Rearch Article
Brand authenticity:An integrative framework and measurement scale
Felicitas Morhart a ,⁎,1,Lucia Malär b ,2,Amélie Guèvremont c ,3,
Florent Girardin a ,1,Bianca Grohmann d ,4
a
北极光俄语论坛Faculty of Business and Economics,University of Lausanne,UNIL-Dorigny,Bâtiment Anthropole,1015Lausanne,Switzerland
b
Marketing Department,University of Bern,Engehaldenstras 4,3012Bern,Switzerland胖男人穿衣搭配
c
École des sciences de la gestion (ESG UQAM),Universitédu Québec àMontréal (UQAM),315,rue Sainte-Catherine Est,Montréal,Canada
d
John Molson School of Business,Concordia University,1455de Maisonneuve Blvd.West,Montréal,Canada
Received 23August 2013;received in revid form 13November 2014;accepted 26November 2014
Available online 4December 2014
Abstract
Although brand authenticity is gaining increasing interest in consumer behavior rearch and managerial practice,literature on its measurement and contribution to branding theory is still limited.This article develops an integrative framework of the concept of brand authenticity and reports the development and validation of a scale measuring consumers'perceived brand authenticity (PBA).A multi-pha scale development process resulted in a 15-item PBA scale measuring four dimensions:credibility,integrity,symbolism,and continuity.This scale is reliable across different brands and cultural contexts.We find that brand authenticity perceptions are in fluenced by indexical,existential,and iconic cues,whereby some of the latters'in fluence is moderated by consume
rs'level of marketing skepticism.Results also suggest that PBA increas emotional brand attachment and word-of-mouth,and that it drives brand choice likelihood through lf-congruence for consumers high in lf-authenticity.©2014Society for Consumer Psychology.Published by Elvier Inc.All rights rerved.
Keywords:Brand authenticity;Iconicity;Indexicality;Existentialism;Scale development;Self-authenticating acts
Introduction
Brands play an important role in consumers'identity projects (Edson Escalas,2004;Kirmani,2009)insofar as consumers rely on brands to express themlves,lf-enhance,or lf-verify (Aaker,1999).At the same time,consumers are confronted with increasing commercialization,an overflow of the fake,and an omniprence of meaningless market offers (Boyle,2004).To overcome this meaninglessness,consumers
look for brands that are relevant,original,and genuine:they increasingly arch for authenticity in brands (Arnould &Price,2000;Beverland,2005;Brown,Kozinets,&Sherry,2003).Gilmore and Pine (2007,p.5)acknowledge this development,stating that “authenticity has overtaken quality as the prev
ailing purchasing criterion,just as quality overtook cost,and as cost overtook availability.”
In order to engage in meaningful branding efforts,it is imperative for marketers to understand the nature of authenticity of their branded products and rvices,as well as its drivers and conquences.Both academics and practitioners therefore agree on the importance of authenticity for consumer behavior and branding (Beverland &Farrelly,2010;Gilmore &Pine,2007;Holt,2002;Leigh,Peters,&Shelton,2006;Newman &Dhar,2014;Ro &Wood,2005).However,marketing practice relies on intuitive and isolated appeals to heritage (e.g.,Kiehl's “since 1851”),origin (e.g.,Victorinox's “made in Switzerland ”),production methods
⁎Corresponding author.
E-mail address:Felicitas.Morhart@unil.ch (F.Morhart),malaer@imu.unibe.ch (L.Malär),guevremont.amelie@uquam.ca (A.Guèvremont),Florent. (F.Girardin),dia.ca (B.Grohmann).1
Fax:+41216923305.2
Fax:+41316318032.3
Fax:+15149870422.4
Fax:+15148484554.dx.doi/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.11.006
1057-7408/©2014Society for Consumer Psychology.Published by Elvier Inc.All rights rerved.
Available online at
ScienceDirect
Journal of Consumer Psychology 25,2(2015)200–
218
(e.g.,Lush's“handmade”),,Julius Bär's“true to you”),,Dove's“real beauty”),or moral ,Microsoft's“empower youth to change their world”)to convey authenticity of a brand.In addition—despite various efforts aimed at conceptualizing and operationalizing brand ,Eggers,O'Dwyer, Kraus,Vallaster,&Güldenberg,2013;Napoli,Dickinson, Beverland,&Farrelly,2014)—questions regarding its measure-ment,drivers,conquences,as well as underlying process and boundary conditions remain.
