1. Introduction
According to the Forbes Council report (Roux, 2020), while customer acquisition is a good strategy, loyal and regular brand buyers drive its bottom line. Emotions in consumer–brand relationships (Park and MacInnis, 2018) are potent triggers for consumption choices (Gilal et al., 2022), positively impacting the financial worth of a brand. Similarly, the Bond brand loyalty survey conducted on over 500,000 consumers finds that brands that can build positive emotional connections with their users will have 27% more connected consumers engaging and spending more on the brand (HubSpot, 2018). Further, as consumers become frugal, 40% seek brands similar to themselves, forming deeper brand connections (McKinsey and Company, 2021). Thus, marketers use emotion-based brand narratives to strengthen consumer–brand relationships (Ahuvia et al., 2018).
Consumer–brand relationships build emotions such as awe, love, gratitude and pride Park and MacInnis (2018). Brand pride rests on the premise of the congruity theory (Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955; Gaustad et al., 2018). Individuals evaluate self-brand congruency as a function of either self-appraisal (Roseman and Smith, 2001; Ahuvia et al., 2018) or reflected appraisals in owning a brand valued by others (Verbeke et al., 2004).
Marketing studies (Taute et al., 2017; Durrah et al., 2020) have primarily adopted two perspectives while studying brand pride. The first examines pride from an employee’s (Helm et al., 2016) viewpoint as experienced by them for their employer brand (Kuppelwieser et al., 2011). This brand pride (Durrah et al., 2020) leads to positive performance motivations (Verbeke et al., 2004), superior employee performance and creativity (Durrah et al., 2020). The second assesses pride as experienced by customers for brands they consume (Septianto et al., 2020). The cognitive match between an individual’s self-concept and the brand’s image leads to the emotion of brand pride (Sirgy et al., 1997; Kim et al., 2005).
Previous studies (Alexandris et al., 2008; Decrop and Derbaix, 2010) have predicted brand loyalty (Nyamekye et al., 2021) as an outcome of pride in consumer–brand relationships. Brand pride is also prevalent in brand communities and tribes (Taute et al., 2017; Sierra and Taute, 2019). Research suggests that higher-order community behavior additionally leads to oppositional brand loyalty (Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001; Kuo and Feng, 2013).
Another factor influencing an individual’s interaction with a brand is the consumer’s personality. Narcissism is a personality trait actively researched in consumer decision-making (Sedikides et al., 2007) and plays a significant role in consumer–brand relationships (Sarkar and Sarkar, 2022). McFerran et al. (2014) identify narcissism as an essential moderator in the relationship between pride and brand choices. Naderi and Paswan (2016) demonstrate a considerable difference between those high and low in Narcissism and their consumption choices. Narcissists endorse material possessions that epitomize high status (Campbell and Foster, 2007). Those exhibiting high narcissism connect with brands imparting unique value to their owners and elevating their self-esteem (Lee et al., 2013). For example, among car brands, a high narcissist who views himself as unique is likelier to connect with Mercedes or Maserati as the brands are considered exclusive and unique.
This paper contributes to a holistic understanding of brand pride in consumer brands as a multidimensional construct and examines its key antecedents and consequences. This study has four significant contributions to the theoretical knowledge of the construct. First, it recognizes brand pride as a two-dimensional construct, namely, individualistic and collectivistic brand pride. Second, it establishes self-brand congruence (SBC) as a precursor to brand pride. Third, it identifies the diverse impact of the two dimensions on brand and oppositional brand loyalty. Furthermore, the study establishes the moderating effect of narcissism by reporting significant differences between high and low narcissists. The findings are equally crucial for branding practice as they have implications for brand communications and strategies. The following section presents the current thought on brand pride.
2. Theoretical background
Research on brands as relationship partners has gained momentum in the past decade (Park and MacInnis, 2018; Sarkar and Sarkar, 2022), with brands becoming integral to consumers’ personal and social identities and emotional experiences. Consumers become strongly connected to brands (Sarkar et al., 2021) that are self-relevant and deeply integrated with their self-concept (Escalas and Bettman, 2003). These brands elicit strong positive emotions, such as brand pride (Park and MacInnis, 2018), resulting in long-lasting consumer–brand relationships.
2.1 Brand pride: theoretical foundation
According to the congruency theory (Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955), individuals seek objects and brands perceived as congruent to their sense of self and, therefore, symbolic of the person’s self-image (Grubb and Grathwohl, 1967). Aligned with the self-congruity theory (Sirgy, 2018), consumers form emotional attachments and maintain long-term associations with self-expressive brands (Gaustad et al., 2018).
The emotion of brand pride is a function of cognitive appraisals. As explained by the appraisal theory (Roseman et al.,1996), individuals cognitively appraise objects (in this case, brands), and these appraisals lead to emotional responses (Mostafa and Kasamani, 2020), such as pride. In some instances, these reflections are self-appraisals with a cognitive evaluation of personal acquisitions (brands) that become the source of pride. In others, pride occurs through reflected appraisals (Verbeke et al., 2004), where an individual feels proud of acquiring objects (brands) that are uncommon and valued by others. It garners social recognition (Ahuvia et al., 2018). These favorite brands (McEwen, 2005) are characterized by psychological ownership through repeated use of “my” with the brand (Kirk et al., 2015).
