Brand Social Power

Does Brand Social Power
Mean Market Might?

Exploring the Influence of
Brand Social Power on
Brand Evaluations
Jody L. Crosno
West Virginia University
Traci H. Freling
University of Texas–Arlington
Steven J. Skinner
University of Kentucky
ABSTRACT
The importance of brand equity has been recognized in the market-

ing literature for years. Although researchers generally agree there
is a social component to brand equity, empirical work in this area
stops short of exploring the brand’s ability to exert a social influence
on consumers and their choices. The present manuscript attempts to
address this deficit and extend the brand equity literature by pro-
posing a new construct—brand social power. Drawing from research
on social influence and perceived power, five bases of brand social
power are identified and a conceptual attempt is made to integrate
brand social power with existing brand equity frameworks. The
impact of brand social power is also examined empirically at the
level of individual power bases, for overall brand social power, and
in terms of brand equity. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26(2): 91–121 (February 2009)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20263
91
INTRODUCTION
Perceived power has frequently been examined as a central construct for under-
standing human nature in general (Bierstedt, 1950; French, 1956; French &
Raven, 1959) and buyer behavior in particular (Busch, 1980; Gaski, 1984a;
MacKenzie & Zaichkowsky, 1981). Research in social psychology suggests power,
“the ability to evoke change in another’s behavior . . .” (Gaski, 1984a, p.10), is a
multidimensional construct that may be acquired through legitimacy, rewards,
coercion, reference, or expertise (French & Raven, 1959). Power is thought to influ-
ence satisfaction (Bachman, 1968; Bachman, Smith, & Slesinger, 1966), attrac-
tion (Raven & French, 1958), conformity (Warren, 1968, 1969), social influence
(Lippitt, Polansky, & Rosen, 1952), conflict (Raven & Kruglanski, 1970), and
productivity (Hill & French, 1967; Student, 1968).
In marketing, researchers have documented power as a determinant of sat-
isfaction in franchise dealings (Gaski, 1984a; Hunt & Nevin, 1974), an antecedent
to conflict among channel members (Gaski, 1984b; Lusch, 1976), a distinguish-
ing factor in relationships between sales managers and personnel (Busch, 1980;
Busch & Wilson, 1976; Skinner, Dubinsky, & Donnelly, 1984), and an important
creative element in advertising (MacKenzie & Zaichkowsky, 1981; Sullivan &
O’Connor, 1985). These studies in channels, sales, and advertising constitute
meaningful empirical explorations of the effects of power in marketing; how-
ever, the role of power as it relates to branding remains uncharted territory.
Interestingly, the “power of the brand” has been extolled in numerous marketing
publications (Aaker, 1991; Campbell, 2002; Davis, 2002; Davis, 2000; Fournier,
1998; Keller, 1999), and there is limited behavioral evidence suggesting brands
exert power by influencing purchasing decisions (Aaker, 1991; Campbell, 2002;
Wah, 1998) and consumers’ willingness to pay a price premium (Aaker, 1991). Is
it possible that brands possess the power to influence these and other aspects of
consumer behavior? Perhaps not in a literal sense but rather in an attributional
manner, as when individuals ascribe power—among other characteristics and
associations—to brands based on their consumer–brand relationships.1 Might
brands derive power from different bases that they exercise over consumers, just
as individuals influence others by drawing upon different sources of power? Could
these bases of power be leveraged as points of differentiation in brand position-
ing strategies? The current research attempts to replace speculation about these
issues with theory and data, fusing the branding literature with social influence
theory to define brand social power and formulating a typology of brand social
power. Further, key indicators of each brand social power dimension are identi-
fied and empirically examined, and the relationships of individual bases of brand
social power to overall brand social power are tested. The manuscript also explores,
both conceptually and empirically, how brand social power relates to brand equity
and affects attitudinal responses.
This paper begins with a selective review of research in the areas of power
and branding to unite these heretofore disparate streams of literature. Brand
1
In this article, brand social power is not conceptualized as being an absolute resource but is
instead treated as an attribution (Brill 1992). The authors do not contend that brands possess
brains that allow them to accumulate knowledge and expertise, as do humans. Rather, consis-
tent with the power as an attribution perspective, the authors suggest that people attribute
power and the corresponding associations (e.g., knowledge and expertise) to brands based on
their consumer–brand relationships.
92 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
social power and its constituent dimensions are then defined, and hypotheses
are offered about each and about associations between individual brand social
power dimensions and overall brand social power, as well as overall brand
social power and brand equity. A study is conducted to test these expectations,
and a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications emanating from
findings regarding brand social power follows.
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT & RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Theory of Social Influence and Power

Researchers generally conceptualize power as either a resource or an attribu-
tion (Brill, 1992). When viewed as a resource, power is defined in terms of inher-
ent characteristics of the individual trying to exert influence (Brill, 1992). Here,
power is seen as absolute—either an individual does or does not possess power.
When viewed as an attribution, power is defined in terms of perceived charac-
teristics of the individual trying to exert influence (Brill, 1992). According to
this perspective, the power one individual holds over another person may be
perceived and not necessarily absolute. That is, power is not something one pos-
sesses, but rather a quality an individual is bestowed through “the perceptions
of the interpersonal dynamics experienced in relationships” (Brill, 1992, p. 836).
Although there is no consensus regarding whether power is innate or perceived
(Gaski, 1984a), both perspectives coalesce around a definition of the construct
as “the ability to evoke change in another’s behavior, or cause someone to do
something that he/she would not have done otherwise” (Gaski, 1984a, p. 10).
An individual may access any number of power sources to influence the behav-
ior of others. French and Raven’s (1959) power typology—arguably the received
wisdom in social influence research—proposes five bases from which one may
derive power. Legitimate power is based on the perception of an individual that
another person has the legitimate right to influence him or her, and that he or
she is obligated to accept the influence. Reward power is based on the percep-
tion of an individual that another person has the ability to reward him or her.
Coercive power is based on the perception of an individual that another person
has the ability to punish him or her. Expert power is based on the perception of
an individual that another person has some specialized knowledge or expertise.
Referent power is based on an individual’s identification with, and desire to be
similar to, another person.
Power in Marketing
The concept of power in general, and French and Raven’s (1959) typology more
specifically, has been utilized in various disciplines, including marketing. The
most pervasive marketing application of French and Raven’s research has been
in channels of distribution (Butaney & Wortzel, 1988; El-Ansary & Stern, 1972;
Frazier & Summers, 1984; Frazier & Summers, 1986; Gaski, 1984a; Hunt &
Nevin, 1974; John, 1984; Lusch, 1976; Wilkinson, 1973). Research in this area
focuses on the relationships between channel members, with emphasis on power,
conflict, and satisfaction (Gaski, 1984a). More specifically, this research indi-
cates that the sources of power possessed by channel members may affect the
DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 93

level of conflict in the channel, as well as the level of satisfaction experienced
by channel members (Gaski, 1984a). For example, Hunt and Nevin (1974) assert
that franchisor power is a function of the sources of power available and that
the use of coercive (versus noncoercive) sources of power in the marketing chan-
nel results in less satisfaction. Similarly, Lusch (1976) suggests that using
noncoercive sources of power tends to result in less intrachannel conflict, whereas
coercive sources of power are likely to increase conflict.
Power also figures prominently in sales research (Busch, 1980; Busch &
Wilson, 1976; Skinner, Dubinsky, & Donnelly, 1984), especially in regard to the rela-
tionship between sales managers and sales personnel, and how the bases of power
affect roles, conflict, and satisfaction of sales personnel. For instance, Busch (1980)
contends that the bases of power employed by sales managers impact salesper-
sons’ satisfaction with supervision, role clarity, and propensity to leave. Skinner,
Dubinsky, and Donnelly (1984) also investigated the relationship between the
bases of power utilized by retail sales managers and sales personnel job satisfac-
tion; however, they extended the sales literature to include role conflict and role
ambiguity. An essential implication of this research is that the use of noncoercive
(vs. coercive) sources of power engender salespeople with higher job satisfaction,
less role conflict, and less role ambiguity (Skinner, Dubinsky, & Donnelly, 1984).
Research in advertising also incorporates the concept of power (MacKenzie &
Zaichowsky, 1981; Sullivan & O’Connor, 1985). Content analysis has been employed
to determine the differential use of the various bases of power in print advertis-
ing. For example, MacKenzie and Zaichowsky (1981) investigated the content of
alcohol advertising, using French and Raven’s (1959) typology. A key finding is that
wine advertisements utilize informational and expert power more than other
sources of power, whereas liquor and beer ads rely primarily upon reward power.
Brand Social Power

Just as power influences the effectiveness of relationships and strategies in
marketing channels, sales, and advertising, it may play a pivotal role in the con-
text of branding. Extending the general definition of power to a branding
context, brand social power is defined as “the ability of a brand to influence the
behavior of consumers and to cause a consumer to do something he or she would
not have done otherwise.” To be clear, brand social power is viewed from the
“power as an attribution” standpoint, wherein the power of a brand is based on
consumers’ perceptions of the brand’s power (and not absolute power). So,
although a brand does not possess actual power, consumers who know and use
a brand may attribute authority, control, influence, and other characteristics to
it based on their consumer–brand relationship and past usage experiences.2
Brand Social Power and Brand Equity. Brand social power is distin-
guished from (customer-based) brand equity, which Aaker (1991) defines as
“a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol,
that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm
and/or to that firm’s customers” (p. 15). Here, brand social power is treated as
a component of customer-based brand equity, regardless of whether the con-
struct is treated as cognitive or relational in nature (Gurhan-Canli & Ahluwalia,
2
See Footnote 1.

