Content uploaded by Arash Ahmadi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Arash Ahmadi on Jun 24, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Emotional attachment: a bridge
between brand reputation and
brand advocacy
Arash Ahmadi
Graduate School of Business, Assumption University, Bangkok, Thailand, and
Afsoon Ataei
Department of Information and Communications Technology,
University of Applied Science and Technology, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Abstract
Purpose –This study aims to identify and examine the effect of brand reputation on brand advocacy by
evaluating the mediating effect of emotional attachment. The study also tests the relationships by appraising
the moderating effect of experience and price perception. The research model is also assessed across the two
brand types (hedonic brands and utilitarian brands).
Design/methodology/approach –Overall, 426 valid questionnaires were collected through an online
survey. To test the proposed hypotheses, structural equation modeling was used.
Findings –The results mainly support the model by confirming that brand reputation is positively related to
emotional attachment. The brand reputation also has an indirect effect on brand advocacy through emotional
attachment. The findings of the study reveal a positive relationship between emotional attachment and brand
advocacy. Both moderators applied were found to reinforce the relationships. The results also show the
different outcomes for the two brand types.
Originality/value –This research contributes to the literature by introducing and assessing a research model
that displays the path in which a brand reputation significantly affects advocacy for a brand through emotional
attachment. Two moderators are involved in this path. Corresponding to the research model, an assessment of
hedonic and utilitarian brands is also performed.
Keywords Brand reputation, Experience with the brand, Emotional attachment, Price perception,
Brand advocacy
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Presently, companies employ numerous tools to preserve clientele interested and devoted to
their brands. Relationship marketing is one tool that searches to make and uphold long-term
relationships with consumers and is measured as a strategic resource for a company, a trend
toward modern marketing, and effective relationships (Laroche et al., 2012). In marketing
literature, researchers have been on their mission for understanding how consumers appraise
brands and respond to different branding programs (G€
urhan-Canli et al.,2018). Strategic brand
management has become a central topic for brand researchers and several conceptualizations
of brand value and how branding strategies influence consumers’behaviors have been
evaluated (Esch et al.,2006). Wide research has proposed several branding models by
incorporating significant branding constructs and testing their relationships in different
contexts (Cleff et al., 2018;Kim and Chao, 2019;Esch et al.,2006;Walter et al., 2013).
Prior study proposes that a customer’s deep emotional attachment to a brand is one of the
most dependable measures of a strong brand and should therefore be a central objective for
brand management or customer relationship marketing (Pawle and Cooper, 2006). For
example, lasting relationships may be forged according to financial advantages to clienteles,
such as loyalty discounts (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995), or are a consequence of a limited
number of options accessible (Albert and Merunka, 2013); though, without an emotional
connection, those relationships are simply dissolved if such “relationship enhancers”
Brand
reputation and
brand
advocacy
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1757-4323.htm
Received 12 November 2021
Revised 22 March 2022
22 April 2022
24 May 2022
Accepted 7 June 2022
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Administration
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1757-4323
DOI 10.1108/APJBA-11-2021-0579
disappear (Karjaluoto et al., 2016). Consequently, repeat purchase behavior alone is an
inadequate measure of a strong relationship and an insufficient objective for customer
relationship management (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995). As a result, while a strong brand with
steady and profound customer bonds is acknowledged to be the focal objective of brand
management (Esch et al., 2006), emotional attachment is the essential goal of the customer–
brand relationship.
In line with Park et al. (2010), emotional brand attachment exposes the power of the bond
between a consumer and a brand, which is illustrated by the perceived ease of accessibility
and recognition in the consumer’s mind. These authors discussed that emotional attachment
is an important predictor of brand equity, brand attitude and the success of brand extension
(Fedorikhin et al., 2008;Schmalz and Orth, 2012). Former study has recommended that
emotional brand attachment motivates consumer–brand relationships and favorable
consumer behaviors (Schmalz and Orth, 2012;Japutra et al., 2014;Brocato et al., 2015).
Though attachment is recognized as a significant construct of consumer–brand
relationships, research on its drivers and outcomes for such relationships remains limited
(Grisaffe and Nguyen, 2011), as does study on the variables that moderate these relationships.
To develop emotional attachment, a customer must have a positive brand attitude and
positive experiences, as well as a feeling of psychological proximity to the brand (Joji and
Ashwin, 2012). Brand reputation is recommended to play a vital role in all long-term
relationships (Veloutsou and Moutinho, 2009;Chaudhuri, 2002) and, therefore, is a crucial
driver of emotional attachment. Individuals assign elements of emotional bonds to goods and
services after they develop a positive brand reputation and to a brand (Loureiro et al., 2017).
Numerous favorable consequences of emotional brand attachment have been suggested,
such as brand loyalty (Japutra et al., 2014;Theng So et al., 2013;Belaid and Behi, 2011),
positive word of mouth (G
omez-Su
arez and Veloso, 2020), stronger purchase intentions (Kim
and Chao, 2019;Park et al., 2013) and customer advocacy (Shimul and Phau, 2018). Due to the
rising influence of peer reviews and recommendations on consumers’buying decisions, brand
advocacy is the key objective of the current marketing activities (Parrott et al., 2015). Since,
brand advocacy concentrates on proactively recruiting new customers and defending the
brand against detractors (Wilder, 2015). Though Shimul and Phau (2018) have reported
customer advocacy as a consequence of emotional attachment, the study has yet to provide a
thorough explanation of how brand reputation and emotional attachment together foster
brand advocacy.
Although the relationship between brand advocacy and its antecedents is studied by
previous studies (Bendapudi and Berry, 1997;Parrott et al., 2015;Xie et al., 2018;Coelho et al.,
2019;Vashisht, 2019), more investigations are required to completely understand the
phenomenon. The effects of factors that might reinforce or weaken these relationships of
brand advocacy and its antecedents are also required to be considered. Prior literature
proposes at least two important moderators: experience with the brand (Becker and Jaakkola,
2020;Karjaluoto et al., 2016;Joshi and Garg, 2021) and price perception (Monroe, 2005;Xia
et al., 2004), which are found to be significant variables affecting consumer behavior.
In short, this article contributes to the literature on how brand reputation affects brand
advocacy through emotional attachment. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first
attempt to combine brand reputation, emotional attachment and brand advocacy. Thus, our
objectives are: first, we aim to show that the brand reputation has a positive effect on
emotional attachment. Second, we examine the effect of emotional attachment on brand
advocacy. We also examine the relationship between reputation and advocacy through the
mediation of emotional attachment –a relationship that has yet to be tested in the literature.
Novel findings are also provided in the form of evidence of how the relationship between
brand reputation and emotional attachment, and the relationship between emotional
attachment and brand advocacy are affected through the moderation of experience and price
APJBA
perception. Therefore, the third objective is to explore the moderating effects of experience
and price perception on the relationship between brand reputation and emotional attachment
and the relationship between emotional attachment and brand advocacy.