2.2 Brand pride as multidimensional construct
Research suggests that pride is too broad to be recognized as a singular and unified construct (Helm, 2011). The duality of pride was explained by its two facets- authentic and hubristic pride (Tracy et al., 2009). Other researchers also recognized the duality as emotional and attitudinal (Gouthier and Rhein, 2011) pride. Helm (2011) studied brand pride in conjunction with employer brands and reported individual and collective forms of pride.
Decrop and Derbaix (2010), in their study on pride as experienced by sports fans for their favorite soccer team, player and fan community, also reported a similar duality of pride. They examined the creation (covert) and expression (overt) of individual and collective pride. From an individual perspective, introspective pride refers to creating an enhanced uniqueness for the person using the qualities/achievements of an external pride object. In contrast, conspicuous pride was the expression of this pride, and the individual exhibited pride through a conspicuous exhibition of the pride object’s paraphernalia. Similarly, from a collective perspective, the individual experiences vicarious pride through association/ownership of the pride object. The expression of this collective pride is contagious pride, where consumers look for integration. Thus, the research identified pride as multifaceted (Septianto et al., 2020) with varied impacts on behavioral outcomes.
With the support of substantive literature, this paper extends the work done by Decrop and Derbaix (2010) and identifies brand pride as a two-dimensional construct. The first dimension involves inward-directed individualistic appraisals with pride in ownership and consumption of a brand in personal situations. The second dimension, in contrast, collectivistic appraisals are outward-directed as pride in ownership, consumption and validation in social cases (Sredl, 2010). The proposed conceptual framework and hypotheses are explained in the next section.
3. Hypotheses development and conceptual framework
3.1 Self-brand congruence and outcomes: brand loyalty and oppositional brand loyalty
Grubb and Grathwohl (1967) state that individuals adherently seek objects that serve as “symbolic communication devices” to portray their self-image (Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955). Thus, obvious self-expression choices are brands with a well-developed and socially recognized identity (Gaustad et al., 2018). This cognitive match/mismatch between a consumer’s self-concept and the brand’s image is defined as a SBC (Sirgy et al., 1997).
The relationship between SBC and brand loyalty has been well established (Van der Westhuizen, 2018; Zhang, 2021). SBC manifests through the peripheral route of persuasion based on brand cues (Sirgy et al., 1997). These self-brand connections (Sirgy, 2018; Sarkar et al., 2021) lead to higher loyalty toward the brand. Muñiz and Hamer (2001) explain that loyal users of a given brand may internalize critical brand elements and express their loyalty by opposing competing brands. Similarly, consumers who identify with brand communities develop a solid commitment to brands valued by the community, leading to stronger oppositional brand loyalty (Kuo and Hou, 2017). Such users deploy strategies to enhance self-esteem and define themselves through possessions (Marticotte et al., 2016). Identification with a brand serves as a precursor to oppositional brand loyalty (Becerra and Badrinarayan, 2013), as individuals view rival brands as oppositions to themselves and defend the brand they emotionally connect with (Decrop and Derbaix, 2010; Marticotte et al., 2016).
Given past findings, we posit SBC as an antecedent to brand loyalty. Moreover, these consumers also take an oppositional view of rival brands to defend the brand congruent to their sense of self. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Self-brand congruence will have a positive impact on brand loyalty.
Self-brand congruence will have a positive impact on oppositional brand loyalty.
3.2 Self-brand congruence and brand pride
Brand pride is a rational, conscious emotion experienced by individuals on SBC (Kim et al., 2005) with brands that reflect who they are or want to be (Ahuvia et al., 2018). These brands are placed on an elevated level of emotional connectedness (McEwen, 2005) as individuals perceive uniformity between their self-image and their favorite brand’s image.
It is essential to consider two aspects of the relationship between brand pride and SBC here. First, the perceived SBC is not uniform among consumers. Sarkar et al. (2021) proposed that consumers with higher SBC develop an uncompromising attitude toward the focal brand, which is “not subject to switching to any other brand.” On the other hand, those with a lower SBC perception have a more “flexible attitude toward the brand and are open to switching” in certain situations or “trying a new brand.” Second, as recognized by past studies (Tracy et al., 2009), pride has two diverse facets that correlate very differently with other constructs. In conjunction with the recognition by Helm et al. (2016) as well as Decrop and Derbaix (2010), brand pride has two different manifestations. If the person is looking for self-validation and enhancing this self-esteem, they choose brands that accord distinction. This proposition has implications for the individualistic dimension of brand pride. Thus, we posit:
Self-brand congruence will positively influence individualistic brand pride.
On the other hand, consumers driven by social consistency are influenced by the expectations of peers and seek brands that hold high badge value (Escalas and Bettman, 2003) and social recognition (Sredl, 2010). Here the emotion of brand pride has a collectivistic dimension that rests on social integration (Decrop and Derbaix, 2010). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Self-brand congruence will positively influence collectivistic brand pride.
3.3 Brand pride and brand loyalty
The relationship between consumers and their favorite brand leads to positive behavioral intentions such as brand loyalty (Van der Westhuizen, 2018). Brand loyalty is a deeply held commitment to repurchase or re-patronize a preferred brand in the future (Nyamekye et al., 2021). A relational long-term psychological phenomenon manifested by an “immersed self-identity” and lifestyle, brand loyalty significantly impacts the brand’s profitability (Le, 2021).
Nyamekye et al. (2021) found that the emotion of brand pride is significantly related to brand loyalty. Self-brand connections (Sarkar et al., 2021) become a source of enhanced self-esteem and translate into unwavering loyalty to the brand (Le, 2021). Thus, it is hypothesized that:
Individualistic brand pride will positively influence brand loyalty.
Researchers corroborate pride as a significant predictor of brand loyalty in brand communities (Alexandris et al., 2008; Taute et al., 2017), where consumers seek validation of their social identities. Users trust the opinions other online users express as objective information sources because they have nothing to gain (Casalo et al., 2008). Other studies report pride in a collective identity and found that fan communities with a loyal connection with their favorite team lead to the creation and expression of pride (Decrop and Derbaix, 2010). The community’s success is driven by its reputation and the satisfaction of its users. These motivate users’ active participation and affective engagement and result in user loyalty (Casalo et al., 2009). These users believe their brand choices are the best among available alternatives (Van der Westhuizen, 2018). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Collectivistic brand pride will positively influence brand loyalty.
3.4 Brand pride and oppositional brand loyalty
Research posits that members of a community exhibit two kinds of loyalty. One is loyalty to the brand they support and oppositional loyalty to rival brands. Oppositional brand loyalty strengthens a brand’s competitive advantage as it increases the preference for the brand and resistance against competing brands (Kuo and Feng, 2013). Oppositional brand loyalty is a social phenomenon where community members may hold opposing views and exhibit negative behaviors toward rival brands (Muñiz and Hamer, 2001). Consumers express their opposition by distinctly stating inclinations for their preferred brands and negatively referring to the brand/s they do not consume (Ewing et al., 2013; Liao et al., 2020). Researchers (Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001; Japutra et al., 2014) establish that oppositional brand loyalty is a function of positive emotions related to a robust consumer–brand relationship. Thus, consumers who form an intransigent attitude toward a brand (Sarkar et al., 2021) experience strong positive emotions such as brand pride and do not switch brands and reject offerings from competing brands. Thus, it is hypothesized:
Individualistic brand pride will positively influence oppositional brand loyalty.
Oppositional brand loyalty is pronounced in brand communities (Japutra et al., 2014) and leads to active avoidance and opposition to rival brands (Ewing et al., 2013). Community members associate with other users of their favorite brand and distance themselves from users of other brands (Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001; Kuo and Hou, 2017). Chen and Ma (2022) state that consumers who are passionate about their brands visit competing communities and actively express avoidance of the competing brand. Liao et al. (2020) report that oppositional brand loyalty exists for mass brands like Coca-Cola and Pepsi and premium brands like Apple and Samsung. Decrop and Derbaix (2010) propose that fan communities who experience pride in association with their favorite teams are incredibly univocal in praise for their team and criticism of the competing teams. Thus, brand pride that rests on the collective identity of consumers leads to oppositional brand loyalty. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Collectivistic brand pride will positively influence oppositional brand loyalty.
3.5 Narcissism: moderating relationship between brand pride and loyalty outcomes
Narcissism is a widely studied personality trait in conjunction with consumption behavior (Cisek et al., 2014; Fastoso et al., 2018). Narcissists choose brands whose image is aligned with themselves and helps them portray their intended self-identity and bolster their self-esteem (Naderi and Paswan, 2016). Sarkar and Sarkar (2022) emphasize the need to recognize consumers as emotional and narcissistic beings who form relationships with brands that best match their self-enhancement goals.
Those high in narcissism seek exclusive products and brands that elevate their self-esteem (Campbell and Foster, 2007). The identified brands are appraised as synchronous with their self-image and help distinguish them from the non-owners (Lee et al., 2013). This brand pride leads to higher brand loyalty (Fazli-Salehi et al.,2021). Thus, it is proposed that:
Narcissism moderates the positive relationship between individualistic brand pride and brand loyalty, and the relationship is more robust when narcissism is high than it is low.
High narcissists form strong, long-lasting relationships with brands that satisfy their need for uniqueness (Sedikides and Hart, 2022). As a function of this self-brand integration, the narcissist is more resistant and vocal in expressing the expulsion of competing brands. Therefore, it is hypothesized:
Narcissism moderates the positive relationship between individualistic brand pride and oppositional brand loyalty, and the relationship is more potent when narcissism is high than it is low.
Narcissism is also known to impact group behavior. Loyal brand communities tend to develop feelings of collective pride or group egotism (Cisek et al., 2014). These brand communities are significant to individuals directed by their collective selves. These communal brand connections (Fazli-Salehi et al., 2021) develop between consumers of the same brand.
Similarly, those low in narcissism and driven by the collective self-demonstrate high group conformity. Thus, the low narcissist draws satisfaction from the brand they perceive as valued by others and which garners social recognition. These consumers may develop multiple “polygamous” narcissistic consumer–brand relationships (Sarkar and Sarkar, 2022) and demonstrate pride for several brands. This brand pride will result in loyalty to all brands that comprise the consideration set. Therefore, it is hypothesized:
Narcissism moderates the positive relationship between collectivistic brand pride and brand loyalty, and the relationship is stronger when narcissism is low than it is high.