1999). The cognitive perspective of brand equity draws upon the memory liter-
ature and learning theory to explain brand equity and how to build strong
brands (Aaker, 1996b; Keller, 2000; Keller, 1999; Keller, 1993). Aaker (1991)
offers a commonly accepted (primarily cognitive) model, which includes five
bases of brand equity: (1) brand associations, (2) brand awareness, (3) perceived
quality, (4) brand loyalty, and (5) other proprietary assets. In this framework, each
of these bases constitutes an asset that creates brand equity in a variety of dif-
ferent ways. Brand social power—a perceptual concept that resides in the minds
of a brand’s consumers—may be characterized as a brand association, defined
by Aaker (1991) as “anything ‘linked’ in memory to a brand” (p. 109). Aaker
(1996a) asserts that brand equity is supported in large part by the associations
consumers make with a brand, which may include perceptions regarding the
brand social power that brand wields. As such, it is possible that brand social
power—like any other brand association—may help consumers to retrieve and
process branding information, differentiate a brand, generate reasons for con-
sumers to buy a brand, create positive attitudes and feelings toward a brand,
and provide a basis for brand extensions (Aaker, 1991).
The relational perspective of brand equity emphasizes the consumer–brand
relationship and depicts brand equity as a function of the personal value or
meaning a brand holds for the consumer (Blackston, 1992; Chang & Chieng,
2006; Fournier, 1998; Gurhan-Canli & Ahluwalia, 1999; Ji, 2002; McCracken,
1993; Woodside, 2004). Representative of work in this vein is Fournier’s (1998)
brand relationship quality construct, which assesses the strength and durabil-
ity of a consumer–brand relationship in terms of three dimensions: (1) affective
and socioemotive attachments (consisting of love/passion and self-connection);
(2) behavioral ties (which include commitment and interdependence); and (3) sup-
portive cognitive beliefs (comprised of intimacy and brand partner quality).
Viewing brand social power through a relational lens, one might perceive brand
social power as a component of the brand behaviors that nourish the
consumer–brand relationship. For example, brand behaviors that wield referent
brand social power may influence a consumer’s self-connection with a brand. Like-
wise, commitment may be cultivated through reward brand social power or com-
pelled through coercive brand social power. And legitimate brand social power
may improve a consumer’s perceptions of brand partner quality.
Brand Social Power and Attitudes. In addition to demarcating brand

social power as a driver of brand equity, it is also important to reconcile brand
social power with extant attitude theory. Briefly, an attitude is defined as “a psy-
chological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some
degree of favor or disfavor,” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p.1), whereas a brand atti-
tude is the general evaluation (favorable or unfavorable) of a particular brand.
Social scientists (Katz & Stotland, 1959; Krech & Crutchfield, 1948; McGuire, 1969;
McGuire, 1985; Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960; Smith, 1947; Triandis, 1971) have
long acknowledged that attitudes may elicit three types of evaluative responses:
affective responses comprised of the feelings or emotions an individual has
in relation to an attitude object; cognitive responses consisting of the thoughts an
individual has about the attitude object; and conative responses composed of
an individual’s actions with respect to the attitude object. However, empirical
tests of the tripartite model of attitudinal responding have produced equivocal
results (Bagozzi, 1978; Breckler, 1984; Kothandapani, 1971; Ostrom, 1969) for
this conceptual trinity, and the evidence supporting a discriminant behavioral

component is particularly tenuous (Bagozzi & Burnkrant, 1979; Bagozzi &
Burnkrant, 1985; Dillon & Kumar, 1985).
The current research focuses primarily on evaluative responses that are cona-
tive in nature—specifically, the ability of a brand to wield social power over, and
induce certain behaviors among, their consumers. So, aside from the prescrip-
tive utility that a better understanding of brand social power may provide to
brand managers charged with developing positioning strategies for their brands,
results generated here may add another voice to the debate regarding whether
the division of evaluative attitudinal responses is one worth preserving in cur-
rent attitude theory and whether consumers do, in fact, respond to attitude
objects such as brands in a behavioral manner.
The Bases of Brand Social Power

Given this conceptualization of brand social power in relation to brand equity
and attitude theory, attention is now turned to further expanding the internal
structure of the construct. Adapting French and Raven’s (1959) typology of social
influence, five bases of brand social power are developed that correspond to
their original bases of power, including legitimate brand social power, reward
brand social power, coercive brand social power, expert brand social power, and
referent brand social power. Different factors that are likely to underpin each
source of brand social power are also identified, and hypotheses are offered
regarding the relationship(s) between these factors and the strength of corre-
sponding brand social power bases.
Legitimate Brand Social Power. Legitimate brand social power is the abil-
ity of a brand to influence a consumer’s behavior via its perceived position in the
industry, its reputation, and/or its duration in the industry. A brand’s position
within its respective industry may be gauged by its perceived market share. The
theory of double jeopardy may inform theorizing on how a brand’s industry posi-
tion may influence its legitimate brand social power. According to this theory,
brands with large market share have more consumers who purchase more fre-
quently than brands with small market share (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Fur-
ther, the theory of double jeopardy suggests that consumers prefer high market
share brands over low market share brands (Chaudhuri, 2002), presumably
because of consumers’ perceptions that they “ought to” purchase the high mar-
ket share brand due to some internalized value(s). In addition to having more reg-
ular consumers, brands with greater market share should also have stronger
legitimate brand social power than brands with smaller market share.
H1a: Legitimate brand social power is stronger when the perceived position
of a company’s brand is high.
Another indicator of legitimate brand social power is the brand’s reputation.

Vergin and Qoronfleh’s (1998) analysis of corporate reputation and stock perform-
ance indicate that a company’s stock performance is directly and positively related
to its reputation. One reason that corporate reputation results in better market
performance is customers’ willingness “to purchase the firm’s existing products and
services and accept new offerings from it” (Vergin & Qoronfleh, 1998, p. 39). Similarly,
Chaudhuri (2002) found a significant relationship between brand reputation and

brand sales, market share, and relative price. This study suggests that the rela-
tionship between brand reputation and brand performance is a function of the con-
sumer’s perception that he or she should purchase brands with strong reputations
because of some internalized value(s). Along with instilling receptiveness among
consumers to purchase current and future offerings, brands with a strong reputa-
tion should also have stronger legitimate brand social power. It is important to note
that brand reputations may vary in strength and valence. Brands with strong rep-
utations should be more powerful than brands with weak reputations, and brands
with bad reputations will likely detract from the brand’s legitimate power.
H1b: Legitimate brand social power is stronger when the perceived reputation
of a company’s brand is strong and favorable.
A brand’s duration in the industry may also influence its legitimate brand
social power. Bogart and Lehman (1973) found heightened brand awareness
with more extensive brand history. When researchers offered respondents a
nickel for every brand name they could recall within a four-minute time frame,
not one out of 1860 brand names mentioned was introduced within the preced-
ing five years of the study, and 89% of the brands recalled were 25 years or older
(Bogart & Lehman, 1973). These results provide compelling evidence that con-
sumers are more familiar with established brands. Moreover, research demon-
strates that consumers often adopt a decision rule to purchase only “familiar,
well-established brands” (cf. Keller, 1993, p. 3). Therefore, brands with a longer
industry presence should have stronger legitimate brand social power.
H1c: Legitimate brand social power is stronger when the industry duration
of a company’s brand is long.
Reward Brand Social Power. Reward brand social power is the ability of
the brand to influence a consumer’s behavior through perceptions that the brand
can mediate positive outcomes (i.e., rewards) for the individual. Positive out-
comes in this case refer to intrinsic rewards that the brand can offer consumers,
such as satisfaction, a sense of achievement, a sense of acceptance, a positive
image, and higher perceived social status.
The strength of reward brand social power is contingent upon the brand’s
ability to mediate rewards, as well as the value the consumer places on those
rewards. This assertion is consistent with expectancy theory, which has been
used as an indicator of job behavior and motivation (Vroom, 1964). According
to expectancy theory, the level of effort an individual expends is a product of
the expectancy of an outcome and the valence of that outcome (Behling & Starke,
1973). If an individual expects no outcome or regards the associated outcome as
undesirable, the result will be zero motivation and thus no effort expended
(Behling & Starke, 1973).
When the expectation of being rewarded by a brand is low, the brand should
not have strong reward brand social power. However, when the expectation of
being rewarded by the brand is high, the valence associated with that reward
should determine the brand’s reward power. (A high valence would likely be
attached to a sense of achievement, a sense of acceptance, a positive image,
higher social status, and/or satisfaction.) When expectancy is high and the

consumer places a low value on the associated reward, the brand reward power
should be low. When expectancy is high and the consumer places a high value
on the associated reward, s/he will be more susceptible to reward brand social
power of the brand. Thus, high expectancy of a desirable reward should result
in strong reward brand social power. In contrast, low expectancy and/or low
valence should result in weak reward brand social power, meaning the brand will
be less likely to influence the consumer’s behavior.
H2a: Reward brand social power is stronger when consumers associate favor-
able outcomes with using a company’s brand.
H2b: Reward brand social power is stronger when consumers value rewards
associated with using a company’s brand.
Coercive Brand Social Power. Coercive brand social power is the ability
of the brand to influence a consumer’s behavior through the perception that the
brand can mediate negative outcomes (i.e., punishments) for the individual.
Negative outcomes in this case may include dissatisfaction, a sense of failure,
a sense of rejection or disapproval, a negative image, and lower perceived social
status. The strength of a brand’s coercive brand social power depends on the
ability of the brand to mediate punishment(s) and the consumer’s perception
of the severity of the punishment. According to reinforcement theory, human
behavior is determined by environmental consequences (Schermerhorn, 2002).
More specifically, this theory states that behavior followed by pleasant (unpleas-
ant) consequences or outcomes will (will not) be repeated (Skinner, 1953). If a
brand does not have the ability to create negative outcomes for the consumer
(i.e., it can not dispense punishment), the brand is unlikely to influence the
behavior of consumers and thus will have relatively weaker coercive brand
social power.
When the brand does have the ability to administer punishment, the strength
of its coercive brand social power (and effectiveness in influencing consumer
behavior) will hinge upon perceived severity of the punishment (French & Raven,
1959). Perceptual studies of deterrence have indicated that severe punishment has
“a significant deterrent effect” (Grasmick & Bryjak, 1980). Perceived severity is
high when consumers have a strong desire to avoid failure, rejection or disap-
proval, a negative image, low social status, and/or dissatisfaction. If the consumer
perceives that not using the brand will result in one of these outcomes, the brand’s
coercive brand social power will be strong and he or she will be more likely to
purchase and use the brand. On the other hand, when the perceived severity of
punishment is low, the consumer will not be as amenable to the brand’s influence
and thus the brand’s coercive brand social power should be considerably weaker.
H3a: Coercive brand social power is stronger when consumers associate neg-
ative outcomes with not using a company’s brand.
H3b: Coercive brand social power is stronger when consumers have strong
desire to avoid punishments associated with not using a company’s brand.
Expert Brand Social Power. Expert brand social power is the ability of
the brand to influence a consumer’s behavior through perceptions that the brand