2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses development
2.1 Brand reputation
Brand reputations, like those of people, are of immense value to corporations
(Chaudhuri, 2002).
It can also be defined as one of the most critical essentials of achievement for any company
or organization. To be successful and profitable, a brand must have a positive reputation
(Veloutsou and Moutinho, 2009). Thus, brands with a good reputation are likely to attract
more customers when they fulfill their stated and promised performance (Milewicz and
Herbig, 1994). Customers anticipate that a brand will meet expectations that are formed based
on reputation (Herbig and Milewicz, 1995). A high level of brand reputation with its perceived
experience makes customers believe that they are reliable, thereby causing behavioral
intentions (Brady et al., 2008). Indeed, a desirable brand reputation means that the customer
sets his or her trust in the brand and its offerings and feels good, and takes pride in
purchasing the products and services.
2.2 Emotional attachment
The emotional attachment concept was quoted from the attachment theory conceptualized by
Bowlby (1982). In the marketing literature, emotional attachment is a critical concept, as it
explains the power of the bond consumers has with the brand. This bond subsequently
influences consumers’behavior and in turn fosters firm profitability and customer lifetime
value (Thomson et al., 2005;Theng So et al., 2013). Psychological attachment to a certain
brand, as shown in ownership and emotional importance, may be significant determinants of
consumer behaviors such as repeat purchases of the brand, and willingness to spend
resources to obtain the brand (e.g. money and effort), ultimately leading to brand loyalty (Lee
and Workman, 2015).
Among the numerous explanations of emotional attachment, Thomson et al. (2005)
described it as the positive emotional consequences of a strong link between a consumer and a
brand. They were the first to develop emotional attachment measures by conceptualizing it as
emotional bonding, the degree of affection, passion and the connection to measure
attachment. Later research expounded that brand attachment captured both emotional and
cognitive bonding, reflecting the brand and self-connection (Park et al., 2010;Japutra et al.,
2014). The scale presented by Park et al. (2010) focuses more on the cognitive dimensions such
as brand accessibility and integration with consumer identity. In this research, emotional
attachment is “A relationship-based construct reflecting the emotional bond relating an
individual with a consumption entity (e.g. brand, person, place, or object)”(Park et al., 2006).
2.3 Brand advocacy
Brand advocacy is defined as the promotion or defense of an organization, product or brand
by one consumer to another, and the maximum level of approval of the relationship between
the consumer and the brand (Walz and Celuch, 2010). Brand advocacy has been seen as
favorable communication about a brand, the recommendation of a brand to others, or the
defense of a brand when it is attacked (Wilk et al., 2019). It can be defined as when a customer
of the brand talks in favor of the brand and its offering (Khamwon and Masri, 2020). Brand
advocates leave positive reviews about the brand or product of an organization. They also
refer new customers and create content on the organization’s behalf.
Brand
reputation and
brand
advocacy
Some investigators have documented that brand advocacy is comparable to the word of
mouth and recommendations by highly involved or related consumers (Jones and Taylor,
2007;Wragg, 2004;East et al., 2008). Though marketers operationalize consumer brand
advocacy as similar to positive word of mouth, brand advocacy can also be seen as an active
engagement that involves spending substantial effort in promoting the brand (Jillapalli and
Wilcox, 2010). While word of mouth can be seen as informal communication between
consumers, advocacy is like an “ultimate test”of the quality of the association between
consumers and brands, indeed, it is a consumer willing to defend the brand against criticisms
and detractors (Walz and Celuch, 2010). Advocates are consumers with a high degree of
commitment to the brand, even shaping emotional ties that disclose an extreme level of
psychological involvement and may even engage in conflicts with members of other brand
communities, just because they feel they must defend their brand (Schultz, 2000).
2.4 Effect of brand reputation on emotional attachment
Brand reputation can be the climax of thoughts and emotions that a customer experiences
related to the brand. Customers will have a stronger emotional attachment with the
organization which has a good reputation (Lai, 2019). According to Chen et al.’s (2017)
statement, favorable perceptions of the brand of preference affect positively the development
of emotional brand attachment in green packaging and service brands. Consumers, if they
perceive the brand as favorable, will show a stronger emotional attachment to the brand
(He et al., 2016). Reputation refers to the more general emotional response that an individual
has toward an organization as a consequence of its action over a longer period of time (Amis,
2003). Thus, reputation can be seen as a driver of emotional attachment (Japutra et al., 2014).
H1. Brand reputation positively affects emotional attachment.
2.5 Effect of emotional attachment on brand advocacy
Previous research showed that emotional attachment has a positive impact on consumer
behavior such as their loyalty to the brand (Ghorbanzadeh and Rahehagh, 2020). In addition,
emotional attachment positively affects purchase satisfaction and intention to repurchase
(Singh, 2022) Consumers with strong emotional brand attachment ignore the downside of the
brand, show resilience to negative information about the brand and defend the brand in social
networks (Japutra et al., 2014). Consumers with high emotional brand attachment are
expected to involve in behavioral intentions such as spreading positive word of mouth,
promoting the brand, and engaging in the brand community, which are considered affective
reflections of consumer advocacy (Chelminski and Coulter, 2011). Through emotional
attachment, consumers can defend and preserve the brand, thus making members more
aware of the efforts that the organization undertakes to satisfy its customers, also acting as
brand advocates. Brand advocacy means there is a cemented and intense relationship
between the consumer and the brand boasting high levels of trust and affection (Coelho et al.,
2019), and emotional attachment helps strengthen these relationships. Thus, the following is
hypothesized:
H2. There is a positive association between emotional attachment and brand advocacy.
2.6 Emotional attachment as mediating variable
The effect of brand reputation can be proposed to influence behavioral intention through the
intervening effect of emotional attachment (Thakur and Kaur, 2016;Japutra et al., 2014;Amis,
2003). Consumers who love the brand are more willing to say “good words”to their friends
compared to unloved brands (Bıçakcıoglu et al., 2016). Because some researchers like
APJBA
Moussa (2015) consider brand love to be analogous to emotional brand attachment. Further,
emotional attachment is considered an influential outcome of brand reputation and leads to
positive responses from consumers such as the intention to recommend, purchase, revisit and
the act of defending (Japutra et al., 2014). Emotional bonds stimulated through a brand
reputation can encourage brand advocates to contribute useful insights to the organization’s
customers’personas. Thus, emotional attachment can be a bridge for elevating positive
responses from customers (e.g. advocating the brand) obtained through brand reputation.
Based on this understanding, we hypothesize that:
H3. Emotional attachment mediates the positive effect of brand reputation on brand
advocacy.
2.7 Experience as moderating variable
The moderating effect of relationship length on the effect of brand reputation on emotional
attachment has not been empirically examined. However, preceding evidence proposes a
significant moderating effect of relationship length on the relationship between brand image
and brand love (Joshi and Garg, 2021). Previous study also suggested that the length of
experience modifies the perception of consumers toward the brand (Joshi and Garg, 2021).
