Content uploaded by Francielle Frizzo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Francielle Frizzo on Jun 26, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
The effect of brand authenticity on consumer–brand relationships
Hyunjoo Oh, Paulo Henrique Muller Prado, Jose Carlos Korelo, Francielle Frizzo,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Hyunjoo Oh, Paulo Henrique Muller Prado, Jose Carlos Korelo, Francielle Frizzo, (2019) "The effect of brand authenticity on
consumer–brand relationships", Journal of Product & Brand Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-09-2017-1567
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-09-2017-1567
Downloaded on: 19 February 2019, At: 23:40 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 40 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:327772 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 23:40 19 February 2019 (PT)
The effect of brand authenticity on
consumer–brand relationships
Hyunjoo Oh
Department of Marketing, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA, and
Paulo Henrique Muller Prado, Jose Carlos Korelo and Francielle Frizzo
Department of Business Administration, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims to explore the impact of brand authenticity on forming self-reinforcing assets (enticing-the-self, enriching-the-self and
enabling-the-self), which subsequently influence the brand-self connectedness and consumers’behavioral intentions.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors surveyed 347 consumers in the USA and Brazil and used structural equation modeling to test the
relationship among brand authenticity, self-reinforcing assets, brand-self connectedness and behavioral intentions.
Findings –Brand authenticity was found to influence the self-reinforcing assets. In turn, the self-reinforcing assets promoted closeness toward the brand,
thereby increasing the behavioral intentions of consumers to buy a product, visit a store/website in the future and recommend the brand to other people.
Practical implications –Marketing practitioners can use these results to promote better brand positioning by considering brand authenticity as a
key factor in how consumers cognitively assess brands.
Originality/value –This paper shows that brand authenticity is a key antecedent of consumer–brand self-reinforcing assets.
Keywords Brand authenticity, Brand-self connectedness, Consumers’behavioral intentions, Self-reinforcing assets
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In the postmodern market, characterized by uncertainty,
pluralism and excessive consumption, consumers are exposed
to a flood of products and brands in their everyday purchasing
experiences. In such excessive brand proliferation, creating and
maintaining strong relationships with consumers is one of the
major challenges in strategic brand management. One way to
strengthen consumer–brand relationships is to associate brand-
specific characteristics with consumers’aspirations, thereby
strengthening brand identities. In this process, authenticity is
an essential human aspiration (Bruhn et al., 2012) and has
become an increasingly desirable characteristic in a brand
(Beverland and Farrelly, 2010). Defined in terms of what is
genuine, real and true (Newman and Dhar, 2014), brand
authenticity not only is a decision-making criterion that guides
consumers’choice of brands but also helps consumers define
and construct who they are by expressing their authentic selves
(Arnould and Price, 2000;Beverland and Farrelly, 2010;Liao
and Ma, 2009;Morhart et al., 2015). Consumers’increasing
desire for authenticity in products, brands and experiences
highlights the importance of understanding the role of brand
authenticity in developing consumer–brand relationships.
Seeking to shed light on how brand authenticity influences
consumer–brand relationships, the present study aims to test
brand authenticity as a key determinant of the 3Es self-
reinforcing assets (enticing-the-self, enriching-the-self and
enabling-the-self) described by Park et al. (2013).Park et al.’s
(2013) attachment–aversion (AA) relationship model
explains how these types of brand assets build the consumer–
brand relationship. Some brands help consumers obtain
aesthetic or sensory pleasure: enticing-the-self. Other brands
enable consumers to control their environment by creating a
sense of an efficacious and capable self: enabling-the-self.
Some brands offer enrichment of self through the
symbolic communication of values that resonate with
consumers: enriching-the-self. In their model, the extent to
whichabrandpossessesthese3Esassetspromotesself-brand
connectedness and consequently increases consumers’
behavioral intentions toward the brand.
Although Park et al.’s (2013) AA relationship model
delineates important internal mechanisms that develop self-
brand relationship, the lack of specificity regarding marketing
activities has been criticized (Schmitt, 2013). In particular,
Schmitt (2013) criticizes that the psychological model of
internal constructs and processes neither specifically predict the
determinants of the relationship nor specify the brand
components that stimulate self-reinforcement. He argues that it
is important to identify which aspect of brand is set to
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-09-2017-1567]
The authors would like to thank Professor Elder Semprebon of Universidade
Federal do Paraná and Professor Juliana Medeiros of Pontifícia
Universidade Cat
olica do Paraná for their assistance with data collection.
The authors contributed equally to this work.
Received 9 September 2017
Revised 5 February 2018
10 March 2018
Accepted 12 March 2018
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 23:40 19 February 2019 (PT)
determine self-brand relationships (Schmitt, 2013). Batra et al.
(2012) also emphasized that research effort on consumer–
brand relationships should be directed to understand how
consumers experience brand stimuli in developing a
relationship with brands. Considering that consumers achieve
their self-relevant goals through brand choices, understanding
both the antecedents and consequences of these three brand
assets for self-enforcement will provide valuable insights into
strategies for developing self-brand relationships.
To better identify which brand aspects determine self-brand
relationships, we advance on consumer–brand relationship
literature by making three major contributions. First, this
research extends the AA model (Park et al.,2013)by
integrating brand authenticity as an antecedent that determines
whether a brand entices, enriches or enables the self. To our
knowledge, this is the first study that examines the impact of
brand authenticity on self-reinforcing brand assets. In doing so,
we demonstrate the respective contribution of each asset
(enticing-the-self, enriching-the-self and enabling-the-self) on
the brand-self connectedness and consumers’behavioral
intentions. Second, this research contributes to the literature on
brand authenticity, demonstrating the mediating mechanisms
through which brand authenticity influence consumers’
behavioral intentions. The brand authenticity literature
demonstrates that brand authenticity has a positive effect on
consumer responses (Napoli et al.,2014;Schallehn et al., 2014;
Morhart et al.,2015;Moulard et al.,2016;Fritz et al.,2017).
