Extant research suggests that consumers can become emotionally attached to consumption objects, including brands. However, a scale to measure the strength of consumers' emotional attachments to brands has yet to be devised. We develop such a scale in Studies 1 and 2. Study 3 validates the scale's internal consistency and dimensional structure. Study 4 examines its convergent validity with respect to four behavioral indicators of attachments. Study 5 demonstrates discriminant validity, showing that the scale is differentiated from measures of satisfaction, involvement, and brand attitudes. That study also examines the scale's predictive validity, showing that it is positively associated with indicators of both commitment and investment. The limitations of the scale and the boundary conditions of its applicability are also discussed.

Research has not verified the theoretical or practical value of the brand attachment construct in relation to alternative constructs, particularly brand attitude strength. The authors make conceptual, measurement, and managerial contributions to this research issue. Conceptually, they define brand attachment, articulate its defining properties, and differentiate it from brand attitude strength. From a measurement perspective, they develop and validate a parsimonious measure of brand attachment, test the assumptions that underlie it, and demonstrate that it indicates the concept of attachment. They also demonstrate the convergent and discriminant validity of this measure in relation to brand attitude strength. Managerially, they demonstrate that brand attachment offers value over brand attitude strength in predicting (1) consumers' intentions to perform difficult behaviors (those they regard as using consumer resources), (2) actual purchase behaviors, (3) brand purchase share (the share of a brand among directly competing brands), and (4) need share (the extent to which consumers rely on a brand to address relevant needs, including those brands in substitutable product categories).Keywords: brand management, consumer behavior, marketing strategy, brand attachment, attitude strength . As a construct that describes the strength of the bond connecting the consumer with the brand, attachment is critical because it should affect behaviors that foster brand profitability and customer lifetime value (Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005). At the same time, marketers have long invoked the constructs of attitude valence and strength as key antecedents to consumer behavior. We define attitude valence as the degree of positivity or negativity with which an attitude object (in the current context, a brand) is evaluated. We conceptualize brand attitude strength as the positivity or negativity (valence) of an attitude weighted by the confidence or certainty with which it is held (i.e., the extent to which it is considered valid; see Petty, Briñol, and DeMarree 2007). Strong attitudes result from effortful thought about the attitude object (Petty and Cacioppo 1986), most often because of its personal relevance. This effortful thought and the confidence with which the attitude object is held guide behavior. Prior research has shown that brand attitude strength predicts behaviors of interest to firms, including brand consideration, intention to purchase, purchase behavior, and brand choice (Fazio and Petty 2007; Petty, Haugtvedt, and Smith 1995;Priester et al. 2004).The rich history of research on brand attitude strength raises questions about the need for a construct such as brand attachment. Does attachment provide value beyond measures of brand attitude strength? The answer to this question is elusive because research to date has not verified how brand attachment and brand attitude strength differ conceptually or empirically. Nor has research differentiated what unique consumer behaviors, if any, each predicts.The current researc...

and the four anonymous JMR reviewers for their insightful and helpful comments on previous versions of this article.

The present paper proposes a customer–brand relationships model and empirically tests the following: (1) brand–self distance and brand prominence as representing customers' attachment–aversion relationships (AA Relationships) with a brand, (2) key distinguishing differences between the AA Relationships measure and other alternative relationship measures (i.e., brand attachment, emotional valence and brand attitude strength) based on a set of dependent variables, (3) three key determinants of the AA Relationships and the underlying process between the AA Relationships and behavioral intentions and actual brand behaviors, and (4) customer age as moderating the customer–brand relationships specified in the nomological model of the AA Relationships. The results offer strong support for the unique and important contribution of the AA Relationships model as representing consumers' relationship valence with a brand and its salience.

The authors examine the effects of using a subtractive versus an additive option-framing method on consumers' option choice decisions in three studies. The former option-framing method presents consumers with a fully loaded product and asks them to delete options they do not want. The latter presents them with a base model and asks them to add the options they do want. Combined, the studies support the managerial attractiveness of the subtractive versus the additive option-framing method. Consumers tend to choose more options with a higher total option price when they use subtractive versus additive option framing. This effect holds across different option price levels (Study 1) and product categories of varying price (Study 2). Moreover, this effect is magnified when subjects are asked to anticipate regret from their option choice decisions (Study 2). However, option framing has a different effect on the purchase likelihood of the product category itself, depending on the subject's initial interest in buying within the category. Although subtractive option framing offers strong advantages to managers when product commitment is high, it appears to demotivate category purchase when product commitment is low (Study 3). In addition, the three studies reveal several other findings about the attractiveness of subtractive versus additive option framing from the standpoint of consumers and managers. These findings, in turn, offer interesting public policy and future research implications.