This happens because of the information associated with the brand (Ranaweera and Menon,
2013). Some researchers (Bıçakcıoglu et al., 2016;Garg et al., 2016) have stated that wide
experience promotes the development of emotional ties with the brand. Based on the prior
evidence, we expect that experience with the brand reinforces the effect of brand reputation
on emotional attachment.
Former investigations demonstrated that a long period of time and extensive experience
with a brand is required for an attachment bond to improve (Hoffman and Novak, 2 018;Holmes,
2000), while brand attitude does not essentially need such a long association (Park et al., 2010;
Fedorikhin et al.,2008) or even direct interaction or personal experience with the brand. For
example, Verhoef et al. (2002) displayed that the length of brand experience positively
influences numerous facets of associations, such as satisfaction, trust and commitment.
Therefore, all brand relationships change over time owing to changes in how individuals
process brand-related information, view the brand and show their commitment to it
(Ranaweera and Menon, 2013). The moderating effect of relationship length on the effect of
emotional attachment on brand advocacy has not been empirically examined. However,
previous evidence recommends a significant moderating effect of relationship length on the
relationship between satisfaction and word of mouth (Ranaweera and Menon, 2013), as well as
between brand love and offline and online word ofmouth (Karjaluoto et al.,2016). According to
the former confirmation, we expect that the duration of brand experiencereinforces the effect of
emotional attachment on brand advocacy. Consequently, the next hypotheses are as follows:
H4. Experience moderates the association between brand reputation and emotional
attachment such that when a consumer has more experience with the brand, the
association between brand reputation and emotional attachment is greater.
H5. Experience moderates the association between emotional attachment and brand
advocacy such that when a consumer has more experience with the brand, the
association between emotional attachment and brand advocacy is greater.
2.8 Price perception as moderating variable
A great reputation of a brand holds consumers to have more positive perceptions of the
brand’s prices (Helm, 2013;Chaudhuri, 2002). The more favorable customers’perceptions of
reputation lead to the higher their perceptions of price fairness resulting in emotional
Brand
reputation and
brand
advocacy
reactions (Helm, 2013) since the emotional reactions are associated with price perceptions
(O’Neill and Lambert, 2001;Xia et al., 2004). This signal suggests that a strong brand
reputation generates more positive perceptions of the brand. Emotions may also be an
outcome of price variation (Campbell, 2007). The evaluation of individuals’positive emotional
states shows that this behavior resulted from their perception of a more favorable price (Xia
et al., 2004). Thus, when the perception of a brand’s prices is more positive the relationship
between the brand’s reputation and emotional attachment is expected to be stronger.
Loyalty to a brand ensues from a company’s ability to deliver more value to customers
than its competitors. Value is understood here as the perception of what is received (i.e.
quality) and what is provided (i.e. price) (Zeithaml, 1988). In this equation, the price has a twice
role: first, it is the extent of sacrifice, and second, it is a quality index. Preceding literature
shows that prices and price judgments have a major effect on buying behavior and the
formation of loyalty (Hartline and Jones, 1996;Thomson et al., 2005). According to Monroe
(2005), consumers judge their domestic reference prices and the prices of similar products. As
a result, they make subjective price judgments that are interpreted on an inexpensive-to-
expensive price scale. How customers judge prices and how these price judgments affect
behavior depends on the circumstances of the purchase (Monroe, 2005). For example, Xia et al.
(2004) showed that price influences consumer behavior differently depending on whether the
customer is loyal or disloyal to the brand.
Prior study shows that subjective price perception plays a key role in consumer behavior,
affecting value perceptions, buying decisions, and post–purchase behavior (Matzler et al., 2006;
Monroe, 2005;Munnukka and J€
arvi, 2012). This evidence also proposes that those with strong
emotional brand attachment have morepositive perceptions of the brand’s prices than those of
other brands (Karjaluoto et al., 2016). Consumers’perception of a brand’srelativepricesisalso
obtained to directly affect switching (Keaveney, 1995) and recommendation (Matzler et al., 2006;
Varki and Colgate, 2001) behavior. According to the propositions of De Matos and Rossi (2008)
and McKee et al. (2006), we anticipate that customers who perceive a brand’spricesmore
positively than those of others are more likely to be more attached to the brand and more
enthusiastic to the advocacy of brand. Thus, the following hypothesis is suggested:
H6. Consumer price perception moderates the positive association between brand
reputation and emotional attachment such that when the price of the brand is
perceived as more affordable in comparison to that of other brands, the association
between brand reputation and emotional attachment is greater.
H7. Consumer price perception moderates the positive association between emotional
attachment and brand advocacy such that when the price of the brand is perceived as
more affordable in comparison to that of other brands, the association between
emotional attachment and brand advocacy is greater.
2.9 Research model
Based on theories and hypotheses formed, we have proposed that brand reputation positively
affects emotional attachment. Emotional attachment moderates the effect of brand reputation
on brand advocacy. Emotional attachment positively affects brand advocacy. Experience
and price perception moderate the effect of brand reputation on emotional attachment and the
effect of emotional attachment on brand advocacy. The conceptual model and hypotheses of
the current work are displayed in Figure 1.
3. Research methods
3.1 Sampling and data gathering
To obtain the sample, an online survey was used between February and March 2021, using
the convenience sampling method. We posted and advertised a link to the survey through
APJBA
Facebook. This process was available during the two weeks. We considered the sample size
regarding the Cochran (1963) equation. It argued if the exact number of the population needed
is not known determining the total size of the sample required to be chosen from the study
population is 386 people. Though, to decrease the sampling error that may be caused and to
obtain a high response rate, a sample of more users from a population is better to be selected.
In total, 477 questionnaires were produced through the considered process. From the
obtained questionnaires, we eliminated the responses were including missing data in key
questions, leaving a sample of 426 valid responses, which was suitable to continue the study.
The demographic profile of the sample displayed that the respondent were predominantly
females (54.9%), and the median age group of the respondent was between 26 and 35 (35.7%).
The questionnaire was designed such that respondents first were asked to name a brand (a
local or an international brand) that they are satisfied with and have significant experience
with. We compared the participants’responses to their selected brands with each other and
performed mean difference tests for all focal structures. We did not find a significant
difference between the participants’responses, considering all the constructs of our research
framework. Therefore, the integration of responses seemed appropriate. Table 1 displayed
the frequency and percentage of respondents’demographic profiles and the brands that have
been chosen. The rest of the questions in the survey were about the brand chosen by the
respondent (items related to the research framework variables). The most popular brand was
Samsung (n539; 9.15%), Apple (n536; 8.45%), Nike (n532; 7.51%) and Chanel (n530;
7.04%). The respondents mentioned their experience with the brand in two categories
(<2 years of brand experience and >2 years of brand experience).