Building on this literature, the present study clarifies how
consumers process brand authenticity according to their goals
and desires for creating and maintaining a true self. Finally, this
research helps marketing managers understand the value of
brand authenticity in the postmodern market and its role as a
key determinant in consumer–brand relationships.
As shown in our conceptual framework (Figure 1), we tested
the brand authenticity in the model of consumer–brand
relationship (Park et al.,2013) as determinant of the three types
of self-reinforcing assets (enticing-the-self, enabling-the-self
and enriching-the-self), which subsequently influence the
brand-self connectedness and consumers’behavioral intentions
(e.g. buying a product, visiting a store/website in the future and
recommending the brand to other people). Our model was
tested in a selected domain, the fashion industry. This segment
is of interest because of its characteristics, which encompass the
evaluation of three types of self-reinforcing brand assets when
choosing products with multiple styles, performance and
symbolic benefits. Moreover, brand authenticity is important in
evaluation of such product categories for which a product’s
value is not tightly related to objective and observable features
(Newman, 2016).
This paper has the following structure. First, we introduce a
conceptual review on brand authenticity and its effects on
consumer –brand relationships along with related hypotheses.
Second, we present our methods of collecting and analyzing
our data. Finally, we discuss the results, implications and
limitations of the study.
Literature review
Brand authenticity
Brand authenticity is emerging as a key determinant in consumer–
brand relationships. Both researchers and practitioners seem to
agree that authenticity is the critical element of contemporary
marketing that determines a brand’ssuccess(
Brown et al., 2003;
Bruhn et al.,2012). Gilmore and Pine (2007,p.5)recognizedthis
movement by stating that, “authenticity has overtaken quality as
the prevailing purchasing criterion, just as quality overtook cost,
and as cost overtook availability.”Supporting their claim, recent
studies have demonstrated that brands perceived as authentic: are
more commercially successful (Napoli et al., 2014), have an
increased brand trust (Schallehn et al., 2014;Moulard et al.,
2016), have a heightened emotional customer-brand attachment
and greater word-of-mouth appeal (Morhart et al.,2015), are
more likely to be seen as a choice brand and could charge higher
premiums that customers would be willing to pay (Napoli et al.,
2014;Fritz et al., 2017).
Although the definition of authenticity is diverse and involves
various research disciplines, in the marketing literature two
investigation streams are emphasized. One approach stresses
objective dimensions from the brand management perspective
as a source of information for consumers judge the brand
authenticity (Grayson and Martinec, 2004;Beverland, 2006).
With this approach, for example, Brown et al. (2003) state that
brands with a sense of history and connection with traditional
cultures, regions and core beliefs obtain a distinctive identity
that can add to its authenticity. Beverland (2006) argues that
brands seeking authenticity as a fundamental element of their
identity can acquire a genuine aura of authenticity by
maintaining its traditions, striving for excellence in production
Figure 1 Proposed theoretical framework
Behavioral
Intention
Authenticity Brand-Self
connectedness
Enriching the
Self
Enticing the
Self
Enabling the
Self
The effect of brand authenticity
Hyunjoo Oh et al.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 23:40 19 February 2019 (PT)
methods and avoiding commercial appeals. Moulard et al.
(2016) also advocate the idea that is the intrinsic motivation of
the brand managers and the passion for their products –not the
brand’s commercial motivations –that make an authentic
brand.
Another approach emphasizes subjective, contextualized and
socially constructed nature of authenticity taking the consumer
perspective (Grazian, 2003;Leigh et al.,2006;Napoli et al.,
2014). Within this view, authenticity is constructed as being
influenced by consumers’interpretation, knowledge, interest
and personal tastes (Grazian, 2003). Researchers have shown
that even the distinction between authentic and inauthentic is
not objective but subjective and socially constructed (Leigh
et al.,2006). As authenticity is perceived through a series of
cues in the market (Grazian, 2003), the construction of an
authentic brand depends on how customers evaluate
genuineness (Napoli et al.,2014). Bruhn et al. (2012) highlight
that the brand authenticity is related not only to the inherent
attributes of the brand but also to the evaluations of individual
consumers. As there is no single definition on the concept of
authenticity across all consumers, brand authenticity
corresponds to a variety of attributes and dimensions.
Considering the approaches highlighted above, more recent
studies have explored the operationalization of brand
authenticity, developing scales and identifying the factors that
define its structural dimensions. Bruhn et al. (2012) presented a
scale where authenticity consisted of a set of four dimensions,
namely, continuity, originality, reliability and naturalness.
Spiggle et al. (2012) developed a scale to measure the concept
of brand extension authenticity and captured four distinct
dimensions: maintaining brand styles and standards, honoring
the brand heritage, preserving brand essence and avoiding
brand exploitation. Napoli et al. (2014) reported three
components constituting consumer-based brand authenticity,
namely, quality commitment, heritage and sincerity. Schallehn
et al. (2014) presented a model with three antecedents to
authenticity: consistency, continuity and individuality of a brand.
Morhart et al. (2015) developed a scale measuring consumers’
perceived brand authenticity, which captured four dimensions:
credibility, integrity, symbolism and continuity. Moulard et al.
(2016) proposed a model with four antecedents of brand
authenticity: uniqueness, scarcity (related to rare brand
behaviors), longevity and longitudinal consistency (related to
stable brand behaviors). Akbar and Wymer (2017) refined the
fragmented literature and introduced a two-dimensional
conceptualization of the construct: originality and genuineness.
The most recent work presented by Fritz et al. (2017)
demonstrated that brand authenticity can be influenced by
variables such as: brand heritage, brand nostalgia, brand
commercialization, brand clarity, brand’ssocialcommitment,
brand legitimacy, actual self-congruence and employee’s passion.
These empirical studies, although sharing some similarities,
have shown no consensus in defining the dimensional structure
of authenticity, reinforcing Cohen’s (1988) view that
authenticity is a fluid construct that can manifest itself in
different ways for different types of products or brands. Also,
the findings on various authenticity dimensions confirm the
view that authenticity depends on individuals who evaluate an
object or a brand, how they define it and what particular cues of
the situation are used in its assessment (Arnould and Price,
2000;Beverland and Farrelly, 2010). In fact, the multiplicity in
authenticity dimensions is the by-product of the verification
process where individuals rely on different self-relevant cues to
evaluate truth and essence in a brand in different situations
(Beverland and Farrelly, 2010;Newman, 2016).