Against this background,this article eks to shed light on the nature of perceived brand authenticity(hereafter referred to as PBA),its measurement,and its relation to other theoretically and managerially meaningful constructs.To this end,we report(1)a synthesis of rearch on authenticity leading up to a definition and integrative framework of PBA,(2)the development of a scale to measure PBA,and(3)an empirical examination of drivers, conquences,boundary conditions,and a process mediating the effects of PBA for some consumer gments.This article aims to advance the theoretical understanding of PBA and highlight its relevance for consumers'brand-related behaviors.The findings of the current rearch facilitate further inquiries into authenticity in a consum
er context and in veral related domains,such as identity-related consumption.This rearch also provides mar-keting practitioners with an instrument to evaluate and track the level of brand authenticity and suggests specific strategies to strengthen it.
This article proceeds as follows:We first review the literature on authenticity and propo that three perspectives (i.e.,objectivist,constructivist,and existentialist)encompass all current authenticity conceptualizations.The objectivist perspective refers to authenticity as an objectively measureable quality of an entity that can be evaluated by experts(Trilling,1972).According to the constructivist perspective,authenticity is a projection of one's own beliefs, expectations,and perspectives onto an entity(Wang,1999). The existentialist perspective considers authenticity to be related to the lf—and not to an external entity—and involves the notion that authenticity means being true to one's lf(Golomb,1995).In order to define the dimensions of PBA in relation to the three perspectives on authenticity, we build on an extensive literature review combined with exploratory in-depth interviews that reveal four dimensions of PBA(continuity,credibility,integrity,and symbolism).We then prent a conceptual framework that identifies indexical cues (i.e.,evidence-bad brand characteristics),iconic , impression-bad brand characteristics),and existential , lf-referential brand characteristics)as drivers of PBA.We also propo a positive relation between
PBA and emotional brand attachment,word-of-mouth,brand choice likelihood,and brand consumption.In addition(in line with the subjectivity of authenticity asssments;Grayson&Martinec,2004),we identify individual difference variables that act as boundary conditions for PBA emergence and effects,and propo lf-verification as a central working mechanism of PBA for some consumer gments.We report the results of a qualitative study,five survey studies,and an experiment.Conceptualizing perceived brand authenticity
The marketing and consumer rearch literature acknowl-edges that a quest for authentic consumption aris from a loss of traditional sources of meaning and lf-identity that is asso-ciated with postmodernity(Arnould&Price,2000;Beverland &Farrelly,2010;Thompson,Rindfleisch,&Arl,2006). Authentic consumption is relevant for a wide range of con-sumption objects and activities that hold potential for meaning ,luxury wines;Beverland,2005,tourist attrac-tions;Grayson&Martinec,2004,and advertising;Beverland, Lindgreen,&Vink,2008).Despite high levels of agreement on authenticity's relevance for consumer behavior and its associ-ation with genuineness,truthfulness,and conveying meaning to consumers,the literature is characterized by diver and fragmented approaches and foci in the quest for a commonly accepted conceptualization of authenticity.In line with this obrvation,Beverla
pollosnd and Farrelly(2010)state that“[…]the nature of authenticity in consumption is contested”(p.838). This challenge extends into the branding context,where a commonly accepted definition of perceived brand authenticity is still lacking.We therefore suggest a conceptualization of PBA that encompass three authenticity-related perspectives found in the literature.
The objectivist perspective
According to Trilling(1972),the provenance of the term “authenticity”is in muums,“where persons expert in such matters test whether objects of art are what they appear to be or claim to be[…]”(p.93).Authenticity is en as a quality inherent in an object and evaluated by experts.Grayson and Martinec(2004)u the term“indexical”to refer to this type of authenticity:“indexicality distinguishes‘the real thing’from its copies”(p.298).For the authors,indexicality refers to a perceiver's experience of physical or behavioral fact that provides some verification of what is claimed to be delivered. Similarly,Beverland et al.(2008)discuss how consumers u objective sources of information to judge a product's authenticity,such as cues reinforcing continuance of historic practices.In a branding context,the objectivist perspective suggests that brand authenticity perceptions ari from an evidence-bad reality that can be assd using verifiable information about the brand,such as labels of origin,age, ingredients,or per
formance.
