Humanizing Brands: When Brands Seem to Be Like Me, Part of Me, and in a
Relationship with Me

Deborah J. MacInnis, Valerie S. Folkes

PII: S1057-7408(16)30106-1
DOI: doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2016.12.003
Reference: JCPS 569

To appear in: Journal of Consumer Psychology

Received date: 1 September 2016

Revised date: 14 December 2016
Accepted date: 23 December 2016

Please cite this article as: MacInnis, D.J. & Folkes, V.S., Humanizing Brands: When
Brands Seem to Be Like Me, Part of Me, and in a Relationship with Me, Journal of
Consumer Psychology (2017), doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2016.12.003

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
Humanizing Brands:
When Brands Seem to Be Like Me, Part of Me, and in a Relationship with Me

RI
SC
NU
Deborah J. MacInnis*
MA
Valerie S. Folkes**

November 17, 2016

D
P TE
CE
AC

* Charles L. and Ramona I. Hilliard Professor of Business Administration, Professor of

Marketing at the Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, 701
Exposition Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90089-0441 (macinnis@usc.edu). Debbie MacInnis
is the corresponding author.
** Robert E. Brooker Chair of Marketing and Professor of Marketing at the Marshall
School of Business, University of Southern California (folkes@marshall.usc.edu).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Humanizing Brands:

When Brands Seem to Be Like Me, Part of Me, and In a Relationship With Me

PT
RI
ABSTRACT

SC
We review a growing body of research in consumer behavior that has examined when

NU
consumers humanize brands by perceiving them as like, part of, or in a relationship with

themselves. One research stream shows that sometimes consumers perceive brands as
MA
having human-like forms, minds, and personality characteristics. A second stream

identifies ways that a consumer perceives a brand as being congruent with or connected
D
TE

to the self. Finally, a third highlights that consumers can view brands in ways that are

analogous to the types of relationships they have with people. We review research in
P

these three areas and point out connections among these research streams. In part, we
CE

accomplish this by showing that factors associated with the SEEK model, which are
AC

designed to explain anthropomorphic tendencies, are also relevant to other ways of

humanizing brands. We identify major propositions derived from this research and

several areas for which additional research is needed. We conclude with

recommendations for the many opportunities for expanding our conceptual and empirical

understanding of this domain.

Keywords: Anthropomorphism, branding, brand personality, brand-self-congruity,

brand-self connections, brand attachment, brand relationships

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
D
TE
P
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

INTRODUCTION

In the past 20 years, we have witnessed a growing literature that can be subsumed

within the domain of ―humanizing brands‖. This broad topic comprises three subdomains

PT
shown in the bottom half of Figure 1. Each subdomain has developed somewhat

RI
independently, in part because each assumes a different reference point.

Anthropomorphism, the first of these subdomains, takes a human-focused perspective,

SC
examining consumers’ perceptions of brands as having human-like qualities. Here,

NU
researchers have studied brands as having (1) human-like features or physiognomy (as

when one perceives a handbag as having features that resemble a human face); (2) a
MA
human-like mind (as when one infers that a computer has its own intentions and

motives); and (3) a human-like personality (e.g., the brand is friendly). A second stream
D
TE

adopts a more self-focused perspective, examining not how the brand is like people in

general, but rather how it is specifically like oneself. This subdomain includes work on
P

the perceived congruity between the brand and the self, as well as the extent to which
CE

consumers are connected to the brand (brand-self connections). A third subdomain takes
AC

a relationship-focused perspective, examining how consumers’ relationships with brands

can resemble their relationships with people. This work acknowledges that consumers

have different types of relationships with brands and that such brand relationships can

vary in their strength and affective intensity, as well as in the relationship norms that

guide them. Our paper aims to summarize the literature in this domain, integrate this

research, and identify issues that the field should address in moving this perspective

forward.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

We review the expansive yet recent literature pertaining to each subdomain

sequentially, following Figure 1. We first discuss background research on individuals’

tendencies to humanize non-human entities. We then review research that has

PT
emphasized the human-focused, self-focused and relationship focused perspectives

RI
shown in Figure 1. In reviewing each area, we also show that factors noted in the upper

portion of Figure 1 help us understand the conditions under which these tendencies are

SC
most likely to operate. We also draw connections between and within the subdomains,

NU
showing linkages and common drivers that might otherwise remain obscured given the

relative independence of each stream’s development. We conclude with a set of

MA
propositions that reflect accumulated knowledge, as well as a discussion of future work in

the broad domain of humanizing brands. Figure 1 and the propositions noted in Table 2
D
TE

provide the broad overview of our understanding of research on humanizing brands.

----- Insert Figure 1 here -----

P

Whereas considerable research has focused on branding, our review is necessarily

CE

selective. We emphasize articles in the field of consumer psychology rather than articles
AC

that highlight managerial issues. We consider consumer research on such topics as goals

and branding (e.g., brands as cultural symbols, brand extensions, brands and social

signaling, and brands and self-expression) only to the extent that they bear on the topics

in Figure 1. Our review emphasizes brands as opposed to unbranded possessions (i.e.,

non-branded products people own), though some findings extend to the context of

unbranded possessions.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH ON

HUMANIZING NON-HUMAN ENTITIES

PT
Before reviewing the three research streams that investigate the way consumers’

RI
humanize brands, it is useful to provide a broader perspective for this domain. The

tendency for people to humanize – ―to attribute humanlike capacities to other agents‖

SC
(Waytz, Epley and Cacioppo 2010, p. 58) - varies, even if that agent is human or

NU
nonhuman. At issue is not whether a human brand (e.g., Taylor Swift), an organization

(e.g., the United Way) or a branded product (e.g., Mazda) should be treated as human, but
MA
rather whether these entities are humanized in consumers’ minds. Some consumer

psychology research on humanization takes the perspective that a brand implies a

D
TE

corporate entity and, as such, is as likely to be perceived as human as other social

categories (e.g., Kervyn, Fiske & Malone 2012; Keller 2012). Social categories include
P

occupational groups (e.g., tax lawyers), ethnic groups (e.g., Asian-Americans) and
CE

genders (e.g., women). The greater perceived cohesiveness of corporate entities (e.g.,
AC

Burger King, McDonalds) compared to some other social categories (Waytz & Young

2012) makes them particularly susceptible to being humanized. Nevertheless, even social

categories are dehumanized (the inverse process of humanization according to Waytz et

al. 2010), as when the category is considered an outgroup. Recent consumer psychology

literature has focused on when, why and to what effect humanization occurs, rather than

dehumanization, an emphasis that is reflected in our review.

The tendency for people to humanize refers to both human and nonhuman targets,

but anthropomorphism is restricted to humanizing nonhuman agents or events (Waytz et

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

al. 2010). We might perceive that a Mazda’s front grill makes it look like our Uncle

Charlie, and we might describe it as having a human-like personality (e.g., it is ―sassy‖)

and a ―mind of its own‖. Given that anthropomorphism can be seen as the extreme

PT
version of humanization and that theorists have often identified anthropomorphism as the

RI
precursor to developing a relationship with the brand (Fournier 1998), a model of

anthropomorphism should provide a basic framework for understanding the consumer

SC
psychology literature on brand humanization.

NU
Outside of a branding context, Epley, Waytz and Cacioppo (2007) have

developed a model that identifies factors that drive individuals’ tendencies to

MA
anthropomorphize objects. According to this SEEK (Sociality, Effectance, and Elicited

agent Knowledge) model, the tendency to perceive non-humans in human-like terms is

D

facilitated by an individual’s knowledge of people and how they behave (called elicited
TE

agent knowledge in the top half of Figure 1). Factors that enhance the accessibility of this
P

knowledge enhance anthropomorphizing tendencies. These knowledge representations

CE

―guide inferences about the properties, characteristics and mental states of nonhuman
AC

agents‖ (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007, p. 871). This process is often automatic,

occurring outside of one’s awareness. When people become cognizant of having

anthropomorphized an object, they often correct for having done so, though the

correction or adjustment to their cognitions may be insufficient.

Countering such correction tendencies are two motivational factors that can

increase the tendency to view non-human objects in human-like terms: the drive for a

social connection (a sociality motivation) and the desire to make sense of and/or gain

control over one’s environment (an effectance motivation; see the top half of Figure 1).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

For example, activation of a sociality motivation occurs when individuals are lonely, are

low in self-esteem, or come from a more individualist culture show greater

anthropomorphic tendencies (see Figure 1). Reflecting activation of an effectance

PT
motivation, factors like the need for power, the need for control and competence and the

RI
desire to avoid uncertainty have been linked with tendencies to anthropomorphize.

Agent knowledge and the sociality and effectance motivational forces that reflect

SC
the SEEK model can be activated by dispositional, situational, developmental, and

NU
cultural factors. As Figure 1 shows, a sociality motivation might be triggered by

individual difference variables that are part of one’s enduring character (e.g., chronic
MA
loneliness), situational factors stimulated by context (e.g., situational loneliness),

developmental factors learned early in life (e.g., attachment styles), or cultural factors
D
TE

(e.g., individualism and collectivism). As our review suggests, the factors that represent

the model (elicited agent knowledge, sociality motivations and effectance motivations)
P

help us to understand not just when and why consumers anthropomorphize brands but
CE

also when they might humanize brands in other ways (e.g., seeing brands as like or
AC

connected to the self; regarding brands as relationship partners). We now move to an

examination of each of the three research streams.

----- Insert Figure 1 here -----

THE HUMAN VERSUS NONHUMAN RESEARCH STREAM

Perceiving a non-human object as having human-like features, a human-like mind

or human-like traits has been labeled ―anthropomorphism‖ (Epley et al., 2007; Epley et

al., 2008). Following Figure 1, we review consumer research that has examined brands as
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

being ―like us‖ as a result of having human-like features, human-like personality

characteristics, and/or a human-like mind.

Brands with Human-Like Features

PT
Human-like features of brands include having a human name, gender, or human-

RI
like physical characteristics (e.g., a face). A number of the studies described below show

that consumers can perceive a brand in such anthropomorphic terms. Furthermore,

SC
several factors identified in Figure 1 seem to enhance the likelihood that consumers do

NU
so.

Consistent with the notion of agent knowledge, consumers are more likely to
MA
perceive a brand as having human-like features when the brand is depicted in a way that

activates a ―human‖ schema, creating some degree of perceived similarity to humans. A

D
TE

number of studies in consumer research have used visual, verbal and/or rhetorical devices

to induce anthropomorphic tendencies. Notably, marketers appear to use such devices;

P

giving certain brands a human name (e.g., Amazon’s Alexa), a human, gendered voice
CE

and accent (Siri), or a human form (the Michelin Man).

AC

Activating agent knowledge through visual cues. Some studies have induced

anthropomorphism of a brand through visual cues; for example, by making the brand’s

features resemble a human face (e.g., Hur, Koo, & Hoffman, 2015; Kim, Chen, & Zhang,

2016) or body (e.g., Touré-Tillery & McGill, 2015; Kim & McGill, 2011) or by

representing it as an avatar (Nowak & Rauh, 2005). Depicting a set of soda bottles as a

―product family‖ induces greater tendencies to anthropomorphize compared to describing

them as a ―product line‖ (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007, study 2). Images that show the

brand engaged in typically human actions, such as sunbathing, can also increase human
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

schema accessibility and stimulate anthropomorphism (Puzakova, Kwak & Rocereto,

2013). Brand characters, like the Pillsbury Doughboy, Tony the Tiger and the Jolly Green

Giant, strongly evoke a human schema and hence increase perceptions of the brand as

PT
human-like (Wan & Aggarwal, 2015). When consumers imagine that the brand has come

RI
to life (Aggarwal & McGill, 2012; Kim & Kramer, 2015) or has human personality

characteristics (Chandler & Schwarz, 2010), they are more prone to anthropomorphize.

SC
Activating agent knowledge through verbal devices. A variety of verbal

NU
marketing tactics also seem to activate human schemas and encourage consumers to

perceive brands in human-like terms. Giving the product a human name (Eskine &
MA
Locander, 2014; Waytz, Heafner, & Epley 2014), describing the product in the first

person (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Puzakova et al., 2013), and labeling the brand as
D

gendered (e.g., Chandler & Schwarz, 2010; Waytz et al., 2014) increase consumers’
TE

tendencies to anthropomorphize brands. Websites that use avatars who speak, have a
P

gender, follow social conventions (e.g., interacting with the audience by asking questions
CE

or saying ―goodbye‖) also increase anthropomorphic tendencies (Nowak & Rauh, 2005).
AC

Sociality motivations may increase these tendencies. Describing the brand in human

relationship terms (e.g., ―the brand is a great ally‖) or using closeness-implying pronouns

(e.g., ―we‖ versus ―you and the brand‖) when describing the brand can also enhance

anthropomorphic tendencies (Touré-Tillery & McGill, 2015; Sela, Wheeler & Sarial-Abi,

2012).