Therefore, we treat authenticity as a higher-order construct that
represents the consumer’s construction of authenticity, which is
based on four dimensions: heritage, quality commitment,
originality and sincerity. Those four dimensions encompass the
broad range of brand authenticity measurement literature,
emphasizing self-relevant factors which normally differ across
brands. In contrast to a historical view focused on the past, the
heritage dimension is characterized by incorporating elements of
brand history into future contexts (Urde et al., 2007;Napoli et al.,
2014). It is similar to the concept of continuity proposed by Bruhn
et al. (2012),Schallehn et al. (2014),andMorhart et al. (2015).
Quality commitment represents commitment to a brand’s
standards. A sense of quality is central for the perceptions of brand
authenticity, as it must reflect the standards that made the brand
(Napoli et al., 2014). Similarly, Bruhn et al. (2012) proposed a
reliability dimension. Morhart et al. (2015) also suggested the
element of credibility is present in authenticity, as customers
consider the brand’s capability of delivering what it promises. The
originality dimension reflects a brand’s uniqueness and ability to
differentiate itself from all other brands (Bruhn et al., 2012;Akbar
and Wymer, 2017). The sincerity dimension relates to how well a
brand remains grounded in its established brand values and what
the brand originally stood for (Napoli et al., 2014). Assuming that
consumers base their authenticity judgments on self-relevant
dimensions, a second-order construct allows variations regarding
importance and salience across individuals, products, brands and
contexts.
Behavioral consequence of brand authenticity
Brand authenticity represents a value proposition to consumers
who seek meaning and true self. Specially, the desire for
authenticity has been escalated in a commercialized world
flooded with undistinguishable products and brands (Arnould
and Price, 2000;Beverland and Farrelly, 2010). Consumers
aspire for authenticity in their lives through the products and
brands they consume (Bruhn et al.,2012). Reflecting the
aspirational value added to authenticity, prior research has shown
that brand authenticity positively influences consumer responses
to brands (Napoli et al., 2014;Morhart et al.,2015). Both
symbolic and emotional attachment is higher with brands that are
perceived to have an authentic image (Ballantyne, et al., 2006). If
a brand perceived as authentic is evaluated more positively, then
such perception of brand authenticity should positively influence
consumers’behavioral intentions toward the brand, in terms of
visiting a store/website in the future, buying a product and
recommending the brand to other people. Thus, we expect:
H1. Brand authenticity has a positive effect on consumers’
behavioral intentions.
Mediating mechanisms: self-enforcement and self-brand
connectedness
Brands play an important role in establishing self-identity as
people consume brands as extension or expansion of self
The effect of brand authenticity
Hyunjoo Oh et al.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 23:40 19 February 2019 (PT)
(Fournier, 1998;Park et al., 2013). Previous studies indicate
that consumers build their self-identity and present themselves
to others through their brand choices based on the congruence
between brand image and self-image (Escalas and Bettman,
2003, 2005). Through these brand choices, consumers
purposefully link the meaning of brands with self-identity
(Arnould and Price, 2000). For those brands that assist the
achievement of self-extension and self-expansion goals,
consumers develop a close brand relationship or attachment. In
the process of developing consumer–brand relationships,
perceptions of brand authenticity reinforce a self-identity
personally important to consumers.
What brands possess to reinforce self-identity become
important brand assets. The self-reinforcing brand assets
(enticing-the-self, enriching and enabling-the-self) exert
different functions, as they help consumers achieve different
goals (Park et al., 2013). The first, called enticing-the-self,
reinforces the consumer’s self through hedonic and pleasurable
benefits. As consumers are motivated to have hedonic pleasure
through consumption (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982),
consumers develop close relationships with brands that evoke
any combination of sensory pleasure (visual, auditory,
gustatory, tactile, olfactory, thermal and/or synesthetic) or
aesthetic pleasure (design of a product) (Park et al., 2013).
The second, named enriching-the-self, reinforces the self
through symbolic benefits from representing the past, present
and future ideal self (Park et al., 2013). The brands serve as an
anchor to symbolically represent a core of the past self,
providing a basis from which current selves are viewed, and
future selves are framed (Park et al.,2006). Also, they can
enrich the self by symbolically representing the current “I,”
reflecting what one is and what one believes (Park et al.,2013).
Thus, the brands that enrich the core values in constructing
self-identity lead to higher levels of brand attachment. The last,
called enabling-the-self, acts through functional benefits.
Functional or utilitarian aspects are seen merely as a means to
reach an end, derived from functions performed by the product
(Grewal et al., 2004). Thus, a brand enables the self when it
creates a sense of an effective and capable self through the
performance of products and services. The brand that reliably
performs the task helps consumers approach their desired goal,
leading to a close consumer–brand relationship (Park et al.,
2013).
As brand assets of enticing, enabling and enriching-the-self all
satisfy core self-relevant goals, brands with authenticity will
reinforce each of these brand assets. Consumers are motivated to
approach commercial objects by treating them as experiences,
brands and events that convey authenticity (Beverland and
Farrelly, 2010). In doing so, consumers actively seek out
authenticity in brands to help them convey their authentic self,
thus appropriating authenticity to construct true self-identity
(Arnould and Price, 2000). Authenticity can reinforce the brand
functions of enticing, enriching or enabling-the-self. Based on
this rationale, we hypothesize:
H2a. Brand authenticity has a positive effect on enticing-the-
self.
H2b. Brand authenticity has a positive effect on enriching-
the-self.
H2c. Brand authenticity has a positive effect on enabling-the-
self.
As the 3Es (enticing, enriching enabling-the-self) serve
consumers’personally relevant and meaningful self-identity,
they contribute to the self-brand relationship. In the AA
relationships model, Park et al. (2013) denote that consumers
who are motivated to approach a brand in a way to reinforce
their identities incorporate self-relevant features and
characteristics of the brand into the self. In doing so, consumers
feel close to the brand as they perceive the brand as a means of
expanding the self. As a result, consumers develop brand
attachment. If consumers see the brand as a threat to the self,
they feel distant from it, leading to brand aversion. Park et al.
