Conspicuous brand usage, defined as attention-getting use of a brand, causes brand dilution under certain conditions. This research examines changes in observers' attitudes toward a brand after seeing a brand user engaged in conspicuous use of the brand. The authors propose that observers infer that a consumer engaged in conspicuous brand usage is driven by an ulterior motive of impression management. When observers have low self-brand connection, they exhibit less favorable attitudes toward both the brand user and the brand. In contrast, observers with high self-brand connection maintain their favorable view of the brand in the face of a conspicuous brand user. Three studies demonstrate the brand dilution effect of conspicuous brand usage.
AhluwaliaRohini, RobertE. Burnkrant, and Rao UnnavaH. (2000), “Consumer Response to Negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment,”Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (May), 203–214.
2.
BergerJonah, and WardMorgan (2010), “Subtle Signals of Inconspicuous Consumption,”Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (4), 555–69.
3.
CampbellMargaret C., and KirmaniAmna (2000), “Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent,”Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 69–83.
4.
CarverCharles S., and MichaelF. Scheier (1990), “Origins and Functions of Positive and Negative Affect: A Control-Process View,”Psychological Review, 97 (1), 19–35.
5.
ChengShirley Y.Y., TiffanyB. White, and LanN. Chaplin (2012), “The Effects of Self-Brand Connections on Responses to Brand Failure: A New Look at the Consumer–Brand Relationship,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (2), 280–88.
6.
EscalasJennifer Edson (2004), “Narrative Processing: Building Consumer Connections to Brands,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (1/2), 168–79.
7.
EscalasJennifer Edson, and JamesR. Bettman (2003), “You Are What They Eat: The Influence of Reference Groups on Consumers' Connections to Brands,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 339–48.
8.
FeinSteven (1996), “Effects of Suspicion on Attributional Thinking and the Correspondence Bias,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (6), 1164–84.
9.
FournierSusan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343–53.
10.
GodfreyDebra K., EdwardE. Jones, and CharlesG. Lord (1986), “Self-Promotion Is Not Ingratiating,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (1), 106–115.
11.
HanYoung J., JosephC. Nunes, and DrèzeXavier (2010), “Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence,”Journal of Marketing, 74 (July), 15–30.
12.
HayesAndrew F. (2013), An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach.New York: The Guilford Press.
13.
HayesAndrew F., and KristopherJ. Preacher (2013), “Conditional Process Modeling: Using Structural Equation Modeling to Examine Contingent Causal Processes,” in Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course, 2d ed., GregoryR. Hancock, and RalphO. Mueller, eds. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
14.
IrwinJulie R., and GaryH. McClelland (2001), “Misleading Heuristics and Moderated Multiple Regression Models,”Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (January), 100–109.
15.
JohnsonPalmer O., and LeoC. Fay (1950), “The Johnson–Neyman Technique, Its Theory and Application,”Psychometrika, 15 (4), 349–67.
16.
KelleyHarold H. (1973), “The Process of Causal Attribution,”American Psychologist, 28 (2), 107–128.
17.
KirmaniAmna, SoodSanjay, and BridgesSheri (1999), “The Ownership Effect in Consumer Responses to Brand Line Stretches,”Journal of Marketing, 63 (January), 88–101.
18.
LokenBarbara, and JohnDeborah Roedder (1993), “Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative Impact?”Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 71–84.
19.
LokenBarbara, and JohnDeborah Roedder (2010), “When Do Bad Things Happen to Good Brands? Understanding Internal and External Sources of Brand Dilution,” in Brands and Brand Management: Contemporary Research Perspectives, LokenBarbara, AhluwaliaRohini, and MichaelJ. Houston, eds. New York: Psychology Press, 233–70.
20.
MacKinnonDavid P., ChondraM. Lockwood, and WilliamsJason (2004), “Confidence Limits for the Indirect Effect: Distribution of the Product and Resampling Methods,”Multivariate Behavior Research, 39 (1), 99–128.
21.
MarchandMiquelle A.G., and VonkRoos (2005), “The Process of Becoming Suspicious of Ulterior Motives,”Social Cognition, 23 (3), 242–56.
22.
ParkC.W., DeborahJ. MacInnis, JosephR. Priester, AndreasB. Eisengerich, and IacobucciDawn (2010), “Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers,”Journal of Marketing, 74 (November), 1–17.
23.
PulligChris P., CarolynJ. Simmons, and RichardG. Netemeyer (2006), “Brand Dilution: When Do New Brands Hurt Existing Brands?”Journal of Marketing, 70 (April), 52–66.
24.
SchlenkerBarry R., and MarkR. Leary (1982), “Social Anxiety and Self-Presentation: A Conceptualization Model,”Psychological Bulletin, 92 (3), 641–69.
25.
SundieJill M., JamesC. Ward, DanielJ. Beal, WynneW. Chin, and Geiger-OnetoStephanie (2009), “Schadenfreude as a Consumption-Related Emotion: Feeling Happiness About the Downfall of Another's Product,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (3), 356–73.
26.
SwaminathanVanitha, KarenL. Page, and Gürhan-CanliZeynep (2007), “‘My’ Brand or ‘Our’ Brand: The Effects of Brand Relationship Dimensions and Self-Construal on Brand Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 248–59.
27.
VonkRoos (1998), “The Slime Effect: Suspicion and Dislike of Likeable Behaviors Toward Superiors,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (4), 849–64.
28.
WilcoxKeith, KimHyeong Min, and SenSankar (2009), “Why Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit Luxury Brands?”Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (April), 247–59.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