Activating agent knowledge through rhetorical devices. Rhetorical devices that

use visual or verbal metaphors or similes to convey a particular meaning about the brand

can increase anthropomorphic tendencies by activating agent knowledge. One such

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

device, called ―personification,‖ depicts the brand as engaging in human-like actions,

even when the image does not have a human-like form or physiognomy (e.g., a face)

(Delbaere, McQuarrie & Phillips, 2011). Another type of rhetorical device is the

PT
representation of the brand as filling the role of a human character (or archetype) in

stories or ads. Brands have been portrayed by marketers in the roles of the ―hero‖

RI
(coming to the consumer’s rescue), the ―outlaw‖ (breaking the rules of other brands), the

SC
―care-giver‖ (taking care of the consumer’s physical and mental health) and the

NU
―magician‖ (performing miracles that other brands cannot), among others (Mark &

Pearson, 2001). Indeed, consumers’ stories about brands also depict brands in these
MA
anthropomorphic roles (Woodside, Sood & Miller, 2008). Representing a brand in

biographical form as an ―underdog‖ (passionate, determined, under-resourced, arising

D
TE

from humble beginnings, and having some success despite struggling against the odds) is

another rhetorical device that may increase consumers’ tendencies to perceive the brand
P

in human-like terms (Paharia, Keinan, Avery & Schor, 2011). Current research on the
CE

role of brand archetypes is limited, making this area a fruitful one for understanding how
AC

consumers perceive, connect with and form relationships with brand in human-like ways.

This is particularly so given the emphasis that practicing marketers are placing on the

importance of storytelling as a method for developing brand perceptions (e.g., Gunelius,

2013).

Other drivers. Other research identifies additional drivers of anthropomorphic

tendencies beyond the activation of agent knowledge. Relevant to the sociality

motivations shown in Figure 1, Ghuman, Huang, Madden, and Roth (2015) suggest that

consumers in collectivist cultures (e.g., China, India) have stronger anthropomorphic

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

tendencies because people live closer together, making knowledge about humans highly

accessible. In contrast, in non-collectivist cultures (e.g., the US), consumers are more

frequently exposed to mechanical and technological items, thus making knowledge about

PT
humans comparatively less accessible. Relevant to the effectance motivations shown in

RI
Figure 1, Kim, Chen and Zhang (2016) observed that consumers enjoyed a computer

game less when an anthropomorphized helper facilitated their actions. The use of a helper

SC
made individuals feel less autonomous in their actions, undermining the extent to which

NU
winning could be attributed to the individual.

Effects of perceiving brands as having human-like features. In general,

MA
consumers tend to form more favorable attitudes toward brands whose features are

anthropomorphized (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Kim & Kramer, 2015; Aggarwal &
D
TE

McGill, 2012). As a consequence, and as a prelude to other effects noted in Figure 1,

consumers might be more likely to view the brand as similar to or connected to the self,
P

or to engage in a relationship with the brand when it is (vs. is not) depicted as having
CE

human-like features. We discuss these effects later in the paper.

AC

Brands with Human-like Minds

As the preceding material implies, depicting a brand with human-like features can

elicit consumers’ perceptions that the brand can form intentions, make moral judgments,

form impressions or evaluate others, have self-serving motives, and have free will (e.g.,

Epley & Waytz, 2010; see Figure 1-). The fact that some brands (Alexa, Siri, Watson) are

called ―intelligent agents‖ may enhance such perceptions. Some research suggests that

anthropomorphizing a brand’s features prompts the inference that it has a human-like

mind. For example, brands depicted as having human-like features tend to be more
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

negatively evaluated (relative to those that do not display such features) when the brand

engages in a transgression (Puzakova, Kwak, & Rocereto, 2013). This effect might occur

because the consumer attributes intentionality for the action and a lack of goodwill to the

PT
anthropomorphized brand.

RI
Although viewing a brand as having a human-like mind is likely less common and

probably more subject to self-correction than perceiving a brand as having human-like

SC
features, several studies described below posit that consumers can act or react toward a

NU
brand as if it had a human-like mind. Regarding a brand as acting with intentions,

forming judgments, acting with free will or acting with benign or self-serving motives
MA
can influence (a) how consumers evaluate the brand’s actions, and (b) how consumers

choose to interact with the brand in the future. Both of these effects are described next.
D
TE

Trustworthiness. If consumers judge a brand as having an anthropomorphized

mind, they might be more inclined to judge the brand in terms of its trustworthiness.
P

Trustworthiness implies that the anthropomorphized brand understands the consumer,

CE

that it acts morally and with goodwill, and that brand will use its free will in ways that
AC

benefit (or are at least benign to) the consumer. Consistent with this idea, Waytz, Heafner

and Epley (2014) observed that passengers’ trust in a car was greatest for those who

drove an anthropomorphized self-driving car because the car seemed more human-like

and more mindful than human car drivers or drivers of a non-anthropomorphized self-

driving car.

However, whether anthropomorphizing a brand affects trust positively or

negatively may depend on (1) how much consumers trust other people in general, (2)

how deeply consumers process the brand’s advertising message and (3) the baseline for
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

comparison (whether the anthropomorphized brand is compared to a non-

anthropomorphized brand or a human agent). People who have low trust in companies are

more likely to trust non-anthropomorphized brands than anthropomorphized ones (Eskine

PT
& Locander, 2014), perhaps because the anthropomorphized brand looks more human

RI
and hence seems less trustworthy than the non-anthropomorphized brand. Yet, people

who generally regard others as untrustworthy tended to evaluate peripherally processed

SC
marketing messages more positively and attribute more goodwill to the brand when the

NU
message comes from anthropomorphized vs. human messengers (Touré-Tillery, &

McGill 2015). Perhaps this is so because the anthropomorphized brand looks ―less
MA
human‖ in comparison with the human spokesperson. High trust consumers tend to trust

the human spokesperson more than the anthropomorphized brand, but only when they
D
TE

processed the advertised message attentively. Message attentiveness may have enhanced

consumers’ abilities to correct for having made anthropomorphic judgments.

P

Fairness. An additional judgment suggesting that consumers can regard brands as

CE

having an anthropomorphized mind is the extent to which consumers judge the brand and
AC

its actions as fair. Using IRI data, Kwak, Puzakova and Rocereto (2015) examined the

effect of consumers’ beliefs that the brand had a mind of its own on perceptions of the

fairness of price changes. The more the brand was perceived as having a mind of its own,

the more consumers were likely to regard a brand that increased its price as unfair and

one that decreased its price as fair. Agentic consumers (those focused on the self) were

most likely to conclude that a brand that increased its price was trying to take advantage

of them, as contrasted to communion-oriented consumers (those focused on unity with

others).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Attributions of credit or blame. If consumers view anthropomorphized brands as

having intentions, their reactions to consumption experiences may impact whether they

attribute credit versus blame (responsibility) to the brand for positive versus negative

PT
outcomes. Anthropomorphized brands can even take some of the blame for the

consumer’s own bad behavior. For example, consumers exhibit less self-control when a

RI
tempting dessert is anthropomorphized because they regard the anthropomorphized

SC
product as an agent that intentionally supports their indulgence (Hur et al., 2015; see also

NU
Kim et al. 2016). This diffuses responsibility for lack of self-control, and thus, the

conflict consumers feel from indulgence.

MA
Interacting with the brand as if it had a human mind. Additional research finds

that consumers, perhaps subconsciously, can interact with brands as if they had human-
D
TE

like minds. Specifically, consumers seem to want to have an effective interaction with

brands that are (vs. are not) anthropomorphized, even though they are unaware of this
P

desire. They are more likely to assimilate (act similar) to an anthropomorphized brand
CE

that they like and to contrast (act different) from an anthropomorphized brand that they
AC

dislike (Aggarwal & McGill, 2012). Furthermore, activation of agent knowledge via

schema congruity between the brand and a human affects the degree to which individuals

attempt to present themselves in a better light to a brand (Sproull, Subramani, Kiesler,

Walker, & Waters, 1996). For example, people behave in a more relationship-supportive

way in a computerized game when the computer screen is depicted with human-like eyes

(Haley & Fessler, 2005). Ahn, Kim and Aggarwal (2014) observed that depicting cause-

related brands as having human-like features created more compliance with the message

(i.e., donations to the cause), because consumers anticipated more guilt from not
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

complying with the anthropomorphized brand. Similarly, people show more concern for

an object when it is (vs. is not) anthropomorphized (Tam, Lee & Chao, 2013). Individual

differences in anthropomorphism tendencies also affect how wrong people feel it is to

PT
harm inanimate objects like computers or motorcycles (Waytz et al., 2010).

RI
Factors impacting perceptions of brands as having human-like minds. Related

to effectance motivations in Table 1, people who perceive themselves as low in power

SC
felt more vulnerable to risky outcomes when a brand was (vs. was not) given human-like

NU
features (Kim & McGill, 2011). In contrast, people who perceive themselves as high-

power felt less vulnerable when the brand’s features were (vs. were not) human-like.
MA
High-power people were less likely than lower power people to feel the brand could exert

control over them. Also related to an effectance motivation, people seem to imbue even
D

an abstract entity like ―time‖ with a human-like mind (e.g., ―time has a will of its own,‖
TE

May & Monga, 2014, p. 924). Perhaps underlying this judgment is the lack of effectance
P

associated with time (i.e., time is difficult to control).

CE

Brands with Human-like Personalities

AC

To the extent that consumers humanize brands, they may characterize them as

having human-like personality traits (see Figure 1). Research using FMRI imaging

techniques suggests that a brand’s personality traits activate areas of the brain associated

with implicit reasoning, imagery and affective processing – processes that should be

implicated if consumers are thinking about brands and relating to them in human-like

terms (Chen, Nelson, & Hsu, 2015). Consumers’ representations of brand personality

seem to reflect cognitive categories that are activated (though not necessarily

constructed) when consumers are exposed to the brand. Indeed, these researchers were
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

able to predict which brands consumers were thinking about based on the brain

activations associated with personality judgments.

Specific brand personality traits. Because there are many human-like personality

PT
traits, classifying them into a few broad groups offers a systematic and manageable way

RI
to identify similarities and differences across brands. Fiske and colleagues (e.g., Malone

& Fiske, 2013; Kervyn et al., 2012) suggest that two evaluative criteria loom large in

SC
people’s categorizations, descriptions, and judgments of others: warmth and competence.

NU
Warmth, which relates to the characteristics of another (e.g., warm, friendly, sincere,

trustworthy, moral) that are linked with intentionality (i.e., will this entity have my
MA
interests at heart?), is judged first. Competence judgments, on the other hand, relate to

assessments of another’s ability and include traits like intelligence, skill, creativity and
D
TE

efficacy. People judged as warm and competent (cold and incompetent) are judged most

(least) favorably, while warm/incompetent and cold/competent people elicit more

P

ambivalent judgments. Fiske and colleagues suggest that consumers use these same traits
CE

to evaluate brands (Malone & Fiske, 2013; Kervyn et al., 2012). Consistent with these
AC

ideas, Aaker, Vohs, and Mogilner (2010) find that non-profit brands are perceived to be

warmer but less competent than for-profit brands. The most admired brands are perceived

to be warm and competent.

Other work has examined traits that include but go beyond warmth and

competence, often with a focus on how brand personality should be measured. Table 1

identifies items used in various brand-personality measurement studies and relates them

to Fiske et al.’s warmth and competence dimensions. In her pioneering work in the area,

Aaker (1997) examined the brand personality characteristics associated with well-known
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

brands. A set of measurement development studies resulted in the 42 empirically derived

brand personality items identified in Table 1. These characteristics mapped onto 15 brand

personality ―facets‖ (underlined in Table 1). In turn, these facets were captured by 5

PT
global factors: sophistication sincerity, excitement, competence, and ruggedness (in

RI
italics in Table 1).

Some research has examined whether brand personality characteristics correspond

SC
to major personality characteristics observed in humans. Research on human personality

NU
has identified five overarching dimensions that encompass a large number of distinct

personality traits (e.g., Digman, 1990). These ―Big 5‖ traits are openness,
MA
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. Yet, when consumers

were asked to describe brands using the Big-5 personality scale, only a two-factor
D
TE

solution emerged (Carpara, Barbarbaranelli & Gianlguigi, 2001). As Table 1 shows, these

factors correspond with the Big 5’s agreeableness trait and

P

conscientiousness/extraversion/openness traits, respectively.

CE

----- Insert Table 1 here -----

AC

Several studies have examined whether the dimensions identified by Aaker

generalize to other contexts (see Table 1). Venable, Rose, Bush, and Gilbert (2005)

developed a personality scale specifically for the non-profit context. This research

revealed a factor labeled ―nurturance‖ that did not emerge in Aaker’s (1997) study of for-

profit brands. Cross-cultural studies also suggest differences in the traits used to describe

brands, suggesting that cultural orientation (see Figure 1) might affect when and how

consumers characterize brands in terms of their personality traits. For example, Sung and

Tinkham (2005) found that American and Korean consumers share similar personality
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

perceptions of the same brands on five factors (sophistication, likeableness, trendiness,

competence, ruggedness). However, each culture also showed unique factors.