(2013) posit that attachment and aversion represent opposite
ends of the continuum in a relationship and is influenced by the
brand assets. They propose that self-brand connectedness (self-
brand distance) and brand prominence as two constructs that
represent the AA relationship.
We focus on self-brand connected as a construct of self-brand
relationship. Similar to self-brand connectedness (distance)
proposed in the AA model (Park et al.,2013), we define self-
brand connectedness as the perceived connectedness (distance)
that the self feels about a brand. The self-brand connectedness
is a continuum ranging from feeling distant and disconnected to
a brand on a negative end to feeling close and connected to
brand in a positive end. Given the assumption that self-
reinforcing aspects (enticing, enriching and enabling-the-self)
have a positive impact on brand-self connectedness, we propose
the following hypotheses. In addition, we propose that self-
brand connectedness further positively influences consumers’
behavioral intentions toward the brand:
H3a. Enticing-the-self has a positive effect on brand-self
connectedness.
H3b. Enriching-the-self has a positive effect on brand-self
connectedness.
H3c. Enabling-the-self has a positive effect on brand-self
connectedness.
H4. Brand-self connectedness has a positive effect on
consumers’behavioral intentions.
Method
Data collection and sample
To test the proposed hypotheses, we conducted surveys in the
USA and Brazil. The sample was composed according to
accessibility of participants in those countries and consisted of
347 consumers, 186 in the USA and 161 in Brazil. The average
age of the respondents in the USA was 24.6 years (60.8 per cent
females) and 25.4 years (58.9 per cent females) in Brazil. The
surveys were conducted between October and November of
2014. The data were collected through online and paper
questionnaires. Invitations to participate in the online survey
were sent via e-mail and social networks.
The questionnaire followed the order of the variables tested
in our model. First, respondents were asked to write their
“favorite brand”of clothing, shoes or accessories to activate a
The effect of brand authenticity
Hyunjoo Oh et al.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 23:40 19 February 2019 (PT)
mind-set on brand’s cognition. Second, they assessed brand’s
authenticity dimensions, brand’s self-reinforcing assets, brand’s
self-connectedness (our key mediators) and consumers’behavioral
intentions as dependent variable. Finally, they responded the
control and sample measurements.
The fashion industry was selected because of personal usage
and affiliation of the brand (object) toward respondents. Also,
this segment encompasses the evaluation of three types of self-
reinforcing brand assets when choosing products with multiple
styles, performance and symbolic benefits. We pondered and
accepted the limitations of respondents reasoning about a self-
selected brand, what in turn could affect the validity and
reliability of the measurement, but we choose that option with
the goal of accessing perceptions and cognitions about self-
relevant brands and their connections to the self. A total of 156
brands were listed. The most frequently listed brands in the
USA were Nike (18.8 per cent), Apple (5.9 per cent), Forever
21 (4.3 per cent) and Michael Kors (3.2 per cent). In Brazil, the
most frequently mentioned brands were Nike (16.8 per cent),
Converse All-Star (5.0 per cent), Zara (5.0 per cent) and Apple
(4.4 per cent). Next, the respondents were asked to classify the
chosen brand as a luxury, authentic or a fashion brand. The
most frequent classification was authentic brand (40.3 per cent
the USA and 73.0 per cent Brazil) followed by fashion brand
(39.8 per cent the USA and 14.5 per cent Brazil) and luxury
brand (19.9 per cent the USA and 12.5 per cent Brazil). When
assessing our proposed model, we tested for invariability of the
sample from different countries, brand’s classification and
internet and paper questionnaires; no differences were found.
Measures
The items used to measure our variables were based on scales
of previous studies and adjusted to our research context. They
are included in Appendix. Brand authenticity as a second-order
construct was built based on four first-order constructs:
heritage (
a
= 0.76), quality commitment (
a
= 0.89), originality
(
a
= 0.88) and sincerity (
a
= 0.88), resulting from a factor
analysis of 12 items. All items were adapted from Bruhn et al.
(2012) and Napoli et al. (2014) and measured on a seven-point
Likert-type scale (1 = “strongly disagree,”7=“strongly
agree”).
The items for the enticing-the-self (
a
= 0.87), enriching-the-
self (
a
= 0.86) and enabling-the-self (
a
= 0.74) were adapted
from Park et al. (2013) and measured on a seven-point Likert-type
scale (1 = “nothing,”7=“much”). Brand-self connectedness
(
a
= 0.77) also was adapted from Park et al. (2013) and measured
on two bipolar 7-point items with anchors varying from “away”to
“very close”and “disconnected”to “connected.”The items for
the consumers’behavioral intentions (
a
= 0.87) were adapted
from Dodds et al. (1991) and Price and Arnould (1999) and
measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = “probably not,”
7=“definitely yes”).
We confirmed the face validity of all constructs with two PhD
candidates and three marketing professors. As all items were
originally written in English, a back-translation method was
applied to derive Portuguese items with conceptual equivalence.
Only after these processes, the items were included in the
survey. Details of all items areincluded in the Appendix.
Results
Measurement model
First, we performed a first-order confirmatory factor analysis
on brand authenticity. The model specified the four
dimensions (heritage, quality commitment, originality and
sincerity), and consisted of 12 items (three items for each
dimension) adapted from Bruhn et al. (2012) and Napoli et al.
(2014). Cronbach’salpha(
a
) was used to assess the internal
consistency of the items. In addition, the average variance
extracted (AVE) and the composite reliability (CR) assessed the
convergent and discriminant validity of the model. The results
showed the first-order model of brand authenticity met the
standard criteria (
x
2
= 167.652, p<0.000
x
2
/df = 3.493,
comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.96, normed fit index (NFI) =
0.94, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) =
0.09, standardized root mean square residualion (SRMR) =
0.06; see Table AI in the Appendix for details).
