The effect of brand authenticity on

consumer–brand relationships
Hyunjoo Oh
Department of Marketing, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA, and
Paulo Henrique Muller Prado, Jose Carlos Korelo and Francielle Frizzo
Department of Business Administration, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the impact of brand authenticity on forming self-reinforcing assets (enticing-the-self, enriching-the-self and
enabling-the-self), which subsequently influence the brand-self connectedness and consumers’ behavioral intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors surveyed 347 consumers in the USA and Brazil and used structural equation modeling to test the
relationship among brand authenticity, self-reinforcing assets, brand-self connectedness and behavioral intentions.
Findings – Brand authenticity was found to influence the self-reinforcing assets. In turn, the self-reinforcing assets promoted closeness toward the brand,
thereby increasing the behavioral intentions of consumers to buy a product, visit a store/website in the future and recommend the brand to other people.
Practical implications – Marketing practitioners can use these results to promote better brand positioning by considering brand authenticity as a
key factor in how consumers cognitively assess brands.
Originality/value – This paper shows that brand authenticity is a key antecedent of consumer–brand self-reinforcing assets.
Keywords Brand authenticity, Brand-self connectedness, Consumers’ behavioral intentions, Self-reinforcing assets
Paper type Research paper

Introduction brand authenticity as a key determinant of the 3Es self-

reinforcing assets (enticing-the-self, enriching-the-self and
In the postmodern market, characterized by uncertainty, enabling-the-self) described by Park et al. (2013). Park et al.’s
pluralism and excessive consumption, consumers are exposed (2013) attachment–aversion (AA) relationship model
to a flood of products and brands in their everyday purchasing explains how these types of brand assets build the consumer–
experiences. In such excessive brand proliferation, creating and brand relationship. Some brands help consumers obtain
maintaining strong relationships with consumers is one of the aesthetic or sensory pleasure: enticing-the-self. Other brands
major challenges in strategic brand management. One way to enable consumers to control their environment by creating a
strengthen consumer–brand relationships is to associate brand- sense of an efficacious and capable self: enabling-the-self.
specific characteristics with consumers’ aspirations, thereby Some brands offer enrichment of self through the
strengthening brand identities. In this process, authenticity is symbolic communication of values that resonate with
an essential human aspiration (Bruhn et al., 2012) and has consumers: enriching-the-self. In their model, the extent to
become an increasingly desirable characteristic in a brand which a brand possesses these 3Es assets promotes self-brand
(Beverland and Farrelly, 2010). Defined in terms of what is connectedness and consequently increases consumers’
genuine, real and true (Newman and Dhar, 2014), brand behavioral intentions toward the brand.
authenticity not only is a decision-making criterion that guides Although Park et al.’s (2013) AA relationship model
consumers’ choice of brands but also helps consumers define delineates important internal mechanisms that develop self-
and construct who they are by expressing their authentic selves brand relationship, the lack of specificity regarding marketing
(Arnould and Price, 2000; Beverland and Farrelly, 2010; Liao activities has been criticized (Schmitt, 2013). In particular,
and Ma, 2009; Morhart et al., 2015). Consumers’ increasing Schmitt (2013) criticizes that the psychological model of
desire for authenticity in products, brands and experiences internal constructs and processes neither specifically predict the
highlights the importance of understanding the role of brand determinants of the relationship nor specify the brand
authenticity in developing consumer–brand relationships. components that stimulate self-reinforcement. He argues that it
Seeking to shed light on how brand authenticity influences is important to identify which aspect of brand is set to
consumer–brand relationships, the present study aims to test
The authors would like to thank Professor Elder Semprebon of Universidade
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Federal do Paraná and Professor Juliana Medeiros of Pontifícia
Universidade Cat
olica do Paraná for their assistance with data collection.
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
The authors contributed equally to this work.

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Received 9 September 2017
28/2 (2019) 231–241 Revised 5 February 2018
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] 10 March 2018
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-09-2017-1567] Accepted 12 March 2018

231
 The effect of brand authenticity Journal of Product & Brand Management
Hyunjoo Oh et al. Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 231–241