Further, low narcissists form positive connections with other users (in-group members) of brands and are vocal about their displeasure and ostracizing brands that their in-group shuns (Decrop and Derbaix, 2010). Thus, it is hypothesized that:
Narcissism moderates the positive relationship between collectivistic brand pride and oppositional brand loyalty, and the relationship is stronger when narcissism is low than it is high.
These hypotheses are represented in the conceptual framework below (Figure 1).
4. Research methodology
The study was conducted on urban consumers who professed to have a favorite brand and identified it as my brand. Data was collected between February 2021 and July 2021 through an offline and online methods to ensure adequate representation of consumers from India’s urban metro and mini-metro cities. For the exploratory study, 550 forms (300 – offline; 250 – online) were distributed, resulting in a 65% return response with 390 forms. Of these, 98 forms where the respondents did not have a favorite brand and 20 incomplete forms were discarded, with a final sample of 272(142 physical and 130 online). The Mann–Whitney U test conducted on 50 random cases from the two sets found no significant difference between the two groups, and both were characteristic of the same population. For the confirmatory study, 1,000 forms were distributed (November 2021 to February 2022), and 630 were received back. Eighty-five forms where the respondents did not have a favorite brand and 23 incomplete forms were dropped, resulting in a final sample of 522 (255 offline and 267 online). Respondents self-selected the brand they were proud of and indicated the brand category. Table 1 presents the demographic profile of respondents from both samples.
The study instrument used for validating the proposed model comprised multi-item scales on the study constructs was created. A five-item scale (Sirgy et al., 1997) was adapted for self-brand congruency. Brand loyalty was measured by a two-item scale (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001), and oppositional brand loyalty by adapting a four-item scale developed by Kuo and Feng (2013). Nine items of the NPI-16 (Ames et al., 2006) were adapted to measure narcissism. Brand pride was measured through a 12-item scale developed by the authors. The survey began with a qualifying question with the respondent indicating a brand they were proud of and referred to as “my favorite brand.” All statements in the instrument were answered in conjunction with this brand. All items were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
A stepwise process involving an extant review of literature, qualitative studies, scale purification and validation was used to develop the brand pride scale. Observational studies at 15 multi-brand retail outlets, besides nine expert interviews and 45 consumers, were used to generate a pool of statements. Expert validation resulted in the final set of statements on which data was collected. Principal component analysis (PCA) with oblique rotation resulted in two factors that explained 63.449% of the variance. These were labeled as individualistic brand pride (I-BP) and collectivistic brand pride (C-BP). I-BP consisted of statements based on self-confidence and self-esteem, while C-BP comprised statements reflecting social recognition and a sense of achievement experienced via brand ownership.
5. Results
5.1 Measurement model evaluation
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the total study instruments was conducted to test the measurement model. To verify if all the items belong to their respective constructs, namely, SBC, BL, OBL, I-BP and C-BP, an EFA was conducted on all the constructs to determine the validity of the dimensions and constructs (Hair et al., 2018). As the model proposes constructs that are likely to be conceptually correlated, PCA with oblique rotation was adopted, sample adequacy was satisfactory, and the study constructs explained 65.762% of the variance in the sample (Table 2).
CFA was conducted using the AMOS 20.0 software to assess the measurement model’s validity. The measurement model indicated good fit indices (Table 2) with all the values above the acceptable range (Hu and Bentler, 1998).
Next, the construct validity was assessed by examining convergent and discriminatory validity. The values of composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) of all the measured constructs were higher than the minimum suggested cut-off value of 0.6 and 0.5, respectively (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), indicating satisfactory convergent validity. Discriminant validity (Table 3) was also satisfactory, as the square root of each construct’s AVE was higher than the inter-construct correlations (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Thus, the measurement model was considered suitable for structural path analysis.
5.2 Structural model evaluation
To estimate the structural model and test the proposed hypotheses (Figure 1), structural equation modeling (SEM) using the maximum-likelihood method was used on the validation sample (n = 522). The model fit was acceptable (normed chi-square value of Cmin/df = 2.870; p < 0.001; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.913, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.941, Tucker Lewis index (TLI) = 0.932, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.912 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.060), establishing the robustness of the structural model (Hu and Bentler, 1998). The model’s explanatory power, as explained by the R2 value, is 28.6% for I-BP, 18.1% for C-BP, 48.6% for BL and 21.9% for OBL (Table 4).
5.1 Hypothesis testing: direct effects
The model supported the direct effects hypotheses in H1, H2, H3a, H3b, H4a, H5a and H5b (Table 4). The results demonstrate that the impact of SBC on BL (H1: β = 0.140, p = 0.007) and SBC on OBL (H2: β = 0.217, p = 0.000) were both positive and significant. SBC had a positive impact on both I-BP (H3a: β = 0.535, p = 0.000) and C-BP (H3b: β = 0.425, p = 0.000). The impact of I-BP on BL was significant and positive (H4a: β = 0.602, p = 0.000); the impact of C-BP on BL was positive but insignificant (H4b: β = 0.033, p = 0.516). The impact of I-BP on OBL (H5a: β = 0.238, p = 0.000) and C-BP on OBL (H5b: β = 0.140, p = 0.014) was positive and significant.
