You Are What You Buy

By: Sydney Lee

Everyone likely has brands they love. The levels of dedication may vary: people may religiously buy the brand’s products or use its services, rave about the brand at every opportunity, or merely make passing remarks about it. Some may even exclusively use the brand and be unwilling to listen to criticism, even if it is valid. The question then arises: Why do people feel so strongly about certain brands? According to Trump and Brucks (2012), there are two research streams relevant to the formation of strong consumer-brand relationships. One explanation has to do with the brand’s alignment with one’s personal values. The second is related to the anthropomorphic presentation of brands. By giving the brands human-like qualities and personalities, consumers feel connected to the brands in the same way they do with romantic and platonic partners. These streams reveal the deeper psychological effects of advertising on an individual’s identity.

Microsoft did a study indicating that a person’s average attention span is 8 seconds (McSpadden, 2015). This means that advertisers have to be strategic when they sell consumers products. Consumers can see an average of 4,000-10,000 ads per day (Simpson, 2017), so why do some brands land loyal customers and others don’t? There are a multitude of explanations for the success of certain advertisements, but one overarching explanation is that certain brands are more creative and effective storytellers. A significant amount of information that humans store and retrieve is episodic. Episodic memories are memories that were consciously experienced at a point in time (American Psychological Association [APA], n.d.), and advertisements are constructed narratives that mimic the information people absorb on a daily basis (Adaval and Wyer, 1998). A study conducted by Escalas (2004) revealed that advertisements with a narrative structure formed stronger connections with consumers, which also resulted in more positive brand attitudes and behavior. Research conducted by Aaker (1999) and Dolich (1969) indicates that people are drawn to brands with identities that match their perceptions of their self-image and ideal self-image. These brands affirm people’s self-perceptions and provide important social information for others. For example, an individual who considers themselves environmentally-friendly may choose to purchase clothes from Everlane, a sustainable clothing brand, instead of Forever 21, a fast fashion brand, because Everlane aligns with their personal desires to help the environment. Furthermore, by wearing Everlane’s clothes, they will tell others that they care about the environment.

Studies also show that people respond more positively to advertisements that align with their social identity (Forehand et al., 2002). This can be done through the use of a spokesperson whose body shape mimics that of the consumer.

The second explanation for strong brand-consumer relationships is related to each brand’s personality, which is carefully cultivated by advertisements and catchy slogans. Aggarwal and Iacobucci (2004) revealed that by attributing personality traits to brands, consumers interact with them the same way they approach interpersonal relationships. Brands are positively received if they display behavior consistent with a specific type of relationship (Aggarwal and Iacobucci, 2004), and many have images and personalities that mimic ones that people search for in romantic or platonic partners. A study conducted by Fletcher and colleagues (1999) revealed three main types of traits people associate with an ideal partner: status, warmth, and vitality. Warmth and vitality are two popular qualities that brands adopt for their image. Brands such as Hallmark and Ford market themselves as down-to-earth, welcoming and caring, and these qualities are consistent with “sincere” brands (Aaker et al., 2004). Their advertisements highlight warmth and nurturance, which are associated with strong relationships (Buss, 1991).  Brands like Mountain Dew and MTV are considered “exciting” because they highlight playfulness, energy, and youthfulness (Aaker et al., 2004). They engage consumers by using atypical language and unique logos. Aaker and colleagues (2004) conducted a study investigating people’s attitudes towards brands with sincere and exciting personalities and their reactions when the brands acted in ways that were not consistent with their brand image. In the real world, these transgressions can include an ethical scandal or a complete rebrand. Their study was longitudinal, meaning that it was conducted over a long period of time, and they discovered that when brands with sincere personalities committed transgressions against their brand image, the consumer-brand relationship was irreversibly damaged, even with attempts at reconciliation (Aaker et al., 2004). Similarly to how people feel with serious romantic partners after a betrayal, the participants questioned the foundations of the relationship, their knowledge of the brand’s qualities, and their relationship intimacy levels. Conversely, when exciting brands committed a transgression and attempted to recover, it facilitated the growth of the consumer-brand relationship (Aaker et al., 2004). Prior to the transgression, the relationship between the consumer and the exciting brand mimicked a fling, but the transgression served as an inflection point in the relationship and forced consumers to reconsider and clarify the nature of the relationship (in terms of intimacy and commitment). 

The preceding evidence regarding consumer-brand relationships suggests that brands have the ability to become integrated into a person’s identity and psychological self (Trump and Brucks, 2012). An individual’s psychological self is shaped by their personality traits and experiences, and people are drawn to brands that reflect their self or ideal self. The brands encourage movement towards those ideals and personal growth. Similarly, the parallels between consumer-brand relationships and romantic partners imply that brands also have the ability to encourage personal growth (Aron and Aron, 1986). The integration of brands as part of a person’s identity means that consumers may think of a brand’s successes and triumphs as their own, and the brand’s mistakes may be taken as an attack on one’s personal character. The question now remains: What do your favorite brands say about you? □

Article Resources

Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151914

Aaker, J., Fournier, S., Brasel, S. A., Mick, D. G., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1086/383419

Adaval, R., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1998). The role of narratives in consumer information processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(3), 207–245. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0703_01

Aggarwal, P., & Iacobucci, D. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1086/383426

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. Hemisphere Publishing Corp/Harper & Row Publishers.

Buss, D. M. (1991). Conflict in married couples: Personality predictors of anger and upset. Journal of Personality, 59(4), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00926.x

Dolich, I. J. (1969). Congruence relationships between self images and product brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 6(1), 80–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150001

Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1–2), 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1401&2_19

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72

Forehand, M. R., Deshpandé, R., & Reed, A., II. (2002). Identity salience and the influence of differential activation of the social self-schema on advertising response. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1086–1099. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1086

McSpadden, K. (2015, May 14). Science: You Now Have a Shorter Attention Span Than a Goldfish. Time. https://time.com/3858309/attention-spans-goldfish/.

Reed, A., II. (2004). Activating the self-importance of consumer selves: Exploring identity salience effects on judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1086/422108

Simpson, J. (2017, August 25). Council Post: Finding Brand Success In The Digital World. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2017/08/25/finding-brand-success-in-the-digital-world/?sh=37729f54626e.

Trump, R. K., & Brucks, M. (2012). Overlap between mental representations of self and brand. Self and Identity, 11(4), 454–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.595083

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). APA Dictionary of Psychology. American Psychological Association. https://dictionary.apa.org/episodic-memory.