determine self-brand relationships (Schmitt, 2013). Batra et al. choosing products with multiple styles, performance and
(2012) also emphasized that research effort on consumer– symbolic benefits. Moreover, brand authenticity is important in
brand relationships should be directed to understand how evaluation of such product categories for which a product’s
consumers experience brand stimuli in developing a value is not tightly related to objective and observable features
relationship with brands. Considering that consumers achieve (Newman, 2016).
their self-relevant goals through brand choices, understanding This paper has the following structure. First, we introduce a
both the antecedents and consequences of these three brand conceptual review on brand authenticity and its effects on
assets for self-enforcement will provide valuable insights into consumer – brand relationships along with related hypotheses.
strategies for developing self-brand relationships. Second, we present our methods of collecting and analyzing
To better identify which brand aspects determine self-brand our data. Finally, we discuss the results, implications and
relationships, we advance on consumer–brand relationship limitations of the study.
literature by making three major contributions. First, this
research extends the AA model (Park et al., 2013) by Literature review
integrating brand authenticity as an antecedent that determines
whether a brand entices, enriches or enables the self. To our Brand authenticity
knowledge, this is the first study that examines the impact of Brand authenticity is emerging as a key determinant in consumer–
brand authenticity on self-reinforcing brand assets. In doing so, brand relationships. Both researchers and practitioners seem to
we demonstrate the respective contribution of each asset agree that authenticity is the critical element of contemporary
(enticing-the-self, enriching-the-self and enabling-the-self) on marketing that determines a brand’s success (Brown et al., 2003;
the brand-self connectedness and consumers’ behavioral Bruhn et al., 2012). Gilmore and Pine (2007, p. 5) recognized this
intentions. Second, this research contributes to the literature on movement by stating that, “authenticity has overtaken quality as
brand authenticity, demonstrating the mediating mechanisms the prevailing purchasing criterion, just as quality overtook cost,
through which brand authenticity influence consumers’ and as cost overtook availability.” Supporting their claim, recent
behavioral intentions. The brand authenticity literature studies have demonstrated that brands perceived as authentic: are
demonstrates that brand authenticity has a positive effect on more commercially successful (Napoli et al., 2014), have an
consumer responses (Napoli et al., 2014; Schallehn et al., 2014; increased brand trust (Schallehn et al., 2014; Moulard et al.,
Morhart et al., 2015; Moulard et al., 2016; Fritz et al., 2017). 2016), have a heightened emotional customer-brand attachment
Building on this literature, the present study clarifies how and greater word-of-mouth appeal (Morhart et al., 2015), are
consumers process brand authenticity according to their goals more likely to be seen as a choice brand and could charge higher
and desires for creating and maintaining a true self. Finally, this premiums that customers would be willing to pay (Napoli et al.,
research helps marketing managers understand the value of 2014; Fritz et al., 2017).
brand authenticity in the postmodern market and its role as a Although the definition of authenticity is diverse and involves
key determinant in consumer–brand relationships. various research disciplines, in the marketing literature two
As shown in our conceptual framework (Figure 1), we tested investigation streams are emphasized. One approach stresses
the brand authenticity in the model of consumer–brand objective dimensions from the brand management perspective
relationship (Park et al., 2013) as determinant of the three types as a source of information for consumers judge the brand
of self-reinforcing assets (enticing-the-self, enabling-the-self authenticity (Grayson and Martinec, 2004; Beverland, 2006).
and enriching-the-self), which subsequently influence the With this approach, for example, Brown et al. (2003) state that
brand-self connectedness and consumers’ behavioral intentions brands with a sense of history and connection with traditional
(e.g. buying a product, visiting a store/website in the future and cultures, regions and core beliefs obtain a distinctive identity
recommending the brand to other people). Our model was that can add to its authenticity. Beverland (2006) argues that
tested in a selected domain, the fashion industry. This segment brands seeking authenticity as a fundamental element of their
is of interest because of its characteristics, which encompass the identity can acquire a genuine aura of authenticity by
evaluation of three types of self-reinforcing brand assets when maintaining its traditions, striving for excellence in production

Figure 1 Proposed theoretical framework

Enticing the
Self

Authenticity Enriching the Brand-Self Behavioral

Self connectedness Intention

Enabling the
Self

232
 The effect of brand authenticity Journal of Product & Brand Management
Hyunjoo Oh et al. Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 231–241

methods and avoiding commercial appeals. Moulard et al. 2000; Beverland and Farrelly, 2010). In fact, the multiplicity in
(2016) also advocate the idea that is the intrinsic motivation of authenticity dimensions is the by-product of the verification
the brand managers and the passion for their products – not the process where individuals rely on different self-relevant cues to
brand’s commercial motivations – that make an authentic evaluate truth and essence in a brand in different situations
brand. (Beverland and Farrelly, 2010; Newman, 2016).
Another approach emphasizes subjective, contextualized and Therefore, we treat authenticity as a higher-order construct that
socially constructed nature of authenticity taking the consumer represents the consumer’s construction of authenticity, which is
perspective (Grazian, 2003; Leigh et al., 2006; Napoli et al., based on four dimensions: heritage, quality commitment,
2014). Within this view, authenticity is constructed as being originality and sincerity. Those four dimensions encompass the
influenced by consumers’ interpretation, knowledge, interest broad range of brand authenticity measurement literature,
and personal tastes (Grazian, 2003). Researchers have shown emphasizing self-relevant factors which normally differ across
that even the distinction between authentic and inauthentic is brands. In contrast to a historical view focused on the past, the
not objective but subjective and socially constructed (Leigh heritage dimension is characterized by incorporating elements of
et al., 2006). As authenticity is perceived through a series of brand history into future contexts (Urde et al., 2007; Napoli et al.,
cues in the market (Grazian, 2003), the construction of an 2014). It is similar to the concept of continuity proposed by Bruhn
authentic brand depends on how customers evaluate et al. (2012), Schallehn et al. (2014), and Morhart et al. (2015).
genuineness (Napoli et al., 2014). Bruhn et al. (2012) highlight Quality commitment represents commitment to a brand’s
that the brand authenticity is related not only to the inherent standards. A sense of quality is central for the perceptions of brand
attributes of the brand but also to the evaluations of individual authenticity, as it must reflect the standards that made the brand
consumers. As there is no single definition on the concept of (Napoli et al., 2014). Similarly, Bruhn et al. (2012) proposed a
authenticity across all consumers, brand authenticity reliability dimension. Morhart et al. (2015) also suggested the
corresponds to a variety of attributes and dimensions. element of credibility is present in authenticity, as customers
Considering the approaches highlighted above, more recent consider the brand’s capability of delivering what it promises. The
studies have explored the operationalization of brand originality dimension reflects a brand’s uniqueness and ability to
authenticity, developing scales and identifying the factors that differentiate itself from all other brands (Bruhn et al., 2012; Akbar
define its structural dimensions. Bruhn et al. (2012) presented a and Wymer, 2017). The sincerity dimension relates to how well a
scale where authenticity consisted of a set of four dimensions, brand remains grounded in its established brand values and what
namely, continuity, originality, reliability and naturalness. the brand originally stood for (Napoli et al., 2014). Assuming that
Spiggle et al. (2012) developed a scale to measure the concept consumers base their authenticity judgments on self-relevant
of brand extension authenticity and captured four distinct dimensions, a second-order construct allows variations regarding
dimensions: maintaining brand styles and standards, honoring importance and salience across individuals, products, brands and
the brand heritage, preserving brand essence and avoiding contexts.
brand exploitation. Napoli et al. (2014) reported three
components constituting consumer-based brand authenticity, Behavioral consequence of brand authenticity
namely, quality commitment, heritage and sincerity. Schallehn Brand authenticity represents a value proposition to consumers
et al. (2014) presented a model with three antecedents to who seek meaning and true self. Specially, the desire for
authenticity: consistency, continuity and individuality of a brand. authenticity has been escalated in a commercialized world
Morhart et al. (2015) developed a scale measuring consumers’ flooded with undistinguishable products and brands (Arnould
perceived brand authenticity, which captured four dimensions: and Price, 2000; Beverland and Farrelly, 2010). Consumers
credibility, integrity, symbolism and continuity. Moulard et al. aspire for authenticity in their lives through the products and
(2016) proposed a model with four antecedents of brand brands they consume (Bruhn et al., 2012). Reflecting the
authenticity: uniqueness, scarcity (related to rare brand aspirational value added to authenticity, prior research has shown
behaviors), longevity and longitudinal consistency (related to that brand authenticity positively influences consumer responses
stable brand behaviors). Akbar and Wymer (2017) refined the
to brands (Napoli et al., 2014; Morhart et al., 2015). Both
fragmented literature and introduced a two-dimensional
symbolic and emotional attachment is higher with brands that are
conceptualization of the construct: originality and genuineness.
perceived to have an authentic image (Ballantyne, et al., 2006). If
The most recent work presented by Fritz et al. (2017)
a brand perceived as authentic is evaluated more positively, then
demonstrated that brand authenticity can be influenced by
such perception of brand authenticity should positively influence
variables such as: brand heritage, brand nostalgia, brand
consumers’ behavioral intentions toward the brand, in terms of
commercialization, brand clarity, brand’s social commitment,
visiting a store/website in the future, buying a product and
brand legitimacy, actual self-congruence and employee’s passion.
recommending the brand to other people. Thus, we expect:
These empirical studies, although sharing some similarities,
have shown no consensus in defining the dimensional structure H1. Brand authenticity has a positive effect on consumers’
of authenticity, reinforcing Cohen’s (1988) view that behavioral intentions.
authenticity is a fluid construct that can manifest itself in
different ways for different types of products or brands. Also,
the findings on various authenticity dimensions confirm the Mediating mechanisms: self-enforcement and self-brand
view that authenticity depends on individuals who evaluate an connectedness
object or a brand, how they define it and what particular cues of Brands play an important role in establishing self-identity as
the situation are used in its assessment (Arnould and Price, people consume brands as extension or expansion of self

