نام های تجاری (برند) به عنوان شرکای رابطه : گرمی، شایستگی، و بین این دو
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|1954||2012||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Consumer Psychology, Volume 22, Issue 2, April 2012, Pages 177–185
The dialogue between social perception and consumer–brand relationship theories opens new opportunities for studying brands. To advance branding research in the spirit of interdisciplinary inquiry, we propose to (1) investigate the process of anthropomorphism through which brands are imbued with intentional agency; (2) integrate the role of consumers not only as perceivers but also as relationship agents; (3) consider important defining dimensions of consumer–brand relationships beyond warmth and competence, including power and excitement; and (4) articulate the dynamics governing warmth (intentions) and competency (ability) judgments to yield prescriptive guidance for developing popular and admired brands.
Kervyn, Fiske, and Malone's (this issue) application of the Stereotype Content Model from psychology to the consumer–brand context presents an exciting step forward in the study of consumers' relationships with brands. This work builds from a fundamental premise argued in Fournier (1998): that people in many ways relate to brands similarly to how they relate to people. Over the past fourteen years, numerous tests of the applicability of the relationship metaphor to brand consumption have coalesced to support the validity of this basic tenet. Consumers become emotionally attached to brands they love (Albert et al., 2008, Batra et al., 2012, Shimp and Madden, 1988 and Thomson et al., 2005). They display brand loyalties that resemble marriages in their passionate commitments (Fournier and Yao, 1997 and Oliver, 1999). People have flings with brands (Alvarez & Fournier, in press), derive joy from childhood friendships (Connell & Schau, in press), invest in enmities (Hogg, 1998 and Luedicke et al., 2010) and rivalrous adversarial relationships (Paharia et al., 2011), lament master–slave entrapments (Miller et al., in press) and struggle with abusive relations wrought at the hands of malicious brands (Hill, 1994). Process similarities across brand and human relational spaces are also consistently supported. The same norms governing communal and exchange relationships between people shape behaviors in the brand consumption realm (Aggarwal, 2004 and Aggarwal and Law, 2005). The avoidant, secure and anxious attachment styles that govern people's interactions with others shape their interactions with brands (Paulssen and Fournier, 2011 and Swaminathan et al., 2009). With Kervyn et al.'s present work, and that of Aaker et al. (2010) we now have evidence that intentions (warmth) and ability (competence) are important dimensions underlying brand perception, as they are for people, stereotypes and social groups. The relationship metaphor, with appropriate contextual adaptations and adjustments (Swaminathan & Dommer, in press), has proven powerful for understanding brands. As we think about the promise of advancing the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework (BIAF), it is useful to reflect on basic relationship principles and ponder how these can be leveraged to inform the present work. First, although the BIAF assumes—as do all applications of relationship theory in consumer research—intentional agency on the part of an active, personified brand partner, theory concerning, and empirical support for, this process has yet to be put forth. Second, the BIAF considers characteristics of the brand partner as judged in terms of intentions (warmth) and ability (competence), but the model decidedly leaves characteristics of the actor/perceiver out. Since a relationship is a mutually co-created entity, a richer and more valid conception of consumer–brand interaction can be developed by recognizing that (at minimum) two parties come together in the brand relationship, the consumer and the brand. A third area for reflection concerns the dimensionality of the brand relationships space. Kervyn et al.'s research builds from a respected research history in social psychology and supports the power of intentions (warmth) and ability (competence) to capture variance in the relationships people form with their brands. Crossing these dimensions yields reliable clusters of troubled brands, pitied brands, popular brands, and envied brands into which brand exemplars fall. Research on brand relationships, however, reveals greater complexity in people's brand relationships than that which is captured by the intentions and ability of the brand partner. The simplification and utility afforded by the 2 × 2 stereotype content framework comes at a cost in terms of explanatory and predictive power, especially when one considers theoretical adaptations required to accommodate the uniqueness of the context of brands. As we move forward with marketing applications, we must critically evaluate whether and how the BIAF conceptualization limits our view of brands. Lastly, the BIAF is justly intended as a tool for brand management as Kervyn et al.'s positioning and discussion attests. In closing, we explore ways in which existing brand research and frameworks can be considered to increase the substantive utility and application of Kervyn et al.'s powerful ideas.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The BIAF is clearly not expected to explain everything that happens between consumers and brands, and the fact that we use this essay to discuss boundaries of the framework speaks to the broad appeal and explanatory power of the concepts at hand. Our essay attempts to persuade on one point: that the most interesting research pertinent to the BIAF lies in the intersection of theories concerning social perception and people's relationships with brands. Given the rich history of theories and models that exist in the branding literature, a dialogue between these traditions provides a valuable and necessary step in the generation of new propositions and research. The future of branding research is not exclusively about social perception, nor is it about people's relationships with brands. Progress is obtained not from one theory appropriating the other, but rather by challenging and informing each theory in the spirit of true interdisciplinary research.