The constructivist perspective
According to this perspective,authenticity is a socially or personally constructed phenomenon(Grayson&Martinec, 2004;Leigh et al.,2006),such that reality is the result of different interpretations of what“the real world”looks like. Authenticity is not en as a quality inherent in an object,but a projection of one's own beliefs,expectations,and perspec-tives(Wang,1999).This explains why some consumers find authenticity in reproductions such as the VW Beetle(Brown et al.,2003)or fabricated touristic ttings like Disneyland
201
F.Morhart et al./Journal of Consumer Psychology25,2(2015)200–218
(MacCannell,1973)that reprent“commercially created authenticity”(Stern,1994)or“iconic authenticity”(Grayson &Martinec,2004).In a branding context,this type of authen-ticity refers to a brand's ability to create a schematic fit with consumers'expectations of an authentic brand(Beverland et al., 2008).Hence,authenticity emerges from consumers'percep-tions of abstract impressions,such
as the brand's esnce as communicated through its marketing cues(Brown et al.,2003), as oppod to the brand's objective properties.
The existentialist perspective
This perspective is rooted in philosophical existentialism (Steiner&Reisinger,2006)and examines authenticity as it relates to one's identity.The existentialist perspective advances the notion that authenticity means being true to one's lf.This type of authenticity is prominent in the study of authentic functioning(Kernis&Goldman,2006),authentic leadership(Walumbwa,Avolio,Gardner,Wernsing,& Peterson,2008),and tourist experiences(Wang,1999). Handler and Saxton(1988),for example,define an authentic experience as“one in which individuals feel themlves to be in touch both with a‘real’world and with their‘real’lves”(p.243).In a consumption tting,authenticity,from an existentialist perspective,is attributed to an object if it assists consumers in uncovering their true lf through its consump-tion(Arnould&Price,2000).For example,consumers consider reality television as a resource to discover their lf-identities insofar as the programs provide lf-relevant information(Ro&Wood,2005).In the context of branding, existential authenticity refers to a brand's ability to rve as a resource for consumers to reveal their true lves or to allow consumers to feel t
hat they are true to themlves by consuming the brand.Thus,from an existentialist perspective, authenticity emerges from an object's ability to rve as an identity-related source.
Overall,the literature also suggests that the objectivist, constructivist,and existentialist perspectives on authenticity are intertwined,and that each provides input to the conferring of authenticity to objects(Leigh et al.,2006).We therefore propo that PBA aris from the interplay of objective facts (indexical authenticity),subjective mental associations(iconic authenticity),and existential motives connected to a brand (existential authenticity).Brand authenticity thus emerges to the extent to which consumers perceive a brand to be faithful and true toward itlf and its consumers,and to support consumers being true to themlves.
做市Dimensions of perceived brand authenticity
The first rearch objective was to explore the content, dimensionality,and structure of consumers'brand authenticity perceptions.Along with a literature review,we conducted interviews with fourteen consumers to uncover the dimension-ality of PBA,following McCracken's(1988)procedure.Prior to the interview,participants were asked to think about what an authentic brand is to them and to bring logos,images,and objects reprenting authentic brands to th
e interview.This process facilitated articulation of unconscious meanings.Inter-view data was interpreted in light of the literature(Beverland& Farrelly,2010;Gilmore&Pine,2007;Urde,Greyr,&Balmer, 2007)and yielded four brand authenticity dimensions:continuity, credibility,integrity,and symbolism.
Continuity
When asked about what makes a brand authentic,the majority of participants referred to continuity and cited examples such as Heinz,Coca-Cola,Campbell and Quaker.Michele talks about Quaker:“I have been eating Quaker oatmeal since I was a little girl.Today there are so many versions[…]But it's always the same oatmeal,with Mr.Quaker's face,it did not change.”For Deni,Campbell is authentic for the same reasons:It never changed over time.Another important facet is a brand's ability to survive trends.Florence states:“Noa Noa does not copy from today's fashion trends.That is the way the clothes stay throughout time.”Thus,the continuity dimension reflects a brand's timelessness,historicity,and its ability to transcend trends.With regard to the past-related aspect,the continuity dimension rembles the concept of pedigree(Beverland,2006). Conceptual similarities also exist between continuity and brand heritage(Merchant&Ro,2013;Urde et al.,2007;Wiedmann, Hennigs,Schmidt,&Wuestefeld,2011),as both refer not only to the brand's history and stability over ti
me,but also the likelihood that it will persist into the future.