233
 The effect of brand authenticity Journal of Product & Brand Management
Hyunjoo Oh et al. Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 231–241

(Fournier, 1998; Park et al., 2013). Previous studies indicate H2c. Brand authenticity has a positive effect on enabling-the-
that consumers build their self-identity and present themselves self.
to others through their brand choices based on the congruence
between brand image and self-image (Escalas and Bettman, As the 3Es (enticing, enriching enabling-the-self) serve
2003, 2005). Through these brand choices, consumers consumers’ personally relevant and meaningful self-identity,
purposefully link the meaning of brands with self-identity they contribute to the self-brand relationship. In the AA
(Arnould and Price, 2000). For those brands that assist the relationships model, Park et al. (2013) denote that consumers
achievement of self-extension and self-expansion goals, who are motivated to approach a brand in a way to reinforce
consumers develop a close brand relationship or attachment. In their identities incorporate self-relevant features and
the process of developing consumer–brand relationships, characteristics of the brand into the self. In doing so, consumers
perceptions of brand authenticity reinforce a self-identity feel close to the brand as they perceive the brand as a means of
personally important to consumers. expanding the self. As a result, consumers develop brand
What brands possess to reinforce self-identity become attachment. If consumers see the brand as a threat to the self,
important brand assets. The self-reinforcing brand assets they feel distant from it, leading to brand aversion. Park et al.
(enticing-the-self, enriching and enabling-the-self) exert (2013) posit that attachment and aversion represent opposite
different functions, as they help consumers achieve different ends of the continuum in a relationship and is influenced by the
brand assets. They propose that self-brand connectedness (self-
goals (Park et al., 2013). The first, called enticing-the-self,
brand distance) and brand prominence as two constructs that
reinforces the consumer’s self through hedonic and pleasurable
represent the AA relationship.
benefits. As consumers are motivated to have hedonic pleasure
We focus on self-brand connected as a construct of self-brand
through consumption (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982),
relationship. Similar to self-brand connectedness (distance)
consumers develop close relationships with brands that evoke
proposed in the AA model (Park et al., 2013), we define self-
any combination of sensory pleasure (visual, auditory,
brand connectedness as the perceived connectedness (distance)
gustatory, tactile, olfactory, thermal and/or synesthetic) or
that the self feels about a brand. The self-brand connectedness
aesthetic pleasure (design of a product) (Park et al., 2013).
is a continuum ranging from feeling distant and disconnected to
The second, named enriching-the-self, reinforces the self
a brand on a negative end to feeling close and connected to
through symbolic benefits from representing the past, present
brand in a positive end. Given the assumption that self-
and future ideal self (Park et al., 2013). The brands serve as an
reinforcing aspects (enticing, enriching and enabling-the-self)
anchor to symbolically represent a core of the past self,
have a positive impact on brand-self connectedness, we propose
providing a basis from which current selves are viewed, and
the following hypotheses. In addition, we propose that self-
future selves are framed (Park et al., 2006). Also, they can
brand connectedness further positively influences consumers’
enrich the self by symbolically representing the current “I,”
behavioral intentions toward the brand:
reflecting what one is and what one believes (Park et al., 2013).
Thus, the brands that enrich the core values in constructing H3a. Enticing-the-self has a positive effect on brand-self
self-identity lead to higher levels of brand attachment. The last, connectedness.
called enabling-the-self, acts through functional benefits.
Functional or utilitarian aspects are seen merely as a means to H3b. Enriching-the-self has a positive effect on brand-self
reach an end, derived from functions performed by the product connectedness.
(Grewal et al., 2004). Thus, a brand enables the self when it
H3c. Enabling-the-self has a positive effect on brand-self
creates a sense of an effective and capable self through the
connectedness.
performance of products and services. The brand that reliably
performs the task helps consumers approach their desired goal, H4. Brand-self connectedness has a positive effect on
leading to a close consumer–brand relationship (Park et al., consumers’ behavioral intentions.
2013).
As brand assets of enticing, enabling and enriching-the-self all
satisfy core self-relevant goals, brands with authenticity will Method
reinforce each of these brand assets. Consumers are motivated to
Data collection and sample
approach commercial objects by treating them as experiences,
To test the proposed hypotheses, we conducted surveys in the
brands and events that convey authenticity (Beverland and
USA and Brazil. The sample was composed according to
Farrelly, 2010). In doing so, consumers actively seek out
accessibility of participants in those countries and consisted of
authenticity in brands to help them convey their authentic self,
347 consumers, 186 in the USA and 161 in Brazil. The average
thus appropriating authenticity to construct true self-identity
age of the respondents in the USA was 24.6 years (60.8 per cent
(Arnould and Price, 2000). Authenticity can reinforce the brand
females) and 25.4 years (58.9 per cent females) in Brazil. The
functions of enticing, enriching or enabling-the-self. Based on
surveys were conducted between October and November of
this rationale, we hypothesize:
2014. The data were collected through online and paper
H2a. Brand authenticity has a positive effect on enticing-the- questionnaires. Invitations to participate in the online survey
self. were sent via e-mail and social networks.
The questionnaire followed the order of the variables tested
H2b. Brand authenticity has a positive effect on enriching- in our model. First, respondents were asked to write their
the-self. “favorite brand” of clothing, shoes or accessories to activate a