3.2 Measures
The scales measuring the constructs were adjusted from previous research. Brand reputation
was measured by a four-item scale adapted from Chaudhuri (2002). The five-item emotional
attachment scale was derived from Thomson et al. (2005) and Mal€
ar et al. (2011). Brand
advocacy was measured by a three-item scale adapted from Kim et al. (2001). The first
moderator containing experience with the brand was measured using a single-item scale,
which was asked in the section of the sample demographic profile. It was measured with a
scale calculated at “less than 2 years of brand experience”and “more than 2 years of brand
experience”, adapted from Joshi and Garg (2021). The second moderator comprising price
perception was measured by a three-item scale adapted from (Matzler et al., 2006;Yasri et al.,
2020). All items were measured using five-point Likert-type scales (ranging from
“15strongly disagree”to “55strongly agree”). The survey was conducted in Thai.
Experience
Emotional
attachment
Brand
advocacy
Brand
reputation
Price
perception
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework
Brand
reputation and
brand
advocacy
Characteristics Frequency Percentage
Gender
Female 234 54.9
Male 193 45.1
Age
Less than or equal 25 95 22.3
Between 26–35 152 35.7
Between 36–45 101 23.7
Between 46–55 49 11.5
Above 55 29 6.8
Duration of brand experience
<2 years 169 39.6
>2 years 257 60.3
Brand selected
Samsung
u
39 9.15
Apple
u
36 8.45
Nike
u
32 7.51
Chanel
h
30 7.04
Toyota
u
26 6.10
Mercedes-Benz
u
25 5.86
Coca-Cola
h
22 5.16
McDonald’s
u
19 4.46
YouTube
h
19 4.46
Louis Vuitton
u
17 3.99
Adidas
u
16 3.75
Nestl
e
h
16 3.75
Facebook
h
15 3.52
Amazon
u
14 3.28
Swatch
h
12 2.81
Kinder
h
11 2.58
Expedia
h
9 2.11
BMW
u
9 2.11
Lanc^
ome
h
8 1.87
Dior
h
7 1.64
Puma
u
7 1.64
Guess
h
5 1.17
Pepsi
h
5 1.17
Netflix
h
4 0.93
Levi’s
u
4 0.93
Swensen’s
h
4 0.93
Rolex
h
3 0.70
Xiaomi
u
3 0.70
Ford
u
2 0.46
DHL
u
2 0.46
KFC
u
2 0.46
Trivago
h
1 0.23
Dove
u
1 0.23
Siam Park
h
1 0.23
Note(s): n5426; each respondent has chosen only one brand;
h
hedonic brand;
u
utilitarian brand
Table 1.
Frequency and
percentage of
respondents’profile
and brands chosen
APJBA
Thus, all the scales were expertly back-translated to ensure conceptual equivalence (Mullen,
1995). The full items can be found in Table 2.
3.3 Brand type
To control the sturdiness of the model to variations among specific groups of brands, we used
Huaman-Ramirez and Merunka (2018) procedure. We bundled brands into utilitarian and
hedonic brands and assessed our model across the two brand types. Though the brands
chosen by the participants were selected due to their experience, the main worthiness for
which they are consumed differs. For example, DHL is principally used for its utilitarian
purposes such as the service of courier, package delivery, and express mail. In contrast,
Netflix’s main purpose is hedonic because of the entertainment it provides, and the emotional
aspect of this brand is the essence of its offer. In addition, to control our precision in choosing
the brand types, we asked a range of individuals (colleagues and Ph.D. researchers) to check
the nature of the classified brands, which were approved by them.
The data were split into two groups of brands differentiated by their main purpose: brands
mainly consumed because of their hedonic purpose (e.g. Coca-Cola, Netflix, Expedia, Chanel,
YouTube and Siam Park) and brands with a more utilitarian purpose (e.g. Toyota, DHL, Dove
and Apple). To separate these two types of brands based on data collected, we split the total
sample into hedonic and utilitarian groups by splitting the sample at the mean value of 4.93.
After splitting the total sample, the sample size of the hedonic group was 219 and also that of
the utilitarian group was 207.
3.4 Common method bias
The examination of common method variance (CMV) is crucial for every cross-sectional
survey Akter et al. (2011). To identify the common variance among all observed variables in
Item wording
Factor
loadings
a
Indicator
mean
Brand reputation (CR 50.834/AVE 50.79)
This brand has a good reputation 0.829 4.25
This brand is a well-known 0.744 3.74
This brand has high esteem 0.708 3.31
This brand is easily recognizable 0.789 3.59
Emotional attachment (CR 50.785/AVE 50.73)
I have a unique relationship with this brand 0.815 3.22
I identify with what this brand stands for 0.833 4.17
I feel a sense of belonging in regard to this brand 0.796 3.28
I am proud to be a consumer of this brand 0.752 3.87
This brand fits my personality 0.806 4.52
Brand advocacy (CR 50.903/AVE 50.62)
I recommend to other people they would support this brand 0.712 3.21
I talk directly to other people about my experience with this brand 0.729 4.07
I suggest to others that they should buy this brand 0.785 3.55
Price perception (CR 50.852/AVE 50.72)
Compared to other brands, I regard this brand as affordable 0.833 4.11
The benefits I get from this brand are equivalent to or even better than the
amount of money I spend
0.724 3.92
The price of this brand’s products/services represents its quality 0.757 3.69
Note(s):
a
Factor loading’st-values were all large (≥11.28) significant (p< 0.01)
Table 2.
Scale items for the
constructs and
measurement model
Brand
reputation and
brand
advocacy
the model, we conducted Harman’s single factor test and common latent factor analysis
consistent with Podsakoff et al.’s (2003) recommendations. Harman’s test indicated an
explained variance of 19.8%, which is relatively less than the threshold of 50% as
recommended; therefore, the common method bias does not appear to be problematic.
4. Results
To illustrate the findings, we used AMOS 21 to perform the assessment of the measurement
model and conducted structural equation modeling to test the proposed hypotheses.
4.1 Measurement model assessment
To evaluate the psychometric properties of the scales and the measurement model fit,
confirmatory factor analysis was employed. The ultimate model shows a good fit (incremental
fit index 50.954; Tucker–Lewis index 50.947; comparative fit index 50.954; root mean
square error of approximation 50.08; chi-square/degree of freedom 52.944; Goodness of fit
index: 0.883; chi-square: 982.855; degrees of freedom: 349). Factor loadings, composite reliability
and the average variance extracted (AVE) were calculated (see Table 3). It indicates that all of
the factor loadings were equal to or higher than 0.708, the composite reliability (CR) surpassed
the cut-off value of 0.70 (Hair et al.,1995), as (AVE) values surpassed thecut-off of 0.61. The tests
of convergent and discriminant validity were also evaluated based on Fornell and Larcker’s
(1981) recommendation. It revealed that the squared AVE values were greater than the
correlations shared by the respective paired constructs (see Table 3).
4.2 Structural model and test of hypotheses
After the construct validity and reliability are established through measurement model
valuation, a structural model with a three-step approach was administered (see Figure 2). The
first step included testing the direct relationships between variables (H1 and H2). The second
step involved the mediating effect assessment (H3), and the third step contained the valuation
of moderating effects (H4 to H7). The evaluation result of the first direct effect revealed that
brand reputation has a positive effect on emotional attachment (β50.529; p< 0.01), which
supports H1. The result of estimating the second direct effect also showed that emotional
attachment has a positive effect on brand advocacy (β50.498; p< 0.01), indicating H2 is
supported.