Specifically, traits comprising the likeableness factor for Koreans included fewer high

PT
arousal traits (e.g., bubbly), leading authors to use the term ―passive likeableness‖ to

describe the likeableness traits used by Koreans. As Table 1 shows, ―ascendency‖ was

RI
unique to Koreans, while ―white collar‖ and ―androgyny‖ were unique to US consumers.

SC
Other work examines brands as having ―male‖ and ―female‖ personality traits

NU
(Grohmann, 2009).

Whereas the above-cited studies focus on positive traits and build on Aaker’s
MA
work, Sweeney and Brandon (2006) developed a circumplex model that includes negative

as well as positive personality characteristics. Their model incorporates the dimensions of

D
TE

dominance (dominant-submissive), extraversion (extraverted-introverted), nurturance

(warm-cold), and agreeableness (unassuming-arrogant). Sweeney and Brandon (2006)

P

also replicated the ―nurturance‖ factor identified by Venable et al. (2005).

CE

Debate over brand personality and its measurement. Brand personality has
AC

stimulated considerable research, but some researchers have criticized Aaker’s scale for

including traits beyond personality characteristics, such as social class associations (e.g.,

upper class), cultural factors (e.g., Western), gender characteristics (masculine, feminine)

and abilities (competence) (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003). However, Aaker’s work is not

alone in this wide-ranging approach. These ―non-personality‖ characteristics are relevant

to – and, in terms of competence judgments, perhaps essential for – brands. Moreover,

Table 1 shows convergence in the diverse traits that consumers use to characterize

brands, despite different theoretical approaches, different brands, and different cultures.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Some criticize Aaker’s (1997) scale for its empirical (vs. theoretical) derivation (Bao &

Sweeney, 2009). Nevertheless, the Aaker scale demonstrates marginally better predictive

validity than the circumplex approach advocated by Bao and Sweeney. Aaker’s scale also

PT
offers substantial richness by virtue of its scope and integration (see Table 1).

RI
Factors impacting brand personality impressions. Additional work has examined

the conditions under which consumers form judgments of a brand’s personality. Related

SC
to the activation of agent knowledge, using visual cues that activate a human schema can

NU
affect brand personality perceptions (Landwehr, McGill, & Herrmann, 2011).

Specifically, compared to car brands with a downturned grille, brands with an upturned
MA
grille are evaluated as friendlier. The depiction of the grille, coupled with a depiction of

the shape and angle of the headlights, impacts perceptions of the brand’s aggressiveness.
D
TE

Relatedly, personified images of brands encourage more positive brand personality

impressions (brand as cheerful, charming, glamorous, stylish, etc.) than do non-

P

personified visual metaphors (Delabaere, McQuarrie, & Phillips, 2011). Avatars are rated
CE

as more intelligent and credible when they are (vs. are not) anthropomorphized (Nowak
AC

& Rauh, 2005). Consumers judge websites that use avatars as more ―social‖, referring to

an aspect of a brand’s personality that might be relevant to how consumers perceive

brands as like them or as potential relationship partners (Wang, Baker, Wagner, &

Wakefield, 2007). Seeing one’s car in human-like terms also enhances judgments of its

―warmth‖ (Chandler & Schwarz, 2010).

Also related to agent knowledge, chronics (people for whom a given personality

trait is chronically accessible) are more likely to update their impressions of a brand’s

personality compared to non-chronics (Johar, Sengupta, & Aaker, 2005). Additionally,

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

individual differences in knowledge about how changeable people are (also called entity

orientation) affect personality impressions (see Figure 1). Compared to entity-oriented

theorists, incremental theorists are more likely to update information about a brand’s

PT
personality when they encounter a low-fit brand extension because they believe that

RI
personalities are malleable (vs. fixed) (Mathur, Jain, & Maheswaran, 2012). Park and

John (2012) observed that entity theorists respond more favorably to ads that signal

SC
intelligence and sophistication (desirable personality associations) than incremental

NU
theorists do, because entity theorists seek opportunities for self-enhancement (a sociality

motivation in Figure 1). Using a brand with a desirable personality signals to others that
MA
the user is like the brand (intelligent and sophisticated). Incremental theorists responded

better to brands that suggest self-improvement, consistent with an effectance motivation

D
TE

in Figure 1. Since incremental theorists believe their personalities are malleable, they are

open to appeals that suggest that the brand can ―teach them how‖ to become more
P

desirable.
CE

Brands that are perceived to have male personalities are associated with different
AC

sets of traits from brands with female personalities (Grohmann, 2009), as might be

consistent with agent knowledge regarding differences between men and women.

Perceived self-complexity also appears to influence consumers’ preferences for co-brands

with distinct personality types (Monga & Lau-Gesk, 2007). When consumers were

induced to think about themselves in complex terms, they preferred co-brands that

combined distinct personalities.

Related to the sociality motivational driver is the role of attachment style in brand

personality impressions (see Figure 1). Individuals with a high anxiety/high avoidance
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

attachment style show a greater preference for brands with exciting (vs. sincere) brand

personalities, because they want to avoid intimate relationships. Individuals with a high

anxiety/low avoidance attachment style prefer brands with sincere (vs. exciting)

PT
personalities because they have a positive view of others and the brand’s sincerity

RI
symbolizes the person they would like to be (Swaminathan, Stilley, & Ahluwalia, 2009).

Related to an effectance motivation is the role of regulatory focus on preferences

SC
for brands with specific personality characteristics. Consumers like brands with a sincere

NU
personality better when they are exposed to prevention-framed (vs. promotion-framed)

messages, perhaps because prevention-framed messages prime thoughts about desires to

MA
be with others who will support the individual in times of need. In contrast, brands with a

sophisticated personality are better liked when a promotion-framed (vs. prevention-

D
TE

framed) message is used (Kim & Sung, 2013), perhaps because a promotion focus

activates thoughts about one’s ideal self.

P

Effects of brand personality. Imbuing a brand with a personality appears to affect

CE

judgments beyond those noted in Figure 1. Brand personalities (including assessments of

AC

the brand’s warmth and competence) help consumers to distinguish among brands

(Kervyn, Fiske, & Malone, 2012; see also Malone & Fiske, 2013), thus enhancing the

cultivation of distinct brand images (Yang, Cutright, Chartrand, & Fitzsimons, 2014; see

also Dommer, Swaminathan, & Ahluwalia, 2013). Moreover, brand personalities predict

consumers’ brand attitudes (Eisend, & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013) and brand equity

(Valette-Florence, Guizani, & Merunka, 2011).

Summary
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In sum, considerable research, has investigated consumers’ tendencies to perceive

a brand as having human-like features (e.g., a name, gender, physical characteristics),

human-like personality traits (e.g., warm, extraverted, agreeable), and/or human-like

PT
intentions. Such perceptions can influence inferences about its trustworthiness, fairness,

RI
or blame worthiness. Activation of a human schema using visual devices, verbal devices

and rhetorical devices can facilitate these perceptions. Sociality motivations (e.g.,

SC
collectivism) and effectance (e.g., consumers’ differences in their felt power, their

NU
autonomy) also influence the extent to which anthropomorphization occurs. Perceiving a

brand as ―like us‖ can enhance brand evaluations and attitudes, and foster interactions
MA
that support an effective interaction with the brand.
D
TE

THE SELF-FOCUSED RESEARCH STREAM

In addition to viewing brands as having human-like features, minds or

P

personalities, consumers may perceive a brand as being ―like me‖ (having brand-self
CE

congruity) or as being ―close to me‖ as a person (having brand-self connections) (Figure

AC

1). This perspective on humanizing brands adopts a self-focused perspective. Here, the

brand is interwoven into consumers’ sense of self—who they are, who they have been,

and who they might become. This incorporation into the self is likely to increase

humanizing the brand because individuals tend to attribute more humanness to the self

than to others (e.g., people attribute personality traits that are perceived as central or

typically human to themselves more than to other people) (Haslam, Bain, Douge, Lee &

Bastian 2005). For example, beliefs that one is sincere may lead to inferences that an

owned brand is also sincere (Weiss & Johar 2013).

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Brand-Self Congruity

Research finds that consumers perceive congruities between the brand and aspects

of themselves (i.e., the brand is perceived as similar to me or like me; Sirgy 1982).

PT
Indeed, research finds that consumers can perceive a congruity between the brand and the

RI
self in terms of personalities (e.g., Fennis & Pruyn, 2007), user or usage congruity (Liu,

Li, Mizerski, & Soh, 2012), gender (Grohmann, 2009), reference group identification

SC
(e.g., White & Dahl, 2007), and cultural identification (Deshpande, Hoyer, & Donthu,

NU
1986).

Moreover, brand-self congruity may affect or be affected by perceptions of the

MA
brand in human-like terms (hence the double arrow shown in Figure 1). For example, and

suggestive of a relationship between brand-self congruity and anthropomorphism of a

D

brand’s mind, greater personality congruity between a car brand and the self increased
TE

consumers’ expectations that the car brand would be reliable, would play an important
P

part in their life, and would treat them well (Kressmann, Sirgy, Hermann, Huber, Huber,
CE

& Lee, 2006). Moreover, a meta-analysis of brand congruity effects revealed a significant
AC

effect of brand personality congruity on brand attitudes, intentions, and purchase

(Aguirre-Rodriguez, Bosnjak, & Sirgy, 2012), perhaps setting the stage for consumers’

conceptualization of the brand as a potential relationship partner (Wan & Aggarwal,

2015). These effects were stronger for congruity between the brand personality and the

consumers’ personality than the brand’s personality with the personality of its users.

Factors impacting brand-self congruity perceptions. The factors that motivate

consumers to anthropomorphize brands (see Figure 1) also appear to affect consumers’

perceptions of the brand as similar to the self. Related to agent/self-knowledge,

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

knowledge about the extent to which personalities are stable or malleable affects brand-

self congruity. Park and John (2010) found that entity theorists (those who believe that

personalities are stable and do not change across time and situations) perceived

PT
themselves as more good-looking, feminine, and glamorous after using a Victoria’s

RI
Secret shopping bag (studies 1 and 3) and viewed themselves as more intelligent, more

hardworking, and more of a leader after using an MIT pen (studies 2 and 4). These

SC
findings suggest that entity theorists may be sensitive to evaluating brands’ personalities

NU
in terms of their congruity to the self.

Sociality motivations may also influence considerations of brand-self congruity

MA
and effects of congruence. Aaker (1999) observed that agent knowledge (knowledge of

one’s own personality) and sociality motivations (individual differences in self-

D
TE

monitoring) impact whether and to what extent consumers perceive brands as similar to

the self. Aguirre-Rodriguez et al.’s (2012) meta-analysis also showed that brand self-
P

congruity effects were greater when consumers had a self-enhancement (vs. a self-
CE

consistency) motive, and hence wanted to look good in front of others. Reflecting
AC

sociality and perhaps effectance motivations, the effect of brand-self congruity on

attitudes and intentions was greater when the brand was congruent with one’s ideal (vs.

actual) self.

Also relevant to effectance motivations, consumers are more likely to rely on

brands whose personality is consistent with consumers’ self-views when self-confidence

is temporarily shaken or cast in doubt (Gao, Wheeler & Shiv, 2009). Such shaken self-

confidence should activate a motivation for effectance (see Figure 1). Self-confidence is

restored when consumers have the opportunity to choose a product whose personality
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

matches their own. Also possibly eliciting an effectance motivation is the perception of

oneself as an underdog (one who has struggled against the odds to become successful).

Consumers who strongly identify as underdogs themselves react favorably to brands with

PT
underdog-type brand biographies (Paharia, Keinan, Avery, & Schor, 2011).

RI
Brand-Self Connections

Meaning of brand-self connections. Researchers have suggested that consumers

SC
can feel connected to a brand in a way that goes beyond being similar to or like the brand.

NU
However, the precise meaning of ―brand-self connections‖ is a bit elusive, as this concept

has been used to reference terms that, while potentially related, have distinct elements.
MA
For example, to some, brand-self connections reflect congruities (or similarities) between

the image of the brand and the image of the self, as when consumers view a brand as
D
TE

connected to their sense of self because it is trendy like they are (e.g., Chaplin & John,

2005).
P

The term brand-self connection has also been used to reference the extent to
CE

which a brand resonates with one’s identity (e.g., Escalas & Bettman, 2003, 2005). Not
AC

only is the brand similar to the self, but also its associations can be appropriated from the

socio-cultural system to reflect or construct one’s actual or ideal identity. This

perspective might be called identity resonance. To the extent that consumers feel that

they are like others who use the brand (i.e., have a self-verification goal) or feel that they

want to be like others who use the brand (i.e., have a self-enhancement (i.e., impression

management) goal they are more likely to form a strong connection between the brand

and the ideal or actual self. By using brands that reflect self-enhancement and self-
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

verification goals, consumers gain emotional benefits in the form of enhanced self-esteem

and the liberty to use the brand for purposes of personal expression.

Fournier (1998; see also Keller, 2001) offers a somewhat broader perspective,

PT
which might be called goal resonance. Here, the brand is not only important to one’s

identity but also relevant to one’s life tasks, themes or current concerns. Park et al.

RI
(2010, 2013a) go further to describe brand-self connections as the extent to which the

SC
brand overlaps with or is included in the self; that is, the extent to which the brand is me

NU
and I am the brand. According to them, brand-self connection varies in closeness, from

complete overlap between the brand and the self to extreme distance between the brand
MA
and the self. As the overlap between the brand and the self increases (given the brand’s

resonance with goals, life tasks, themes or current concerns), consumers come to view the
D

brand as part of themselves, thus viewing the brand’s resources as their own. In turn, with
TE

overlap, consumers are willing to devote their own resources to the brand because it is
P

part of themselves and of who they are. This perspective is also consistent with Aron’s
CE

self-expansion theory as applied to brands, where closeness is revealed in a Venn

AC

diagram showing the self as overlapping with the other entity (e.g., the brand). Park et al.

(2013a) assume that, as brand-self closeness increases, the positivity or valence of one’s

relationship with the brand also increases, suggesting that the sense of self can expand to

include the brand as part of the self (Reimann & Aron, 2009). This view is consistent

with Belk’s (1988) notion that consumers may regard products and brands as extensions

of the self.

To a certain extent, these different ways of thinking about brand self-connections

are undoubtedly related. When a brand is seen as similar to the self, consumers may come
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

to use the brand to signal aspects of their own identity. As brands become more

embedded in the consumer’s higher-order goals, life projects and themes, brand-self

connections may be further strengthened. At some point, the brand is so closely

PT
connected to the consumer that the brand is seen as part of the self. Although definitions

RI
of brand-self connections as a construct differ, many papers that empirically examine this

construct operationalize it similarly, with items that relate to the extent to which the

SC
brand is ―connected to the self‖ and reflects ―me and who I am‖ (e.g., Escalas & Bettman,

NU
2003, 2005; Park et al., 2010, 2013a; Chaplin & John, 2005).

Regardless, the discussion above suggests that the field has opportunities to
MA
examine various dimensions along which brand-self connections can be described and

examine their relative impact on brand-self closeness. For example, does brand-self
D
TE

closeness vary as a function of the number of brand-self connections, their valence, their

salience, and/or their importance to life goals? Which factors have the greatest impact on
P

overall judgments of brand-self closeness?

CE

Factors impacting brand-self connections. Consistent with the notion of agent

AC

knowledge and effectance motivations, the tendency to develop brand-self connections

appears to begin between middle childhood and early adolescence (Chaplin & John,

2005), as consumers’ self-concepts develop and they comprehend who uses a brand, what

the brand personality is, and what the brand says about one’s identity. As children’s

reasoning strategy develops with age, they are likely to develop a more abstract

understanding of the brand, its similarity to the self, and the extent to which it can serve

as an identity marker.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Individuals also form stronger brand-self connections to brands whose meaning is

conveyed in the form of a story. Such narrative processing, involving the brand as an

actor in the story, may activate agent knowledge (Escalas, 2004). Brand-self connections

PT
are believed to deepen as the length of a consumer’s brand relationship grows (Reimann,

RI
Castano, Zaichkowsky, & Bechara, 2012; Park et al., 2010; Park et al., 2013a). Reflecting

agent knowledge, longer brand relationships provide more opportunities for consumers to

SC
understand and interact with the brand and see the brand as part of the self.

NU
Consistent with a sociality motivation, brand-self connections are strong for

brands that are central to one’s identity and reference group membership and status
MA
(Escalas & Bettman, 2003; 2005). The tendency to form brand-self connections may be

particularly strong in the case of brands that symbolize membership in an in-group and
D
TE

hence provide a social signaling function (Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Chan, Berger, & van

Boven, 2012). In contrast, consumers perceive more distance from brands that are tied to
P

outgroups/dissociative reference groups (White & Dahl, 2007).

CE

Consumers’ brand-self connections also are stronger for nostalgic than non-
AC

nostalgic brands, perhaps because nostalgic brands link an individual to people and

events of his or her childhood or early adulthood (Kessous, Roux, & Chandon, 2015),

thus serving sociality motivations. Brand-self connections also can be facilitated through

methods designed to enhance customer intimacy (activating a sociality motivation). For

example, Liu and Gal (2011) found that consumers felt closer to a company when

company representatives asked for their advice about the product versus when asked for

their expectations for the product.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

When materialists are reminded of their own death, the importance of brands in

staving off loneliness (a sociality motivation) may be salient, leading materialistic

consumers to form stronger brand-self connections (Rindfleisch, Burroughs & Wong,

PT
2009). The importance of brand-self connections also may vary by self-construal. Brand-

RI
self connections appear to be more important as drivers of brand attitudes for consumers

from independent (vs. interdependent) cultures (see Figure 1). For consumers from

SC
interdependent cultures, a brand’s country of origin was more important than brand-self

NU
connections in driving brand attitudes (Swaminathan, Page, & Gürhan-Canli, 2007).

Consistent with an effectance motivation, stronger brand-self connections are

MA
likely to arise when the brand enables the self (Park et al., 2013). This could occur when

the brand protects customers and makes them feel powerful in overcoming problems or
D
TE

provides them with a sense of self-efficacy that facilitates task performance (Park &

John, 2014). Conversely, when consumers are connected to the brand, they seem to react
P

to a brand failure as if it were a personal failure. Consumers who were strongly connected
CE

to a brand felt more threats to their self-esteem when the brand failed than did consumers
AC

who were more distant from the brand (Cheng, White, & Chaplin, 2012). Moreover, as

brand-self connections increase, consumers are less forgiving of a brand that transgresses

against them or acts in unethical ways (Trump, 2014), perhaps because the brand

transgression activates agent knowledge and/or views of the brand as having an

anthropomorphized mind that acts unfairly and in morally inconsistent ways.

The perceived congruity between the brand and the self also affects brand-self

connections. In a longitudinal study of new product adoption of the iPhone in Spain,

Lam, Ahearne, Mullins, Hayati, and Schillewaert (2013) observed that the perceived
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

personality congruity between a consumer and a new brand predicted the extent to which

consumers identified with the brand. Identity was indicated by the extent of overlap

between the brand’s identity and their own (which might be regarded as an indicator of

PT
brand-self connections). Those whose personalities were perceived as congruent with the

RI
brand also showed higher rates of growth in brand identification over time.

Effects of brand-self connections. Consumers appear to show stronger and more

SC
positive brand attitudes (Moore & Homer, 2008) and greater brand loyalty (Tsai, 2011) as

NU
the brand becomes closer to the self. This appears to be particularly true in the case of the

high congruity between the consumer’s gender and gender’s relevance to the product
MA
category, as well as when the brand is symbolic of a desired in-group (Moore & Homer,

2008). These findings hint at the potential relationship between brand-self connections
D

and consumers’ view of brands as relationship partners. We discuss this topic next.
TE

Summary
P

Research investigating a ―self-focus‖ has examined when the brand is congruent

CE

with the self (the brand is like me) and when the brand is connected to the self (the brand
AC

is close to me). These are related issues since brand-self congruity can influence brand-

self connections (see Figure 1). Sociality motivations prompted by such factors as

congruence with one’s ideal self, ingroup relevance and nostalgia, and effectance

motivations, prompted by such factors as concerns about self-efficacy and shaken self-

confidence, also influence the conditions under which brands are regarded as connected

to the self.

THE RELATIONSHIP-FOCUSED RESEARCH STREAM

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In addition to the previously discussed human-focused and self-focused

perspectives on humanizing brands, some prior work has studied the humanization of

brands from a relationship perspective. Following Figure 1, we review research

PT
suggesting that consumers relate to brands in ways that are analogous to their

RI
relationships with people, even if the brand is concretely associated with an object (e.g., a

Big Mac). If a person treats an object like a human, then it implies attributions of human

SC
mental capacities, such as intentions and feelings, to the object, as well as the object’s

NU
ability to have intentions and feelings about the person (Waytz et al. 2010). Of particular

interest to consumer psychologists is a relationship described as brand attachment and its

MA
potential to impact the consumer’s feelings of brand betrayal when the brand

transgresses. Moreover, just as consumers have relational norms that guide relationships
D
TE

with other people (e.g., exchange norms, communal norms), they also appear to have

relational norms that guide their brand relationships.

P

Brand Relationship Types

CE

Fournier (1998) pioneered the idea that consumers can think about their
AC

relationships with brands in a manner that is analogous to their relationships with people.

Some brand relationships are strong and positive (e.g., committed partnerships, best

friends). Others reflect brand relationships for which consumers have a strong aversion

(e.g., enmities). Still others (dependencies) reflect ambivalent relationships, such as when

consumers need the brand but feel controlled by it. Secret affairs also reflect a brand

relationship characterized by ambivalence. Consumers feel passion toward such brands

despite anticipating others’ disapproval.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Brand relationships also vary in power (Fournier & Alvarez, 2012). Sometimes, a

consumer perceives that power is equally shared with the brand (as with committed

partnerships and best friendships). In other cases, a brand has power over consumers who

PT
are dependent on the brand (i.e., enslavement). Conversely, the consumer can have

significant power over the brand; in such cases, consumers view themselves as ―masters‖

RI
and they regard the brand as the ―servant‖ (e.g., Aggarwal & McGill, 2012; Fournier &

SC
Alvarez, 2012; Kim & Kramer, 2015; Miller, Fournier, & Allen, 2012). The types of

NU
brand relationships may emanate from consumers’ perceptions of the brand as having a

human-like mind and competencies that can be used to exert control (power) over the
MA
consumer.

Factors impacting brand relationship types. Consistent with the sociality

D
TE

motivation that drives anthropomorphism tendencies, consumers who are lonely may be

more likely to develop a positive relationship with a brand (Long, Yoon, & Friedman,
P

2015). However, more research is needed to understand why consumers form certain
CE

types of relationships with brands and the dimensions along which various types of brand
AC

relationships can be differentiated. Will consumers who are low in power (effectance

motivation), lonely (sociality motivation), high in attachment anxiety (sociality

motivation), or high in entity orientation (personal agent motivation) be more likely to

call brands ―best friends‖ and less likely to regard them as ―enmities‖? Research that

links the study of brand relationship types to the other factors identified in Figure 1 could

add substantial richness to this domain.

Some of the aforementioned constructs in Figure 1 are also related to brand

relationship types. For example, consumers appear to gravitate to brands with unique and
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

exciting personalities when forming a positive brand relationship (Smit, Bronner, &

Tolboom, 2007). Moreover, in the case of ―fling‖-type relationships, consumers appear to

gravitate toward those with exciting personalities (Aaker, Fournier & Brasel, 2004).

PT
Most brand relationship work has focused on positive relationships (Fournier &

RI
Alvarez, 2012), chiefly those characterized as best friendships or committed partnerships,

neglecting negative relationships, particularly those in which power is unequally

SC
distributed. More generally, research should move beyond typologies to develop an

NU
overarching theory that explains when and why certain types of relationships prevail,

what causes changes in relationships (as when a best friendship becomes an enmity), and
MA
why. The discussion below hints at several factors that might be relevant to the

development of this overarching theory.

D
TE

Brand Attachment

The most thoroughly studied type of human-like relationship that consumers can
P

have with brands is brand attachment. Brand attachment has been described as the
CE

strength of the bond connecting the consumer to the brand (Park et al., 2010). Brand-self
AC

connections (or brand closeness) appear to be critical to attachment-based relationships.

As consumers perceive a close connection between the brand and the self, they are likely

to become attached to it in a way that is analogous to interpersonal attachment (see

Figure 1). This has been observed with person brands (i.e., celebrities; Thomson, 2006;

O’Guinn, 1991), product brands (Thomson et al., 2005; Park et al., 2010) and place

brands (Debenedetti, Oppewal, & Arsel, 2014).

Park et al. (2010) argue that brand attachment requires not just brand-self

connections/closeness but also brand prominence (or salience), which can be independent
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of brand-self connections. Prominence reflects the degree to which the cognitive and

emotional bonds that connect the brand to the self are highly salient in consumers’

memories. When brand attachment is strong, the brand is interwoven into consumers’

PT
autobiographical memories and is frequently encountered in light of its connection to

(and resonance with) the self and one’s goals (Park et al., 2010). When brand attachment

RI
is strong, consumers not only regard the brand as part of the self, they are also willing to

SC
invest resources (time, money, reputation) in the brand to ensure that their brand

NU
relationship remains positive.

By separating prominence from brand-self connections, Park et al. (2013a)

MA
identify states beyond attachment. Specifically, the opposite of brand attachment is brand

aversion, which arises when consumers experience negative brand-self connections to a

D
TE

brand that is prominent in memory. Ambivalence describes a state in which a prominent

brand creates an approach-avoidance conflict. Consumers are indifferent to brands for

P

which prominence is moderate to low and for which brand-self connections are neither
CE

extremely close nor extremely distant.

AC

Park et al. (2010, 2013a) developed a brand attachment scale showing that brand

self-connections and brand prominence are both important to the measurement of brand

attachment. Their scale also shows that brand attachment predicts outcomes like brand

loyalty and brand advocacy behaviors. (See also Jiménez & Voss, 2014, for a discussion

of scales assessing brand attachment).