234
 The effect of brand authenticity Journal of Product & Brand Management
Hyunjoo Oh et al. Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 231–241

mind-set on brand’s cognition. Second, they assessed brand’s “very close” and “disconnected” to “connected.” The items for
authenticity dimensions, brand’s self-reinforcing assets, brand’s the consumers’ behavioral intentions (a = 0.87) were adapted
self-connectedness (our key mediators) and consumers’ behavioral from Dodds et al. (1991) and Price and Arnould (1999) and
intentions as dependent variable. Finally, they responded the measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = “probably not,”
control and sample measurements. 7 = “definitely yes”).
The fashion industry was selected because of personal usage We confirmed the face validity of all constructs with two PhD
and affiliation of the brand (object) toward respondents. Also, candidates and three marketing professors. As all items were
this segment encompasses the evaluation of three types of self- originally written in English, a back-translation method was
reinforcing brand assets when choosing products with multiple applied to derive Portuguese items with conceptual equivalence.
styles, performance and symbolic benefits. We pondered and Only after these processes, the items were included in the
accepted the limitations of respondents reasoning about a self- survey. Details of all items are included in the Appendix.
selected brand, what in turn could affect the validity and
reliability of the measurement, but we choose that option with Results
the goal of accessing perceptions and cognitions about self-
relevant brands and their connections to the self. A total of 156 Measurement model
brands were listed. The most frequently listed brands in the First, we performed a first-order confirmatory factor analysis
USA were Nike (18.8 per cent), Apple (5.9 per cent), Forever on brand authenticity. The model specified the four
21 (4.3 per cent) and Michael Kors (3.2 per cent). In Brazil, the dimensions (heritage, quality commitment, originality and
most frequently mentioned brands were Nike (16.8 per cent), sincerity), and consisted of 12 items (three items for each
Converse All-Star (5.0 per cent), Zara (5.0 per cent) and Apple dimension) adapted from Bruhn et al. (2012) and Napoli et al.
(4.4 per cent). Next, the respondents were asked to classify the (2014). Cronbach’s alpha (a) was used to assess the internal
chosen brand as a luxury, authentic or a fashion brand. The consistency of the items. In addition, the average variance
most frequent classification was authentic brand (40.3 per cent extracted (AVE) and the composite reliability (CR) assessed the
the USA and 73.0 per cent Brazil) followed by fashion brand convergent and discriminant validity of the model. The results
(39.8 per cent the USA and 14.5 per cent Brazil) and luxury showed the first-order model of brand authenticity met the
brand (19.9 per cent the USA and 12.5 per cent Brazil). When standard criteria ( x 2 = 167.652, p < 0.000 x 2/df = 3.493,
assessing our proposed model, we tested for invariability of the comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.96, normed fit index (NFI) =
sample from different countries, brand’s classification and 0.94, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) =
internet and paper questionnaires; no differences were found. 0.09, standardized root mean square residualion (SRMR) =
0.06; see Table AI in the Appendix for details).
Measures Next, we analyzed the measurement model containing
The items used to measure our variables were based on scales authenticity as a second-order construct along with the constructs
of previous studies and adjusted to our research context. They enticing, enabling, enriching, brand-self connectedness and
are included in Appendix. Brand authenticity as a second-order behavioral intentions. The results showed that internal
construct was built based on four first-order constructs: consistency (a, CR, AVE – Table AII in the Appendix) and
heritage (a = 0.76), quality commitment (a = 0.89), originality discriminant validity (square root of AVE higher than
(a = 0.88) and sincerity (a = 0.88), resulting from a factor correlations for all constructs – Table I) of the measurement
analysis of 12 items. All items were adapted from Bruhn et al. model were achieved. The model fit statistics also were
(2012) and Napoli et al. (2014) and measured on a seven-point significant (Table I).
Likert-type scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 7 = “strongly
agree”). The structural model
The items for the enticing-the-self (a = 0.87), enriching-the- Figure 2 shows the structural model coefficients of our
self (a = 0.86) and enabling-the-self (a = 0.74) were adapted conceptual framework. The general adjustment of the model
from Park et al. (2013) and measured on a seven-point Likert-type met the standard criteria ( x 2 = 806.647, p < 0.000; x 2/df =
scale (1 = “nothing,” 7 = “much”). Brand-self connectedness 2.811, CFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.07), which
(a = 0.77) also was adapted from Park et al. (2013) and measured suggests that our model fits the data well. The results also
on two bipolar 7-point items with anchors varying from “away” to confirmed that brand authenticity as a second-order construct