4.3 Findings related to mediating effects
To assess the mediating effect, we tested the direct and indirect effects of the mediating
variable based on the approach recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). The examination
of direct and indirect effects may help elucidate the chain of effects between brand reputation
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Brand reputation 4.05 1.137 0.892 0.733 0.485 0.202 0.317
2. Emotional attachment 3.93 1.142 0.704 0.816 0.704 0.026 0.039
3. Brand advocacy 3.76 1.208 0.407 0.645 0.794 0.063 0.018
4. Experience 3.81 1.035 0.183 0.012 0.049 n/a 0.554
5. Price perception 3.59 1.196 0.298 0.027 0.004 0.528 0.638
Note(s): The diagonal elements (italic) are the square root of the AVE; Values above the diagonal indicate the
HTMT ratio; Values below the diagonal elements are the inter-construct correlations; n/a 5not applicable as
construct measured through a single indicator
Table 3.
Squared correlations
APJBA
and the desired advocacy. The results showed that the impact of the brand reputation on
brand advocacy (β50.214; p< 0.01) is greater via emotional attachment (β50.356; p< 0.01).
The indirect effect seems to strengthen the impact of brand reputation, on the relational
outcome, and emotional attachment seems the perfect link to transfer this impact. These
results show that emotional attachment fully mediates the relationship between brand
reputation and brand advocacy, thereby H3 is supported.
4.4 Findings related to moderating effects
To test the effects of our moderator variables, we applied multi-group causal analysis in SEM
to investigate the moderating role of experience and price, and then followed the process
employed by Evanschitzky and Wunderlich (2006) and Baron and Kenny (1986). The
moderating effect of experience in the hypothesized relationships was divided into two
predefined categories (i.e. experience less than 2 years and more than 2 years) through a
median split test (median 53.24). To assess the moderating effect of price, the sample has
been also divided into two subsamples (i.e. consumers with high and low affordability)
through a median split test (median 53.59). The appropriateness of the multi-group
structural equation modeling analyses was determined using goodness-of-fit indices. The
model fit was assessed using the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI) and
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) as recommended by Bollen and
Long (1993).
The results of the test of the moderating effects are presented in Table 4. The analysis
results revealed that H4 and H5 are supported. The analysis results also showed significant
differences between the groups (high affordability vs. low affordability). Price perception
significantly moderates the impact of brand reputation on emotional attachment, and the
impact of emotional attachment on brand advocacy. Therefore, H6 and H7 are supported.
4.5 Assessment by brand type
After bootstrapping parameters, results showed that H1 to H3 are supported for each group
of brands (Table 5). For utilitarian brands, brand reputation has a more positive effect on
emotional attachment. Moreover, for hedonic brands, emotional attachment has a more
positive effect on brand advocacy. The results related to the mediating effect revealed that for
hedonic brands the effect of the brand reputation on brand advocacy is more significant
through emotional attachment.
Experience
Emotional
attachment
Brand
advocacy
Brand
reputation
Price
perception
0.529***
0.76**
0.47**
0.498***
0.92**
0.45**
0.67**
0.52**
0.88**
0.49**
0.356***
Note(s): ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05
Figure 2.
Structural model and
results of hypotheses
assessment
Brand
reputation and
brand
advocacy
The findings related to the moderating effects also indicated that H4 to H7 are supported for
each group of brands (Table 6). When a consumer has more experience with the brand, the
association between variables for utilitarian brands is greater. Similarly, when the price of the
brand is perceived as more affordable, the association between variables for utilitarian
brands is greater.
5. Discussion and theoretical contributions
Overall, the results show all seven research hypotheses are confirmed. The findings support
our prospects that a brand reputation positively affects emotional attachment. This
contributes to the prior research, which has provided only limited evidence so far about the
effect of this factor on emotional attachment (Loureiro et al., 2017;Japutra et al., 2014;Thakur
and Kaur, 2016), In this respect, our findings are consistent with the extant literature (Esch
et al., 2006;He et al., 2016). This study shows that brand reputation is the precursor of
emotional attachment. This means that a brand’s reputation plays an important role in
arousing customers’positive feelings about that brand.
Peer reviews and recommendations are progressively affecting consumers’buying
decisions; thus, marketers have considered achieving brand advocacy as one of the crucial
objectives of marketing activities (Vashisht, 2019). However, prior investigations have not
Low
moderator
High
moderator
Chi-square difference
(Δ2
x)
Experience as moderator
H4: Brand reputation →Emotional
attachment
0.47 0.76 11.86
H5: Emotional attachment →Brand
advocacy
0.49 0.88 14.23
Price as moderator
H6: Brand reputation →Emotional
attachment
0.52 0.67 8.42
H7: Emotional attachment →Brand
advocacy
0.45 0.92 16.97
Note(s): All hypotheses are supported at the p< 0.05 level
Relationships
Path
coeff.
hedonic
Path
coeff.
utilitarian
Cis (bias
corrected)
hedonic
Cis (bias
corrected)
utilitarian
Path
coeff.
diff
p-value
Henseler’s
bootstrap
Brand
reputation →Emotional
attachment
0.456*** 0.623*** [0.314, 0.588] [0.498, 0.725] 0.179 0.023**
Emotional
attachment →Brand
advocacy
0.674*** 0.391*** [0.522, 0.742] [0.219, 0.494] 0.282 0.006***
Brand
reputation →Emotional
attachment →Brand
advocacy
0.462*** 0.317*** [0.176, 0.394] [0.079, 0.195] 0.186 0.019*
Note(s): *p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ***p< 0.001
Table 4.
Moderating effects of
experience and price
perception
Table 5.
Results of brand types
assessment
APJBA
shown how emotional attachment by its antecedent affects consumers’willingness to engage
in brand advocacy. Previous studies also have been limited to just showing how several
intermediaries developed through their antecedents affect consumers’willingness to
participate in brand advocacy (Bendapudi and Berry, 1997;Coelho et al., 2019;Vashisht,
2019). The study also encompasses the literature by exposing that emotional attachment has
a strong positive effect on brand advocacy. The direct effect of emotional attachment on
brand advocacy has not been approximately studied and we did not find this effect with
reference to the relationship between emotional attachment and brand advocacy, prior study
(Shimul and Phau, 2018) examined the effect of brand attachment on customer advocacy;
however, the authors underlined the distinguished role of customer advocacy than brand
advocacy. Our research findings indicate how much the emotional component of brands
evokes positive feelings about those brands in consumers’minds; because emotional
branding is related to the consumers’attachment to strong and specific emotions such as
bonding, companionship and even love (Rossiter and Bellman, 2012).
