1. Eric Levy Rocky Peng Chen Echo Wen Wan
The Effect of Social Exclusion on Consumer Preference for Anthropomorphized Brands
Published in Journal of Consumer Psychology, January 2017
Eric Levy
Rocky Peng Chen
Echo Wen Wan
Consumer-Brand Relationship Conference
Porto, Portugal
May 19, 2017

2. Social Exclusion
Defined as “being left out, ignored, or isolated by other individuals or social groups” (Williams 2007).
Threatens people’s fundamental need for social connection and belongingness (Knowles and Gardner 2008); Williams 2007; Baumeister and Leary 1995).
Motivates people to build new social connections (Maner et al. 2007), and attend to social cues (Gardner, Pickett, Jefferis, and Knowles 2005).

3. Social Exclusion in the Consumer Domain
Products as a medium for re-affiliating with others (Mead et al. 2011).
Adjust spending and product choice in the service of affiliation, even if doing so is unpleasant.
Our research question: might exclusion lead people to re-connect directly with brands and products?
People can form relationships with brands (Fournier 1998).

4. Anthropomorphism
Defined as imbuing nonhuman objects with humanlike characteristics, motivations, intentions or emotions (Epley, Waytz, and Cacioppo 2007).
Verbal description in advertising
Brand mascots

5. Anthropomorphism in the Consumer Domain
Consumers behave like they are interacting with human beings.
Less likely to replace a car when it is anthropomorphized (Chandler and Schwarz 2010).
Consumers apply social norms in the interaction (Aggarwal and McGill 2012)
Judge objects
Interact with
persons

6. Hypothesis 1: Key prediction
Following social exclusion, consumers will seek connection with anthropomorphized brands.
Hypothesis 1: Socially excluded consumers, relative to socially included consumers, will show greater preference for anthropomorphized brands (vs. non- anthropomorphized brands).

7. Study 1: Overview
Purpose: To test H1 using a real product and actual choice.
Design: 2 (social exclusion vs. social inclusion) x 2 (human vs. object) between-subjects design.
Sample: 118 undergraduate students from UK
Manipulation of social exclusion: Cyberball
Manipulation of Anthro: M&M’s as human or object

8. Study 1: dependent variables
DV1: Consumers’ attitude towards M&M’s (α = .96)
How good is the M&M’s? (1 bad – 9 good)
How much do you like the M&M’s? (1 not at all – 9 very much)
What’s your opinion of the M&M’s? (1 negative – 9 positive)
DV2: Real choice between M&M’s and Skittles
Note: Skittles is always non-anthropomorphized

9. Attitude Towards M&M’s
Study 1 Results (H1):
Attitude Towards M&M’s
Significant two-way interaction (F(1, 114) = 5.91, p < .05)

10. Real Choice of M&M’s vs. Skittles
Study 1 Results (H1):
Real Choice of M&M’s vs. Skittles
Binary logistic regression revealed a significant interaction (Wald χ2 = 4.96, p < .05).

11. Hypotheses 2 and 3: psychological process: need for affiliation
Hypothesis 2: Socially excluded consumers, relative to socially included consumers, will have stronger need for social affiliation, which will mediate the interactive effect of social exclusion and anthropomorphism on brand preference.
Hypothesis 3: Socially excluded consumers’ preference for anthropomorphized brand will be attenuated when they affiliate with other people before being exposed to the anthropomorphized brand.