Table I Descriptive statistics and correlations between constructs (N = 347)a

No. Construct Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Authenticity 5.37 1.04 0.81
2 Enticing 5.61 1.27 0.54 0.83
3 Enriching 4.49 1.50 0.50 0.61 0.82
4 Enabling 4.32 1.48 0.49 0.45 0.63 0.72
5 Brand-self connectedness 5.28 1.39 0.58 0.50 0.43 0.41 0.80
6 Behavioral intention 6.00 1.35 0.65 0.50 0.38 0.41 0.77 0.84
a
Notes: Off diagonal entries are correlations among constructs. Diagonal is the square root of AVE; greater square root of AVE than the correlation
coefficient indicates sufficient discriminant validity; x 2 = 676.409; p < 0.000; x 2/df = 2.416; CFI = 0.93; NFI = 0.89; RMSEA = 0.06;  p < 0.001

235
 The effect of brand authenticity Journal of Product & Brand Management
Hyunjoo Oh et al. Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 231–241

Figure 2 Path coefficients of the structural model

Enticing
Heritage
0.67*** 0.60***
the Self 0.38***

Quality 0.76***
Commitment 0.58***
Brand 0.56*** Enriching 0.12* Brand-self Behavioral
0.85*** Authenticity the Self Connectedness Intentions
Originality

0.93*** 0.55*** Enabling 0.21**

Sincerity the Self

0.35***

was formed by heritage ( g = 0.67, p < 0.001), quality gathering process. We do not have any further empirical
commitment ( g = 0.85, p < 0.001), originality ( g = 0.76, p < evidence to support an additional rationalization.
0.001) and sincerity ( g = 0.93, p < 0.001). Our findings provide support for a second-order construct of
The first hypothesis regarding the positive significant brand authenticity and demonstrate its effect on consumer–
relationship between brand authenticity and consumers’ brand relationships. Specifically, this study confirmed the
behavioral intentions was supported ( g = 0.35, p < 0.001). The hypotheses that brand authenticity would positively affect the
second set of hypotheses which predicted positive effects of consumers’ behavioral intentions. More importantly, this study
brand authenticity on the self-reinforcing assets also was showed for the first time the significant role of the brand
confirmed (enticing-the-self: g = 0.60, p < 0.001; enriching-the- authenticity as determinants of self-reinforcing assets. Brand
self: g = 0.56, p < 0.001; and enabling-the-self: g = 0.55, p < authenticity predicted whether a brand entices, enriches or
0.001), supporting H2a, H2b and H2c. In addition, we found enables the self, which in turn, positively influences the sense of
positive effects of the self-reinforced assets on brand-self brand-self connectedness. Furthermore, the enticing-the-self
connectedness (enticing-the-self: g = 0.38, p < 0.001; brand asset was more strongly related to the perceived
enriching-the-self: g = 0.12, p < 0.1; and enabling-the-self: g = connectedness between a brand and the self than the other
0.21, p < 0.05), supporting H3a and H3c. The p-value of brand- assets. This result may be particularly associated with brands in
self-connectedness and enriching-the-self was marginally the fashion industry where aesthetic pleasure is a key factor in
significant, although the effect followed the theorizing predicted determining brand choice. Our results revealed that the self-
by H3b. Finally, the positive effect of brand-self distance on reinforcing assets and the brand-self connectedness mediate
consumers’ behavioral intentions was found ( g = 0.58, p < the relationship between the brand authenticity and
0.001), supporting H4. consumers’ behavioral intentions.
In addition to the results presented above, we conducted
multiple group analyses to check for differences between the
General discussion and implications
responses from USA and Brazil. It was not our goal to
emphasize differences between samples, although we needed to Building on the literature of brand authenticity (Beverland and
test the model for invariability. The chi-square difference test, Farrelly, 2010; Morhart et al., 2015) and consumer–brand
in which we compared an unconstrained model with a relationship (Park et al., 2013), this research examines how
constrained model with the two groups of respondents, was brand authenticity influences consumers’ behavioral intentions.
significant (D x 2 = 60.73; Ddf = 28, p = 0.000). The z-score test The results revealed a positive impact of brand authenticity on
(Gaskin, 2011) showed that the relationships between brand consumers’ behavioral intentions to buy a product, visit a store/
authenticity – consumers’ behavioral intentions (z = 2.27, p < website in the future and recommend the brand to other people.
0.05) and enticing-the-self – brand-self connectedness (z = The effect of brand authenticity on behavioral intentions
2.08, p < 0.05) was significantly different between the two was mediated through self-reinforcing assets (enticing-the-
groups. Despite this fact, we can note the path coefficients for self, enriching-the-self and enabling-the-self) and self-brand
both countries follow the same positive patterns. The US connectedness. In general, the results supported the proposed
sample presented a higher direct path regarding brand hypotheses, providing empirical evidence that brand
authenticity – consumers’ behavioral intentions path (the USA: authenticity could determine self-reinforcing assets, which
g = 0.57, p < 0.001) when compared to Brazil ( g = 0.25, p < consequently makes consumers feel close and connected with
0.001). Also, the enticing-the-self – brand-self connectedness the brand and increases their behavioral intentions toward the
path presented differences. The coefficient of the path in the brand. These results followed a pattern similar to one found in
US sample was lower ( g = 0.31, p < 0.001), when compared to Park et al. (2013) regarding the relationships among self-
Brazilian sample ( g = 0.58, p < 0.001). These results might reinforcing assets, self-brand connectedness and the behavioral
have been derived from sample differences or because of data intentions towards the brand.

