When consumers love their brands: Exploring the concept and its dimensions

Abstract

Consumers may develop feelings of love toward some brands, but the meaning and underlying dimensions of this construct require further development. Through an exploratory Internet study of 843 respondents in France, this research used both qualitative and quantitative approaches to explore the concept of love. Eleven dimensions emerge through a correspondence analysis and the concomitant use of a multiple correspondence analysis and cluster analysis of the wording that respondents use to describe their feeling of love and the special type of relationships they have with the brands they love. These dimensions identified in France compare to dimensions of love found in previous research conducted in the United States.

Full text

When consumers love their brands: Exploring the concept and its dimensions
Noël Albert
a,b
, Dwight Merunka
c,d,
⁎, Pierre Valette-Florence
e,f
a
University of Grenoble (IAE), France
b
University of Lyon-1, France
c
University Paul Cézanne Aix-Marseille, IAE Aix en Provence, France
d
EUROMED Marseille School of Management, Marseilles, France
e
University of Grenoble (IAE), France
f
CERAM Nice, France
Received 1 March 2007; received in revised form 1 July 2007; accepted 1 September 2007
Abstract
Consumers may develop feelings of love toward some brands, but the meaning and underlying dimensions of this construct require further
development. Through an exploratory Internet study of 843 respondents in France, this research used both qualitative and quantitative approaches
to explore the concept of love. Eleven dimensions emerge through a correspondence analysis and the concomitant use of a multiple
correspondence analysis and cluster analysis of the wording that respondents use to describe their feeling of love and the special type of
relationships they have with the brands they love. These dimensions identified in France compare to dimensions of love found in previous research
conducted in the United States.
© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Love; Brand–consumer relationship; Brand management; Cultural differences
Brands are omnipresent in the everyday life of consumers.
Recent research focus on understanding and explaining the type
of relationships consumers have with branded products.
Constructs and measures of brand sensitivity (Kapferer and
Laurent, 1992), brand attachment (Thomson et al., 2005), brand
commitment (Samuelsen and Sandvik, 1998), brand trust
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001), and brand loyalty (Jacoby
and Chesnut, 1978), for example, distinguish among various
consumer–brand relationship concepts and segment consumers
into groups on the basis of the intensity of those relationships
(Fournier, 1998). In contrast, the concept of love is more
recently investigated (Ahuvia, 2005b; Fournier, 1998) and
relatively less researched. In turn, questions remain, such as
whether consumers can experiment feelings of love for a brand.
Is the feeling of love for a brand similar to a feeling of love for a
person? What dimensions characterize the feeling of love
toward an object (brand)? Do people feel this love relationship
in the same manner across countries or cultures?
During the past decade, marketing research has investigated
the concept of love and established that such a feeling may exist
from a consumer's perspective when the loved object is a
possession or a brand. Based on the relational paradigm and the
notion that consumers may attribute human characteristics to
brands (Aaker, 1997; Fournier, 1998), the academic community
started paying attention to the concept of love. Practitioners also
express interest in the concept (Roberts, 2004, 2006). However,
extant research seems to be solely of U.S. origin, even though
cross-cultural differences are very likely. For example, research
based on interpersonal relationship theory (Beall and Sternberg,
1995; Deschamps et al., 1997) shows that culture influences the
conceptualization and dimensions of the love construct.
This research investigates the feeling of love toward a brand
by exploring the nature of the construct and uncovering the
main dimensions of a feeling of love for brands among a large
sample of French consumers. Because culture may affect the
results, this research also compares findings with recent U.S.
A
vailable online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 1062 –1075
⁎Corresponding author. IAE Aix en Provence, Clos Guiot, 13540 Puyricard,
France. Tel./fax: +33 442 280 808/800.
E-mail addresses: noel.albert@upmf-grenoble.fr (N. Albert),
dwight.merunka@iae-aix.com (D. Merunka),
pierre.valette-florence@iae-grenoble.fr (P. Valette-Florence).
0148-2963/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.014