has specialized knowledge and/or expertise.3 Specialized knowledge and/or
expertise in this case refer to the innovativeness, quality, consistency of supe-
rior performance, and/or superior knowledge associated with the brand.
One dimension of a brand’s expert brand social power is consumers’ percep-
tion of its specialized knowledge and/or expertise within the product category
(French & Raven, 1959). Mowen, Wiener, and Joag (1987) found that as per-
ceived expertise of a source increases, its level of persuasion also increases.
Similarly, Walker, Langmeyer, and Langmeyer (1992) found perceived expertise—
among a host of other source characteristics—to be the only factor to signifi-
cantly influence the purchase intentions of consumers. The influence of expert-
ise on behavior has also been documented (Busch & Wilson, 1976; Crisci &
Kassinove, 1973; Liu & Leach, 2001; Taylor & Woodside, 1982; Woodside &
Davenport, 1974; Woodside & Pitts, 1975). Crisci and Kassinove (1973) found that
compliance with a source’s recommendations varies with the perceived level of
expertise. Woodson and Davenport (1974) established that an expert salesper-
son induces a significantly higher number of customers to purchase a product
than a nonexpert salesperson. Busch and Wilson (1976) demonstrated that a
salesman with greater expertise is more effective than a salesman with lesser
expertise in influencing the behaviors of potential consumers. Liu and Leach
(2001) found that the perceived level of salesperson expertise is positively related
to customer satisfaction, which in turn is positively related to behavioral loyalty.
Given the demonstrated effectiveness of expertise in influencing consumer
behavior in a selling context, a brand’s expert brand social power is expected to
elicit similar behavioral responses among consumers.
H4a: Expert brand social power is stronger when consumers associate indus-
try knowledge and/or expertise with a company’s brand.
A consumer’s knowledge or skills in a particular domain may also affect the

strength of a brand’s expert brand social power. French and Raven (1959) con-
tend that an influencee (i.e., the consumer) not only evaluates the expertise of the
influencer (i.e., the brand) against an absolute standard, but also in relation to
his or her own knowledge. Yagil (2002) confirmed this contention, demonstrat-
ing that expert power is moderated by the subordinate’s expertise. When the
consumer is not very knowledgeable in a given area, the expert brand social
power should be stronger. However, when the consumer is knowledgeable, the
brand’s ability to influence the consumer with its perceived knowledge and expert-
ise diminishes, and the brand’s expert brand social power should be weaker.
H4b: Expert brand social power is stronger when consumers’ industry knowl-
edge is relatively low.
Referent Brand Social Power. Referent brand social power is the ability
of the brand to influence a consumer’s behavior by fostering attraction to the
brand and/or identification with the brand. When a brand possesses referent brand
social power, consumers pursue a feeling of oneness with the brand and seek to
become closely associated with it.
The strength of referent brand social power depends on the consumer’s attrac-
tion to, and identification with, the brand. French and Raven (1959) contend that
the greater the attractiveness of an individual, the greater the identification and
3
See Footnote 1.

referent power of that individual. As an individual becomes more attractive, the
desire for identification with that individual increases. An increased sense of iden-
tification, in turn, strengthens the individual’s referent power. Following this logic,
as a brand’s attractiveness increases, so should its referent brand social power.
But what heightens attraction? Research in social psychology suggests that
a key source of interpersonal attraction is perceived similarity (Blass & Schwarcz,
1982). Given consumers’ personification of brands (Aaker, 1997; Haigood, 1999;
Lau & Phau, 2007; Sweeney & Brandon, 2006) and relationships with brands
(Fournier, 1998), it is proposed that this source of attractiveness will extend to
the consumer–brand relationship and that consumers who perceive similari-
ties with the brand will also be more strongly attracted to it.
Raven and Kruglanski (1970) indicate that the perception of similarity leads
an individual to accept the influence and change behavior accordingly, a con-
tention that finds support in the marketing literature. Research on self-
congruency verifies the link between perceived consumer–brand similarity and
consumer behavior. More specifically, Sirgy (1982) asserts that perceived simi-
larities of the characteristics of the consumer’s actual or ideal self to those of the
brand’s image lead to greater preference for the brand, more favorable purchase
intentions, increased product usage, increased ownership, and greater brand
loyalty, indicating a strong association between perceived similarity and behav-
ioral influence. Perceived similarity should also lead to greater identification,
resulting in stronger referent brand social power. However, if the consumer does
not perceive similarities and/or does not identify with (or does not want to be iden-
tified with) the brand, the referent brand social power should be weaker.
H5: Referent brand social power is stronger when consumers perceive them-
selves as similar to a company’s brand.
Multidimensional Brand Social Power. Naturally, brands vary in terms

of the number and strength of bases from which they derive power, and the col-
lective power they wield. Harley Davidson is a brand with referent power; how-
ever, it might also be perceived as having expert power due to its high quality;
legitimate power due to its position in the industry and reputation; reward
power due to the sense of affiliation, acceptance, and satisfaction that accompany
ownership of a Harley Davidson motorcycle; and coercive power due to the sense
of rejection from certain motorcycle aficionados that one might experience if
he or she does not own a Harley.
Given the various bases of brand social power available to Harley Davidson,
it can determine which base of brand social power or combination of bases will
be most effective in influencing consumer behavior (Raven & Kruglanski, 1970).
An increase in the number and strength of power bases should be associated with
an increase in overall brand social power and may enable the brand to exert
power in an array of contexts. Different power bases might be situationally
more effective in influencing various instances of consumer behavior. Thus, the more
bases of power a brand has to access, the greater its ability to influence con-
sumer behavior should be. As the number of strong bases of brand social power
increases, the strength of the brand’s overall power is expected to increase.
H6: Having strong brand social power on more than one dimension leads to
relatively greater overall brand power.

The Relationship of Brand Social Power to Brand Equity. As pre-
viously discussed, brand social power may be conceptually incorporated into
existing brand equity frameworks, both cognitive and relational. Cognitively
speaking, perceptions of a brand’s social power affect its brand image, the “set of
associations, usually organized in some meaningful way” (Aaker, 1991, p. 109).
Given that strong, favorable brand associations are believed to enhance brand
equity (Keller, 1993)—a central cognitive tenet—when consumers regard a brand as
more (less) powerful, that brand should also possess relatively greater (lesser)
brand equity. Similarly, brand behaviors which intimate power have the poten-
tial to affect the consumer–brand relationship in terms of brand loyalty and rela-
tionship stability—fundamental variables in the relational tradition. Hence,
whether viewing brand equity cognitively or from the relational perspective,
greater brand social power is expected to be associated with greater brand equity.
H7: Greater overall brand power is associated with greater brand equity.
METHODOLOGY
Subjects and Design

This study involved a one-way between-subjects factorial design consisting of two
sets of five different brands with varying levels of perceived brand social power
(more vs. less). A total of 201 students enrolled in an undergraduate marketing
course at a large southeastern University participated in the study. For partic-
ipation each student received extra credit points toward his or her final grade
in the course.
Stimuli Selection
A multistage content validity assessment guided the selection of a comprehensive
and representative set of brands for inclusion in the study (Bearden, Netemeyer, &
Teel, 1989). In the interest of ecological validity, an effort was made to identify
an array of well-known national brands in a range of product categories that rep-
resented a spectrum of power types and levels. First, following exposure to the def-
initions of each base of brand social power, a convenience sample of 22 adult
consumers were asked to provide a list of brand names that were reflective of
each dimension. Added to this list were brands from the represented product cat-
egories that were thought to be relatively less powerful. Seven marketing faculty
members were then asked to rate how well each of the comprehensive list of brand
names reflected the different bases of brand social power, using the following
scale: 1 ⫽ clearly representative, 2 ⫽ somewhat representative, and 3 ⫽ not rep-
resentative at all (Zaichkowsky, 1985). For each individual base of power, one rel-
atively powerful brand name that five of seven panel members evaluated as
“clearly representative” was retained. One brand evaluated as “somewhat repre-
sentative” or “not representative” of each dimension of brand social power was also
selected to include as a correspondingly less powerful brand for each category.
Ultimately, two sets of brands with more (less) brand social power in the following
five product categories were developed: automotive tires, sport utility vehicles,
sports cars, computer software, and carbonated cola beverages.

Procedure
The study took place in a classroom research setting, wherein subjects were ran-
domly assigned to one of the two treatment conditions so that each cell contained
approximately 100 subjects. Upon entering the room, an experimenter greeted
subjects and handed them a booklet containing a description of the study’s purpose,
basic instructions, the stimulus material, and related measures. To control for
demand effects, the cover page informed subjects that the experimenters had no
association with the manufacturer or the advertising agency for the featured
products, and simply desired honest answers. The experimenter specifically
instructed subjects not to communicate with or observe the work of others. Fur-
ther, subjects were spatially separated while completing the questionnaire and
did not know that other subjects received different information based on their cell
assignment. The experimenter also instructed subjects not to page ahead in the
stimulus booklet or go back and change responses. The putative purpose of
the study was to assess consumers’ perceptions of a variety of brands.
On the next page subjects saw a list of brands for their assigned cell, includ-
ing five brands possessing more (less) of at least one dimension of brand social
power. Directions on this page instructed subjects to take their time reading a
series of questions relating to individual dimensions of brand social power for
each of the five brands. Among these items was a manipulation check asking sub-
jects to indicate the nature of each brand’s power by choosing one of six categorical
responses relating to legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, referent, or no brand
social power. Also included were 35 items that enabled investigators to further
gauge the effectiveness of the manipulation and to assess the relationship of
various indicators to individual power bases, overall brand social power, and
brand equity. These items were developed by modifying Swasy’s (1979) Social
Power Scales for use with products.4 Subjects were advised to think of each
brand in comparison to other brands in its product category—and not other
brands appearing in the stimulus packet—and to indicate the extent of their
agreement with each statement using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from
1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 7 ⫽ strongly agree. (These items appear in the Appen-
dix, along with all other measures taken in the study.)
Next, subjects answered several questions that would enable investigators to
gauge their attitudes toward the brand and purchase intentions, along with
overall brand equity for each brand. Attitude toward the brand was assessed by
asking subjects to complete the statement, “I feel (this brand) is . . .” using four
7-point semantic differential items (anchored by favorable/unfavorable,
good/bad, likable/unlikable, and pleasant/unpleasant). An average of the scale
items was used to form a composite brand attitude measure. This measure is con-
sistent with those reported in the marketing literature (Edell & Staelin, 1983;
Keller, 1991; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986).
4
Swasy’s (1979) Social Power Scales evaluate the construct of human social power conceptualized
by French and Raven (1959), whereas the current research explores brand social power. The
phrasing of many individual items comprising Swasy’s (1979) scale required modification because
they specifically directed subjects to think of another human being (not a brand) when respond-
ing. Where necessary, the authors adapted these individual items so that subjects would evalu-
ate their relationship with a brand, and not another human being. For example, Swasy’s (1979)
scale included the following item for assessing the reward social power of a particular human:
The reason for doing as A suggests is to obtain good things in return. The corresponding item for
assessing the reward social power of a particular brand is: The reason for purchasing this brand
is to obtain good things in return.

Subjects were also asked to indicate the likelihood that they would purchase
each brand when the next purchase occasion in the respective product category
arose, using four 7-point semantic differential items (anchored by very likely/not
at all likely, very probable/not at all probable, very possible/not at all possible,
and very certain/not at all certain). An average of the scale items was used to
form a composite purchase intention measure. This measure of purchase inten-
tion parallels those used in previous marketing studies (Bennett & Harrell, 1975;
Dover & Olson, 1977; Smith & Swinyard, 1983; MacKenzie, 1986; Marks &
Kamins, 1988).
Using Ha’s (1996) Brand Equity scale subjects’ impressions of each brand’s
equity was gauged based on its name and image. Subjects indicated their agree-
ment (disagreement) with 11 seven-point Likert-type statements, which were
then averaged to form a composite brand equity measure.
Because extant research suggests that product familiarity can influence the
manner in which subjects process information about brands (Johnson & Russo,
1984; Marks & Olson, 1981; Wright, 1975), subjects’ familiarity with the prod-
uct category of each stimulus product was also assessed. Utilizing Machleit,
Allen, and Madden’s (1993) Brand Familiarity scale, subjects rated their famil-
iarity, experience, and knowledge level with each product category using three
7-point semantic differential items. Responses to each of these items were aver-
aged to form a composite familiarity measure for each product category.
Finally, each subject was asked to provide detailed demographic information
and was probed on the purpose of the study. Demographic profiles of the sub-
jects were similar, and no evidence of response bias was found. Further, exam-
ination of open-ended remarks regarding the experimental guise suggested that
no subjects guessed the true objective of the research.
RESULTS
Manipulation Checks
Although brand social power was manipulated through stimulus product selec-
tion and not the experimental procedure, it was also necessary to ascertain that
each relatively powerful brand chosen for inclusion in the study was indeed an
exemplar of the intended brand social power dimension and provided the expected
contrast to the comparably less powerful brand in the same product category.
Assessing the former required a series of chi-square analyses on participants’
perceptions regarding the nature of each brand’s power across product categories.
In order to gauge the latter, ANOVAs were conducted on the perceived differ-
ences in brand social power for strong vs. weak brands within product categories.
Consistent with pretesting results and expectations, a significant majority of
participants perceive (1) the more powerful carbonated cola beverage (92.31%) to
be most reflective of legitimacy (␹2(5) ⫽ 81.61, p ⬍ 0.05); (2) the more powerful
sports car (96.27%) as embodying reward brand social power (␹2(5) ⫽ 157.03,
p ⬍ 0.05); (3) the more powerful automotive tire (89.74%) as exemplifying a brand
with coercive brand social power (␹2(5) ⫽ 199.82, p ⬍ 0.05); (4) the more powerful
computer software brand (90.16%) as most representative of expertise
(x2(5) ⫽ 164.93, p ⬍ 0.05); and (5) the more powerful SUV (93.68%) as clearly
exhibiting referent brand social power (x2(5) ⫽ 140.71, p ⬍ 0.05). (Results for
manipulation checks appear in Table 1.) Aside from establishing that the chosen

Table 1. Results of Manipulation Checks.
Nature of Brand Social Power

Proportions by Brand Social Power Dimension
Legitimate Reward Coercive Expert Referent None ␹2
Automotive tires 2.13% 1.48% 89.74% 3.76% 0.69% 2.20% 199.82

(p ⬍ 0.05)
Carbonated 92.31% 3.21% 0.13% 0.82% 2.45% 1.08% 81.61
cola beverages (p ⬍ 0.05)
Computer 3.89% 1.08% 2.63% 90.16% 0.32% 1.92% 164.93
software (p ⬍ 0.05)
Sports cars 0.88% 96.27% 0.07% 0.93% 1.73% 0.12% 157.03
(p ⬍ 0.05)
SUVs 1.57% 3.09% 0.16% 0.92% 93.68% 0.58% 140.71
(p ⬍ 0.05)
Strength of Brand Social Power
Means by Condition
Source of High Low Observed
Variation Power Power Approx. F Sign. of F h2 Power
Legitimacy 5.28 2.33 446.18 p ⬍ 0.01 0.69 1.00
Reward 5.32 3.01 276.85 p ⬍ 0.01 0.58 1.00
Coercion 5.11 1.04 143.61 p ⬍ 0.01 0.42 0.99
Expert 5.65 4.00 453.29 p ⬍ 0.01 0.70 1.00
Referent 4.94 3.00 162.74 p ⬍ 0.01 0.45 0.99
brands were most representative of the intended brand social power dimensions,
this analysis also reveals that, in each comparison set, the more powerful brand is
perceived as possessing traces of additional brand social power dimensions. The
weaker brand in each comparison set is classified as a brand that “does not pos-
sess any special power” by a majority of participants.
It was also important to demonstrate that, within each product category, sub-
jects perceived the exemplar as possessing significantly more of the intended
dimension of brand social power than the relatively weaker brand. ANOVAs com-
paring brands within product categories indicate the strength of brand social
power was effectively manipulated on each dimension as well. Within the car-
bonated cola beverage category, subjects regard the more powerful brand
(M ⫽ 5.28) as possessing significantly more legitimate brand social power
(F(1,199) ⫽ 446.18, p ⬍ 0.001, h2 ⫽ 0.69) than the less powerful brand (M ⫽ 2.33).
Subjects view the more powerful automotive tire (M ⫽ 5.11) as significantly more
coercive (F(1,199) ⫽ 143.61, p ⬍ 0.001, h2 ⫽ 0.42) than the less powerful brand in
this product category (M ⫽ 1.04). The more powerful sports car (M ⫽ 5.32) exhibits
significantly more reward brand social power (F(1,199) ⫽ 276.85, p ⬍ 0.001,
h2 ⫽ 0.58) than the less powerful brand (M ⫽ 3.01). Subjects perceive the more
powerful computer software brand (M ⫽ 5.65) as possessing significantly
more expert brand social power (F(1,199) ⫽ 453.29, p ⬍ 0.001, h2 ⫽ 0.70) than the
less powerful brand (M ⫽ 4.00). Perceptions of referent brand social power are
significantly higher (F(1,199) ⫽ 162.74, p ⬍ 0.001, h2 ⫽ 0.45) for the more power-
ful SUV (M ⫽ 4.94) as compared to the less powerful brand (M ⫽ 3.00).

Covariate Analyses
Familiarity appeared to be an appropriate covariate, based on homogeneity
tests. However, correlation analyses performed with overall brand social power
and the three brand equity measures indicated that familiarity did not have a
significant impact on evaluations for any of the stimulus products. Familiarity
had a low correlation ( p’s ⬎ 0.05) with overall brand social power, brand atti-
tudes, purchase intentions, and brand equity for each of the five product cate-
gories featured in the study. Further, separate one-way ANOVAs conducted to
assess the relative impact of this potential covariate on individual product cat-
egories indicated that familiarity had a statistically non-significant influence on
key measures for each product category (see Table 2). Given the failure of famil-
iarity to impact the dependent variables, it was excluded from further analyses.
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis 1. Support for Hypothesis 1 required the demonstration of signifi-
cantly stronger legitimate brand social power when subjects perceive a brand as
having a stronger industry position (1a), better reputation (1b), and longer dura-
tion in the industry (1c). Consistent with these expectations, significant main
effects are present for industry position (F(1,199) ⫽ 486.34, p ⬍ 0.001, h2 ⫽ 0.84);
Table 2. Impact of Familiarity on Dependent Measures by Product Category.
Dependent Measures Approx. F Sign. of F h2 Observed Power

Familiarity with automotive tires
Overall brand social power 0.96 p ⬎ 0.05 0.18 0.72
Brand attitudes 1.67 p ⬎ 0.05 0.28 0.44
Purchase intentions 1.36 p ⬎ 0.05 0.26 0.82
Brand equity 0.55 p ⬎ 0.05 0.11 0.35
Familiarity with carbonated cola beverages
Brand equity 0.53 p ⬎ 0.05 0.06 0.27
Familiarity with computer software
Brand equity 0.89 p ⬎ 0.05 0.06 0.37
Familiarity with sports cars
Brand equity 1.21 p ⬎ 0.05 0.20 0.74
Familiarity with SUVs
Brand equity 1.56 p ⬎ 0.05 0.26 0.90

reputation (F(1,199) ⫽ 697.01, p ⬍ 0.001, h2 ⫽ .88); and industry duration
(F(1,199) ⫽ 338.05, p ⬍ 0.001, h2 ⫽ 0.63) in the carbonated cola beverage product cat-
egory. Brands are perceived as having significantly greater legitimate brand social
power when subjects perceive them as being superior to the competition (M ⫽ 5.74
vs. M ⫽ 2.39), having a strong, favorable reputation (M ⫽ 5.86 vs. M ⫽ 2.40), and
being well established in their respective industries (M ⫽ 5.87 vs. M ⫽ 3.50).
(Results for all hypothesis testing are presented in Table 3.)
Table 3. Summary of Hypothesis Testing.

Source of Variation Approx. F Sign. of F h2 Observed Power
H1: Legitimate brand social power
Industry position 486.34 p ⬍ 0.001 0.84 1.00
Reputation 697.01 p ⬍ 0.001 0.88 1.00
Industry duration 338.05 p ⬍ 0.01 0.63 1.00
H2: Reward brand social power
Ability to reward 117.16 p ⬍ 0.001 0.37 1.00
Value of reward 186.52 p ⬍ 0.001 0.48 1.00
H3: Coercive brand social power
Ability to punish 71.98 p ⬍ 0.001 0.27 0.99
Desire to avoid punishment 79.89 P ⬍ 0.001 0.29 0.99
H4: Expert brand social power
Brand experience/expertise 150.71 p ⬍ 0.001 0.43 1.00
Consumer knowledge 68.49 p ⬍ 0.001 0.26 0.99
H5: Referent brand social power
Similarity 145.01 p ⬍ 0.001 0.42 1.00
Source of variation Approx. F Sign. of F R2
H6: Overall brand social power
Legitimate brand social power 446.18 p ⬍ 0.001 0.69
Reward brand social power 276.85 p ⬍ 0.001 0.58
Coercive brand social power 143.61 p ⬍ 0.001 0.42
Expert brand social power 453.29 p ⬍ 0.001 0.69
Referent brand social power 162.75 p ⬍ 0.001 0.45
Overall brand social power 132.58 p ⬍ 0.001 0.43
H7: Brand equity
Legitimate brand social power (brand attitudes) 543.83 p ⬍ 0.001 0.73
Legitimate brand social power (purchase intentions) 1.12 p ⬎ 0.05 0.01
Legitimate brand social power (brand equity) 1198.29 p ⬍ 0.001 0.86
Reward brand social power (brand attitudes) 558.51 p ⬍ 0.001 0.74
Reward brand social power (purchase intentions) 16.57 p ⬍ 0.001 0.08
Reward brand social power (brand equity) 1412.32 p ⬍ 0.001 0.88
Coercive brand social power (brand attitudes) 522.37 p ⬍ 0.001 0.72
Coercive brand social power (purchase intentions) 18.56 p ⬍ 0.001 0.09
Coercive brand social power (brand equity) 1368.69 p ⬍ 0.001 0.87
Expert brand social power (brand attitudes) 405.01 p ⬍ 0.001 0.68
Expert brand social power (purchase intentions) 17.09 p ⬍ 0.001 0.08
Expert brand social power (brand equity) 1059.94 p ⬍ 0.001 0.84
Referent brand social power (brand attitudes) 526.95 p ⬍ 0.001 0.73
Referent brand social power (purchase intentions) 3.98 p ⬍ 0.05 0.02
Referent brand social power (brand equity) 1435.42 p ⬍ 0.001 0.88

Hypothesis 2. Testing Hypothesis 2 entailed analyzing the impact of subjects’
perceptions regarding (a) a brand’s ability to influence rewards (F(1,199) ⫽ 117.16,
p ⬍ 0.001, h2 ⫽ 0.37) and (b) the value of those rewards (F(1,199) ⫽ 186.52,
p ⬍ 0.001, h2 ⫽ 0.48) on reward brand social power for brands in the sports car
product category. Results suggest that when subjects believe a brand can deliver
rewards (M ⫽ 5.23 vs. M ⫽ 3.50) and value is placed on those rewards (M ⫽ 6.02 vs.
M ⫽ 4.01), they regard the brand as possessing significantly greater reward
brand social power.
Hypothesis 3. As predicted by Hypothesis 3, significant main effects are pres-

ent for subjects’ perceptions regarding (a) a brand’s ability to mediate punish-
ments (F(1,199) ⫽ 71.98, p ⬍ 0.001, h2 ⫽ 0.27) and (b) subjects’ desire to avoid
punishments (F(1,199) ⫽ 79.89, p ⬍ 0.001, h2 ⫽ 0.29) in the automotive tire prod-
uct category. When subjects believe a brand can bring about undesired conse-
quences (M ⫽ 2.15 vs. M ⫽ 1.01) and they wish to avoid being punished by the
brand (M ⫽ 3.53 vs. M ⫽ 1.50), they regard the brand as possessing signifi-
cantly greater coercive brand social power.
Hypothesis 4. For insight into Hypothesis 4, which suggests significantly

stronger expert brand social power when subjects perceive a brand as possessing
knowledge and/or expertise in a given industry (4a) and as more knowledge-
able than the subjects (4b), the impact of these two factors on expert brand social
power was analyzed. Significant main effects for brand experience/knowledge
(F(1,199) ⫽ 150.71, p ⬍ 0.001, h2 ⫽ 0.43) and for subject knowledge (F(1,199) ⫽ 68.49,
p ⬍ 0.001, h2 ⫽ 0.26) in the computer software product category were found.
Brands are perceived as having significantly greater expert brand social power
when subjects regard them as possessing more industry knowledge and expe-
rience (M ⫽ 5.70 vs. M ⫽ 3.02). Further, subjects perceive expert brand social
power to be significantly greater when they possess relatively less knowledge
in the area (M ⫽ 4.74 vs. M ⫽ 2.99).
Hypothesis 5. Support for Hypothesis 5 was found by analyzing the impact

of perceived consumer–brand similarity on referent brand social power
(F(1,199) ⫽ 145.01, p ⬍ 0.001, h2 ⫽ 0.42) in the SUV product category. This analysis
showed that referent brand social power is significantly greater when subjects
perceive themselves to be similar to the brand (M ⫽ 3.98 vs. M ⫽ 2.41).
Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 6 proposes that brands that draw on more than one
source of brand social power will possess significantly greater overall brand
social power. Testing this assertion required the evaluation of differences in
subjects’ perceptions regarding each brand social power dimension and overall
brand social power across product categories. Because previous hypothesis test-
ing implies that weaker brands in the comparison set are unlikely to possess a
distinct source of brand social power—let alone multiple power bases to exploit—
these analyses included only data for the relatively more powerful brands in
each product category (N ⫽ 101). Results from a series of regressions bore out
these predictions, revealing significant differences in ratings for each brand social
power dimension and overall brand social power: legitimate brand social
power (F(4, 96) ⫽ 446.18, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.69); reward brand social power
(F(4,96) ⫽ 276.85, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.58); coercive brand social power (F(4,96) ⫽ 143.61,

Table 4. Mean Brand Social Power Dimension Ratings by Product Category.
Carbonated Sport
Automotive Cola Computer Sports Utility
Tires Beverages Software Cars Vehicles
Legitimacy 3.97 5.82 6.06 4.09 4.57
Reward 3.94 3.87 4.99 5.62 4.09
Coercion 2.84 2.01 3.36 2.04 2.15
Expertise 4.49 3.96 5.22 4.09 4.07
Reference 3.45 3.98 5.12 3.53 3.98
Overall 3.63 3.89 5.15 3.76 3.65
p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.42); expert brand social power (F(4,96) ⫽ 453.29, p ⬍ 0.001,

R2 ⫽ 0.69); referent brand social power (F(4,96) ⫽ 162.75, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.45);
and overall brand social power (F(4,96) ⫽ 132.58, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.43). Mean
brand social power ratings (see Table 4) suggest subjects perceive the computer
software brand as most powerful across product categories on four of five brand
social power dimensions, which in turn appears to confer greater overall brand
social power on this brand.
Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 7 suggests that brands possessing greater overall

brand social power will also exhibit stronger brand equity. To test this premise,
a series of regression analyses was conducted for each set of brands evaluated
by participants. Brand attitudes, purchase intentions, and the overall brand
equity measure served as dependent variables for these analyses.
The overall brand social power of stimulus products in the carbonated cola
beverage category had a significant main effect on two of the three brand equity
indicators: brand attitudes (F(1,199) ⫽ 548.83, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.73); purchase inten-
tions (F(1,199) ⫽ 1.12, p ⬎ 0.05, R2 ⫽ 0.01); and brand equity (F(1,199) ⫽ 1198.29,
p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.86). When participants perceive a brand as possessing greater
brand social power, they also hold significantly more favorable brand attitudes
(M ⫽ 5.69 vs. M ⫽ 3.54) and regard the brand as having significantly higher
brand equity (M ⫽ 4.60 vs. M ⫽ 2.70). The same pattern of results holds true for
purchase intentions (M ⫽ 2.41 vs. M ⫽ 1.23), although differences on this meas-
ure fail to achieve significance for the carbonated cola beverage category.
The overall brand social power of stimulus products in the automotive tire cat-
egory had a significant main effect on all three brand equity measures: brand
attitudes (F(1,199) ⫽ 522.37, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.72); purchase intentions
(F(1,199) ⫽ 18.56, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.09); and brand equity (F(1,199) ⫽ 1368.69,
p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.87). Perceptions of greater brand social power for automotive
tires corresponds to significantly more favorable brand attitudes (M ⫽ 5.42 vs.
M ⫽ 3.25), purchase intentions (M ⫽ 3.18 vs. M ⫽ 1.45), and brand equity
(M ⫽ 4.38 vs. M ⫽ 2.30).
The overall brand social power of stimulus products in the sports car category
had a significant main effect on all three brand equity measures: brand atti-
tudes (F(1,199) ⫽ 558.51, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.74); purchase intentions (F(1,199) ⫽ 16.57,
p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.08); and brand equity (F(1,199) ⫽ 1412.32, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.88).
When subjects perceive a sports car as being a powerful brand, the brand atti-
tudes (M ⫽ 6.07 vs. M ⫽ 4.05), purchase intentions (M ⫽ 3.61 vs. M ⫽ 1.80),
and brand equity (M ⫽ 4.95 vs. M ⫽ 2.30) it elicits are also significantly higher.

The overall brand social power of stimulus products in the sport utility vehi-
cle category had a significant main effect on all three brand equity measures:
brand attitudes (F(1,199) ⫽ 526.95, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.73); purchase intentions
(F(1,199) ⫽ 3.98, p ⬍ 0.05, R2 ⫽ 0.02); and brand equity (F(1,199) ⫽ 1435.42, p ⬍ 0.001,
R2 ⫽ 0.88). Perceptions of greater brand social power for SUVs are related to sig-
nificantly more favorable brand attitudes (M ⫽ 5.05 vs. M ⫽ 3.03), purchase inten-
tions (M ⫽ 3.97 vs. M ⫽ 1.81), and brand equity (M ⫽ 4.17 vs. M ⫽ 2.18).
The overall brand social power of stimulus products in the computer soft-
ware category had a significant main effect on all three brand equity measures:
brand attitudes (F(1,199) ⫽ 405.01, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.68); purchase intentions
(F(1,199) ⫽ 17.09, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.08); and brand equity (F(1,199) ⫽ 1059.94,
p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.84). When subjects perceive computer software as possessing
greater brand social power, they also hold significantly higher brand attitudes
(M ⫽ 5.89 vs. M ⫽ 3.81), purchase intentions (M ⫽ 1.67 vs. M ⫽ 0.70), and brand
equity (M ⫽ 5.52 vs. M ⫽ 3.31) for the brand.
Ancillary Analyses
No predictions were offered regarding the differential impact of individual power
bases on consumers’ corresponding brand attitudes. However, given the dis-
parate nature of the five dimensions of brand social power, it was interesting to
explore how, if at all, brand attitudes varied for brands drawing power from dif-
ferent sources. To explore these nuances of brand social power, consumers’ rat-
ings for each brand’s five brand social power dimensions were regressed on their
attitudes toward the brand. (Results for these ancillary analyses appear in
Table 5.) Interestingly, coercive brand social power is the only dimension that
fails to produce significantly more favorable brand attitudes for a majority of
brands studied. The only exception to this pattern of results obtains for the
automotive tire product category, which contained a brand purposely selected
for inclusion in the study because it reflected coercive brand social power.
For the carbonated cola beverage category, greater perceived legitimate brand
social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 128.90, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.56); reward brand social power
(F(1,99) ⫽ 70.66, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.42); expert brand social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 162.61,
p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.62); and referent brand social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 123.15, p ⬍ 0.001,
R2 ⫽ 0.55) lead to significantly greater brand attitudes. However, greater per-
ceived coercive brand social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 1.84, p ⬎ 0.05, R2 ⫽ 0.07) is not sig-
nificantly related to brand attitudes.
When participants perceive computer software as possessing greater legiti-
mate brand social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 34.28, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.26); reward brand
social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 15.88, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.14); expert brand social power
(F(1,99) ⫽ 111.76, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.53); or referent brand social power
(F(1,99) ⫽ 62.20, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.39), they also hold significantly more favor-
able attitudes toward the brand. However, the relationship between coercive
brand social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 2.14, p ⬎ 0.05, R2 ⫽ 0.02) and brand attitudes fails
to achieve significance.
For sports cars, perceptions of greater legitimate brand social power
(F(1,99) ⫽ 47.04, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.32); reward brand social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 26.67,
p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.21); expert brand social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 32.26, p ⬍ 0.001,
R2 ⫽ 0.25); and referent brand social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 50.69, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.34)
correspond to significantly more favorable brand attitudes. However, greater

