The Added Value of Contextual Motivations on the Consumer-brand relationship Marina Carnevale Ozge Yucel- Aybat Fordham University Pennsylvania State University- Harrisburg Lauren Block Baruch College, CUNY

“Make up Your Way” Estée Lauder Heath et al, 2011

Theoretical background Giving gifts to one’s self : “self-gift giving” or “self-gifting” Self-communication through special indulgences clothing, jewellery, watches, food, entertainment products Premeditated: we plan on their acquisitions before buying them (Mick and Demoss, 1990) What prompts self-gifts? (Mick and Demoss, 1990, Tice et al, 2001) Reward for accomplishing a goal Compensation for some bad feeling about the self (therapeutic)

Theoretical background Extant research has examined potential predictors of self-gift giving Financial condition and age (Mick and Demoss, 1992) Materialism (McKeage et al, 1993) Deservingness and emotions (Faure and Mick, 1993) Current research examines the impact of these two contextual motivations on consumer-brand relationships Would attitudes toward brands benefit from rewarding or compensatory self-gifts? If so, would this added benefit hold equally for all consumers?

Hypothesis development Brands should reflect the associations with the self that prompted the self-gifting behavior A self-rewarding motive should stimulate a positive effect on the brand that represented such reward A self-compensating motive should also stimulate a positive effect on the brand because of the positive associations to it (e.g., mood-alleviation) Individuals with self-reward or self-compensatory motives (vs. no motive) should display significantly higher attitudes toward the brand

Hypothesis development Consumers use brands to represent who they are or who they want to be (Belk, 1988; Escalas and Bettman, 2009) Linkage between consumers’ self-concepts and brands is called the “self-brand connection” (Escalas and Bettman, 2009) SBC tends to be consistent across time and consequently less susceptible to contextual motives Thus, contextual motivations to purchase (self-reward and self- compensation motives) should significantly affect the consumer- brand relationship only when the connection between the self and the brand is relatively low

Study 1 Objective Method Two sessions, 3 weeks apart Contextual motivation Brand Evaluations SBC Method Two sessions, 3 weeks apart Part II Part I Self-Brand Connection (SBC) Midterm grades Motive -”To reward myself for this good grade” -“To compensate for this bad grade” Attitude Prior SBC (Gibson 2008)

Measures - Independent Variables -Motive Dependent Variables -Self-Brand Connection (e.g., “This brand reflects who I am,” 1= Strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree, α= .94; Escalas and Bettman 2003) -Motive “To reward myself for this good grade” “To compensate for this bad grade” (1= Strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree) >0 → self-reward condition - <0 → self-compensate condition =0 → “no motive” Dependent Variables Attitude toward the brand (bad-good, unfavorable-favorable, dislike-like, poor quality-high quality, tastes bad-tastes good; α=.93, adapted from Gibson 2008 )

Study 1- RESULTS Relative to the no motive condition, positive and significant effect on brand evaluations of: -reward (β = 1.16, t = 2.82, P < .001) motives -compensation (β = 1.84, t = 3.74, P < .001) motives Those consuming the product to reward themselves for the good grade or to compensate for the bad result had significantly higher brand evaluations -Positive, significant effect of SBC (β = .67, t = 4.63, P < .001)

Study 1- RESULTS - Significant interaction: -of reward and SBC (β = -.52, t = 2.27, P = .03) -of compensation and SBC (β = -.44, t = -1.81, P = .07) Simple interaction/slope tests (Aiken and West 1991, Spiller et al 2013) -For both the reward and compensation cases, contextual motivations had a significant effect on brand evaluations only for those with low levels of SBC -Compared to a no motive condition, those who had lower levels of SBC evaluated the brand more positively in the reward condition (Mreward = 5.24, MNM= 4.07, β = 1.17, t = 2.82, P < .01) and the compensation condition (Mcompensation = 5.82, MNM = 3.98, β = 1.84, t = 3.73, P < .01)

Study 2: Objectives Enhance internal validity Manipulated Independent Variables Reinforce external validity Non-student sample Increase robustness High-involvement product category Strengthen managerial relevance Measures of satisfaction and purchase intentions Prior SBC

Study 2: Method Design 143 participants (large online panel) 3 (Motivation: Self-reward vs. Self-compensation vs. Control) X 2 (Self- Brand Connection: High vs. Low) between subject experiment Self-Brand Connection manipulation [High (vs. low)] Prior SBC 1 “Indicate the brand you feel the most (vs. least) connected to…[ ] With which you can identify the most (vs. least)”

Study 2 Method – Cont’d Motivation Manipulation - Self-reward 2 “It is the end of winter. You just learned that you got the job promotion you were hoping to have. This is truly exciting because you worked really hard all year. To reward yourself for this promotion you decide to go out and buy yourself a nice [brand] watch. Even though you don’t need it, you decide to buy it anyway to reward yourself for getting the promotion.” 2 -Self-compensation “It is the end of winter. You just learned that you did not get the job promotion you were hoping to have. This is truly devastating because you worked really hard all year. To compensate for this loss of promotion you decide to go out and buy yourself a nice [brand] watch. Even though you don’t need it, you decide to buy it anyway to make up for not getting the promotion. 

Study 2 Method.. Cont’d Dependent Variables Attitude toward the brand (good, favorable, like, positive; α= .96) “I am satisfied with my decision to buy a watch” “I would purchase it” Manipulation checks SBC → same measure used in study 1; → Brand considered was their favorite (1= least favorite, 7= most favorite) Motive → “To reward myself”, “To comfort myself” (1= strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)

Study 2 results Attitude toward the brand Self-reward Control Satisfaction (F (1, 139) = 4.05; P =.02). (F (1, 139) = 6.11; P =.003)

Conclusion More positive brand evaluations when motives are present (self-rewarding and self-compensating) Only for low SBC consumers Results are robust across: Both low and high involvement product categories Student and non-student samples Manipulated and measured independent variables Self-compensatory motives might be more beneficial than self-rewarding motives

Managerial Implications Contextual motives might help target low SBC Mood alleviating ads, which are the least used by marketers (Heath et al 2011), might be the most effective strategy to target consumers with weaker brand relationships

Thank you!

Appendix

Study1-2 Measures SBC (Escalas and Bettman, 2003) This brand reflects who I am  I can identify with this brand I feel a personal connection to this brand I use this brand to communicate who I am to other people I think this brand may help me become the type of person I want to be I consider this brand to be “me” (it reflects who I consider myself to be or the way that I want to present myself to others) This brand suits me well

Study 1 results- interaction details Low SBC (-1SD) High SBC (+1SD) Reward vs. No motive (Mreward = 5.24, MNM= 4.07, β = 1.17, t = 2.82, P < .01) (Mreward = 5.63, MNM= 5.83; P > .1) Compensation vs. no motive (Mcompensation = 5.82, MNM = 3.98, β = 1.84, t = 3.73, P < .01), (Mcompensation = 6.41, MNM = 5.73; P > .1)