Next, we analyzed the measurement model containing
authenticity as a second-order construct along with the constructs
enticing, enabling, enriching, brand-self connectedness and
behavioral intentions. The results showed that internal
consistency (
a
,CR,AVE –Table AII in the Appendix)and
discriminant validity (square root of AVE higher than
correlations for all constructs –Table I) of the measurement
model were achieved. The model fit statistics also were
significant (Table I).
The structural model
Figure 2 shows the structural model coefficients of our
conceptual framework. The general adjustment of the model
met the standard criteria (
x
2
= 806.647, p<0.000;
x
2
/df =
2.811, CFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.07), which
suggests that our model fits the data well. The results also
confirmed that brand authenticity as a second-order construct
Table I Descriptive statistics and correlations between constructs (N= 347)
a
No. Construct Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1Authenticity 5.37 1.04 0.81
2Enticing 5.61 1.27 0.540.83
3Enriching 4.49 1.50 0.500.610.82
4Enabling 4.32 1.48 0.490.450.630.72
5Brand-self connectedness 5.28 1.39 0.580.500.430.410.80
6Behavioral intention 6.00 1.35 0.650.500.380.410.770.84
Notes:
a
Off diagonal entries are correlations among constructs. Diagonal is the square root of AVE; greater square root of AVE than the correlation
coefficient indicates sufficient discriminant validity;
x
2
= 676.409; p<0.000;
x
2
/df = 2.416; CFI = 0.93; NFI = 0.89; RMSEA = 0.06; p<0.001
The effect of brand authenticity
Hyunjoo Oh et al.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 23:40 19 February 2019 (PT)
was formed by heritage (
g
= 0.67, p<0.001), quality
commitment (
g
= 0.85, p<0.001), originality (
g
= 0.76, p<
0.001) and sincerity (
g
= 0.93, p<0.001).
The first hypothesis regarding the positive significant
relationship between brand authenticity and consumers’
behavioral intentions was supported (
g
=0.35,p<0.001). The
second set of hypotheses which predicted positive effects of
brand authenticity on the self-reinforcing assets also was
confirmed (enticing-the-self:
g
= 0.60, p<0.001; enriching-the-
self:
g
= 0.56, p<0.001; and enabling-the-self:
g
= 0.55, p<
0.001), supporting H2a,H2b and H2c. In addition, we found
positive effects of the self-reinforced assets on brand-self
connectedness (enticing-the-self:
g
=0.38,p<0.001;
enriching-the-self:
g
= 0.12, p<0.1; and enabling-the-self:
g
=
0.21, p<0.05), supporting H3a and H3c.Thep-value of brand-
self-connectedness and enriching-the-self was marginally
significant, although the effect followed the theorizing predicted
by H3b. Finally, the positive effect of brand-self distance on
consumers’behavioral intentions was found (
g
=0.58,p<
0.001), supporting H4.
In addition to the results presented above, we conducted
multiple group analyses to check for differences between the
responses from USA and Brazil. It was not our goal to
emphasize differences between samples, although we needed to
test the model for invariability. The chi-square difference test,
in which we compared an unconstrained model with a
constrained model with the two groups of respondents, was
significant (D
x
2
= 60.73; Ddf = 28, p= 0.000). The z-score test
(Gaskin, 2011) showed that the relationships between brand
authenticity –consumers’behavioral intentions (z= 2.27, p<
0.05) and enticing-the-self –brand-self connectedness (z=
2.08, p<0.05) was significantly different between the two
groups. Despite this fact, we can note the path coefficients for
both countries follow the same positive patterns. The US
sample presented a higher direct path regarding brand
authenticity –consumers’behavioral intentions path (the USA:
g
= 0.57, p<0.001) when compared to Brazil (
g
= 0.25, p<
0.001). Also, the enticing-the-self –brand-self connectedness
path presented differences. The coefficient of the path in the
US sample was lower (
g
= 0.31, p<0.001), when compared to
Brazilian sample (
g
= 0.58, p<0.001). These results might
have been derived from sample differences or because of data
gathering process. We do not have any further empirical
evidence to support an additional rationalization.
Our findings provide support for a second-order construct of
brand authenticity and demonstrate its effect on consumer–
brand relationships. Specifically, this study confirmed the
hypotheses that brand authenticity would positively affect the
consumers’behavioral intentions. More importantly, this study
showed for the first time the significant role of the brand
authenticity as determinants of self-reinforcing assets. Brand
authenticity predicted whether a brand entices, enriches or
enables the self, which in turn, positively influences the sense of
brand-self connectedness. Furthermore, the enticing-the-self
brand asset was more strongly related to the perceived
connectedness between a brand and the self than the other
assets. This result may be particularly associated with brands in
the fashion industry where aesthetic pleasure is a key factor in
determining brand choice. Our results revealed that the self-
reinforcing assets and the brand-self connectedness mediate
the relationship between the brand authenticity and
consumers’behavioral intentions.
General discussion and implications
Building on the literature of brand authenticity (Beverland and
Farrelly, 2010;Morhart et al.,2015) and consumer–brand
relationship (Park et al.,2013), this research examines how
brand authenticity influences consumers’behavioral intentions.
The results revealed a positive impact of brand authenticity on
consumers’behavioral intentions to buy a product, visit a store/
website in the future and recommend the brand to other people.
The effect of brand authenticity on behavioral intentions
was mediated through self-reinforcing assets (enticing-the-
self, enriching-the-self and enabling-the-self) and self-brand
connectedness. In general, the results supported the proposed
hypotheses, providing empirical evidence that brand
authenticity could determine self-reinforcing assets, which
consequently makes consumers feel close and connected with
the brand and increases their behavioral intentions toward the
brand. These results followed a pattern similar to one found in
Park et al. (2013) regarding the relationships among self-
reinforcing assets, self-brand connectedness and the behavioral
intentions towards the brand.
