The consumer psychology of brands

Author(s): Bernd Schmitt

Source: Journal of Consumer Psychology , January 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1, Special Issue:
Brand Insights from Psychological and Neurophysiological Perspectives (January 2012),
pp. 7-17
Published by: Wiley

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45046533

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Consumer Psychology

This content downloaded from

37.245.216.143 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:18:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of
CONSUMER
SciVerse ScíenceDírect PSYCHOLOGY
ELSEVIER Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 7- 17

The consumer psychology of brands1^

Bernd Schmitt

Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York NY 10027, USA

Received 28 June 201 1; received in revised form 16 September 201 1; accepted 17 September 201 1
Available online 19 October 2011

Abstract

This article presents a consumer-psychology model of brands that integrates empirical studies and individual constructs (such as bran
rization, brand affect, brand personality, brand symbolism and brand attachment, among others) into a comprehensive framework. The
tinguishes three levels of consumer engagement (object-centered, self-centered and social) and five processes (identifying, experi
integrating, signifying and connecting). Pertinent psychological constructs and empirical findings are presented for the constructs within
cess. The article concludes with research ideas to test the model using both standard and consumer-neuroscience methods.
© 201 1 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Consumer psychology; Brand; Neuroscience; Brand extensions; Brand experience

2000);
Over the past two decades, we have learned a lot about the parent-brand memory structures (Morrin, 1999); the
strength of association between the brand's parent category
consumer judgments of brands and the processes that underlie
specific brand-related phenomena, from brand extensions and to
the extension category (Herr, Farquhar, & Fazio, 1996); de-
gree
global branding to brand equity. The empirical literature on of congruence (Maoz & Tybout, 2002; Sood & Dreze,
2006); relatedness of the categories (Herr et al., 1996); sub-
brands is vast and detailed, demonstrating and testing highly
domain-specific effects. But we have neglected investigating
branding (Milberg, Park, & McCarthy, 1997); brand name sug-
gestiveness (Sen, 1999); brand breadth (Sheinin & Schmitt,
"the big picture" - identifying how specific empirical findings
1994); brand specific associations (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994);
add up to a broader understanding of how consumers perceive
brands. To be sure, domain-specific theorizing and testing
brand
is extension typicality (Boush & Loken, 1991); intervening
valuable and should continue. However, research on brands
extensions (Keller & Aaker, 1992); positive affect (Adaval,
2003); brand attachment (Fedorikhin, Park, & Thomson, 2008);
may benefit from a broader perspective that integrates various
mood
empirical findings into a comprehensive framework on the psy-(Barone, Miniard, & Romeo, 2000); and involvement
chology of brands. (Barone, 2005). What is missing from the literature is an analysis
Consider the domain of brand extensions. The literature on of how brand extension research contributes to our overall under-
brand extensions alone has amassed more than a hundred stud- standing of the consumer psychology of brands.
ies in leading journals and has identified numerous factors that Not all of our research has been narrow and purely empiri-
affect how consumers feel toward a given brand extension.cally-focused. We have also been quite inventive in generating
These factors have included: overall fit (Aaker & Keller, new constructs - for example, brand personality (Aaker, 1997),
1990; Bottomley & Holden, 2001; Milberg, Sinn, & Goodstein, brand relationships (Foumier, 1998), brand community (Muniz
2010); type of brand (e.g., prestige or functional) (Monga && O'Guinn, 2001), self-brand connections (Escalas, 2004),
John, 2010); brand knowledge (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994);brand attachment (Thomson, Maclnnis, & Park, 2005), and
the presence of explanatory links (Bridges, Keller, & Sood,brand experience (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009).

* The author thanks Michel Pham for discussions of the model, and Matt Quint and David Rogers for comments on the manuscript. The article was prepared, in
part, while the author was a visiting professor at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, directing the Institute on Asian Consumer Insight.
E-mail address: BHSl@columbia.edu.

1057-7408/$ - see front matter © 201 1 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved,
doi: 1 0. 1 0 1 6/j .jcps.20 1 1 .09.005

This content downloaded from

37.245.216.143 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:18:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
8 B. Schmitt /Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 7-17