Increasingly, researchers have examined the construct of brand love, which seems

to predict many of the same effects as those predicted by brand attachment (described

shortly). However, prior research also suggests that the perceived connection between the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

brand and the self (e.g., brand-self distance) and brand prominence better predict feelings

of closeness to the brand than does brand love (Park et al 2013). The extent to which

consumers devote resources to the brand may differentiate brand attachment from brand

PT
love, which tends to be self-centered (vs. relationship focused; Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi,

2012). Unfortunately, the term ―brand love‖ has been used inconsistently within the

RI
literature. Specifically, it has been used to refer to (a) a state that is synonymous with

SC
brand attachment (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Albert & Merunka, 2013), (b) as a

NU
psychological state that reflects pleasure from sensory, cognitive, and emotional

stimulation (i.e., feeling sexy, romantic, sentimental and warmhearted; Laros &
MA
Steenkamp, 2005), (c) as colloquial expression used by consumers to describe their

overall brand affection (Albert, Merunka, & Valette-Florence 2008), (d) as an emotion
D
TE

prototype that describes the antecedents (e.g., brand-self integration), qualities (brand-self

connection), and consequences (e.g., separation distress, long-term relationship, attitude

P

valence, certainty confidence, passion driven behaviors) of close brand relationships

CE

(Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012), and (e) as a broad psychological state that describes
AC

brand relationships characterized by varying degrees of intimacy, passion and connection

(e.g., Swimberghe, Astakhova & Wolridge, 2014; Shimp & Madden, 1988). Such

diverse usages make it difficult to develop a generalized understanding of the drivers,

concept and effects of brand love.

Separation distress. One behavioral indicator of brand attachment is consumers’

separation distress at the prospect of terminating a relationship with the brand if it were to

go off the market or cease to be available to them (Thomson et al., 2005). Indeed, the

loss of material possessions to which one is attached is linked to feelings of sadness

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(Ferraro, Escalas, & Bettman, 2011). Interestingly, a brand’s withdrawal from the

marketplace appears to produce phases of loss that resemble the coping process that

follows the loss of interpersonal relationships. That is, consumers’ feelings move through

PT
the following stages: (a) a state of denial; (b) negative emotions like anger,

RI
disappointment and sadness; (c) a search for remnants of the brand or other places in the

market where the brand might be acquired; (d) hopelessness and despair; and finally (e)

SC
recovery, where consumers accept the loss of the brand and move on to alternative

NU
options (Russell & Schau, 2015).

Effects of brand attachment. The more consumers are attached to a brand, the
MA
more they engage in pro-brand behaviors, such as brand advocacy (e.g., positive WOM,

defending the brand against criticism) and brand loyalty behaviors (e.g., brand
D
TE

commitment, refusal to consider alternative brands; e.g., Thomson et al., 2005; Park et

al., 2011; Park et al., 2013a). Consumers are also more likely to accept extensions of the
P

brands to which they are attached (Fedorikhin, Park, & Thomson, 2008). Additionally,
CE

brand attachment enhances consumers’ willingness to pay a price premium for the brand
AC

(e.g., Thomson et al., 2005; Park et al., 2011; Park et al., 2013a; Orth, Limon, & Rose,

2010), and enhance consumers’ desires to be part of a brand community (e.g., Schau,

Muniz, & Arnould, 2009). These behaviors can sometimes seem extreme, such as when

devoted Barry Manilow fans display pictures and other memorabilia in shrines that reflect

their adoration to Barry (O’Guinn, 1991). Consumers also seem to be more forgiving of

minor brand transgressions as attachment to the brand increases (Donovan et al., 2012).

However, the effects of attachment on consumers’ responses to brand transgressions may

be complex, as we suggest later in our discussion of brand betrayal.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Factors impacting brand attachment. Effectance and sociality motivations (see

Figure 1) also appear to impact the extent of consumers’ brand attachments. Dunn and

Hoegg (2014) find that consumers are more likely to become attached to brands when

PT
they are afraid (but not sad, happy or excited), because people cope with fear by seeking

RI
out others (people or objects) for comfort and support (a sociality motivation). In such

cases, consumers’ belief that the brand has shared their (fearful) experiences drives brand

SC
attachment. Nevertheless, fearful individuals may be inclined to affiliate with other

NU
people rather than brands when people are present.

Also consistent with a sociality motivation, consumers are more likely to become
MA
attached to brands that enrich the self; that is, brands that help consumers develop,

maintain and promote a desired identity and a coherent sense of self (Park et al., 2013a).
D

Consistent with this notion, the more a place (e.g., a retail store) fulfills consumers’
TE

sociality motivations (e.g., the more customers bond with service employees), the greater
P

consumers’ attachment to that place becomes (Brocato, Baker & Voorhees 2015).
CE

Dommer et al. (2013) find that, when low self-esteem consumers feel socially included,
AC

they develop stronger attachments to brands that reflect status or superiority within a

group. In contrast, social exclusion leads low self-esteem consumers to develop stronger

attachments to brands that reflect their individual tastes.

Some research suggests that attachments to brands can, in some situations,

compensate for deficiencies in interpersonal relationships, which may be related to a

sociality motivation. The tendency to become attached to possessions, for example, is

impacted by loneliness. Pieters (2013) observed a bi-directional relationship between

loneliness (which should evoke a sociality motivation) and attachment to possessions.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Specifically, loneliness inclines consumers to develop greater attachments to their

possessions (i.e., exhibit greater materialism) as substitutes for relationships with other

people. In turn, materialism may isolate consumers from others, thereby fostering greater

PT
loneliness. Elderly consumers may be more inclined to develop attachments to brands as

RI
relationship partners (Jahn, Gaus & Kiessling, 2012), perhaps because elderly consumers

have fewer opportunities to actualize on sociality motivations.

SC
As to effectance motivations, Park et al. (2013a) suggest that consumers become

NU
increasingly attached to brands that fulfill three categories of consumption goals: (1) the

brand enables the self, providing a sense of self-efficacy, power, and competence and
MA
entices the self, providing cognitive and experiential pleasure. The former perspective

accords with an effectance motivation. Similarly, Proksch, Orth, and Cornwell (2015)
D
TE

find that brand attachment is positively affected by the degree to which the brand makes

consumers feel competent.

P

Blending effectance and sociality motivations, consumers became more attached

CE

to celebrities who enhanced consumers’ feelings of autonomy (which should be related to

AC

an effectance motivation) and relatedness (which should be related to a sociality

motivation) (Thomson, 2006). Interestingly, competence (which should also be related to

an effectance motivation) was found to be unrelated to attachment strength. This null

finding might be due to the fact that the study focused on celebrities, who may be less

effective than other brands when it comes to actualizing on effectance motivations.

Brand personalities may also affect brand attachment. One of the few studies

using longitudinal data found such an effect. In this study, brand attachment was

indicated by the extent to which consumers were committed to the brand, felt a strong
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

brand-self connection, regarded their brand relationship as intimate, and were satisfied

with the brand (Aaker et al., 2004). Consumers’ relationships with (i.e., attachment to)

sincere brands deepened over time. In contrast, their relationships with exciting brands

PT
were more like flings, short-lived and intense. However, this effect was contingent on

RI
whether the brand had or had not transgressed against the consumer (e.g., inadvertently

erased the customer’s online photo album). Attachment to sincere brands was negatively

SC
affected by a transgression, but attachment to exciting brands was somewhat rejuvenated

NU
following a transgression.

Finally, the perceived congruity between the brand and the self (see Figure 1) also
MA
affects brand-self connections and brand attachment. A qualitative study revealed that

brand-self connections and brand attachment increased as the congruity between the
D
TE

brand and the self-concept increased (Japutra, Ekinci, & Simkin, 2014). Malar, Krohmer,

Hoyer, & Nyffenegger, 2011) found that the impact of personality congruity was greatest
P

when effectance motivations were high – specifically when consumers lacked self-esteem
CE

or were high in public self-consciousness. The consistency between the brand’s

AC

personality and the consumer’s personality is related to brand attachment (Orth, Limon,

& Rose, 2010). Ghuman, Huang, Madden, and Roth (2015) found a positive relationship

between the degree to which a brand is anthropomorphized and the perceived quality of

the consumer-brand relationship.

Brand Aversion and Brand Betrayal

The opposite of brand attachment is brand aversion. Here, consumers regard a

brand that is highly prominent in memory as distant from (vs. close to) the self.

Consumers might be averse to brands that reflect dissociative reference groups with
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

whom they do not wish to affiliate (White & Dahl, 2007). However, recent research

suggests that brand aversion can also be created when a brand to which consumers are

attached violates consumers’ trust. Researchers have labeled this state ―brand betrayal‖

PT
(Grégoire & Fisher, 2008), a state also used to describe human relationships where

RI
implicit relationship norms are violated.

Since attachment-based brand relationships evolve over time, consumers come to

SC
trust the brand as the brand relationship deepens. Although brand attachment and

NU
strong/close brand-self connections can insulate the brand from the repercussions of

minor brand failures (Donovan et al. 2012), there are limits to consumers’ tolerance of
MA
brand transgressions (Schmalz & Orth, 2012; see also Loken & John, 2010; Wan, Hui, &

Wyer, 2011). When the brand violates the fundamental norms that previously guided the
D
TE

brand relationship, the state of attachment changes to one of betrayal, with the valence of

the relationship changing from one of extreme closeness to one of extreme distance (i.e.,
P

aversion; e.g., Grégoire & Fisher 2008; Wiggin & Yalch, 2015). Feelings of brand
CE

betrayal can be so negative that consumers take revenge against the brand (Grégoire &
AC

Fisher, 2008; Johnson, Matear, & Thomson, 2011).

Factors impacting brand betrayal. To date, limited research has examined

whether the motivational drivers that stimulate consumers’ tendencies to perceive brands

in human-like terms (see Figure 1) affect the intensity of brand betrayal. One study

focusing on attachment styles found that when a brand engaged in a transgression, anti-

brand reactions were greater as the attachment style was characterized by greater levels

of anxiety and avoidance. Consumers who were high on these attachment style
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

dimensions experienced greater loss of benefits and self-esteem than other consumers as

a result of the brand’s transgression (Thomson, Whelan, & Johnson, 2012).

Brand betrayal has spurred recent interest, but much remains to be learned about

PT
what causes consumers to feel betrayed by brands and how firms can recover from this

RI
negative affective state. If strong brand attachment moderates the relationship between a

brand’s actions and betrayal, firms risk losing their best customers (and rousing them to

SC
take revenge) when their transgressions are perceived as a betrayal. Future work on when

NU
and why consumers will experience betrayal and how firms can recover is clearly

important in order to better understand how consumers relate to brands in human-like

MA
terms. Opportunities to advance our understanding of brand betrayal and its relationship

to the topics noted in Figure 1 are numerous, since the study of brand betrayal is still in
D
TE

its infancy.

Feelings of brand betrayal may be more likely to arise when consumers make
P

anthropomorphic inferences about brands as having a human-like mind and acting with
CE

intentionality. In other words, inferring that the brand has intentionally misled them
AC

(Parmentier & Fischer, 2015), exploited them (Sayin & Gürhan-Canli, 2015), violated

fairness-related relational norms (Grégoire & Fisher, 2008), behaved in a highly unethical

way (Schmalz & Orth, 2012; Trump, 2014) or shown disloyalty toward them (Luedicke

& Pichler-Luedicke, 2015) may increase the intensity of consumers’ feelings of betrayal.

Brand Relationship Norms

Types of norms. A fruitful direction for understanding brand attachment and

brand betrayal, as well as other brand relationship states and brand relationship types,

draws on theories about social relationship norms. Aggarwal (2004) proposes that brand
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

relationships vary in terms of the norms that guide them; specifically, whether and to

what extent they are based on ―exchange‖ or ―communal‖ norms. Exchange relationships

involve a shared understanding that a relationship is based on a quid pro quo mode of

PT
interaction. Exchange relationship norms dictate a match between what customers give to

RI
obtain and interact with the brand (e.g., price paid, time spent) and what the brand

provides in return (e.g., brand benefits, service benefits). Consumers for whom exchange

SC
relationship norms are salient become unhappy when a relationship is out of balance in

NU
terms of the give–get interchange, such as when the consumer puts more (e.g., more

money, more time, more effort) into the brand relationship than he she gets in return.
MA
Communal relationship norms, on the other hand, are based on a shared

understanding that a relationship partner (e.g., the brand) receives benefits or accrues
D
TE

costs depending on what the other relationship partner (e.g., the consumer) needs at a

given point in time. With communal relationships, the brand is part of one’s ―in group‖.
P

Contributions to the partner (i.e., the consumer’s contributions to the brand or vice versa)
CE

are made on behalf of the consumer-brand unit (vs. one’s self-interests). For example, if
AC

one member of a brand relationship (e.g., the consumer) needs help, communal

relationship norms would dictate that the brand would proffer help without the

expectation of compensation. What is new and relevant to the relationship norm literature

are the ideas that (a) brand relationships can be communal in nature, (b) different

relationship norms may be more vs. less salient in a given situation or for a particular

type of consumer, and (c) a mismatch between the type of relationship norm implied by

the brand’s action (i.e., exchange) and the type of relationship norm expected by

consumers (i.e., communal) can damage brand relationships.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Summary

Consumers sometimes relate to a brand in human-like ways, with distinctions

across types of relationships based on brand closeness/distance, brand prominence,

PT
relationship valence and relative power in the relationship. Most of the experimental

research has studied consumers’ feeling of attachment to the brand, perhaps partly

RI
because of its significant consequences to marketers, which range from brand loyalty and

SC
defending the brand against criticism to brand aversion and taking vengeance against the

NU
brand. A promising research direction involves comparing brand relationships guided by

communal norms to those guided by exchange norms (Aggarwal 2004). Considering that
MA
most research focuses on attachment, it is not surprising that the effects of sociality

motivations (e.g., loneliness, brands as group status markers, self-esteem) on how

D
TE

consumers relate to brands have been more thoroughly studied compared to those of

effectance motivations (self-efficacy).