Credibility
waccConsumers associate authentic brands with a high level of credibility—the brands'willingness and ability to deliver on their promis.Participants stresd the importance for authen-tic brands to deliver what they say they will.For Jean-Pierre, Wal-Mart is authentic,becau the brand delivers what it promis:The lowest price,every time.Denis discusd his Victorinox Swiss Army knife:“I'll get the authentic product of high quality.That will not break when I need it.That will not betray me.”We conceptualize credibility as the brand's transparency and honesty toward the consumer,as well as its willingness and ability to fulfill its claims.This dimension is similar to Boyle's(2004)honesty element of authenticity.As such,brand credibility has similarities with brand trustworthi-ness.In fact,the literature describes brand trustworthiness as a component of brand credibility that relates to consumers' perceptions of a firm's willingness to honor its promis (Erdem&Swait,2004).Credibility has commonalities with brand quality,which reflects the extent to which a brand performs according to consumers'expectations(Frazier& Lassar,1996),and the sincerity dimension of brand personality (Aaker,1997),which subsumes traits such as being honest and sincere.
Integrity
Authenticity perceptions further involve a n of integrity bad on virtue reflected in the brand's intentions and in the values it communicates.Several participants mentioned Apple as a brand that acts according to deeply held values,passion,
202 F.Morhart et al./Journal of Consumer Psychology25,2(2015)200–218
and loyalty.Other participants commented on a brand's integrity that manifests when it“acts correctly,ethically.”Michele talked about Green Peace:“Green Peace for me,it's highly authentic.They fight for authentic values.It's a brand, but there is something behind it.”The integrity dimension signifies the moral purity and responsibility of the , its adherence to good values and sincere care about the consumer).This dimension parallels commercial disinterested-ness of authentic brands put forward by Holt(2002)and virtuousness described by Beverland and Farrelly(2010):To be authentic,brands must be without an instrumental economic agenda,and be disminated by people who are intrinsically motivated by deeply held values(Holt,2002).Beverland and Farrelly(2010)argue that virtuousness aris from staying true to one's morals.
Symbolism
euphoria
Participants discusd authentic brands as brands that reflect values that they consider important an
d may thus help construct who they are.For Denis,authentic brands relate to many facets of his lf:“Let's now talk about John Deere[…]I am a rural person.I grew up in a construction company,and my dad had a forestry company.When I think about farm and heavy machinery[…],it's part of my life.I think about my brothers too[…].When I go back to the West,many people display the John Deere logo and plate in front of their trucks.People identify to this product.I do too.It's my family,the way I was raid.”Bad on the considerations,we conceptualize sym-bolism as a brand's potential to rve as a resource for identity construction by providing lf-referential cues reprenting values,roles,and relationships.In other words,symbolism reflects the symbolic quality of the brand that consumers can u to define who they are or who they are not.The symbolism dimension is similar to the connection benefit of authentic brands(Beverland&Farrelly,2010)and the identity-related aspect of brand ,brand-lf connection;Park, MacInnis,Priester,Eisingerich,&Iacobucci,2010),although the latter denotes consumers'actual u of a brand to define themlves rather than a brand's general potential to rve as a symbolic resource.
Summary of the PBA dimensions
守护甜心87
The interviews further revealed a relation between PBA and the three authenticity ,o
bjectivist,construc-tivist,and existentialist)outlined in the literature:First,con-sumers ascribe authenticity to brands bad on facts,such as a brand's founding ,Alexandre:Coca-Cola1916; Denis:Ford Mustang1964).This reflects the objectivist perspective on authenticity.Second,brand authenticity percep-tions ari from consumers'subjective construction of the brand's esnce as communicated through the brand's market-ing efforts.Denis talked about Remington firearms:“This advertiment[…]they were able to bring in the traditional aspect,with the ducks,the colors[…].”Third,many participants inferred brand authenticity on the basis of the brand's ability to reflect values or relationships they deem important for identity construction.For Denis,for example,John Deere reprents a connection with family and childhood, and Remington his passion for hunting.Results further reveal that the three perspectives of ,objectivist, constructivist,and existentialist)contribute to consumers' judgment of PBA dimensions.For example,brand continuity is conferred through an objectivist lens when the brand creation date rved as an indexical cue,through a constructivist lens when a consumer formed an overall impression of brand continuity from the brand's imagery or design,or through an existential lens when consumers referred to the brand's connection to their childhood and feelings of nostalgia.