We have created scales to measure these constructs

about brandsand others,
and respond to them. The model presented here ac-
counts for these essential
such as brand trust (Delgado-B, Munuera-Aleman, & Yagoe-characteristics of brands.
Guillin, 2003) and brand love (Carroll & Ahuvia,
The structure of theYet,
2006). model also reflects an understanding
it is not clear how these constructs relate to each other and
that consumers have different levels of psychological engage-
ment with brands because of different needs, motives and
what specific role they play in the overall consumer psychology
of brands. goals. These levels of engagement are represented in the
Finally, several reviews and summaries of our research havemodel by three layers. The innermost layer represents object-
been conducted. For example, Keller (2002) provided ancentered, ex- functionally-driven engagement; that is, the consumer
haustive review of the literature on brands and brand equity. acquires information about the brand with the goal of receiving
Keller and Lehman (2006) also reviewed the research and listedutilitarian benefits from the brand. The middle layer represents
a large number of potential new research questions on brand a self-centered engagement; the brand is seen as personally rel-
positioning, brand personality, brand relationships, brand expe-
evant to the consumer. Finally, the outer layer represents social
engagement with the brand; the brand is viewed from an inter-
rience, corporate image and reputation, the integration of brand
elements, channels and communications, company-controlled personal and socio-cultural perspective, and provides a sense of
and external events, brand performance assessment and brand community. As we move from the inner to the outer layer, the
strategy issues (including brand extensions, brand architecture,
brand becomes increasingly meaningful to the consumer.
co-branding, global branding, and branding and social welfare). Most importantly, the model distinguishes five brand-related
Because we lack a general framework on the consumer processes: psy- identifying, experiencing, integrating, signaling and
chology of brands, however, we do not know how answers to
connecting with the brand. As part of identifying , a consumer
these empirical questions would enrich our understandingidentifies
of the brand and its category, forms associations, and com-
brands significantly beyond what we know already. pares the relations between brands. Experiencing refers to senso-
My goal in this article is to move beyond domain-specific ry, affective and participatory experiences that a consumer has
findings and individual brand constructs. I will identify thewith
keya brand. Integrating means combining brand information
brand constructs related to consumer psychology and integrate into an overall brand concept, personality and relationship with
them into a comprehensive model. This consumer-psychology the brand. Signifying refers to using the brand as an informational
model of brands does not focus on brand outcomes, such cue,as
identity signal and cultural symbol. Finally, connecting with
brand choice, purchase, or loyalty, but on the underlying psycho-
the brand includes forming an attitude toward the brand, becom-
ing personally attached to it and connecting with the brand in a
logical constructs and processes that contribute to such outcomes.
Comprehensive brand models and higher-level brand frame- brand community. These processes are not necessarily one-direc-
works have been presented before in managerial articles, tional
in and linear, in the way that information processing is pre-
textbooks and in trade books. Indeed, many important concep- sented from encoding to choice. As will be discussed in more
tual ideas were proposed first, or developed significantly,detail
in at the end of this article, processes may occur in different
such writings - for example, brand concept-image management orders. Moreover, while each construct is assumed to be concep-
(Park, Jaworski, & Maclnnis, 1986), brand equity (Aaker, tually distinct, a given construct may overlap, to some degree,
1991; Keller, 1993); brand architecture and portfolio manage- with another construct, and different constructs may interact.
ment (Aaker, 1996; 2004); and customer experience (PineLet's
& look at the constructs within each process in more detail.
Gilmore, 1999; Schmitt, 1999; 2003). Most of these models,
What happens during the processes of identifying, experiencing,
however, do not take a consumer psychology angle. They integrating,
pre- signifying and connecting?
sent strategic typologies rather than conceptual frameworks
rooted in consumer psychology. These models target marketing
Identifying
managers and not consumer psychologists, who I consider to be
the prime audience of this journal and this article. The process of identifying refers to searching for, being ex-
posed to and collecting information about the brand, its catego-
A consumer-psychology model of brands ry and related brands. Depending on a consumer's level of
psychological engagement, the identification process concerns
The model presented here addresses consumer perceptions primarily categorization, associations with the brand, or inter-
and judgments and their underlying processes as they relate brand relations.
to brands. Fig. 1 shows the model.
Brand categorization
In contrast to general information processing models, the con-
sumer-psychology model of brands focuses specifically on the
unique characteristics of brands. One brand, for example, can When consumers engage with a brand in an object-centered
way, they are mostly concerned with the brand, its product cat-
span across various products and product categories. Brand infor-
mation is conveyed frequently through multi-sensory stimulation.
egory and how the two are related. The primary task is linking a
Brands can form relations with other brands. Brands can be an- brand (its name and logo) to a product category, or, for corpo-
thropomorphized, and many of them are appreciated as cultural rate brands, industry category. Stimulus or memory-based cate-
symbols. Finally, consumers can organize communities around gorization is a prerequisite for pursuing a brand-related goal
brands. Consumers know and experience these characteristics (Alba, Hutchinson, & Lynch, 1991); that is, a consumer must

This content downloaded from

37.245.216.143 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:18:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 B. Schmitt /Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 7-17 9

'dentifying

voter-brand re/af/00s

ßtaod association

C*
o>
^ <P
^
Sq
§ t ^ ? BIa"a ' Sq %.
I / / ^.9»'«%, 4 ' %
o j? t, % % S- °-
° I g I05 <?/ft,ll %i
g 05 ! ~I §I é o o ~

W /
% ' "'"""cu
' ue -V ue V*'' ■>'
'V
x%„
'
^ /
X
' ^
Object-cent

Self-center

Social enga

Fig. 1 . Consumer psychology model of brands.

know at brand
least the nam
nam
times, this 2003;
may Schm
be en
brand and its categor
There is on
Brown, 1990; Nedung
tifying an a
type, the has been
categorizatiothe
lished sions (e.g.,
verbally ment K
physical sumers
proximity are
(the
aging or webfor existing
site), thro
soon after new
a produc
product sh
& Malter, be categori
2005). There c
the speaking,
distinction tw
between
of the and
name or the
logo ext
of
Simmons, & Netemey
fit, degree
Brand specific
awareness is dyn
an
task in breadth,
which a consumaff
sented with the catego
trieval Brand associations
cues may be self
& Srull, 1982). Two key
studied are the
To engage with prod
a brand in self-relevant ways, consumers
Chattopadhyay,
identify information that is relevant to them. 198
The unique set
In addition, recall
of brand associations that a brand strategist aspiresand to create
by or maintain in the consumer's
linguistic mind constitutes a brand's iden-
characte
tions and tity (Aaker, 1996). This information may include, among
through lex

This content downloaded from

37.245.216.143 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:18:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
10 B. Schmitt /Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 7-17