236
 The effect of brand authenticity Journal of Product & Brand Management
Hyunjoo Oh et al. Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 231–241

This research makes several theoretical contributions. First, warranted to identify the brand management factors that
it extends the AA relationship model proposed by Park et al. determine the relative importance of self-enforcing brand assets
(2013), positioning the brand authenticity as an antecedent of in self-brand relationships.
the self-reinforcing assets. The AA relationship model provides We tested Park et al.’s (2013) AA relationship model only on
an integrated and innovative basis to conceptualize the brand– the positive side of the relationship, where the consumer has a
consumer relationships. However, as noted by Schmitt (2013), strong relationship with brands. Because we asked about
the AA relationship model is limited to internal, psychological respondents’ favorite brands, positive impacts on self-brand
determinants of the brand-consumer relationships without relationships were found for all three self-enforcing assets as
direct linkages to brand marketing activities. Our research predicted in our hypotheses. Future research could address
empirically demonstrated that the brand authenticity could be brands that consumers avoid and examine how authentic but
one of the relevant antecedents in determining whether a brand hated brands are constructed and interpreted in consumers’
entices, enriches or enables the self. minds regarding the 3Es (Park et al., 2013). Finally, we
Second, our research reveals the respective contribution of each provided insights into brand authenticity’s positive influences
self-enforcing brand asset in the consumer–brand relationship on the self-reinforcing assets, which subsequently positively
when determined by the brand element (authenticity). In their influence key marketing constructs (self-brand connection,
study, Park et al. (2013) showed that each of the 3Es significantly brand choice likelihood and positive word-of-mouth).
influences the AA relationships, and among the 3Es, the From the managerial perspective, our results have important
enriching-the-self asset has the strongest impact. Our results also implications for marketing practitioners. First, when
showed positive and significant effects of the 3Es on the brand-self positioning a brand, marketers could differentiate their brands
connectedness. However, in contrast to the Park et al. (2013) from others by fostering brand authenticity through self-
results, the enticing-the-self asset was more strongly related to the enforcement mechanisms (3Es proposed by Park et al., 2013).
brand-self connectedness than did the other two assets. In fact, For example, fashion industry brands like Nike and Toms have
enriching-the-self presented the weakest effect. One could argue earned brand trust by nurturing consistent brand authenticity
that the procedure of self-selection of a brand to answer questions across branding strategies. Toms’ strategy of “community
might be responsible for the difference found in our study. We outposts” – as developed by its brand managers – represents a
asked participants to write their favorite brand and answer strategy to use sensory stimuli to help customers develop
questions regarding the listed brand. This self-selection of a brand connection to the brand community by experiencing the
could explain the results of higher attractive facets of the brand, brand’s authenticity. Building authenticity into a brand image
characterized by the enticing-the-self asset. We do not rule out requires a firms’ continued commitment over time. However,
this possibility; however, we argue that if self-selection of a brand focusing on developing an authentic brand could prove a
influences the enticing-the-self asset, it also should influence both successful positioning strategy for new brands wishing to appeal
enabling and enriching-the-self assets. to customers who desire ‘the real’ in an increasingly staged and
The salience of the enticing-the-self asset could be attributed commercialized world (Hutson, 2014). In sophisticated and
to the characteristics of product categories used in our study mature markets, this kind of strategy can lead to brand success
because we focused on brands in the fashion industry as authenticity creates a distinctive brand identity in customers’
(including clothing, shoe and accessory categories). Because minds and contributes to brand equity (Beverland, 2006;
aesthetic design and sensory pleasure drive brand choices in Brown et al., 2003; Gilmore and Pine, 2007).
these product categories, the enticing-the-self asset might have The second important managerial implication of our results is
exerted the strongest impact on self-brand connectedness in that developing brand-self relationships first requires an
our study. The effect of sensory pleasure on consumer understanding of the brand assets that reinforce brand-self
perception, judgment and behavior was documented by relationships. Understanding these assets could help marketers
Krishna (2012), who argued that a brand’s sensory aspects design and deliver more relevant and meaningful customer
create subconscious triggers that influence consumers’ experiences. In addition, such understanding helps marketers
perceptions about product characteristics. Previous studies also choose the right channels to effectively communicate such
have shown that for some categories of products and brands, experiences. In our study focusing on the fashion industry domain,
the hedonic aspects and the dispositions of affective the mechanism of enticing-the-self held the highest coefficient,
consumption play a fundamental role in the consumer suggesting that consumers’ perception of brand authenticity could
decision-making process (Batra and Ahtola, 1991; Hirschman reinforce the sensory and aesthetic pleasure value in the brand. In
and Holbrook, 1982; Hoyer and Stokburger-Sauer, 2012). The this regard, fashion brand managers designing brand experiences
recent study presented by Bairrada et al. (2018) also could leverage aesthetically appealing elements of brand assets to
demonstrated that intangible, abstract and emotional/symbolic more specifically entice-the-self and encourage consumers to feel
aspects tend to mediate the effects of product-related attributes more connected to the brand. Delivering brand experiences
on brand love and its outcomes, including loyalty, word of focusing on the relevant self-enforcement assets could strengthen
mouth and willingness to pay a premium price. We extend this the links between brands and consumers.
literature by demonstrating that consumers become more The success of designing total brand experiences around
sensitive to sensory pleasures offered by enticing-the-self asset relevant self-enforcement assets is well demonstrated by
when the salience is driven by elements related to brand Victoria’s Secret, the fashion retailer. Victoria’s Secret innovates
authenticity. This also supports the idea that the value of self- across channels not only by exploring the functionality of their
enforcing brand assets is dependent on self-relevant goals, e-commerce, mobile and in-store channels to sell more
products and contexts. Further close empirical examination is products but also by delivering an authentic experience

