiting Apple iPhone website” with difficulty scores of 3.72, 3.25, and 2.46, respectively.6 The three levels of perceived enactment difficulty
were significantly different from each other (p < .05) and behaviors as part of the three levels loaded on different factors in a CFA. ------------------------------------------ Table 2 here ------------------------------------------ Results Two CFAs demonstrated that the chi-square change between the model in which the distance and prominence factors were allowed to correlate (r = .87; χ2(1) = 3.70, p < .05) and the model in which the two factors were forced to be perfectly correlated was significant (Δχ2(1) = 420.50, p < .001). In addition, the results again showed that the two factor model with brand-self distance and brand prominence as two separate factors favors the AA Relationships more than a one-factor model. Study 2 also confirmed that the second order factor model predicts the AA Relationships better than the first order factor model. The measurement results in Study 2 replicated Hypotheses 1a and 1b. As hypothesized, the AA Relationships measure had a greater predictive power of a brand’s mind share (γ = .74 versus γ = .32; z = 24.71, p < .001) and heart share (γ = .95 versus γ = .37; z = 44.75, p < .001) than brand attachment (Table 2). SEM results further showed that the AA Relationships and the emotional valence measure predict a brand’s heart share equally well (γs = .89 and .78; z = 2.21, p = n.s.), while the AA Relationships predict the mind share of a brand better than the emotional valence measure (γs = .76 and .29; z = 21.58, p < .001). Also, AA Relationships and brand attitude-strength equally predict a brand’s mind share (γs = .70 versus .64; z = 3.86, p = n.s.) while AA Relationships predict a brand’s heart share better than brand
Results The results of Study 3 replicated Hypotheses 1a and 1b. Moreover, as shown in Table 3, SEM results demonstrated that the AA Relationships are a better predictor of a brand’s mind share (γ = .56 versus γ = .30; z = 25.59, p < .001) and heart share (γ = .87 versus γ = .35; z = 46.23, p < .001) than brand attachment. AA Relationships were also better able to capture a brand’s heart share than brand attitude-strength (γs = .90 versus .29; z = 25.85, p < .001), while being an equal predictor of brand mind share (γs = .79 versus .72; z = 1.94, p = n.s.). In addition, the AA Relationships and the emotional valence measure predicted the heart share of a brand equally well (γs = .86 and .79; z = 3.39, p = n.s.), while the AA Relationships were better predictors of a brand’s mind share than the emotional valence measure (γs = .78 and .30; z = 19.73, p < 001). The AA Relationships also predicted the relationship motivation strength better than other measures (see Table 3). In addition, Study 3 demonstrated that the AA Relationships measure predicted customers’ intentions to engage in the most difficult-to-enact pro- or behaviors better than brand attachment (γs = .80 versus .33; z = 21.42, p < .001), attitude strength (γs = .92 versus .31, z = 34.74, p < .001) as well as the emotional valence measure (γs = .92 versus .36; z = 32.75, p < .001). The same results were obtained for moderately behaviors while no difference was noted among four measures for easier behaviors (Table 3). This supports Hypothesis 4a. Since all survey participants shopped at the collaborating store at least once in the past (before December 2010), it was not possible to test the relative predictive performance of the AA Relationships and other measures on brand purchase.9 Thus, the relative predictive power of several competing measures on behaviors (Hypothesis 4b) was tested on the basis of only brand
(Second group) “Assuming that the total distance between yourself and a brand is one hundred miles, how would you describe your feelings toward a brand when you think that it is 100 miles away from yourself?” (n = 20); (Third group) “Assuming that the total distance between yourself and a brand is one hundred miles, how would you describe your feelings toward a brand when you think that it is 1 yard away from yourself?” (n = 23); (Fourth group) “Assuming that the total distance between yourself and a brand is one hundred miles, how would you describe your feelings toward a brand when you think that there is no distance between you and a brand?” (n = 23). The other three groups (groups 5, 6 and 7) were given the two brand-self distance items (-4 = “I am personally disconnected from the brand”, 4 = “I am personally connected to the brand” and -4 = “The brand is very far away from me and who I am”, 4 = “The brand is very close to me and who I am”, with mid-points “indifferent” = 0) pre-coded as follows: (Fifth group) “Assuming that you evaluated your relationship with a brand on the following two items and replied as indicated below: “0” = indifferent (n = 22); (Sixth group) -4 = “I am personally disconnected from the brand”, “The brand is very far away from me and who I am” (n = 20), and (seventh group) 4 = “I am personally connected to the brand”, “The brand is very close to me and who I am” (n = 23). Finally, three additional groups (groups 8, 9 and 10) received the two self-connection items of Park et al.’s (2010) brand attachment scale (“To what extent is the brand part of you and who you are?”, “To what extent do you feel personally connected to the brand?”) pre-coded as “completely” (Group 8; n = 21), “not at all” (Group 9; n = 19), and “moderately” (Group 10; n = 20) with numerical anchors of 4, -4, and 0, respectively.