Table 5. Impact of Brand Social Power Dimensions on Brand Attitudes by
Product Category
Source of Variation Approx. F Sign. of F R2
Automotive tires
Coercive brand social power 5.96 p ⬍ 0.05 0.06
Carbonated cola beverages
Coercive brand social power 1.84 p ⬎ 0.05 0.07
Computer software
Sports cars
SUVs
perceived coercive brand social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 1.83, p ⬎ 0.05, R2 ⫽ 0.03) is not
significantly related to brand attitudes.
When subjects perceive an SUV as being a powerful brand in terms of legit-
imacy (F(1,99) ⫽ 139.09, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.58); reward (F(1,99) ⫽ 76.35, p ⬍ 0.001,
R2 ⫽ 0.44); expertise (F(1,99) ⫽ 124.71, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.56); or referent brand
social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 153.88, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.61), the brand attitudes it elic-
its are also significantly higher. However, perceptions of greater coercive brand
social power for an SUV (F(1,99) ⫽ 1.69, p ⬎ 0.05, R2 ⫽ 0.04) are not related to sig-
nificantly more favorable brand attitudes.
For the automotive tire category, greater perceived legitimate brand social
power (F(1,99) ⫽ 128.90, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.56); reward brand social power
(F(1,99) ⫽ 70.66, p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.42); expert brand social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 162.61,
p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.62); referent brand social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 123.15, p ⬍ 0.001,
R2 ⫽ 0.55); and coercive brand social power (F(1,99) ⫽ 5.96, p ⬍ 0.05, R2 ⫽ 0.06)
lead to significantly greater brand attitudes.

DISCUSSION
The objective of this research was to develop a preliminary framework of brand

social power that would enable investigators to delineate the dimensions of the
construct, assess how these individual power bases influence overall brand social
power, and examine the relationship between overall brand social power and
brand equity (including brand attitudes). Drawing on seminal work in the area
of social power and influence theory, brand social power was defined as the ability
of a brand to influence the behavior of consumers and conceptualized as pos-
sessing five dimensions analogous to French and Raven’s (1959) original bases
of social power. Legitimate brand social power, reward brand social power, coer-
cive brand social power, expert brand social power, and referent brand social
power were theoretically dissected, and indicators of each power base were iden-
tified. In a study featuring brands from an assortment of product categories with
varying levels and types of brand social power, each dimension was empirically
examined, and results demonstrate that (1) a brand wielding any one brand
social power dimension will have greater overall brand social power than a com-
parable (but less powerful) brand in the same product category; (2) brands pos-
sessing more than one brand social power dimension will have greater overall
brand social power than other brands (within and across product categories) that
possess one or no bases of brand social power; and (3) brands emitting greater
overall brand social power will also possess greater brand equity.
This analysis reveals strong empirical support for theoretical assertions put
forth here regarding the constituent elements of brand social power’s construct.
Consumers view a brand as possessing legitimate brand social power when it
has high market share, a strong, favorable reputation, and a well-established
industry presence. Reward brand social power is stronger when consumers believe
a brand can reward them and those rewards are considered to be valuable. Coer-
cive brand social power is thought to exist when consumers believe the brand can
punish them and they wish to avoid the brand’s punishment. When a brand is
associated with greater knowledge and/or expertise in a given industry than
competitors or consumers, it is regarded as having expert brand social power. A
final dimension, referent brand social power, is present in brands which con-
sumers believe they are similar to in some way. These findings contribute to a bet-
ter conceptual understanding of the individual dimensions of brand social power.
Interestingly, subjects in this study perceived many stimulus products as
possessing not one, but multiple dimensions of brand social power—even when
a single, distinct base of brand social power was manipulated. For instance, a
majority of subjects evaluating products in the SUV category regarded the more
powerful brand as possessing predominantly referent brand social power, with
traces of reward brand social power. This observation implies an unforeseen
complexity of the brand social power construct, and suggests that—given brand
social power’s capacity to influence consumer reactions to a given brand—
marketers must be mindful of the potential for consumers to derive unintended
conclusions about the nature of a brand’s power from marketing communications
and through product usage experience.
This research also sheds light on the collective influence that individual brand
social power dimensions may exert on a brand’s overall power and equity. Results
reported here suggest that overall brand social power is greater when a brand
has multiple bases of power from which to draw. For example, Microsoft (which

was included because pretest results indicated consumers regard it as reflective
of a brand with expert brand social power) received significantly higher ratings
than all other brands across product categories on expert brand social power, ref-
erent brand social power, legitimate brand social power, and coercive brand
social power. As a result, subjects also perceive Microsoft as possessing greater
overall brand social power.
Further, greater brand equity accrues to brands possessing stronger overall
brand social power. More specifically, brands consumers regard as more power-
ful also elicit more favorable brand attitudes and possess greater overall brand
equity. However, contrary to predictions, in some cases consumers’ purchase
intentions are not necessarily stronger for more powerful brands. For carbon-
ated cola beverages, there are no significant differences in purchase intentions
for more vs. less powerful brands. It is useful to reflect on this deviation from expec-
tations, because it appears to contradict the very essence of brand social power—
the ability to influence consumer behavior. One explanation for this surprising
result may hinge upon the decision to examine brands in this particular product
category (i.e., carbonated cola beverages), which is admittedly characterized by
strong, resolute brand preferences. This product category was included because
extensive pretesting suggested subjects were sufficiently familiar with its mul-
tiple competitors and purportedly perceived substantial intra-categorical variance
in legitimate brand social power. However, it is conceivable that an enthusiastic
Pepsi drinker may acknowledge Coca-Cola as relatively more powerful than a third
brand, hold more relatively favorable brand attitudes toward Coke, and even
rate it relatively higher on overall brand equity—but still have no intention of
purchasing Coke due to his or her steadfast commitment to Pepsi-Cola. This
interpretation may explicate the significant results for purchase intentions in
other product categories (automotive tires, sports cars, SUVs, and computer
software), which operate in less concentrated industries comprised of more numer-
ous and comparable competitors that seemingly inspire less loyalty among
consumers.
Implications
Although predictions offered here regarding the relationship between brand social
power and purchase intentions fail to receive unanimous support, it is worth not-
ing that for a majority of product categories examined—computer software, sports
cars, SUVs, and automotive tires—perceptions of strong brand social power on the
manipulated dimension were associated with greater purchase intentions for
the target brand. This finding validates the assertion that brands have the capac-
ity to influence consumer behavior, substantiating the existence of brand social
power and justifying the application of French and Raven’s (1959) power typology
in a branding context. And in a broader sense, the association between brand social
power and purchase intentions documented here constitutes unambiguous, albeit
limited, evidence that individuals (consumers) develop attitudes toward objects
(brands) that elicit evaluative responses, which are behavioral in nature. Although
this finding will not likely resolve differing opinions regarding the validity of tri-
partite attitude models, it does suggest that conation—arguably the most empiri-
cally problematic of the three components—is a legitimate attitudinal response.
Aside from this theoretical contribution to modern attitude theory, findings
described here also have several practical implications for branding strategy. Most

notably, knowledge of brand social power can be used to segment markets and to
differentiate one brand from its competitors. Given that brands have the poten-
tial to satisfy different social needs of consumers (e.g., the desire to achieve rewards,
attain expertise, or gain legitimacy), markets could be segmented and target seg-
ments identified based on such needs. A brand could also be positioned against com-
petitors based on any brand social power base that resonates with the target
market. For instance, if beverage consumers are seeking social rewards but this
need is not being fulfilled with their current brand, building the positioning strat-
egy of a competing brand around the ability to offer social rewards may appeal to
these consumers and result in market share gains among this target segment. Like-
wise, if the industry leader effectively communicates and exercises, say, legiti-
mate brand power, a competing brand may still achieve differentiation by building
its positioning strategy centered on another brand social power base.
This research also has implications for work on brand extensions. Much of
the extant brand extension research focuses on the “fit” or similarity between the
brand and the extension (Aaker, 1990; Aaker & Keller, 1990; Park, Milberg, &
Lawson, 1991) and suggests that an extension is likely to be successful (unsuc-
cessful) when consumers perceive good (poor) fit between the brand’s current
product category and the new product. This notion of perceived fit can also be
explained in the context of brand social power.
Specifically, French and Raven (1959) posit power can only be exerted within
a range. When a new product falls within the range of the brand’s power, it may
be capable of influencing consumers’ behaviors, and thus more likely to be a
successful extension. However, if the extension is outside the range of the brand’s
power, it is less likely to influence consumers’ behaviors, and thus less likely to
be successful. The “real world” is littered with examples that bear out this con-
jecture. For instance, Bic is known for its inexpensive, disposable products and
arguably possesses expert power in this domain. Initially associated with writ-
ing utensils, Bic was successful in extending its brand name to razors and
lighters, both of which resided within its range of expert power. However, Bic was
not successful in extending its brand name to perfume, a product category that
clearly fell outside the range of Bic’s brand social power. Research suggests that
a “ . . . new product failure may well tarnish the reputation of sister products car-
rying the same brand name” (Herbig & Milewicz, 1993, p. 22) and “that unsuc-
cessful brand extensions can dilute brand names by diminishing the favorable
attitude beliefs consumers have learned to associate with the family brand
name” (Loken & Roedder-John, 1993, p. 79). Extensions outside a brand’s range
of social power may also experience higher levels of product failure and dimin-
ish the power of the brand. Analyzing potential brand extensions using the
brand social power typology presented here may enable brand managers to iden-
tify new products that exist outside the dominion of the parent brand and to
reduce the likelihood of new product failures.
Future Research
Although this study represents a fruitful inquiry in the area of brand social
power, it also highlights several issues in need of future research. Generally
speaking, conclusions regarding brand social power, its dimensions, and its rela-
tionship to brand equity are most applicable to this particular research setting,
these stimulus products, and a student population. In addition to exploring brand