others, brand attributes, benefits, and imagesinthat

print the
or banner ads rather mindlessly. At times, one sensory
consumer
modality
encounters (Keller, 2003). Of course, in addition may dominate (think of paint, surround sound sys-
to associations
provided by firms, consumers will develop tems,
theirfragrances, massage services, and ice cream brands). In
own associa-
perceiving most
tions with brands, for example, cognitive responses thatbrands,
the however, more than one sense is in-
consumer generates about the brand (Keller,volved:
2003). think
Theof the roles that sight, sound, and touch play in
infor-
evaluating
mation is stored as brand associations in consumer a car brand. At consumption, many brands involve
memory.
Research has employed associative network models,
all five senses. in sensory cues within an environment
Moreover,
which a person's memory is made up of linkscan andaffect a brand;
nodes, to for
rep-instance, ambient scents can improve
resent brand associations in the consumer's brand
mind memory (Morrin&& Ratneshwar, 2003).
(Farquhar
Herr, 1993). Brand associations can differ in valence,
Although strength,
the human perceptual apparatus results in multi-sen-
uniqueness and coherence (Keller, 1993). Brand associations
sory perceptions, most research in psychology and consumer psy-
chology has
are also structured in terms of level of generality. Forbeen on the study of individual senses (Calvert,
example,
some associations may be held about the overall
Spence, & brand (e.g.,
Stein, 2004; Spence, 2010). Research has just begun
Sony) whereas others may focus on exemplars of"cross-modal
to explore the brand correspondences" - for example, how au-
(e.g., Sony TVs) (Ng & Houston, 2006). The activation
ditory ofpotato chips can affect the perception of
cues while biting
brand associations is often automatic in nature. The so-called
crispiness or staleness of a potato chip (Zampini & Spence, 2004).
"mere association effect" can be detected through an implicit Psychophysicists have demonstrated that a person's memory
cognition measure (Dimoile & Yalch, 2011). for sensory attributes (e.g., intensity of light, depth of a color)
decays very rapidly (Algom & Cain, 1991; Hubbard, 1994).
Inter-brand relations However, when consumers are provided with a method to en-
code the sensory attribute meaningfully (e.g., Coca Cola Red,
Finally, to identify a brand on a social level, the consumerTiffany Blue), memory for a sensory attributes improves drasti-
may be drawn to further information, namely, to the relationscally (Shapiro & Spence, 2002).
that the brand has with other brands. Brands become contextu- Finally, there are also implicit sensory effects in the verbal in-
alized when brands are compared to other brands. Tell meformation presented about brands. Consumers can use sound sym-
who's your friend (and foe) and I'll tell you who you are. bolism to infer product attributes and evaluate brands (Y orkston &
Consumer responses to various forms of inter-brand relationsMenon, 2004). Also, as an example, pronouncing a brand name
have been studied: brand architecture and brand portfolios, in-with a language accent can access cultural stereotypes and affects
cluding sub-branding and ingredient branding (Janiszewski &brand perceptions (Leclerc, Schmitt, & Dubé, 1994). Sensory pro-
van Osselaer, 2000); co-branding (Geylani, Ter Hofstede, &cessing may also occur implicitly for names because of the linguis-
Inman, 2005); and brand alliances (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). In tic structure of a language. For instance, phonetically-based brand
each case, consumers compare a brand to another brand, whichname translations from English to Chinese are evaluated different-
increases their understanding of the brands involved. Overall,ly than semantically based translations (Zhang & Schmitt, 2001).
one brand usually comes out as the winner in these inter-brand This effect seems to occur because reading logographs involves
comparisons, by drawing greater consumer awareness or more a higher degree of visual information processing than alphabetic
positive associations. One of the most direct inter-brand relations English, which involves more phonetic processing (Tavassoli,
is an explicit comparison, for example in the form of comparative2001).
advertising. In a meta-analysis, it was shown that comparative ads
have a variety of benefits for brands although they reduce sourceBrand affect
credibility (Grewal, Kavanoor, Fern, Costley, & Barnes, 1997).
Beyond brands providing mere sensory stimulations, they may
Experiencing also evoke positive or negative moods and make consumers feel
joyful and happy or angry and sad, especially when consumers en-
The experiencing process includes sensory perceptions of thegage with brands in a self-centered way. These positive and nega-
brand, brand affect, and the participatory experiences that a con-tive feelings can range from mild affect (e.g., positive moods) to
sumer may seek with a brand. Research has conceptualized experi-strong affect (e.g., specific emotions). Indeed, brand research has
examined a wide range of brand affect, from general measures of
ences as multi-dimensional, including sensory, affective-cognitive,
and behavioral dimensions (Brakus et al., 2009). pleasure and feeling good to brand love (Carroll & Ahuvia,
2006; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). In brand management and
Multi-sensory perception advertising, so-called "emotional branding" has emerged as an al-
ternative to earlier marketing approaches that focused purely on
At various contact points (or "touchpoints") with consumers,unique selling propositions (Gobé, 2001).
brands provide multi-sensory stimulations through sight, Emotions such as joy, sorrow, love, or anger are strong and
sound, smell, touch, and taste. When consumers are engaged object-directed and usually the outcome of an appraisal process
with a brand in an object-centered, functional way, they pick (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Moods, in contrast are milder affec-
up the multi-sensory stimuli of a brand (its logo, brand charac-tive states, less focused and more diffused. Nonetheless moods
ters, verbal or auditory slogan) as presented in a store or on TV,can convey information about the brand when consumers use

This content downloaded from

37.245.216.143 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:18:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 B. Schmitt / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 7-1 7 1 1

the "how-do-I-feel-about-it?" heuristic (Pham, 2004; Schwarz,

Finally, the information may be overall more or less well integrat-
1990). Consumers may also have ambiguous feelings about
ed. One methodology to elicit brand concepts from consumers is
to create "Brand
brands, e.g., enjoying a fast food brand or luxury handbagConcept Maps" (Roedder John, Loken, Kim, &
brand, yet feeling regret about consuming a lotMonga, 2006). The methodology
of calories or allows researchers to determine
how important
paying a high price (Ramanathan & Williams, 2007). Finally, brand associations are, whether they are direct or
indirect associations,
individuals can even feel positive and negative affect at the and how interconnected they are within a
brand concept.
same time, e.g., fear and fan during a horror movie (Andrade
& Cohen, 2007).
Brand personality
Brand participation

When consumers are engaged in a self-relevant way, infor-

When consumers are socially engaged, they may experience
mation and experiences may be integrated farther by inferring
the brand by actively participating and interacting with it. The
trait and personality characteristics about a brand (Aaker,
model refers to such experiences as brand participation. That
1997). By ascribing human characteristics to a brand, con-
is, the consumer is no longer a passive recipient of information,
sumers are anthropomorphizing it (Aggarwal & McGill,
or even an active processor of information stored in the mind.
2007). These brand personalities are relatively stable over
Rather, experiencing and doing are intertwined as part of a be-
time but can vary in different consumption settings, in line
havioral experience (Brakus et al., 2009).
with the idea of a "malleable self' (Aaker, 1999; Graeff,
Brand participation often occurs in conventional brand set-
1997). Most importantly, these inferred personalities differen-
tings. The interactive atmosphere of retail environments,
tiate brands in the
the mind of consumers even when consumers
immersive stimulation occurring at live events and the articulate
cannot ability to differences in associated attributes and bene-
customize product features also offer opportunities for participa-
fits, or when there are few sensory differences. The colorless,
tory and interactive experiences (Akaoui, 2007). Some rapidly de-
odorless and tasteless vodka product category is a case in
veloping new media, referred to as "social media," also allow for
point. One vodka may be seen as "cool" and "hip," whereas an-
brand participation through digital sharing and "mashing-up" of
other may be described as "intellectual" and "conservative"
brand related information. Brand participation seems to be a key
(Aaker, 1997).
contributor to the effectiveness of social media (Hoffman &
A five-factor structure - Sincerity, Excitement, Compe-
Fodor, 2010). Moreover, brands like Starbucks have developed
tence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness - seems to best display
online crowd sourcing platforms where consumers can contribute
American consumers' brand personality perceptions (Aaker,
creative ideas for new products, services and experiences (Bayus,
1997). Three dimensions (Sincerity, Excitement, and Compe-
2010).
tence) resemble closely three human personality dimensions
(Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness), whereas
Integrating
two dimensions (Sophistication and Ruggedness) are not con-
sistent with those of the big-five human personality models
During the integration process, consumers combine brand
(McCrae & Costa, 1997). However, the brand personality struc-
information and summarize it in an overall brand concept, per-
ture may not be universal (Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Guido,
sonality or relationship with the brand.
2001). Only three of the five factors applied to brands in
Japan and Spain (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, & Garolera, 2001).
Brand concept
Peacefalness replaced Ruggedness both in Japan and Spain;
Passion emerged in Spain instead of Competency. A revised
Brand concept is a psychological construct consisting of the in-
brand personality scale exhibits cross-cultural validity between
tegrated information associated with a product brand or corporate
the U.S. and European markets (Geuens, Weijters, & De Wulf,
brand. Brand concepts facilitate functionally-driven goal pursuit.
2009).
The integrated information is usually stored in the form of a super-
ordinate concept (e.g., as a "quality," "innovative," or "lifestyle"
brand). The overall brand concept (or "image," or "core") has Brand relationships
been considered an integral component of brand equity and has
been widely employed in management-focused writings (Aaker, In addition to assigning human-like properties to brands, con-
1996; Agarwal & Rao, 1996; Keller, 1993; Park & Srinivasan, sumers may also interact with brands in ways that parallel inter-
1994; Park et al., 1986). personal and social relationships. Indeed, in qualitative research,
The information integration that results in a brand concept may Fournier (1998) found evidence for all sorts of customer-brand re-
be the outcome of some sort of cognitive algebra that, following lationships, fifteen in total, including: arranged marriages, casual
Anderson's information integration theory, weights the brand-re- friends/buddies, marriages of convenience, committed partner-
lated information acquired and stored in memory (Anderson, ships, best friendships, compartmentalized friendships, kinships,
1981). Also, certain information, particularly the information rebounds/avoidance-driven relationships, childhood friendships,
resulting from multi-sensoiy perceptions, may be more or less sa- courtships, dependencies, flings, enmities, secret affairs, and
lient which affects its incorporation into the brand concept. enslavements.

