2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Symbolic drivers of consumer–brand identification and disidentification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
177
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 103 publications
(186 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
6
177
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, low identifiers might have concerns regarding such products because of the potential for re-enforcing ingroup affiliation that is contrary to their sense of self. In contrast, low identifiers likely have lower self-representation concerns than high identifiers with regards to dissociative groups, as they are less motivated to express and verify their ingroup social identity (Wolter and Cronin, 2016). As such, they should be more open to products associated with outgroups or dissociative groups, and perceive such products more positively than those associated with the ingroup (see Branscombe et al, 1999 for a related discussion).…”
Section: Dissociative Groupsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Moreover, low identifiers might have concerns regarding such products because of the potential for re-enforcing ingroup affiliation that is contrary to their sense of self. In contrast, low identifiers likely have lower self-representation concerns than high identifiers with regards to dissociative groups, as they are less motivated to express and verify their ingroup social identity (Wolter and Cronin, 2016). As such, they should be more open to products associated with outgroups or dissociative groups, and perceive such products more positively than those associated with the ingroup (see Branscombe et al, 1999 for a related discussion).…”
Section: Dissociative Groupsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Limited research has begun to explore different levels of identification and its consequences. For instance , Wolter et al (2016), examined predictors of consumer brand disidentification (i.e. self-brand dissimilarity, brand disrepute, brand indistinctiveness).…”
Section: Limitations and Further Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many empirical studies report positive effects of higher degrees of identification on key indicators of marketing success, including customer satisfaction (Tuškej et al, 2013;Algesheimer et al, 2005;Ahearne et al, 2005), brand commitment (Tuškej et al, 2013), customer loyalty (Algesheimer et al, 2005;Homburg et al, 2009;Stokburger-Sauer et al, 2012;Wolter et al, identification and many other constructs that have proved to play an important role in relationship marketing. In particular, prior research provides an insufficient picture of the relationship between customer-brand identification and customer satisfaction; this relationship is either not discussed (Homburg et al, 2009) or analyzed in specific contexts, such as donors (Boenigk and Helmig, 2013), car owners (Kuenzel and Halliday, 2008), or online communities (Casalo et al, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CBI can be seen as a kind of cognitive state of self-categorization [21]. According to Wolter et al [22], CBI is a decision of consumer to define his or her "self" by including a specific brand into their self-concept. In the marketing literature, the process E3S Web of Conferences 31, 11001 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20183111001 ICENIS 2017 of CBI was influencing of several antecedent factors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%