5.3 Moderation analysis: narcissism effect
As the moderator (narcissism) was a continuous variable, there are two approaches to conducting moderation. First, the sample can be split in two using the mean/median or, alternately, as recommended by Hair et al. (2018), use k-means cluster analysis. K-means cluster analysis was used because it allows the user to specify the number of clusters and is helpful for large samples. The method has been used in previous studies (Wang et al., 2012; Assaker and Hallak, 2013; Kafetzopoulos et al., 2019), as reported in a comprehensive analysis on moderation analysis by Rasoolimanesh et al. (2021). Second, narcissism was measured through multiple items, a mean/median split may lose the variability in the sample, and k-means cluster analysis is recommended to split the group. Final cluster centers obtained from the k-means clustering technique identified two clusters as high in narcissism (n = 290) and low in narcissism (n = 232).
Further, a three-step step measurement invariance analysis was conducted. All configural, metric and scalar invariance criteria were supported (Table 5) and established measurement invariance.
The unconstrained model was taken as the baseline configural model, and configural, followed by the structural invariance, was conducted on the structural model where all factor loadings were constrained to be equal. Comparing the configural and structural models provided evidence for moderation by narcissism. The Δχ2 value obtained was 41.982 (Δdf = 24), which is more than the critical value [χ2(24, 0.05) =36.415]. The ΔCFI value of 0.003 shows marginal deterioration but is less than the threshold value of 0.01 (Cheung and Rensvold, 2002). Thus, the Δχ2 suggests that narcissism can be considered a moderator in the examined structural model. However, because our hypotheses are related to specific paths, we deployed multi-group analysis using AMOS 20.0 to test H6a to H7b. The paths between I-BP and BL and I-BP and OBL were constrained to test H6a and H6b. The paths between C-BP and BL and C-BP and OBL were similarly constrained to test H7a and H7b. The nested model comparison demonstrated a significant difference between unconstrained and structural weights(p = 0.009), indicating moderation.
Further, in the case of I-BP and BL (H6a) though the high narcissism group had a slightly higher path estimate (0.571) as compared to the low narcissism group (0.563), the chi-square difference tests and critical ratio analysis established the difference as nonsignificant. Chi-square difference tests and critical ratio values were significant for I-BP and OBL (H6b), and the path estimates for the high narcissism group were significantly higher (0.559) than for the low narcissism group (0.146). In the case of hypotheses H7a and H7b, the chi-square difference tests and critical ratio values were significant for C-BP and BL (H7a), and the path estimates for the low narcissism group were significantly higher (0.120) than the high narcissism group (−0.014). For C-BP and OBL (H7b), path estimates for the low narcissism group were slightly higher (0.197) than for the high narcissism group (0.068). However, the chi-square difference test and critical ratio values were nonsignificant. Therefore, H6b and H7a are supported, while H6a and H7b are not.
6. Discussion and implications
6.1 Theoretical implications
This research makes significant contributions to branding literature by corroborating existing thought and providing a holistic understanding of brand pride in the context of consumer brands. First, it establishes brand pride as a powerful self-relevant Park and MacInnis (2018) two-dimensional construct – individualistic brand pride (I-BP) and collectivistic brand pride (C-BP). The study reports that I-BP is the individualistic dimension of brand pride and includes creation (introspective pride) and expression (conspicuous pride). This dimension rests on brand appraisals that consider the consumer’s individual self. Similarly, C-BP includes creation (vicarious pride) and expression (contagious pride) and is the collectivistic dimension of brand pride. This dimension demonstrates the need for social recognition and achievement through ownership of brands valued by others, which are the consumer’s prized possessions.
Second, the findings validate that a brand congruent with one’s sense of self tends to have a more substantial positive impact on post-purchase behavior (Sirgy, 2018). The confirmation for H1 and H2, which reported a significant impact of SBC on brand loyalty and oppositional brand loyalty, concurs with similar studies (Sirgy et al., 2008; Kuo and Hou, 2017; Zhang, 2021). The empirical results of H3a and H3b substantiate SBC as a significant antecedent of the brand pride dimensions – I-BP and C-BP. These findings are in line with previous studies which report how congruity between the consumer’s self-image and the brand’s image leads to pride (Kim et al., 2005; Helm et al., 2016). Brand-proud consumers report a sense of oneness with these brands (Park and MacInnis, 2018). In personal situations, these associations lead to enhanced self-esteem (I-BP), and in communities’ consumers connect with brands that generate social approval (C-BP) (Sirgy, 2018).
Further, this study corroborates brand loyalty as a significant outcome of brand pride. This finding is consistent with previous studies (Decrop and Derbaix, 2010; Nyamekye et al., 2021), which posit that proud consumers exhibit repeat purchases (Nyamekye et al., 2021) and spread positive word-of-mouth (Decrop and Derbaix, 2010). This expression was evidenced in the individualistic experience of brand pride, as indicated by the validation of H4a, which verifies the significant impact of I-BP on brand loyalty. The brand becomes a tool of self-enhancement and ego-defense as it reduces cognitive dissonance.