This content downloaded from

37.245.216.143 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:18:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
12 B. Schmitt /Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 7-17

In brand relationships, the norms of socialconsumers with respectand

relationships to their tendency to include brands in
social rules that govern society are used as guiding their self-schemas (Sprott,in
principles Czellar, & Spangenberg, 2009).
brand interactions. When a brand's action violates the relation- Consumers can use brands to express and display, and better
ship norms, consumers assess the brand more negatively than understand, their selves (Swaminathan, Page, & Gürhan-Canli,
when the brand's actions are consistent with those relationship 2007). That is, a brand may be used to express the self because
norms (Aggarwal, 2004). Moreover, norms of a communal re- the brand is congruent with the self ("I buy a Jeep because I
lationship, relative to those of an exchange relationship, make view myself as tough"). A brand may also be used to displays
individuals more likely to process brand information at a higher the self to others ("I buy a Jeep to show to others that I am
level of abstraction (Aggarwal and Law, 2005). tough") (Kirmani, 2009). Finally, consumers may infer their
Finally, brand personalities and relationships may interact. For self and identity based on their own brand purchases ("I am
example, relationships with "sincere" brands were found to deep- tough because I bought a Jeep"), or, through a vicarious self-
en in line with "friendship" templates, whereas relationships with perception process, based on the purchases of others with
"exciting" brands displayed characteristics of "flings" (Aaker, whom they feel a merged identity (Goldstein & Cialdini, 2007).
Foumier, & Brasei, 2004). Examining informational and identity signifiers in a devel-
opmental study, it was found that the eight-year-olds in the
study treated brands as informational and perceptual cues:
Signifying
they associated a brand with a product category or certain per-
ceptual features. In comparison, older children (starting at the
Semiotically, brands may be viewed as signiflers that trans-
age of twelve) understood the identity-shaping and symbolic
fer meaning (Mick, 1986). Depending on the consumer's en-
qualities of a brand in terms of conveying meaning to the self,
gagement, a brand may act as an informational cue, personal
status, prestige, or trendiness (Chaplin & Roedder John, 2005).
identity signal or cultural symbol. Signifying may occur heuris-
tically, without the need for extensive processing (Maheswaran,
Mackie, & Chaiken, 1992).
Brand symbolism

Brands as informational cues Brands may be used to signify not only individual selves;
they may also be used to represent a group, a society, or culture.
The accumulated information and knowledge about a brand As cultural symbols, they can stand for nations (McDonald's),
can be used in a functional-rational way as informational cues. generations (the Gap), and cultural values (Marlboro, Harley-
Price and quality of a brand are the most widely used types of Davidson). As exemplary symbols that are worthy of admira-
informational signals, signifying that a brand is a value, premi- tion and respect; they can assume the role of cultural icons
um or luxury brand (Zeithaml, 1988). and assume mythic qualities (Holt, 2004).
In a competitive marketplace, brands can be used by firms to Consumer culture theory has illuminated the socio-cultural
inform consumers about product positions in the marketplace symbolism and ideology of brands (Amould, 2005). Sociolog-
(Erdem & Swait, 1998). Brands can do so especially well ically speaking, brands are social representations (Moscovici
when the signal that they convey is clear and consistent, and, & Markova, 1998). They allow groups and communities to
most importantly, credible (that is, truthful and dependable). communicate, behave and orient themselves. Consumers may
also use brands to enact archetype myths, e.g., the archetype
Brands as identity signals of the hero, rebel or lover (Woodside, Sood, & Miller, 2008).
Following Jungian analysis, archetypes are universally under-
When the self is engaged, then the brand can be a signal for a stood, recurring symbols in the collective unconscious that ap-
consumer's personal identity, to both the consumer and to others. pear in cultural myths, literature and art, and, in contemporary
Psychological research has shown that the self consists of stable consumer culture, as brand stories. Finally, brands can provide
knowledge structures (so-called "self-schemas") that organize in- symbolic security, for example, for materialistic consumers
coming self-related information and help people make sense of who experience existential insecurities, e.g., fear of death
themselves in their environments (Markus, 1977). People vary (Rindfleisch, Burroughs, & Wong, 2009).
in their tendency to possess particular self-schemas, and this vari-
ation leads to differential attitudes and behaviors toward objects,
including brands (Markus, 1983; Markus & Sentis, 1982). Con- Connecting
sumers with a strong masculine self-schema described fragrance
brands in more accentuated gendered terms and held sharply dif- Finally, the model distinguishes three psychological con-
ferent brand preferences than those with weaker masculine self- structs to indicate various ways of connecting with a brand
schemas (Markus & Sentis, 1982). that differ in strength and affect the consumer's interaction
The part of the self that is defined by brands is referred to as with a brand: brand attitude (resulting from object-centered en-
self-brand identity. The self-brand connection scale measures gagements with brands), brand attachment (resulting from self-
the strength of the link between the self and a particular brand centered engagements), and brand community (resulting from
(Escalas, 2004). There are also individual differences among interpersonal and socio-cultural engagements).