Figure 2 Path coefficients of the structural model
Enticing
the Self
Brand
Authenticity Enriching
the Self
Heritage
Quality
Commitment
Brand-self
Connectedness
Originality
Enabling
the Self
Sincerity
Behavioral
Intentions
0.67***
0.76***
0.93***
0.35***
0.60***
0.56***
0.55***
0.38***
0.12*
0.21**
0.58***
0.85***
The effect of brand authenticity
Hyunjoo Oh et al.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 23:40 19 February 2019 (PT)
This research makes several theoretical contributions. First,
it extends the AA relationship model proposed by Park et al.
(2013), positioning the brand authenticity as an antecedent of
the self-reinforcing assets. The AA relationship model provides
an integrated and innovative basis to conceptualize the brand–
consumer relationships. However, as noted by Schmitt (2013),
the AA relationship model is limited to internal, psychological
determinants of the brand-consumer relationships without
direct linkages to brand marketing activities. Our research
empirically demonstrated that the brand authenticity could be
one of the relevant antecedents in determining whether a brand
entices, enriches or enables the self.
Second, our research reveals the respective contribution of each
self-enforcing brand asset in the consumer–brand relationship
when determined by the brand element (authenticity). In their
study, Park et al. (2013) showed that each of the 3Es significantly
influences the AA relationships, and among the 3Es, the
enriching-the-self asset has the strongest impact. Our results also
showed positive and significant effects of the 3Es on the brand-self
connectedness. However, in contrast to the Park et al. (2013)
results, the enticing-the-self asset was more strongly related to the
brand-self connectedness than did the other two assets. In fact,
enriching-the-self presented the weakest effect. One could argue
that the procedure of self-selection of a brand to answer questions
might be responsible for the difference found in our study. We
asked participants to write their favorite brand and answer
questions regarding the listed brand. This self-selection of a brand
could explain the results of higher attractive facets of the brand,
characterized by the enticing-the-self asset. We do not rule out
this possibility; however, we argue that if self-selection of a brand
influences the enticing-the-self asset, it also should influence both
enabling and enriching-the-self assets.
The salience of the enticing-the-self asset could be attributed
to the characteristics of product categories used in our study
because we focused on brands in the fashion industry
(including clothing, shoe and accessory categories). Because
aesthetic design and sensory pleasure drive brand choices in
these product categories, the enticing-the-self asset might have
exerted the strongest impact on self-brand connectedness in
our study. The effect of sensory pleasure on consumer
perception, judgment and behavior was documented by
Krishna (2012), who argued that a brand’s sensory aspects
create subconscious triggers that influence consumers’
perceptions about product characteristics. Previous studies also
have shown that for some categories of products and brands,
the hedonic aspects and the dispositions of affective
consumption play a fundamental role in the consumer
decision-making process (Batra and Ahtola, 1991;Hirschman
and Holbrook, 1982;Hoyer and Stokburger-Sauer, 2012). The
recent study presented by Bairrada et al. (2018) also
demonstrated that intangible, abstract and emotional/symbolic
aspects tend to mediate the effects of product-related attributes
on brand love and its outcomes, including loyalty, word of
mouth and willingness to pay a premium price. We extend this
literature by demonstrating that consumers become more
sensitive to sensory pleasures offered by enticing-the-self asset
when the salience is driven by elements related to brand
authenticity. This also supports the idea that the value of self-
enforcing brand assets is dependent on self-relevant goals,
products and contexts. Further close empirical examination is
warranted to identify the brand management factors that
determine the relative importance of self-enforcing brand assets
in self-brand relationships.
We tested Park et al.’s (2013) AA relationship model only on
the positive side of the relationship, where the consumer has a
strong relationship with brands. Because we asked about
respondents’favorite brands, positive impacts on self-brand
relationships were found for all three self-enforcing assets as
predicted in our hypotheses. Future research could address
brands that consumers avoid and examine how authentic but
hated brands are constructed and interpreted in consumers’
minds regarding the 3Es (Park et al.,2013). Finally, we
provided insights into brand authenticity’s positive influences
on the self-reinforcing assets, which subsequently positively
influence key marketing constructs (self-brand connection,
brand choice likelihood and positive word-of-mouth).
From the managerial perspective, our results have important
implications for marketing practitioners. First, when
positioning a brand, marketers could differentiate their brands
from others by fostering brand authenticity through self-
enforcement mechanisms (3Es proposed by Park et al.,2013).
For example, fashion industry brands like Nike and Toms have
earned brand trust by nurturing consistent brand authenticity
across branding strategies. Toms’strategy of “community
outposts”–as developed by its brand managers –represents a
strategy to use sensory stimuli to help customers develop
connection to the brand community by experiencing the
brand’s authenticity. Building authenticity into a brand image
requires a firms’continued commitment over time. However,
focusing on developing an authentic brand could prove a
successful positioning strategy for new brands wishing to appeal
to customers who desire ‘the real’in an increasingly staged and
commercialized world (Hutson, 2014). In sophisticated and
mature markets, this kind of strategy can lead to brand success
as authenticity creates a distinctive brand identity in customers’
minds and contributes to brand equity (Beverland, 2006;
Brown et al.,2003;Gilmore and Pine, 2007).
The second important managerial implication of our results is
that developing brand-self relationships first requires an
understanding of the brand assets that reinforce brand-self
relationships. Understanding these assets could help marketers
design and deliver more relevant and meaningful customer
experiences. In addition, such understanding helps marketers
choose the right channels to effectively communicate such
experiences. In our study focusing on the fashion industry domain,
the mechanism of enticing-the-self held the highest coefficient,
suggesting that consumers’perception of brand authenticity could
reinforce the sensory and aesthetic pleasure value in the brand. In
this regard, fashion brand managers designing brand experiences
could leverage aesthetically appealing elements of brand assets to
more specifically entice-the-self and encourage consumers to feel
more connected to the brand. Delivering brand experiences
focusing on the relevant self-enforcement assets could strengthen
the links between brands and consumers.