237
 The effect of brand authenticity Journal of Product & Brand Management
Hyunjoo Oh et al. Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 231–241

whenever customers interact with the brand. For example, Akbar, M.M. and Wymer, W. (2017), “Refining the
Victoria’s Secret teen brand Pink uses a mobile app to create an conceptualization of brand authenticity”, Journal of Brand
original experience for both parents and their children, allowing Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 14-32.
parents to add credit so their children can use the app to buy Arnould, E.J. and Price, L.L. (2000), “Authenticating acts and
products online and in-store. The transparency of process authoritative performances: questing for self and community”,
signals to customers a sincere authenticity in the brand. in Ratneshwar, S., Mick, D.G. and Huffman, C. (Eds), The
According to our model, this type of brand authenticity stimuli Why of Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer
is processed by customers through the three psychological Motives, Goals, and Desires, Routledge, London, pp. 140-163.
mechanisms. First, the brand enables parents and children to Bairrada, C.M., Coelho, F. and Coelho, A. (2018), “Antecedents
solve everyday-life demands (enable-the-self). Second, the and outocomes of brand love: utilitarian and symbolic brand
brand helps customers explore an original and exciting qualities”, European Journal of Marketing, available at: https://
experience with the brand at the moment of consumption doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2016-0081 (accessed 26 February
(enticing-the-self). Third, the brand enhances the customer’s 2018).
life, helping them to develop a self-identity around who they are Ballantyne, R., Warren, A. and Nobbs, K. (2006), “The
and who they aspire to be (enriches-the-self). All stimuli in evolution of brand choice”, Journal of Brand Management,
marketing communications, online outreach and in-store Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 339-352.
design are coherently coordinated to deliver relevant authentic Batra, R. and Ahtola, O.T. (1991), “Measuring the hedonic
brand experiences appealing to the identity of the targeted and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes”, Marketing
audience (Aiello and Dickinson, 2014). Brands from industries
Letters, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
other than fashion also could benefit from our results by
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), “Brand love”,
exploring ways brands authenticity can be used to trigger
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
customer’s 3Es, helping them create connections to brands.
Beverland, M.B. (2006), “The real thing: branding
According to our model, brand’s authenticity is processed by
authenticity in the luxury wine trade”, Journal of Business
customers through psychological mechanisms (self-reinforcing
Research, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 251-258.
assets). We also found a direct effect of authenticity on behavioral
Beverland, M.B. and Farrelly, F.J. (2010), “The quest for
intentions. This effect shows that the mere presence of a brand’s
authenticity in consumption: consumers’ purposive choice of
authentic traits (namely, heritage, quality commitment,
authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes”, Journal of
originality and sincerity) could influence customer attitudes and
purchase intentions. The perceptions of authenticity, which allow Consumer Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 838-856.
customers to trust a brand to fill its promise, might facilitate Brown, S., Kozinets, R.V. and Sherry, J.F. (2003), “Teaching
behavioral intentions toward the brand. Brand trust as an old brands new tricks: retro branding and the revival of brand
additional mediating mechanism warrants further investigation meaning”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 19-33.
(Schallehn, et al., 2014). Bruhn, M., Schoenmüller, V., Schäfer, D. and Heinrich, D.
Although our findings provide insights into the value of (2012), “Brand authenticity: towards a deeper understanding
authenticity in the consumer–brand relationship, there are of its conceptualization and measurement”, Advances in
some limitations that merit mention. As this study was carried Consumer Research, Vol. 40, pp. 567-576.
out in the context of fashion product categories, our product Cohen, E. (1988), “Authenticity and commoditization in
categories of research were limited. Future research can tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 15 No. 3,
broaden this perspective by replicating this study in other pp. 371-386.
product categories. Companies in the B2B market could also Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), “Effects
benefit from these findings by exploring different dimensions of of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product
authenticity and experiential elements to make their brands evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28,
stand out against competitors. pp. 307-319.
The construction of our hypotheses, based on a small body of Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2003), “You are what they eat:
empirical evidence, is also a limitation of the study. Future research the influence of reference groups and consumers’
may seek to replicate the current study with a larger sample of connections to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
participants. Conducting a causal study with experiments also Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 339-348.
could aid in testing the proposed model with more control and Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2005), “Self-construal,
offer internal validity, specifically, on the mediation process reference groups, and Brand meaning”, Journal of Consumer
assessment. We tested and demonstrated that brand authenticity is Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 378-389.
one of the marketing devices that can determine self-reinforcing Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing
assets. Future research may examine other attributes of brand as relationship theory in consumer research”, Journal of
antecedents of the self-reinforcing assets. Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V. and Bruhn, M. (2017),
“Authenticity in branding – exploring antecedents and
References consequences of Brand authenticity”, European Journal of
Aiello, G. and Dickinson, G. (2014), “Beyond authenticity: a Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 324-348.
visual-material analysis of locality in the global redesign of Gaskin, J. (2011), “Multigroup moderation in amos (with
Starbucks stores”, Visual Communication, Vol. 13 No. 3, critical ratios)”, available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=
pp. 303-321. ZMYS90AU8bs (accessed 25 August 2017).

238
 The effect of brand authenticity Journal of Product & Brand Management
Hyunjoo Oh et al. Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 231–241

Gilmore, J.H. and Pine, B.J. (2007), Authenticity: What Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A. and Girardin, F.
Consumers Really Want, Harvard Business School Press, (2015), “Brand authenticity: an integrative framework and
Boston, MA. measurement scale”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25
Grayson, K. and Martinec, R. (2004), “Consumer perceptions No. 2, pp. 200-218.
of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on Moulard, J.G., Raggio, R.D. and Folse, J.A.G. (2016), “Brand
assessment of authentic market offerings”, Journal of authenticity: testing the antecedents and outcomes of brand
Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 296-312. management’s passion for its products”, Psychology &
Grazian, D. (2003), Blue Chicago: The Search for Authenticity Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 421-436.
in Urban Blues Clubs, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Napoli, J., Dickinson, S.J., Beverland, M.B. and Farrelly, F.
IL. (2014), “Measuring consumer-based Brand authenticity”,
Grewal, R., Mehta, R. and Kardes, F.R. (2004), “The timing Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1090-1098.
of repeat purchases of consumer durable goods: the role of Newman, G.E. (2016), “An essentialist account of authenticity”,
functional bases of consumer attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Journal of Cognition and Culture, Vol. 16 Nos 3/4, pp. 294-321.
Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 101-115. Newman, G.E. and Dhar, R. (2014), “Authenticity is contagious:
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Hedonic brand essence and the original source of production”, Journal of
consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions”, Marketing Research, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 371-386.
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 92-101. Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J. and Priester, J. (2006), “Beyond
Hutson, M. (2014), “Quenching consumers’ thirst attitudes: attachment and consumer behavior”, Seoul Journal
for ‘authentic’ brands”, The New York Times, 27 of Business, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 3-35.
December, available at: www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/ Park, C.W., Eisingerich, A.B. and Park, J.W. (2013), “Attachment-
business/quenching-consumers-thirst-for-authentic-brands. aversion (AA) model of customer-brand relationships”, Journal of
html (accessed 5 January 2018). Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 229-248.
Price, L.L. and Arnould, E.J. (1999), “Commercial
Hoyer, W.D. and Stokburger-Sauer, H.E. (2012), “The role of
friendships: service provider–client relationships in context”,
aesthetic taste in consumer behavior”, Journal of the Academy
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 38-56.
of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 167-180.
Schallehn, M., Burmann, C. and Riley, N. (2014), “Brand
Krishna, A. (2012), “An integrative review of sensory
authenticity: model development and empirical testing”, Journal
marketing: engaging the senses to affect perception,
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 192-199.
judgment, and behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Schmitt, B. (2013), “The consumer psychology of customer-
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 332-351.
brand relationships: extending the AA relationship model”,
Leigh, T.W., Peters, C. and Shelton, J. (2006), “The consumer Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 249-252.
quest for authenticity: the multiplicity of meanings within the Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H.T. and Caravella, M. (2012), “More
MG subculture of consumption”, Journal of the Academy of than fit: brand extension authenticity”, Journal of Marketing
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 481-493. Research, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 967-983.
Liao, S. and Ma, Y.Y. (2009), “Conceptualizing consumer Urde, M., Greyser, S.A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007), “Corporate
need for product authenticity”, International Journal of brands with a heritage”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15
Business and Information, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 89-114. No. 1, pp. 4-19.

239
 The effect of brand authenticity Journal of Product & Brand Management
Hyunjoo Oh et al. Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 231–241

Appendix

Table AI Measurement items of the first-order model

Items Standard loading a CR AVE
Heritage 0.76 0.77 0.53
This brand reflects a sense of tradition 0.78
This brand reinforces and builds on heritage 0.76
This brand reflects a timeless design 0.63
Quality commitment 0.89 0.90 0.75
This brand is committed to retaining long-lasting quality standards 0.77
This brand delivers what it promises 0.90
This brand is reliable 0.92
Originality 0.88 0.88 0.72
This brand is different from all other brands 0.80
This brand is truly original 0.92
This brand is unique 0.82
Sincerity 0.88 0.88 0.71
This brand tries to be true what it stands for 0.78
This brand is sincere 0.85
This brand is truthful 0.91
Notes: a = Cronbach’s alpha; x 2 = 167.652; p < 0.000 x 2/df = 3.493; CFI = 0.96; NFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.09; SRMR = 0.06;  p < 0.001

Table AII Measurement items of the second-order model

Items Standard loading a CR AVE
Authenticity 0.92 0.89 0.67
Heritage 0.68
Quality commitment 0.86
Originality 0.76
Sincerity 0.92
Enticing 0.87 0.87 0.70
To what extent is this brand unappealing or appealing to you 0.83
To what extent is this brand unattractive or attractive to you 0.87
To what extent is this brand displeasing or pleasing to your senses 0.79
Enriching 0.86 0.86 0.66
To what extent does this brand misrepresent or represent who you are as a person 0.81
To what extent does this brand suppress or express who you want to be 0.83
To what extent does this brand undermine or reinforce your values 0.79
Enabling 0.74 0.76 0.52
To what extent is this brand functionally unsatisfying or satisfying to you 0.57
To what extent does this brand hinder or help how you manage problems in your daily life 0.75
To what extent does this brand disenable or enable you to deal with problems confidently 0.81
Brand-Self Connectedness 0.77 0.78 0.64
This brand is far away (very close) from me and who I am 0.85
I am personally disconnected (connected) from this brand 0.74
Consumers’ behavioral intention 0.87 0.87 0.70
Visiting a store/website in the future 0.73
Buying a product 0.87
Recommending the brand to other people 0.89
Notes: a = Cronbach’s alpha;  p < 0.001

240
 The effect of brand authenticity Journal of Product & Brand Management
Hyunjoo Oh et al. Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 231–241

About the authors adoption of innovations, B2B relationships and marketing

metrics.
Dr Hyunjoo Oh has a PhD degree in Marketing. Her
current research focuses on communication of authenticity in Dr Jose Carlos Korelo is an Assistant Professor of
brands and store designs and the impacts of design on Marketing, Department of Business, Federal University of
product consideration, store exploration and website Parana. His current research focuses on brand authenticity,
behaviors. She has conducted numerous consulting projects self-conscious emotions and brand relationship, brand
on emerging retail issues that national and international content engagement and consumer online reviews. He headed
retailers and manufacturers face. the Marketing MBA Program for two years and worked in the
Dr Paulo Henrique Muller Prado has a PhD degree in MBA Student Exchange Program.
Marketing. He is an Associate Professor and a Coordinator Francielle Frizzo is a PhD Candidate in Consumer Behavior at
of the research line of Marketing Strategy and Consumer the Federal University of Parana. Her research interests focuses
Behavior, Department of Business, Federal University of on consumer–brand relationship, brand authenticity and self-
Parana. His current research focuses on brand conscious emotions. Francielle Frizzo is the corresponding
relationship, brand authenticity, cognitive structures and author and can be contacted at: francielle.frizzo@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

241