The results of the present research also contribute to the literature by introducing how
emotional attachment mediates the relationship between brand reputation and brand
advocacy. Although, recent studies have shown positive effects of emotional attachment in
relationships between different variables and behavioral intentions (Shimul and Phau, 2018;
G
omez-Su
arez and Veloso, 2020). The findings of the mediation analysis revealed that a
public’s perception of a brand may seriously improve its results when emotional attachment
arises and intensify the links between customers and brands. Brand reputation is a powerful
tool in an advocacy program in that it may work simultaneously at the advocacy level
(directly), while also reinforcing emotional attachment, consequently (indirectly) increasing
the impact on the relational outcome.
The moderating effect of experience with the brand has not been extensively investigated
in the setting of brand reputation and emotional attachment, although the construct is
conceptualized in the association between brand image and brand love (Joshi and Garg, 2021).
In addition, we did not find the evidence that shows experience moderates the relationship
between emotional attachment and brand advocacy; however former studies have
experienced the experience effect in the association between satisfaction and word of
mouth (Ranaweera and Menon, 2013), and in the association between brand love and word of
mouth (Karjaluoto et al., 2016). Hence, our study is among the most limited investigations to
verify that the more experience a person has with a brand, the stronger relationship between
brand reputation and emotional attachment as well as the greater relationship between
emotional attachment and advocacy to the brand will be. One can reasonably argue that for
Low moderator High moderator Chi-square
difference (Δ2
x)Hedonic Utilitarian Hedonic Utilitarian
Experience as moderator
H4: Brand reputation →Emotional
attachment
0.48 0.72 0.45 0.88 10.34
H5: Emotional attachment →Brand
advocacy
0.35 0.76 0.44 0.69 12.52
Price as moderator
H6: Brand reputation →Emotional
attachment
0.32 0.64 0.29 0.76 9.58
H7: Emotional attachment →Brand
advocacy
0.37 0.58 0.29 0.93 8.44
Note(s): All hypotheses are supported at the p< 0.05 level
Table 6.
Moderating effects test
based on the
brand types
Brand
reputation and
brand
advocacy
the increase of impact of this moderating variable on these links more experience with a
brand will diminish the probabilities of risk in the minds of the consumer, thus they will find
the brand to be more authentic or reliable.
The moderating role of price perception also has not been broadly studied in the context of
brand reputation and emotional attachment and we did not find this effect concerning the
relationship between brand reputation and emotional attachment; nevertheless, previous
research stated that the better consumers’perceptions of price can the considerable effect on
the relationship between reputation and emotional reactions (Helm, 2013). In the context of
emotional attachment and brand advocacy we also did not find the moderating effect of price
concerning the relationship between emotional attachment and brand advocacy: however,
prior investigation appraised the effect of this moderator in the relationship between brand
love and word of mouth (Karjaluoto et al., 2016). Based on observations that were obtained
concerning the effect of price perception on the association between brand reputation and
emotional attachment, we found that when the subjective price perception is affordable, the
affiliation between brand reputation and emotional attachment as well as the affiliation
between emotional attachment and advocacy to the brand will be greater.
The sturdiness of the findings is indicated across product types because hypotheses
linking brand reputation to emotional attachment and emotional attachment to brand
advocacy are supported for both hedonic and utilitarian products. The link between brand
reputation and emotional attachment for brands with a utilitarian purpose (vs. brands with a
hedonic purpose) is stronger. The link between emotional attachment and brand advocacy for
the brands with a hedonic purpose (vs. brands with a utilitarian purpose) is stronger. In
contrast to utilitarian brands, the indirect relationship between brand reputation and brand
advocacy is stronger for hedonic brands. In other words, the reputation of a utilitarian brand
is perceived as more known, respected, and recognizable motivates further consumer
emotional attachment. While for a hedonic brand emotional attachment motivates further the
brand advocates. These findings expose that the evaluation of emotional attachment is
mainly characterized by the use of cognitive cues which is more the case for brands with the
main utilitarian purpose than for brands with a hedonic purpose. The results become more
noticeable when for utilitarian brands in both links, more experience, as well as the cost-
effectiveness of the brand’s products, increase cognitive cues and lead customers more.
5.1 Managerial implications
This study also proposes several significant managerial implications. First, managers should
increase their knowledge and awareness that having a brand reputation is the focal predictor
of emotional attachment. We suggest that a brand should have a clear and strong reputation
and symbolic meanings. Brands can investigate building a positive reputation by developing
easy recognizability, high esteem and opinions and evaluations of the brand.
Second, the brand managers understand that mere emotional attachment might not be
sufficientto engage the consumers inadvocacy. Thus, the companies should attempt to build a
strong brand reputation to enhance intimacy with the consumers. Branding practitioners
should take initiatives to strengthen the emotional attachment so that the consumers advocate
the brand. Identifying the motivation behind consumeradvocacy is critical as well. In doing so,
companies should maintain and develop the reputation of their brand(s) and so the
operationalization ofconsumer advocacy takes within the niche market segment. For example,
compared to other brands, customers are expected to perceive a stronger sense of the brand’s
reputation before involving with emotional bonds. In this regard, branding advertisers may
incorporate the feature of advocacy in their marketing communication programs as well.
Third, managers need to consider the duration of consumers’experience with the brand and
how affordable they perceive the brand to be compared to other brands (Karjaluoto et al., 2016).
APJBA
Managers should then, employ these two essential variables in emerging their customer
association approachesto motivate more consumers’emotional bond and their’advocacy of the
brand. For instance, weighting experienced consumers in the company’s marketing programs,
such as by giving them additional benefits for staying with the company, would successfully
upsurge these consumers’tendency to emotional attachment and involvement in advocacy
behavior. Thus, the approaches for obtaining an emotional bond and advocacy behavior should
be based on experience-weighted computations so that heavy consumers could be focused
more. The brands should also consider the good and continuous pricing programs, and control
the brands’prices based on consumers’affordability. Furthermore, marketing communications
that highlight the brand’s beneficial price-quality ratio would elevate the power of the emotional
bond that consumers have with the brand and persuade them to advocate the brand.
Third, managers should know that to create strong brand advocacy through brand
reputation and emotional attachment, considering both hedonic and utilitarian brands
are important. Utilitarian brands present a higher level of brand attachment than
hedonic brands because their reputation is perceived as more sensitive and mainly has a
utilitarian purpose. Thus, the well-known brands should offer consumers of valuable
products and behave honestly and manage well. Additionally, hedonic brands present a
higher level of brand advocacy than utilitarian brands because their emotional bonds
with consumers are stronger. The importance of emotional attachment is such that it
directs better the indirect effect of brand reputation to brand advocacy. In addition to
considering effective, helpful, and functional product aspects, the brand managers
should consider the different emotional marketing programs, and develop them. They
can consider emotions and feelings values such as enjoyment, arousal, curiosity and
pleasure.