P
CE

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS FOR THIS GENERAL DOMAIN

AC

As we show in this review, a substantial and recent body of research has

examined consumers’ perceptions of brands in human-like terms. Activity in this young

field reveals a promising trajectory, with most studies published within last decade and

with considerable potential for future research on important issues. In Table 2, we present

a set of propositions that summarize research findings to date. Below, we use these

propositions to develop some concluding thoughts.

----- Insert Table 2 here ----

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Throughout this review, we have identified specific future research directions. Here,

we identify a set of research directions that relate to the domain of humanizing brands as

a whole, including the propositions noted in Table 2.

PT
Human or Human-Like?

RI
Whereas the literature reviewed above suggests that consumers can perceive and

relate to brands in human-like terms, two considerations must be kept in mind when

SC
carrying this research forward. First, the fact that consumers can relate to brands in

NU
human-like terms should not be taken as evidence that they always do (see Aggarwal,

2004; Alba & Lutz, 2013; Batra et al., 2012; Miller et al., 2012; Park et al., 2013b).
MA
Individuals may correct for anthropomorphic tendencies when they become cognizant of

having done so (even if the correction is insufficient).

D
TE

Indeed, there is an opportunity in consumer research to demarcate the boundaries of

human and brand relationships. Swaminathan and Dommer (2012) suggest that brand
P

relationships typically involve an economic exchange, whereas most human relationships

CE

do not. As such, compared to interpersonal relationships, consumers may have more of an

AC

exchange than a communal orientation towards brands. Moreover, whereas individuals

can feel betrayed by relationship partners who are unfaithful to them, consumers do not

seem to believe that brands experience feelings of betrayal or other negative responses to

the consumers’ polygamous brand relationships (though see Luedicke & Pichler-

Luedicke, 2015, who find different results).

Is humanizing brands an accelerating trend?

The recency of research supporting P1 might suggest that consumers’ humanization

of brands is a contemporary phenomenon. It may be partly true in that brands have

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

played an increasingly important role in the modern marketplace. Additionally, social

changes may have enhanced consumers’ motivations, abilities or opportunities to

humanize brands, which raises numerous questions. Have consumers as a whole become

PT
more dependent on brands for enhancing a sense of effectance? Have societal changes,

RI
such as greater stress and time-pressure, or more shallow human relationships, led

contemporary consumers to relate to brands differently today than in previous

SC
generations? Do consumers look to brands as sources of emotional gratification more

NU
now because consumers receive less emotional support elsewhere? Do consumers look

more to brands as relationship partners because global competition creates a world-view

MA
of unpredictable, hostile or tenuous relationships among people? Have wealth and high

standards of living in the West made for a more entitled population that looks to the
D
TE

marketplace for certain types of brand relationships (e.g., relationships where the

consumer is the master and the brand the slave)? Consumer research can benefit from
P

historical, sociological, and political science perspectives (as well as psychological

CE

perspectives) on whether and to what extent consumers’ relationships with brands today
AC

differ from those of prior generations, and if so, what drives these differences.

P1 also raises the question of whether technological innovations interact with

societal changes to offer more opportunities for consumers to view brands in human-like

terms. The increasing tendency for consumers to spend more time alone (e.g., Putnam,

2000), coupled with the aging of the population and needs for assisted living tools, herald

the advent of robots with human features, voices, and actions, as well as the increased use

of virtual reality and technologies, like self-driving cars, all of which will likely further

impact our perception and experiences of brands. Such technological advances may
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

actually exaggerate consumers’ tendency to see brands in human-like terms because they

cue human knowledge schemas, they offer a way to connect socially and they offer a way

to exert control over an increasingly complex world. For example, as consumers become

PT
increasingly dependent on technology and brands to perform functions that previously

RI
required human skills (e.g., reading maps, mathematical calculations, translation), these

dependencies may lower effectance in certain domains of our lives. A reduced sense of

SC
effectance may heighten consumers’ tendency to anthropomorphize brands, as prior

NU
research suggests. A tendency to humanize may be even more pronounced with the

development of algorithms that ―learn‖ customers’ habits and can be customized to the
MA
consumer’s needs (see Kozinets, 2015, for a discussion).

What else impacts tendencies to humanize brands?

D
TE

P2 suggests that dispositional, situational, development, and cultural factors related

to agent knowledge and motivations for sociality and effectance can heighten consumers’
P

tendencies to humanize brands. Indeed, in this review, we have identified a set of

CE

variables that can be broadly subsumed within the categories of sociality motivations,
AC

effectance motivations and elicited agent knowledge. These constructs appear to

influence whether, when, and why consumers perceive and relate to brands in human-like

terms (see Figure 1). For example, we see that consumers are more likely to perceive and

relate to brands in human like terms when situational (situational loneliness),

dispositional (chronic loneliness), developmental (e.g., attachment styles) and cultural

factors (individualism/collectivism) activate a sociality motivation.

Yet, other variables that reflect these higher-level factors noted in Figure 1 offer

additional opportunities to test the boundaries of the model. For example, individual
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

differences in introversion/extroversion, an instantiation of sociality motivations, might

predict that introverts (who gain less emotional energy from interactions with people) are

more likely to humanize brands than extraverts. Relatedly, research might examine

PT
whether consumers are more likely to humanize brands when they interact with the brand

RI
themselves versus when they observe others with the brand. In sum, we have the

opportunity to build theory by examining other situational, dispositional, developmental

SC
and cultural factors that are associated with a sociality motivation, effectance motivation,

NU
and elicited agent knowledge.

What bi-directional causality relationships exist among constructs?

MA
P3 suggests that the various ways in which humanize brands (as shown in Figure 1)

can be mutually reinforcing. Yet alternative paths that reflect the causal relationships
D
TE

between these ways of humanizing brands have yet to be studied. For example, whereas

consumers may be more likely to see a brand as having a personality after they
P

anthropomorphize it, does the evocation of the brand as having a personality enhance
CE

anthropomorphism tendencies? Whereas seeing the brand as having an

AC

anthropomorphized mind and being trustworthy might enhance brand-self connections

and attachment, is it possible that greater levels of brand attachment enhance perceptions

of the brand as a trusted partner? Future research should consider the potential for bi-

directional relationships among the constructs identified in Figure 1, particularly as brand

relationships develop over time.

What would a broadened set of relationship types reveal?

Consumers’ relationships with brands vary on a number of dimensions (P6), among

which include brand-self connectedness, prominence, attachment, power, and relationship

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

norms. Yet, as Fournier and Alvarez (2012) note, we have tended to focus on brand

relationships characterized by strong levels of attachment. This is not surprising given the

importance of attachment-based brand relationships to marketers. Yet, as these authors

PT
eloquently note, there is clearly opportunity to study brand relationship types and forms

RI
beyond brand attachment. For example, under what cases is power unequally distributed

such that the consumer feels dependent on the brand (as when the brand has more power

SC
than the consumer) or the consumer feels that the brand is a slave (where the consumer

NU
has more power). How does the change of a brand relationship change when an exchange

relationship evolves to a communal one?

MA
How does humanizing brands influence consumer happiness?

When consumers perceive, relate to and treat brands positively, marketers enjoy
D
TE

numerous benefits. These include brand loyalty and commitment, enhanced consumer

willingness to disparage competing brands, greater willingness to spread positive WOM,

P

and a willingness to pay a price premium. These potential benefits can justify increasing
CE

consumer attachment and brand anthropomorphism as a goal for marketing managers,

AC

even if the firm has relatively few attached customers or customers that

anthropomorphize the brand.

Whereas marketers might benefit when strong brand attachments form, P7 suggests

that consumers can be happier when they become attached to brands that satisfy various

life goals (in particular, brands that enable, enrich and entice them). Yet, one cannot help

but ask whether, when, and why brand relationships induce greater degrees of happiness

than human relationships do. Is it psychologically healthy for consumers to form

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

attachments to brands? Does evidence of brand attachment signify an absence of other

sources of gratification in consumers’ lives?

How does humanizing a brand change over time?

PT
P9 suggests that brand relationships are dynamic. Yet, little is known about the

RI
dynamic nature of brand relationships. Research on brand betrayal is a step in this

direction, but basic questions remain. Recent research points to the importance of

SC
studying velocity or change in brand relationships (e.g., Harmeling et al 2015). We have

NU
yet to understand what drives the pace at which brand relationships develop, what

psychological, social and marketplace factors can create an ebb and flow in these
MA
relationships, and when certain types of brand relationships (e.g., flings) morph into

different relationship types (e.g., dependencies). A study of how brand relationships

D
TE

evolve over time will likely require the development of novel constructs, such as

relationship volatility, stability, productivity, interdependence, immutability, and

P

discontinuity. Important questions exist at the interface of consumer research and

CE

marketing on how brand relationships can maintain consumers’ passion and excitement,
AC

how they can be revived after a period of dormancy, and what factors encourage

relationship continuity despite marketplace mishaps (mishaps that evoke brand betrayal

as well as those that evoke other feelings, like abandonment, exploitation, and rejection).

Also related to P9 is understanding the role of ownership. Whereas brand ownership

provides opportunities for the development and potential deepening of brand-self

connections, we know little about how or whether ownership issues impact perceptions of

brands as having human-like characteristics, traits, or minds. Do anthropomorphization

tendencies increase as brand relationships develop and/or products are owned over longer
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

periods of time? Owning a product may facilitate its being perceived as a distinct entity,

but this sense of its human-like qualities may not transfer over to identical replacements.

Research on the process by which consumers detach from brands to which they have

PT
previously been attached would also help us understand the dynamic nature of brand

RI
relationships. Moreover, once consumers have detached from a brand (e.g., one’s

childhood Slinky), is it possible that factors related to sociality (e.g., nostalgia),

SC
effectance (shaken self) and elicited agent knowledge (e.g., entity orientation) facilitate

NU
re-attachment?

How does humanization of products differ from humanization of brands?

MA
Finally, although our focus has been on the humanization of brands, at the product

level, consumers are also capable of humanizing product categories (e.g., cars) and
D

possessions (one’s own car). Developmental issues related to brands generally being
TE

more abstract categories and being learned later in life, may lead to different tendencies
P

to anthropomorphize products (e.g., computers) vs. brands within a product class. One
CE

might also ask whether consumers are more likely to anthropomorphize unbranded
AC

possessions more so than branded products? Some research suggests that humanizing a

brand may decrease the likelihood of humanizing any one of the brand’s individual

products or service providers. People who attribute a group mind to a company (e.g.,

Burger King) are less likely to attribute a mind to an individual employee (Waytz &

Young 2012). Do consumers develop deeper or more differentiated personality

impressions of brands than of products? How does characterizing a marketplace entity as

a brand versus a product impact brand self-congruity and brand attachment? Will

consumers feel a greater sense of betrayal when a brand or a product acts in ways that
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

counter relationship norms? In short, while P1-P9 delineate a set of issues related to

brands, whether all these hold true to the same extent for products remains to be seen.

REFERENCES

PT
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research,
34(3), 347-356.

RI
Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal
of Marketing Research, 36(1), 45-57.

SC
Aaker, J. L., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of
Consumer Research, 31(1), 1-16.

NU
Aaker, J. L., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-
profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research,
MA
37(2), 224-237.

Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87-101.
D
TE

Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a
basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research,
34(4), 468-479.
P

Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2012). When brands seem human, do humans act like
CE

brands? Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism.

Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 307-323.
AC

Aguirre-Rodriguez, A., Bosnjak, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2012). Moderators of the self-
congruity effect on consumer decision-making: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Business Research, 65(8), 1179-1188.

Ahn, H. K., Kim, H. J., & Aggarwal P. (2014). Helping fellow beings:
Anthropomorphized social causes and the role of anticipatory guilt. Psychological
Science, 25(1), 224-229.

Alba, J. W., & Lutz, R. (2013). Broadening (and narrowing) the scope of brand
relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 269-274.

Albert, N. and Merunka, D. (2013). The role of brand love in consumer-brand

relationships. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(3), 258-266.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Albert, N., Merunka, D. and Valette-Florence, P. (2008). When consumers love their
brands: Exploring the concept and its dimensions. Journal of Business Research
61(1), 1062-1075.

Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand

PT
personality? Journal of Brand Management, 11(2), 143-155.

Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, 76(2),

RI
1-16.

Bao, J. E., & Sweeney, J. C. (2009). Comparing factor analytical and circumplex models

SC
of brand personality in brand positioning. Psychology & Marketing, 26(10), 927-
949.

NU
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer
Research, 15(2), 139-168. MA
Brocato, E. D., Baker, J., & Voorhees, C. M. (2015). Creating consumer attachment to
retail service firms through sense of place. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 43(2), 200-220.
D

Carpara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Gianlguigi G. (2001). Brand personality: How to
TE

make the metaphor fit. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22(3), 377-395.

Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand
P

love. Marketing Letters, 17(2), 79-89.

CE

Chan, C., Berger, J., & Van Boven, L. (2012). Identifiable but not identical: Combining
social identity and uniqueness motives in choice. Journal of Consumer
Research, 39(3), 561-573.
AC

Chandler, J., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Use does not wear ragged the fabric of friendship:
Thinking of objects as alive makes people less willing to replace them. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 138-145.

Chaplin, L. N., & John, D. R. (2005). The development of self-brand connections in

children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 119-129.

Chen, Y. P., Nelson, L. D., & Hsu, M. (2015). From “where” to “what”: Distributed
representations of brand associations in the human brain. Journal of Marketing
Research, 52(4), 453-466.

Cheng, S. Y., White, T. B., & Chaplin, L. N. (2012). The effects of self-brand
connections on responses to brand failure: A new look at the consumer–brand
relationship. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 280-288.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Debenedetti, A., Oppewal, H., & Arsel, Z. (2014). Place attachment in commercial
settings: A gift economy perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 904-
923.

Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E. F., & Phillips, B. J. (2011). Personification in

PT
advertising. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 121-130.

Deshpande, R., Hoyer, W. D., & Donthu, N. (1986). The intensity of ethnic affiliation: A
study of the sociology of Hispanic consumption. Journal of Consumer Research,

RI
13(2), 214-220.

SC
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417-440.

NU
Dommer, S. L., Swaminathan, V., & Ahluwalia, R. (2013). Using differentiated brands to
deflect exclusion and protect inclusion: the moderating role of self-esteem on
attachment to differentiated brands. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 657-
MA
675.

Donovan, L. A. N., Priester, J., MacInnis, D. J. & Park. C. W. (2012). Brand forgiveness:
How close brand relationships influence forgiveness. In Fournier, S., Breazeale,
D

M., & Fetscherin, M., (Eds.), Consumer-brand relationships: Theory and practice
TE

(pp. 281-304). New York, NY: Routledge.

Dunn, L., & Hoegg, J. (2014). The impact of fear on emotional brand
P

attachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 152-168.

CE

Epley, N., Akalis, S. Waytz, A. & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Creating social connection
through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets,
gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19(2), 114-120.
AC

Epley, N., & Waytz, A. (2010). Mind perception. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, 1, 5th ed. (pp.498-541). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons

Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory
of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864-886.

Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1), 168-179.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference
groups on consumers’ connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
13(3), 339-348.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand
meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-389.

Eskine, K. J., & Locander, W. H. (2014). A name you can trust? Personification effects
are influenced by beliefs about company values. Psychology & Marketing, 31(1),

PT
48-53.

Eisend, M., & Stokburger‐ Sauer, N. E. (2013). Measurement characteristics of Aaker’s

brand personality dimensions: Lessons to be learned from human personality

RI
research. Psychology & Marketing, 30(11), 950-958.

SC
Fedorikhin, A., Park, C. W., & Thomson, M. (2008). Beyond fit and attitude: The effect
of emotional attachment on consumer responses to brand extensions. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 281-291.

NU
Fennis, B. M., & Pruyn, A. T. H. (2007). You are what you wear: Brand personality
influences on consumer impression formation. Journal of Business Research,
MA
60(6), 634-639.

Ferraro, R., Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2011). Our possessions, our selves: Domains
of self-worth and the possession–self link. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
D

21(2), 169-177.
TE

Fournier, S., (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-373.
P

Fournier, S. (2009). Lessons learned about consumers’ relationships with their brands. In
CE

D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, & J. R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of brand

relationships (pp. 5-23). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
AC

Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2012). Brands as relationship partners: Warmth, competence,
and in-between. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 177-185.

Gao, L., Wheeler, S. C., & Shiv, B. (2009). The ―shaken self‖: Product choices as a
means of restoring self-view confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1),
29-38.

Ghuman, M. K., Huang, L. Madden, T. J., & Roth, M. S. (2015), Anthropomorphization

and consumer-brand relationships: A cross-cultural analysis. In S. Fournier, M.
Breazeale, & J. Avery (Eds.), Strong brands, strong relationships (pp. 135-148).
New York, NY: Routledge.

Grégoire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: When your best
customers become your worst enemies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 36(2), 247-261.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Grohmann, B. (2009). Gender dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing

Research, 46(1), 105-119.

Gunelius, Susan (2013). ―5 secrets to using storytelling for brand marketing success‖,
Forbes, February 5, 2013.

PT
Haley, K. J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2005). Nobody’s watching? Subtle cues affect
generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior,

RI
26(3), 245-256.

Harmeling, C. M., Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., Arnold, M. J. & Samaha, S. A.

SC
(2015). Transformational Relationship Events, Journal of Marketing, 79(5), 39-
62.

NU
Haslam, N. Bain, P. Douge, L. Lee, M. & Bastian, B. (2005). More human than you:
Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89(6), 937-950.
MA
Hur, J. D., Koo, M., & Hofmann, W. (2015). When temptations come alive: How
anthropomorphism undermines self-control. Journal of Consumer
Research, 42(2), 340-358.
D
TE

Jahn, S., Gaus, H., & Kiessling, T. (2012). Trust, commitment, and older women:
Exploring brand attachment differences in the elderly segment. Psychology &
Marketing, 29(6), 445-457.
P

Japutra, A., Ekinci, Y. & Simkin, L. (2014). Exploring brand attachment, its determinants
CE

and outcomes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(7), 616-630.

Jiménez, F. R., & Voss, K. E. (2014). An alternative approach to the measurement of

AC

emotional attachment. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 360-370.

Johar, G. V., Sengupta, J., & Aaker, J. L. (2005). Two roads to updating brand
personality impressions: Trait versus evaluative inferences. Journal of Marketing
Research, 42(4), 458-469.

Johnson, A. R., Matear, M., & Thomson, M. (2011). A coal in the heart: Self-relevance
as a post-exit predictor of consumer anti-brand actions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 38(1), 108-125.

Keller, K. L. (2001). Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint for creating

strong brands. MSI Working Paper, 3-38.

Kessous, A., Roux, E., & Chandon, J. L. (2015). Consumer–brand relationships: A

contrast of nostalgic and non‐ nostalgic brands. Psychology & Marketing, 32(2),
187-202.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents framework:
How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 166-176.

Kim, D. H., & Sung, Y. (2013). Gucci versus Old Navy: Interplay of brand personality
and regulatory focus in advertising persuasion. Psychology & Marketing, 30(12),

PT
1076-1087.

Kim, H. C., & Kramer, T. (2015). Do materialists prefer the ―brand-as-servant‖? The

RI
interactive effect of anthropomorphized brand roles and materialism on consumer
responses. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 284-299.

SC
Kim, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slot machine?
Power, anthropomorphism, and risk perception. Journal of Consumer Research,

NU
38(1), 94-107.

Kim, S., Chen, R. P. & Zhang, K. (2016). Anthropomorphized helpers undermine

MA
autonomy and enjoyment in computer games, Journal of Consumer Research,
43(2), 282-302.

Kozinets, R. V. (2015). The post-human future of brands. In S. Fournier, M. Breazeale &

D

J. Avery (Eds.), Strong brands, strong relationships (pp. 149-158). New York,
TE

NY: Routledge.

Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D. J. (2006).
P

Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of

Business Research, 59(9), 955-964.
CE

Kwak, H., Puzakova, M., & Rocereto, J. F. (2015). Better not smile at the price: The
differential role of brand anthropomorphization on perceived price fairness.
AC

Journal of Marketing, 79(4), 56-76.

Lam, S. K., Ahearne, M., Mullins, R., Hayati, B., & Schillewaert, N. (2013). Exploring
the dynamics of antecedents to consumer–brand identification with a new brand.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 234-252.

Landwehr, J. R., McGill, A. L., & Herrmann, A. (2011). It's got the look: The effect of
friendly and aggressive ―facial‖ expressions on product liking and sales. Journal
of Marketing, 75(3), 132-146.

Laros, F., & Steenkamp, J. B. (2005). "Emotions in consumer behavior: a hierarchical

approach." Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1437-1445.

Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D., & Soh, H. (2012). Self-congruity, brand attitude, and brand
loyalty: A study on luxury brands. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 922-
937.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Liu, W., & Gal, D. (2011). Bringing us together or driving us apart: The effect of
soliciting consumer input on consumers’ propensity to transact with an
organization. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 242-259.

PT
Long, C., Yoon, S., & Friedman, M. (2015). How lonely consumers relate to brands:
Insights from psychological and marketing research. In S. Fournier, M. Breazaele,
& J. Avery (Eds.), Strong brands, strong relationships (pp. 95-105). New York,

RI
NY: Routledge.

Loken, B., & John, D. R. (2010). When do bad things happen to good brands?

SC
Understanding internal and external sources of brand dilution. In B. Loken, R.
Ahluwalia, & M. J. Houston (Eds.), Brands and brand management:
Contemporary research perspectives (pp. 233-270). NY: Routledge.

NU
Luedicke, M. K., & Pichler-Luedicke, E. A. (2015). The unfaithful brand: When flirting
with new customer segments, make sure you are not already married. In S.
MA
Fournier, M. Breazeale, & J. Avery (Eds.), Strong brands, strong relationships
(pp. 203-215). New York, NY: Routledge.

Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand
D

attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the
TE

ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 35-52.

Malone C., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). The human brand: How we relate to people, products
P

and companies. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.

CE

Mark, M., & Pearson, C. (2001). The hero and the outlaw: Building extraordinary brands
through the power of archetypes. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
AC

Mathur, P., Jain, S. P., & Maheswaran, D. (2012). Consumers’ implicit theories about
personality influence their brand personality judgments. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 22(4), 545-557.

May, F., & Monga, A. (2014). When time has a will of its own, the powerless don’t have
the will to wait: Anthropomorphism of time can decrease patience. Journal of
Consumer Research, 40(5), 924-942.

Miller, F. M. Fournier, S. & Allen, C. (2012). Exploring relationship analogues in the

brand space. In S. Fournier, M. Breazeale, & M. Fetscherin (Eds.), Consumer-
brand relationships (pp. 30-56). New York, NY: Routledge.

Monga, A. B., & Lau-Gesk, L. (2007). Blending cobrand personalities: An examination

of the complex self. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 389-400.

Moore, D. J. & Homer, P. M. (2008). Self-brand connections: The role of attitude

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

strength and autobiographical memory primes. Journal of Business Research, 61,

707-714.

Nowak, K. L., & Rauh, C. (2005). The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of
anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. Journal of

PT
Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 153-178.

O’Guinn, T. C. (1991). Touching greatness: the Central Midwest Barry Manilow fan

RI
club. Highways and buyways: Naturalistic research from the consumer behavior
odyssey (pp. 102-111). Provo UT: Association for Consumer Research,.

SC
Orth, U. R., Limon, Y., & Rose, G. (2010). Store-evoked affect, personalities, and
consumer emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Business Research, 63(11),
1202-1208.

NU
Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J., & Schor, J. B. (2011). The underdog effect: The
marketing of disadvantage and determination through brand biography. Journal of
MA
Consumer Research, 37(5), 775-790.

Park, C. Whan, Eisingerich, A. B., & Park, J. W. (2013a). Attachment–aversion (AA)

model of customer–brand relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2),
D

229-248.
TE

Park, C. Whan, Eisingerich, A. B., & Park, J. W. (2013b). From brand aversion or
indifference to brand attachment: Authors’ response to commentaries to Park,
P

Eisingerich, and Park’s brand attachment–aversion model. Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 23(2), 269-274.
CE

Park, C. Whan, MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010).
Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical
AC

differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1-

17.

Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2010). Got to get you into my life: Do brand personalities rub
off on consumers? Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 655-669.

Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2012). Capitalizing on brand personalities in advertising: The
influence of implicit self-theories on ad appeal effectiveness. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 424-432.

Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2014). I think I can, I think I can: Brand use, self-efficacy, and
performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(2), 233-247.

Parmentier, M. A., & Fischer, E. (2015). Things fall apart: The dynamics of brand
audience dissipation. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(5), 1228-1251.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Pieters, R., (2013). Bidirectional dynamics of materialism and loneliness: Not just a
vicious cycle. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 615-631.

Proksch, M., Orth, U. R., & Cornwell, T. B. (2015). Competence enhancement and
anticipated emotion as motivational drivers of brand attachment. Psychology &
Marketing, 32(9), 934-949.

PT
Putnam, R. D., (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.

RI
New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When humanizing brands goes

SC
wrong: The detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product
wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 81-100.