Bad on the four dimensions identified in the literature and interviews,we define PBA as the extent t
o which consumers perceive a brand to be faithful toward itlf(continuity),true to its consumers(credibility),motivated by caring and responsi-bility(integrity),and able to support consumers in being true to themlves(symbolism).
Measurement of PBA
冬季连衣裙搭配Several studies addresd the cond rearch objective, which pertained to the operationalization and validation of the PBA dimensions across different brands,product categories, and consumer groups.Study1focus on item generation and content validity.Studies2a and2b refine the scale using dif-ferent brands and consumer samples into a15-item four-factor correlated model(continuity,credibility,integrity,symbolism). Study3examines known-group validity,whereas study4focus on discriminant validity.
Study1:item generation and content validity祛痘的小窍门
An initial t of194Likert-type items(anchored1= strongly disagree,7=strongly agree)capturing the PBA dimensions was developed bad on content generated in the interviews and the literature on authenticity.Four experts (marketing faculty and Ph.D.students recruited by the authors) judged the items after being introduced to the notion of brand authenticity and being informed that the purpo
of the rearch was to develop a brand authenticity measure.The experts in-dicated how reprentative the items were of brand authenticity (“plea indicate for each of the following items if it is a poor, fair,good,or very good reprentation of the concept of brand authenticity”).They could modify,add,or eliminate items.An item was removed or modified if at least one expert rated it as a poor reprentation of brand authenticity,at least one expert mentioned it was ambiguous,or two or more experts rated the item as fair.This process resulted in the removal of119items and a final t of75items.
Study2a:initial administration
A North American panel of254adults(52%females) participated in an online study.Participants rated one of four brands(Coca-Cola,Harley-Davidson,McDonald's, Starbucks)that were lected considering expected variations with regard to brand authenticity bad on the interviews and
203
F.Morhart et al./Journal of Consumer Psychology25,2(2015)200–218
,Beverland&Farrelly,2010;Thompson& Arl,2004).Participants indicated their level of a
greement with the75initial ,“this is a timeless brand”;1= strongly disagree,7=strongly agree).Data from participants who were unfamiliar with the ,with a mean score of1 on the familiarity scale:“Plea indicate your level of experi-ence with this brand”:unfamiliar/familiar,not knowledgeable/ knowledgeable,inexperienced/experienced,α=.93)was re-moved,resulting in a final sample size of246.
In a principal component exploratory factor analysis with oblimin rotation,a four-factor solution emerged(eigenvalues N1). The factors were labeled credibility(eigenvalue=49.61),con-tinuity(eigenvalue=3.69),symbolism(eigenvalue=1.98),and integrity(eigenvalue=1.21).Examination of the scree plot confirmed the prence of four major factors.Items with factor loadings below.4on their main dimension and cross-loading items were eliminated from the item t.Items were then removed one at a time bad on modification indices in the measurement model(N3.84;Bagozzi&Yi,1988)and item-to-total correla-tions.After removal of each item,aχ2difference test of the two measurement models was carried out and the reduced model was accepted whenχ2improved significantly and the adjusted GFI incread.The final t of15items reflect the dimensions continuity(a brand with a history,a timeless brand,a brand that survives times,a brand that survives trends),credibility(a brand that will not betray you,a brand that accomplishes its value promi,an honest brand),integrity(a bran
d that gives back to its consumers,a brand with moral principles,a brand true to a t of moral values,a brand that cares about its consumers)and symbolism(a brand that adds meaning to people's lives,a brand that reflects important values that people care about,a brand that connects people with their real lves,a brand that connects people with what is really important;e Appendix A for scale characteristics).Examination of a ries of measure-ment models(e Appendix B for details)indicated that a four-factor correlated model fit the data best(NNFI=.97, CFI=.98,GFI=.92,SRMR=.03,RMSEA=.07,χ2(84)=175.56,p b.01,χ2/df b3;Bollen,1989).This model was therefore accepted as the best structural repren-tation of PBA.