Due to the difference in attention to the reputation of brands in utilitarian purchases, it can
be suggested that brands should focus on identifying the consumers’experience with the
brands to face fewer obstacles in selling their products. Price perception also is another
significant factor that should be considered. When the price of the brand is perceived as more
affordable the consumers tend more to emotional brands with utilitarian purposes because
consumers are less sensitive to the price of hedonic products. Therefore, managers should
consider the fitness and balance of prices for both hedonic and utilitarian products.
6. Limitations and future research
The present research includes several limitations and also directions for future research.
The first one concerns other constructs that could develop the analytical potential of the
research model. Though the model’s capacity to explain emotional attachment is
comparatively good, there are probably further indicators of emotional attachment.
Future research can improve the proposed conceptual model by including additional
factors that would enhance its explanatory power. The second limitation relates to
generalization in that the findings cannot be broadened beyond the present sample frame.
This is due to the comparatively small sample size, which contained exclusively Thai
consumers. Further, due to the expenditure of the convenience sampling technique, the
sample may be prejudiced toward particular types of respondents. The last limitation refers
to the respondents who supported and appraised a large variety of brands and brand types
that they self-selected in the research context; therefore, future research should endeavor to
collect larger samples from dissimilar market extents that are a representation of consumer
segments across industries. This would empower a study of cultural variations and
individual differences.
Brand
reputation and
brand
advocacy
References
Akter, S., D’Ambra, J. and Ray, P. (2011), “An evaluation of PLS based complex models: the roles of
power analysis, predictive relevance and GoF index”,Proceedings of the 17th Americas
Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS2011), Detroit, pp. 1-7.
Albert, N. and Merunka, D. (2013), “The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships”,Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 258-266.
Amis, J. (2003), “Good things come to those who wait: the strategic management of image and
reputation at Guinness”,European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 189-214.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”,Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Becker, L. and Jaakkola, E. (2020), “Customer experience: fundamental premises and implications for
research”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 48, pp. 630-648.
Belaid, S. and Behi, A.T. (2011), “The role of attachment in building consumer-brand relationships: an
empirical investigation in the utilitarian consumption context”,Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 37-47.
Bendapudi, N. and Berry, L.L. (1997), “Customers’motivations for maintaining relationships with
service providers”,Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Bıçakcıoglu, N., Ipek, I. and Bayraktaroglu, G. (2016), “Antecedents and outcomes of brand love: the
mediating role of brand loyalty”,Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 863-877.
Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (1993), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage Publications, London.
Bowlby, J. (1982), “Attachment and loss: retrospect and prospect”,American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 664-678.
Brady, M.K., Cronin, J.J., Fox, G.L. and Roehm, M.L. (2008), “Strategies to offset performance failures:
the role of brand equity”,Journal of Retailing, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 151-164.
Brocato, E.D., Baker, J. and Voorhees, C.M. (2015), “Creating consumer attachment to retail service
firms through sense of place”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 2,
pp. 200-220.
Campbell, M.C. (2007), “‘Says who?!’How the source of price information and affect influence
perceived price (un)fairness”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 261-271.
Chaudhuri, A. (2002), “How brand reputation affects the advertising-brand equity link”,Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 33-43.
Chelminski, P. and Coulter, R.A. (2011), “An examination of consumer advocacy and complaining
behavior in the context of service failure”,Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 361-370.
Chen, Y.S., Hung, S.T., Wang, T.Y., Huang, A.F. and Liao, Y.W. (2017), “The influence of excessive
product packaging on green brand attachment: the mediation roles of green brand attitude and
green brand image”,Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 4, p. 654.
Cleff, T., Walter, N. and Xie, J. (2018), “The effect of online brand experience on brand loyalty: a web of
emotions”,The IUO Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 10, pp. 7-24.
Cochran, W.G. (1963), Sampling Techniques, 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Coelho, A., Bairrada, C. and Peres, F. (2019), “Brand communities’relational outcomes, through brand
love”,Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 154-165.
De Matos, C.A. and Rossi, C.A.V. (2008), “Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: a meta-
analytic review of the antecedents and moderators”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 578-596.
East, R., Hammond, K. and Lomax, W. (2008), “Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of
mouth on brand purchase probability”,International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 215-224.
APJBA
Esch, F., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. and Geus, P. (2006), “Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and
relationships affect current and future purchases”,Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 98-105.
Evanschitzky, H. and Wunderlich, M. (2006), “An examination of moderator effects in the four-stage
loyalty model”,Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 330-345.
Fedorikhin, A., Park, W.C. and Thomson, M. (2008), “Beyond fit and attitude: the effect of emotional
attachment on consumer responses to brand extensions”,Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 281-291.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Garg, R., Mukherjee, J., Biswas, S. and Kataria, A. (2016), “An investigation into the concept of brand
love and its proximal and distal covariates”,Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 135-153.
Ghorbanzadeh, D. and Rahehagh, A. (2020), “Emotional brand attachment and brand love: the
emotional bridges in the process of transition from satisfaction to loyalty”,Rajagiri
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 16-38.
G
omez-Su
arez, M. and Veloso, M. (2020), “Brand experience and brand attachment as drivers of WOM
in hospitality”,Spanish Journal of Marketing –ESIC, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 231-246.
Grisaffe, D.B. and Nguyen, H.P. (2011), “Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands”,Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 10, pp. 1052-1059.
G€
urhan-Canli, Z., Sarial-Abi, G. and Hayran, C. (2018), “Consumers and brands across the globe:
research synthesis and new directions”,Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 96-117.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Hartline, M.D. and Jones, K.C. (1996), “Employee performance cues in a hotel service environment:
influence on perceived service quality, value, and word-of-mouth intentions”,Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 207-215.
He, H., Zhu, W., Gouran, D. and Kolo, O. (2016), “Moral identity centrality and cause-related marketing:
the moderating effects of brand social responsibility image and emotional brand attachment”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50 Nos 1/2, pp. 236-259.
Helm, S.V. (2013), “How corporate reputation affects customers’reactions to price increases”,Journal
of Revenue and Pricing Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 402-415.
Herbig, P. and Milewicz, J. (1995), “The relationship of reputation and credibility to brand success”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 5-10.
Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (2018), “Consumer and object experience in the internet of things: an
assemblage theory approach”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 44, pp. 1178-1204.
Holmes, J. (2000), “Attachment theory and psychoanalysis: a rapprochement”,British Journal of
Psychotherapy, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 157-172.
Huaman-Ramirez, R. and Merunka, D. (2018), “Brand experience effects on brand attachment: the role
of brand trust, age, and income”,European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 610-645.
Japutra, A., Ekinci, Y. and Simkin, L. (2014), “Exploring Brand attachment, its determinants and
outcomes”,Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 616-630.
Jillapalli, R.K. and Wilcox, J.B. (2010), “Professor brand advocacy: do brand relationships matter?”,
Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 328-340.
Joji, A. and Ashwin, J. (2012), “Hedonic versus utilitarian values: the relative importance of real and
ideal self to brand personality and its influence on emotional brand attachment”,Vilakshan:
The XIMB Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 77-90.
Brand
reputation and
brand
advocacy
Jones, T. and Taylor, S.F. (2007), “The conceptual domain of service loyalty: how many dimensions?”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 36-51.