Keller, K. F. (2012). Understanding the richness of brand relationships: Research dialogue on brands as intentional agents. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 186-190. Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 166-176. Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 332-351. Lee, M. S., Motion, J., & Conroy, D. (2009). Anti-consumption and brand avoidance. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 169-180. MacInnis, D. J. (2012). Brands as intentional agents: Questions and extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 195-198. Mallick, S. K., & McCandless, B. R. (1966). A study of catharsis of aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(6), 591-596. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-969. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Lima, M. P., Simões, A., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Marušić, I., Bratko, D., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Chae, J. H., & Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Age differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35, 466-477. Mikulincer, M. (1998). Attachment working models and the sense of trust: An exploration of interaction goals and affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1209-1224.
Table 1 Study 1: The AA Relationships outcomes. Manchester United (n = 200) Happy (sad) for good (bad) things External (vs. internal) blame attribution Attached-averse AA Relationships γ = .98, p < .001 γ = .96, p < .001 γ = .99, p < .001 Brand-self distance γ = .66, p < .01 γ = .65, p < .01 γ = .69, p < .001 AA Relationships vs. brand attachment γ = .93 vs. γ = .46; z = 37.43, p < .001 γ = .88 vs. γ = .53; z = 22.43, p < .001 γ = .94 vs. γ = .59; z = 21.76, p < .001 AA Relationships vs. emotional valence γ = .96 vs. γ =.60; z = 18.52, p < .001 γ = .93 vs. γ =.61; z = 17.04, p < .001 γ = .97 vs. γ =.65; z = 17.21, p < .001 AA Relationships vs. attitude strength γ = .92 vs. γ = .54; z = 19.92, p < .001 γ = .90 vs. γ =.55; z = 19.98, p < .001 γ = .98 vs. γ =.55; z = 20.63, p < .001 Table 2
Study 2: AA Relationships, brand mind share, brand heart share, and behavioral intentions. Apple iPhone (n = 367) Mind Share Heart Share Very difficult behaviors Moderately difficult behaviors Easier behaviors AA Relationships γ = .89, p < .001 γ = .98, p < .001 γ = .96, p < .001 γ = .90, p < .001 γ = .74, p < .001 Brand-self distance γ = .71, p < .001 γ = .74, p < .001 γ = .69, p < .001 γ = .81, p < .001 γ = .68, p < .001 AA Relationships vs. brand attachment γ = .74 vs. γ = .32; z = 24.71, p < .001 γ = .95 vs. γ = .37; z = 44.75, p < .001 γ = .86 vs. γ = .45; z = 72.97, p < .001 γ = .89 vs. γ = .33; z = 53.44, p < .001 γ = .74 vs. γ = .71; z = 1.51, p = n.s. AA Relationships vs. emotional valence γ = .76 vs. γ = .29; z = 21.58, p < .001 γ = .89 vs. γ = .78; z = 2.21, p = n.s. γ = .89 vs. γ = .38; z = 25.84, p < .001 γ = .82 vs. γ = .46; z = 19.67, p < .001 γ = .70 vs. γ = .68; z = 1.04, p = n.s. AA Relationships vs. attitude strength γ = .70 vs. γ = .64; z = 3.86, p = n.s. γ = .96 vs. γ = .21; z = 31.47, p < .001 γ = .90 vs. γ = .31; z = 27.58, p < .001 γ = .89 vs. γ = .42; z = 26.42, p < .001 γ = .73 vs. γ = .65; z = 2.96, p = n.s. Table 3
Table 4 Study 3: AA Relationships and brand purchase behaviors. Field study (n = 739) Brand purchase share Need share Future purchase amount AA Relationships γ = .95, p < .001 γ = .94, p < .001 γ = .96, p < .001 Brand-self distance γ = .69, p < .001 γ = .70, p < .001 γ = .68, p < .001 AA Relationships vs. brand attachment γ = .85 vs. γ = .20; z = 56.62, p < .001 γ = .89 vs. γ = .20; z = 56.62, p < .001 γ = .80 vs. γ = .22; z = 38.98, p < .001 AA Relationships vs. emotional valence γ = .94 vs. γ = .53; z = 28.64, p < .001 γ = .92 vs. γ = .56; z = 27.97, p < .001 γ = .95 vs. γ = .53; z = 28.14, p < .001 AA Relationships vs. attitude strength γ = .94 vs. γ = .41; z = 31.68, p < .001 γ = .93 vs. γ = .44; z = 32.59, p < .001 γ = .95 vs. γ = .47; z = 32.10, p < .001