The success of designing total brand experiences around
relevant self-enforcement assets is well demonstrated by
Victoria’s Secret, the fashion retailer. Victoria’sSecretinnovates
across channels not only by exploring the functionality of their
e-commerce, mobile and in-store channels to sell more
products but also by delivering an authentic experience
The effect of brand authenticity
Hyunjoo Oh et al.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 23:40 19 February 2019 (PT)
whenever customers interact with the brand. For example,
Victoria’s Secret teen brand Pink uses a mobile app to create an
original experience for both parents and their children, allowing
parents to add credit so their children can use the app to buy
products online and in-store. The transparency of process
signals to customers a sincere authenticity in the brand.
According to our model, this type of brand authenticity stimuli
is processed by customers through the three psychological
mechanisms. First, the brand enables parents and children to
solve everyday-life demands (enable-the-self). Second, the
brand helps customers explore an original and exciting
experience with the brand at the moment of consumption
(enticing-the-self). Third, the brand enhances the customer’s
life, helping them to develop a self-identity around who they are
and who they aspire to be (enriches-the-self). All stimuli in
marketing communications, online outreach and in-store
design are coherently coordinated to deliver relevant authentic
brand experiences appealing to the identity of the targeted
audience (Aiello and Dickinson, 2014). Brands from industries
other than fashion also could benefit from our results by
exploring ways brands authenticity can be used to trigger
customer’s 3Es, helping them create connections to brands.
According to our model, brand’s authenticity is processed by
customers through psychological mechanisms (self-reinforcing
assets). We also found a direct effect of authenticity on behavioral
intentions. This effect shows that the mere presence of a brand’s
authentic traits (namely, heritage, quality commitment,
originality and sincerity) could influence customer attitudes and
purchase intentions. The perceptions of authenticity, which allow
customers to trust a brand to fill its promise, might facilitate
behavioral intentions toward the brand. Brand trust as an
additional mediating mechanism warrants further investigation
(Schallehn, et al.,2014).
Although our findings provide insights into the value of
authenticity in the consumer–brand relationship, there are
some limitations that merit mention. As this study was carried
out in the context of fashion product categories, our product
categories of research were limited. Future research can
broaden this perspective by replicating this study in other
product categories. Companies in the B2B market could also
benefit from these findings by exploring different dimensions of
authenticity and experiential elements to make their brands
stand out against competitors.
The construction of our hypotheses, based on a small body of
empirical evidence, is also a limitation of the study. Future research
may seek to replicate the current study with a larger sample of
participants. Conducting a causal study with experiments also
could aid in testing the proposed model with more control and
offer internal validity, specifically, on the mediation process
assessment. We tested and demonstrated that brand authenticity is
one of the marketing devices that can determine self-reinforcing
assets. Future research may examine other attributes of brand as
antecedents of the self-reinforcing assets.
References
Aiello, G. and Dickinson, G. (2014), “Beyond authenticity: a
visual-material analysis of locality in the global redesign of
Starbucks stores”,Visual Communication,Vol.13No.3,
pp. 303-321.
Akbar, M.M. and Wymer, W. (2017), “Refining the
conceptualization of brand authenticity”,Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1,pp. 14-32.
Arnould, E.J. and Price, L.L. (2000), “Authenticating acts and
authoritative performances: questing for self and community”,
inRatneshwar,S.,Mick,D.G.andHuffman,C.(Eds),The
Why of Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer
Motives, Goals, and Desires, Routledge, London, pp. 140-163.
Bairrada,C.M.,Coelho,F.andCoelho,A.(2018),“Antecedents
and outocomes of brand love: utilitarian and symbolic brand
qualities”,European Journal of Marketing, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2016-0081 (accessed 26 February
2018).
Ballantyne, R., Warren, A. and Nobbs, K. (2006), “The
evolution of brand choice”,Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 339-352.
Batra, R. and Ahtola, O.T. (1991), “Measuring the hedonic
and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes”,Marketing
Letters, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), “Brand love”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Beverland, M.B. (2006), “The real thing: branding
authenticity in the luxury wine trade”,Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 251-258.
Beverland, M.B. and Farrelly, F.J. (2010), “The quest for
authenticity in consumption: consumers’purposive choice of
authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes”,Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 838-856.
Brown, S., Kozinets, R.V. and Sherry, J.F. (2003), “Teaching
old brands new tricks: retro branding and the revival of brand
meaning”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 19-33.
Bruhn, M., Schoenmüller, V., Schäfer, D. and Heinrich, D.
(2012), “Brand authenticity: towards a deeper understanding
of its conceptualization and measurement”,Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 40, pp. 567-576.
Cohen, E. (1988), “Authenticity and commoditization in
tourism”,Annals of Tourism Research,Vol.15No.3,
pp. 371-386.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), “Effects
of price, brand, and store information on buyers’product
evaluations”,Journal of Marketing Research,Vol.28,
pp. 307-319.
Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2003), “You are what they eat:
the influence of reference groups and consumers’
connections to brands”,Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 339-348.
Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2005), “Self-construal,
reference groups, and Brand meaning”,Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 378-389.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing
relationship theory in consumer research”,Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V. and Bruhn, M. (2017),
“Authenticity in branding –exploring antecedents and
consequences of Brand authenticity”,European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 324-348.
Gaskin, J. (2011), “Multigroup moderation in amos (with
critical ratios)”, available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=
ZMYS90AU8bs (accessed 25 August 2017).
The effect of brand authenticity
Hyunjoo Oh et al.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 23:40 19 February 2019 (PT)
Gilmore, J.H. and Pine, B.J. (2007), Authenticity: What
Consumers Really Want, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Grayson, K. and Martinec, R. (2004), “Consumer perceptions
of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on
assessment of authentic market offerings”,Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 296-312.
Grazian, D. (2003), Blue Chicago: The Search for Authenticity
in Urban Blues Clubs, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL.
Grewal, R., Mehta, R. and Kardes, F.R. (2004), “The timing
of repeat purchases of consumer durable goods: the role of
functional bases of consumer attitudes”,Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 101-115.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Hedonic
consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions”,
Journal of Marketing,Vol.46No.3,pp.92-101.
Hutson, M. (2014), “Quenching consumers’thirst
for ‘authentic’brands”,TheNewYorkTimes,27
December, available at: www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/
business/quenching-consumers-thirst-for-authentic-brands.
html (accessed 5 January 2018).