This content downloaded from

37.245.216.143 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:18:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 B. Schmitt /Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 7-17 13

Brand attitude They tend to form around publicly consumed goods rather
than those consumed in private.
Brand attitudes are psychological tendencies to evaluate ob- Brand community includes a sense of emotional involve-
jects along a degree of favor or liking. Attitudes toward brands,ment and connection with the group. Yet, brand communities
or ads, have been central constructs in consumer psychology are not only providing emotional bonds. They create shared
for a long time (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986; Mitchell &goals among members, who may engage in joint actions to ac-
Olson, 1981). Recently, following dual-processing theories in complish these collective goals (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006).
psychology, a distinction has been drawn between implicitThey provide help and support, recommendations, and interac-
and explicit attitudes (Gawroński & Bodenhausen, 2006). The tion with like-minded consumers, as well as participation in
basis of implicit attitudes is seen in associative processes that community activities. The meaningfulness of the community
are activated automatically with little cognitive capacity or ex-rests in sharing such activities and experiences (McAlexander,
plicit intention to evaluate an object. For brands, they may be Schouten, & Koenig, 2002). As social entities, brand communi-
the result of a classical conditioning process, e.g., by pairing ties also have their own norms and rituals, and consumers tend
sensory images with brands (Grossman & Till, 1998). Explicit to agree with the community's objectives, norms, and rituals
attitudes, in contrast, are evaluative judgments that are derived(Algesheimer, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005).
through a reflective system and the resulting propositions are
subject to syllogistic inferences that assess their validity.
Positive attitudes express a relatively weak connection with aFuture research
brand. They are generalized dispositions to behave toward a
brand, and they may lead to simple preference and purchase inten- The consumer-psychology model of brands presented here
tion. But attitudes are often not stable over time, and the attitude-provides an integrative framework for organizing research on
behavior link is weak and subject to numerous moderator effectsbrands and guiding further empirical studies. Future research
(Park & Maclnnis, 2006). should test the validity of the core constructs and core assump-
tions of the model, regarding the three layers of engagement,
Brand attachment the five brand related processes, and, most importantly, regarding
the allocation of constructs to these layers and processes.
For self-related engagement, brand attachment seems to be the As mentioned earlier, the model proposes that the five psy-
essential construct that expresses a consumer's connection with chological
a brand processes do not necessarily occur in a partic-
brand. Brand attachment provides stronger connections thanular order. Although I proceeded didactically from identifying
brand attitudes (Thomson et al., 2005). Attachment was originallyrelevant information and experiencing the brand, to integrating
used in developmental psychology in the realm of parent-infant
information and experiences, to signifying and connecting with
relationships to define a strong bond between a child and caretak-the brand, some of these processes may occur in alternative or-
ders. For example, after trial, a consumer may have formed a
er (Bowlby, 1979). After childhood, attachment can manifest it-
self in romantic relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1994), kinships,positive attitude (e.g., toward a consumer electronics brand)
and friendships (Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997; Weiss, 1988). that he only subsequently confirms through a brand concept
In the realm of consumer psychology, consumers can form(e.g., as an "innovative brand"). Or the consumer may endow
emotional attachments to gifts, collectibles, places of residence,a brand with a personality ("exciting") and subsequently search
and, in particular, brands (Thomson et al., 2005). Brand attach-for associated features and benefits that confirm it. Or, after be-
ment and brand attitude have distinct conceptual properties and coming part of a brand community, a consumer may judge her
formation processes, and, therefore, different behavioral impli- brand relationship to be a "friendship." Future research should
cations (Park, Maclnnis, Priester, Eisingerich, & Iacobucci, investigate under what conditions the processes of the model
2010). Brand attachment predicts consumer intentions to per- occur sequentially from identifying to connecting and when
form behaviors that use significant resources, such as time, they occur in a different sequence.
money, and reputation, better than brand attitudes. Attachment There should also be tests concerning whether the three layers
may be viewed as an antecedent of true loyalty (Foumier of & engagement are psychologically distinct. Is there, as proposed,
Yao, 1997). a relatively basic object-centered and functionally-guided con-
sumer engagement process that includes simple categorization
Brand community and multi-sensory processing that can be summarized in a
brand concept that serves as an informational cue for brand atti-
Moving to the interpersonal and socio-cultural engagementtudes? Is there a self-centered engagement process that includes
level, researchers have examined consumer connections with brand associations, affect and personality and serves as an identi-
brand communities. A brand community is "a specialized,ty signal that leads to attachment toward the brand? Finally, can
non-geographically bound community, based on a structured we verify an interpersonal and social engagement process
set of social relationships among users of a brand" (Muniz & where consumers examine brands contextually and process
O'Guinn, 2001). Brand communities are explicitly commercialinter-brand relations, create their own experiences through partic-
and, unlike other communities (such as neighborhood groups,ipation, relate to brands as cultural symbols and view themselves
collectors or social clubs), not necessarily tied to geography. as part of a brand community?