research results. The first section provides a literature review
pertaining to the concept of love in interpersonal relationships,
reviews the development of available (American) conceptuali-
zations of love toward a brand, and comments on their
limitations. The second section details the method developed
to avoid these limitations, measures the love construct, and
determines its underlying dimensions. Finally, the third section
presents and discusses results related to the dimensions of love
uncovered in the French data and compares them with concepts
developed from U.S. data.
1. The feeling of love
1.1. The feeling of love in interpersonal relationships
Theories of love suggest its cultural and historical under-
pinnings. For example, one view that emerges from the
industrial revolution construes love with the same intensity
and faith required of religion (Hatfield and Rapson, 1987).
According to this view, love cannot be theorized or understood.
Nevertheless, since that period in history, different sciences seek
to study the love construct. For example, sociology uses
observable manifestations (e.g., marriages, fertility rates), and
psychoanalysis places sexuality at the heart of the love
construct. However, because these approaches are of little use
to our understanding of love in consumer behavior, our research
concentrates on social psychology's conceptualization of love,
within which a relationship paradigm applies.
1.1.1. Love as a psychological state
Aron and Aron (1986, 1996) describe love as a psychological
state. Because the union of two persons characterizes love, they
use the inclusion of an other into the self as a means to understand
this feeling and refer to three main principles: (1) people extend
themselves, (2) by including others within themselves through
intimate or close relationships, and (3) people seek situations or
experiences associated to an experience of extension of the self.
According to these principles, the expression of a feeling of love
entails a two-stage process whereby the self expands to new
persons and the object of the extension becomes included in the
self. Love therefore is “the constellation of behaviors, cognitions
and emotions associated with the desire to enter or maintain a
close relationship with a specific other person”(Aron et al., 1991,
p. 26). However, the feeling of love is not necessarily romantic
and may apply to many others (e.g., family members, friends).
1.1.2. Love as an independent psychological construct
Two main influential theories by Rubin (1970) and Sternberg
(1986) break with the tradition and consider love as a superior
form of friendship. Rubin defines love as “an attitude held by a
person toward a particular other person, involving predisposi-
tions to think, feel, and behave in certain ways toward that other
person”(Rubin, 1970, p. 265). Love is a three-dimensional
construct composed of affiliation and need for dependence,
predisposition to help, and exclusivity and absorption (inclusion
of the other). Sternberg (1986, 1997) proposes a triangular
theory of love with three components: intimacy, passion, and
decision/commitment, which appear in most conceptualizations
of love. Intimacy refers to closeness and connectedness, being
happy together, and being able to rely on the partner. Passion
involves romance, physical attraction, arousal, and needs such
as self-esteem, nurturance, or self-actualization. Finally,
decision/commitment refers to the short-term decision to love
someone and the will to maintain that relationship over the long
term. Combining the three components leads to eight love
styles, depending on the presence or absence of each component
in interpersonal relationships (see Table 1).
Many studies (Fehr, 1988; Luby and Aron, 1990; Regan
et al., 1998) offer lists of adjectives that can capture the feeling
of love. These lists consist of many items (e.g., 68 in Fehr, 1988,
including trust, caring, honesty, friendship, respect, concern for
other's well-being, loyalty, commitment, accepting the other,
and supportiveness; 119 in Regan et al., 1998) but fail to
provide us with a clear picture of prototypical love (Ahuvia,
2005b). Aron and Westbay (1996) factor analyzed Fehr's
(1988) list of adjectives and find a three-dimensional structure
of passion, intimacy, and commitment—corroborating Stern-
berg's (1986) theory.
1.2. The feeling of love in consumer behavior
1.2.1. Feelings of love toward objects
Shimp and Madden (1988) propose a conceptual model of
“consumer–object relationships”inspired by the triangular
theory of love (Sternberg, 1986), in which Sternberg's three
components of love (intimacy, passion, and decision/commit-
ment) become liking, yearning, and decision/commitment in a
consumption context. When these three components exist, they
strongly contribute to loyalty toward the object. However,
Shimp and Madden do not empirically test the validity of their
construct. Later, Ahuvia (1993, 2005a,b) provides empirical
support for this construct by proposing a conditional integration
of the theory of love based on work by Aron and Aron (1986).
Specifically, Ahuvia (1993) posits that a person may feel love for
an object when the level of integration and desire for that object
reaches a critical threshold. Ahuvia (2005b) also compares
interpersonal love and love for an object based on the notion of a
“prototype”of love (e.g., Aron and Westbay, 1996; Fehr, 1988;
Fehr and Russel, 1991). He acknowledges that these two types of
love have more similarities than differences.
Table 1
Taxonomy of kinds of love
Kind of love Components
Intimacy Passion Decision, commitment
Nonlove −−−
Liking + −−
Infatuated love −+−
Empty love −−+
Romantic love + + −
Companionate love + −+
Fatuous love −++
Consummate love + + +
Source: Adapted from Sternberg (1986).
1063N. Albert et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 1062–1075