Hoyer, W.D. and Stokburger-Sauer, H.E. (2012), “The role of
aesthetic taste in consumer behavior”,Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 167-180.
Krishna, A. (2012), “An integrative review of sensory
marketing: engaging the senses to affect perception,
judgment, and behavior”,Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 332-351.
Leigh, T.W., Peters, C. and Shelton, J. (2006), “The consumer
quest for authenticity: the multiplicity of meanings within the
MG subculture of consumption”,Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 481-493.
Liao, S. and Ma, Y.Y. (2009), “Conceptualizing consumer
need for product authenticity”,International Journal of
Business and Information, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 89-114.
Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A. and Girardin, F.
(2015), “Brand authenticity: an integrative framework and
measurement scale”,Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 200-218.
Moulard, J.G., Raggio, R.D. and Folse, J.A.G. (2016), “Brand
authenticity: testing the antecedents and outcomes of brand
management’s passion for its products”,Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 421-436.
Napoli, J., Dickinson, S.J., Beverland, M.B. and Farrelly, F.
(2014), “Measuring consumer-based Brand authenticity”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1090-1098.
Newman,G.E.(2016),“An essentialist account of authenticity”,
Journal of Cognition and Culture, Vol. 16 Nos 3/4, pp. 294-321.
Newman, G.E. and Dhar, R. (2014), “Authenticity is contagious:
brand essence and the original source of production”,Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 371-386.
Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J. and Priester, J. (2006), “Beyond
attitudes: attachment and consumer behavior”,Seoul Journal
of Business, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 3-35.
Park, C.W., Eisingerich, A.B. and Park, J.W. (2013), “Attachment-
aversion (AA) model of customer-brand relationships”,Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 229-248.
Price, L.L. and Arnould, E.J. (1999), “Commercial
friendships: service provider–client relationships in context”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 38-56.
Schallehn,M.,Burmann,C.andRiley,N.(2014),“Brand
authenticity: model development and empirical testing”,Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 192-199.
Schmitt, B. (2013), “The consumer psychology of customer-
brand relationships: extending the AA relationship model”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 249-252.
Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H.T. and Caravella, M. (2012), “More
than fit: brand extension authenticity”,Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 967-983.
Urde, M., Greyser, S.A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007), “Corporate
brands with a heritage”,Journal of Brand Management,Vol.15
No.1,pp.4-19.
The effect of brand authenticity
Hyunjoo Oh et al.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 23:40 19 February 2019 (PT)
Appendix
Table AI Measurement items of the first-order model
Items Standard loading
a
CR AVE
Heritage 0.76 0.77 0.53
This brand reflects a sense of tradition 0.78
This brand reinforces and builds on heritage 0.76
This brand reflects a timeless design 0.63
Quality commitment 0.89 0.90 0.75
This brand is committed to retaining long-lasting quality standards 0.77
This brand delivers what it promises 0.90
This brand is reliable 0.92
Originality 0.88 0.88 0.72
This brand is different from all other brands 0.80
This brand is truly original 0.92
This brand is unique 0.82
Sincerity 0.88 0.88 0.71
This brand tries to be true what it stands for 0.78
This brand is sincere 0.85
This brand is truthful 0.91
Notes:
a
=Cronbach’s alpha;
x
2
= 167.652; p<0.000
x
2
/df = 3.493; CFI = 0.96; NFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.09; SRMR = 0.06; p<0.001
Table AII Measurement items of the second-order model
Items Standard loading
a
CR AVE
Authenticity 0.92 0.89 0.67
Heritage 0.68
Quality commitment 0.86
Originality 0.76
Sincerity 0.92
Enticing 0.87 0.87 0.70
To what extent is this brand unappealing or appealing to you 0.83
To what extent is this brand unattractive or attractive to you 0.87
To what extent is this brand displeasing or pleasing to your senses 0.79
Enriching 0.86 0.86 0.66
To what extent does this brand misrepresent or represent who you are as a person 0.81
To what extent does this brand suppress or express who you want to be 0.83
To what extent does this brand undermine or reinforce your values 0.79
Enabling 0.74 0.76 0.52
To what extent is this brand functionally unsatisfying or satisfying to you 0.57
To what extent does this brand hinder or help how you manage problems in your daily life 0.75
To what extent does this brand disenable or enable you to deal with problems confidently 0.81
Brand-Self Connectedness 0.77 0.78 0.64
This brand is far away (very close) from me and who I am 0.85
I am personally disconnected (connected) from this brand 0.74
Consumers’behavioral intention 0.87 0.87 0.70
Visiting a store/website in the future 0.73
Buying a product 0.87
Recommending the brand to other people 0.89
Notes:
a
=Cronbach’s alpha; p<0.001
The effect of brand authenticity
Hyunjoo Oh et al.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 23:40 19 February 2019 (PT)
About the authors
Dr Hyunjoo Oh has a PhD degree in Marketing. Her
current research focuses on communication of authenticity in
brands and store designs and the impacts of design on
product consideration, store exploration and website
behaviors. She has conducted numerous consulting projects
on emerging retail issues that national and international
retailers and manufacturers face.
Dr Paulo Henrique Muller Prado has a PhD degree in
Marketing. He is an Associate Professor and a Coordinator
of the research line of Marketing Strategy and Consumer
Behavior, Department of Business, Federal University of
Parana. His current research focuses on brand
relationship, brand authenticity, cognitive structures and
adoption of innovations, B2B relationships and marketing
metrics.
Dr Jose Carlos Korelo is an Assistant Professor of
Marketing, Department of Business, Federal University of
Parana. His current research focuses on brand authenticity,
self-conscious emotions and brand relationship, brand
content engagement and consumer online reviews. He headed
the Marketing MBA Program for two years and worked in the
MBA Student Exchange Program.
Francielle Frizzo is a PhD Candidate in Consumer Behavior at
the Federal University of Parana. Her research interests focuses
on consumer–brand relationship, brand authenticity and self-
conscious emotions. Francielle Frizzo is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: francielle.frizzo@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The effect of brand authenticity
Hyunjoo Oh et al.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 23:40 19 February 2019 (PT)