12. Study 2: overview
Purpose 1: To test the psychological mechanism, using both mediation (H2) and moderation (H3) approaches.
Purpose 2: To test whether inclusion or exclusion is driving the effect, by adding a baseline condition.
Purpose 3: Use different manipulations of social exclusion, anthropomorphism, and product category.
Design: 3 (social exclusion vs. social inclusion vs. baseline) x 2 (human vs. object) x 2 (affiliation opportunity vs. no affiliation opportunity) between-subjects design.
Sample: 342 undergraduate students (27% male) from Hong Kong

13. Study 2: IV’s and DV’s
Social exclusion (Exclusion vs. Inclusion vs. Baseline): social network friend request scenario (Wan, Xu and Ding 2013).
Anthropomorphism (Human vs. Object): description of the JK battery using first person humanized language vs. third person object language (Aggarwal and McGill 2007).
Affiliation opportunity (Yes vs. No): group discussion.
Dependent variables: purchase intentions, need for affiliation

14. Study 2 results (H3): Purchase Intention in No Affiliation Opportunity Condition

15. Study 2 results (H3): Purchase Intention in Affiliation Opportunity Condition

16. Need for Affiliation as Mediator
Study 2 Results (H2):
Need for Affiliation as Mediator
Hayes (2012, Model 19)
When no affiliation opportunity, the mediating effect of need for social affiliation was significant (95% bias corrected, CI = to -.37).

17. building our theory…
What type of brand relationships would socially excluded consumers desire?
Causal attribution of social exclusion
Internal attribution (self-blaming) or an external attribution (other-blaming; Weiner1985).
Self-blaming excluded consumers will form a negative view towards self, inducing fear of abandonment, and therefore be motivated to build a committed long-term relationship (anxious-ambivalent attachment).
Other-blaming excluded consumers will form a negative view towards others and therefore be motivated to avoid intimacy, and build a shallow relationship with short-term reward (anxious-avoidant attachment) (Swaminathan, Stilley, and Ahluwalia 2009).
Brand role: Partner vs. Fling (Fournier 1998)

18. Hypotheses 4 and 5: attribution for exclusion and preferred brand relationship type
Hypothesis 4: Self-blame will increase socially excluded consumers’ preferences for anthropomorphized partner brands.
Hypothesis 5: Other-blame will increase socially excluded consumers’ preferences for anthropomorphized fling brands.

19. Study 3: overview
Purpose: To test the effect of social exclusion attribution on preference for anthropomorphized brands (H4a and H5a), and mediation (H4b and H5b).
Design: 4 (social exclusion attribution: self-blaming exclusion vs. other-blaming exclusion vs. inclusion vs. baseline) x 2 (anthropomorphized brand role: partner vs. fling) between-subjects design.
Sample: 291 participants recruited from the United States through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (48% Male)

20. Study 3: IV’s and DV’s Manipulations
Social exclusion: experience recall (based on Pickett, Gardner, and Knowles 2004).
Brand Role: the same advertisement with different taglines (Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004).
Modi Shampoo as partner vs. fling
DV 1: Brand attitude (e.g., How much do you like Modi? 1 = dislike; 9 = like)
DV2: Negative view towards self and others (Mediator; based on Bartholomew and Horowitz 1991)

21. Study 3 Results (H4, H5): Modi Brand Attitude
4 x 2 ANOVA on the brand attitude showed a significant interaction effect (F(3, 283) = 5.53, p < .01)

22. Summary of findings
Study 1: Social exclusion increases consumers’ preference for anthropomorphized brands (H1).
Study 2: H1 is driven by consumers’ need for social affiliation (H2), and is attenuated when people affiliate with others (H3).
Study 3: Excluded consumers who blame themselves prefer anthropomorphized partner brands (H4a), due to a more negative self-view (H4b).
Excluded consumers who blame others prefer anthropomorphized fling brands (H5a), due to a more negative other-view (H5b).

23. Theoretical Contributions
We show that socially excluded consumers seek relationships with anthropomorphized products and brands.
We show the type of anthropomorphized brand (partner vs. fling) that would be attractive to excluded consumers.
Contributes to literature on consumer-brand relationships
We show the psychological processes driving these effects, as well as boundary conditions.

24. Practical implications
Marketers should consider the psychological states of target consumers, and brand personality/role, when using anthropomorphism in marketing communications.
Marketers may want to consider priming social exclusion, when using anthropomorphism in their brand communications.
Consumers can choose the right brand to cope with the unpleasant experience of social exclusion.

25. Thank you!