This content downloaded from

37.245.216.143 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:18:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
14 B. Schmitt /Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 7-17

Conclusion
In testing the model or parts of it, we should allow for mod-
erator effects. Particular emphasis should be placed on modera-
While research
tors that put differential emphasis on one engagement in the
layer orbranding area has usually been narrow
and not integrative,
another - for example, independent and interdependent some have been waiting for a comprehen-
selves
(Ng & Houston, 2006; Swaminathan et al., sive2007) or self-
consumer-psychology model of brands - a "blueprint of
brand engagement (Sprott et alģ, 2009). brand knowledge, as comprehensive while also as parsimoni-
ous as possible, that would provide the necessary depth and
Consumer neuroscience breadth of understanding of consumer behavior and marketing
activity" (Keller, 2003). I feel that the model that I presented
Most of the research that I am suggesting for testinghere
thehas achieved this kind of comprehensive, yet parsimoni-
model can be done using standard research techniques such
ous, as
blueprint of brands from a consumer psychology perspec-
tive. The model, developed primarily for an academic audience,
experiments, surveys and causal modeling. However, because
we proposed that the five processes of the model might summarizes
not be and integrates existing constructs and findings and
stepwise but widely distributed, newly emerging consumerintends
in- to stimulate more systematic future research. By draw-
ing the attention of practitioners to the key psychological fac-
sight techniques may be useful as well. For example, consumer
neuroscience addresses consumer relevant problems tors usingunderlying brand effects, the model may also provide a
bridge from theory to business practice and inspire managers
methods originally used for brain research (Hubert & Kenning,
to create functionally useful, psychologically meaningful and
2008). Brain imaging techniques examine activations as they
occur spontaneously and simultaneously throughout the culturally
entire relevant brands.
brain and may thus help to test and refine the proposed model
(Shiv et al., 2005; Yoon, Gutchess, Feinberg, & Polk, 2006).
Consumer neuroscience on brands has provided some References
pre-
liminary evidence that is consistent with the model. Consider
Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand
the well known "Coke-Pepsi" brain study by McClure et al.
name. New York: The Free Press.
(2004). While observing the typical "Pepsi challenge" Aaker,
effectD. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.
that consumers prefer Pepsi in a blind test over Coke, the au-J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Re-
Aaker,
thors also observed stronger activations in brain regions associ-
search, 34, 447-356.
ated with emotions when participants were shown a Coke Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persua-
logo
sion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36,45-51.
than a Pepsi logo. Importantly, the effect could be reversed with
Aaker, D. (2004). Brand portfolio strategy. New York: The Free Press.
patients whose ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an emotion area,
Aaker, J., Benet-Martínez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols as
was damaged: they preferred Pepsi to Coke both in a blind taste
carriers of culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality con-
test and in a test that featured brand information (Koenigs & Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 492-508.
structs.
Tranel, 2008). These and other results suggest that brandAaker,
choiceJ. L., Foumier, S., & Brasei, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 1-16.
can be driven by sensory information in some contexts, but also
Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand exten-
by experienced emotions (Esch et al., 2012-this issue). More-
sions. Journal of Marketing, 54, 27-41.
over, results from a series of brain scanning studies suggest
Adaval, R. (2003). How good gets better and bad gets worse: Understanding the
that brands may be processed differently for extracting informa-
impact of affect on evaluations of known brands. The Journal of Consumer
tion for functional decision-making, personal meaningResearch,
and 30, 352-367.
Agarwal, M. K., & Rao, V. R. (1996). An empirical comparison of consumer-
inter-personal relevance. For example, the prefrontal cortex
based measures of brand equity. Marketing Letters, 3, 237-247.
seems to be differentially engaged for value versus prestige
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer atti-
brands; moreover, the medial prefrontal cortex and precuneus
tudes and behavior. The Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 87-101.
seem to be involved in the processing of luxury brands (associ-
Aggarwal, P., & Law, S. (2005). Role of relationship norms in processing brand
information. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 453-464.
ated with self-centered cognitions) whereas the left superior
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is this car smiling at me? Schema con-
frontal gyrus and anterior cingulate cortex are activated for
gruity as basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Con-
value brands that are more likely to follow rather objective,
sumer Research, 34, 468-479.
functional choice (Schaefer, 2009). Finally, abstract, semantic
Akaoui, J. (2007). Brand experience on the pitch: How the sponsors fared in the
brand concepts can be neurologically distinguished from affec-
World Cup. Journal of Advertising Research, 47, 147-157.
Alba, J. &
tive, self-relevant brand concepts (Ratnayake, Broderick, W., & Chattopadhyay, A. (1985). Effects of context and part-category
cues on recall of competing brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 22,
Mitchell, 2010). 340-349.
In future consumer-neuroscience research, the model Alba,
shouldJ. W., Hutchinson, W. J., & Lynch, J. (1991). Memory and decision mak-
be tested more comprehensively and rigorously, e.g., by manip-
ing. In Thomas S. Robertson, & Harold H. Kassarijian (Eds.), Handbook of
ulating levels of engagement, rather than measuring them
Consumer Behavior (pp. 1-49). NJ: Englewood Cliffs.
through brands or category types. This could be done byAlgesheimer,
prim- R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence
of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Market-
ing the levels of engagement and giving individuals simple
ing, 69, 19-34.
tasks related to the five processes of identifying, experiencing,
Algom, D., & Cain, W. S. (1991). Remembered odors and mental mixtures:
integrating, signifying and connecting, while measuring activa-
Tapping reservoirs of olfactory knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psy-
tions in brain regions. chology. Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1 104-1 119.

This content downloaded from

37.245.216.143 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:18:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 B. Schmitt /Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 7-17 15

Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration Gawroński, B., theory.