Whang et al. (2004) conduct a study using the construct of
love based on the interpersonal paradigm and measure this
feeling by employing a shortened version of the love attitude
scale, its origin being from the “The Colors of Love”typology
proposed by Lee (1977) (Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986). The
love a biker feels for his or her motorcycle consists of three
variables: eros (passionate love), mania (possessive love), and
agape (altruistic love). Because they use a measure of love
directly derived from interpersonal relationship studies, they
conclude that the relationship between a biker and his or her
motorcycle represents romantic love. The Whang et al. study is
the first to capture consumer's love toward a product.
1.2.2. Feelings of love toward a brand
Fournier (1998) reveals that consumers develop and
maintain strong relationships with brands and proposes six
major categories of relationships, including love and passion,
defined as a richer, deeper, more long-lasting feeling than
simple preference. Caroll and Ahuvia (2006, p. 5) define love
for a brand as “the degree of passionate emotional attachment
that a person has for a particular trade name.”Consumers' love
includes the following characteristics: (1) passion for a brand,
(2) brand attachment, (3) positive evaluation of the brand, (4)
positive emotions in response to the brand, and (5) declarations
of love toward the brand. These studies help better understand
the construct of love in a consumer behavior context but yet
have some theoretical, methodological, and managerial
limitations.
The study of love in marketing employs two main frame-
works: the interpersonal theory of love applied to consumer
situations (Ahuvia, 1993; Whang et al., 2004) and an empirical
approach consisting of a conceptualization of consumers'
declarations of “love”toward brands (Fournier, 1998). This
second framework is mostly a-theoretical, and interpretations
based on this approach are vulnerable to criticism. For example,
why are not concepts of intimacy, commitment, or connection to
the self (i.e., potential relationships between consumers and
brands) connected to the love relationship (Fournier, 1998)?
Although these dimensions are not unique to feelings of love,
they appear in various interpersonal studies pertaining to love
(Aron and Aron, 1986; Hatfield, 1988; Sternberg, 1986). In
contrast to this empirical approach, several studies (Ahuvia,
1993; 2005b; Shimp and Madden, 1988; Whang et al., 2004)
construe love in marketing on the basis of theories of
interpersonal relationships. Overall, love appears to represent
a complex phenomenon, and no single interpersonal theory may
claim to capture all the emotions linked to this feeling, which
means choosing any particular theory of interpersonal relation-
ships may be theoretically constraining at this point. The study
of love relationships should begin with little or no preconceived
notions and proceed on an exploratory basis, especially if the
study occurs in a new cultural context. Such results should then
be interpreted using existing interpersonal (or consumer/brand)
theories of love. Adopting such a method avoids focusing on
one theory and provides the opportunity to establish a link
between the empirical results and different conceptualizations
of love.
In many exploratory studies that use qualitative interviews
(e.g., Ahuvia, 1993, 2005b; Fournier, 1998), the interviewers
actually employ the word “love”and thereby introduce a bias in
the sense that subjects may formulate their responses in
reference to a feeling of love for a person and exclude
dimensions of love specific to an object or a brand. Although
Ahuvia proposes several dimensions that do not match
prototypical love, the method still casts doubt on the reliability
of the data. An exploratory study using projective methods
avoids this potential pitfall. Therefore, the measurement of love
should be approached without the explicit use of the word itself
and without directly referring to concepts that link naturally to
interpersonal relationships (unless testing a previously estab-
lished theory).
Finally, several important studies in this area (Ahuvia, 1993,
2005b) examine objects in a broad sense rather than brands
specifically. Even though these studies develop an understand-
ing of the construct of love, their managerial utility is limited. In
another vein, Shimp and Madden (1988) simply adopt
Sternberg's (1986) vocabulary and apply this lexicon to a
consumer–object relationship. The method proposed here is an
attempt to circumvent these limitations.
2. Research methodology
Choosing a data collection tool represents an important
research step. A first data collection stage using semi-directed
interviews revealed that consumers poorly understand the
notion of love toward a brand and perhaps, for some, reject
this kind of love. For many consumers in France, love
represents a sacred feeling that cannot be felt toward a brand.
Therefore an innovative survey method is implemented to avoid
consumer reluctance or unfamiliarity with the concept.
2.1. Data collection procedures
The use of an Internet survey enables collecting data to
investigate the dimensions of love for a brand and this is
conducted in the French market. The diagram in Fig. 1 shows
the overall structure of the survey method applied in this
research.
The first step is designed to reveal subjects' opinions relative
to brands in general. Subjects then indicate 1 to 3 brands they
wish to discuss (step 2). For each brand, subjects select one
image among 19 possible ones. The chosen image symbolizes
their relationship with the brand (step 3.1) and they explain their
choice (step 3.2). The objective of this step is to identify the
relationship the consumer has with the brand. Subjects then
view three images (from the initial 19) that tentatively
symbolize love (images numbered 3, 9, and 16 and circled in
Fig. 2) and describe their perceptions of these images (step 3.3).
This step validates subjects' recognition of love as expressed by
these images. For subjects who chose an image symbolizing
love during step 3.1 and therefore potentially having a love
relationship with a brand, the meaning of that love relationship
is further investigated (those who did not choose one of these
symbols move to step 4.1, as indicated in Fig. 1). Specifically,
1064 N. Albert et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 1062–1075

they indicate if they feel the brand is “special”and justify their
perception (step 4.2.1), which elucidates the relationship
between the consumer and the brand without using the word
“love.”The following text then appears: “The choices you have
made suggest that you are really in love with [brand name]. Do
you agree with this statement?”Note that this point marks the
first time the survey explicitly uses the word “love.”Subjects
respond to this question (step 4.2.2) and justify their answer
(step 4.2.3). This method is based on the theory that consumers
who have a love relationship with a brand will choose an image
symbolizing love to represent and explain their relationship.
However, to guard against respondents who do not experience a
love relationship and may nevertheless select one of these
images, the final step in the methodology allows to distinguish
consumers who have from those who do not have a true love
relationship with brands.
The Internet is used as a data collection medium because it
enables the adaptation and personalization of the survey based
on subjects' responses (i.e., some questions appear only after
subjects select an image symbolizing love). This data collection
technique is also highly effective for communication with
respondents (e.g., reminding them of brand names they mention
or brand images they previously select).
With respect to sampling, an Internet snowball procedure is
used, in which the online link for the survey questionnaire is
sent to a list of direct contacts, together with a personal message
requesting that the recipients answer the survey and transmit the
link to others they know. This leads to the participation of 880
individuals and the selection of 843 fully completed ques-
tionnaires used for further analysis. Overall, 2340 observations
are obtained, and the mean number of brands cited by each
participant equals 2.77.
Fig. 1. Structure of Internet survey.
1065N. Albert et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 1062–1075

2.2. The use of projective images
A projective method is used, which exposes people to
different stimuli they are asked to describe. This method is
effective in encouraging subjects to project hidden opinions,
attitudes, or feelings about an object or situation. Projective
methods are appropriate when direct methods cannot acquire
the required information precisely or researchers need a better
understanding of the phenomenon (Malhotra, 2004). Consu-
mers may experience difficulty acknowledging or confessing
Fig. 2. Images submitted to respondents.
Fig. 3. Methodology.
1066 N. Albert et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 1062–1075

their love relationship with a brand, and projective methods that
avoid the use of the word “love”but offer possibilities to
express this feeling do not prejudice subjects' answers. In
addition, because this study is designed as exploratory, a
projective method should be effective in helping conceptualize
the concept of love for a brand.
The hybrid survey methodology used here employs both
quantitative (many respondents, close-ended questions) and
qualitative (production of text, exploratory) methods. This
helps circumvent two biases observed in previous research: (1)
the word “love”only appears at the very end of the data
collection procedure and does not bias subjects' responses, and
(2) the results are truly exploratory because no interpersonal
love theory is used to guide the development of data collection
procedures.
2.3. Analysis of data through correspondence analysis
Correspondence analysis provides a spatial representation of
qualitative profiles in a reduced Euclidean space. A simple
correspondence analysis (CA), a descriptive technique, can
analyze and depict the relationships between the row and
column profiles in a two-way table. In practice, the method
decomposes the overall chi-square statistic by identifying a
small number of dimensions to represent deviations from the
expected values. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA)
analyzes multi-way tables. Both forms are used in this research.
In a first stage, CA is used to study the connections between the
lexicons and the images singled out to represent the nature of
the relationship with the brand. The use of CA enables
understanding the structure of the lexicons used for brands for
which consumers have varying levels of love intensity. In a
second stage, for those respondents who express their love for a
particular brand, MCA is applied to estimate the coordinates in
a multidimensional space of the words that express the feeling
of love. Then the words are clustered through the use of cluster
analysis applied to their spatial coordinates, which is analogous
to the concomitant use of factor analysis and clustering for
quantitative variables. A method referred to as “de-doubling,”
such that each word appears twice (evoked or not evoked) in the
configuration is used to analyze the data. This procedure helps
guarantee equal weight for all words (Morineau et al., 1984).
3. Results
A validity check is initially realized in order to assess that the
association of images to brands is meaningful and that the
images that subjects select are associated with contrasting
lexicons. A manipulation check serves to verify that the images
selected to symbolize love actually represent symbols of love
for the consumers (and that the other images do not). The
dimensions of the concept of love toward a brand are then
uncovered. The different steps of the procedure appear in Fig. 3.
3.1. Manipulation checks
To confirm the validity of the procedure, the meanings
associated with the images selected to represent love are
verified. Although marketing experts did select these images, an
understanding of how consumers perceive the three images that
tentatively symbolized love is necessary. Study participants
(n= 843) indicate the feelings they experience when exposed to
each of the three “love”images and the frequencies of the words
used to describe each image are shown in Table 2. For example,
descriptions of image 3 include the following terms: complicity,
love, happiness, friendship, tenderness, couple, simplicity, trust,
togetherness, and joy. Because the distinction between love and
friendship is ambiguous, this image is treated as somewhat
vague. In contrast, image 9 communicates love in terms of
loyalty and commitment since respondents use words such as
Table 2
Twenty most frequently cited words describing the three images associated with love (number and percentage of citations in columns 2 and 3)
Image 3 Image 9 Image 16
Complicity 289 32.8% Love 175 19.9% Sensuality 152 17.3%
Love 116 13.2% Marriage 157 17.8% Passion 143 16.3%
Happiness 101 11.5% Happiness 109 12.4% Sex 86 9.8%
Tenderness 71 8.1% Commitment 98 11.1% Desire 83 9.4%
Couple 68 7.7% Life 51 5.8% Love 78 8.9%
Joy 55 6.3% Couple 41 4.7% Pleasure 70 8.0%
To be 50 5.7% Loyalty 40 4.5% Eroticism 39 4.4%
Friendship 26 30.0% Union 39 4.4% Couple 27 3.1%
Trust 24 2.7% Image 15 1.7% Sexuality 21 2.4%
Happy 23 2.6% Family 15 1.7% Hot 19 2.2%
Two 20 2.3% Trust 15 1.7% Image 14 1.6%
Pleasure 19 2.2% Beginning 14 1.6% Warmth 13 1.5%
Life 16 1.8% Two 14 1.6% Relationship 13 1.5%
Simplicity 16 1.8% Day 12 1.4% Perfume 12 1.4%
Amorous 12 1.4% Happy 12 1.4% Happiness 11 1.3%
Relationship 11 1.3% Joy 12 1.4% Intimacy 11 1.3%
Moment 10 1.1% Future 9 1.0% Carnal 10 1.1%
Meeting 9 1.0% History 9 1.0% Physical 10 1.1%
To live 10 1.1% Beautiful 8 0.9% Tenderness 10 1.1%
Good 9 1.0% Enduring 8 0.9% Two 8 0.9%
1067N. Albert et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 1062–1075

marriage, commitment, love, couple, confidence, and union to
describe it. Finally, the lexicon employed to describe image 16
relates to passion and desire, including words such as sensuality,
passion, sex, desire, love, pleasure, and eroticism. Therefore,
images 9 and 16 clearly reflect the concept of love described by
existing theories of love, and image 3 reflects both love and
friendship, though love appears to dominate.
Another manipulation check consists of performing a CA of
the 52 words that consumers use most frequently to justify the
choice of an image that represents their relationships to brands.
Conducted with 2340 observations (participant × brand chosen),
the analysis clearly shows differences in the words associated
with different clusters of images (Fig. 4). Five homogeneous
groups of images and associated words emerge from a
configurational analysis based solely on the first plane (Borg
and Lingoes, 1987): words associated with the three images
symbolizing love (group 1); consumers for whom the brand
communicates elegance and fashion (group 2); those who use
words linked to brand trust, reliability, and quality (group 3);
those for whom the brand relates to price (group 4); and
consumers for whom the brand indicates sports or a relaxed
atmosphere (group 5). Consumers who choose images symbol-
izing love tend to explain their choices with words closely
related to love. Therefore, they are aware that these images
represent the concept of a love relationship.
3.2. Uncovering the dimensions of love
3.2.1. Correspondence analysis
Two open-ended questions help to clarify the feeling of love
for a brand. The first (“Why is brand X so special to you?”)
avoids using the word love. The second question (“Why do you
have a real feeling of love for brand X?”) enriches the
consumers answers. Correspondence analysis (CA) enables
summarizing and visualizing the lexicons used by respondents
for each open-ended question.
Among the 2340 observations (843 participants citing 1, 2,
or 3 brands), 659 observations correspond to a chosen “love”
image for a brand. More than 50% of these observations
completely agree (15.3%) or agree (40.1%) that they are really
in love with their brands (30.8% rather disagree and 13.8%
completely disagree). Two CAs are conducted, one associating
the lexicons used to describe why the brand is “special”and the
four love groups described above (according to their degree of
agreement concerning a love relationship with the brand) and
the other associating the lexicons used to describe why
respondents may be in love with their brand and the similar
four love groups. The results of both CAs are similar (results for
the latter correspondence analysis appear in Fig. 5). Correspon-
dence analyses explain 51.07% (axis 1) and 34.69% (axis 2) of
the variance for the first association and 58.76% (axis 1) and
17.08% (axis 2) for the second.
The CAs also reveal differences in the vocabulary
employed by the four love groups. Of particular interest is
the unique position of participants who fully agree that they are
in love with their brand. They fall distant from the other groups
andaretheonlyonestousewordssuchaspleasure,dream,
personality, memories, number of years, always, attraction,
childhood, or family. This unique position calls for a better
understanding, as do the specific dimensions of the feeling of
love.
3.2.2. Tandem use of multiple correspondence analysis (MCA)
and cluster analysis
To uncover the dimensions of love, consumers who declared
they completely agree or rather agree they have a feeling of love
toward a brand (n= 365) are selec ted for further analysis.
Separate MCAs are conducted, one for the words used to express
why the brand is special, and another for the wording consumers
used to explain why they feel love toward the brand. In both
cases, according to a clear elbow displayed in a scree plot of the
eigenvalues, the MCAs lead to a solution with 22 dimensions
explaining more than 60% of total variance. As a result, each
word is described by a vector of coordinates on 22 dimensions
which enables to cluster analyze the words in an effort to
uncover grouping or dimensions (one cluster analysis is
conducted for each MCA result; see Figs. 6 and 7 for the
dendograms). For a better understanding, we incorporate the
product categories mentioned by the participants when describ-
ing their brands as supplementary points in the MCA analysis. In
this special case, the analysis employs “predictive mapping,”in
that meaningful associations among active variables (lexicons)
and external variables (product categories) are displayed.
Both cluster analyses reveal the existence of nine clusters that
enable uncovering the underlying dimensions of the love feeling
among consumers who either fully agree or rather agree they have
such a feeling toward their brand. However, these two categories of
agreeing respondents are distant one from the other. Consequently,
a focus is made on the “fully agree”category which best represents
the feeling of love. Product categories that are strongly associated
with the feeling of love include shoes, cars, lingerie, watches,
perfumes, food items, music, cigarettes, and furniture.
3.3. Main dimensions of love toward a brand
On the basis of the results of the two cluster analyses, previous
results obtained from the words associated with love images and
the results from the correspondence analyses, the dimensions of
love are named individually by each author. A simple process is
followed, in which concepts are associated to each of the 9
clusters in both cluster analyses, on the basis of the words grouped
together to form the clusters. Final concepts appearing in Fig. 6
result from discussion and agreement among the three judges.
Finally, all concepts that are related to the fully agree category are
selected as key dimensions of the feeling of love. The dendogram
in Fig. 6 (first cluster analysis) shows that the first seven clusters
(to which “fully agree”belongs) join together at a higher level,
whereas the two last clusters join together and are related to the
rather agree category. For the dendogram in Fig. 7 (second cluster
analysis), these groupings are six and three clusters, respectively.
Due to the exploratory nature of the research, the constructs
appearing at least once in the first groups of clusters (clusters
related to full agreement with a love relationship with the brand)
are retained as the dimensions of love.
1068 N. Albert et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 1062–1075

Fig. 4. Results of the correspondence analysis between images and associated lexicon.
1069N. Albert et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 1062–1075

Fig. 5. Results of the correspondence analysis for the expression of the feeling of love toward a brand.
1070 N. Albert et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 1062–1075

As a result of this analysis, 11 dimensions of love toward a
brand are identified:
•Passion (for the brand).
•Duration of the relationship (the relationship with the brand
exists for a long time).
•Self-congruity (congruity between self-image and product
image).
•Dreams (the brand favors consumer dreams).
•Memories (evoked by the brand).
•Pleasure (that the brand provides to the consumer).
•Attraction (feel toward the brand).
•Uniqueness (of the brand and/or of the relationship).
•Beauty (of the brand).
•Trust (the brand has never disappointed).
•Declaration of affect (feel toward the brand).
Fig. 6. Cluster analysis of the words used to explain why the brand is special for the consumers.
1071N. Albert et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 1062–1075

Other dimensions emerge but relate to consumers who rather
agree (vs. fully agree) that they have a love relationship with the
brand. The following dimensions therefore are not retained as
major dimensions of love:
•Functional perceptions (quality of the brand, good price).
•Commitment (will to maintain a relationship with the brand
in the future).
•Well-being (the brand makes the consumer feel good).
•Attachment.
The exploratory nature of this study does not enable an
identification of the number of dimensions necessary to infer the
existence of a love relationship. However, in all likelihood, not
all dimensions must be simultaneously present for a loving
consumer–brand relationship to exist. To examine these
dimensions more closely, they are compared to dimensions of
interpersonal love identified in the literature (Aron and Aron,
1986; Fehr and Russel, 1991; Hatfield, 1988; Hendrick and
Hendrick, 1989; Sternberg, 1986).
3.3.1. Passion
Often associated to the feeling of love (Hatfield, 1988; Lee,
1977; Sternberg, 1986), passion maintains different names,
such as eros (Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986; Lee, 1977)or
romantic love (Rubin, 1970). Passionate love is “a state of
Fig. 7. Cluster analysis of the words used to explain why consumers have a real feeling of love for a brand.
1072 N. Albert et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 1062–1075

intense longing for union with another”(Hatfield and Walster,
1978,p.9).
3.3.2. Duration of the relationship
The duration of the relationship is often linked to intimacy
which refers to in-depth knowledge about the partner,
generally as a result of time spent together (Ahuvia, 2005b;
Aron and Westbay, 1996; Fehr, 1988; Hendrick and Hendrick,
1989, 1992; Sternberg, 1986). This long-lasting relationship
suggests the existence of a feeling of satisfaction with its
established impact on duration of the relationship (Hendrick
et al., 1988).
3.3.3. Self-congruity
Several studies provide evidence that members of a couple
tend to be similar in terms of ethnic, social, or religious profile,
as well as their values, centers of interest, humor, or even
physical aesthetics or personality (Byrne et al., 1986; Cappella
and Palmer, 1990; Galton, 1984; Rushton, 1989). The concept
of self-congruity is of similar nature since the notion indicates
congruity between the self-image of the consumer and product
image (Sirgy, 1985). Love with the brand may be driven by both
self-consistency motives and self-esteem motives.
3.3.4. Dreams
Consumers in love reveal that they dream about the brand or
that the brand favors their dreams, which indicates the dominant
presence of the brand in their thoughts. In interpersonal
relationships, a clear link exists between loving and thinking of
the partner; constant thinking about a partner is a good indicator of
future love (Shea and Adams, 1984,qtd.inAhuvia, 1993). The
synthesis of the love prototype (Ahuvia, 2005b) also integrates
thinking of the partner as an antecedent of love, though this
antecedent does not disappear after the relationship begins.
Finally, research shows that interpersonal love is linked with
positive emotions (Fehr and Russel, 1991), and dreaming of the
brand can represent a manifestation of these positive emotions.
3.3.5. Memories
A brand may remind consumers of certain important and
positive memories and link to sentiments of nostalgia (accord-
ing to expressions of words such as history, childhood, or first).
This specific characteristic of love suggests a non-interpersonal
context, because this concept has not been addressed in current
interpersonal theories of love.
3.3.6. Pleasure
Fehr and Russel (1991) show that love is linked to positive
emotions, including pleasure, and that pleasure fosters affec-
tionate love (Hatfield, 1988). In the case of love toward a brand,
pleasure has a positive influence on the duration of the
relationship.
3.3.7. Attraction
A dimension of interpersonal love, attraction is “an
orientation toward or away from a person that may be described
as having a value (positive, neutral or negative). The orientation
consists of a cognitive structure of beliefs and knowledge about
the person, affect felt and expressed toward him or her, and
behavioral tendencies to approach or avoid that person”
(Hendrick and Hendrick, 1992, p.23).
3.3.8. Uniqueness
Respondents indicate that their preferred brand is different or
unique, which may relate to the feeling of idealization often
mentioned in interpersonal love theories (Murray and Holmes,
1993; Murray et al., 1996; Sternberg and Barnes, 1985). Lovers
often consider their partners unique or different.
3.3.9. Beauty
Beauty is a determinant of love relationships (Walster et al.,
1966). Beauty plays a role both in favoring a relationship and
maintaining the relation in the long term (Hatfield and Sprecher,
1995; Sangrador and Yela, 2000).
3.3.10. Trust
Consumers in love seem to declare they have never been
disappointed and express their satisfaction with the brand, which
is in line with Hendrick et al. (1988) who provide insights into
the link between satisfaction and specific styles of love (i.e., eros
and agape). Trust is also a key dimension revealed in studies of
prototypical love (Fehr, 1988; Aron and Westbay, 1996).
3.3.11. Declaration of affect
The fact of declaring love or deep sentiments before or after
the love relationship takes place is reported in research on the
feeling of love (Vincent, 2004). This dimension “declaration of
affect”is named rather than “declaration of love”because many
different words are employed by the consumers to express their
love relationship toward brands: adore, amorous, love,
appreciate, or like.
Concerning the dimensions that are not associated to the love
feeling (the dimensions only related to the category “rather agree”),
some appear in the interpersonal love literature such as
commitment (Fehr, 1988; Sternberg, 1986), well-being (Kim and
Hatfield, 2004), and attachment (Fehr, 1988). Attachment and
commitment are also well-known and important concepts in
research on brand/consumer relationships (Garbarino and Johnson,
1999; Thomson et al., 2005), but they are not directly related to a
feeling of love toward the brand. This research being exploratory in
nature, the lack of relationships between these dimensions and the
overall feeling of love needs further investigation.
4. Discussion and conclusion
The dimensions of love toward a brand, as found with French
consumers declaring a love relationship with a brand are
compared with the results from previous research conducted in
the United States. This comparison should enhance the external
validity of the construct and may point to the possible influence
of culture.
Several dimensions of love toward a brand found among
French consumers also appear in U.S. studies. Two dimensions
are explicitly shared by both cultures: passion (Ahuvia, 2005b;
1073N. Albert et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 1062–1075

Caroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Fournier, 1998; Whang et al., 2004)and
pleasure (Ahuvia, 1993, 2005b). In addition, three other French
dimensions are linked to American ones, specifically dream,
declaration of affect, and duration of the relationship. The dream
dimension relates to the “fixated thought”concept (Ahuvia,
2005b) as well as to positive emotions toward a brand (Caroll and
Ahuvia, 2006). Declaration of affect appears in both cultures but
with possibly different intensity: the word “love”is explicitly
employed in the U.S. (declaration of love) whereas French
consumers rather use “adore”or “like”when talking about the
loved brand. The French duration dimension also appears to relate
to the concepts of intimacy that appear in several American
studies (Ahuvia, 1993, 2005b). Beauty, attraction, uniqueness and
self-congruity also appear in Ahuvia (1993).However,the
comparison with Ahuvia's study (1993) is not straightforward
since this study encompasses love relationships linked to a
number of objects including places, ideas, music pieces and
brands. It may be that some of the dimensions of love are activated
for only certain types of objects (Ahuvia, 1993).
Many differences also exist between French and U.S.
participants. The memory and trust dimensions do not appear
in U.S. studies but are clear in France, as evidenced by the
respondents' use of words such as memories, childhood,
images, or history (for memory) and of words of trust and
loyalty (for trust). Attachment is cited in one U.S. study (Caroll
and Ahuvia, 2006). The dimension appears in only one of the
MCAs and attachment is linked to the category “rather agree”
which explains why the concept is not retained in this study.
Consumers using the term admit they are only attached to the
brand and therefore not really in love with the brand. Finally, a
distinction between possessive love and altruistic love is not
uncovered here, as suggested by Whang et al. (2004).
This research reconsiders the concept of consumers' love for
a brand outside the “silo”of U.S.-based research (Steenkamp,
2005). Because love and the expression of love are culturally
grounded, this relatively new concept of love toward brands is
tested in a cultural and consumption context other than that of
the United States. In France, the concept of love toward a brand
does not fit with theories that define this feeling as a person's
psychological state (Aron and Aron, 1986; see also Tennov,
1979 with regard to interpersonal relationships; see Ahuvia,
1993, for non-interpersonal relationships). Rather, the French
conception more closely matches research streams that
conceptualize love as a set of characteristics and dimensions
(Rubin, 1970; Sternberg, 1986, for interpersonal relationships;
Caroll and Ahuvia, 2006, for non-interpersonal relationships).
The approach in this research further differs from the
American perspective because it employs an exploratory
method rather than applying a selected interpersonal theory of
love to the marketing field. The results demonstrate that
dimensions of love toward a brand among French consumers
align with main dimensions identified in several interpersonal
studies (Hatfield, 1988; Rubin, 1970; Sternberg, 1986), which
does not seem to be the case for most American findings.
This exploratory study suggests several extensions for further
research. Firstly, researchers could use this study as a first step to
develop a measurement scale of the concept of love toward a
brand, which would enable identifying both brands and product
categories that might benefit from such a consumer–brand
relationship, as well as consumer groups who are willing or eager
to develop love-based relationships. The results of the MCAs
indicate that consumers may treat product categories differently in
terms of their ability to generate love feelings. A formal study of
this phenomenon should help practitioners develop specific
marketing programs toward consumer segments open to love
relationships. Practitioners as well as researchers could also
investigate the reasons underlying the fact that some product
categories are more likely than others to enable the building up of
love relationships between brands and consumers. Such studies
could also givenew insights and provide a better understanding of
key concepts activated within specific brand communities within
which brand–consumer relationships and brand love relation-
ships might be particularly strong.
Secondly, a measurement scale will result in a better
understanding, both theoretically and empirically, of the love
concept in relation to a brand, compared to other constructs
widely applied in the consumer behavior or consumer
psychology literature and probably linked to love (e.g.,
attachment, commitment, trust). In particular, future research
should distinguish productively between affectionate love and
attachment (Fisher, 2006). Thirdly, both academics (Caroll and
Ahuvia, 2006; Fournier, 1998; Whang et al., 2004)and
practitioners (Roberts, 2004, 2006) emphasize the managerial
importance of the feeling of love toward a brand. Therefore,
additional research should propose and test a conceptual model
to assess the influence of the feeling of love on dependent
attitudinal and behavioral variables, such as brand loyalty,
resistance to change, or positive word of mouth.
Finally, the exploratory nature of this research does not enable
clarifying the relationships among the different dimensions of the
feeling of love. Which are the most important dimensions for love
to be strong? Are these levels of importancestable, or dothey vary
with categories or brands? Within that vein of interrogations,
fruitful investigations should rely on longitudinal surveys in order
to delineate specific love trajectories (i.e. are there some love
dimensions more fluctuant than others?). In addition, are there
minimum levels on these dimensions to achieve the love status?
What possible co-occurrences or correlations exist among these
dimensions? Could there be a second-order structure? Are there
important differences between consumer groups, and what
explains these differences? Ultimately, the application of non-
linear models may be interesting, such as those relied on within the
catastrophe theory framework, in order to get a finer understanding
of relationships between love towards a brand and some possible
determinants or consequences such as loyalty. Such questions
require further exploration to providea better understanding of the
feeling of love toward brands. Quantitative analyses of the feeling
of love toward brands represent a necessary next step.
References
Aaker JL. Dimensions of brand personality. J Mark 1997;34(3):347–56.
Ahuvia AC. I love it! Towards an unifying theory of love across divers love
objects. Doctoral dissertation. Northwestern University; 1993.
1074 N. Albert et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 1062–1075

Ahuvia AC. Beyond the extended self: love objects and consumer's identity
narratives. J Consum Res 2005a;32:171–84 [June].
Ahuvia AC. The love prototype revisited: a qualitative exploration of
contemporary folk psychology. Working Paper. University of Michigan-
Dearborn; 2005b.
Aron A, Aron EN. Love as the expansion of self: understanding attraction and
satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere; 1986.
Aron A, Aron EN, Tudor M, Nelson GN. “Close relationships as including other
in the self”. J Pers Soc Psychol 1991;60:241–53.
Aron A, Aron EN. Love and expansion of the self: the state of the model. Pers
Relatsh 1996;3:45–58.
Aron A, Westbay L. Dimensions of the prototype of love. J Pers Soc Psychol
1996;70:535–51.
Beall AE, Sternberg RJ. The social construction of love. J Soc Pers Relatsh
1995;12:417–38.
Borg I, Lingoes JC. Multidimensional similarity structure analysis. New York:
Springer-Verlag; 1987.
Byrne D, Clore GL, Smeaton G. The attraction hypothesis: do similar attitudes
affect anything? J Pers Soc Psycho 1986;51:1167–70.
Cappella JN, Palmer MT. Attitude similarity, relational history and attraction:
the mediating effects of kinesic and vocal behaviours. Commun Monogr
1990;57:161–83.
Caroll BA, Ahuvia AC. Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Mark
Lett 2006;17:79–89.
Chaudhuri A, Holbrook MB. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand
affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J Mark 2001;2:91–3.
Deschamps J-C, Carmino L, Neto F. Différences entre les conceptions des
relations amoureuses d'etudiants(tes) Brésiliens(nes) et Suisses. Cah Int
Psychol Soc 1997;36:11–27.
Fehr B. Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. J Pers Soc
Psychol 1988;55:557–79.
Fehr B, Russel JA. The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective.
J Pers Soc Psychol 1991;60:425–38.
Fisher HE. Pourquoi nous aimions? Paris, France: Ed. Robert Laffont; 2006.
Fournier S. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in
consumer research. J Consum Res 1998;24:343–73 [March].
Galton F. The measurement of character. Fortn Rev 1984;36:179–85.
Garbarino E, Johnson MS. The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
commitment in customer relationships. J Mark 1999;63:70–87 [April].
Hatfield EC. Passionate and companionate love. In: Sternberg RJ, Barnes ML,
editors. The psychology of love. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press;
1988. p. 191–217.
Hatfield E, Walster E. A new look at love. Lantham, MA: University Press of
America; 1978.
Hatfield E, Rapson RL. Passionate love: new directions in research. In: Jones
WH, Perlman D, editors. Advances in Personal Relationships, 1. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press Inc.; 1987. p. 109–39.
Hatfield E, Sprecher S. Men's and women's preferences in marital partners in
the United States, Russia, and Japan. J Cross-Cult Psychol 1995;26
(6):729–50.
Hendrick C, Hendrick SS. A theory and method of love. J Pers Soc Psychol
1986;50:392–402.
Hendrick C, Hendrick SS. Research on love: does it measure up? J Pers So
Psychol 1989;56(5):784–94.
Hendrick C, Hendrick S. Romantic love. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1992.
Hendrick S, Hendrick C, Adler NL. Romantic relationship: love, satisfaction
and staying together. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988;54(6):980–8.
Jacoby J, Chestnut RTW. Brand loyalty: measurement and management. New
York: Ronald Press; 1978.
Lee JA. A typology of styles of loving. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1977;3:173–82.
Luby B, Aron A. A prototype structuring of love, like, and being in-love. paper
presented at the International Conference on Personal Relationships.
Oxford: England; 1990.
Kapferer J-N, Laurent G. La sensibilité à la marque. Paris: Ed. d'Organisation;
1992.
Kim J, Hatfield E. Love types and subjective well being: a cross cultural study.
Soc Behav Pers 2004;32(2):173–82.
Malhotra, N. (2004). Basic marketing research with SPSS 13.0, 2d ed. Pearson
International Edition.
Morineau A, Lebart L, Warwick K. Multivariate descriptive statistical analysis
and related techniques for large matrices. New York: John Wiley & Sons;
1984.
Murray SL, Holmes JG. Seeing virtues in faults: negativity and the
transformation of interpersonal narratives in close relationships. J Pers Soc
Psychol 1993;65:707–22.
Murray SL, Holmes JG, Griffin DW. The benefits of positive illusions:
idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. J Pers
Soc Psychol 1996;70(1):79–98.
Regan PC, Kocan ER, Whitlock T. Ain't love grand! A prototype analysis of the
concept of romantic love. J Soc Pers Relatsh 1998;15:411–20.
Roberts K. Lovemarks-Pour l'amour des marques. Paris: Editions d'Organisa-
tion; 2004.
Roberts K. The lovemarks effect: winning in the consumer revolution.
PowerHouse Books; 2006.
Rubin Z. Measurement of romantic love. J Pers Soc Psychol 1970;16
(2):265–73.
Rushton PJ. Epigenesis and social preference. Behav Brain Sci 1989;12:31–2.
Samuelsen B, Sandvik K. Effects of customer state of commitment to service
providers. In Proceedings of the 27th EMAC Conference, vol. 1. 1998.
p. 345–50.
Sangrador JL, Yela C. “What is beautiful is loved:physical attractiveness in love
relationship in a representative sample,”Soc Behav Pers 2000;28
(3):207–18.
Shea JA, Adams GR. Correlates of romantic attachment: a path analysis study.
J Youth Adolesc 1984;13:27–44.
Shimp TA, Madden TJ. Consumer–object relations: a conceptual framework
based analogously on Sternberg's triangular theory of love. Adv Consum
Res 1988;15:163–8.
Sirgy MJ. Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase
motivation. J Bus Res 1985;13:195–206.
Steenkamp J-B. Moving out of the U.S silo: a call to arms for conducting
international marketing research. J Mark, 69 2005;3:6–8.
Sternberg RJ. A triangular theory of love. Psychol Rev 1986;93(2):119–35.
Sternberg RJ. Construct validation of a triangular love scale. Eur J Soc Psychol
1997;27:313–35.
Sternberg RJ, Barnes ML. Real and ideal others in romantic relationships: is four
a crowd? J Pers Soc Psychol 1985;49(6):1586–608.
Tennov D. Love and limerence. New York: Stein & Day; 1979.
Thomson M, MacInnis DJ, Whan Park C. The ties that bind: measuring the
strength of consumers' emotional attachment to brands. J Consum Psychol
2005;15(1):77–91.
Vincent L. Comment devient-on amoureux? Paris: Odile Jacob; 2004.
Walster E, Aronson V, Abrahams D, Rottmann L. Importance of physical
attractiveness in dating behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 1966;5:508–16.
Whang Y-O, Allen J, Sahoury N, Zhang H. Falling in love with a product: the
structure of a romantic consumer–product relationship. Adv Consum Res
2004;31:320–7.
1075N. Albert et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 1062–1075