social power effects across a variety of industries and product categories, future
research should build upon the results of this exploratory main effects study by
employing a more rigorous experimental design that incorporates important
antecedents, dependent measures, and moderating variables to more meaning-
fully test relationships. Antecedents that should be experimentally manipulated
and investigated include, but are not limited to, sales promotions, rewards pro-
grams, and product endorsers. Exploring these factors would elucidate how dif-
ferent sources of brand social power evolve and are maintained and strengthened,
and aid brand managers in developing strategies for building brand social power.
Second, although this research assesses three essential brand equity-related
measures (i.e., brand attitudes, purchase intentions, and overall brand equity),
it is crucial to test the relationship of brand social power to other dependent vari-
ables, including additional individual-level (e.g., brand extendability) and product-
level (e.g., market share) performance measures. Negative consequences relating
to consumer perceptions of a brand’s power should also be studied, because find-
ings here suggest that not all sources of power—notably, coercive brand social
power—lead to favorable outcomes. Third, potential moderators of the main effect
relationships established here need to be examined so that brand managers are
familiar with factors that diminish or heighten the impact of a brand’s power. It
is imperative to determine how, if at all, key individual-difference variables (e.g.,
product involvement, product knowledge, familiarity, trust, and perceived risk)
and product-related factors (e.g., conspicuousness of consumption, nature of the
good, and frequency of use) influence the power a brand commands. These exper-
imental postscripts will conceptually clarify the domain of the brand social power
construct and enable marketing managers to adopt a more considered approach
to developing effective brand communications.
Finally, although the extant research points to symmetries in the structure
of (human) social power vs. brand social power, it is critical to further refine
and expand the brand social power construct and dimensions proposed here using
phenomenological research. Such a theory-building approach would likely shed
light on the construct and provide the necessary foundation for the develop-
ment of a reliable, valid, and generalizable scale to measure the dimensions of
brand social power. Although scale development was beyond the scope of the
current project, it may be a worthwhile endeavor that would likely produce a
means for diagnosing the nature and strength of a brand’s power and assessing
the impact of a brand’s power on consumer preferences and behavior.
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. (1990). Brand extensions: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Sloan Management
Review, 31, 47–56.
Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name.
New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. (1996a). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. (1996b). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
Management Review, 38, 102–120.
Aaker, D., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of
Marketing, 54, 27–41.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34,
347–356.

Bachman, J. G. (1968). Faculty satisfaction and the dean’s influence: An organizational
study of twelve liberal arts colleges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 55–61.
Bachman, J. G., Smith, C. G., & Slesinger, J. A. (1966). Control, performance and satis-
faction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 127–136.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1978). The construct validity of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive
components of attitude by analysis of covariance structures. Multivariate Behavior
Research, 13, 9–31.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1979). Attitude organization and the attitude-behavior
relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 913–929.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1985). Attitude organization and the attitude-behavior
relationship: A reply to Dillon and Kumar. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 47–57.
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 473–481.
Behling, O., & Starke, F. A. (1973). The postulates of expectancy theory. Academy of
Management Journal, 16, 373–389.
Bennett, P. D., & Harrell, G. D. (1975). The role of confidence in understanding and pre-
dicting buyers’ attitudes and purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 2,
110–117.
Bierstedt, R. (1950). An analysis of social power. American Sociological Review, 15,
730–738.
Blackston, M. (1992). Observations: Building brand equity by managing the brand’s
relationships. Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 79–83.
Blass, T., & Schwarcz, P. D. (1982). The relative importance of four determinants of attraction.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 145–146.
Bogart, L., & Lehman, C. (1973). What makes a brand name familiar? Journal of
Marketing Research, 10, 17–22.
Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct
components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1191–1205.
Brill, J. E. (1992). Scales to measure social power in a consumer context. Advances in
Consumer Research, 19, 835–842.
Busch, P. (1980). The sales manager’s bases of social power and influence upon the sales
force. Journal of Marketing, 44, 91–101.
Busch, P., & Wilson, D. T. (1976). An experimental analysis of a salesman’s expert and
referent bases of social power in the buyer–seller dyad. Journal of Marketing Research,
13, 3–11.
Butaney, G., & Wortzel, L. H. (1988). Distributor power versus manufacturer power: The
customer role. Journal of Marketing, 52, 52–63.
Campbell, M. C. (2002). Building brand equity. International Journal of Medical Marketing,
2, 208–218.
Chang, P., & Chieng, M. (2006). Building consumer–brand relationships: A cross-cultural
experiential view. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 927–959.
Chaudhuri, A. (2002). How brand reputation affects the advertising-brand equity link.
Journal of Advertising Research, 42, 33–43.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand
affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65, 81–93.
Crisci, R., & Kassinove, H. (1973). Effects of perceived expertise, strength of advice, and
environmental setting on parental compliance. Journal of Social Psychology, 89,
245–250.
Davis, S. M. (2000). The power of the brand. Strategy and Leadership, 28, 4–9.
Davis, S. M. (2002). Brand asset management: How businesses can profit from the power
of a brand. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19, 351–358.
Dillon, W. R., & Kumar, A. (1985). Attitude organization and the attitude-behavior
relationship: A critique of Bagozzi and Burnkrant’s reanalysis of Fishbein and Ajzen.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 33–46.

Dover, P. A., & Olson, J. C. (1977). Dynamic changes in an expectancy-value attitude
model as a function of multiple exposures to product information. In B. A. Greenberg &
D. N. Bellenger (Eds.), Contemporary marketing thought (pp. 455–459). Chicago:
American Marketing Association.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Edell, J. A., & Staelin, R. (1983). The information processing of pictures in print adver-
tisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, pp. 45–61.
El-Ansary, A. I., & Stern, L. W. (1972). Power measurement in the distribution channel.
Journal of Marketing, 9, 47–52.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–373.
Frazier, G. L., & Summers, J. O. (1984). Interfirm influence strategies and their application
within distribution channels. Journal of Marketing, 48, 43–55.
Frazier, G. L., & Summers, J. O. (1986). Perceptions of interfirm power and its use within
a franchise channel of distribution. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 169–176.
French Jr., J. R. P., (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63,
181–194.
French Jr., J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.),
Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Gaski, J. F. (1984a). The theory of power and conflict in channels of distribution. Journal
of Marketing, 48, 9–29.
Gaski, J. F. (1984b). The effects of discrepant power perceptions in a marketing channel.
Psychology & Marketing, 1, 45–56.
Grasmick, H. G., & Bryjak, G. J. (1980). The deterrent effect of perceived severity of
punishment. Social Forces, 59, 471–491.
Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Ahluwalia, R. (1999). Cognitive and relational perspectives on brand
equity. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 343.
Ha, L. (1996). Advertising clutter in consumer magazines: Dimensions and effects. Journal
of Advertising Research, 36, 76–84.
Haigood, T. L. (1999). The brand personality effect: An empirical investigation. In
A. Menon & A. Sharma (Eds.), Marketing theory and applications (pp. 149–150).
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Herbig, P., & Milewicz, J. (1993). The relationship of reputation and credibility to brand
success. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10, 18–24.
Hill, W. W., & French, W. L. (1967). Perceptions of the power of department chairmen by
professors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 548–574.
Hunt, S. D., & Nevin, J. R. (1974). Power in a channel of distribution: Sources and
consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 186–193.
Ji, M. F. (2002). Children’s relationships with brands: “True love” or “one-night stand”?
John, G. (1984). An empirical investigation of some antecedents of opportunism in a
marketing channel. Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 278–289.
Johnson, E. J., & Russo, J. E. (1984). Product familiarity and learning new information.
Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 324–333.
Katz, D., & Stotland, E. (1959). A prelimary statement to a theory of attitude structure
and change. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science (Vol. 3, pp. 423–475).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Keller, K. L. (1991). Cue compatibility and framing in advertising. Journal of Marketing
Research, 28, 42–57.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.
Keller, K. L. (1999). Managing brands for the long run: Brand reinforcement and revi-
talization strategies. California Management Review, 41, 102–124.
Keller, K. L. (2000). The brand report card. Harvard Business Review, 78, 147–157.

Kothandapani, V. (1971). Validation of feeling, belief, and intention to act as three
components of attitude and their contribution to prediction of contraceptive behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 321–333.
Krech, D., & Crutchfield, R. S. (1948). Theory and problems of social psychology.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lau, K. C., & Phau, I. (2007). Extending symbolic brands using their personality: Exam-
ining antecedents and implications toward brand image fit and brand dilution.
Lippitt, R., Polansky, N., & Rosen, S. (1952). The dynamics of power: A field study of
social influence in groups of children. Human Relations, 5, 37–64.
Liu, A. H., & Leach, M. P. (2001). Developing loyal customers with value-adding sales force:
Examining customer satisfaction and the perceived credibility of consultative sales-
people. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 21, 147–156.
Loken, B., & Roedder-John, D. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions
have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57, 71–84.
Lusch, R. F. (1976). Sources of power: Their impact on intrachannel conflict. Journal of
Machleit, K. A., Allen, C. T., & Madden, T. J. (1993). The mature brand and brand interest:
An alternative consequence of ad-evoked affect. Journal of Marketing, 57, 72–82.
MacKenzie, S. B. (1986). The role of attention in mediating the effect of advertising on
attribute importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 174–195.
MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as
a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of
MacKenzie, S. B., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1981). An analysis of alcohol advertising using
French and Raven’s theory of social influence. Advances in Consumer Research,
8, 708–712.
Marks, L. J., & Kamins, M. A. (1988). The use of product sampling and advertising: Effects
of sequence of exposure and degree of advertising claim exaggeration on consumers’ belief
strength, belief confidence, and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 266–281.
Marks, L. J., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Toward a cognitive structure conceptualization of
product familiarity. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 145–150.
McCracken, G. (1993). The value of the brand: An anthropological persepctive. In
D. A. Aaker and A. L. Biel (Eds.). Brand equity and advertising: Advertising’s role
in building strong brands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey &
E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 136–314). Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),
Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 233–346). New York: Random House.
Mowen, J. C., Wiener, J. L., & Joag, S. (1987). An information integration analysis of how
trust and expertise combine to influence source credibility and persuasion. Advances
in Consumer Research, 14, 564.
Ostrom, T. M. (1969). The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and cognitive
components of attitude. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 12–30.
Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role
of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer
Research, 18, 185–193.
Raven, B. H., & French Jr., J. P. R. (1958). Group support, legitimate power, and social
influence. Journal of Personality, 26, 400–409.
Raven, B. H., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1970). Conflict and power. In P. Swigler (Ed.), The
structure of conflict (pp. 69–109). New York: Academic Press.
Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral compo-
nents of attitudes. In C. I. Hovland & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude organization and