Oppositional brand loyalty emerged as a significant outcome of brand pride. The acceptance of H5a and H5b show that brand-proud consumers oppose competing brands. The relationship between I-BP (individualistic expression) and OBL, C-BP (collectivistic expression) and OBL were significant. The consumer–brand relationships are substantial in cases wherein the brand’s image is consistent with the in-group, making consumers distant from those brands and their self-concept (Escalas and Bettman, 2003). These consumers exhibit a sense of belongingness to the brand’s community and often use words like “we” or “us” to distinguish between in-group versus out-group members (Muñiz and O’Guinn 2001).
Finally, as hypothesized, narcissism moderates the relationship between brand pride and its behavioral outcomes-brand loyalty and oppositional brand loyalty. The hypotheses (H6a) that narcissism moderates the relationship between I-BP and brand loyalty were in the expected direction but were found to be nonsignificant. High and low narcissism demonstrate a robust (path estimates > 0.5) relationship between I-BP and BL. As posited by the Appraisal Theory (Roseman et al., 1996), self-brand connections are a function of cognitive appraisals (Roseman and Smith, 2001). Individuals integrate the brand if it matches their sense of self, leading to strong emotional bonds such as pride (Mostafa and Kasamani, 2020), regardless of any personality difference. For example, a high narcissist with an exalted sense of self may be proud of his Mercedes, while a low narcissist may be proud of his Maruti, which he appraises as down-to-earth. The degree of narcissism may not impact the relationship, as consumers identify the brand as like themselves. Hence, the appraisals result in brand pride and loyalty in both instances. On the other hand, findings show that narcissism moderates the relationship between I-BP and OBL (H6b), which was more vital for the high narcissists than the low narcissists. High narcissists seek brands that enhance their self-esteem and signal self-worth (Fazli-Salehi et al., 2021). For example, in the earlier example, the high narcissist, who is proud of the Mercedes brand, is likely to be more vocal and disapproving of the competing brands compared to the low narcissist, who is proud of the Maruti brand and may not express aversion for competing brands. The results prove that consumers who purchase brands to boost their self-esteem tend to believe that their favorite brand is unique and thus strongly express opposing views about the rival brand.
In the case of C-BP and BL (H7a), the low narcissism group demonstrated a stronger relationship than the high narcissists. This difference is because the premise of brand pride is based on the collective self. In this instance, those low in narcissism and who value their collective self-demonstrate pride in association with multiple brands, and their self-brand connections are “polygamous” (Sarkar and Sarkar, 2022). They seek group affiliation and thus connect with numerous brands to garner social recognition. This finding corroborates that narcissism is more prevalent in conspicuous public situations (Fazli-Salehi et al., 2021).
Interestingly, the relationship between C-BP and OBL (H7b) was weak; additionally, the difference between low and high narcissists was found to be insignificant. This insignificant difference could be because, for C-BP, where brand pride exists for several brands valued by others, the impetus to discard other brands in the category may be weak. Thus, individuals with a collective sense of self may wish to refrain from openly shunning certain brands as they are unsure about the emotions of others in their group toward the brands.
6.2 Managerial implications
This study adds substantial value to branding practice. First, it establishes brand pride as a powerful emotion Park and MacInnis (2018) in consumer–brand relationships. Brand pride comprises individualistic and collectivistic dimensions, defined as I-BP and C-BP. The attempts to understand the comprehensive nuances of consumer–brand relationships and the factors contributing to long-term commitment toward brands are equally significant for managerial practice. This understanding would help managers build brand communication directed toward inculcating traits valued by their consumers, resulting in self-brand appraisals that culminate in creating and expressing brand pride.
For brands that have a proposition that is more appealing to the individual self and leads to heightened self-esteem (Le, 2021), brand managers can focus on the esteem needs of their users. Additionally, firms could connect with their consumer’s self-esteem needs by making the brand aspirational and significantly different from competitors. Brand managers could also depict brands as goal-fulfilling for their consumers. Messages curated around articulating the brand’s achievements and portraying higher-order traits such as ethics and honesty will be productive. These characteristics resonate with consumers who appraise themselves as having these traits and build pride in the self-brand connection (Sarkar et al., 2021) and public expression of the brand’s achievements. Such consumers tend to have a stronger emotional attachment to the brand, possibly building a monogamous brand relationship, leading to brand loyalty (Nyamekye et al., 2021) and are willing to pay a price premium (Sarkar et al., 2021). These consumers are more brand engaged and promote the brand and are equally vocal in shunning the rival brands (Kuo and Feng, 2013).
The other dimension of brand pride, C-BP, has considerable relevance for marketers as it is essential to build public recognition for the brand. This social validation is critical for consumers seeking social approval. These consumers draw more collectivistic appraisals and seek brands that are “popular,” widely recognized and prized. These consumers are valuable for marketers as their pride is polygamous (Sarkar and Sarkar, 2022). They are proud of multiple brands and oscillate between multiple brand choices in their consideration set, as their loyalty is to a collection of brands rather than a single brand. Thus, brand communication that establishes a brand as premium and garners attention from significant others (Ahn et al., 2021) will be a source of brand pride for such community-driven consumers.