Joshi, R. and Garg, P. (2021), “Role of brand experience in shaping brand love”,International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 259-272.
Karjaluoto, H., Munnukka, J. and Kiuru, K. (2016), “Brand love and positive word of mouth: the
moderating effects of experience and price”,Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 25
No. 6, pp. 527-537.
Keaveney, S. (1995), “Customer switching behavior in service industries: an exploratory study”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 71-82.
Khamwon, A. and Masri, P. (2020), “Brand experience, brand love, and brand advocacy: a case of
premium smartphone”,International Journal of Technology Management and Information
System, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 24-30.
Kim, C.K., Han, D. and Park, S.B. (2001), “The effect of brand personality and brand identification on
brand loyalty: applying the theory of social identification”,Japanese Journal of Psychological
Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 195-206.
Kim, R.B. and Chao, Y. (2019), “Effects of brand experience, brand image and brand trust on brand
building process: the case of Chinese millennial generation consumers”,Journal of International
Studies, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 9-21.
Lai, I.K.W. (2019), “Hotel image and reputation on building customer loyalty: an empirical study in
Macau”,Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 38, pp. 111-121.
Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R., Richard, M. and Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012), “The effects of social media
based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation practices, brand trust
and brand loyalty”,Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1755-1767.
Lee, S.H. and Workman, J.E. (2015), “Determinants of brand loyalty: self-construal, self- expressive
brands, and brand attachment”,International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and
Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 12-20.
Loureiro, S.M.C., Sarmento, E.M. and Le Bellego, G. (2017), “The effect of corporate brand reputation
on brand attachment and brand loyalty: automobile sector”,Cogent Business and Management,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Mal€
ar, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D. and Nyffenegger, B. (2011), “Emotional brand attachment and
brand personality: the relative importance of the actual and the ideal self”,Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 35-52.
Matzler, K., Wuertele, A. and Renzl, B. (2006), “Dimensions of price satisfaction: a study in the retail
banking industry”,International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 216-231.
McKee, D., Simmers, C.S. and Licata, J. (2006), “Customer self-efficacy and response to service”,Journal
of Service Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 207-220.
Milewicz, J. and Herbig, P. (1994), “Evaluating the brand extension decision using a model of
reputation building”,Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 39-47.
Monroe, K. (2005), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Moussa, S. (2015), “I may be a twin but I’m one of a kind: are brand attachment and brand love
different names for the same construct?”,Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Mullen, M.R. (1995), “Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research”,Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 573-596.
Munnukka, J. and J€
arvi, P. (2012), “The price-category effect and the formation of customer value of
high-tech products”,Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 293-301.
O’Neill, R.M. and Lambert, D.R. (2001), “The emotional side of price”,Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 217-237.
APJBA
Park, C.W., Andreas, B.E. and Park, J.W. (2013), “Attachment-aversion (AA) model of customer–
brand relationships”,Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 229-248.
Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J. and Priester, J.R. (2006), “Beyond attitudes: attachment and consumer
behavior”,Seoul National Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 3-36.
Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J., Priester, J.R., Eisingerich, A.B. and Iacobucci, D. (2010), “Brand attachment
and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand
equity drivers”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 1-17.
Parrott, G., Danbury, A. and Kanthavanich, P. (2015), “Online behaviour of luxury fashion brand
advocates”,Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 360-383.
Pawle, J. and Cooper, P. (2006), “Measuring emotion-love marks, the future beyond brands”,Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 38-48.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,Journal of
Alied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Ranaweera, C. and Menon, K. (2013), “For better or for worse? Adverse effects of relationship age and
continuance commitment on positive and negative word of mouth”,European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 10, pp. 1598-1621.
Rossiter, J. and Bellman, S. (2012), “Emotional branding pays off: how brands meet share of
requirements through bonding, companionship, and love”,Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 291-296.
Schmalz, S. and Orth, U.R. (2012), “Brand attachment and consumer emotional response to unethical
firm behavior”,Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 11, pp. 869-884.
Schultz, D. (2000), “Customer/brand loyalty in an interactive marketplace”,Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 41-53.
Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), “Relationship marketing in consumer markets: antecedents and
consequences”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 255-271.
Shimul, A.S. and Phau, I. (2018), “Consumer advocacy for luxury brands”,Australasian Marketing
Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 264-271.
Singh, R. (2022), “‘Hey Alexa–order groceries for me’–the effect of consumer–VAI emotional
attachment on satisfaction and repurchase intention”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56
No. 6, pp. 1684-1720.
Thakur, A. and Kaur, R. (2016), “An empirical examination of relationship between emotional
attachment and attitudinal brand loyalty towards luxury fashion brands”,DLSU Business and
Economics Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 70-80.
Theng So, J., Grant Parsons, A. and Yap, S.F. (2013), “Corporate branding, emotional attachment and
brand loyalty: the case of luxury fashion branding”,Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 403-423.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005), “The ties that bind: measuring the strength of
consumers’emotional attachments to brands”,Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 77-91.
Varki, S. and Colgate, M. (2001), “The role of price perceptions in an integrated model of behavioral
intentions”,Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 232-240.
Vashisht, D. (2019), “Effect of interactivity and congruence on brand advocacy and brand acceptance”,
Arts and the Market, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 152-161.
Veloutsou, C. and Moutinho, L. (2009), “Brand relationship through brand reputation and brand
tribalism”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, pp. 314-322.
Verhoef, P., Franses, P. and Hoekstra, J. (2002), “The effect of relational constructs on customer
referrals and number of services purchased from a multi-service provider: does age of
relationship matter?”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 202-216.
Brand
reputation and
brand
advocacy
Walter, N., Cleff, T. and Chu, G. (2013), “Brand experience’s influence on customer satisfaction and
loyalty: a mirage in marketing research?”,International Journal of Management Research and
Business Strategy, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 130-144.
Walz, A.M. and Celuch, K.G. (2010), “The effect of retailer communication on customer advocacy: the
moderating role of trust”,Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 95-110.
Wilder, K.M. (2015), Brand Advocacy: Conceptualization and Measurement, Mississippi State
University.
Wilk, V., Soutar, G.N. and Harrigan, P. (2019), “Online brand advocacy (OBA): the development of a
multiple item scale”,Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 415-429.
Wragg, T. (2004), “Nurturing brand advocates”,Brand Strategy, Vol. 187, pp. 36-37.
Xia, L., Monroe, K.B. and Cox, J.L. (2004), “The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price
fairness perceptions”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 1-15.
Xie, C., Bagozzi, R.P. and Grønhaug, K. (2018), “The impact of corporate social responsibility on
consumer brand advocacy: the role of moral emotions, attitudes, and individual differences”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 95, pp. 514-530.
Yasri, Y., Susanto, P., Hoque, M.E. and Gusti, M.A. (2020), “Price perception and price appearance on
repurchase intention of Gen Y: do brand experience and brand preference mediate”,Heliyon,
Vol. 6, pp. 1-6.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Corresponding author
Arash Ahmadi can be contacted at: aras_fakhim@yahoo.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
APJBA
