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.

This article explores recent advances in self-determination research to address why consumers develop strong attachments to "human brands," a term that refers to any well-known persona who is the subject of marketing communications efforts. Study 1 uses a survey that is analyzed with structural equation modeling. Study 2 is qualitative and offers corroborating evidence for the proposed theoretical model. Study 3 extends the model with a more naturalistic sample and tests several alternative hypotheses using hierarchical regression. The results suggest that when a human brand enhances a person's feelings of autonomy and relatedness and does not suppress feelings of competence, the person is likely to become more strongly attached to it. This article documents that strong attachments are predictive of satisfied, trusting, and committed relationships and proposes that attachment strength may be a parsimonious proxy for consumer-brand relationship strength. The results imply that benefits would accrue to organizations such as entertainment firms and political parties that establish direct and routine interaction between human brands and consumers, that human brands to which consumers are attached offer significant potential as endorsers, and that organizations should address how to make the human brands they manage more authentic.

This article extends theory around consumer-brand relationship quality by exploring conditions under which such relationships may be transformed into exceptionally negative dispositions toward once-coveted brands. Survey and experimental results indicate that the more self-relevant a consumer-brand relationship, the more likely are anti-brand retaliatory behaviors after the relationship ends. These anti-brand behaviors are diverse: from complaining to third parties, to negative word of mouth, to illegal actions such as theft, threats, and vandalism. In contrast, post-exit consumer-brand relationships that were low in self-relevance but were high in trust, commitment, and satisfaction are less likely to result in anti-brand actions. The role of a discrete product or service failure is also explored, and results suggest that self-relevance may motivate retaliation even in the absence of a so-called critical incident. Ultimately, this research illuminates previously unexplored mechanisms—including self-conscious emotional reactions—that motivate consumer hostility and retaliation.

In two studies employing fictitious and real brands, this paper shows that brand attachment goes beyond attitude and fit in determining consumers' behavioral reactions to brand extensions such as purchase intentions, willingness to pay, word-of-mouth, and forgiveness. The effect is pronounced at high and moderate, but not low levels of fit. The paper also shows that attachment has an impact on the extent to which the extension is categorized as a member of the parent brand family, which partially mediates attachment's effects.

To advance understanding of how well different types of brand relationships drive customer brand loyalty and to help companies improve the effectiveness of their relationship-building investments, this article conducts a meta-analysis of the link between five consumer-brand relationship constructs and customer brand loyalty. The analysis of 588 elasticities from 290 studies reported in 255 publications over 24 years (n = 348,541 across 46 countries) reveals that the aggregate brand relationship elasticity is .439. More importantly, results demonstrate under what conditions various types of brand relationships increase loyalty. For example, while elasticities are generally highest for love-based and attachment-based brand relationships, the positive influence of brand relationships on customer brand loyalty is stronger in more recent (vs. earlier) years, for nonstatus (vs. status) and publicly (vs. privately) consumed brands, and for estimates using attitudinal (vs. behavioral) customer brand loyalty. Overall, the results suggest that brand relationship elasticities vary considerably across brand, loyalty, time, and consumer characteristics. Drawing on these findings, the current research advances implications for managers and scholars and provide avenues for future research.