NU
Reimann, M., & Aron, A. (2009). Self-expansion motivation and inclusion of brands in
self: Toward a theory of brand relationships. In D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park & J.
R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of brand relationships (pp. 65-81). Armonk, NY:
MA
ME Sharpe.

Reimann, M., Castano, R., Zaichkowsky, J., & Bechara, A. (2012). How we relate to
brands: Psychological and neurophysiological insights into consumer-brand
D

relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 128-142.

TE

Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J. E., & Wong, N. (2009). The safety of objects: Materialism,
existential insecurity, and brand connection. Journal of Consumer Research,
P

36(1), 1-16.
CE

Russell, C. A., & Schau, H. J. (2014). When narrative brands end: The impact of
narrative closure and consumption sociality on loss accommodation. Journal of
Consumer Research, 40(6), 1039-1062.
AC

Russell, C. A., & Schau, H. J. (2015). Consumers’ experience of brand withdrawal:

Unfolding consumption bereavement theory. In S. Fournier, M Breazeale, & J
Avery (Eds.), Strong brands, strong relationships (pp. 263-281). New York, NY:
Routledge.

Sayin, E., & Gürhan-Canli, A. (2015). Feeling attached to symbolic brands within the
context of brand transgressions. Brand Meaning Management: Review of
Marketing Research, 12, 233-256.

Schau, H. J., Muñiz Jr., A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices
create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30-51.

Schmalz, S., & Orth, U. R. (2012). Brand attachment and consumer emotional response
to unethical firm behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 29(11), 869-884.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Sela, A., Wheeler, S. C., & Sarial-Abi, G. (2012). We are not the same as you and I:
Causal effects of minor language variations on consumers’ attitudes toward
brands. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 644-661.

Shimp, T. A., & Madden, T.J. (1988). Consumer-object relations: A conceptual

PT
framework based analogously on Sternberg's triangular theory of love. Advances
in Consumer Research,15, 163-168.

RI
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research,
9(3), 287-300.

SC
Smit, E., Bronner, F., & Tolboom, M. (2007). Brand relationship quality and its value for
personal contact. Journal of Business Research, 60(6), 627-633.

NU
Sproull, L., Subramani, R., Kiesler, S., Walker, J., & Waters, K. (1996). When the
interface is a face. Human-Computer Interaction, 11(1), 97-124.
MA
Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand personality structures in the United States and
Korea: Common and culture-specific factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
15(4), 334-350.
D

Swaminathan, V., & Dommer, S. L. (2012). When is our connection to brands like
TE

our connection to people? Differentiating between consumer-brand relationships

and interpersonal relationships. In Consumer-brand relationships: Theory and
practice, eds., S. Fournier, Michael Breazeale and Marc Fetscherin, (pp. 30-56).
P

NY: Routledge,.
CE

Swaminathan, V., Page, K. L., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2007). ―My‖ brand or ―our‖ brand:
The effects of brand relationship dimensions and self-construal on brand
evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 248-259.
AC

Swaminathan, V., Stilley, K. M., & Ahluwalia, R. (2009). When brand personality
matters: The moderating role of attachment styles. Journal of Consumer
Research, 35(6), 985-1002.

Swimberghe, Krist R., Marina Astakhova, and Barbara Ross Wooldridge (2014). A new
dualistic approach to brand passion: Harmonious and obsessive. Journal of
Business Research, 67 (12), 2657-2665.

Sweeney, J. C., & Brandon, C. (2006). Brand personality: Exploring the potential to
move from factor analytical to circumplex models. Psychology & Marketing,
23(8), 639-663.

Tam, K., Lee, S. & Chao, M. M. (2013). Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism
enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 514-21.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: Investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong

attachments to celebrities. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 104-119.

Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind: Measuring the
strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer

PT
Psychology, 15(1), 77-91.

RI
Thomson, M., Whelan, J., & Johnson, A. R. (2012). Why brands should fear fearful
consumers: How attachment style predicts retaliation. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 22(2), 289-298.

SC
Touré-Tillery, M., & McGill, A. L. (2015). Who or what to believe: Trust and the
differential persuasiveness of human and anthropomorphized messengers. Journal

NU
of Marketing, 79(4), 94-110.

Tsai, S. P. (2011). Strategic relationship management and service brand marketing.

MA
European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8), 1194-1213.

Trump, R. K. (2014). Connected consumers’ responses to negative brand actions: The

roles of transgression self-relevance and domain. Journal of Business Research,
D

67(9), 1824-1830.
TE

Valette-Florence, P., Guizani, H., & Merunka, D. (2011). The impact of brand
personality and sales promotions on brand equity. Journal of Business Research,
64(1), 24-28.
P
CE

Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Gilbert, F. W. (2005). The role of brand
personality in charitable giving: An assessment and validation. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 295-312.
AC

Wan, J., & Aggarwal, P. (2015). Befriending Mr. Clean: The role of anthropomorphism
in consumer-brand relationships. In S. Fournier, M. Breazeale, & J. Avery (Eds.),
Strong brands, strong relationships (pp. 119-134). New York, NY: Routledge.

Wan, L. C., Hui, M. K., & Wyer Jr., R. S. (2011). The role of relationship norms in
responses to service failures. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 260-277.

Wang, L. C., Baker, J., Wagner, J. A., & Wakefield, K. (2007). Can a retail web site be
social? Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 143-157.

Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and
importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 5(3), 219-232.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Waytz, A., Epley, N., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Social cognition unbound: Insights into
anthropomorphism and dehumanization. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 19(1), 58-62.

Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the machine:

PT
Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 52(May), 113-117.

Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2012). The group-member mind trade-off attributing mind to

RI
groups versus group members. Psychological Science, 23(1), 77-85.

SC
Weiss, L., & Johar, G. V. (2013). Egocentric categorization and product judgment:
Seeing your traits in what you own (and their opposite in what you don’t).
Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 185-201.

NU
White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2007). Are all out-groups created equal? Consumer identity
and dissociative influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 525-536.
MA
Wiggin, K. L., & Yalch, R. F. (2015). Whose fault is it? Effects of relational self-views
and outcome counterfactuals on self-serving attribution biases following brand
policy changes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(3), 459-472.
D
TE

Woodside, A. G., Sood, S., & Miller, K. E. (2008). When consumers and brands talk:
Storytelling theory and research in psychology and marketing. Psychology &
Marketing, 25(2), 97-145.
P

Yang, L. W., Cutright, K. M., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2014). Distinctively
CE

different: Exposure to multiple brands in low-elaboration settings. Journal of

Consumer Research, 40(5), 973-992.
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1, continued: Brand Personality Dimensions and Characteristics

Venable,
Sung
Rose,
and
Bush and
Kervyn, Tinkha

PT
Gilbert Grohm
Fiske and m
Carpara, (2005); ann
Malone (2005)- Sweeney and
Barbaranelli Contextu (2009)-

RI
(2012) Contextu Brandon
Aaker and Gianluigi al gender
(Brands as al (2006)-
(1997) (2001) Big 5 generaliz personal
Intentional generaliz circumplex

SC
Personality ation ity
Agents ation model
Scale across dimensi
Framewor across
industries ons
k) cultures

NU
(Non-
(US vs.
profit
Korean)
MA arena)
Sophistic
ation:
Female
Upper
brand
class Sophistic
persona
D

(upper ation
lity:
class, (e.g.,
Sophistic (express
TE

glamoro elegant,
ation es
us, good- glamoro
(good tender
looking), us,
P

looking, feelings
Charmin upper-
glamorou , fragile,
CE

g clas,
s, upper graceful
(charmin charmin
class) ,
g, g,
sensitiv
feminine feminine
AC

e,
, )
sweet,
feminine
tender)
,
smooth)
Sincerity Emotional Likeable
: Down Stability/ Integrity ness
Brand Warmth
to earth Agreeablenes (honest, (e.g.,
Personali (e.g.,
(down to s (calm, level- positive funny, Agreeableness
ty warmth,
earth, headed, light influence, warm, :
Dimensio trustworthi
family hearted, committe easy, Unassuming/i
ns, ness,
oriented, patient, d to the bubbly, ngenuous;
Facets, friendlihes
small relaxed, public smooth, Calculating/Ar
(and s,
town) serene, stable, good, family rogant
Character helpfulness
Honest tranquil; reputable oriented,
istics) , sincerity)
(honest, affectionate, reliable) sentimen
sincere, altruistic, tal,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

real,) authentic, playful,

Wholeso cordial, cheerful,
me faithful, simple,
(wholeso generous, honest);
me, genuine, Traditio

PT
original), loyal) nalism
Cheerful (e.g.,
(cheerful tradition

RI
, al,
sentimen typical,
tal, small-

SC
friendly) Nurturan town,
ce original)
Nurturance:
(compass ; Unique

NU
Warm; Cold
ionate, to
Hearted
caring, Korean
loving) Consum
MA
ers
Passive
Likeabl
eness
D

(funny,
TE

warm,
easy,
smooth,
P

family
oriented;
CE

plauful)
Exciteme Trendine
nt: Conscientious ss (e.g.,
AC

Daring ness/ different,

(daring, Extroversion/ new,
trendy, Openness innovati
exciting) (conscientious ve,
; Spirited , constant, trendy);
Extroversion:
(spirited, efficient, Western
Gregarious/ext
cool, precise, (e.g.,
raverted;
young), productive, Western,
aloof/introvert
Imaginat regular, free,
ed
ive reliable, technical
(imagina scrupulous, ,
tive, active, outdoors
unique, competitive, y,
Up-to- dominant, delicate,
date ( up energetic, professio
to date, happy, lively, nal,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

independ resolute, down to

ent, strong, earth,
contemp creative, healthy,
orary fanciful, active,
informed, neat)

PT
innovating,
modern,
original,

RI
recent, up-to-
date)

SC
NU
MA
Compete
nce:
D

Reliable
(reliable,
TE

Compete
hardwor
nce (e.g., Male
king,
reliable, brand
secure),
P

Brand Competenc successf persona

Intellige
Personali e (e.g., ul, lity:
CE

nt
ty intelligenc confiden (advent
(intellige
Dimensio e, t, urous,
nt,
ns, conscientio popular, aggressi
AC

technical
Facets, usness, well- ve,
,
(and skill, made, brave,
corporat
Character creativity, stable, daring,
e),
istics efficiency) leading, domina
Successf
efficient, nt,
ul
satisfyin sturdy)
(successf
g)
ul,
leader,
confiden
t)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Ruggedn
ess:
Outdoors
Ruggedn
y Ruggedne
ess (e.g., Dominance:
(outdoor ss (tough,
tough, Assured/Domi

PT
sy, masculin
rugged, nant;
masculin e,
masculin Unassured/sub
e, outdoor,
e, hard- missive

RI
Western) Western)
working)
Tough
(tough,

SC
rugged)
Unique
to US

NU
Consum
ers
White
MA
collar
(corporat
e,
professio
D

nal,
TE

technical
) and
Androge
P

ny
(feminin
CE

e,
masculin
e,
AC

expensiv
e)
Unique
to
Korean
Consum
ers
Ascende
ncy (e.g.,
strict,
intellige
nt,
daring,
heavy,
big)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2:
Summary Propositions

P1: Consumers can humanize brands in the following ways:

 By perceiving them in anthropomorphic ways (with human-like features,

PT
minds, and personalities
 By perceiving them as similar to or connected to the self
 By perceiving them as relationship partners

RI
P2: The humanization of brands (in ways suggested by P1) can be heightened by a

SC
variety of dispositional, situational, developmental, and cultural factors related to
activated agent knowledge, motivations for sociality and motivations for effectance.

NU
P3: The various perspectives on how consumers humanize brands are inter-related and
may be mutually reinforcing. That is, consumers may feel greater congruity between the
brand and the self and stronger brand attachment as they anthropomorphize the brand
more.
MA
P4: Marketers can use a variety of visual, verbal and metaphorical tools to activate
knowledge of a ―human‖ schema and, thereby, enhance consumers’ tendencies to
perceive brands in anthropomorphic ways.
D
TE

P5: Consumers can perceive brands as having human0like personality traits, although
these traits differ from the ―Big 5‖ traits that describe human personalities.
P

P6. Consumer-brand relationships vary in their degree of brand-self-connectedness, brand

prominence, attachment, relative power, and the communal versus exchange norms that
CE

undergird the brand relationship.

P7: The act of humanizing brands has the potential to contribute to human happiness.
AC

 Consumers often form positive attitudes and attachments towards those brands
that they humanize.
 Brand-self connections developed by the brand’s relevance to various life goals
(e.g., satisfying needs for safety and control), power (effectance motivations),
connections to others, expression of one’s identity (sociality motivation), and
sensory stimulation incline consumers toward brand relationships characterized
by stronger attachment and minimal aversion.

P8: Consumers exhibit considerable variation in their attachment to brands. They are
indifferent to many brands, and may experience a state of ambivalence or aversion with
respect to others.

P9: Brand relationships are dynamic. Certain types of brand transgressions can turn a
state of extreme happiness (brand attachment) into unhappiness (brand betrayal).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
D
TE
P
CE
AC