change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 1–14). New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Schermerhorn Jr., J. R. (2002). Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sirgy, J. M. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of
Consumer Research, 9, 287–300.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: MacMillan.
Skinner, S. J., Dubinsky, A. J., & Donnelly Jr., J. H. (1984). The use of social bases of
power in retail sales. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 4, 49–56.
Smith, M. B. (1947). The personal setting of public opinions: A study of attitudes toward
Russia. Public Opinion Quarterly, 11, 507–523.
Smith, R. E., & Swinyard, W. R. (1983). Attitude-behavior consistency: The impact of
product trial versus advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 257–267.
Student, K. R. (1968). Supervisory influence and work-group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 52, 188–194.
Sullivan, G. L., & O’Connor, P. J. (1985). Social power-based print advertising: Theoretical
and practical considerations. Psychology & Marketing, 2, 217–229.
Swasy, J. L. (1979). Measuring the bases of social power. In W. L. Wilkie (Ed.), Advances
in consumer research (pp. 340–346). Ann Arbor, MI: The Association for Consumer
Research.
Sweeney, J. C., & Brandon, C. (2006). Brand personality: Exploring the potential to move
from factor analytical to circumplex models. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 639–663.
Taylor, J. L., & Woodside, A. G. (1982). Effects on buying behavior of references to expert
and referent power. The Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 25–31.
Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: Wiley.
Vergin, R. C., & Qoronfleh, M. W. (1998). Corporate reputation and the stock market.
Business Horizons, 41, 19–26.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wah, L. (1998). Unleashing the power of brands. Management Review, 87, 6.
Walker, M., Langmeyer, L., & Langmeyer, D. (1992). Celebrity endorsers: Do you get what
you pay for? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 9, 69–76.
Warren, D. I. (1968). Power, visibility, and conformity in formal organizations. American
Sociological Review, 33, 951–970.
Warren, D. I. (1969). The effects of power bases and peer groups on conformity in formal
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 544–556.
Wilkinson, I. F. (1973). Power and influence structures in distribution channels. European
Journal of Marketing, 7, 119–129.
Woodside, A. G. (2004). Advancing means–end chains by incorporating Heider’s balance
theory and Fournier’s consumer–brand relationship typology. Psychology & Marketing,
21, 279–294.
Woodside, A. G., & Davenport Jr., J. W. (1974). The effect of salesperson similarity and
expertise on consumer purchasing behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 11,
198–202.
Woodside, A. G., & Pitts, R. E. (1975). Consumer response to alternative selling strategies:
A field experiment. Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 398–404.
Wright, P. L. (1975). Factors affecting cognitive resistance to advertising. Journal of
Consumer Research. 2, 1–9.
Yagil, D. (2002). Substitution of a leader’s power bases by contextual variables. Interna-
tional Journal of Organizational Theory and Behavior, 5, 383–400.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12, 341–352.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Traci H. Freling, Assistant Pro-
fessor of Marketing, University of Texas-Arlington, 217 Business Building, Arlington,
TX76019 (freling@uta.edu).

APPENDIX
Manipulation Checks and Dependent Measures

Manipulation Check—Nature of Brand Social Power
In your opinion, which statement best reflects the influence this brand has over
consumers?
_____ This brand influences consumers through its favorable market share, cor-
porate reputation, and/or industry position. [legitimacy]
_____ This brand influences consumers through its association with desirable
outcomes. [reward]
_____ This brand influences consumers through its association with undesir-
able outcomes. [coercion]
_____ This brand influences consumers through its industry knowledge and
experience. [expertise]
_____ This brand influences consumers because of its similarity to them.
[reference]
_____ This brand does not possess any special power over consumers.
Manipulation Check—Strength of Brand Social Power

Legitimate Brand Social Power (r ⫽ 0.78)
• Because of this brand’s position in its industry, I should use it.
• If I were making a purchase in this product category, I would feel
obligated to purchase this brand.
Reward Brand Social Power (␣ ⫽ 0.76)

• Using this brand would make me feel good.
• I could move up in the eyes of others by using this brand.
• If I do not use this brand, I will not be rewarded.
Coercive Brand Social Power (␣ ⫽ 0.78)

• My friends and/or family would look down on me for not using this brand.
• Not using this brand could hurt my image.
• If I did not use this brand, I would consider it a failure.
Expert Brand Social Power (␣ ⫽ 0.88)

• This brand is a high-quality brand.
• I trust this brand.
• This brand is considered an innovator in its industry.
Referent Brand Social Power (␣ ⫽ 0.88)

• I want to be associated with this brand.
• I like this brand.
• This brand is a favorable brand.
• Being similar to this brand is good.

Legitimate Brand Social Power
• In terms of market share, this brand is a leader in its industry. (a)
• This brand has a strong, favorable reputation. (b)
• This brand is considered an authority in its industry. (c)
Reward Brand Social Power

• This brand has the ability to reward me in some manner if I use it. (a)
• The main reason for purchasing this brand would be to obtain good things
in return. (b)
Coercive Brand Social Power

• I would be dissatisfied if I did not use this brand. (a)
• I should use this brand to prevent something unpleasant from happening
to me. (b)
Expert Brand Social Power

• This brand has a lot of experience and usually knows best. (a)
• This brand is more knowledgeable than me. (b)
Referent Power
• I can identify with this brand.
Overall Brand Social Power (␣ ⫽ 0.95)

• This brand is head and shoulders above its competitors. [legitimacy].
• I consider this brand to be the boss in this product category. [legitimacy]
• Using this brand would help me convey a positive image. [reward]
• I would receive satisfaction from using this brand. [reward]
• If I did not use this brand, I am sure I would feel bad. [coercion]
• To avoid disapproval from others, I should use this brand. [coercion]
• This brand’s expertise makes it more likely to be right. [expertise]
• This brand is intelligent. [expertise]
• This brand’s personality is similar to my own. [referent]
• This brand’s attitudes and values are similar to mine. [referent]
Attitude toward the Brand (␣ ⫽ 0.90)

• I feel that this brand is favorable . . . unfavorable.
• I feel that this brand is good . . . bad.
• I feel that this brand is likable . . . not likable.
• I feel that this brand is pleasant . . . not pleasant.

Purchase Intentions (␣ ⫽ 0.74)
• My purchasing this brand is very likely . . . not at all likely.
• My purchasing this brand is very probably . . . not at all probable.
• My purchasing this brand is very possible . . . not at all possible.
• My purchasing this brand is very certain . . . not at all certain.
Overall Brand Equity (␣ ⫽ 0.93)

• The image of this brand is the same as the other competing brands.
• The image of this brand represents what I would like to be.
• I would feel bad using this brand.
• I would not mind paying a higher price for this brand.
• If this brand is not readily available, I would be willing to go out of my way
to get it.
• I agree with the claim that this brand’s products are of good value.
• The quality of this brand is superior to other brands.
• This brand is most suitable to my needs.
• This brand is the most popular brand in its product category.
• When I need to buy a product in this category, I would think of this brand
immediately.
• When asked about brands in this category, this brand would come to mind
immediately.
Product Familiarity (␣ ⫽ 0.71)

• Regarding brands in this product category, I am unfamiliar . . . familiar.
• Regarding brands in this product category, I am inexperienced . . . experienced.
• Regarding brands in this product category, I am not knowledgeable . . .
knowledgeable.


Brand Social Power

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Brand Social Power

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Does Brand Social Power

Mean Market Might?

The importance of brand equity has been recognized in the market-

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26(2): 91–121 (February 2009)

92 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT & RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Theory of Social Influence and Power

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 93

Brand Social Power

94 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

Brand Social Power and Attitudes. In addition to demarcating brand

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 95

The Bases of Brand Social Power

Another indicator of legitimate brand social power is the brand’s reputation.

96 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 97

98 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

A consumer’s knowledge or skills in a particular domain may also affect the

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 99

Multidimensional Brand Social Power. Naturally, brands vary in terms

100 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

Subjects and Design

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 101

102 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 103

Nature of Brand Social Power

Automotive tires 2.13% 1.48% 89.74% 3.76% 0.69% 2.20% 199.82

104 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

Table 2. Impact of Familiarity on Dependent Measures by Product Category.

Dependent Measures Approx. F Sign. of F h2 Observed Power

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 105

Table 3. Summary of Hypothesis Testing.

106 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

Hypothesis 3. As predicted by Hypothesis 3, significant main effects are pres-

Hypothesis 4. For insight into Hypothesis 4, which suggests significantly

Hypothesis 5. Support for Hypothesis 5 was found by analyzing the impact

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 107

p ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.42); expert brand social power (F(4,96) ⫽ 453.29, p ⬍ 0.001,

Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 7 suggests that brands possessing greater overall

108 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 109

110 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

The objective of this research was to develop a preliminary framework of brand

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 111

112 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 113

114 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 115

116 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 117

118 CROSNO, FRELING, AND SKINNER

Manipulation Checks and Dependent Measures

Manipulation Check—Strength of Brand Social Power

Reward Brand Social Power (␣ ⫽ 0.76)

Coercive Brand Social Power (␣ ⫽ 0.78)

Expert Brand Social Power (␣ ⫽ 0.88)

Referent Brand Social Power (␣ ⫽ 0.88)

DOES BRAND SOCIAL POWER MEAN MARKET MIGHT? 119

Reward Brand Social Power

Coercive Brand Social Power

Expert Brand Social Power

Overall Brand Social Power (␣ ⫽ 0.95)

Attitude toward the Brand (␣ ⫽ 0.90)