With positive outcomes like brand loyalty and oppositional brand loyalty, marketers can further drive emotional attachment by focusing on a specific set of brand-proud consumers. Such consumers praise their favorite brand and oppose all competing brands, making them profitable brand users (Liao et al., 2020). Proud consumers are committed buyers, a source of competitive advantage as they strengthen the preferred brand’s position and demonstrate a low intention to try competing brands. They become brand advocates by sharing their pride with their inner and extended circle, indulging in non-paid promotions for the brand (Decrop and Derbaix, 2010). Moreover, they could influence community behavior by insisting that members wait for comparable products from their brand. This consumer advice could delay the adoption of new products from competing brands and create a profitable scenario for their favorite brand (Kuo and Feng, 2013; Liao et al., 2020).
Finally, by establishing narcissism as a significant personality trait associated with brand pride, marketers could motivate high narcissists to seek brands such as Mercedes by building hedonic personas and riding on exclusivity. This brand pride would convert into higher loyalty (Fastoso et al., 2018) and profitability. The brand becomes a significant source of prestige for those high in narcissism and a source of heightened self-esteem, thereby strengthening their bond with the brand (McFerran et al., 2014; Fazli-Salehi et al., 2021).
7. Limitations and future research
This study, through its limitations, offers several meaningful opportunities for future research. The study was conducted on a sample of the urban adult population. There is scope to extend the analysis to a younger cohort and other developed economies. The findings about causal relationships could not be generalized because the participants were recruited simultaneously. Therefore, longitudinal designs are suggested.
Further, there is scope to explore other related antecedents of brand pride, such as brand tribalism, brand identification and brand experience. Similarly, there is an opportunity to study other related consequences of brand pride, such as brand attitude, brand advocacy, brand commitment and willingness to pay a price premium. Moreover, studies can assess the moderating impact of other demographic factors, such as gender, age, income and others. Finally, an attempt can also be made to examine the mediating effects of the brand pride dimensions.
Conceptual model: antecedent and outcomes of brand pride
Demographics of the participants
| EFA(n = 272) | CFA(n = 522) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic variables | Cases | (%) | Cases | (%) |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 99 | 36.4 | 190 | 36.4 |
| Female | 173 | 63.6 | 332 | 63.6 |
| Age | ||||
| 18–24 | 79 | 29 | 151 | 29 |
| 25–35 | 125 | 46 | 237 | 45.4 |
| 36–50 | 57 | 21 | 113 | 21.6 |
| Above 50 | 11 | 4 | 21 | 4 |
| Monthly income (INR)’000 | ||||
| Less than 25 | 55 | 20.2 | 104 | 19.9 |
| 25 to less than 50 | 52 | 19.1 | 97 | 18.6 |
| 50 to less than 100 | 61 | 22.4 | 118 | 22.6 |
| 100 to less than 150 | 41 | 15.1 | 82 | 15.7 |
| 150 to less than 200 | 25 | 9.2 | 50 | 9.6 |
| 200 or more | 38 | 14 | 71 | 13.6 |
| Qualification | ||||
| Upto matriculation | 4 | 1.5 | 8 | 1.5 |
| Graduation | 143 | 52.5 | 271 | 51.9 |
| Postgraduation and above | 125 | 46 | 243 | 46.6 |
| Occupation | ||||
| Employed – private sector | 87 | 32 | 163 | 31.2 |
| Employed – public sector | 18 | 6.6 | 36 | 6.9 |
| Self-employed | 39 | 14.3 | 75 | 14.4 |
| Unemployed | 25 | 9.2 | 48 | 9.2 |
| Housewife | 24 | 8.8 | 47 | 9.0 |
| Student | 78 | 28.7 | 151 | 28.9 |
| Retired | 1 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.4 |
| Marital status | ||||
| Single | 147 | 54 | 282 | 54 |
| Married | 125 | 46 | 240 | 46 |
Results of exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis
| Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) | Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement constructs | Factor loadings | Cronbach’s alpha | Standardized estimates | Cronbach’s alpha | Composite reliability | Average variance extracted (AVE) |
| SBC | 0.580–0.795 | 0.829 | 0.678–0.772 | 0.823 | 0.825 | 0.541 |
| BL | 0.813–0.867 | 0.745 | 0.820–0.905 | 0.852 | 0.853 | 0.745 |
| OBL | 0.787–0.865 | 0.899 | 0.792–0.866 | 0.895 | 0.896 | 0.683 |
| I-BP | 0.739–0.838 | 0.857 | 0.737–0.848 | 0.894 | 0.895 | 0.632 |
| C-BP | 0.651–0.792 | 0.888 | 0.674–0.758 | 0.889 | 0.890 | 0.538 |
| Not applicable | Goodness-of-fit indices: Cmin/df = 2.067; GFI = 0.935; CFI = 0.967; TLI = 0.961; NFI = 0.938; RMSEA= 0.045 | |||||
Notes:SBC: self-brand congruence; BL: brand loyalty; OBL: opposition brand loyalty; I-BP: individualistic brand pride; C-BP: collectivistic brand pride
Discriminant validity
| Measurement constructs | Mean | SD | I-BP | SBC | BL | OBL | C-BP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I-BP | 3.563 | 1.018 | 0.795 | ||||
| SBC | 3.902 | 0.842 | 0.490 | 0.736 | |||
| BL | 4.273 | 0.827 | 0.689 | 0.438 | 0.863 | ||
| OBL | 3.414 | 1.099 | 0.419 | 0.371 | 0.463 | 0.827 | |
| C-BP | 3.723 | 0.947 | 0.650 | 0.361 | 0.443 | 0.369 | 0.733 |
Notes:The diagonal values are the square root of the variance shared between the constructs and their measures (AVE), and the off-diagonal values are the correlations between constructs
Structural equation modelling results for hypothesized relationships
| Relationships | Direct effect (β) | Indirect effect | Total effect | t-value | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1(+) SBC → BL | 0.140* | 0.366 | 0.476 | 2.684 | Supported |
| H2 (+) SBC → OBL | 0.217*** | 0.187 | 0.404 | 3.623 | Supported |
| H3a (+) SBC → I-BP | 0.535*** | – | 0.535 | 9.801 | Supported |
| H3b (+) SBC → C-BP | 0.425*** | – | 0.425 | 7.918 | Supported |
| H4a (+) I-BP → BL | 0.602*** | – | 0.602 | 9.576 | Supported |
| H4b (+) C-BP → BL | 0.033 (ns) | – | 0.033 | 0.650 | Not supported |
| H5a (+) I-BP → OBL | 0.238*** | – | 0.238 | 3.795 | Supported |
| H5b (+) C-BP → OBL | 0.140** | – | 0.140 | 2.461 | Supported |
| Variance explained: R2 | |||||
| I-BP | 28.6% | ||||
| C-BP | 18.1% | ||||
| BL | 48.6% | ||||
| OBL | 21.9% |
Notes:*= 0.01; **= 0.05; ***= 0.001; ns: not significant
Moderation analysis: low(n = 232) vs high (n = 290) narcissism
| Invariance | χ2 | Δ χ2 | df(p) | Δ df | CMIN/df | CFI | Δ CFI | RMSEA (Pclose) | AIC | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement model | ||||||||||
| Configural | 677.846 | – | 398(0.000) | – | 1.703 | 0.953 | – | 0.037 (1.00) | 893.846 | – |
| Metric | 704.450 | 26.60 | 415(0.064) | 17 | 1.697 | 0.952 | 0.001 | 0.037(1.00) | 886.450 | N.S |
| Scalar | 725.707 | 21.26 | 430(0.215) | 17 | 1.680 | 0.951 | 0.001 | 0.036(1.00) | 961.707 | N.S |
| Structural model | ||||||||||
| Configural | 867.362 | – | 406 | – | 2.136 | 0.923 | – | 0.047(0.892) | 1067.362 | – |
| Structural | 909.342 | 41.982 | 430(0.012) | 24 | 2.115 | 0.920 | 0.003 | 0.046(0.896) | 1061.342 | Sig. |
| Multi-group | ||||||||||
| Unconstrained | 867.362 | – | 406 | – | 2.136 | 0.923 | – | 0.047(0.892) | 1067.362 | – |
| Structural | 880.883 | 13.52 | 410 | 4 | 2.148 | 0.921 | 0.002 | 0.047(0.875) | 1072.883 | 0.009 |
| Relationships | Group | Estimates | Critical ratio | χ2 difference | Decision | |||||
| H6a(+) I-BP---->BL | Low | 0.563 | 0.089 | 0.038 | Not supported | |||||
| High | 0.571 | |||||||||
| H6b(+) I-BP---->OBL | Low | 0.146 | 3.598*** | 9.338** | Supported | |||||
| High | 0.559 | |||||||||
| H7a(+) C-BP---->BL | Low | 0.120 | −1.981*** | 2.738* | Supported | |||||
| High | −0.014 | |||||||||
| H7b(+) C-BP---->OBL | Low | 0.197 | −1.193 | 0.938 | Not supported | |||||
| High | 0.068 | |||||||||
Notes:*= 0.01; **= 0.05; ***= 0.001. BL: brand loyalty; OBL: opposition brand loyalty; I-BP: individualistic brand pride; C-BP: collectivistic brand pride
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© Subarna Nandy, Neena Sondhi and Himanshu Joshi. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to draw on the appraisal theory and the theory of self-brand congruence (SBC) to study the multidimensional emotion of brand pride. It conceptualizes and validates the relationship of brand pride with SBC, brand loyalty and oppositional brand loyalty and establishes the role of narcissism as a moderator.
Design/methodology/approach
Standardized scales, including a new brand pride scale developed by the authors, were used to collect data from 522 respondents. Covariance-based structural equation modeling was used to test the conceptual model. Multi-group moderation analysis tested the differences in the proposed relationship between high and low narcissists.
Findings
Results posit brand pride as a multidimensional construct with SBC as its significant antecedent. The findings also support most hypothesized relationships between brand pride and behavioral outcomes. In addition, the study confirms the moderating effect of narcissism on the relationship between brand pride dimensions and brand loyalty and opposition brand loyalty.
Research limitations/implications
The study sample was from a developing nation – India. Similar cohorts from developing and developed countries could provide a unique cross-nation comparison.
Practical implications
The role of brand pride in impacting brand loyalty and oppositional brand loyalty has significant implications for practice. Marketing communication to inculcate brand pride among consumers will significantly impact the brand’s profitability.
Originality/value
Validation of SBC as a precursor to brand pride and the relationship of brand pride with brand loyalty and oppositional brand loyalty contributes significantly to branding theory and practice. This study also establishes narcissism as a moderator between brand pride and loyalty outcomes.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 International Management Institute New Delhi, New Delhi, India