stephen
Study2b:validation sample
This study validated the PBA scale with a new sample and lf-lected authentic/inauthentic brands.In line with the procedure of Thomson,MacInnis,and Park(2005),71adults from a North American consumer panel(54%females)were asked to think about a brand that—in their opinion—was authentic or inauthentic.They then rated the brands on the PBA items(anchored1=strongly disagree,7=strongly agree). Results of a confirmatory factor analysis with the validation sample indicated acceptable fit for the four-factor correlated model(NNFI=.93,CFI=.95,GFI=.78,SRMR=.03, RMSEA=.12,χ2(84)=165.33,p b.01,χ2/df b3;Bollen, 1989)and satisfactory psychometric properties of
the scale (e Appendix A).Study3:known-group validity
This study demonstrates that the PBA scale differentiates between brands that are a priori expected to differ with regard to brand authenticity.In a pretest(n=109,43.9%females), participants rated the perceived authenticity(not at all authentic/ very authentic,on ven-point scales)of the following brands that were mentioned as more and less authentic in the interviews: Tim Hortons and Starbucks(coffee),Coca-Cola and Red Bull (soft drinks),and Levi's and Guess(jeans).Planned contrasts between brands within the same product category show that Tim Hortons was perceived as directionally more authentic than Starbucks(M Tim Hortons=5.89,SD=1.55;M Starbucks=5.73, SD=1.53;t(108)=1.28;p N.05),Coca-Cola as more authentic than Red Bull(M CocaCola=6.02,SD=1.47;M Red Bull=5.61, SD=1.60;t(108)=3.32;p b.01),and Levi's as more authentic than Guess(M Levi's=5.59,SD=1.46;M Guess=5.17,SD= 1.78;t(108)=2.82;p b.01).Bad on this pretest,we ad-ministered the PBA scale to the pairs of brands becau they were expected to differ with regard to perceived authenticity.
A North American panel of463adults(52%females) participated in an online study.Participants were randomly assigned to one of the brands and rated it on the15-item PBA scale(anchored1=strongly disagree,7=strongly agree).We also included additional brands to reasss the psychometric propert
ies of the scale,although the brands were not ud for the test of known-group validity(Apple,Axe,Budweir, Canadian Tire,Dove,Ford,Lululemon,Microsoft,Molson, Toyota,Wal-Mart).Data of participants who were totally unfamiliar with the brand(n=23)was removed prior to analysis.
Confirmatory factor analysis
Results indicated good fit for the four-factor correlated model (NNFI=.98,CFI=.98,GFI=.94,SRMR=.03,RMSEA= .06,χ2(84)=234.129,p b.01,χ2/df b3;Bollen,1989),and satisfactory psychometric properties(e Appendix A).
Mean comparisons
Mean comparisons on each dimension supported expected variations in authenticity among brands(coffee:continuity M TimHortons=5.63,M Starbucks=4.58,t(49)=2.95,p b.01; credibility M TimHortons=5.28,M Starbucks=4.45,t(49)=2.41, p b.05;symbolism M TimHortons=4.90,M Starbucks=3.72,t(49)= 2.75,p b.05;integrity M TimHortons=5.23,M Starbucks=4.15, t(49)=2.91,p b.05;soft drinks:continuity M CocaCola=5.63, M RedBull=3.65,t(51)=5.01,p b.01;credibility M CocaCola= 4.44,M RedBull=3.44,t(51)=2.58,p b.05;symbolism M CocaCola=3.71,M RedBull=2.55,t(
51)=2.59,p b.05;integri-ty M CocaCola=4.18,M RedBull=2.81,t(51)=3.15,p b.05;jeans: continuity M Levi's=6.10,M Guess=4.50,t(51)=5.02,p b.01; credibility M Levi's=4.96,M Guess=4.19,t(51)=2.18,p b.05; symbolism M Levi's=4.61,M Guess=3.88,t(51)=1.80,p N.05 but directionally consistent;integrity M Levi's=4.95,M Guess= 4.11,t(51)=2.51,p b.05).The findings provide support for known-group validity.
204 F.Morhart et al./Journal of Consumer Psychology25,2(2015)200–218