& Bodenhausen,
San G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional
Diego, CA: Academic Press. processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit atti-
Andrade, E. B., & Cohen, J. B. (2007). On the consumption tude of negative
change. feel-Bulletin, 132, 692-731.
Psychological
ings. Journal of Consumer Research , 34, 283-300. Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & De Wulf, K. (2009). A new measure of brand per-
Amould, E. J. (2005). Animating the big middle. Journal of Retailing
sonality. , 81(2),
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 97-107.
89-96. Geylani, T., Ter Hofstede, F., & Inman, J. (2005). Image reinforcement or im-
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Antecedents and purchase conse-pairment: The effects of co-branding on attribute uncertainty. McCombs
Working Paper No. MKT-01-05.
quences of customer participation in small group brand communities. Inter-
national Journal of Research in Marketing , 23, 45-61. Gobé, M. (2001). Emotional branding: The new paradigm for connecting
Barone, M. J. (2005). The interactive effects of mood and involvement on brand
brands to people. : Allworth Press.
extension evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 263-270.
Goldstein, N. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). The spyglass self: A model of vicarious
Barone, M. J., Miniard, P. W., & Romeo, J. B. (2000). The influence of positive
self-perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 402-417.
mood on brand extension evaluations. The Journal of Consumer Research,
Graeff, T. R. (1997). Consumption situations and the effects of brand image on
26, 340-357. consumers' brand evaluations. Psychology and Marketing, 14, 49-70.
Bayus, B. L. (2010). Crowdsourcing and individual creativity overGrewal,
time: D., Kavanoor, S., Fem, E. F., Costley, C., & Barnes, J. (1997). Com-
The detrimental effects of past success. Working Paper Series. parative versus noncomparative advertising: A meta-analysis. The Journal
of Marketing, 61, 1-15.
Bottomley, P. A., & Holden, S. J. S. (2001). Do we really know how consumers
evaluate brand extensions? Empirical generalizations based on secondary Grossman, R. P., & Till, B. D. (1998). The persistence of classically condi-
analysis of eight studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 494-500.tioned brand attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 27, 23-31.
Boush, D. M., & Loken, B. (1991). A process-tracing study of brand extensionHazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework
evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 16-28. for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry , 5, 1-22.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Herr, P. M., Farquhar, P. H., & Fazio, R. H. (1996). Impact of dominance and
Tavistock. relatedness on brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5,
Brakus, J. Josko, Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: 135-159.
Hoffman, D., & Fodor, M. (2010). Can you measure the ROI of your social
What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Market-
ing, 73, 52-68. media marketing? MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(1).
Holt, D. B. (2004). How brands become icons: The principles of cultural
Bridges, S., Keller, K. L., & Sood, S. (2000). Communication strategies for
brand extensions: Enhancing perceived fit by establishing explanatory branding. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.
links. Journal of Advertising, 29, 1-11. Hoyer, W. D., & Brown, S. P. (1990). Effects of brand awareness on choice for
Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand in brand a common, repeat-purchase product. The Journal of Consumer Research,
extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 214-228. 17, 141-148.
Calvert, G. A., Spence, C., & Stem, B. E. (2004). The handbook of multisensoryHubbard, T. L. (1994). Memory psychophysics. Psychological Research, 56,
processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 237-250.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Guido, G. (2001). Brand personality: How
Hubert, M., & Kenning, P. (2008). A current overview of consumer neurosci-
to make the metaphor fit? Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 377-395. ence. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7, 272-292.
Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of Janiszewski, C., & van Osselaer, S. M. J. (2000). A connectionist model of
brand love. Marketing Letters, 1 7, 79-89. brand-quality associations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 331-350.
Chaplin, L. N., & Roedder John, D. (2005). The development of self-brand con-Keller, K. L. (1987). Memory factors in advertising: The effect of advertising
nections in children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, retrieval cues on brand evaluations. The Journal of Consumer Research,
119-129. 74,316-333.
Keller,
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing consumer-
trust
and brand affect to brand performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal
based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22.
of Marketing, 65, 81-93. Keller, K. L. (2002). Branding and brand equity. In Bart Weitz, & Robin
Wensley (Eds.), Handbook of Marketing (pp. 151-178). London: Sage
Delgado-B, E., Munuera- Aleman, J. L., & Yagoe-Guillin, M. J. (2003). Devel-
Publications.
opment and validation of a brand trust scale. International Journal of Mar-
ket Research, 45, 335-353. Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowl-
Dimoile, C. V., & Yalch, R. F. (201 1). The mere association effect and brand
edge. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 595-600.
evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 24-37. Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. brand
Jour- extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 35-50.
nal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 131-157. Keller, K. L., & Lehman, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: Research findings
Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connectionsand to
future priorities. Marketing Science, 25, 740-759.
brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 168-179. Kirmani, A. (2009). The self and the brand. Journal of Consumer of Business,
19, 271-275.
Esch, F. -R., Moli, T., Schmitt, B., Eiger, C., Neuhaus, C., & Weber, B. (2012).
Koenigs, M., & Tranel, D. (2008). Prefrontal cortex damage abolishes brand-
Brands on the brain: Do consumers use declarative information or experi-
enced emotions to evaluate brands? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22,changes in cola preference. Social Cognitive and Affective Neurosci-
cued
75-85 this issue. ence, 3, 1-6.
Farquhar, P. H., & Herr, P. M. (1993). The dual structure of brand associations.
Kreuzbauer, R., & Malter, A. J. (2005). Embodied cognition and new product
In David A. Aaker, & Alexander L. Biel (Eds.), Brand equity & advertising: design: Changing product form to influence brand categorization. Journal
Advertising's role in building strong brands (pp. 263-279). Hillsdale, NJ: of Product Innovation Management, 22, 165-176.
Laurence Erlbaum Associates. Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B. H., & Dubé, L. (1994). Foreign branding and its effects
Fedorikhin, A., Park, C. W., & Thomson, M. (2008). Beyond fit and attitude:on product perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31,
The effect of emotional attachment on consumer responses to brand exten- 264-270.
sions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 281-291. Lowrey, T. M., Shrum, L. J., & Dubitsky, T. M. (2003). The Relation between
Foumier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theo- brand-name linguistic characteristics and brand-name memory. Journal of
ry in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-373. Advertising, 32, 7-17.
Foumier, S., & Yao, J. L. (1997). Reviving brand loyalty: A reconceptualization
Lynch, J. G., & Srull, T. K. (1982). Memory and attentional factors in consumer
within the framework of consumer-brand relationships. International Jour-choice: Concepts and research methods. Journal of Consumer Research, 9,
nal of Research in Marketing, 14(5), 451-472. 18-37.

This content downloaded from

37.245.216.143 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:18:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
16 B. Schmitt /Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 7-17

MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role

Pullig, C., of attitude
Simmons, C. J.,to-
& Netemeyer, R. G. (2006). Brand dilution: When
dotest
ward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A new brands hurt existing brands? Journal of Marketing, 70, 52-66.
of competing
explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 130-143.
Ramanathan, S., & Williams, P. (2007). Immediate and delayed emotional con-
Maheswaran, D., Mackie, D. M., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Brand name
sequences as a heu-
of indulgence: The moderating influence of personality type on
mixed
ristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy emotions. Journal
confirmation on of Consumer Research, 34, 212-223.
consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 317-336.
Ratnayake, N., Broderick, A. J., & Mitchell, R. L. C. (2010). A neurocognitive
Maoz, E., & Tybout, A. M. (2002). The moderating role of approach to brand memory.
involvement and Journal of Marketing Management, 26,
1295-1318. of Consumer
differentiation in the evaluation of brand extensions. Journal
Psychology, 119-131. Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J., & Wong, N. (2009). The safety of objects: ma-
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about
terialism, the self.
existential insecurity and brand connection. Journal of Consumer
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78. Research, 36, 1-16.
Markus, H. (1983). Self-knowledge: An expanded view. Journal Roedder ofJohn, D. R., Loken, B., Kim, K., & Monga, A. B. (2006). Brand con-
Personality,
51, 543-565. cept maps: A methodology for identifying brand association networks.
Markus, H., & Sentis, K. (1982). The self in social information Journal of Marketing
processing. In J.Research, 43, 549-563.
Suis (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 41-70).
Schaefer, Hillsdale,
M. (2009). Neuroeconomics: In search of the neural representation of
NJ: Edbaum. brand. Progress in Brain Research, 178, 241-252.
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. J. (2002). Building brand Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing: How to get customers to sense, feel,
community. Journal of Marketing , 66, 38-54. think, act, and relate to your company and brands. New York: The Free Press.
McClure, S. M., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K. S., Montague, L. M., & Monta- Schmitt, B. (2003). Customer experience management: A revolutionary ap-
gue, P. R. (2004). Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally proach to connecting with your customers. Hoboken, New Jersey: John
familiar drinks. Neuron, 44, 379-387. Wiley & Sons.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human Schmitt, B. H., Tavassoli, N. T., & Millard, R. T. (1993). Memory for print ads:
universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-516. Understanding relations among brand name, copy, and picture. Journal of
Mick, D. G. (1986). Consumer research and semiotics: Exploring the morphol- Consumer Psychology, 2, 55-81.
ogy of signs, symbols and significance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational
196-214. functions of affective states. In R. M. Sorrentino, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),
Milberg, S. J., Park, C. W., & McCarthy, M. S. (1997). Managing negative Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior,
feedback effects associated with brand extensions: The impact of alternative Vol. 2. (pp. 527-56 l)New York: Guilford Press.
branding strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6, 1 19-140. Sen, S. (1999). The effects of brand name suggestiveness and decision goal on
Milberg, S. J., Sinn, F., & Goodstein, R. C. (2010). Consumer reactions
the to
development of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8,
431-455.
brand extensions in a competitive context: Does fit still matter? Journal of
Consumer Research, 37, 543-553. Shapiro, S., & Spence, M. T. (2002). Factors affecting encoding, retrieval, and
Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the alignment
only of sensory attributes in a memory based brand choice task. Jour-
mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of MarketingnalRe-of Consumer Research, 28, 603-617.
search, 18, 318-332. Sheinin, D. A., & Schmitt, B. H. (1994). Extending brands with new product
Monga, A. B., & John, D. R. (2010). What makes brands elastic? The influence
concepts; The role of category attribute congruity, brand affect, and brand
breadth. Journal of Business Research, 31, 1-10.
of brand concept and styles of thinking on brand extension evaluation. Jour-
nal of Marketing, 74, 80-92. Shiv, B., Bechara, A., Levin, I., Alba, J., Bettman, J., Dubé, L., et al. (2005).
Decision neuroscience. Marketing Letters, 16, 375-386.
Mornn, M. (1999). The impact of brand extensions on parent brand memory
structures and retrieval processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 36,
Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it
517-525. keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer
Morrin, M., & Ratneshwar, S. (2003). Does it make sense to use scents brand
to en- attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 30-42.
hance brand memory. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 10-25. Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emo-
Moscovici, S., & Markova, I. (1998). Presenting social representations: A tion.
con-Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813-838.
versation. Culture and Psychology, 4, 371-410. Sood, S., & Dreze, X. (2006). Brand extensions of experiential goods: Movie
Muniz, A. M., & O'Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. The Journal sequelofevaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 352-360.
Consumer Research, 27, 412-432. Spence, C. (2010). Crossmodal attention. Scholarpedia, 5, 6309.
Nedungadi, P. (1990). Recall and consumer consideration sets: Influencing
Sprott, D. E., Czellar, S., & Spangenberg, E. (2009). The importance of a gen-
choice without altering brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research,eral measure of brand engagement on market behavior: Development and
17, 263-276. validation of a scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 92-104.
Swaminathan, V., Page, K. L., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2007). My' brand or 'our'
Ng, S., & Houston, M. J. (2006). Exemplars or beliefs? The impact of self-view
on the nature and relative influence of brand associations. Journal ofbrand:
Con- The effects of brand rrelationship dimensions and self-construal on
sumer Research, 32, 519-529. brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34( August), 248-259.
Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand Tavassoli,
concept- N. T. (2001). Color memory and evaluations for alphabetical and
image management. Journal of Marketing, 50, 135-145. logographic brand names. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied,
7, the
Park, C. W., & Maclnnis, D. J. (2006). What's in and what's out: Questions on 104-111.
Thomson,
boundaries of the attitude construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 16-18. M., Maclnnis, D. J., & Park, W. C. (2005). The ties that bind: Mea-
Park, C. W., Maclnnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. the strength of consumers' emotional attachments to brands. Journal
suring
(2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual andof Consumer Psychology, 75(1), 77-91.
em-
pirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. JournalTrinke,
of Mar-S. J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in
keting, 74, 1-17. young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 603-625.
Weiss,
Park, C. S., & Srinivasan, V. (1994). A survey-based method for measuring andR. S. (1988). Loss and recovery. Journal of Social Issues, 44, 37-52.
Woodside,
understanding brand equity and its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Re- A. G., Sood, S., & Miller, K. E. (2008). When consumers and brands
search, 31, 271-288. talk: Storytelling theory and research in psychology and marketing. Psy-
Pham, M. T. (2004). Ideals and oughts and the reliance on affect versuschology
sub- and Marketing, 25, 97-145.
Yoon, C., Gutchess, A. H., Feinberg, F., & Polk, T. A. (2006). A functional
stance in persuasion. The Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 503-518.
magnetic resonance imaging study of neural dissociations between brand
Pine, J., & Gilmore, J. (1999). The experience economy. Boston: Harvard Busi-
ness School Press. and person judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 31-40.

This content downloaded from

37.245.216.143 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:18:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 B. Schmitt / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 7-17 17

Zeithami,
Yorkston, E., & Menon, G. (2004). A sound idea: Phonetic effects V. A. names
of brand (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality,
means-end
on consumer judgments. The Journal of Consumer Research, model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Mar
31, 43-51.
Zampini, M., & Spence, C. (2004). The role of auditory cues2-22.
in modulating the
perceived crispness and staleness of potato chips. Journal of S.,
Zhang, Sensory Stud-
& Schmitt, B. H. (2001). Creating local brands in multilingual inter-
ies , 19, 347-363. national marketing. Journal of Marketing Research , 38, 313-325.

This content downloaded from

37.245.216.143 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:18:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms